.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
I don’t know what demon possessed Ahinoam Nini’s brain when she wrote a long passionate letter to Palestinians during the Gaza war in which she railed against Hamas and called, in the most vehement terms, for the IDF to uproot it.
First a word of background: Noa is one of Israel’s premiere performers with a voice of honey. She is known for her pro-peace views and performs regularly with Israeli Arab performers and singers like Cheb Khaled (with whom she sang a breathtaking cover of Imagine featured here). She is to perform along with Mira Awad (also previously profiled here), one of Israel’s most prominent female vocalists, in the Eurovision Song Contest, as Israel’s entry.
But a strange thing happened to Noa on the way to Eurovision. While sunk in a funk during the Gaza invasion, she decided to pen her plaint for peace and to tell the world what was wrong with Hamas and its Palestinian supporters. While there is much in her blog entry that is laudable and true, the entire balance is skewed heavily against Hamas and shows such a fundamental misunderstanding about what really happened in Gaza and why that I’m left dumbfounded that she could’ve gotten things so utterly wrong:
I have often spoken out against fanaticism in my country, for I find it repulsive and unbearable. In government, in settlements, in synagogues, I am passionately against it. I have risked my career and my well-being for this belief.
Now I see the ugly head of fanaticism, I see it large and horrid, I see its black eyes and spine-chilling smile, I see blood on its hands and I know one of its many names: Hamas.
You know this too, my brothers. You know this ugly monster. You know it is raping your women and raping the minds of your children. You know it is educating to hatred and death. You know it is chauvinistic and violent, greedy and selfish, it feeds on your blood and screams out Allah’s name on vain, it hides like a thief, uses the innocent as human shields, uses your mosques as arsenals, lies and cheats, uses YOU, tortures you, holds you hostage!!
I know this is true my brothers!! I know YOU know the truth!! And I know you cannot say it for fear of life so I will say it for you!! I fear nothing!! I am privileged to live in a democracy where women are not objects but presidents, where a singer can say and do as she pleases! I know you do not have this privilege (yet…but you will, inshallah, you will…)
I know you are SICK of being held hostage by this demon, this ugly beast, not in Gaza, not in Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan, not anywhere!!! You are a people destined to flourish in peace! Your majestic history is overflowing with creativity, literature science and music, endless contributions to humanity, not crippling, torturing fanaticism, yelling Jihad and Shahid!
I see you sometimes, out in the streets, demonstrating with the monsters, yelling ‘death to the Jews, death to Israel!! But I don’t believe you! I know where your heart is! It is just where mine is, with my children, with the earth, with the heavens, with music, with HOPE!! You want nothing of this but you have no choice! I see through your veil of fear my brothers, through your burka! I embrace your hopes for they are mine!
My country has made many many mistakes over the years, I have watched it miss so many opportunities, and as a citizen of this country I am the first to admit it and criticize its foolery. I demonstrate, I vote, I speak out, I sing loud and clear.
But, now, today, I know that deep in your hearts YOU WISH for the demise of this beast called Hamas who has terrorized and murdered you, who has turned Gaza into a trash heap of poverty, disease and misery. Who in the name of “allah” has sacrificed you on the bloody alter of pride and greed.
My brothers, I cry for you. I cry for us too, yes, I cry for my fellow countrymen suffering the bombs in the south and north and everywhere, I cry for the kidnapped soldiers and the murdered ones, for their bereft families, for the innocence lost forever, but I cry especially painfully for you for I know your suffering, I feel you, I feel you!!
I can only wish for you that Israel will do the job we all know needs to be done, and finally RID YOU of this cancer, this virus, this monster called fanaticism, today, called Hamas. And that these killers will find what little compassion may still exist in their hearts and STOP using you and your children as human shields for their cowardice and crimes.
And then… then, maybe, Inshallah, we will again have an opportunity… we will again pick up our broken bodies and souls and walk slowly towards each other, reach out a tired hand, look into eyes filled with tears and with a choked voice say: “Shalom. Salam. Enough. Enough my brother ….
The level of sheer condescension and cultural superiority represented by this statement is mind-boggling. It shows that even those who speak out of heart-felt passion and concern can sometimes make fools of themselves. Passion must be informed by judgment and analysis. This Noa lacks. She blames Hamas for all the evils of Palestinian society. She claims she is critical of her own goverment and society, but whispers snot a word about WHY there is poverty, suffering and misery in Gaza. What about the siege? Does she think that Hamas prefers Gaza to not have food, water, power, medicine or commerce? Where is the moral intelligence that we so often hear in her music? How did her judgment entirely desert her?
I am not claiming that Hamas are angels. I would not vote for Hamas if I were a Palestinian. But how can Noa deign to tell the Palestinians what they are thinking in their hearts about Hamas? Is this the ultimate chutzpah or what?
Noa and Awad were scheduled to perform together at a Tel Aviv concert to benefit Gaza civilians but Israeli Arab and Jewish intellectuals excoriated Noa for her diatribe and she withdrew from the concert (here is Israeli director, Udi Aloni’s eloquent rejoinder). And rightly so. What right does she have to attempt to ease the suffering of those civilians through the concert, when she defended the very military operation by her own army which caused it?
This is one of those times when you scratch your head and say of someone you know to be more intelligent than that: what were they thinking? And by the way, Noa, your cover with Awad of We Can Work It Out is second-rate. The song doesn’t begin to delve into the depths of the suffering of this conflict as Imagine does.
There is some kind of moral disconnect that happens with Israeli liberals. They feel opposing their own government’s policies places them on such a high moral plane that they can start telling Palestinians how they should live their lives. It’s offensive and distasteful. Whatever happened to a bit of humility and introspection?
Thanks to reader Peter Drubetskoy for the original tip and finding the following subsequent post that Noa wrote after she was drubbed by her fans for her original comments:
about a week ago i posted a letter to my palestinian brothers everywhere.
in my original letter, i was very harsh in my words regarding Hamas. I was pointing a finger at them clearly, this came from my gut, from the deepest, most hurting place in my heart. The reason i did that, is that the horrible stories i have heard about Hamas from my Palestinian friends who used to live in Gaza (and escaped, barely, from death by Hamas), plus the videos on youtube of hamas using children as a human shield, or throwing fatach personnel blindfolded and cuffed from the roof of a building, plus endless testimonies from Palestinians…
All of this lead me to a very harsh reaction, praying the Palestinian people would finally be released from the clutches of this horror. I have not changed my mind about atrocities, cruelty and killing, but i know that pointing fingers at names and symbols is not the solution.
…I am willing to change my mind at any moment about anyone who is willing to stand up for co-existence, freedom and mutual respect and recognition. I am willing to apologize to anyone who feels unjustly offended. I can even push aside past atrocities…
…When we in Israel sum up the evidence including the rhetoric, the 8 years of rockets, the Iran and Hezbollah threats we react in proportion to a nightmare, not just to this or that incident. I believe the same thing is true for the subjective feeling of the Palestinians and the whole Muslim world. Therefore it is their responsibility to communicate through dialog their fears to us, Israelis, so that we can take it upon ourselves to melt this iceberg of suspicion just as we want them to reassure us of their peaceful and positive intensions and melt down our fears too.
My opinion is and was always the same: i am against violence in all it forms. I am against fanaticism in all its forms. I am against finger pointing and blaming as there is no end to it and i am totally against a unilateral black and white approach to anything. I think we all have the responsibility to look the truth in the face: we all brought this catastrophe upon ourselves and now it is our responsibility to do what we can to change it! That means…exchanging negative, violent rhetoric…with a rhetoric of peace, acceptance, dialogue and joint recognition (like the Geneva initiative which i totally support). This is our only hope.
The decision i made together with Mira Awad to go to the Eurovision contest with a message of peace is part of this theory: build, give a personal example of dialogue and co-existence, not the opposite
This is better. But why did it take her three attempts (there is a revised version of her first post which I’ve omitted) to get here? Call me a disappointed fan. And I feel badly for Awad, who is not only a stunning woman, but a talented actress and singer who has achieved much despite the racism that would hinder any Israeli Arab performer’s career. She has been placed in an untenable situation by Noa’s outburst.
Related posts:
- Israeli Deputy PM Calls for Commission of Inquiry on Gaza
- J Street Poll: American Jews Believe Gaza War Failed, Support Hamas in Palestinian Government
- Ben Gurion University President Calls for Professor Supporting Israel Boycott to Quit
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: ahinoam nini miri awad represent israel at eurovision song contest, noa attacks hamas
![Image of Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YAzRoqibL._SL110_.jpg "Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]")
DSHARON, browse this link and ascertain that Hamas (or, rather, Palestinian factions in Gaza) were not the only ones breaking the fire during the tahadiye. In fact, the first real violation of the ceasefire came from Israel on the first day (!) of the tahadiye:
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, they provide little more information than what you posted. I did try to look up the archives in other news sources to see if there was more background information as to what happened.
To be fair, one would want to have more information regarding the circumstances of the incident: such as whether these were truly farmers, and what was meant by firing at them (was it firing AT them or firing in the air to warn them away from the border fence).
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the Israeli government and IDF soldiers have made mistakes and on occasion behaved poorly. I take no offense at your raising such instances — rather, I applaud you for doing so. A society requires a level of introspection and self-appraisal in order to remain healthy. My objection is only when the extent of this self-critique becomes pathological such as to prevent the acknowledgment of any good or merit to one’s own society.
Bringing it back to the editorial on Noa, while there is a healthy debate in Israeli society — such that there is little additional perspective required from outsiders that is not raised among Israelis on their own — there is no such debate going on in Palestinian/Gazan society. Hamas, in particular (not that Fatah is any better) ruthlessly oppresses political opposition and dissent. Because of this, it becomes all the more imperative for people outside to speak out against this dictatorial regime.
DSHARON,
You make it sound as if the blockade on gaza is in any way similar to the Arab boycott. This is, of course, silly: first, because Israel was not allowing anything into Gaza, including basic supplies (and at times threatening to turn off the electricity too); and second because was no other way for Gazans to get those (Egypt is an accomplice int he blockade). so, the Gaza blockade, you know, it was not about Gazans having to drive Subarus and drink Pepsi, buddy, it was about them having to eat grass so as not to die from hunger.
Sorry, the link in the above comment should have been this one:
Gaza families eat grass as Israel locks border
Israel has made it abundantly clear what it wants from a cease-fire: that the firing of rockets and mortars must cease.
That means not one rocket, nor one mortar shell coming from Gaza.
This condition was met during the ceasefire; Hamas did not fire one single rocked according to the IDF during the ceasefire. Those organisations that did (many of whom are affiliated with Fatah, which for reasons unknown Israel seems to think is a legitimate partner for peace) fire rockets were according again to Israeli sources restrained to the best capability by Hamas.
It may sound like an incredible, fascist, reactionary, racist, colonialist, imperialist, Zionist, Nazi demand that the Palestinians not resort to violence to resolve their disputes — but there it is. That’s what Israelis are requiring.
The demand is reasonable it itself; where it becomes unreasonable is when it is set alongside continued violence by Israelis both settlers and militants. One fact that is little know is that the only Israeli injured by rocketfire during the ceasefire was a settler whose attempt to launch a rocket at Palestinians misfired. But of course Israeli violence is never taken into account; only Palestinian violence is bad and must be stopped – right?
And your sophistry about the tunnel is ridiculous. The tunnel was not a tunnel to nowhere. It was not intended to loop around in Gazan territory. Rather, it was heading for Israeli territory — and this is an attempt at aggression, no different from setting up a rocket launcher. Just because the attempt occurred wholly within Gazan territory does not create some sort of sovereign protection which disappears ONLY when the attack/rocket is launched.
There is no sophistry involved about the tunnel at all – I just am pointing out that Israeli attempts to make out that some sort of imminent raid was about to be launched through it is not verified and that Israeli official propaganda tends to be false. I did point out that if you are adhering to a ceasefire there is a protocol to be observed rather than unilaterally breaking it everytime you think it has been violated by the other side.
But it seems that you are coming from the position that Hamas violence against Israelis is understandable, justified and legitimate — so it should be of no surprise that you are morally outraged by Israel’s attempts to stifle it.
I did not say Hamas’ violence against Israel was justified or legitimate; though it is understandable since Hamas consist of humans and not alien invaders from Mars whose motivations are inscrutable. Hamas violence is no more legitimate than Israeli violence. The problem for Israelis and their supporters is that they just want to see their violence as justified and legitmate and any violence from the Palestinians as the opposite. Also understandable but not correct in my view. Also please do not use morality in such discussions; there is nothing moral about Israel or Hamas and any pretension otherwise is just sickening. We can talk about what is right or wrong from the point of view of politics and seeking a solution but morality should be left out of this.
Your claim that lifting the blockade was a condition to the cease fire is false. Israel has every right to impose an economic blockade on Gaza — just as the Arab states have enjoyed for decades the sovereign right to impose an economic blockade and embargo on Israel.
False as well as ignorant; the other Arab states are sovereign states; they are not occupying Israel and nor is Israel occupying them. A more appropriate analogy would be if the Arab states completely blockaded Israel from the outside world and prevented any trade or supplies from reaching Israel by land, sea or air. This would be unacceptable and quite rightly be seen by Israel as a provocation to war. As your former Foreign Minister Eban said a blockade is incompatible with peace and is merely the prelude to war.
If Hamas wants the blockade to be lifted — they can sit down face to face with Israelis and negotiate terms.
Why, Israel has already indicated that a ceasefire is not a good enough reason to lift the blockade; they haven’t done so before why should they do so know – especially since everyone including Hamas knows that Israel wants to depose Hamas from power in the Gaza strip, which lifting the blockade would not accomplish.
They chose not to. Hamas chose to engage in violence as a means of advancing its agenda. Apparently this does not bother you, as while you are quick to accuse Israel of having a “credibility deficit”, you seem to have an inexhaustible store of naivete as to Hamas.
Well, non-violence has hardly helped the Palestinians and would have the Israelis keel over laughing as they annex the West Bank and effect population transfer if it was tried. I have never anywhere endorsed Hamas’ agenda and I am not naive about Hamas at all. I just don’t demonise them like you do. Also the lack of credibility of the Israeli govt is now exposed not because of any deep-seated love of Hamas – as usual with the Palestinians, Hamas are poor public advocates and incredibily inexperienced as well as incompetent when dealing with the media; but because of the lies and disseminations that Israel has itself been caught up in during this operation. But given the nature of Israeli hasbara, what it requires is a suspension of all doubt and naivite from its supporters.
Taking your last point –
The Palestinians have never relied upon non-violence as their response of FIRST resort. Thus, it is hard to dismiss non-violence as a failed strategy for Palestinians.
As for the Israeli reaction — the Israeli electorate has established a recognizable pattern where they tend to vote left/moderate when the peace process is gaining momentum and revert to the right/hawkish parties in the face of terrorism, war and existential threats. While you accuse me of demonizing Hamas — you are painting a picture of Israelis as reacting to a Palestinian Ghandi by laughingly expelling him from his home. This sounds like demonization.
As for Hamas, this is not about poor public advocacy or inexperience in dealing with the media. Hamas is a cruel, oppressive theocratically inspired dictatorship which oppresses women, Christians, political opponents and any deviants from its view of what constitutes Islam. Its agenda is extremist. It does not envision a liberal, diverse, tolerant society that protects liberty, rights and due process of law. Rather, it seeks to impose an oppressive Islamic dictatorial regime which opposes such concepts.
The Palestinians have never relied upon non-violence as their response of FIRST resort. Thus, it is hard to dismiss non-violence as a failed strategy for Palestinians.
This is true; although the examples of non-violent behaviour used by the Palestinians so far have not been very successful. During the 1980s there were several examples of villages and towns refusing to pay taxes and enforcing passive resistance towards the Israeli occupation; they were broken by cutting off all water and electricity and being blockaded. Non-violence can only work in certain situations and it has been given an unrealistic status by its record in the Indian independence movement; where it could depend on much greater numbers and where British colonial rule was heavily dependent on not having the mass of the Indian peasantry mobilised against it. In anycase, what ultimately did for British rule in India wasn’t non-violent resistance but the collapse of British economic, military and strategic power after WWII.
As for the Israeli reaction — the Israeli electorate has established a recognizable pattern where they tend to vote left/moderate when the peace process is gaining momentum and revert to the right/hawkish parties in the face of terrorism, war and existential threats. While you accuse me of demonizing Hamas — you are painting a picture of Israelis as reacting to a Palestinian Ghandi by laughingly expelling him from his home. This sounds like demonization.
I should make myself clearer here – what I mean is the state of Israel not the great mass of Israelis themselves and this is an important distinction. The Israeli electorate has almost consistently voted for and accepted a viable two-state solution; the failure lies in their political elites and policymakers who have just as consistently done their best to sabotage such a settlement. Israeli policymaking has not deviated from establishing its supremacy over the West Bank in political and military terms; Israel’s policy of building settlements and its treatment of negotiations makes this very clear. Official Israeli policy still remains hostile towards the idea that a Palestinian state has a right to be formed and that Palestinians have national rights that are justified. Israelis as individuals and even collectively are far more flexible imo and have accepted this a long time ago. The sections of Israeli society that are fanatical enough to forgo such a settlement in return for territorial expansion is very small.
My point about a Palestinian Gandhi (I would follow the correct spelling here since Indians get touchy if you don’t) is that his tactics simply wouldn’t work unless it was able to mobilise the entire regional Arab population and not just the Palestinian one. Gandhi after all was able to mobilise an entire sub-continent, if he only managed to mobilise the state where he came from (Gujarat) or even just one or two of the bigger states in British India at the time; he could have been dealt with quite effectively.
As for Hamas, this is not about poor public advocacy or inexperience in dealing with the media. Hamas is a cruel, oppressive theocratically inspired dictatorship which oppresses women, Christians, political opponents and any deviants from its view of what constitutes Islam. Its agenda is extremist. It does not envision a liberal, diverse, tolerant society that protects liberty, rights and due process of law. Rather, it seeks to impose an oppressive Islamic dictatorial regime which opposes such concepts.
I was making a point about demonising Hamas in terms of their inter-state relations not their internal domestic policy. A polity can be repressive internally while being relatively stable externally – China is a good example and Saudi Arabia a major US ally and Egypt are others. Whatever the faults of Hamas, it was elected democratically and it does enjoy popular legitimacy in Gaza – this doesn’t mean it can’t be replaced but it needs to be done so by the Palestinian electorate there not by Israeli tanks and helicopters. As Robespierre said – no one likes armed missionaries. In anycase, I doubt that Israeli concerns are for the non-hetereosexual, women and other religious minorities of Gaza; since the Israeli state was all too willing to sponsor Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah during the First Intifada. Israeli policy has done little to encourage any sort of democracy or social progressiveness amongst other neighbouring powers and happily allied itself with crypto-Fascist ones such as the Lebanese Phalangists when desirable. Ironically, repeated polling of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank shows that the one facet of Israel that Palestinians admire and want to replicate the most is democratic governance.
Good responses.
PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE vs. NON-VIOLENCE
The problem is that Israelis look at Palestinian violence and react to it. Indeed, one of my old Poli Sci professors, Ehud Sprinzak, argued that THIS was the defining element of terrorism. Terrorism was NOT about killing civilians or scaring people per se — i.e., that was not the GOAL but merely the tactic. The GOAL of the terrorist was to encourage a violent unfocused oppressive response by the victim.
To understand this, Sprinzak observed that terrorists were political extremists who typically advocated a political dogma that was outside of the mainstream — even in their own culture. To these extremists, they were as much at war against their own political moderates as with the outside oppressor. Their agenda was to radicalize the population and isolate the advocates of moderation/compromise. Terrorism was the tool to accomplish this. By deliberately targeting women, children, civilians, the terrorist hoped to incite the enemy population against the home population — thereby isolating and undermining moderates there. Provoking harsh retaliation served to undermine local moderates that a compromise with the enemy was possible. Terrorism is thus a tool for radicalization and a weapon against political moderates and liberals.
Unfortunately, it works.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
Important to do so. The underlying basis for your criticism, I believe, reflects the inherent problems of a coalition government necessary in Israel’s parliamentary system. In order to get a coalition, there is so much horse-trading and balancing of often conflicting political philosophies that it is almost impossible to have an internally consistent policy. It wasn’t for nothing that Churchill derided democracy as “the worst system of governance ever derived by Man…”.
Of course he did add the caveat “…with the exception of all the others.”
HAMAS
I agree that the BEST means of dealing with Hamas would have been (and can still be) for an international consensus that would have ensured that it was deprived of military weaponry and pressured to comply with international law (and not shoot missiles, mortars, kidnap Israelis, hold an Israeli w/o ICRC visits). This would have the net effect of preventing Hamas from exploiting the conflict to excuse its poor performance on the social, economic and political issues facing Gazans.
FINALLY re/ISRAELI SUPPORT FOR HAMAS IN THE 1980s
Yes, it’s true. In the face of a communist inspired, corrupt, terrorist organization headed by an evil buffoon — there were Israelis that thought that an organization steeped in the values of the Religion of Peace would be an improvement. Obviously, that was a mistake.
1) Re Palestinian Violence and Non-Violence: I disagree with your interpretations of terrorism and what it seeks to achieve. Your interpretation seems to me to be a quasi-nihilistic one that is more likely to be found in the pages of a Dostoyevsky novel rather than in broad movements with a deep social base like Hamas. Terrorism always seeks to provoke a response – in the targeted group not the originator agency. The roots of terror have always functioned along these lines, as Hegel noted the concept of terror was first used on a systematic level by the French Jacobin state and has impeccable middle class roots as an instrument of policy.
I don’t follow your arguements about liberal and extremists amongst the Palestinians; while there may be a disagreement how to govern themselves politically and socially along cultural and religious lines; there is very little distance between most spectrums of Palestinian range of political opinion on what they want from Israel and Zionism.
2) DISTINCTION BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT: My point goes far beyond just the mechanics of the current coalition govt but is a broader point about Israeli military and political elites since 1967 – namely that they have not seriously reconciled themselves to the idea that they might have to give up political and military control of the West Bank. The entire approach to Oslo I and II indicates that Israeli policymakers have done everything possible to delay, mitigate and sabotage such an outcome.
3) Hamas needs to refrain from attacking Israel and carrying out aggression against Israel but unless Israel can commit itself to not invading, blockading, carrying out sonic booms, assassination operations etc. It would be unrealistic for Hamas to be expected to carry out suicide by unilaterally disarming. It has also been far more capable in delivering social and welfare services than the corrupt PA or Fatah – one of the reasons for its popularity, so while its social and cultural policies leave much to be desired it is not a failure on the governance front as you seem to imply.
4) To call the PLO communist-inspired, corrupt and terrorist; is highly simplistic and ignores the fact that for many years it embodied the national aspirations of the Palestinian population. It was no more any of these things than the Haganah or the Irgun were. In anycase, promoting reactionary Islamist political movements as a counterweight was not only unwise but indicates that whatever else it cares about, the rights of Palestinian women and sexual minorities are hardly a priority for Israel.
I enjoyed reading your response — which contained points which deserve more consideration than I have time for now.
LAZY…
PALESTINIAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS ISRAEL
I hope you are wrong in your assessment that there is little difference among Palestinian positions vis a vis Israel and Zionism. If they uniformly reject the concept of the existence of Israel or the Jewish character of the Israeli state then it is hard to see how any reconciliation is possible. Part of the problem with Palestinian militancy is that it has typically been phrased as an “all or nothing”; it’s either YOU or ME; Israel OR Palestine. Obviously, if that is the choice imposed on me, I have little problem making my decision as to which one of us has got to go.
WEST BANK
If we are talking about the June 4, 1967 lines, I agree, there is a consensus among Israelis NOT to accept such a proposal.
On the other hand, if there is Palestinian flexibility about the Latrun salient, Jerusalem and the protection of access to Jewish holy places in Nablus, Bethlehem, and Judaism’s Second Holiest City, Hebron — then there IS a consensus from the constituents of Kadima leftwards to accept a Palestinian State on that territory.
To argue that ISRAEL has done EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to sabotage Oslo I and II is hyperbole, I am assuming that this is a reference to what you consider as excessive, the Israeli reactions to the spate of Palestinian terrorism that followed the initiation of the Oslo process. Nonetheless, Israel has established precedents of both ending territorial occupation and dismantling settlements. It would seem that people of good will would recognize that however odious they may find an occupation or a settlement, the fact remains that both may be undone — whereas the murders committed in the name of resistance to occupation and settlement are irreversible.
HAMAS THE BENEVOLENT…
Hamas’ success at providing social services is a result of its first having interfered with the provision of social services, artificially creating shortages, and then distributing needed supplies from its own stockpiles. This, coupled with its ruthless intimidation, including murder, of its critics and whistleblowers, has helped its manipulation of its public image.
PLO — THE SOLE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE (SLRPP)
I remember all too well when the PLO championed itself as the SLRPP, and — similar to Hamas today — ruthlessly removed any potential competing political representatives. (although it cleverly fostered several militia groups who could commit acts of terror (or resistance operations if you prefer euphemisms) for which the PLO could deny responsibility.)
The Yishuv recognized the need for a single multi-party government with one authorized army. Accordingly, the military arms of the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and Palmah were all incorporated into the IDF, and the political arms became political parties. This was accomplished peacefully because the Yishuv leadership, unlike the PLO, had a clear vision of Jewish national aspirations, and held these aspirations more dear than their personal ambitions.
This is one of the reasons why the Yishuv was able to transition to an effective government — where as the Palestinians have been wholly unsuccessful.
I hope you are wrong in your assessment that there is little difference among Palestinian positions vis a vis Israel and Zionism. If they uniformly reject the concept of the existence of Israel or the Jewish character of the Israeli state then it is hard to see how any reconciliation is possible. Part of the problem with Palestinian militancy is that it has typically been phrased as an “all or nothing”; it’s either YOU or ME; Israel OR Palestine. Obviously, if that is the choice imposed on me, I have little problem making my decision as to which one of us has got to go.
There are variants of course; the Palestinian diaspora outside the region is more moderate; the ones in the Occupied Territories centrist, I think it is the Palestinians in the refugee camps that would be the most extremist for obvious reasons. The general default position though won’t be very different from centre-left Zionist positions – i.e. like the Zionists they will see the entire Mandate territory as rightfully theirs and the Jewish settlers/immigrants as unwelcome interlopers; but like most centre-left Zionists they will accept the loss of territory for statehood and a two-state solution. Of course, this is my impression and I certainly won’t claim to speak for the Palestinians.
If we are talking about the June 4, 1967 lines, I agree, there is a consensus among Israelis NOT to accept such a proposal.
On the other hand, if there is Palestinian flexibility about the Latrun salient, Jerusalem and the protection of access to Jewish holy places in Nablus, Bethlehem, and Judaism’s Second Holiest City, Hebron — then there IS a consensus from the constituents of Kadima leftwards to accept a Palestinian State on that territory.
IMO, I don’t think so. Politically noises are made; but Israeli policymakers at the elite level have not yet reconciled themselves to having a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. Their actions speak louder than their words and otherwise make no sense. Most of Israeli civil society has accepted this and would be satisfied with this; I don’t think they have any attachement to annexed territory outside the Green Line with the exception of Jerusalem.
To argue that ISRAEL has done EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to sabotage Oslo I and II is hyperbole, I am assuming that this is a reference to what you consider as excessive, the Israeli reactions to the spate of Palestinian terrorism that followed the initiation of the Oslo process. Nonetheless, Israel has established precedents of both ending territorial occupation and dismantling settlements. It would seem that people of good will would recognize that however odious they may find an occupation or a settlement, the fact remains that both may be undone — whereas the murders committed in the name of resistance to occupation and settlement are irreversible.
Well, Rabin came the closest to actually perhaps implementing this and had he won that election he maybe could have pushed something through. But it was very late in the day when mainstream Israeli politicians publicly started using the term Palestinian state, Rabin didn’t do it until his last election campaign. Labour Zionism accepted it late on as well. Of course Likud and the centre-right nominally might pay lip-service to a two-state solution but in effect they are planning for a broken up group of Bantustans not a proper state for the Palestinians in the West Bank. Politicians from this part of the spectrum from Netanahyu to Sharon have been opportunistic in the extreme in sabotaging peace talks wherever possible.
Also don’t forget the murders, thuggery and wanton destruction carried out by both the settlers and the IDF in the Occupied territories – these are pretty much irreversible too.
Hamas’ success at providing social services is a result of its first having interfered with the provision of social services, artificially creating shortages, and then distributing needed supplies from its own stockpiles. This, coupled with its ruthless intimidation, including murder, of its critics and whistleblowers, has helped its manipulation of its public image.
Actually no, this is not right. Hamas like its parent organisation the Muslim Brotherhood and like Hezbollah is very effective in providing such a service and has been doing so for sometime now. I don’t think its popularity can be properly understood otherwise – it is very sharply contrasted with the corrupt Fatah and thugs of the PA which really have misappropriated vast amounts of funds. I doubt Hamas is much concerned with its ‘public image’ since it is an Islamist movement, it is not really interested in what non-Muslims think of it and engages with Muslims directly. I have no doubt that it does indulge in a lot of violence towards its critics, however nobody is claiming that Hamas is some sort of perfect Scandinavian social democratic party. What it is, however, is a legitimately elected party elected by a popular vote which most observers agree was not rigged and they should be accepted as such. We can’t foist leadership that we personally find acceptable onto other nations, I mean many people would prefer to have very different leaders in Tel Aviv for example. I don’t understand why you keep on banging on about Hamas’ public image as if it has a great one – it doesn’t, it is very poorly regarded as a party and as a regime by most of the world.
I remember all too well when the PLO championed itself as the SLRPP, and — similar to Hamas today — ruthlessly removed any potential competing political representatives. (although it cleverly fostered several militia groups who could commit acts of terror (or resistance operations if you prefer euphemisms) for which the PLO could deny responsibility.)
Well, though it removed some competitors it grew by absorbing most of the different factions under one umbrella and this was one reason why it was successful in representing the Palestinians. I am unsure what you are referring to by militia groups here; apart from some extremist cells most actual incursions into Israeli territory until the 1970s were carried out by disorganised local groups; which made it easier for the IDF to liquidate them.
The Yishuv recognized the need for a single multi-party government with one authorized army. Accordingly, the military arms of the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and Palmah were all incorporated into the IDF, and the political arms became political parties. This was accomplished peacefully because the Yishuv leadership, unlike the PLO, had a clear vision of Jewish national aspirations, and held these aspirations more dear than their personal ambitions.
Actually no, it was accomplished by a threat of violence as the Altalena affair showed. The Jewish Agency rountinely described the Irgun and the Stern Gang as terrorist organisations while keeping contact and co-ordinating with them in private. The leadership of the Yishuv had very different ideas about Jewish national aspirations; the only thing they agreed on was the need for an independent state with as much territory as possible in the Mandate. Different streams and leaders like Ben-Gurion and Begin despised each other personally and ideologically.
This is one of the reasons why the Yishuv was able to transition to an effective government — where as the Palestinians have been wholly unsuccessful.
Well this transition only happened after they had created the state; without and in the pre-1948 period the arrangements were very messy and disorganised. I don’t see any reason why the Palestinians won’t be able to replicate the more successful anti-colonial movements in the former colonies in creating a stable govt.
Too much to respond to adequately. But…
Hamas can only be seen as a successful provider of social services if you are using the PLO as a benchmark. Admittedly, it will be a great challenge to exceed the PLO’s level of political corruption. Nonetheless, as recent news stories indicate, Hamas seems intent on giving the PLO a run for the money (pun intended).
Your reference to the Altalena Incident is notable because it was just that — an incident (along with 1-2 days of street fighting in Tel Aviv) which so shocked the Yishuv that Begin met with Ben Gurion and agreed to the integration of Irgun fighters into the Haganah. The quality of the Jewish leaders of the Yishuv in their vision of a Jewish State and their commitment to the Jewish people over their own personal glory or power far exceeds anything we see among Palestinian leaders. Ignoring this fact, or dismissing it by presuming that some political event will fundamentally change the character of Hamas thugs and Fatah incompetents avoids the issue.
Nonetheless, this remains at the core of the conflict. Israelis — even moderate ones — concede that they do not trust the bona fides of ANY Palestinian leadership or their ability to maintain public support based on the quality of their government. Instead, Palestinian leaders have historically relied on anti-Israeli invective as a substitute for performance.
Altalena was far more than “an incident.” It was a decisive & formative event in the history of the Yishuv. It could have gone either way. Had Begin been prepared for an all out rebellion it could have led to civil war along the lines of what has happened bet. Fatah & Hamas. For whatever reason, Begin conceded & Ben Gurion triumphed. But it could have been different. So your crowing about the smooth, peaceful & civil development of pre-State Israel compared with the Palestinian political development is specious. Israel did better, yes. But that was 60 years ago under entirely different conditions. And Ben Gurion had nowhere near the pressures or ferocious & heavily armed enemies bearing down on him that the Palestinians face. Except for the Jordanians, the Arab armies were no match for the Palmach. And the Jordanians were a far less lethal enemy than Israel is to the Palestinians.
Hamas is an effective social service provider period. It might even be the envy of the Jewish federation agency network. Calling Hamas corrupt shows how bereft of sense or balance you are. The quality of the Zionist leadership was no better or worse than the Palestinian. In addition, no one assassinated Zionist leaders with impunity as has happened to the Palestinian leadership.
I find it humorous that you call Hamas thugs & Fatah incompentents when I rather think the terms fit many of Israel’s politicians & generals quite aptly. Humorous that you don’t understand that Palestinians have as little trust in Israel as Israel has in the Palestinians. Even IF Israelis somehow came to truth the Palestinians w/o the same trust on the other side a settlement is still impossible. But that never crossed yr mind did it because hardly anything relevant to the Palestinians ever does cross the threshhold of your mind.
Exactly. The competing interpretations of Zionism were equally legitimate and each had a valid for leadership of the Yishuv. However, because Begin and Ben Gurion both placed the future of the Jewish State and the good of the Yishuv above their individual aspirations — Begin more than BG, perhaps. For this reason, Israel, unlike the vast majority of states created after WWII, was able to establish democratic institutions.
To dismissively characterize pride in Israel’s achievement as “crowing”, and to make the statement that the current Palestinian leadership is as on a par with that of the Yishuv is absurd. Even more baseless is your dismissive attitude of the threat of the invading Arab armies that managed to kill one percent of the Yishuv population — a far more lethal toll than anything the Palestinians have had to suffer from Israel (and that’s leaving aside entirely the fundamental difference between the Arab States wantonly invading Mandatory Palestine in a land grab vs. the Palestinians conscious decision to adopt the “Armed Struggle” as their primary means of resolving their dispute with the Jews).
If Hamas is such a wonderfully humanitarian social provider — why has the UN cut off aid to them in the face of their blatant theft and stockpiling of aid? Why does Hamas murder its political opponents with impunity? Why does Hamas condition reconciliation with Fatah on Fatah’s discontinuing peace talks with Israel?
I find it hard to believe that you or any thinking person truly believes that “the quality of Zionist leadership is no better or worse than the Palestinians”.
Nonetheless, when confronted with any criticism of the Palestinians, you seem to have a knee jerk reflexive need to find some criticism of Israel in order to claim a moral equivalency. I just don’t get it.
Richard has pretty much said everything I would cover below so I won’t add much. I do think that you need to accept that Hamas along with other Islamist organisations are very effective in providing welfare and social services; the idea that they deliberately create shortage or are corrupt is an unsubstantiated allegation. However both US and Israeli intelligence are well aware of Hamas and Hezbollah’s social activities and know the support base it has built up. It is a denial of reality to think otherwise.
True, the Altalena incident was only one example but it was a pivotal one that was crucial to the state formation of Israel. I think you great underplay the ideological and personal differences between the Revisionist and Labour wings of Zionism in this period; they had separate political organisations and conducted most of the 1948 war with separate military formations. Hostility between the two was very entrenched and lasted for the first two decades of the Israeli state’s history. Ben-Gurion and many other Labour leaders regarded the Revisionists as little better than crypto-fascists.
I don’t see where Israelis have indicated that they don’t trust the Palestinian leadership to the degree you seem to claim; the peace constituency and the acceptance of the two-state solution amongst most Israelis seems to suggest otherwise. As for Palestinian governance, that is dependent on Israel actually seriously moving towards enabling statehood for the PA, instead of trying to sabotage the process at every turn. As numerous polls have shown the one facet of Israeli society Palestinians admire and want to copy is democracy so I don’t see how any regime that doesn’t satisfy Palestinian requirements will survive long at the ballot box. Of course you can’t then choose who will be elected.
Again, you make my point. The Hagana/Mapai and the Irgun/Herut (and for that matter Palmah/Mapam) each had huge ideological differences among them. Yet, they managed to cobble together a Parliamentary Democracy which managed to host (at one point) three different Communist parties on one end, and several streams of Orthodox Jewish parties on the other, and pretty much everything in between. And notwithstanding lots of yelling, insults, and ad hominem abuse — Israel has managed to do this without violence (and in the midst of repeated wars, the integration of huge numbers of immigrants and refugees, and in a land bereft of natural resources).
So yes, we have a right to “crow”. But, more importantly, understanding why Israel had the level of success it had sheds light on why the Palestinians have such a long record of failure. Rather than expending efforts muck-raking so that one can argue that Israel is just as corrupt and thuggish as the Palestinians — Palestinians and Israelis would all be better served by confronting the failings of Hamas and Fatah — and dealing with them.
It was this reason that I felt that the scathing criticism of Noa was inappropriate and did a disservice to people who have a vested interest in peace and prosperity in the region.
DSharon, Just to respond to some of your points:
Again, you make my point. The Hagana/Mapai and the Irgun/Herut (and for that matter Palmah/Mapam) each had huge ideological differences among them. Yet, they managed to cobble together a Parliamentary Democracy which managed to host (at one point) three different Communist parties on one end, and several streams of Orthodox Jewish parties on the other, and pretty much everything in between. And notwithstanding lots of yelling, insults, and ad hominem abuse — Israel has managed to do this without violence (and in the midst of repeated wars, the integration of huge numbers of immigrants and refugees, and in a land bereft of natural resources).
I would say this is simplistic and brushes over the actual large differences between the two streams of Zionism. The Haganah took severe action against the IRgun when it was felt they went too far, the saison phenomenon indicates this – you couldn’t dream of an Israeli govt hunting down, arresting and handing over 500 Israelis the way the Haganah did with Irgun targets to the British. There could have been a much more severe conflict between the two during the Altalena incident as Begin showed by telling Irgun members not to take an oath of loyalty to the new state and in the stand off several thousand Irgun members deserted the IDF units in readiness for a civil conflict. Begin’s willingness to back down and the fact that the Revisionists were still a minority (though a substantial one) and the imminent war looming with the Arab states all played an important role. Don’t forget that Begin and Herut were almost treated as pariahs by the dominant Labour Zionists for the first two decades of Israel’s existence.
You also overlook the extent to which Labour Zionist hegemony played an important role in forging both a consensus and a parliamentary democratic character to the Israeli state. The left under Mapam and the other Marxist parties deferred to Labour and Ben Gurion’s leadership – a key development since this stream could have had independent support from the USSR and dominated many of the frontline combat units in the Palmach. Ben-Gurion was able to get the confidence of the Liberal and General Zionists and the support of the left – this left him pretty much unchallenged as the leader within the Yishuv; not for nothing did Begin and the Revisionists resent what they called his ‘dictatorial regime’. Ben-Gurion’s pragmatism and ability to effectively unify the Left, moderate and other streams of Zionism was key in forging a platform of unity. A lesser leader or a more divisive one would not have succeeded. Also the parliamentary democracy was very much an inheritance of the social democratic nature of Labour Zionism; if the Revisionists had come to power instead, God only knows what kind of autocratic state they would have set up instead.
So yes, we have a right to “crow”. But, more importantly, understanding why Israel had the level of success it had sheds light on why the Palestinians have such a long record of failure. Rather than expending efforts muck-raking so that one can argue that Israel is just as corrupt and thuggish as the Palestinians — Palestinians and Israelis would all be better served by confronting the failings of Hamas and Fatah — and dealing with them.
Well you don’t have a ‘right’ to crow. The Yishuv had a much more positive relationship with the Jewish diaspora than the Palestinians had with the Arabs in neighbouring states – in effect as we now know, the latter were not interested in an independent Palestinian state unlike the Jewish diaspora which did support a Jewish state. The Palestinians also suffered the brunt of a brutal military repression by the British during the Arab revolt which decimated much of the leadership and potential military cadres. I also don’t see this “long record” of failure that you claim exists for the Palestinians – if anything their nationalist consciousness has strengthened over time not weakened and they operated without any real long-term support from external allies since the support given by other Arab regimes and the USSR was highly conditional, limited and subject to the whims and vagaries of those powers. I would say that the Palestinians have been moderately successful, if anything, for such a small grouping coming from a population that was mainly consisting of a very small urban elite and a mass of uneducated, traditional 19th century peasantry to survive the way they have.
Excellent points, but no, I did not forget them In fact, the saison and the Mapai-Mapam split were very much in my mind. The various political leaders of the Yishuv were deeply committed to their stream of Zionism and had very strong (often not positive) feelings for their competitors. This is probably quite a common phenomenon in all national liberation movements where there is so much to divide a people in terms of the means of best ridding itself of colonial rule, their vision of what type of state to establish, and how to deal with national minorities.
Nonetheless, the Yishuv leaders held a higher vision beyond short term expediency which allowed them to get past their personal ambitions and ego to establish a workable national consensus. It is here that the Jews succeeded where the Palestinians have (so far) failed.
I agree with your assessment of BG, who was adept at combining demagoguery with consensus building. Similarly, you make a good point that the bulk of the Palestinian Arab population of fellahin were political naifs. You did not mention the centuries of Ottoman rule, the stifling heritage of the effendi-class absentee landowners, and the vicious oppressiveness of the Mufti in seeking to establish his own political fiefdom. But, each of these had a hand in hobbling the political development of Palestinian Arabs. In that light, I would grant that there has been development.
Does Chaim Arlosoroff’s assassination qualify as the Revisionist Yishuv leaders having “often not positive feelings for their competitors?” C’mon. They could be just as murderous a bunch as the Palestinians. They were just as jealous, just as vicious, just as hateful as any Palestinian leader. The only difference is that Israelis in that period did not have an enemy killing them by the hundreds every yr., both leaders and civilians alike. If they had, who knows how much worse things might have been for Israel.
Richard, do you agree or disagree with the following sentence? (If you agree, please explain your stance on Lieberman).
“you can’t detest a legitimate representative of the Israeli people and claim in the same breath that you’re all for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. What you really mean is that you’re all for peace as long as Israelis put forward leaders you like.”
Thank you and Shavua tov,
Alex
Hey, I left college many decades ago. This post thread isn’t college & you’re not my professor (thank God). Don’t make yr comments come across as final exam questions.
Hamas won a national legislative election and took over the PA. Lieberman represents nowhere that level of support among Israelis. He is A legitimate representative of a certain racist, rejectionist, extreme nationalist minority constituency within Israeli society. His roughly 13-15% of the vote is being magnified by Netanyahu’s giving him the f.m. portfolio. Further, Lieberman has put forward no proposals that have any semblance of realism (except to him) for resolving the conflict.
On the other hand, Hamas has put forward a number of pragmatic proposals that are worthy of negotiation. Yet Israel rejects even talking. Notice I did not say that Hamas’ proposals are themselves worthy of being final positions. But they are worthy of being discussed. Lieberman’s proposals are dead in the water. Implementing them would likely involve massive civil conflict with Israel’s Arab minority. I don’t want to say civil war since that may be too extreme. But the amount of resistance would be enormous. And it would spill over into the Jewish community as well. Hell, even Alex Stein might not like them & even do something about it instead of grandstanding here.
So are you saying that it’s ok to detest Lieberman because he only got a relatively small minority of the vote, and hence it isn’t accurate to refer to him as a legitimate representative of the Israeli people?
It’s very hard to follow the logic of yr argument, such as it is. You claimed that if Hamas was a legitimate representative of the Palestinians, why isn’t Lieberman a legitimate representative of the Israeli people. I replied that they are both legitimate though Hamas had actually won a legislative election & Lieberman hadn’t even come close, thus making Hamas a more representative movement of Palestinian opinion than Lieberman was of Israeli opinion. Beyond that, I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Richard, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to have deleted a couple of sentences from the original post. The original sentences read “You can’t detest a legitimate representative of the Palestinains people and claim in the same breath that you’re all for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. What you really mean is that you’re all for peace as long as Palestinians put forward leaders you like.”
Why did you take it out?
I’ve written TWO posts about Noa’s anti-Hamas diatribes. The one you’re looking for is here.
I have already submitted two comments that were apparently not worthy of being published on this site. If I am denied a third time, then it would be clear to me that the argument put forth by the author and the moderators is so weak that any dissenting viewpoint would completely undermine it. So please….
[ed. comment edited per following reply comment]
This is your 2nd of 3 comments complaining in this fashion. READ THE COMMENT RULES BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN. First time commenters like you are MODERATED, precisely for this reason since there are many who either don’t read the rules or don’t give a fig about them.
More horse manure. Begin & Ben Gurion were not altruists nor were they selfless leaders. THey were just as cruel & vain as any individual Jew or Palestinian for that matter. Or have you forgotten that Ben Gurion was more than happy to allow all the Jews of Europe to perish in the Holocaust if it would allow his beloved Zionist enterprise to flourish. Not very edifying tidbit of Zionist history–is it?
The only threat to the new state was from the Jordanians in the Jerusalem corridor. It was a serious threat no doubt. But less serious than the threat that the IDF poses to life for Palestinians. The Jordanians didn’t have F-16s, Apache helicopters or nuclear weapons as Israel does. Far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Israelis were killed in the 48 War.
The UN cut off aid temporarily because in a situation in which people are starving Hamas has decided it knew better how to distribute the UN relief than the UN did. A stupid decision on the part of some individual Hamas officials. But to represent this as something corrupt or to say that Hamas was intending to pillage it or sell it on the black market would be ridiculous. And besides, you don’t know jack shit about Hamas. You only know what you read from the Jerusalem Post or whatever other right wing shmate provides yr twisted version of Palestinian reality.
Why does Fatah murder & torture its political opponents with impunity? Why does the IDF murder Gazan civilians with impunity?
I would say the quality of Israel’s current leadership is as bad or possibly worse than the quality of current Palestinian leadership.
No the diff. bet. us is that I’m willing to criticize BOTH SIDES & you’re only willing to criticize one. I won’t even say I don’t get it. I DO get it. You’re just a pro-Israel nativist who doesn’t know or care about anything outside Israel’s borders. Nor do you believe it’s necessary to do so since Israel can basically impose its will on any Arab who dares to see otherwise. Pitiful, but there you have it.
Not quite. This flourishing democracy felt so fearful of the 1/5 Arab minority that it maintained a form of martial law governing Israeli Arabs for nearly 20 years. An injustice as deep as the Japanese internment here. To this day, no Jewish governing coalition will accept an Arab party. That’s a pretty stiff price for a democracy to pay I’d say. IN fact, calling this is true democracy is bogus. It’s a partial democracy. YOu also leave out Ben Gurion’s compromise which essentially allows many aspects of social intercourse to be governed theocratically by the haredi ayatollahs.
Israel has NOT managed to maintain its democracy w/o violence. You’re forgetting the Occupation aren’t you? How convenient. And no you don’t have the right to crow. Israel is a deeply corrupt country both domestically and in the Territories. If you deny this or are ignorant about it then you’re not reading much of the Israeli press or numerous thoughtful Israeli political observers who’ve written about this in detail.
As for crow, you will have the right to eat it when a peace settlement is negotiated with Israel returning to 67 borders, settlements are dismantled w. a few exceptions, & Israel & Arab nations exchange ambassadors. And I’ll be happy to provide the bird for you.
If Palestine didn’t face the obstacles placed in its path by Israel, it would have as many successes to crow about.
Talk about a load of manure –
Ben Gurion was willing to be an accomplice to the Holocaust because it might benefit the Zionist Enterprise — what Ahmadinejad dream world did that come from?
Begin dismantled the Irgun and integrated it into the IDF because he was vain and cruel and no different from the leaders of Hamas or Islamic Jihad (who refuse to submit to a unified national government)???
The only threat to the Jewish State in 1948 was from the Jordanians, and then, limited only to the Jerusalem corridor? What revisionist weed are you smoking? Did you forget that one arm of the Egyptian Army was sweeping north from Gaza to Tel Aviv while the other was advancing towards Beer Sheba in an attempt to beat the Transjordanian Army who was similarly trying to swallow up as much of Palestine as it could take. Did you forget the Syrian advance into the Hula and Jordan valley?
In fact, the Syrians DID conquer and occupy a small part of Jewish Palestine — hence their repeated call to return to the June 4, 1967 lines and NOT the International Mandatory border, which would require them to cede territory THEY occupied in 1948.
Did you forget that 1 in 100 Israelis were killed in a War that the Arabs started?
And what’s with the non sequitor as if there is a comparison between civilians killed in the course of Israel’s operation to stop Hamas from firing rockets and mortars into Israel, and Hamas brutally murdering its citizens in order to keep them cowed so that it can continue its extremist and belligerent agenda of Islamification?
You are willing to criticize BOTH sides? No you’re not. You hear any criticism of Hamas and you start making wild assertions and accusations that Israel is just as bad and therefore has no moral high ground to criticize anyone.
And as for your assumption that I am unwilling to criticize Israel — this is simply false. The difference between us, is that I apply a single standard in my criticism, I am not an apologist for anyone.
This is a pathetic statement at best.
Yes there was a military rule over the Arabs in Israel until 1964. This is also a function of the fact that there was a civil war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine which had been ongoing since the 1920’s and escalated rapidly after the partition plan was announced.
Yes, the current status of Arabs in Israel is not satisfactory. This has a lot to do with Jewish apathy and even open hostility towards the Arab minority. But it also has to do with the refusal of Arab citizens of Israel to make their loyalties clear. The whole concept of a “migzar aravi” — where Arabs live in their own separate bubble does not work for either group. Yet NEITHER group is actively seeking a full integration.
The Occupation as you refer it — is NOT a result of Israel seeking to dominate Palestinians by force. Rather, it reflects the desire of Arab States to eliminate the Jewish State by force.
The CONTINUED occupation is a reflects the policies of the Arab League’s rejection of 242 and 338 – as stated in at Khartoum when they declared NO negotiation, NO recognition, NO peace.
As for “obstacles” to the Palestinians — you would be better served to look first at the Arab States, who destroyed the Palestinian State when they invaded it in 1948; and then used the Palestinian plight as a weapon in their attempt to delegitimize Israel. Then you could look at the PLO under Arafat who opted for the most sickening type of terrorism to make a name for himself and the Palestinian people (while amassing his own private fortune).
As for Israeli corruption. You forget that we KNOW about Israeli corruption because it was PUBLICIZED in Israel’s free press. Moreover, it is called “corruption” because it violates Israeli law and even government ministers up to the Prime Minister are subject to the law. Democracy does not make a person more moral or law abiding. Democracy only allows for the open questioning of someone’s morality and for equal protection under the law.
As for your prediction of Palestinian successes, I have trouble reconciling your scathing cynicism of anything Israeli with your wide-eyed Polyanna appraisal of all things Palestinian. As I said, I just don’t get it.
There was NO civil war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine after WWII. What ignorance or lies. There was little or no domestic Arab resistance to Israel’s creation in 1948. Considering the terrible injustice done to Israeli Arabs & their expulsion on the order of 700,000 worth, it’s miraculous there wasn’t much stronger resistance. There was absolutely NO justification for the treatment of Israeli Arabs from 1948 to 1964. NONE. ANd for you to say there was a civil war is mendacious. Israeli Arabs were and are far more loyal citizens than Israel has any right to expect them to be considering how shabbily they have been treated.
“Not satisfactory?” Is that the best you can do? Rather feeble if you ask me. Israel’s actual treatment borders on the criminal considering what a waste of human creativity and energy this constitutes. We here in this country have no right to crow about our race relations but we have done a far better job of things than Israel. Israel has no excuse.
More crap. Every public opinion survey of Israeli Arabs documents a high level of loyalty to Israel, & as I wrote far higher than Israel has any right to expect. Are you deaf and blind or have you not read these surveys? Or do you believe they are a sack of lies or do you just not give a crap?
You remind me of AMerican whites who accused Blacks of wanting to segregate themselves into ghettos. Are you for real? You think that Israeli Arabs want to live hemmed in in the communities in which they live? You think they wouldn’t assimilate more fully into Israel society if there wasn’t such deep economic, political & ethnic prejudice against them?
No, I don’t refer to the Occupation, the world does. You mean you reject the term “Occupation?” That’s rich. Do pls. reveal more of yr ideological oddity by telling us you do. That would certainly place yr views into clearer context. As for yr claim that the Occupation results from the desire of Arab states to eliminiate Israel–you’re full of even more crap than I thought. Considering that the very Arab states you claim wish to eliminate Israel offered it as a single body full recognition all the way back to 2002, gives the lie to yr drivel. Arab states DO NOT wish to eliminiate Israel. And even if they did, the Occupation has diddly to do with Arab states and everything to do with Israel’s war against the Palestinians. Again you are either a liar or an ignorant twit or perhaps both.
Oh, you mean that the Occupation circa 2009 is determined by an antedated statement by the Arab League in 1968? Come off it. Perhpas you’re fooling yrself with such stupidity. But do you really expect anyone else will buy the bill of goods you’re peddling? Khartoum has LONG been superceded by subsequent Arab League statements & decisions. And you conveniently ignore the most important of all–the Arab League initiative of 2002. Why is there still an Occupation if the Arab states offered Israel full acceptance (which is pretty much the opposite of seeking to eliminate it–right?)?
Israel’s “free press?” You mean the press which military censors can muzzle at will without having to provide the slightest justification for their censorship? And if the corruption violates the law and prime ministers are subject to it then why was Ariel Sharon never “subject to the law” while he served as prime minister? Why was his son the only family member who was punished for crimes of which his father was equally or more guilty? Why did it take the justice system ten years to catch up to Ehud Olmert? Why is Tzachi Hanegbi still sitting in Knesset? Why is Haim Ramon, a convicted sexual harrasser a minister? Why was an ex-president not charged with rape? Why was he allowed to resign with “dignity?” Why will a politicians suspected of money-laundering and close ties to the Russian mob end up likely serving as Israel’s interior minister (or foreign or defense minister)? Seems to me that the Israeli justice system leaves a great deal to be desired and functions only in the breach if then.
Believe me, you and Israel have nothing to crow about regarding societal corruption. It runs rampant. Some of it is caught & punished. Some, an awful lot in fact, isn’t.
I’m not starry eyed about the Palestinians. As I’ve said to you and others before, they’ve done no better and not much worse than Israelis. If they were given half a chance to establish a viable independent country they’d give Israel a run for its money economically, politically & culturally. That sort of competition would be a good and healthy thing.
You certainly don’t get it. You’re either obtuse, blind, or willfully ignorant and certainly don’t bother to read anything I write here with any level of attentiveness.
Typical of you instead of grappling with the serious issue you link my truthful statements to an alleged anti-Semite. Try learning something about Zionist history before you go spouting off like that. If you aren’t aware of statements made by Ben Gurion that he would willingly sacrifice the Jews of Europe in order to guarantee the success of the State of Israel, then you ought to crack open your ZIonist history. The primary purpose of the Holocaust for Ben Gurion was as a source of immigration to Jewish Palestine. OTher than that, he had no interest or sympathy for Holocaust survivors. It was a cold, cynical proposition for him. He felt he could not afford starry eyed optimism or sentiment. While I can understand his single minded sense of purpose I do not admire it & reject the impact it has had on subsequent history.
Begin dismantled the Irgun because he understood that Ben Gurion would kick the shit out of him if he didn’t. He made a shrewd calculation that he would lose and destroy his movement. If Begin’s movement was as powerful as Hamas is today in relation to Fatah, then Begin likely would’ve behaved differently.
You. Are. A. Liar. I have criticized both sides. I will continue to criticize both sides. But I will certainly criticize the sloppy mendacious thinking of people like you very harshly.
My assertions are not wild and not accusations. They are factual. You have no rebutted them because you cannot. They are uncomfortable no doubt. Which is why instead of rebutting them you dismiss them as “wild.” And yes, Israel’s apologists can begin criticizing Hamas when Israel isn’t guilty of the same or worse sins itself. I find such hypocrisy cynical and repulsive.
Your “criticism” of Israel is feeble in the extreme. Yes, you are willing to use pallid euphemisms to acknowledge Israel has fallen short of the mark in limited ways. But I’m afraid such an approach does Israel no favors. The nation needs radical reform not palliatives or bromides of the sort you prescribe.
I get it now.
Anyone who disagrees with your fringe political view is marked as ignorant, a liar, a twit, mendacious, feeble, etc.
Typical of you radical left fascists that cannot fathom or tolerate any form of dissent other than their own.
No wonder Noa’s comments sent you in a hissy fit.