Noa Calls for Israel to Rid Gaza of Hamas ‘Cancer’ « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Noa Calls for Israel to Rid Gaza of Hamas ‘Cancer’

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Noa Calls for Israel to Rid Gaza of Hamas ‘Cancer’”.

Tags: hamas, world-music

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 27th, 2009 at 2:18 PM and is filed under Folk & World Music, Mideast Peace. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

98 Responses to “Noa Calls for Israel to Rid Gaza of Hamas ‘Cancer’”

Richard Witty says:

January 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if similar sentiments were expressed in Gaza, of a mass demonstration against intended cruelty, or embarrasment over insulting one’s neighbor?

Reply
- Peter D says:
  
  January 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM
  
  Richard (Witty) what are you smoking? Demonstrations in Gaza after Israel just killed and maimed for life thousands there? I have to question your understanding of human psychology.
  
  Reply
  - Richard Witty says:
    
    January 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM
    
    They weren’t expressed before and during the resumption of Hamas shelling. They probably weren’t permitted.
    
    It bothers me, the extent that the left ignores the sequence of events that led up to the escalation.
    
    The left is asked to regard shelling of civilians as inconsequential.
    
    I heard a Fresh Air interview with Jimmy Carter yesterday, in which he stated that Hamas had agreed to accept the results of a negotiation between Israel and Fatah, if it was accepted by a plebiscite of current West Bank and Gaza Palestinian residents.
    
    The key word is “current”. Hamas has never accepted that, but has insisted on diaspora Palestinians receiving a vote in any plebiscite including in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria.
    
    Carter sounds good and nice, and is wonderful for suggesting finding a way to include Hamas in diplomacy, but he engages and repeats some mis-representative wishful thinking.
    
    Tonight, there was an enlightening long interview with Ethan Bronner, reporting from Gaza (where he’s been for a week). His comments fit neither side’s propaganda points.
    
    For example, he dashed my sense that Hamas suppresses free speech or assembly, even as he spoke admiringly of the regular Gaza correspondent (I forgot her name), for accurately reporting of Hamas summary executions of Fatah supporters.
    
    At the same time, he dashed the conventional wisdom that Gaza was currently under a state of “genocide” (that with now only double the traffic through the crossings as during the “war”, Gaza seemed normal, NOT undernourished). And, that only relatively limited areas of Gaza were targeted.
    
    He restrained from accusations of “war crimes” siting, “Its impossible to know”. He does not strike me as a self-censoring journalist (as in considering politics), but more discriminating (as in considering whether his words are true or not, rather than speculations).
    
    Reply
    - Richard Silverstein says:
      
      January 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM
      
      It bothers me, the extent that the left ignores the sequence of events that led up to the escalation.
      
      The left is asked to regard shelling of civilians as inconsequential.
      
      Who’s ignoring the sequence of events? It is you who are ignoring them. What about the Nov. 5th tunnel bombing which killed 6 Hamas operatives? Or is Israel the only one allowed to repy to provocations fr. the other side?
      
      No one is regarding the shelling of civilians as inconsequential. The only problem I have with that statement is that you only intend it to apply to ISRAELI civilians. You seem to have far less a problem w. shelling Palestinian civilians. Besides, NO Israelis were killed during the shelling that allegedly caused the Gaza war. Shelling is a bad thing which I don’t defend. Nor do I defend Israel’s blatant ceasefire violation in assaulting the tunnel on Nov. 5th. But who violated the ceasefire first? Israel.
      
      Oh God, please don’t wax rhapsodic about Ethan Bronner. His reporting is exasperatingly off the mark. The fact that you admire him tells us quite a bit. Just Google “Bronner” here & you’ll find 5 or 6 posts I’ve written taking apart his journalistic approach to his subject. The only thing I”ll say for him is he’s not an out & out propagandist for Israel. He has some journalistic chops. But not enough for him to get the story right much of the time.
      
      Do you call 120 trucks a day coming through the border crossings satisfactory for the provision of all Gaza’s 1.5 million??? That is NORMAL? UN officials are still saying as recently as today that they do not have enough food to feed Gazans. Now, who am I to believe? Ethan Bronner who’s not there & who’s view of the conflict I don’t trust anyway? Or a UNWRA official who IS in Gaza & knows the situation on the ground?
      
      “Impossible to know” whether there were war crimes? Only impossible to know if you’re a journalist trying your best not to see what is in front of your eyes.
      
      Reply
      - Richard Witty says:
        
        January 28, 2009 at 1:34 AM
        
        Why the knee-jerk Richard?
        
        You want credit for “nuance” when you site something, but deny it to others?
        
        Another bridge that you’ve bought includes your assertion about the November 4th violation, as if that was a permanent renunciation of the cease-fire. Immediately after that sequence, BOTH parties reaffirmed their commitment to the cease-fire verbally publicly, through channels and by action.
        
        The December 18th permission given to Islamic Jihad to resume shelling was a SEPARATE escalation. Maybe it was a response in the minds of Hamas, but not of fact.
        
        It is a truth that for the week following the cessation of the cease-fire, Israel incrementally warned that returning the shelling would result in a military response, and delayed that excessive and prepared response until it was obvious that Hamas had committed to a revised state of war.
        
        You IGNORE that sequence.
        
        I get that you are angry about what occurred in Gaza. 1300 deaths is horrible. But, you are wrong that Hamas is innocent in the process. Two parties CHOSE to dance.
        
        And, if the response is more shelling on civilians in Israel, then two parties will continue to.
        
        I don’t regard Bronner as “authority”. I regard his comments as information. I distrust the sources and interpretations of the left more though frankly. Bronner’s information seems to be overly cautious in conclusion, and risks being incomplete temporarily. The left risks out and out repitition of lies and unwillingness to admit even partial mis-interpretation on their part.
    - Peter D says:
      
      January 28, 2009 at 6:16 AM
      
      Richard W., you keep amazing me (in the bad sense) with lack of clear moral thinking on your part. With all your comments you are trying to establish some kind of moral symmetry or equivalence b/w Hamas and Israel’s actions. I’ve read a lot of your comments and nowhere do you once express a genuine moral outrage at Israeli actions. It is always something like “I am disappointed by Israel’s response” or “Israel’s reaction is not helpful” along with “Hamas is also this and that”. Richard, this is like seeing a grown-up viciously beating a child for insulting him and saying something like: “The grown-up’s reaction is not helpful” and “You have to condemn the child for insulting the grown-up in the first place too”. Not a perfect analogy, but pretty damn good: creating a moral symmetry b/w actions of a strong, rich, democratic state that purposefully kills and maims thousands; and beleaguered, besieged, impoverished people leaving in squalor of the last 60 years lobbing some annoying but mostly ineffective rockets!
      Your moral compass it totally out of whack. Your lack of moral indignation is shameful.
      I’ve been reading your comments for quite some time: at Realistic Dove, Mondoweiss, here. I was appalled at people treating you badly, especially at Mondoweiss, and tried to stand by you a couple of times. I used to think you were a person whose heart is in the right place but who fails to communicate it effectively. Sometimes you’d say things that would make me scratch my head but I would still give you benefit of a doubt. But your latest comments make the cup overflow. I have to admit that you are either indeed a hasbara flak or just a very deluded human being. You read the latest great post by Realistic Dove; the Second Lebanon Fiasco is just 2.5 years away in the past. How can you in clear conscience not see the parallels, to ignore the fact that Israel again and again is doing the same damn thing? How can you still pretend there is some sort of moral equivalence?
      
      Reply
      - Richard Witty says:
        
        January 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM
        
        I get your anger Peter.
        
        But, I think it is misplaced. To IGNORE that Hamas is a participant in a mutual baiting dance, is to accept the dance occurring.
        
        Also, again, it indicates an implication that Hamas is ONLY victim, and not also potentially a responsible leadership organization. (Victim and leadership being NOT equivalent terms.)
        
        Certainly the Palestinian citizenry are victims, and very many have experienced deep traumas. All traumas have long-term consequences, blowback if you like that term.
        
        The ignorance that I perceive from the left, is that shelling civilians in Sderot, Ashkelon, and other places have also invoked present and not-yet-healed Israeli traumas.
        
        Avram Burg makes wonderful points, that Israel should work to distinguish between actual pain and programmed pain. But, to ignore that there is real pain, because there is also programmed pain, is a further self-delusion.
    - Donald Johnson says:
      
      January 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM
      
      This is from a Bronner piece from 2004, but I think it illustrates a tendency I see in his work–
      
      Link
      
      Notice what he says–Benny Morris has uncovered more massacres (Bronner insists on calling them small-scale) by the Zionist forces in 1948 and he also has found some cases where Arab leaders urged their civilians to flee. Bronner’s conclusion? He says this makes the situation morally grayer.
      
      Which is “balanced journalism” at its most morally idiotic. There are plenty of real Arab atrocities one can point to, but when speaking of the Palestinian ethnic cleansing it’s ridiculous to say that massacres on the one hand vs. humane recommendations that people flee for their lives on the other make the situation morally grayer. The fact that some Arabs had the good sense to recommend that civilians flee a war zone doesn’t make them at all responsible for ethnic cleansing–in that case, the act of ethnic cleansing occurs when refugees are not allowed to return home.
      
      This is the kind of “balance” I’ve noticed in Bronner. He’s not a totally bad guy, but I think he subconsciously tries to excuse Israel’s crimes in some of his writing.
      
      Also, has anyone in any NYT story ever mentioned the fact that the US helped start the Palestinian civil war? Of course the Bushies were hoping Dahlan’s forces would win, but things didn’t turn out that way. When you read the NYT, you’d think that Hamas (which won the election) just decided one day to stage a coup in Gaza back in 2007. Again, that’s NYT “balance” for you.
      
      Reply
  - Richard Silverstein says:
    
    January 27, 2009 at 11:13 PM
    
    I agree with Peter. Can we stop suggesting what Palestinians should be doing or thinking as Noa & Witty have done? Can we just try to understand what it is they ARE thinking or feeling before we tell them what we’d like them to do or think?
    
    Reply
- NILI says:
  
  January 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM
  
  It is so wonderful to see a Mizrachi Jew overcome the brainwashing of living in a post-Zionist Ashkenazi environment. She has returned to her roots with a passion!
  
  @Richard
  “This is better”
  This seems a bit cavalier to me. She is world-renown after al!
  
  Reply
Robin says:

January 27, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Udi Aloni answered her, (for some reason the darn url bar is messed up on my screen, sorry, google “Answering Noa” Udi Aloni ,also in the same publication-a couple of days later, as Noa’s “letter”, YNet)

Reply
DSHARON says:

January 27, 2009 at 7:22 PM

NO “Jewish or Arab intellectuals excoriated Noa for her diatribe”. Noa’s statements were factually accurate, her opinions were spot-on, and any one with any intellectual honesty would have supported them and Noa’s right to express them freely and without censure or childish ad hominem attacks.

Apparently leftist chic demands a gentle touch to the hegemonic agenda of Hamas and its ilk while requiring a healthy measure of wallowing in anguished self-flagellating.

And BTW how hypocritical to gasp at how offensive and distasteful for an Israeli liberal to dare criticize Palestinian society when you American liberals are so freely criticizing Israeli society.

Reply
- Richard Silverstein says:
  
  January 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
  
  NO “Jewish or Arab intellectuals excoriated Noa for her diatribe”
  
  My man, can’t you bother to read the Haaretz article to which I linked?
  
  When the two singers’ participation in the concert was announced, another letter was published, demanding that Nini not be allowed to appear. That letter was signed by about 30 Arab and Jewish artists and intellectuals.
  
  If she wants to put her foot in her mouth and demolish all the good work she has done with Israeli Arab & other Arab performers be my guest. The malarkey about censure or censorship is just that. You rightists would love to latch on to Noa as one of yr new true believers. That’s the only reason you’ve come to her defense.
  
  My critique of Noa’s statement is far more nuanced than you acknowledge. I have no problem with criticizing Hamas & have done it here. My problem is her histrionics, which include blatantly false statements like the claim that Hamas has raped Gazan women. That’s patently ludicrous & I have no idea where she heard this though given your mastery of anti-Palestinian propaganda you no doubt will have a highly partisan source handy for us.
  
  Reply
Crimson Ghost says:

January 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM

“You Can’t Talk About The Reality Of Israel”

Omid Memarian interviews former CIA operative ROBERT BAER

January 27, 2009 “IPS” — In an interview with IPS, Baer discussed the regional implications of the Gaza conflict and his take on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Hamas and Hezbollah, three major groups in the Middle East which have been called terrorist organisations.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

IPS: Some analysts believe that attacking Hamas in Gaza, two years after the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, is a part of a bigger plan which will end with attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Is Israel walking this path?

Robert Baer: No. I think that there is a military veto in attacking Iran. It’s just not possible.

IPS: Why is that impossible?

RB: Well, for one thing, we know there will be an Iranian reaction in the Gulf. Iran will not be attacked like Hamas and just respond locally. It will respond internationally. It has no choice. This is their deterrence power. In Iran, it is very important to understand a lot of lessons.

If you look on the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] website, you see the lessons they learned from the Iran-Iraq War. These wars are wars of attrition; they go on forever. You just can’t win them, especially against the United States. So they have developed secondary asymmetrical warfare ability, guerilla warfare, which is very effective.

You know some of the best minds in Iran went into the Pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards], and they weren’t necessarily fanatics. In a sense, they were much more nationalists. And in my experience, these people in the Pasdaran, in the operational level, are probably the most capable, intelligent/guerilla force/political thinkers in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. And they knew exactly what they were doing. And they do not clearly fit in to any political definitions in Iran.

IPS: Is the possibility of a limited attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel also out of question? Especially given what we learned in a recent New York Times article that last year, Israeli leaders asked President Bush to carry out such an attack, though the president did not accept.

RB: Totally out of the question. Even Bush understood this. The New York Times is right when it says that Bush vetoed an Israeli attack, simply because there is a balance of power in the Middle East between the U.S. and Iran, and it’s a fairly even balance of power. I mean not in terms of aircraft tanks or submarines, but in a monopoly of violence, there is equality.

There is no question there is equality. We could bomb Tehran, but what does that get you? Nothing. It’s sort of like bombing the U.N. compound in Gaza by Israel. What does that give the Israelis? Nothing. Yeah they could destroy it, but what does that give them? Hamas still is going to exist.

You can bomb all military bases in Iran over a period of two weeks, but Iran is still there – it still has the ability to project power, project its will and maybe even come out of that type of conflict even stronger. And Iran’s power is so economical, the price of oil is not going to make any difference, simply because the idea of arming Hezbollah or supporting Hamas in Damascus is nothing in terms of money. I mean the price of oil could go down to 10 dollars, and it’s still an affordable defence for Iran.

IPS: Obama has repeatedly mentioned talking to Iranian leaders and bringing change to U.S. foreign policy. How could the designation of Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Iran policy contribute to his promises?

RB: Dennis Ross – the important thing is the Israelis are comfortable with him. If a dialogue with Iran occurs, they know he won’t betray them. I mean they have had years and years of testing this guy. He’s Jewish, he’s been honest with the Israelis; he’s gone along with their projects, even the crazy ones. If a dialogue is open, the Israelis know they won’t be surprised. If Obama had brought someone new in, some professor from Harvard that the Israelis didn’t know, they would immediately freeze him out and there would be huge political blowbacks.

IPS: Regarding Ross’s positions on certain issues in the Middle East and particularly Iran over the past decade, how will Obama be able to adopt a new foreign policy path in the region?

RB: Well, he [Obama] needs the backing of the Democratic Party to get these things through politically, and that’s why he has brought in people like Dennis Ross and Denny Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, simply because he needs that political backing. He cannot bring in untried people and run them against the Democratic Party, because if there is an opening with Iran, there will be a connivance of Israel, maybe a silent one, simply because the Israelis have to go along.

In American politics, you can’t do anything in the Middle East without the approval of Tel Aviv, at least on some level. It’s impossible. I mean, I cannot think of a country that is so beholden to a small country like this, even a superpower, in all of history. I can’t even think of it.

IPS: And why is that?

RB: Look at New York City. Look at the major newspapers. They have a Zionist agenda. They do. I’m not Jewish. I’m not anything. I don’t care about the Israelis. And I’m not anti-Semitic. It’s just a fact. I suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget it. You can’t talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. They tell you things you will never hear in the United States.

IPS: Like what?

RB: For instance, why are people on Gaza so unhappy? Well, if you had to live in a prison, wouldn’t you be unhappy? You would never get that in the New York Times. Look at the New York Times; it’s almost an extension of Israel.

IPS: What is the impact of the Gaza conflict on the future of Iran-Israel and United States relations? Have the recent attacks destroyed Hamas entirely?

RB: No, it’s impossible. Hamas is an idea. Hamas is not an organisation. Hamas is an idea, and unless the Israelis go in and force 1.5 million people into Egypt, they will never subdue Gaza. They can go in and they can slaughter the leadership and put 10,000 people in jail, and Hamas will come out stronger. The losers in this will be Fatah.

IPS: What are the main characteristics of Hamas and Hezbollah’s military and political behaviour?

RB: They redefined the idea of warfare in geography. The fact that Hezbollah dug into caves or the fact that they use fiber optics to communicate shows enormous sophistication and primitive warfare in combination. I mean, what army in the world uses fiber optics except Hezbollah? You can’t intercept fiber optics. There is nothing you can do.

You look at [Hebollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, and he has redefined Islamic politics because he’s gone into an alliance with a Christians. Bin Laden wants to kill Christians; I’m going to reduce it to that. Nasrallah is looking at them as allies.

Reply
Dameocrat says:

January 27, 2009 at 10:52 PM

I have noticed that many Israelis will join peace movements than immediately turn on that movement and claim it has gone astray from tradition when that movement acts on anything. I wonder if it is a hasbara strategy.

Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 28, 2009 at 1:48 AM

I’d like to request that you change the brand name of your site.

The term “tikun olam” is a profound spiritual term in Jewish old and modern usage, our tradition.

The meaning is trivialized by being used as a “brand”. And, it is further trivialized by being applied in ANY partisan manner, especially with ANY implication that those that disagree with you are not similarly committed to the same concepts, from their understanding of truth.

Certainly, your adopting the personal motivation to heal the world is a wonderful commitment, and you must bring your unique personal understanding of that commitment to the world.

It is even wonderful if you state often that that concept is a primary basis of your commitment to humanity and holism.

I personally had a period in which I published material under the moniker “Green Island Productions” based on a song from Bengal “I love this tiny green island. Surrounded by the sea. Touched by the sea, decorated by the sea. Am I a secluded, a meager. No, I am not alone. The “Great” is with me.”

My personal ethics in how I conducted my media production business did not live up to the high standards of that term. I had set my bar too high, and expropriated for relatively deep and significant commitment, something that was MUCH deeper and MUCH more significant than I was bringing to it.

Reply
- Richard Silverstein says:
  
  January 28, 2009 at 9:54 AM
  
  I’d like to request that you change the brand name of your site.
  
  That’s rich, Richard. First, Tikun Olam is not a brand name and my blog is not a product. And I object to yr attempt to trivialize my blog by calling it such. It is an expression of my moral-political outlook. As such it is perfectly in synch as a modern expression of the original Kabbalistic concept which I’ve outlined in my About page. The fact that you don’t approve of my use of the term doesn’t really bother me much. Nor does this blog exist to satisfy yr definition of what is proper or improper use of Jewish traditions.
  
  You seek to deflect fr. my legitimate objections to yr political views by objecting to the name of my blog. Strange strategy I’d say.
  
  Reply
  - Richard Witty says:
    
    January 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM
    
    Please just consider my comments, rather than only react to them.
    
    I personally find the use of the term offensive. I’ve stated similarly to Michael Lerner, who similarly uses the term “tikun” as a brand, as well as a guiding principle.
    
    There is no strategy. I get that you feel that people are ganging up on you, but that is not me.
    
    You don’t really know my political views if you don’t dialog with me about them.
    
    I remain critical of Hamas, critical of a left that in my impression gullibly buys into the revision of history that Hamas presents.
    
    I don’t believe that their actions bear the light of day, and to ignore considering their actions as a player, is to ignore reality in fact.
    
    My sense is that BOTH the right in Israel and the right in Hamas dance together, and that healing (tikkun olam) ONLY occurs through a therapeutic process, meaning one that regards the experiences (but NOT the demands) of the other as valid.
    
    I get that you apply a metaphor of “first stop violence, then lets talk”, which I agree to.
    
    In an abusive relationship between a necessarily married couple in which the husband engages in large violence, and the wife engages in small violence, BOTH violences must stop to begin actual talking.
    
    And, that applies to the left as well.
    
    In the last two days, Palestinians (not necessarily Hamas) have resumed shelling southern Israel, which Israel retaliated for by bombing a tunnel.
    
    Reply
    - Richard Witty says:
      
      January 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM
      
      Richard,
      The real question is:
      
      Are you in fact living up to the high standard of the term tikkun olam, in all your relations?
      
      And, does the content that you present on this blog reflect that meaning? (ALL my relations)
      
      I personally came to the conclusion that condemnation, rather than service, did not realize the meaning of “healing”.
      
      Reply
Lazynative says:

January 28, 2009 at 4:09 AM

Not surprised here really, this imo is the typical reaction of the so-called Israeli liberal when things get tough. Easier to blame Hamas and use them as the pantomine villain rather than face the reality of what has happened in the the Gaza strip.

The denial of reality is the only way Liberals can close their eyes to what has really happened – human shields, of course only Hamas use them right, never the IDF who had to be taken to the Supreme Court to desist from using human shields in their urban operations – raising the interesting question of why the IDF would even bother using human shields if Hamas supposedly places such a low value on Palestinians lives. It beggars belief that Israelis still beleive that Palestinians think that human shields would work after the chief of operations of the Israeli airforce has gone in writing a few years ago saying that such ‘collateral damage’ is factored into IDF operations and are not a deterrent factor in carrying out attacks.

This singer seems mainly to have just talked to a select group of Fatah loyalists to get her view of what Palestinians in the Gaza strip think. The thuggishness of Fatah is overlooked; the gangster tactics of Dahlan’s so-called security services who regularly intimidate and kill critics is overlooked, the fact that Fatah was being armed by the US to overthrow Hamas after it won elections in Gaza is overlooked, the nature of the civil war that emerged in Gaza between Fatah and Gaza after this happened is overlooked, the deeply unpopular nature of the Fatah regime whose main reaction in the West Bank to Israel’s invasion of Gaza has been to violently crack down on demonstrations of sympathy for Palestinians being killed is overlooked.

This is nothing new, because it is only by overlooking the unpleasant reality can the Israeli Liberal manufacture this fantasy that somehow the only problem is Hamas and that the removal of Hamas will eliminate any obstacle to peace. This betrays a deep misunderstanding of both Israeli and Palestinian reality. Israeli policymakers well know that Hamas can and has adhered to ceasefires effectively; just as they knew that the only rockets launched during the last ceasefire were done by Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa brigades and seveal groups affiliated to Fatah (who somehow don’t lose their status as partners for peace despite this). the problem for Israeli policymakers is that they are committed to a military, economic and political domination of the West Bank and they know that Hamas will never let this happen; hence their desire to destroy Hamas and deal with the more corrupt and unpopular Fatah who they think can be coralled into accepting some bantustans as opposed to a proper sovereign state.

It also ignores some of the real basis of why Islamist movements like Hezbollah and Hamas are so popular – it is easy to demonise these groups as just a bunch of mad fanatics, but this is simplistic they have a real social base. They deliver effective social services, provide welfare to an impoverished population and are universally seen as less corrupt than their secular alternatives. this is also one reason why the US is so terrified of allowing democracy in states in the region like Jordan and Egypt; since the Islamists would make significant gains. Ironic since almost all Islamist political regimes that have actually come to power have proved to be either unpopular or failures after some initial successes.

It is however, necessary for the Israeli liberal to overlook or ignore such realities in order to maintain their manichean world view and foist the blame on a handful armed fanatics rather than addressing the real questions in hand.

Reply
Peter D says:

January 28, 2009 at 11:29 AM

(Reply to Richard Witty’s comment above)
Here you go again, Richard. How on earth can you tell that left or anybody is ignorant of the traumas that the shelling caused to the Israeli citizens! It is so absolutely false. during the last 8 years in the American media the Qassams were given a very prominent coverage all the time, including times when Israel used harsh retaliations and killed scores of Palestinians. Still, there were always articles and TV reports emphasizing how terrible it is on the Israelis etc. I mean, ALL THE FREAKING TIME! In fact, the Qassams were the only thing that allowed the world to continue to justify the cruel Gaza blockade: “look, they are being shelled, traumatized there in Israel” etc. To say that somehow the traumas of the Israelis are ignored it either to be totally out of touch or to blatantly call the white black. Which is it with you, Richard W.?
And during all this time, while Gazans were dying in disproportionate numbers – and I am talking about all these years, not just the latest massacre: during the Second Lebanon Fiasco, for example, hardly anybody was talking about hundreds of Gazan killed! – during all this time there wasn’t nearly as much coverage of that! Do you even begin to perceive how skewed the coverage was? That for any Israeli killed or wounded or merely shell-shocked by a Qassam there could be hundreds of dead and crippled for life on the other side and still the coverage was symmetrical in the best case!!! Could you even begin to imagine the gwald Israel would have raised if anything remotely resembling the massacre of Beit Hanun happened to Israelis?
Richard W., I repeat, you’re looking at the situation with some moral blinders, I have no other explanation for your egregious refusal to understand what is wrong with your comments.

Reply
- Richard Witty says:
  
  January 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM
  
  What do you imagine that I am saying?
  
  Reply
  - Richard Witty says:
    
    January 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM
    
    In your assessment of Hamas’ actions (particularly the timing of resuming shelling of civilians).
    
    Do you evaluate it as motivated by:
    
    1. Concern for human lives (beyond their “tribe”)
    2. Defense of their people attacked
    3. Opportunism to gain support among Palestinians and Arabs
    4. Opportunity to gain sufficient support among Arabs and dissenters to force Israel to change its policies
    
    Or, some combination of the above.
    
    Reply
  - Peter D says:
    
    January 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM
    
    I don’t imagine. I don’t have time to start pulling dozens of your wishy-washy comments from here or Realistic Dove but even in this very thread you do it – start with an absurd assertion that “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if similar sentiments were expressed in Gaza, of a mass demonstration against intended cruelty, or embarrasment over insulting one’s neighbor?”. Oh, you love euphemisms and toning downs! Come on, do you ever get upset so as to raise your voice? Do you ever shout at anybody? I want to hear it. I want to hear you shout to the top about not how “anger is not a particularly effective basis of decision or action.” but about how Israel incinerates civilians with white phosphorus, lets babies starve net to the corpses of their parents for days, refuses aid and ambulances to reach the wounded… Your lack of moral indignation is a brick in the wall that allows these things to continue. Sure, since “anger is not a particularly effective basis of decision or action.”, why get angry, let’s just all sit down and discuss this! Makes me want to puke, sorry.
    Read your own comment right next to this one. Again, Hamas actions this and Hamas actions that. Hamas actions caused the loss of lives of about a dozen Israelis in the last 8 years. That’s less than dies in Israel in one week car accidents. What a load of bull, just stop this.
    
    Reply
    - Richard Witty says:
      
      January 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM
      
      Got it. You’re angry, and angry at anybody that is not similarly angry.
      
      Richard too.
      
      When do you want to talk about content?
      
      Reply
      - Peter D says:
        
        January 28, 2009 at 9:11 PM
        
        You’re not talking about content, Richard W.! When we say talk to Hamas, you ignore it, when Zakai and Halevy say talk to Hamas you ignore it. This is the content. The content is that Israel embarked on a killing spree for nothing and all you can manage is “I hope that BOTH Israel and Hamas undertake self-inquiry as to goals, assumptions, attitudes towards the other, methods, rules of engagement.” I’ll tell you what, if enough American Jews were angry as Richard S. and I, and not “let’s talk about content” like you, you bet Israel would undertake “self-inquiry as to goals, assumptions, attitudes”. But because we are so damn PC, balanced, sensitive to comparisons to Warsaw Ghetto (god forbid!) and such, Israel still milks you and me and its own and keeps killing. Wake up!
      - Peter D says:
        
        January 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM
        
        Here is a mental exercise for you, dear Richard W. Imagine yourself a Palestinian. A very moderate one, mad at Hamas, blah-blah-blah, Dr. Abul Aish squared, OK? Now, IDF comes and raises your home with all your belongings because it was “blocking the forces’ “line of vision.”” Then they escort you at gunpoint to a different house, then bomb the shit out that house, and you sit there with all your family either incinerated or bleeding to death for three freaking days without any help coming. YOu see your babies die in your arms.
        Did you visualize this?
        Now, let’s talk about how Hamas are the bad guys, how anger is not the right response, how wonderful it would have been if we just organized that “mass demonstration against intended cruelty, or embarrasment over insulting one’s neighbor?” Hard, eh?
        Imagine now you’re sitting there in the bombed out house and see a snug American called Richard W. who preaches love and reconciliation and anger management.
    - Richard Witty says:
      
      January 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM
      
      I try not to shout at anyone.
      
      Its never served my better goals in any activity, inter-personal, political, business.
      
      I won’t shout at Hamas. I won’t shout at Israelis. I won’t shout at you.
      
      The most that I will do is to name what I see, and/or ask questions that I am confused by.
      
      I’m looking for a path through this that results in peace in real terms, for as many parties as is feasible.
      
      I don’t hear many ideas. I hear much more frustration and frankly flailing for a strategy (which is what Israel did in Lebanon, flailed for a strategy, and without clarifying goals even).
      
      I’ve read extensively on the history and present. I confidently declare that I maintain sympathy for both peoples and both (more than both) narratives. And, I note that all partisan narratives that I’ve heard have been incomplete to the point of mis-representative.
      
      I hope that BOTH Israel and Hamas undertake self-inquiry as to goals, assumptions, attitudes towards the other, methods, rules of engagement.
      
      I hope that Hamas and Fatah undertake similarly.
      
      I sincerely think the shoe is on Hamas’ foot. They need to decide what their goal is, and what is morally justified and effective in achievement.
      
      If it turns out that Hamas in fact is seeking power in Palestine, and is NOT seeking peace, would your views on the current situation change?
      
      Reply
    - DSHARON says:
      
      January 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM
      
      Peter your anger is misplaced.
      
      War is ugly. War inevitably leads to horrible deaths — whether by phosphorous or shrapnel or concussive shock or 1000 other means of destruction. To talk of a particular means of waging war as a warcrime is absurd. WAR is the crime.
      
      While Israel may have not responded in every circumstance in the best way — Hamas represents an ideology which makes war inevitable.
      
      Hamas has explicitly stated that it will not reconcile itself to Israel’s existence, will not have peace with Israel, and not merely justifies but glories armed resistance. At best Hamas offers — not peace — but “hudna” or “tahadiya” words whose implicit duplicity cannot be adequately translated into English. It is educating its children in the most virulent form of hatred of Jews since the Nazis, and brainwashing them with a religious dogma that glorifies death and violence.
      
      Hamas has imposed War on Israel. Hamas has opted for an armed confrontation which holds as its sacred goal the destruction of the Jewish State. THAT’s the crime. That SHOULD be the focus of moral outrage.
      
      Unbelievably, you dismiss all of that as if it were nothing. Thousands of missile attacks are ignored because, whether by the grace of god or just dumb luck, they have not caused enough death and destruction to bother YOU.
      
      Apparently in your mind, Israelis are unreasonable petulant bellyachers just because they don’t want anybody trying to shoot a missile at their homes or blowing up the neighborhood market.
      
      The obvious solution that presents itself (if we forego the concept of holding Hamas responsible for its own actions) is for more people like YOU to move to Sderot and surrounding towns. The missiles will no doubt keep falling, but we can leave it to you to apologize for not being adequately maimed or killed by them.
      
      Reply
      - Peter Drubetskoy says:
        
        January 28, 2009 at 11:17 PM
        
        DSHARON, you don’t have a freaking clue. In wars there are rules, laws of war. To say that since the war is a crime in itself (what does it mean, by the way, beyond useless rhetorical point you employ?) and thus anything is justified is bullshit. Don’t teach me about wars, I served in IDF and was taught that there is something called “tohar haneshek” – “purity of arms”, a noble principle on which IDF is happy to shit as soon as things get hot. If you don’t understand that failure to protect civilians in war zone is a war crime, you don’t know nothing about international law. Even more so deliberate targeting of civilians.
        Let’s read, for example, the report from what happened in Zeytun:
        
        Twenty hours later, the wounded were still bleeding in a shed in the courtyard of the house. There was no electricity, no heat, no water. Their relatives were with them, but every time they tried to leave the courtyard to fetch water, the army shot at them.
        
        Or this:
        
        Survivors said that Israeli soldiers were aware of the many dead and wounded who were stranded and that the Israelis ignored or rebuffed pleas from fleeing relatives to help the injured. [...] Salah recalled telling the soldiers, “We need first aid, and there are many dead back in Zaytoun. You hit us, and we need help.”
        
        “Go back to your death,” the soldier replied, according to Salah. “You can’t go up this road.”
        
        Moussa also tried to make it up the street and was intercepted by Israeli soldiers. “I told them there were wounded people, but they told me to shut up,” he said. They detained him in a nearby house for the rest of the day before releasing him, he said.
        
        The Red Cross report also said that Israeli troops “must have been aware” that there were wounded civilians in need of medical care.
        
        Salah and others said some Israeli soldiers shot at the fleeing Samuni family members, to try to direct them back to Zaytoun.
        
        “All the time they were shooting at the road or above our heads,” said Sobhi Mahmoud Samuni, 55. “But we kept running toward the hospitals.”
        
        Or this:
        “We walked at the head of a group of women and we waved white flags.
        We managed to pass three houses on the street and then I saw an Israeli soldier 40 meters away aiming his weapon at us,” said Yasmin A-Najar.
        “I thought he wanted us to come closer. Ruwahiya and I continued to walk and suddenly the soldier shot at us.”
        Yasmin was wounded in her right leg and Ruwahiya fell on the street with her head bleeding. The rest of the women panicked and scattered, hiding while the shooting continued.
        
        Yasmin said she tried to return and help Ruwahiya but the soldiers fired at her. They also shot at the ambulance driver who arrived and he was forced to turn back, she said.
        
        When Ruwahiya was finally evacuated at 8 P.M., she was already dead.
        
        In the morning, the army continued to destroy houses in the neighborhood, they said. The people who were hiding in the houses, after Ruwahiya was killed, started to flee the tanks, yelling Allahu Akhbar, said Monir A-Najar.
        
        “We were all holding white flags, women’s head scarves. We were fleeing and they were shooting at us,” Monir A-Najar told Haaretz.
        
        This is just a couple of cases. There are reports that make you hair stand on end. Would you like to be a Palestinian in Gaza, to have your child die in your arms and then have somebody say to you: “We came to help you out of this affliction that is called Hamas, you should be thankful”?
        
        DSHARON, go back to your hasbara hole and don’t pollute these pages with your nonsense about Hamas practicing FGM and being the eternal enemy of the Jewish people. My former commander Zakai, who knows Hamas a bit closer than you and other hasbara flaks, says that:
        
        “The state of Israel must understand that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and it is with that government that we must reach a situation of calm.”
        
        Israel must also understand that Hamas is a pragmatic organization, Zakai continues. “The moment that the organization understands that Qassam fire is contrary to its interests, it will stop the fire.
        
        Ephraim Halevy and Diskin said the same. But, no, you and Noa, the two great experts on Hamas know for sure that Hamas will destroy Israel (first it was the fedayeen, then the PLO, then Hizballa and Hamas – Israel always needs to create a new bogeyman when nobody buys the old one anymore.) Here is something to think about, DSHARON. Hamas is not a homogeneous body. It has a more pragmatic wing and a more militant wing and they are in competition and at odds with each other. Strengthen the pragmatic wing, let them rule Gaza, create infrastructure and civil institutions and you won’t recognize it in 10 years. Israel had terrorists for prime ministers too.
        
        And regarding your “obvious solutions”, you freak, I actually risked my life for the state of Israel and served in Lebanon and the territories and saw bullets and mortars coming on my head. You don’t scare me with your stupid solutions.
Richard Witty says:

January 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i5hNNGuD4lFw4cMDDisgsuSjf9cw

Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, releases song for Gaza

2 days ago

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Singer-songwriter Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, released on Sunday a charity song whose proceeds will go towards assisting Palestinians in the war-ravaged Gaza Strip.

Please don’t accuse Yusuf Islam of pandering to Israel for avoiding ALL rhetoric, only service, in his application of tikkun olam.

Reply
DSHARON says:

January 28, 2009 at 7:46 PM

I did not claim that no Jews or Arabs excoriated Noa — I only dispute the elitist characterization of their being “intellectuals”.

Instead of addressing the substance of Noa’s criticisms of Hamas — you attack her attitude as one of condescension and cultural superiority, lacking in judgment, analysis or intelligence. For good measure, you attack her singing as well. Anything to avoid speaking to the merits of her points.

Hamas is most definitely raping the minds of women; endorsing a social dogma which treats women as chattel, sanctions physical abuse of women, stigmatizes their bodies, and engages in (if you excuse the cultural superiority and condescension) the hideously savage customs of female genital mutilation — cutting off the clitoris and labia minora — and “honor” killings. Hamas is indoctrinating Gazan children with virulent hatred and a glorification of violence and death which makes continued war inevitable.

Indeed, rather than the milquetoast “I wouldn’t personally vote for them” — I am astonished that any person who held civil liberties to be dear would NOT be at the vanguard of those condemning Hamas in the most strident tones.

Your argument that it is not for US to tell Palestinians how to live their lives is ABSURD. You would never think of applying that concept to NON-JEWS to stifle criticism of Israel. You undoubtedly felt morally superior enough to express your outrage at Apartheid in S. Africa. Why should Palestinians be above criticism? Especially when Palestinians themselves are NOT allowed to freely express their opinions, form political parties or oppose the autocratic rule of Hamas. They CAN’T speak on their own behalf, compelling others to do so for them.

Of course your point that we can’t blame just Hamas for the evils of Palestinian society is correct. Fatah shares its burden as well. But you are WRONG when you imply that Hamas does NOT want to see Palestinians impoverished and suffering. A Gaza without “food, water, power, medicine or commerce” is essential to foster support for the extremist, war-mongering, absolutist philosophy of Hamas.

I am sure you are well aware that most Palestinians — given their druthers — would have a “live and let live” attitude towards Israelis. If they had adequate food, water, power, medicine and commerce — most would have no problem with Israel’s existence and probably would come to appreciate the cultural diversity. They would also NOT be Hamas constituents.

Noa had the intellectual clarity to see this. But, apparently, not you. You are the one suffering from a “moral disconnect”, not Noa.

And BTW — don’t assume I am a “rightist” just because I have nothing but contempt for Hamas and believe today’s liberals have lost their moral compass.

Reply
- SimoHurtta says:
  
  January 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM
  
  Wow that was a piece of propaganda.
  
  A Gaza without “food, water, power, medicine or commerce” is essential to foster support for the extremist, war-mongering, absolutist philosophy of Hamas.
  
  Sure, but how about those Gazan’s who do not support Hamas. It is a international crime to punish collective the civil population. Equally one could say that it is right to starve all Jews to foster support for the extremist, warmongering, absolutist philosophy of Israel. Did the starving in Warsaw Ghetto make Jews more moderate, I suppose not.
  
  What DSHARON about the women’s rights among the considerable orthodox Jews in Israel. Sure it is not normal to beat women in who dare to sit in the wrong part of the bus.
  
  If Palestinians in free elections vote for Hamas, why should Hams be blocked? Especially when Israelis have the right to vote (and the do it in masses) for parties who make Talebans seem moderate.
  
  By the way DSHARON the latest rockets sent to Israel yesterday were sent by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s armed wing, not Hamas. Fatah = Palestinian Authority. Hmmmm….
  
  Reply
  - DSHARON says:
    
    February 4, 2009 at 10:37 AM
    
    The concept of collective punishment derives from the Hague Convention. Article 2 of that convention states:
    
    Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
    
    Hamas is engaged in terrorism, not a declared war and engages in numerous practices that take it outside of the protections of the Hague Convention.
    
    Hamas has artificially creating shortages — it controls the inflow, warehousing and distribution of food, water, fuel and electricity — or has created real shortages by deliberately attacking border crossings in order to stop or slow the shipment of supplies. Similarly, its massive bombardments of Israeli civilians are intended to provoke some sort of Israeli response — whether it be retaliatory attacks or cutting off of supplies.
    
    Rather than focusing on Israel’s RESPONSE to these provocations — all would be better served by staying focused on the fundamental problem of eliminating (as opposed to whitewashing) a ruthless oppressive dictatorship which makes peace with Gaza impossible.
    
    Finally, the role of religion in Israeli society and law is fundamentally different from the honor killing, burka wrapping, genital mutilation, house-bounding and other repressive and dehumanizing attitudes prevalent in Islamic societies. Beating a woman is still a crime in Israel; it is encouraged by Muslim clerics as a legitimate means of educating one’s wife or daughter.
    
    As for the latest rockets, I agree — what a sick society in which EVERY political faction thinks it can gain political capital merely by shooting a missile at Israeli civilians.
    
    Reply
Warren says:

January 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Richard Witty, the emptiness of your endless verbal gas just defies belief. Try to actually SEE and FEEL, man. Do you have a pulse? Do you know what the concept of injustice is? Some of us in the Western world have heard of it. A visual metaphor for what Israel is doing to Gaza could be a big tall soldier violently kicking a small girl down on the ground with his army boots while she screams at him and thrashes at his leg with her small arm holding a stick. That about captures the asymmetry and perpetrator-victim dynamic of the recent events in Gaza. Given the nature of your comments above, and your endless moral equivalencies, your reaction to this would likely be: “That’s too bad for the girl, but it’s unfortunate and unacceptable that that girl is so angry. Maybe if she showed peace and love, it would come around to her, she’s not as innocent and uncorrupt as you guys would like to think.” Your comments are so lifeless and devoid of moral passion and understanding, that it’s difficult to even know where to begin addressing them. Do you have any remote sense of what Israel did in Gaza? The families and children melted by white phosphorus? There’s a tremendous amount of international evidence for like atrocities, despite Ethan Bronner’s tepid equivocating with Terry Gross on NPR. Witty, I’m sorry, but you are truly a moral & intellectually blind individual. At least show some heart for the scores of Palestinian children killed and maimed by the IDF. Or did they ask for it? Is that what you think?

Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM

For reference Peter, I did say “talk to Hamas”.

Its stupid to not to. I hope you understand though the politics of “which side are you on” relative to the Hamas/Fatah struggle. Israel and most peace organizations have sought to negotiate through Fatah, as having committed to peace and renunciation of terror as means.

As I’ve stated a bunch of times, my sense of Israel’s most important failings have been long-term ones, of failing to offer Abbas the tangible benefits that he’s earned (freeing of prisoners, stopping current settlement construction, enforcing laws stopping outpost construction by settlers, removal of many roadblocks, etc.) And, relative to Hamas, of gradually relaxing the traffic through the crossings in recognition of the relative discipline that Hamas enacted during the cease-fire.

Those are real, but now past. Hopefully Israel can learn.

The situation is getting farther and farther towards an either/or situation. The stubborn fighting the stubborn. The politically accommodating outside the discussion, and the civilians caught in the cross-fire entirely outside the discussion.

Being called “a morally and intellectually blind individual” by those that don’t even probe my views, is a stupid approach.

There is a fantasy adopted by the left, that Hamas is a “people’s movement” and that solidarity for their current logic is best. It is a “people’s movement” and it isn’t.

Reply
Acai Berri says:

January 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM

What has been accomplished by all of this discussion?

Reply
LD says:

January 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Why is everything you say so fucking abstract Witty? You constantly attempt to avoid talking about the facts.

Who broke the cease-fire? What were the terms and who met them (context)?

Sub-questions:
Why doesn’t Hamas recognize Israel?
Why does Hamas fire those Qassams?
Why did Israel plan this attack months in advance, despite the cease-fire?
Why such an intense blockade?
Has Hamas accepted the 2-State solution or something roughly akin to it?
What are the pertinent opinions of this topic/conflict, held by Hamas officials?
Where did Hamas come from and why?

Etc.etc.

Those are important preliminary questions to ask before we begin spewing the sort of garbage you regularly fill this and Phil’s blog up with.

I’ve yet to see you talk about hard facts. It’s always abstraction. Abstraction abstraction.

This conflict has been going on for over 60 years. Everything matters. How does this current attack relate to previous Israeli-[Whoever] fiascoes? Why did those previous battles and/or massacres take place?

I know Zionists (mostly Jews) like to talk about Hamas’s charter and it’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Those questions and concerns are diversions. If people read their history and understood the sociological variables of these sort of nationalistic movements, then this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s fucking propaganda.

You’re disgusting.

Reply
- Richard Witty says:
  
  January 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM
  
  “Who broke the cease-fire? What were the terms and who met them (context)? ”
  
  In November, both.
  
  In December, Islamic Jihad, PRC with Hamas encouragement. Then later Hamas, then later Israel much more intensely to the level of brutality.
  
  Why doesn’t Hamas recognize Israel?
  
  It regards the land as Palestinian and Islamic, though is willing to regard Jews and Christians as accepted minorities, and in a more cosmopolitan manner than in more conservative Islamic states.
  
  Why does Hamas fire those Qassams?
  
  Habit, sanction from Koran, sanction from cadre, some odd judgement that that achieves anything.
  
  Why did Israel plan this attack months in advance, despite the cease-fire?
  
  They were prepared six months in advance. With no provocation, they could have just as easily abandoned its preparations.
  
  Why such an intense blockade?
  
  The blockade element is absolute. No trade via sea occurs. The land border management is conditional, and ranges from horrendously intrusive to inconvenient.
  
  Has Hamas accepted the 2-State solution or something roughly akin to it?
  
  Not yet. They’ve floated that they would be willing to IF unlimited right of return is granted to diaspora Palestinians, and literal 67 borders were applied (no Jewish old city of Jerusalem, no adjustment for settlement blocs).
  
  What are the pertinent opinions of this topic/conflict, held by Hamas officials?
  
  Various. I know that Meshal is urged to be pragmatic, but is reluctant. Gaza officials, especially the ones that achieved leadership by social service efforts favor reconciliation. Hamas suffers the same leadership litmus test as Israel, that is requiring military heroism as prerequisite to top leadership roles.
  
  Where did Hamas come from and why?
  
  Islamic adherents among Palestinians in Gaza when under Egyptian jurisdiction, linking with Cairo Islamic Brotherhood.
  
  The common underlying theme in my posts is a rejection of militancy as the end product of inquiry. PROPOSAL that respects the needs of both parties is the important objective, and that requires respecting the other (whether the other is defined as Palestine, or as Israel), incorporating the needs of the other (not demands), finding a proposal that accomplishes those needs, then campaigning to realize the fulfillment of the needs.
  
  It is NOT served by contemptuous comments, nor by habitual complaint.
  
  Complaint is at best a means to identify issues at play. A starting point.
  
  To the extent that dissent ends at complaint, and the only “action” proposed is punitive, it harms more than it helps.
  
  I’d rather attempt to help.
  
  Richard S has shifted in his focus on this blog from healing (tikun olam) to condemnation, and condemnation of those that don’t sufficiently condemn to his mind.
  
  But, he seems to personally boycott the next steps, of proposal for solution, and respectful campaigning for that.
  
  Obama is a great model. He does not lose his cool. He does not condemn, demonize. He works to solve.
  
  Reply
- DSHARON says:
  
  January 29, 2009 at 3:13 PM
  
  LD
  
  Excellent questions.
  
  Hamas broke the cease-fire by firing 65 missiles BEFORE the November attempt to dig a tunnel across the Israeli border. The massive bombardment that followed in November and Hamas declared refusal to extend the cease fire are also illuminating (as is the present Hamas position that they will consider a 6 month ceasefire — but not a 12-18 month ceasefire).
  
  Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel because it is steeped in its Islamic ideology that views Islam as the one true religion. Hamas holds that once an area has been made a part of the Islamic world it must remain Islamic. Hence it will not recognize a non-Islamic non-Arab state in the region (i.e. Israel).
  
  The IDF like EVERY armed force has contingency plans for (hopefully) every eventuality. That way the country does not get caught with its pants down if attacked. Your implication that PLANNING for a worse case scenario means that you are actively seeking or promoting it does not follow.
  
  The Israeli government justified the blockade as a response to Hamas missile attacks. For that matter, Israel has every right to embargo another country or region. After all, don’t you support the right of Arab States to embargo Israel. Isn’t their refusal to engage in commerce with the Jewish State a legitimate expression of their sovereignty? Doesn’t Israel have the same right to engage in the same tactic?
  
  Hamas has DEFINITELY NOT accepted a 2 state solution. That is why it imposed as a pre-condition to Reconciliation Talks with Fatah, that Fatah cease peace talks with Israel. The MOST Hamas will consider is a “hudna”, a Quranic concept which justifies the suspension of Jihad when Muslims are faced by a stronger enemy until such time as the Islamic force attains military superiority.
  
  Your demand that the discussion be based on “the hard facts” is inconsistent with your sentiment that the Hamas Charter doesn’t matter and is merely a diversion. Hamas ideology, as manifested BOTH in their Charter AND in their actins, AND in the public statements of their leaders, AND in the values they practice in Gazan society and teach to Gazan youth ARE relevant facts that cannot be dismissed simply because they offend your own ideological bent.
  
  Reply
LD says:

January 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM

You stated some facts in that post but it’s largely incorrect. I’ll post my rebuttal w/ sources later.

Reply
Lazynative says:

January 29, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Obama is a great model. He does not lose his cool. He does not condemn, demonize. He works to solve.

Or rather say nothing about the conflict studiously for weeks then appear on a Saudi news channel that is a mouthpiece for the fundamentalist regime in that country and waffle on about ‘respect’ and ‘dignity’ without any specifics and without mentioning Gaza once.

A ‘man of action’ indeed.

Reply
DSHARON says:

January 29, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Peter Drubetskoy —

You are obviously a fanatic. The mere presentation of a differing point of view drives you into fits of rage. Apparently, anybody who doesn’t swallow your version of the world is a freak.

You claim to have served in the IDF (‘al zeh ani matil safek) and that this experience has made you an unchallengeable expert on war, law, morality, and the inner workings of Hamas. This is both arrogant — and logically unsound.

Your “hair-raising” stories may be true, may be entirely fabricated, or may be somewhere in the middle. You don’t bother to indicate your source is. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an IDF policy to target Gazan civilians. On the contrary, there is a general consensus that the IDF took measures to avoid civilian casualties that go beyond what other armed forces employ.

However, from your vitriolic tone, I am confident that you care nothing about facts that contradict your fixation that Israel is evil.

Reply
- Peter D says:
  
  January 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM
  
  DSHARON,
  תטיל ספק כמה שאתה רוצה, זה לא מזיז לי בגרוש.
  You are right about fits of rage, I admit, maybe I was too harsh on you.
  Now, if I did make it look like serving in IDF makes one an expert in anything, this was not my intention. That there are laws of war is known to all. I did not claim to know the inner workings of Hamas. Like anybody, I absorb the available info.
  My hair raising stories. I brought you three with sources. There are thousands of those in the history of our conflicts, with scores from the last two affairs (Lebanon and Gaza).
  “Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an IDF policy to target Gazan civilians.” – What do you call destroying homes because they “obstruct line of vision”? Shooting at people waving white flags? Not letting ambulances pick the wounded? Using white phosphorus in densely populated
  areas? Killing scores of traffic policemen? Bombing streets in broad day light, when children come back from school? C’mon, give me a break.
  “On the contrary, there is a general consensus that the IDF took measures to avoid civilian casualties that go beyond what other armed forces employ.” – General consensus where? In Israel? In the rest of the world people are aghast at what IDF has done in Gaza. I don’t care what other armed forces do or don’t. At least not to the same extent as IDF, because I care about the way my people behave more than about others. Still, even taking into account the latest big war crimes – the raising of Grozny by Russians or Faluja by the Americans, for example, I think that the bombing of people in cage of Gaza is quite on par.
  
  Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 29, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Dsharon,
The description of the selection of targets is subjective on both accounts, dissenters and yours.

Legitimate/illegitimate?

In Lebanon in 2006, Israel failed in two respects (by its own definition). One is that it was not militarily prepared. (It was preoccupied with similar escalations and abduction from Gaza), and two, that it did not clarify its mission and then rules of engagement to support its mission.

In Gaza, the IDF was prepared, but also did not clarify its mission, and that resulted in TARGETING of non-military sites, civilian sites. This is beyond the ambiguity of what is a human shield.

And, I think it is accurate to state that Israel’s normal mode of military engagement is designed to minimize civilian casualties, and does undertake measures to warn civilians, to gain intelligence concisely, to target concisely, to restrain from fire if more civilians are in the crossfire than is justifiable.

Hamas in targeting civilian centers does not undertake that scrutiny.

On Obama,
He is pursuing peace, a long-term reconciliation. Its not clear that either Hamas nor the majority in Israel want peace. Israel says that they do. Hamas doesn’t yet. The PA states that it does want peace.

George Mitchell is not a mouthpiece. If there is a path, they will find it. If there isn’t a path, then they won’t.

Reply
Lazynative says:

January 29, 2009 at 4:01 PM

My comment on Obama was a little tongue-in-cheek; the reference was to his interview on the Al-Arabiya channel cast as his attempt to reach out to the Muslim world in the Middle East. This channel is owned by a member of the Saudi Royal family. I made no reference to Mitchell.

You are incorrect in regards’ to Israel’s normal mode of military engagement; as an ex-soldier (though not of the IDF) I can tell you that the mode of combat for any army is to minimise its own casualties. The IDF’s use of human shields which is well documented as well as the subject of litigation in the Israeli Supreme Court belies this supposed care for civilians that the IDF is meant to demonstrate. The numerous cases of shooting at both unarmed civilians and medical personnel in the Gaza strip during the invasion raise serious questions both about IDF policy and the fire-discipline of their soldiers.

Reply
LeaNder says:

January 29, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Hamas is most definitely raping the minds of women; endorsing a social dogma which treats women as chattel, sanctions physical abuse of women, stigmatizes their bodies, and engages in (if you excuse the cultural superiority and condescension) the hideously savage customs of female genital mutilation — cutting off the clitoris and labia minora — and “honor” killings. Hamas is indoctrinating Gazan children with virulent hatred and a glorification of violence and death which makes continued war inevitable.

Days of Atonement

Visiting Israel just weeks before the current Gaza conflict, Sally Feldman found that rising religious bigotry is one of the biggest barriers to peace

…Deplorable acts among these cultish communities are not just confined to the home. For the orthodox lobby in Israel is gaining pernicious influence in public life. The recent skirmishes surrounding the election of the mayor of Jerusalem highlight how far religious fanaticism is infiltrating secular life. Once a tiny minority in Jerusalem, the ultra-orthodox now constitute an estimated 38 per cent of Jerusalem’s Jewish population. Now that they have begun to occupy previously secular neighbourhoods, they are demanding that there be no traffic on Saturdays, that neighbours should wear more modest clothing and women should avoid showing their bare arms or legs in public.

Alarmingly, Jerusalem has recently witnessed the emergence of religious vigilantes, operating very like those in extreme Arabic states. “There are eyes and ears all over the place, very similar to what you hear about in countries like Iran,” says Naomi Ragen. Two alleged members of a secret modesty patrol were recently arrested in connection with the severe beating of a woman accused of “improper relations” with married men. Another man was arrested for setting fire to non-kosher shops and recently a gang of yeshiva students set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament. Fundamentalists are increasingly turning on Israel’s gay communities, with some rabbis proposing a “compulsory healing treatment” and/or a period of “education in a closed institution”.

Now the preview button is gone here too for me. What the f*** is this?

Reply
Julie says:

January 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM

Does the IDF target civilians? Personally, I’m convinced they do. If they don’t, they should go back to target practice, because they are really bad at it.

Between constantly hearing the mantra that the IDF does everything to avoid civilian casualties and the fact that they are the most moral army in the world. The image I have of the war in Gaza, is that of a big Gorilla running after a little mouse in a china shop, killing and destroying everything in its path. Its sole aim is to catch that mouse, at all costs. When the Gorilla leaves the china shop, the mouse is still alive, and laughing because it didn’t get caught and the Gorilla really looks bad.

You can debate it, left, right and center but as it stands right now, the IDF looks like a brute with no self control and no compassion for other human beings. Furthermore, with all the death and destrucion in Gaza, I don’t think they accomplished anything.

Reply
Arie Brand says:

January 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Dsharon wrote:

“Hamas has explicitly stated that it will not reconcile itself to Israel’s existence, will not have peace with Israel, and not merely justifies but glories armed resistance. …

Hamas has imposed War on Israel. Hamas has opted for an armed confrontation which holds as its sacred goal the destruction of the Jewish State. THAT’s the crime. That SHOULD be the focus of moral outrage. ”

For long years those who take it on themselves to represent Israel’s interests in the blogosphere maintained that the PLO had never recognized Israel’s right to exist, even when it had. The same game is now being played with Hamas. The cue comes from on high.

That the political office of Hamas has, in recent times, come up with statements that point in quite a different direction, is covered up.

Here is one such statement by Khalid Mishal, head of Hamas’ political office, made in March 2008 in an interview that was published in the Journal of Palestine Studies Summer 2008:

“There is an opportunity to deal with this conflict in a manner different than Israel and, behind it, the U.S. is dealing with it today. There is an opportunity to achieve a Palestinian national consensus on a political program based on the 1967 borders, and this is an exceptional circumstance, in which most Palestinian forces, including Hamas, accept a state on the 1967 borders….There is also an Arab consensus on this demand, and this is a historic situation. But no one is taking advantage of this opportunity. No one is moving to cooperate with this opportunity. Even this minimum that has been accepted by the Palestinians and the Arabs has been rejected by Israel and by the U.S.”

I owe this quote to Norman Finkelstein.

Mishal is referring here, inter alia, to the peace initiative of the 22 members of the Arab League made in 1962 and reconfirmed in 1967. The Arab proposal basically follows USC Resolution 242 which orders withdrawal from occupied territories to the pre-Six Day War armistice line (apart from mutual minor corrections) in return for peace. Though the US and Israel are both parties to this resolution they have ignored it as steadfastly as they are now ignoring the Arab peace proposal and the fact that Mishal has claimed that Hamas will go along with it.

Finkelstein has argued, in my view correct, that these peace overtures from Hamas constituted in fact one of the major reasons for the onslaught in Gaza. Hamas had to be re-radicalized because a palm bearing Hamas might become an acceptable negotiation partner, for the US and the “quartet”. And if it offered to renounce such violence as it can come up with if the Arab proposal would be implemented Israel would lose its main excuse to hold on to stolen land.

Reply
Arie Brand says:

January 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Dsharon wrote:

“Hamas broke the cease-fire by firing 65 missiles BEFORE the November attempt to dig a tunnel across the Israeli border. The massive bombardment that followed in November and Hamas declared refusal to extend the cease fire …”

Compare this statement with what the Israeli Oxford historian Avi Shlaim said in an interview dated 14th January on “Democracy Now”:

“AMY GOODMAN: Professor Avi Shlaim, Israel says the reason it has attacked Gaza is because of the rocket fire, the rockets that Hamas is firing into southern Israel.

AVI SHLAIM: This is Israeli propaganda, and it is a pack of lies. The important thing to remember is that there was a ceasefire brokered by Egypt in July of last year, and that ceasefire succeeded. So, if Israel wanted to protect its citizens—and it had every right to protect its citizens—the way to go about it was not by launching this vicious military offensive, but by observing the ceasefire.
Now, let me give you some figures, which I think are the most crucial figures in understanding this conflict. Before the ceasefire came into effect in July of 2008, the monthly number of rockets fired—Kassam rockets, homemade Kassam rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip on Israeli settlements and towns in southern Israel was 179. In the first four months of the ceasefire, the number dropped dramatically to three rockets a month, almost zero. I would like to repeat these figures for the benefit of your listeners. Pre-ceasefire, 179 rockets were fired on Israel; post-ceasefire, three rockets a month. This is point number one, and it’s crucial.
And my figures are beyond dispute, because they come from the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. But after initiating this war, this particular table, neat table, which showed the success of the ceasefire, was withdrawn and replaced with another table of statistics, which is much more obscure and confusing.
The new story said that Hamas broke the ceasefire. This is a lie. Hamas observed the ceasefire as best as it could and enforced it very effectively. The ceasefire was a stunning success for the first four months. It was broken not by Hamas, but by the IDF. It was broken by the IDF on the 4th of November, when it launched a raid into Gaza and killed six Hamas men.

And here is Henry Siegman, presently visiting research professor at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, and former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Cou7ncil of America who wrote , under the title “Israel’s Lies” , in the London review of Books of 29th Juan. 2009:

“Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing”

Reply
- DSHARON says:
  
  February 2, 2009 at 10:46 AM
  
  By your own admission, AFTER the cease fire, Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel.
  
  Cease fire means the firing has ceased.
  
  Hamas did not cease its firing of rockets and mortars.
  
  Your apologetic claim that Hamas observed the cease fire as best it could is absurd.
  
  You have no knowledge of the inner workings of Hamas,
  
  You have no way of knowing what executive decisions were made by them regarding the enforcement of the cease-fire.
  
  You are engaged in mere speculation, where you are impugning the best of motives and intentions to Hamas, and the worst to the Israeli government. You engage in a kneejerk reflex accusation that Israelis tell lies, and remain oblivious to the fact that the deception and immorality of Hamas is on a whole different level.
  
  Of course, such a complete absence of perspective is essential if one is to be an apologist for a gang of terrorists.
  
  Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 30, 2009 at 4:01 AM

Its impossible to state that Hamas or Israel broke the six-month cease-fire, as nothing was written down, noone was in the same room clarifying exactly what was agreed.

Hamas’ description of what the cease-fire entailed was VERY different from Israel’s. BOTH creeped to more assertive descriptions over time.

Hamas implies that re-arming or planning for further military efforts was not part of the cease-fire agreements, that anything goes on its side of the border (land mines, rocket launching sites, etc.) And Israel states that relaxing the border crossings to a “normalized” level, and that applying the cease-fire in the West Bank was never part of the agreement.

So, there is an “agreement” that there was some agreement, but noone agrees to what it was.

In early November, Israel violated the literal cease-fire by its attack on a Gaza tunnel system, which escalated for two weeks, at which time through channels and public statements, BOTH Israel and Hamas declared that the cease-fire was restored, and acted on it.

A day prior to the cessation of the cease-fire, Hamas allowed PRC and Islamic Jihad to resume shelling. (Some Israelis regard the PRC as a related party to Hamas and takes suggestions from Hamas if not orders and assists Hamas, while Islamic Jihad is largely considered independant.)

The first two days of actual Hamas shelling, it seemed to aim into the desert, as a warning. Israel similarly issued verbal warnings.

During the week following the end of the formal cease-fire, Hamas returned to shelling civilians, and gradually at longer range (not just Sderot, but to Ashkelon, and even Beersheba), and with more accuracy.

Push came to shove. Hamas was prepared to shell 30 miles into Israel and did all that it was capable. Israel was prepared to bomb ALL of Gaza, and did much much less than it was capable, instead mostly targeting strategic sites.

Israel ran out of targets that could reasonably be called strategic, and lost its focus and rationalized many targets as strategic, when in fact they had crossed a grey line to more civilian in character.

Hamas realized that they were unprepared for what they started and went underground.

They’re NOT yet signing on to a cease-fire.

Reply
Arie Brand says:

January 30, 2009 at 4:51 AM

Richard you wrote :

“In early November, Israel violated the literal cease-fire by its attack on a Gaza tunnel system”

Well, you have become somewhat less evasive on this. In your earlier post you claimed that “both” broke the ceasefire.

I would like to see some sources for the rest of your assertions. It is midnight on this side of the world so I cannot react in hurry.

Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 30, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Both did break the cease-fire Arie.

Hamas broke the cease-fire compared to Israel’s self-definition. Israel broke the cease-fire compared to Hamas’.

That Hamas had longer range and more accurate rockets at the end of the cease-fire is a breaking of the cease-fire agreement as well.

They chose to use them. They definitely didn’t need to. And, they knew approximately what was the consequence. A choice on their part.

A difficult one certainly.

The sources are New York Times and Haaretz reports. Both have historical archives. Look for Gaza November 2008, and Gaza December 2008.

Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 30, 2009 at 11:16 AM

On the time line.

Dates are undeniable, interpretations are subjective.

Dates include 11/4 – Israeli bombing of tunnel system 300 yds approximately from Israel/Gaza border

Intermittant single incidents in retaliations through 11/19.

Restoration of cease-fire until 12/18. (Cease-fire formally ended on 12/19)

12/18 Islamic Jihad and PRC claim credit for shelling into Israel from Gaza. Noted as missing Israeli towns by a few miles

12/19-12/20 Shelling into Israel from Gaza, no casualties, some property damage (noted as unlikely Hamas directly)

12/20 -12/28 Shelling into Israel from Gaza, Sderot, Ashkelon and one incident of shelling Beersheba using larger and more accurate rockets, a portion regarded as from Hamas, though likely other factions as well.

12/28 – Beginning of Israeli air campaign, after week of increasing tone of warnings

Thats from memory. It may be a day off or so.

The point though is that the cease-fire was restored, and that Hamas at 12/19 faced the difficult decision of whether to keep it (without mediated agreement), or drop it.

They indicated that their goal was opening the border crossings, but somehow presumed that in an environment of active war, Israel would increase the allowed traffic flow beyond a minimum humanitarian assistance.

Reply
Arie Brand says:

January 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

“Both did break the cease-fire Arie.”

Richard my reply is strictly for bystanders because I know from bitter experience on other blogs that, unless you haver made it yourself, you don’t recognise a point when you fall over it. So here goes. That both BROKE (rather than no longer kept up) the ceasefire is extremely unlikely unless they started firing at each other at exactly the same time.

“Hamas broke the cease-fire compared to Israel’s self-definition. Israel broke the cease-fire compared to Hamas’.”

“Israel’s self definition” ? Yes, we know that Israel is lying about it. Read Shlaim and Siegman.

“That Hamas had longer range and more accurate rockets at the end of the cease-fire is a breaking of the cease-fire agreement as well.”

Remember what you wrote in your previous letter?

” So, there is an “agreement” that there was some agreement, but noone agrees to what it was.”

But of course you wrote that when it was a matter of getting Israel off the hook as far as the breaking of the ceasefire was concerned. When it comes to pointing the finger at Hamas you know, all of a sudden, exactly what that agreement contained.

“They chose to use them. They definitely didn’t need to. And, they knew approximately what was the consequence. A choice on their part.

A difficult one certainly.”

Yes, what could the Israelis expect? As one of the few sane voices over there (that of Shmuel Zakai, erstwhile IDF commander of the Gaza division) had it:

“When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing” ” (see my previous letter)

I doubt that Hamas knew approximately what was in store for them because people count, if not on mercy, on a measure of rationality in their opponents. They couldn’t expect that their enemy would deliberately want to create the impression to have gone insane (“the boss has gone mad” remember). Well as far as that is concerned Israel has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams not only in the eyes of the unfortunate Gazans but in those of the rest of the world.

“The sources are New York Times and Haaretz reports. Both have historical archives. Look for Gaza November 2008, and Gaza December 2008″

Oh , thank you very much. You call that a source indication?

Incidentally, I will not react to any further writings from you. I find it unfortunate that you plaster any blog you contribute to all over with your handiwork and I do not feel inclined to play the bell for Pavlov’s dog.

P.S. Richard S., I have now on a few occasions had the experience that when I try to submit a reply it disappears into the blue yonder. Instead one gets a message from WP-Spamfree that says “Sorry, there is an error. Java script and cookies should be enabled.” It also says that, in case these are already enabled (as is the case here) one should warn the author of the blog.

Reply
- Peter D says:
  
  January 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM
  
  Arie, I had the same thing you describe. Can be frustrating with a long comment that you then have to re-write. Just learned to Ctrl-C my comment before submitting and re-submit it right away if needed.
  
  Reply
Richard Witty says:

January 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Arie,
The assertion that you and others have made is that “Israel broke the cease-fire agreement”.

I disagree. Its MUCH more ambiguous than that.

Following the formal end of the cease-fire, Hamas was the party most responsible in making it impossible to renew (by initiating and escalating shelling of civilians for a week before Israel responded militarily).

And, at that point, Israel responded in a shock and awe manner, with clear direction and focus for a week, but diluting that shortly after.

If Hamas had not gone underground, the death tolls on both sides would have had an additional 0 on them.

I guess we can thank them for that.

Reply
- Lazynative says:
  
  January 31, 2009 at 2:37 AM
  
  Your statement is incredibly ambigous if not outright false. You are just trying to dance around the fact that it was Israel that ended the ceasefire by its assassination of Hamas members on the 4th of November. Your timeline cited earlier then just talks about “intermittent” blahblah then moving conveniently on to shelling by IJ and other groups.
  
  Also the idea that Israel only responded with full force for a week is completely untrue; aerial bombing carried on much longer than that and there was no dilution until outside pressure mounted. The timeline for deaths recorded clearly indicates this.
  
  A simpler statistic than your completely speculative one is this:
  
  number of Israelies killed by rocketfire during the ceasefire: 0
  
  number of Israelis killed by rocketfire after Israel violated the ceasefire: 3
  
  by its own policy of trying to protect Israeli citizens’ lives, Israeli military aggression doesn’t seem to have worked.
  
  Reply
  - Richard Witty says:
    
    January 31, 2009 at 11:16 AM
    
    Lazynative,
    Please don’t live up to your name.
    
    My reasoning for questions around the November 4 and then retaliatory sequences, is that according to Israel’s definition of the cease-fire, importing weaponry and building tunnels with ANY prospective exit across the Israeli border constituted a cease-fire violation. The tunnels attacked on November 4 were understood by Israel to have exits on the Israeli side of the border.
    
    I don’t assume that that is accurate. It is ambiguous. Or else I would state that Hamas violated not only the post-cease-fire, but the cease-fire itself.
    
    Immediately after that exchange, BOTH Hamas and Israel publicly and through channels indicated that they wished the cease-fire to remain in effect, and kept it through mid-December.
    
    The “violations” were an aberration, not an ENDING of the cease-fire.
    
    The restoration of the shelling was a CHOICE made by Hamas militants, including Meshal and the military wing. Most of the service wing opposed resuming shelling.
    
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060313.html
    Report: Gaza Hamas heads furious with Meshal decision to end lull
    By Haaretz Service
    Tags: Hamas, Gaza Strip
    
    Palestinian sources told the Egyptian daily newspaper Al Ahram that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip sought to extend the six-month cease-fire that preceded Israel’s military offensive last month and are furious with Hamas’ Damascus-based political bureau chief Khaled Meshal’s decision to end the truce, Israel Radio reported on Saturday.
    
    According to the report, two senior Hamas officials in Gaza – Mahmoud al-Zahar and Ahmed al-Jabari – warned Meshal that abandoning the cease-fire was “rash” given that the organization had not adequately prepared for an Israeli ground incursion into the Gaza Strip.
    
    Reply
    - Lazynative says:
      
      February 1, 2009 at 3:21 AM
      
      Israel never made clear what exactly it would regard as a violation of the ceasefire; indeed this kind of ambiguity suits it since it can then break ceasefires with relative ease. What was a clear condition of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was that the economic blockade be lifted, something which Israel never did and which senior military figures on the Israeli side criticised their government for.
      
      On this tunnel; the incursion to assasinate Hamas members occurred in Gaza; where exactly this tunnel is meant to have led to is unknown apart from the IDF claim that it had an exit in Israel. Apart from the severe credibility deficit the IDF suffers from; the norm in observing a ceasefire is that when a violation is seen, instead of unilaterally going in gung-ho and breaking it, the aggrieved side is meant to contact and inform the aggressor side that the ceasefire is being violated and give them an option either to cease the violation or hostilities would be resumed. Israel typically did neither. Given the state of siege that Gaza has been under for the last 18months smuggling supplies through these tunnels is one of the few ways to import a wide range of essentials.
      
      Reply
      - Richard Witty says:
        
        February 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM
        
        “Given the state of siege that Gaza has been under for the last 18months smuggling supplies through these tunnels is one of the few ways to import a wide range of essentials.”
        
        NOT in the location it was discovered. The only possible role for that tunnel was for some aggressive purpose.
        
        Don’t rationalize for Hamas. They regarded themselves as equally at war.
        
        There was mediated contact between the sides, which is how each reiterated that they desired the cease-fire to remain in effect.
        
        If the “Israel broke the cease-fire” is a critical element in your math about what is right and wrong, then you are standing on thin ice.
      - DSHARON says:
        
        February 2, 2009 at 11:16 AM
        
        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.
        
        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.
        
        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.
        
        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.
        
        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.
        
        If Hamas wants the blockade to be lifted — they can sit down face to face with Israelis and negotiate terms.
        
        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.
Lazynative says:

February 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM

NOT in the location it was discovered. The only possible role for that tunnel was for some aggressive purpose.

The only information provided for this is from the IDF which is uncorroborated and therefore highly suspect; you have now gone from implying that there was actual incursion that was about to be carried out to saying that the tunnel was “for some aggressive purpose” a sign of sliding justifications if I ever saw one.

Don’t rationalize for Hamas. They regarded themselves as equally at war.

Of course they are at war – where did I suggest otherwise. They face an enemy that refuses to allow them statehood, wants to annex their territory and is prepared to use military force to achieve these objectives. What else would they be doing if not preparing for war?

There was mediated contact between the sides, which is how each reiterated that they desired the cease-fire to remain in effect.

If the “Israel broke the cease-fire” is a critical element in your math about what is right and wrong, then you are standing on thin ice.

There are mediated contacts and steps of escalation – Israel chose to ignore them when it unilaterally decided to attack Hamas – there is “if” about this; this is fact. Whatever Israel claims Hamas was doing or not doing; the plain fact of the matter is that unless there is an imminent attack the standard operating procedure is not to unilaterally engage unless you are sure the enemy has already abandoned the ceasefire. If every incident like this led to one side invading the other India and Pakistan would have been perpetually at war and North Korea would have invaded South Korea years ago. The difference is that Israel never took the ceasefire seriously and chose to break it.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE