.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Every so often in Israeli politics there are brief flashes of clarity when the clouds of obfuscation clear, allowing you to see what you knew all along was true. Sol Salbe brings word of a news report from Israel’s Galey Tzahal (Army Radio) about a fractious Israel cabinet meeting at which Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak went at each other hammer and tong about the current Palestinian rocket attacks. Here is Sol’s translation of the key excerpt:
A sharp confrontation has taken place around the table at the full Ministry meeting. Discussing the subject of the continual firing of rockets from Gaza,…Defence Minister [Barak] explained to his colleagues that negotiations are being conducted to ensure an arrangement with Hamas with Egypt acting as the intermediary. He was interrupted by the prime minister who said: “There are no negotiations. Israel does not intend to arrange a “calm” with that organisation.”
The Defence Minister responded that the firing of the rockets would have stopped had Israel accepted the calm.
“What the Defence Minister proposes proves that there was no value to the whole Cast Lead Operation. You are suggesting that now that we have smashed Hamas, we should accept the conditions that they offered to us before the operation,” said the prime minister.
What Barak and Olmert appear to agree on (though coming at it from different vantage points and for opposite political purposes) is that Hamas presented terms for a ceasefire that could have averted Operation Cast Lead. Barak appears to have either proposed accepting the terms or at least limiting the Operation’s duration once Israel decided to reject them.
Haaretz’s version of the meeting describes Olmert, at least now, claiming that Operation Cast Lead was meant to get Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, something it apparently wasn’t willing to do as part of negotiations for the ceasefire.
If this is true, then Olmert is offering reasons for the war that Israel never presented before or during the war. It never mentioned it attacked Gaza because Hamas refused to release Shalit. The reasons were always related to the rocket fire, which here Barak concedes could easily have been stopped by accepting the ceasefire offered by Hamas.
Hamas’ willingness, even eagerness to extend the ceasefire is confirmed by this eye-opening Guardian story which reveals that Israeli peace activist, Gershon Baskin relayed peace proposals at least three times between Hamas and an unspecified member of Olmert’s family (his daughter, Dana, demonstrated outside the IDF chief of staff’s home against the 2006 Lebanon war). The proposals were conveyed to Olmert, who promptly rejected them.
Clearly, it is Olmert who has an ax to grind against Hamas and any serious negotiation with the group. It seems inexplicable to me that he would deny, before his entire cabinet, that there are talks with Hamas when everyone in the room knows that there are. Perhaps what he’s trying to do is signal his total opposition to them. One wonder why as prime minister he would’ve allowed them to go forward if he wished them to fail. Possibly if Barak insisted on the negotiations, that might explain why Olmert would both allow them to proceed and wish them to fail.
Olmert’s remarks show him to be a figure continuing to be deluded about what he has wrought. In his view, Israel “smashed Hamas.” This is a view no one else in the rest of the world accepts. But I suppose it allows Olmert to sleep at night. Imagine if he had to look in the mirror and really accept that his decisions to take the country to war have not only cost the lives of hundreds of Israeli boys, but that they have been all for naught. Hezbollah is arguably stronger militarily and certainly politically than it was before the Lebanon war. While Gaza is certainly destroyed, Hamas has been diminished in no significant way either as a political force or enemy of Israel.
I’ve said here before that Israeli politics often has the feel of a Kabuki drama. Everyone’s motives are concealed, plot moves fitfully and usually in directions you could not conceive. There are flashes of clarity which last for moments after which the clouds return once again to enshroud everything in an impenetrable mist. This report brings one of those few, intermittent moments of clarity about Israel’s motives and its failures.
Related posts:
- Barak Bears Bibi’s Love Child
- Barak Meets Mitchell, Result–’Bupkis’ (Nothing)
- Barak Reaches Deal With Netanyahu for Labor Rump to Join Coalition
- Barak: Nuclear Iran No Existential Threat to Israel
- Three Demands of Hamas: Two Can Play at This Game
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
![Image of Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61YAzRoqibL._SL110_.jpg "Family and Friends: Rambling Boy [Vinyl]")
Please avoid the “circle the wagons” approach.
How do you see this playing out?
What plausible goal do you pursue?
I wish Witty would shut up for a while. About 20 % of the comments on this thread are by him. Other contributors are responsible for his verbosity as well because they keep trying to disentangle and respond to his ‘arguments’.
And since W. recycles the same set of these, regardless of the response he receives, he monopolizes a good deal of the conversation on almost any thread he contributes to – and that without actually saying very much.
Arie,
I agree and my post below is the last reply to Witty.
I am not a regular reader of comments here so was not aware that he is a serial one.
From my perspective it was important “for posterity”, i.e., for other future readers, to explain why such a rhetorical line which claims some moral higher-ground, is really hollow and dishonest.
Will refrain from extending the thread so much in the future…
Richard: I’m afraid by popular acclamation I’m instituting a daily comment limit for you: no more than 2 per day. I agree with the other posters that you bloviate endlessly, have huge amts. of time on yr hands, never really listen to anything said to you, & are abusing the comment threads. So you’re hereby limited to no more than 2 comments per day. I’ll also be moderating yr comments until I see that you’re honoring this request.
And no, you aren’t the first person for whom I’ve had to do this. There have been right-wing commenters here who’ve posted 8-10 comments in a single day & done this multiple times. I’ve limited them as well.
I will try my very best also to honor Arie’s request that we disengage from Richard.
Witty,
My family and social circle in Israel is full of people who in principle have the most enlightened views. But when push comes to shove it’s always the Arabs’ fault.
And there is always some mythical, a-historical enemy out there, an enemy that would yield to no reason and will never change – except by being beaten thoroughly enough.
Or (if there is not some war smouldering somewhere) the Arabs need to become more civilized before any progress can be made. So the ball (always, always, always) is only on their court. No ball to be found on the Israeli court, never.
I have also encountered a fair share of such American Jews, of course.
Perhaps you won’t admit it, but you fit perfectly into that group.
————
If it is the ground you are interested in, then I’ve got news from the ground for you. On the ground there is no settler-Palestinian collaboration which you so cheerfully suggest, because the settlers are on top as bosses, land-thieves and otherwise. Can there be true collaboration between omni-powerful master and rightless underling?
In most places the ground situation is outright war, with settlers as the primary aggressors and the IDF and police do their bidding, blatantly and shamefully so. And the more moderate among the settlers always – invariably – “circle the wagons” as you call it, to protect the actions of the more extreme ones. Why won’t you read the Villages Group blog posts and get some idea about what’s going on there.
Beyond that, I seriously find it troubling that you are not able to level a single word of meaningful criticism at Israel’s action. As if it is simply unrelated to anything; only Hamas is always the issue, never Israeli policies. To the point of euphemistically calling the Gaza war “the Hamas shelling”, even though 99.9% (probably more) of the shelling was done by the IDF.
—————
Anyway, I’m tired of this strange dialogue. In my view you are either being dishonest with us or with yourself. I have actually heard and read that the new Hasbara schtick in “reaching out” to Western progressives, is to be friendly and appear to be on their side. So I suspect the former (you’re dishonest with us) rather than the latter (with yourself).
In any case, it is not that your views don’t feel into any clear box – they are very clearly in the pro-Occupation box, but you wrap them in peaceful-sounding lip service.
– over and out –
The balls are in both courts.
The left concludes that the ball is only in Israeli.
How did you conclude that a political approach was the only feasible? Why did you give up on earnestly attempting to convince Israelis that there were other options?
Why do you think that Israeli politics shifted so rightward?
Do you think Hamas behavior had ANY impact on that?
I assume that all assertions are partially true, partially relevant, and therefore the important political information to discern is to what extent, in what context, towards identifying what conditions could make a change?
Do you have a clear strategy for achieving peace in the region, or is peace in the region not a goal of yours? (Perhaps preferring the question to revolve around “justice” solely?)
Witty this isn’t a movie or a song. We’re not interpreting a piece of art.
I mean, there IS room for interpreting BUT it has a much lower threshold.
And within the threshold are plenty of facts.
It’s not that I’m dismissing your ideas – it’s that you don’t seem to have many.
That’s my opinion. I apologize for the insults.
I wish Witty would shut up for a while. About 20 % of the comments on this thread are by him. Other contributors are responsible for his verbosity as well because they keep trying to disentangle and respond to his ‘arguments’.
And since W. recycles the same set of these, regardless of the response he receives, he monopolizes a good deal of the conversation on almost any thread he contributes to – and that without actually saying very much.
Arie Brand is spot on; I have noticed this trend as well. It wouldn’t matter so much if something relevant was being discussed but every thread now veers into a generalised topics about how the talk about the IP conflict, why we need to condemn violence, which side is more moral etc.etc. It doesn’t cover new ground and very little of it is relevant to Richard Silverstein’s original posts.
Arie’s solution is also sound, which I will now be following.
My understand is that Witty is an acquaintance of Phil Weiss? They went to high school together? In any case, I think I’ll stop replying to Witty as well.
Witty is alright. He is a thinker, sometimes poorly, other times quite sharp. There are far worse out there, just check Phil’s blog. Even at Fleshler’s blog, he criticises Y Ben-David a numerous amount of times.
To Richard (Silverstein),
I remember reading Moshe Sharrett’s diary, which was published as Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, and Livia Rokach perfectly laid it out that Israel’s own leaders are the ones who damn themselves with their words (that’s not verbatim). Barak did it before Camp David (“I would have joined a terrorist group.”); Sharon did it with his re-invasion of the West Bank; Begin did it; Rabin did it; Meir did it; Ben-Gurion did it; Eshkol did it. They ALL do it.
hmmm… I’m not convinced. Let’s revisit this thread: Richard S. wrote an entry about a catfight within Israel’s lame-duck cabinet, which revealed that a ceasefire ostensibly acceptable for Israel has been possible even before the war – and surely since it.
Witty shows up from comment #2, first pretending to demand an intellectual higher ground –
etc. After a bit of such posturing, he comes out in more true colors and manages to engage almost everyone else by pissing them off. At bottom line his elaborations revolve around two major messages:
1. That Richard S. and anyone who agrees with him are terror apologists in general and Hamas supporters in particular.
2. That anyone interested in the situation should focus exclusively on Hamas and devote no attention to Israeli actions, motives and decision processes.
As far as I can see, this is standard Hasbara fare, only dressed up in good manners and cloaked in a more sophisticated smoke-and-mirrors display.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Mr. Witty is a lawyer by training. Grant him this: he’s good enough to take Mark Regev’s position (given how lousy Regev has been lately, that’s not a big compliment).
I actually prefer more bullish types who are at least more honest in a way. Then you know to steer clear of them, or – if you have the power – to ban them from the site.
Assaf,
You do exactly what you accuse me of. You blame first, investigate later.
Asking what the specific terms of the Hamas reputed cease-fire renewal offer was is an important clarification (never offered), as it is a relevant question as to whether that proposal was sincere, proposing reasonable conditions, or proposing intentionally unreasonable conditions.
Its important to remain skeptical, to not assume what you’ve been told, in order to find out the accurate data, and to think through the significance of that data.
Proposing banning someone from a site, or even proposing to ignore them entirely, is not all that different in the field of discussion from a blockade.
I assert that the left still does not know what Hamas is about, what it is committed to, what it even might change to. Its likely that they don’t know either. And, therefore there is a wide range of opinion even among those that are critical of Israel.
The problem is that that is an important question. Its NOT ENOUGH now to just be critical of Israel. The left is up to the next step. How do we actually make a change? And, the change that we are able to make, is it a change that we want to happen?
If Hamas has not abandoned its preference for terror as a means (for whatever reason), then I have MISGIVINGS about supporting a position that encourages it or firms its power.
(I know that Israel’s military responses suggest that Hamas is good, which I agree to, still noting that I don’t know what other alternative would change things in a positive direction.)
That is why I suggest that the left take the position “WE OPPOSE TERROR”, rather than we oppose only what is described as state terror.
Even if its only a tactic for the left, it would accomplish the same PR appeal as pro-Israel rallies only referring to peace.
Much better that both be sincere, but the left now is being sold a bridge. (The metaphor still applies.) Its also selling itself a bridge, by attempting to “protect itself” from opinions that differ in focus from the politically correct.
“My family and social circle in Israel is full of people who in principle have the most enlightened views. But when push comes to shove it’s always the Arabs’ fault. ”
This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the BDS movement is necessary bring peaceful resolution to this conflict. The apartheid of South Africa demanded such methods for the exact same reason, apartheid supporters would always talk about the need to improve conditions, but ignored their role as the dominate power instead putting the onus on blacks.
http://www.bdsmovement.net/
Assaf, I am definitely no apologist for Witty. Trust me, I have danced the dance with him over in other blogs. He is correct in many approaches that everyone has to be spoken to here, even though he seems to have the highest standard appropriated for Hamas than he does for Israel despite the fact that he insists that there are TWO sides who need to want to reconcile here. He determines with his own logic (which is quite confusing sometimes) that Hamas is the one that needs to prove its intent. (Mind you, this is all just on the basis of the few comments that I peruse of his. He seems to insist that in order to debate his views, we must take into account EVERYTHING he has posted about the subject ie Hamas. Like anyone has that amount of time to read how many blogs and how many comments that he shoots off. Perhaps a better suggestion would be for him to start his own blog and then maybe other commenters can deconstruct every piece of “nuance” that he advocates.)
From his comments (because that’s all we can muster) he has indicated that he has been involved in peace politics, mostly Israeli and some Palestinian. I remember he was disgusted at some pro-Palestinian marches because the message was really a zero-sum game: for Palestine only, if not then you are an Israeli apologist. That’s a tough message to give, especially those who are in two minds about how to go about on this issue and I understand his dismay as a Zionist who identifies with Israel and yet does feel compelled that something is not quite right. (I also remember that he calls the occupation a “mistake” and that there is no oppression there. Huh?)
Assaf, you may like the “bullies”, but there really is no debating them. (Again, browse Phil’s blog.) Witty does attempt a differing viewpoint, and like it or not, everyone really does have an opinion here, even Witty, and even those who think like him are out there in organisations working for peace (or so-called peace) in the US.
He still refuses to recognise said points, but that’s his problem. It’s not my job to beat it into him.
You are so dishonest Witty.
You extol the virtues of skepticism with your usual ’sincerity’.
Disgusting.
Assaf, read Witty’s posts and you’ll get the idea where he’s coming from. Pay attention to his rhetoric.
Read the story he told us all on Phil’s blog about his nice dinner with the nice proper Jewish family. The sad sad story about how the nice proper Jewish daughter has gone to the Right due to those pesky Palestinian activists and their ‘radicalism’.
He is as much a troll as the Chris Berels/SoGs/Suzannes/etc.
In fact, he’s much more of a troll than those other guys since he is far more subtle. Sometimes his mask slips. Lately, he’s been unusually transparent:
“nail-studded sucide belts”
“shelling”
“murderous”
Witty is about as intellectually honest as Caroline Glick. There is a reason people are consistently upset with him. Because they take the time to read his garbage. It’s subtle, so you don’t tend to pass it like you would by the more vulgar Zionists on Phil’s blog.