Barak: We Could Have Stopped Rockets by Accepting Hamas Ceasefire « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Barak: We Could Have Stopped Rockets by Accepting Hamas Ceasefire

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Barak: We Could Have Stopped Rockets by Accepting Hamas Ceasefire”.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 9th, 2009 at 12:57 AM and is filed under 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.

65 Responses to “Barak: We Could Have Stopped Rockets by Accepting Hamas Ceasefire”

Richard Witty says:

March 10, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Please avoid the “circle the wagons” approach.

How do you see this playing out?

What plausible goal do you pursue?

Reply
Arie Brand says:

March 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM

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.

Reply
- Assaf says:
  
  March 10, 2009 at 2:35 PM
  
  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…
  
  Reply
- Richard Silverstein says:
  
  March 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM
  
  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.
  
  Reply
Assaf says:

March 10, 2009 at 2:28 PM

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 –

Reply
- Richard Witty says:
  
  March 10, 2009 at 7:21 PM
  
  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?)
  
  Reply
LD says:

March 10, 2009 at 2:35 PM

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.

Reply
Lazynative says:

March 10, 2009 at 2:43 PM

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.

Reply
LD says:

March 10, 2009 at 3:23 PM

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.

Reply
Joshua says:

March 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM

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.

Reply
- Assaf Oron says:
  
  March 10, 2009 at 9:19 PM
  
  Witty is alright. He is a thinker,
  
  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 –
  
  What were the SPECIFIC terms of the cease-fire renewal
  
  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.
  
  Reply
  - Richard Witty says:
    
    March 11, 2009 at 4:17 AM
    
    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.
    
    Reply
kylebisme says:

March 11, 2009 at 1:34 PM

“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/

Reply
Joshua says:

March 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM

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.

Reply
LD says:

March 12, 2009 at 12:05 PM

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.

Reply