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.

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.

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/

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.

I’m saying that truces have been negotiated in the past in which lifting the siege was part of the deal, though of course Israel never honored its part of the deal. Here is a quote regarding negotations for the June, 2008 ceasefire which, after it began, Israel violated last November in the run up to Operation Cast Lead:

“All the Palestinian factions have agreed to the Egyptian proposal on a truce with Israel,” MENA said, citing an unnamed high-level Egyptian official.

The official said the proposal included a “comprehensive, reciprocal and simultaneous truce, implemented in a graduated framework starting in the Gaza Strip and then subsequently moving to the West Bank,” MENA added.

MENA said the proposal was part of a broader plan eventually leading to the lifting of the blockade which Israel, with Egyptian help, has imposed on Gaza since last June

Wikipedia further confirms this:

Under a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in June 2008, Israel agreed to lift its blockade. However, Israel mostly maintained it. By August 2008, Israel was still allowing in very few goods.

And if you think that Henry Siegman really believes that Israel had not committed itself to lift the siege you need to have yr head examined. The phrase “easing its throttlehold” is not very precise and certainly can mean “lifting the siege,” which is I’m certain what he actually believes.

As for relaxing the embargo, I’m wholly uninterested in this concept. Ending the siege. That’s all I’m interested in. Letting in 100 trucks a day instead of none does nothing to solve the problem esp. when the UN says that a minimum of 500 trucks per day is necessary to maintain minimal nutritional & living standards. I want an unlimited number of trucks allowed to cross the border as long as they do not smuggle in weapons or parts for producing them.

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.

That is an excellent summary of Witty’s views as expressed here. You hand him an opening when you then call him an apologist for the Occupation, because he can then honestly claim that he favors a two state solution that is fair to both sides. The problem, though, is what you pointed out in the quote above–he puts all the blame for the lack of that solution on Hamas and very little on Israel–to the extent that he criticizes Israel at all, it’s in the softest of terms. When they kill Palestinian civilians, it is the fault of Hamas. Witty wants everyone here to recognize that Hamas is guilty of murder, which is fine with me–they are–but he will not admit the same is true of Israel and on a much larger scale.