Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Edward Rothstein’s wonderfully suggestive essay on the Golem myth in today’s Times got me thinking. He addresses the myth in the context of the 9/11 anniversary and the very human desire to lash out at our enemies and make them pay the ultimate price for their perfidy:

So the Golem, as an embodiment of resistance or defense, has taken on new metaphorical resonance. And today, on Sept. 11, as commemorations of a major terror attack take place accompanied by continuing debates over responses to it, the nature of the Golem is not just an abstract question.

The Jews of medieval Prague must’ve grappled with these turbulent emotions too in the midst of the blood libel accusations and anti-Jewish violence that rocked that city in the 16th century:

…The creature is brought to life for a specific purpose: to defend the Jews against the pogroms associated with the notorious blood libel. That libel asserted that before every Passover the Jews used the blood of Christian children to bake matzoh.

But the Golem involves more than just legend. It also embodies a strategy: to meet irrational hatred head on, to undermine terror and mitigate its impact with resolve and persistence. Death is the threat; the Golem is the response.

It may seem difficult to imagine the terrors that sprang from the libel, but accounts of massacres, including one elegy from Prague written in 1389, are chilling.

So the Golem in some senses becomes our rock and our redeemer, our Dick Cheney if you will. He represents resistance to evil and the will to avenge the evil deeds we have suffered.

But unlike in American circa 2006, the Jewish Golem is not a perfect antidote to terror. He is flawed as were the emotions of the Jews who made him. After all, Rabbi Judah Low went down to the Moldau to dig clay which he used to form the figure. And from Jewish liturgy we understand that clay is the very symbol of imperfection.

And so, after saving the Jewish community from violent attacks, in some versions of the legend, Rabbi Low loses control of the being. He runs amok causing great hardship for the Jews. He goes too far in avenging Jewish blood. He becomes a liability. At that point, Rabbi Low erases a single latter, aleph, from the word emet (”truth”) inscribed on the Golem’s forehead so that the word now reads meyt or “dead.” Just as he was meant to save Jewish lives and avenge Jewish dead, the Golem’s time to die has come. For the sake of the community’s future relations with its neighbors, the figure must be sacrificed.

Lewis Libby seems to have heeded this message in falling on his sword for his boss. But I only wish Cheney himself would heed it too and realize that if there ever was a purpose for him in the Bush Administration after 9/11 (debatable), his use has long since passed.

The IDF too plays the role of Golem within Israeli society. It is the 900 lb. gorilla which Israelis have entrusted with their very lives. Just as with the Jews of medieval Prague, Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood. Instead of a blood libel, we have murderous hatred (on both sides). So Israel created its own Golem to fight for it when times required it. Until 1967 (and even after), the IDF-Golem was largely a benign force within Israeli society. It was an honor and privilege to serve rather than an obligation. Its officers were seen as the cream of the nation. It honored the principle of tohar neshek, purity of arms by which arms were only to be used in defense of the nation but never in offense.

This principle was, of course, largely a mirage as illustrated by the seminal Israeli writer, S. Yizhar, who passed away last week. In brutal, powerful stories like Hirbet Hiza, he ripped the drapes off the national illusions and reported what life was really like in the field for the Palmach during the 1948 war. It was not a pretty picture.

But this worship of the IDF began turning after the Six Day War. Gradually, Israelis began to see that they had given away much by thrusting such grave responsibility onto the IDF. For they had essentially given it carte blanche to fight its battles against Israel’s enemies. While not having such grave responsibility might’ve comforted the average Israeli, it also took out of their hands the ability to influence the important security and survival decisions the army made in its name.

This was when Israel, like Rabbi Low, began to realize it had perhaps made a Faustian bargain in creating this avenging angel. Now, to many Israelis (though certainly not all or perhaps even a majority) it is clear that the IDF has become more a monster like the out of control Golem than a savior. The army has become a twisted caricature of what Israel is or wants to be. It represents Israel as a cold, bloodthirsty and inhumane nation. In truth, many Israelis are still quite comfortable with having a strong Golem attacking Israel’s “enemies.” But others have begun to wonder whether the IDF might be finding enemies where there may be none; and that it may be creating new enemies through its heavy-handed militarist approaches to every problem Israel faces with its Arab neighbors.

So in the view of this blogger, the IDF has become the out of control Golem which must be reined in if Israel is ever to find peace with its neighbors. There was a time when having a strong, avenging protector was the right thing for Israel. But now the time has come to face the future on a note of peace and hope rather than with rockets and bombs.

Unlike in the Golem story, Israel can never and will never erase the aleph in the IDF’s “forehead” to kill it off. Unfortunately, the Mideast is still a dangerous neighborhood and promises to remain so for the foreseeable future. There will be a need for the IDF. But it must be an IDF under civilian control; an IDF in which leaders are accountable to the nation; not an IDF run amok in the killing fields of Lebanon or Gaza.

tags 16th-century-prague-ghetto, 9-11, blood-libel, golem-avenges-Jewish-dead, idf-run-amok-militarist, israeli-army

Since Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and Israel invaded Gaza, the news has been almost universally bad. Until now. But there is a single very modest piece of good news today. After the Palestinian kidnappers demanded the release of 1,000 prisoners from Israeli jails, the IDF has come back with a counter-offer. I’m not sure it offers much, if anything, to the Palestinians that they’d be interested in. But at least the two sides are making proposals. And this marks the welcome end of Israel’s rather inane claim that it will never resort to bargaining with terrorists for Shalit’s life. Every Israeli knows that Israel has done this before and that if this case is to end relatively peacefully it will have to do so now. So in some ways this is a modest positive development.

Here’s how Haaretz characterizes the IDF proposal:

The IDF said it would not support a deal that would release terrorists “with blood on their hands,” but only those who have not been involved in planning or carrying out terror attacks. The army would be willing to release individuals who are being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, such as Hamas ministers and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as well as security prisoners jailed for relatively minor offenses, such as belonging to terrorist organizations…

The draft deal calls for a total halt to the firing of steep-trajectory weapons, whether by Hamas or other organizations; a halt to attacks on Israeli citizens and IDF troops, wherever they are located; and a ban on abductions. There were four abductions and attempted abductions over the last month, three of them in the West Bank.

In exchange for a Palestinian commitment to stop these activities, the deal calls for the IDF to stop operating in Gaza, while reserving the right of defense and the right to foil terror attacks. The IDF also wants a “sleep balance” between Sderot and Gaza: If the children of Sderot can’t sleep due to fear of Qassam rockets, Israel will disrupt the sleep of Gaza children.

What is particularly humorous in a deep black sort of way is IDF’s offer to release its own Hamas parliamentary hostages in return for Shalit. You’ll recall that this is the same army and Israeli government which swore up and down that the legislators it had arrested (’kidnapped’ if you prefer) were NOT meant as bargaining chips. Certainly they weren’t. Did we ever believe differently??

What I’d like to know is how many Palestinian prisoners who were not arrested in the past three days would qualify under the “guilty for minor offenses” rubric. If the number is relatively small, then the IDF offer seems a non-starter. You’ll also notice that this proposal attempts to gain for Israel everything it could not gain through previous military action while giving up almost nothing for its part. They couldn’t silence Qassams. This plan, if accepted by the kidnappers, would. They can’t prevent kidnappings. This plan would. They can’t stop “attacks on Israeli citizens and IDF troops.” This plan would.

And what would Israel grant to the Palestinians through this agreement? It will stop operating in Gaza. This could be significant depending on what’s mean by “stop operating.” If it means an end to targeted assassinations that might be something worthwhile. But those phrases “reserving the right of defense and the right to foil terror attacks” seem like holes that might be big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

The kidnappers are attempting to up the ante by demanding that Israel begin releasing prisoners by 6AM this morning or else Shalit will become “a closed case.” Seems like standard form in political kidnapping to pressure your enemy with deadlines and ultimatums. But I just don’t see how either side at present has many bargaining chips. Should the kidnappers harm Shalit there will be holy hell to pay for them and all Palestinians. Should the IDF attempt a rescue mission it could easily turn into another Carter-style Iranian hostage rescue mission disaster given how impossibly difficult it might be to infiltrate a teeming slum like Khan Yunis to free Shalit. Bargaining is what each side in this conflict seems to do worst. But it seems, for the time being the only strategy they have.

tags idf-offer-to-Palestinian-kidnappers, israeli-army, shalit

My title is of course a reference to those ringing words of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes): Hevel havalim amar Kohelet (”Folly of follies says Kohelet”). After reading today’s stinging Haaretz editorial about what we’ll soon be calling the Gaza debacle, I thought the title appropriate for today’s post.

The newspaper begins by noting the contradiction between Israel laying blame at the feet of Khaled Meshal and Syria; while also blaming those local Hamas political leaders who not even Israel claims knew about or condoned the kidnapping:

On the face of it, Israel wishes to exert increasing pressure both on Hamas’ political leadership and on the Palestinian public, in order to induce it to pressure its [military wing] leadership to release the soldier. At the same time, the government claims that Syria - or at least Khaled Meshal, who is living in Syria - holds the key. If so, what is the point of pressuring the local Palestinian leadership, which did not know of the planned attack and which, when it found out, demanded that the kidnappers take good care of their victim and return him?

A few days ago I wrote about parallels I saw between Gaza, 2006 and Lebanon, 1982. The editorial conceives of some new and very salient ones which I hadn’t thought of:

The tactic of pressuring civilians has been tried before, and more than once. The Lebanese, for example, are very familiar with the Israeli tactic of destroying power stations and infrastructure. Entire villages in south Lebanon have been terrorized, with the inhabitants fleeing in their thousands for Beirut. But what also happens under such extreme stress is that local divisions evaporate and a strong, united leadership is forged.

In the end, Israel was forced both to negotiate with Hezbollah and to withdraw from Lebanon. Now, the government appears to be airing out its Lebanon catalogue of tactics and implementing it, as though nothing has been learned since then. One may assume that the results will be similar this time around as well.

Israel also kidnapped people from Lebanon to serve as bargaining chips in dealings with the kidnappers of Israeli soldiers. Now, it is trying out this tactic on Hamas politicians. As the prime minister said in a closed meeting: “They want prisoners released? We’ll release these detainees in exchange for Shalit.” By “these detainees,” he was referring to elected Hamas officials.

The editorial writer here introduces some very telling Zionist movement history and notes parallels between it and the political points we’re scoring on behalf of imprisoned Hamas leaders in the eyes of their constituency:

The prime minister is a graduate of a movement whose leaders were once exiled [this refers to Etzel and Lehi members exiled by the British for their violent nationalist politics during the Mandate], only to return with their heads held high and in a stronger position than when they were deported. But he believes that with the Palestinians, things work differently.

As one who knows that all the Hamas activists deported by Yitzhak Rabin returned to leadership and command positions in the organization, Olmert should know that arresting leaders only strengthens them and their supporters. But this is not merely faulty reasoning; arresting people to use as bargaining chips is the act of a gang, not of a state.

The government…must return to its senses at once, be satisfied with the threats it has made, free the detained Hamas politicians and open negotiations. The issue is a soldier who must be brought home, not changing the face of the Middle East.

A gang, not a state. An uncharacteristically savage and caustic characterization by Haaretz of this government. But certainly apt. I also like the closing phrase: Forget about changing the face of the Middle East. Can there not be a clearer lesson for George Bush as well in Iraq? And could there not be a clearer message for Ariel Sharon who invaded Lebanon with grand ambitions to remake that nation so it would become a quiescent neighbor. By the time Israel left southern Lebanon with its tail between its legs, it realized that Sharon’s grand plan was based on lies and deceit and never stood a remote chance of working as its creator had hoped. If Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz are not very careful, Gaza 2006 could turn around and bite them and their political careers in much the same way as Iraq did Bush and Lebanon did Sharon.

Oh Condi, Oh George–Where are you?

In wondering what the hell the U.S. is doing while the Middle East threatens to burn, the situation reminds me of the early computer game, Where’s Waldo? Look for him in the crowd. He’s not there. Look for him here, look for him there. Not a trace. That’s pretty much the impact we’re having on some of the most dangerous developments in this part of the world since the second intifada.

Here’s how Reuters characterized our ‘muscular’ foreign policy:

The United States has privately urged Israel to be careful over its military action, worried that tough moves in Gaza will boost Palestinian support for Hamas and further escalate tensions.

A senior State Department official said on Thursday a firm message had been delivered to the Israelis,

We delivered a ‘firm message’ behind closed doors to the Israelis giving them ‘what for’ as the Brits used to say. Yes, that’s certainly going to have a dramatic and immediate impact. You see we understand Israel’s frustration. We understand how one nation can arrest fully one-third of the elected cabinet ministers and parliamentary representatives of a neighboring statelet:

Publicly the United States, Israel’s staunchest ally, has said Israel has the right to defend itself and actively seek the release of the soldier, while urging restraint on all sides.

But there is a fear among some Bush administration officials that Israel might go too far.

“The Israeli measures might not only affect innocent civilians but could build support for Hamas,” said the senior official in an interview with Reuters.

“We have told them to be careful because plainly when you have this kind of military force deployed close to civilian populations there is a very high risk of accidents and I think that can further worsen this crisis.”

Why certainly Israel has a right to defend itself and seek Shalit’s release. That’s precisely what it’s doing by telling the residents of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya to run for their lives. And precisely what it’s doing by arresting Palestinian legislators who had nothing to do with the kidnapping. And precisely what it’s doing by bombing power plants and PA infrastructure like the Interior Ministry building. This is all certainly plainly defensive action and done with the sole purpose of winning Shalit’s release.

And when, I’d like to know, WOULD Israel go “too far” in Bush’s book? When it carpet bombs Rafah or Khan Yunis? Or when it carpet bombs Damascus to teach Assad a lesson?

Israel “runs a very high risk of accidents” when you deploy military force “close to civilian populations.” Duh, I think the U.S. would’ve already learned the IDF has no capability or interest in distinguishing between militants and civilians given the history over the past month even before the latest incursion.

The absolute torpor of the American response is breathtaking. But it gets worse:

Asked about arrests of Hamas officials and whether President George W. Bush endorsed that, White House spokesman Tony Snow replied: “We are going no further than what we’ve said, which is we are encouraging both sides to practice restraint.”

RESTRAINT?? You’re asking jailed Hamas hostages to show restraint? They’re already being restrained…in Israeli shackles. So Tony Snow can’t actually say anything meaningful in response to the outrage of arresting Palestine’s elected government. I’d like to know if the British had actually captured James and Dolly Madison during the War of 1812 and brought them to the brig in chains, whether Tony Snow still would’ve urged the U.S. to show restraint?

What’s wrong with this picture?

U.S. diplomats, in a bid to secure the release of the soldier and ease the crisis, are shuttling between the Israelis and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

There has been no U.S. contact with Hamas and Egypt is the go-between with the militant group, which the United States and others refuse to deal with until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and accepts past agreements between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

“The Egyptians are playing the most important role of any of the outsiders and they are directly in touch with the Israelis and all the Palestinians,” said the senior State Department official.

The U.S. is talking to Israel and Abbas. Yet the kidnappers are Hamas. There’s something wrong here. Of course you have no capability of talking to the party that’s actually responsible for the kidnapping thanks to our stupid anti-Hamas policy and Aipac, which has tied the Administration’s hands on this score. So who do we rely on? The Egyptians. Instead of showing our own leadership and vision in the midst of crisis, we must take a back seat to a tinpot megalomaniac Egyptian virtual dictator who may or may not represent our best interests, but who certainly will represent his own. If I were George Bush, I’d sleep well knowing we’re in the best of hands.

tags abbas, aipac, haaretz, idf-Gaza-invasion, israeli-army, israeli-invasion-of-lebanon, kidnapping-of-israeli-soldier, olmert, shalit, sharon, u.s.-policy-toward-hamas

The latest development in the Gaza beachfront massacre is that the IDF has examined shrapnel removed from the bodies of wounded victims treated at Israeli hospitals. It finds the metal not consistent with what is used in Israeli artillery shells. If this is true, it would bolster the IDF’s contention that it is not at fault for the tragedy.

Who would be culpable in the IDF’s view? Hamas of course:

[A] committee, headed by Major General Meir Kalifi, is due to present its findings to the defense minister and the chief of staff Tuesday night. Its tentative conclusion is that the deaths stemmed from a bomb that Hamas planted on the beach in order to ambush Israeli naval commandos operating in northern Gaza…

Israel has amassed considerable information indicating that over the past few weeks, ever since Israeli commandos infiltrated Gaza and killed a rocket-launching cell, Hamas has been systematically mining the northern Gaza beach in an attempt to keep Israeli commandos from landing there again.

I am always leery of Israeli media reports from unsubstantiated sources who cite unsubstantiated claims. And this passage is no exception: “Israel has amassed considerable information” blaming Palestinian militants. What is the nature of the information? I doubt you’ll find out from the IDF which is under no compulsion to share such information with the public in the Israeli carte blanche security system.

Haaretz’s article on the military report notes a certain lack of credibility in the investigatory process:

The importance of the committee’s findings are obviously mitigated by the fact that ultimately, the IDF is being cleared by an IDF investigation. This is not an international inquiry, or even an external, civilian inquiry. Nevertheless, the army hopes that the findings will clear its name. Thus the next step will be leveraging these findings to affect public opinion: Israeli (where the battle is already largely won…), international and even Palestinian.

One wonders why the IDF would not turn to an external inquiry by a panel of experts who could validate its theory of the event. This might go a long way to persuade the world that the army’s theory is indeed true. But don’t hold your breath. Israel doesn’t put much stock in such inquiries and never feels it needs to persuade the world of anything. The IDF follows the “take it or leave it” school of public relations.

And even if the IDF claim turns out to be true, Israel still has a very big PR problem on its hands because the Palestinians and the world may never believe it:

In the past, Israel has occasionally succeeded in refuting responsibility for casualties. A good example is the now discredited claim that Israel massacred Palestinians in Jenin in April 2002. This time, however, the game may already be lost.

In other words, if you engage is a seemingly unending series of brutal acts against a people and it then turns out that one of the so-called brutal acts was not actually your fault, you don’t necessarily get any credit for it based on your previous heinous record. That may be the case for the IDF here.

There is yet another problematic issue for the IDF which it has not resolved. Six shells were fired at Qassam rocket launching sites that day. Only five are accounted for. What happened to the sixth shell?

The main hole in the army’s evidence is the missing sixth shell–actually, the first to be fired, whose landing site has not been determined. From an examination of the cannon, the army is convinced that the shell could not have fallen on the beach, almost half a kilometer from its intended target. But there is no firm proof of this, only an educated guess.

If it turns out that Hamas or another militant group did mine the beach then they are certainly criminally negligent. But it makes absolutely no sense to me that you would mine a beach where innocent civilians frolic every day. You’d be deliberately courting the death of innocents (as the IDF too has done by shelling densely populated urban areas). I’m certainly not saying Palestinian militants wouldn’t be callous enough to do this. Just that it’s hard to believe they would. And if they did and those militants were from Hamas, then Mahmoud Abbas may be bolstered in his struggle against Hamas leading to the upcoming national referendum. Let us hope that something good might come of this horrible tragedy.

tags gaza-massacre, idf, israeli-army, palestinians-mine-gaza-beach

Israel has nothing short of a disaster on its hands with yesterday’s bloody massacre of eight Palestinian beachgoers enjoying a day with their family at the seaside. Yesterday, there were seven victims but the NY Times reports that the body of an eighth washed ashore earlier today.

Israeli government sources say that it’s likely that an errant shell fell 400 meters off course and landed amongst a Palestinian family. However, the IDF isn’t prepared to say what precisely happened and how. According to Haaretz:

“We still do not have an exact analysis of what happened there,” military sources told Haaretz on Saturday. “The most reasonable explanation that has been heard is that it was a firing of a shell which veered off its path, however all data relating to the pinpoint location of the shells’ landing are not consistent with this [theory].”

IDF figures show that six shells were fired in the direction of open fields in the northern Gaza Strip near the time of the explosions. The six shells, however, landed hundreds of meters from the site of the blast.

IDF officials requested that the Palestinian Authority provide exact information as to the location of the explosion and the time it occurred, however the PA has yet to accede.

Conversely, the odds that a Qassam rocket caused such extensive damage appear extremely slim. It is difficult to see why Palestinians would attempt to launch an explosive device from the Gaza coast, an area visited by hundreds of civilians.

I find it laughable that the IDF is asking the PA for the time and location of the explosion. Israel has the best surveillance system in the Middle East. Doubtless it has video reconnaissance footage of the entire incident. With such resources, why the hell would it need the Palestinians to confirm what it already knows. It’s yet another insult to one’s intelligence.

If six IDF shells were fired at the precise time when the family was killed and they all hit their intended target as the IDF sources seem to say, then what the hell happened? Where did the shell come from? Yesterday, the army suggested outrageously that perhaps a Palestinian bombmaker had an accident. The concluding paragraph above implies that perhaps the IDF is now trying to say that an errant Qassam rocket fired by Palestinian militants (which are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable) hit the civilians. Both of these explanations lack credibility and insult the intelligence.

In fact, I’d like to take the issue one step further. Sol Salbe, an Australian progressive Zionist Mideast analyst wrote this:

It may well be the case that somebody in the IDF (if not higher) has decided to scuttle the Palestinian Prisoners Document by pressing Hamas button till it reacts.”

I know Sol to be a usually careful, thoughtful writer about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But this does seem conspiracy-crazy and far-fetched. That being said–how does an Israeli artillery shell land 400 meters from its target? That’s something like a half-mile off target and the artillery is not firing at the target from a great distance. It just doesn’t seem plausible unless someone screwed up royally and criminally.

But what if an artillery gunner or entire battery has extreme right-wing sympathies and decides that it’s going to take matters into it’s own hands? Someone willing to do such a thing would also know that Israel has a terrible record of investigating and punishing such deadly incidents. So that would make you likely to get away with such an act.

Peretz has appointed a general to open an investigation. Big deal. They almost never lead anywhere or accomplish anything. But who knows, maybe this time it will be different. But I’ll tell you something–Israel needs answers. Real answers and not bullshit like the Palestinians did it themselves. The world demands answers too.

Eyewitness Accounts

Haaretz carries eyewitness accounts of the actual incident. This is depressing, infuriating, grisly reading but we MUST read it, we must confront this horror if we ever hope to stop it:

Eyewitnesses reported that a barrage of shells landed on the northern coast of the Gaza Strip on Friday at approximately 5:15 P.M. local time, causing the deaths of seven members of the Ghalia family and injuring close to 40 others, among them many children as well as five other members of the Ghalia family.

Ayham Ghalia, 20, told Haaretz that, initially, a hollow shell landed almost 300 meters away from the family, causing a loud noise which prompted beachgoers to begin to flee the scene. Ghalia’s family, however, did not manage to run away in time.

“Suddenly, an explosive shell landed on us and his us directly,” Ghalia said. “I got up and I couldn’t believe it. Body parts were [flying] in every direction. My sister’s hand was dismembered. My father was already dead, lying face down on the sand.”

One of the television cameras at the scene shot footage of seven-year-old Huda Ghalia running in the sand in search of a family member who was still alive.

Upon discovering her father’s dead body, she screamed: “My father is dead, my father is dead.”

Prime Minister’s Daughter Demonstrates Against Gaza Bombing

I’m delighted to read the Ynetnews report that Ehud Olmert’s daughter, Dana Olmert, was also so outraged by the incident that she joined a leftist demonstration previously planned outside the IDF chief of staff’s home. She joined 200 other Israeli peace activists protesting against Israel’s punitive policies against the PA and Hamas:

The demonstrators chanted slogans such as “Tzahala [the chief of staff's neighborhood] residents, there’s a murderer in your neighborhood,” and raised signs calling on the government to “put a stop to the murder of civilians” and stating, “Halutz is a killer, the intifada shall prevail.” Activists also shouted, “neighbors, ask Halutz why he’s killing children and how many.”

I applaud Ms. Olmert’s courage in taking a public stand diametrically opposed to that of her father’s government. It takes guts and I’m glad she has them. But why were there only 200 demonstrators? What would it take to bring 100,000 demonstrators to his house? Dropping a nuclear weapon on Gaza??

Meanwhile, Hamas’ military wing has angrily announced the resumption of hostilities against Israeli targets. The Qassams are now flying from Gaza against Israeli targets. But they are not what Israelis really fear since they are more nuisance than anything else. Sol Salbe reports that the Israeli independent online news site, Inyan Merkazi commented on the latest events:

Expect our buses to start blowing up again

And it grieves me to say: they will, they will.

Abbas Sets July 26th for National Referendum

Mahmoud Abbas announced today that the national referendum on the Prisoner’s peace plan would take place on July 26th. All I can say is that after this outrage, the fact that Abbas is plowing ahead with the referendum shows he has guts. He believes that despite the incredible anger within the Palestinian polity against Israel that the peace plan will still carry the day. I hope he’s right.

Apparently, Aaron Miller, a former Clinton Mideast analyst, warns in the Times that the Prisoner’s plan may be a trap for Abbas:

….The referendum could commit the Palestinians to positions that would make a final peace treaty even more difficult to achieve, which could give Israel more justification to move ahead unilaterally. The basis of the referendum…is a step back from previous commitments by the Palestine Liberation Organization that Mr. Abbas heads.

While the prisoners’ document speaks of a Palestinian state, it is much less explicit about a two-state solution than the Oslo accords and United Nations resolutions that the P.L.O. has accepted on behalf of the Palestinians. The document also insists on the continuation of resistance to the Israeli occupation outside the 1967 boundaries and the right of return of all refugees and their descendants who fled or were pushed from their homes in the 1948 war.

As such, the document itself does not meet the standards that the international community insists Hamas meet: to recognize the right of Israel to exist, renounce violence and accept previous agreements.

“The prisoners’ document is a kind of fantasy,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for the United States who is now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. Mr. Abbas, he said, “will find himself locked into positions he’s already renounced, in particular the support for armed struggle and a less explicit recognition of Israel’s right to exist, all of which was laid to rest before or should have been.”

The document, Mr. Miller said, “locks him into positions and potential partners — Hamas and Islamic Jihad — that undermine the very approach that made him such a credible interlocutor with the Israelis and will undermine his credibility in Jerusalem and Washington.”

I’m sorry but this to me is punditry run slightly amok. A number of Israeli and American progressives have raised objections to the plan on the grounds that it lacks this or that. What all of the objections neglect to take into account is that the plan is not intended as a final status document. Rather, it is a first draft, an opening position. What negotiation between two opposing parties ends with an agreement that reflects precisely the opening position of one side or the other?

What Miller loses sight of in his comment is that what is really important about the Prisoner’s plan is that it attempts to lock Hamas into positions it has never embraced before regarding acceptance of Israel and a reduction in violence. Everyone knows that the majority of Palestinians accept Fatah’s (and NOT Hamas’) positions regarding making peace with Israel. But Hamas has never even come close. With this document, the two groups (if Hamas can ever be persuaded or compelled to accept it) will have moved infinitely closer to each other. This creates a more unified and stable Palestinian position regarding Israel and makes peace more possible than it has ever been.

tags aaron-miller, amir-peretz, dana-olmert, gaza-massacre, haaretz, idf, israeli-army, israeli-artillery-accident, mahmoud-abbas, new-york-times, palestinian-national-referndum, ynetnews

Part of the IDF barrage as tank shells Gaza (photo: AP) Israel's cruel, heartless shelling of Palestinian civilian centers continues as Ariga reports today. And the IDF's half-hearted apologies and sophistry continues as it attempts to "explain away" its culpability. As I wrote yesterday here, the shelling is not designed to interdict the rocket launchings, but rather to punish the Palestinian people collectively so that they will force the shelling to cease. It is a cold, brutal and nakedly calculating tactic. I fervently hope that the orchestrators of this policy will some day have to "face the music" and accept culpability for these violations ...