31 thoughts on “Mofaz: “We Do Not Target Innocents” – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Richard,

    What can Israel do to exercise its “right to protect itself from terror”? If you think that this right extends to a right to kill terrorists whom it cannot arrest, then civilian casualties are inevitable. The question then is do they do enough to prevent civilian casulties. From all that I have heard, the IDF certainly do a far better job than the US army.

    Either you are completely opposed to any Israeli action against terrorists, or you support such action and accept that that decision has consequences. You cannot say “Israel has a right to protect itself from terror” and pretend that there is any way of doing this that will never put innocent civilians at risk.

  2. Missile attacks in public places is the only way to defend against terror?

    And its not a question of never putting civilians at risk, civilians are almost always killed, not just in these attacks but by overzealous or nervous IDF soldiers. Its a little hard to claim to moral high ground when you’ve killed more civies than the other side, yet Israel continues to do just that. At what point does it become the Palestinians defending themselves from Israel?

  3. Missile attacks are certainly not the only way. You can build a barrier to protect yourself from attacks and you can withdraw from areas that are particularly exposed to attacks. Israel has done both of the above. However, military action to either apprehend or kill terrorists is also a way of defending against them.

  4. At what point does it become the Palestinians defending themselves from Israel?

    When the Israeli military tagets civilians like Hamas does, by blowing up buses, nightclubs, restaurants, and markets. Richard, if you consider Mofaz a war criminal, tell me a general who isn’t. I wish Palestinian militant groups would follow such a code of conduct.

  5. Colin: Your argument about fighting terrorism requiring you to kill innocents is laugably obtuse. Israel arrests Palestinian militants all the time. Marwan Barghouti is one of the best known current detainees arrested without loss of life. That is a legitimate use of the IDF to prevent terror.

    Sending missles raining indiscriminately out of the sky is guaranteed to kill innocent civilians. Those military officers who accept this devil’s bargain will eventually have to answer for their callousness.

  6. When the Israeli military tagets civilians like Hamas does…

    Geez, you guys should keep up on current events. The verb needs to be changed to the past tense “did” since Hamas is honoring a year old cease fire &, unlike Israel, has not said it plans to restort to terror once again against Israel. Hamas does not target Israelis at all these days so yr. argument is hopelessly out of date.

    Undoubtedly, if the Palestinians had F-16s & helicopter gunships they’d have attacked & murdered Israeli political and military leaders in the same way that Israel does to Palestinians. They are just different levels of terror.

  7. I would add if you did body counts of civilians, intentions only matter so much. At some point when your “unintended” actions are killing more civilians than terrorists and you keep doing it, you’re a terrorist.

    When you’re going out of your way to provike terrorism, you’re also a terrorist.

  8. Richard, when Israel goes to arrest terrorists, shoot-outs often ensue. Inevitably, some innocents are sometimes killed in these shoot-outs. As far as I can tell your post saying that not a single civilian casualty can be tolerated precludes the IDF from even maing raids to arrests terrorists. Also, I’m fairly certain that I remember you writing posts condemning Barghouti’s arrest. Are you now celebrating it?

  9. Can you really not see the difference between collateral damage and targetting civilians? Collateral damage is awful, I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. But under your broad definition of terrorism, every general in world history is guilty. I believe Israel takes measures to limit Palestinian casualties and disciples soldiers that do otherwise. It’s not perfect, to be sure, but compare it with Palestinian terrorist groups who try to kills as many civilians as possible. When you board a crowded bus with a bomb strapped around your waist, am I supposed to believe you were targeting Knesset members? I have no reason to consider Shakedi a lier when he says that the military makes “super-human efforts in order to reduce the number of innocent casualties in aerial strikes.” Palestinians don’t even claim that limiting collateral damage is on their checklist.

  10. Your maudlin sentiment would be more touching if there weren’t so many stories of IDF soldiers shooting little girls then lauging about it.

    This canard that ‘every measure is taken’ to prevent civilian casualties is a joke. Using words like “collateral damage” when you know fully well civilians will die when firing a missile into an apartment building doesn’t give you the moral high ground, in fact it makes you morally reprehensible and an asshole for hiding behind words.

  11. You’re being disingenuous if you refuse to distinguish between the lethality of an airstrike in densely populated areas and arresting a suspect. Yes, shootouts sometimes occur in these circumstances. But there are far fewer injuries or deaths in these incidents than in airstrikes.

    As far as I can tell your post saying that not a single civilian casualty can be tolerated precludes the IDF from even maing raids to arrests terrorists.

    Not at all. Did I say I wouldn’t tolerate “a single civilian casualty?” I don’t think so. I just won’t tolerate barely discriminate bombings which perforce must kill innocents because of the nature of the weaponry & its method of delivery.

  12. I believe Israel takes measures to limit Palestinian casualties and disciples soldiers that do otherwise.

    David: The number of Israeli soldiers “disciplined” for violating military rules of engagement is miniscule and the punishments infinitesimal compared to the havoc they wreak. This is not even to mention the Israeli Border Police, whose entire raison d’etre is to terrorize Palestinian civilians (if you search here under ‘border police’ you will find a repugnant example of such thuggery).

    compare it with Palestinian terrorist groups who try to kills as many civilians as possible.

    I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the tables were turned & the Israelis had the weaponry currently available to the Palestinians, the former would not hesitate from perpetrating the exact same indiscriminate mayhem on Palestinians. Israel has far more precise & powerful weaponry at its disposal than the Palestinians and doesn’t need to kill indiscriminately to accomplish its military goals. Well, it does kill indiscriminately sometimes. But its weapons are more discriminate than suicide bombs.

  13. The number of Israeli soldiers “disciplined” for violating military rules of engagement is miniscule and the punishments infinitesimal compared to the havoc they wreak.

    Do you have statistics or news reports to support that?

    I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the tables were turned… [Israel] would not hesitate from perpetrating the exact same indiscriminate mayhem on Palestinians.

    You should have at least some doubt as the history of Jews living under oppressive governments implies otherwise.

  14. Just a selection from Google searches:

    Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing
    Use of Civilians in IDF Arrest Operations
    Unlawful Use of Force in West Bank, Gaza & Northern Israel
    B’Tselem Calls for Crackdown Against Army Abuses
    Reports of Torture By Israelis Emerge
    Israeli Outcry Forces Army to Act Against Soldiers

    the history of Jews living under oppressive governments implies otherwise.

    What was the history of Jews living under a Roman oppressive government? Two savage wars. The history of Jews living under an oppressive Ptolemaic kingdom? One savage war.

    While Jews in the Diaspora did not rebel against oppressive governments as a rule, the history of Jews living in their homeland is a diff. story. When it’s your homeland you’re defending, the stakes are very high & level of violence & terror rises exponentially.

  15. “I do believe that Israel has a right to protect itself from terror. But not by killing innocents whether it targets them or not.”

    This is the line that indicated to me that no civilian casualties were acceptable. I am pleased to hear that I misunderstood your statement. However, I would suggest that you are indulging in some “cost benefit analysis” in saying that the casualties from shootouts are acceptable, whereas those from airstrikes are not. Don’t get me wrong, I think that this decision has to be made – the question of what risk to civilians is permissable (not acceptable, but has to be lived with) has to be made. This is the harsh reality of an army. I am not necessarily saying that the line that you seem to be drawing is wrong, it may be correct.

    However, it follows that Mofaz and Shakedi’s analyses are necessary and justifiable, even if you do not agree with where they have drawn their red line. Also, I strongly doubt that the level of non-combatant casualty in arresting raids is lower than 3.5%.

  16. My standard of what is acceptable and what is not is that if you know in advance that your weaponry and means of attack could endanger civilians (such as firing from the air on targets in urban areas) this is impermissible.

    But if you can snatch someone in the street or in their home and evacuate civilians in the event that a shootout ensues (I’d doubt that the IDF bothers to do this but they should if they don’t), then that would be permissible.

    Civilians are going to be killed and wounded. That’s a given. What I don’t expect is that civilians will be killed or wounded in virtually every missle attack, which is what seems to happen. Then if you’re the IDF you know in advance that you put such people in danger & yet you go ahead with the attack in spite of that. This is what will end them up before an international court of justice some day.

    BTW, I strongly doubt their figure of 3.5%. How do you have a death rate of 50% two years ago that goes down to 3.5% today unless you’ve radically altered your policy (which Israel hasn’t). Until I see a human rights group confirm this statistic I don’t believe it. The IDF is notorious for being footloose and fancy free with their claims and statistics. I also note that he mentions “deaths” but leaves out “wounded” in his figures.

  17. My comment about the history of Jewish responses to oppressive regimes was in response to your statement that “if the tables were turned… [Israel] would not hesitate from perpetrating the exact same indiscriminate mayhem”. But deliberately and unapologetically targetting large numbers of civilians, a la Islamic Jihad & Al Aska Martyrs, is a particularly heinous crime that isn’t analigous to any current activity of Israel. (Yes, I realize there are disputes about Sabra & Shatilla but let’s stick to the current Intifada). Even Lehi and the Irgun, whom many compare with today’s Palestinian groups, focused their activities against British soldiers. I think it’s reasonable to make a distinction between “resistance” (attacking soliders of an enemy army) and “terrorism” (deliberate and planned attacks against civilians).

    You have also yet to answer a question I asked in my first comment: If you consider Mofaz a war criminal, tell me a general who isn’t.

  18. Lehi and the Irgun, whom many compare with today’s Palestinian groups, focused their activities against British soldiers

    Not so. You’re forgetting Count von Bernadotte, a UN negotiator, who was capped by a future prime minister, Yitzchak Shamir (well, he likely didn’t pull the trigger but he sure helped with the deed).

    Many generals have done deeds that would fall into that category and they should get their day in court. Many generals have not done such deeds. I’m no expert on military history & so don’t want to get into a battle of which general did which deed and whether such deed was or was not a war crime. All I’m telling you is that a number of, if not many, Israeli senior military officers have dossiers being compiled by international human rights lawyers as we speak. And I won’t be sad to see them in the dock at Hague or wherever they’ll be tried.

    I wish this matter would be handled by Israeli courts. But they don’t seem to have the stomach to try their own on these types of charges (nor even to discipline soldiers for crimes against Palestinian individuals). So someone else will have to do it for them since their absenting themselves from their judicial obligations.

  19. You’re forgetting Count von Bernadotte

    That’s the exception, not the rule. My statement that Irgun and Lehi “focused their activities against British soldiers” stands. The focus of both was to attack British military.

    What I don’t expect is that civilians will be killed or wounded in virtually every missle attack, which is what seems to happen.

    You have yet to demonstrate how Israel can secure its borders from terrorists without committing what you consider to be war crimes. Keep in mind that these leaders often intentionally hide among civilians. You claim to believe that Israel has a right of self-defense but I don’t see how that’s possible if its military were bound by your rules.

  20. Count von Bernadotte was the exception?? That’s a pretty big exception. In fact, it was probably the most infamous political assassination of its day since that of the Nazi SS man Heydrich. And I have no doubt that if the Irgun & Lehi could have assassinated a British high official they would’ve done so; just as the Palestinians assassinated an Israeli minister. In addition, the rules of engagement for guerilla resistance have changed since the late 1940s. Comparing what Israelis did then with what Palestinians do now is like trying to compare a Model T to a Ferrari. Both are auto vehicles with combustion engines. What do they have in common beyond that?

    There’s little chance that Israel will ever show any deference to the concept that innocent civilians must be protected from attack. So what are we arguing about here? I can argue what I’d do till I was blue in the face & no one in the IDF high command would give a rat’s ass.

    You have yet to demonstrate how Israel can secure its borders from terrorists…

    Wrong again. The best way for Israel to secure its borders is to recognize a Palestinian state, agree to an international border running along the Green Line, and establish a joint capital in Jerusalem. Telling Israel how to defend itself w/o killing civilians is just a stopgap measure. There is only one sure way to end the violence. With compromise on both sides. I do not mean this to be a smart-ass answer.

  21. I have just stumbled on your website while researching these stats about the decline in Palestinian civilian casualties in targeted attacks against terrorists.

    It’s clear that you write from what I consider to be a far Left position on Israel, where somehow you support its right to exist, but you also want it to somehow fight its wars without the other side getting hurt even if the other side has launched the war or wants to play by the rules of guerilla warfare inside urban centers.

    Israel does send teams of soldiers to arrest terrorists all the time. There are dedicated units that get these missions on an ongoing basis. Sometimes they manage to grab the terrorist and sometimes they fail. Sometimes soldiers die or get injured in the attempt. However, one thing is certain and that is the changing tactics of those being pursued. If you know you’re being pursued, you live differently, hide differently, change patterns of movement, use different modes of communication, etc. The one thing you don’t stop doing is planning attacks as we know from the fact that a variety of Israeli sources have stated that they have stopped over 95% of attempted suicide and other bombing attacks over the past two years.

    By the way, on a tangent here, I find it incredible that you have doubts about the veracity of Israeli numbers and statistics but believe those of human rights organizations. You linked to HRW above, for example. Do you know where they get their information? Read carefully and you’ll note that it’s entirely Palestinians including those who work for UNWRA which have admitted to having Hamas members working among them. HRW is among the groups that signed that disgusting decision in Durban, thereby defaming Israel in the most unfair manner while absolving dozens of countries (including Israel’s enemies) that do far worse. These human rights organizations are the same which screamed about a massacre in Jenin, egged on by the Palestinian leadership, while the Israelis were saying that this is a baseless accusation. In the end, there were 30 Palestinian fighters dead and 20 Palestinian civilians dead. 23 Israeli soldiers also died, mostly because they waited before going into the attack-zone so that the civilian population WHICH WAS WARNED IN ADVANCE by the Israelis could evacuate.

    On that note, let’s get back to how Israelis should fight terror. How many armies do you know that would have warned a civilian population of the enemy to leave before coming in to attack? How many would do this at risk to their lives? How many armies would enter any urban zone without “softening” it first with artillery and aerial bombardment? I mean, the US doesn’t enter a city before bombing the hell out of it. But the Israelis did, out of nothing more than a desire to fight justly and morally.

    That’s right. Justly and morally.

    When you talk about soldiers laughing when girls get shot and how many stories of the sort you’ve read, you’re actually referring to one incident where the IDF did investigate TWICE and felt the killing of the girl was justified. Since you don’t have to worry about Palestinian fighters sneaking up to your position and attacking it, as they had successfully done twice in the months preceding the killing of this girl, perhaps your judgement of whether they should have been afraid or not is not material here. As for soldiers laughing, I would say to you that if you read the second investigation’s results and the ensuing trial where the officer who shot her was released, you would learn that the soldiers who accused him turned out to be a couple of fuckheads who were very unhappy with his command and used her killing to concoct a story that would get him removed from their unit (and were coldhearted enough not to care whether he would go to prison for a couple of decades).

    Sorry, that was another tangent. I am just amazed at how every point you made related negatively to Israel.

    In any case, these targeted killings have become much more sophisticated in terms of targeting the terrorists and evading civilians because Israel is trying to act morally and justly. I won’t deny that bad publicity over a couple of attacks where many innocent Palestinian civilians were killed in these targeted killings did not have an effect on the Israeli military, because I think they did. However, they did in a positive manner in that it raised awareness, forced the IDF to confront its failures and led them on a path to using better intelligence gathering, more real time tools like flying drones to get live video feeds of the area, certain checks by a couple of decision makers before the attack is launched, and the right of the pilots to abort if they feel they endanger civilians. That’s how they got the numbers down to 1 in 28.

    That should also make you respect them for trying. It should also make you rethink this idiotic notion that somehow when they target these scum because they couldn’t catch them any other way, this is equivalent to Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad sending a bomber into a restaurant full of Jewish families.

    I mean, along with the murder of Bernadotte, how many other attacks that you would consider to be terrorist attacks were committed by Jewish organizations prior to 1948? The answer is, very few. There were some, to be sure, but it was not part of an organized campaign of terror. More important, it was far from the mainstream and looked down upon by the majority of the Yishuv, including Ben Gurion and the Hagana, the predecessor to the IDF. How can you compare that to decades of methodical and horrendous terror targeting civilians including children that has been conducted by the mainstream Palestinian groups? I mean, even as the PA was run by Arafat and Abu Mazen, Fatah, which is their organization, launched more attacks against Israelis than all the other groups combined. In other words, if you want to compare to Lehi and Irgun, you can’t because the argument doesn’t hold water.

    The argument doesn’t hold water for today either. With all due respect, if the Palestinians had F-16s and Apache helicopters, based on everything we have seen over the past decades and culminating in the election of a force dedicated to exterminating Israeli civilians, we have to assume they would use them indiscriminately to kill Israeli civilians. I realize you don’t want to hear that because your entire ideology breaks down if you can’t find a source of decency and goodness among the Palestinians, but the truth is that this is consistent behavior going back to 1920. If you want decency, you have to go to the family level, to the personal level and you will surely find it. However, as a group, they have had majority support for suicide bombings in all the Shikaki polls for years, in student elections Hamas has always been very competitive, and now they have won a majority sufficient to take over the PA.

    The question is whether Israel has a right to take out a man who is engaged in a war against its civilian population. The question is whether anything justifies taking him out when there is a possibility that innocents might be hurt. The answer is that when the world is hypocritical about the situation and pretends that Israel is not fighting a war but fighting some sort of internal insurrection, then these would be war crimes. However, we all know the reality. This is a war. This is a war between two sides, one of which has superior firepower and strength, but the other has tactics that are unconscionable. But it is a war between two armed sides and as such, under international law, Israel has every right to attack these terrorists, even if there are innocents who are hurt or killed. If we remove the issue of law and just try to address it as people, I believe that Israel should seek to avoid these targeted killings and should not use them for revenge. However, it should use them if they know somebody is involved in planning an attack and they cannot get to that person in time. Let’s all hope they get that last 3.5% down to 0%. I have a feeling they are trying.

  22. It’s clear that you write from what I consider to be a far Left position on Israel

    No buddy, a “far left” position on Israel would be anti-Zionist and mean denying Israel’s right to exist. You discredit yourself in your very first sentence! My views are no more Left than those of Amir Peretz. Is he “far-left?” And if he is, then I’ve got you pegged as one of those Little Green Footballniks or someone sharing those types of views. Funny you should mention “far left.” I’ve got you nailed as “far right.”

    Your view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is entirely delusional and conspiratorial and of almost no interest to me except as a representation of the paranoiac mode of Israeli right-wing politics.

    If you attempt to publish another long screed here I reserve the right to edit it or delete it. The purpose of this blog & my comments threads are not for people to stand on soapboxes and blather on for pages and pages attesting to nothing but their extreme prejudices and hatred for another people. I wouldn’t let an Islamic extremist do it and I won’t let an Israeli extremist do it either.

    your entire ideology breaks down if you can’t find a source of decency and goodness among the Palestinians

    First, I know there is a source of decency within both Israelis (leaving you aside of course) and Palestinians. I also know there is a deep black reservoir of hatred on both sides as well. So don’t attempt to peg my beliefs & set me up as your straw man as you don’t know them and don’t care to know them. If you did, you would’ve taken a few minutes to read some of the hundreds of posts I’ve written about the conflict which describe my abhorrence of tactics used by both sides in this conflict.

    This is a war between two sides, one of which has superior firepower and strength, but the other has tactics that are unconscionable.

    You are legally blind as far as morality is concerned. Israel’s tactics in this “war” are as unconscionable as the Palestinians. You pretend that Israeli military abuses are one-off isolated events while Palestinian terror is a wholesale abandonment of morality. I contend that Israeli military abuses are systematic. And if some of them are not deliberate (though many are), then they might as well be because the entire Occupation is an immoral and illegal act which demands oppression and violence to maintain it. And don’t go calling me an extremist for such views. They’re held by many in the Labor party which I support.

    under international law, Israel has every right to attack these terrorists,

    Under international law Israel has no right to be in the West Bank in the first place. And if it wasn’t in the West Bank then it wouldn’t have to kill Palestinian civilians to maintain its supremacy. Gershon Gorenberg, in today’s NY Times has just revealed a secret memo written by the Foreign Ministry’s chief legal counsel, Theodore Meron, shortly after Israel’s victory in the ’67 War in which he argued that Israeli settlement in the Occupied Territory would be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention besides the fact that it would never be accepted by the international community (which it hasn’t).

    No doubt you have some ideological hocuspocus with which you can argue yourself out of taking this document seriously. Doing so would only attest to the utter bankruptcy of your moral & political position.

    Let’s all hope they get that last 3.5% down to 0%. I have a feeling they are trying.

    I’m so relieved that you actually care how many Palestinians the IDF murders and maims. You are such a caring and kind individual. I’m sure the Palestinians would feel comforted and reassured by your tender-heartedness. Oh I forgot, you don’t give a rat’s ass about a Palestinian. You only want to make sure that Israel looks as innocent as possible before the dock of international opinion and these killings are a mighty big impediment to that.

  23. No my man, to the far Left you do belong. It’s that group that calls themselves “progressives” and pretend that Israel was born out of sin, lives in sin, treats the Palestinians sinfully, etc., etc.

    I consider the LGFers to be your counterparts on the far Right.

    I guess that makes my position closer to the…Middle. 😉

    So first of all, you can bet I care about Palestinian lives. If it were up to me, we’d be at Taba borders tomorrow with two states side by side. Unfortunately, it’s not up to me and I have to watch as people such as you take everything the Israelis do and in post after post continue to blacken their name while pretending to care about the Israelis. War crimes and the Hague indeed. Why? Because the only way to prevent 128 Israelis from being exploded dead and about 400 more maimed in one month (March, 2002) was to re-enter Areas A, create extensive checkpoints, gather deep intelligence and begin to target the enemy aggressively. They now believe they manage to prevent 95% of attempted bombings and attacks. Even if you are right and their statistics are lies and they only prevent 50% of attempted attacks, that probably has saved hundreds of lives and thousands of maimings.

    Is it harsh on the Palestinians? It surely is. It is also unfair to all the Palestinians who simply want to live their lives. And yet, this is a choice made by virtually every Palestinian political entity and has been followed relentlessly since BEFORE 1967. But is it harsh on the Palestinians? Yes, and it could be far, far worse if it weren’t the Israelis doing it.

    I mean, did you miss the point of what Mofaz is saying and what Shakedi, the commander of the IAF is saying? They are trying to avoid innocent Palestinians being harmed as they fight those Palestinians who are terrorists or militants. The commander of the IAF is taking pride that operationally, they are coming to the point where in most attacks Palestinian civilians do not get injured. Your reaction is to pooh pooh this positive attitude backed up by effective action and to continue to attack Israel and talk about war crimes. How do you justify that?

    Do you think war is clean? Do you think that if one side decides they are not going to wear uniforms, do their dirty work inside civilian centers and use children and pregnant women to carry their bombs, that the other side should just agree to die? If the Israelis decide to fight, they have to fight with everything that entails. You want to have some sort of antiseptic war on terrorist scum that somehow evades any…reality of war. In the meantime, while you seek to hold Israel to this standard, the Palestinians are primarily targeting Israeli civilians. Oh, and world public opinion. (There are far more like you out there than Israeli supporters like me, with your compatriots on the antisemitic far Left, the supposed “progressives” – usually Jews who have no choice but to distance themselves from the real far Left because they would be left out – and your counterparts on the antisemitic far Right whose endless attacks I see and hear everywhere. Go to any college campus these days and see the unholy alliance between the groups on the Left and the Islamic groups. Google search any topic relating to the conflict and see which side dominates the debate).

    Take a look at how the Russians are handling the Chechnyans (with far less justification to be there than Israel has to be inside the territories) or even how the US military attempts to control areas in Iraq. Israel compares very favorably, and is clearly attempting – at the highest ranks – to minimize harm to non-combatants, but you persist in your attacks on them as if somehow they can extricate themselves from this very complex situation without opening themselves up to more attacks. Did attacks from Gaza stop now that the Israelis are out or are power plants and civilians in Ashkelon under risk now?

    I notice you avoided most of my other points while dismissing me and I’m not really surprised since it takes time and effort to refute things said by someone who has probably read the same books, articles and websites as you but has come to different conclusions. That’s okay. By Israeli standards, I’m probably closer to Labor than I am to Kadima if that tells you anything.

    As for being inside the territories, I should note that there are other legal experts who have given much greater weight than Mr. Meron to the fact that the West Bank had dubious provenance when Israel took it over in 1967. I don’t think there’s any question about the Golan, just as there was really no question about Sinai. But Gaza and the West Bank do raise some interesting questions on that front and it can happen that prominent experts disagree on a matter. While I don’t support most settlements and never have, I do think that UNSCR 242 and 338 are explicit that Israel will have the right to negotiate to keep for itself parts of the areas it conquered in 1967 because the framers of those resolutions did not wish to reward the aggressive position of the Arabs by forcing the Israelis back to 1949 lines.

    In other words, this isn’t all black and white. While the settlement enterprise is a historical mistake on the part of Israel, even if no settlements had been built, would we have peace today? Would the IDF still be in there preventing attacks? How is it that areas like the Jewish Quarter in East Jerusalem can be considered areas belonging to others when they had just 19 years earlier been under Jewish control (going back a long time) and were entirely cleansed of Jews by the Jordanians who also didn’t have title to the area?

    In any case, as I have just written on Jewlicious, there is a good chance that if Olmert wins enough seats, Israel will be mostly out of the West Bank within a few years. If he succeeds in pulling off what he has said he will try to pull off, the Israelis will be sitting more or less on Camp David II lines. The Palestinians will control all of Gaza and about 90% of the West Bank, with Israel probably trying to sit on the Eastern side of the fence. There may be a lot of screaming on the parts of the international community and “progressives” like you, but this is probably what UNSCR242 had in mind and does make some sense in light of the ongoing belligerence and desire to destroy Israel that seems to dominate Palestinian political consciousness. I do think the issue of Jerusalem will remain a sticking point, however, and Israel will likely not have peace unless it loses a war where it loses that city.

    Oh, one more thing: I happened to stumble on to your site and this discussion. I came in late and wrote a lengthy comment because you had written numerous comments preceding mine and I wanted to tackle some of your ideas. If you have a problem or are too lazy to debate the points I raise, simply say so. But don’t attack me for the length of the piece when you had written far more over several comments and in your initial post. Also, if you choose to reject or eliminate my comments because they challenge your line of thinking, at least do it with integrity instead of blaming “…extreme prejudices and hatred for another people…Israeli extremist…” I mean, dude, I tell you I’m happy innocents aren’t getting killed and that Israel seeks to act morally, and you call me prejudiced, hateful and extremist. If you were in my shoes, would you take that remark seriously or would you assume the writer is simply seeking to avoid thinking through what the other person has written?

  24. Too funny that you erased that comment.

    Was it the part where I said you remind of the Left’s counterpart to the LGFers or was it that you didn’t like to hear that someone could support what was offered at Taba and otherwise reject your point of view? Maybe it was the part where you realized I was actually to the left of the Israeli center…which makes you..well, you know…

    Either way, I have full confidence that while you were fulminating when reading it, you also knew it made a lot of sense. Bummer for your readers that they can’t enjoy other points of view.

  25. I decided to reinstate yr comment above after reading beyond the scurrilous calumnies. But in future if you write monographs or insist on repeating calumnies which I’ve already denied, I will hit the delete button. If you need to speak length on this subject I suggest you do it at Jewlicious. My blog real estate is not your personal space for chicken hawk propaganda.

    No my man, to the far Left you do belong.

    For a person who claims to be knowledgeable about Israeli politics you know nothing about politics on the left. Being a progressive Zionist has nothing to do with being anti-Semitic, anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. Only the deluded hypersensitive souls like yourself equate criticism of Israel with such pejorative terms.

    If you think LGF is “the middle” of the political spectrum (“I guess that makes my position closer to the…Middle. ;”) regarding the I-P conflict well, then you’re absolutely, willfully deluded. But I’m glad you admit that you find common cause with LGF since for the rest of my readers that will peg you far better than your own declarations of personal virtue & liberalism.

    is it harsh on the Palestinians? Yes, and it could be far, far worse if it weren’t the Israelis doing it.

    More delusional thinking. To proclaim Israel’s virtue in the face of literally thousands of instances of immoral, illegal & unpunished IDF & Border Police abuse (including the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians) is the height of chutzpah.

    did you miss the point of what Mofaz is saying and what Shakedi, the commander of the IAF is saying? They are trying to avoid innocent Palestinians being harmed

    No, I didn’t miss the pt. You seem to think that because the IDF says something this makes it immediately credible. I’m one who treats many if not most comments fr. the IDF with more than a grain of salt until an independent source verifies it. I’d say Don Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney have learned a few lessons in the art of lying for a “good cause” from the IDF.

    You want to have some sort of antiseptic war on terrorist scum

    “Antiseptic war?” How can war be “antiseptic.” At least if you want to characterize my argument, stay within the bounds of logic & reason. I said nothing of the sort & you know it.

    There are far more like you out there than Israeli supporters like me, with your compatriots on the antisemitic far Left, the supposed “progressives” – usually Jews who have no choice but to distance themselves from the real far Left because they would be left out – and your counterparts on the antisemitic far Right whose endless attacks I see and hear everywhere…

    This is sheer calumny. I will not let you place me in any proximity to any anti-Semite. How dare you even think of using such odious terms. I do not have to earn the right in your eyes or anyone else’s to claim my place among my people. This statement disgusts me. How easy it is for you to dismiss the ideas of a member of your own religion by placing me outside the pale. Such a spurious claim says a whole lot more about you than me.

    I should note that there are other legal experts who have given much greater weight than Mr. Meron

    Yes, but Meron was the first. He wrote the first opinion & the opinion wasn’t written for Amnesty International or Human Rights which you appear to despise. It was written by a loyal Israeli Ministry attorney for his prime minister. And his prime minister thought enough of the opinion to try to dress up his policy decision in such a way that it would appear to honor the memo. Not to mention that Meron is now considered the world’s leading legal expert of the laws of war and is a member of the International Court of Justice. Would you care to impugn those credentials?

    the West Bank had dubious provenance when Israel took it over in 1967.

    Meron would say: “asked & answered.” He addressed this issue & rejected it as invalid as I do.

    the settlement enterprise is a historical mistake on the part of Israel

    This is the part of yr comment that made me realize I’d made a mistake in deleting it. You do appear to have a brain in yr head, though at times you abuse it for the purposes of vain exercises in intellectual gymnastics. I am glad that there is at least one pt. on which we can agree.

    even if no settlements had been built, would we have peace today?

    For you this appears a rhetorical question to which you have a ready & confident answer: No. All I can say is that without the damned settlement enterprise it would be a whole lot easier for Israel to come to terms with the compromises that will be necessary for peace. Just imagine for a moment no settlements in Gaza or the W. Bank. That means no settlement withdrawal. That means no national trauma over the issue. That means less hatred generated by the Palestinians who have no land/settlement issue to stoke their anger. So I’d say it’d be a whole lot more likely there would be peace w/o settlements and it would’ve taken a whole lot less time to get to peace.

    there is a good chance that if Olmert wins enough seats, Israel will be mostly out of the West Bank within a few years. If he succeeds in pulling off what he has said he will try to pull off, the Israelis will be sitting more or less on Camp David II lines. The Palestinians will control all of Gaza and about 90% of the West Bank, with Israel probably trying to sit on the Eastern side of the fence.

    Whoa, buddy. Saying that Israel will be ‘mostly’ out of the West Bank is like the English, had they won the Revolutionary War, announcing years later that they plan to withdraw from “most” American territory…except for a the city of New York and portions of New England which it views as strategic assets.

    Besides, Israel doesn’t get to determine its borders unilaterally. No one (not even the U.S.) will accept such an eventuality. Olmert can huff & puff till he’s blue in the face & act like he’s presenting the Palestinians & the world a fait accompli, but it will not wash. The Palestinians must accede in some meaningful way to a border agreement before it can have any validity in anyone’s eyes but you & Ehud Olmert.

    And if E-1 gets built then the Palestinians will essentially control territorial bantustans which have no contiguity. Calling such fragmented land masses a State in any meaningful sense of the term would be ridiculous (unless of course you’re P.W. Botha or Ehud Olmert). It would be like those same British saying (changing the terms of my previous example) your new American nation will consist of the Atlantic states and Maine. Everything in between will remain under British control. How would you call this a country?

    There is a HUGE difference between Camp David II & Olmert’s proposal. The main & most glaring difference is that Camp David was a bilateral negotiation & Olmert’s proposal is not. To expect that the Palestinians now will accept a deal virtually the same as the one they rejected at Camp David is the height of foolhardiness. Oh, I forgot you don’t want or expect the Palestinians’ assent. You merely want to be able to say that Israel in its great munificence is offering the same deal it offered in 2000. To which the Palestinians will reply: “Go stuff it.”

    in light of the ongoing belligerence and desire to destroy Israel that seems to dominate Palestinian political consciousness

    I don’t know whether to call this a lie or mere abject ignorance on your part. If you know as much as you claim about the conflict then it must be a lie. For you would have read the various Palestinian polls (many of which are conducted jointly with Israeli institutions like Tel Aviv Univ. & Hebrew Univ.) reveal a significant majority of Palestinians who accept a 2 state solution. If you search this blog, you will find a number of such polls whose results I’ve written about here.

    If you have a problem or are too lazy…

    If you want to stick around here cut out that shit. I don’t like guests at this site getting snarky with me. If you want to be snarky do it over at your own site.

    don’t attack me for the length of the piece when you had written far more over several comments and in your initial post.

    This isn’t a democracy where you’re treated the same way I am at my site. You do understand the difference between a site owner & guest, don’t you? You & whoever else runs Jewlicious determine the rules for your site & I determine them for mine. I don’t have the right to complain when you ask me to do something like write shorter comments (no likelihood of that happening btw) at yr site. If I want to keep commenting there I try to honor yr request.

    And this is not a request I thought up out of the blue & apply only to you. Over the past 4 yrs., I’ve had ten or more commenters write long screeds in my comments section which were mostly reserved for reviling me and my ideas and spouting anti-Muslim hatred (I don’t think your comments are in that mold). I told them the same thing I’m telling you: keep it succinct and to the point.

    I tell you I’m happy innocents aren’t getting killed and that Israel seeks to act morally, and you call me prejudiced, hateful and extremist.

    There’s your problem. Innocents ARE getting killed and Israel is not acting morally when it kills them. What you probably meant to say is that you’re happy that LESS innocents are killed and that Israel has made an attempt to minimize such casualties. But even this is dubious because we only have an IDF general’s word for it. I sure dislike Israeli journalism sometimes and one example is in the article in which Shakedi presented this statistic. The reporter notes that the general presented “documents” attesting to the figures. He of course does not explain what the documents were or what they said. So I have no means of judging the authenticity, truthfulness and accuracy of this claim. Nor has the general or you presented an independent source to confirm it.

    you persist in your attacks on them [Israeli leaders] as if somehow they can extricate themselves from this very complex situation without opening themselves up to more attacks

    Israel left southern Lebanon and Israeli soldiers stopped getting killed. Yes, there have been incidents and some deaths since Israel left. But this withdrawal is an example of what could happen if Israel ended the Occupation. If Israel withdrew to the Green Line and ended the Occupation this conflict would essentially be over (of course there’s not a chance in hell of that ever happening given the stranglehold that right-wing ideology and assumptions have on the Israeli political agenda).

    By Israeli standards, I’m probably closer to Labor than I am to Kadima if that tells you anything.

    Funny, but your Jewlicious compadre who called himself CK here said pretty much the same thing: Look what a liberal I am. How forward thinking. The fact that you disagree with a reasonable progressive me makes you the radical leftist asshole, etc.,etc.

    But let’s compare what you believe to what the Labor consensus is considered to be. You’re in favor of a unilateral solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Not what Labor believes (Peretz denounced Olmert’s unilateral border proposal). You’re in favor (reluctantly I suppose) of continuing the Occupation. Again, not a consensus Labor position unless you count yourself among the fossilized Old Guard who remain in Labor. You don’t appear to believe that Hamas will ever moderate its views about Israel or adopt a long-term hudna. The latest poll reveals that a majority of Labor voters believe that Hamas WILL moderate its views. You haven’t spoken about Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian tax funds but close to a majority of Labor supporters believe Israel should transfer these funds even to a Hamas controlled PA. So how much do you share with Labor?

  26. I am in line with what you call the fossilized old guard. Peretz and I disagree on a number of issues.

    What I don’t understand from everything that you’ve written is how you agree to a return to the Green Line. Did we have peace then? Why would we remove ourselves from East Jerusalem and the Old City in particular?

  27. I am in line with what you call the fossilized old guard. Peretz and I disagree on a number of issues.

    What I don’t understand from everything that you’ve written is how you agree to a return to the Green Line. Did we have peace then? Why would we remove ourselves from East Jerusalem and the Old City in particular?

    I do aplogize for coming on so strong. I took offense to some of your war crimes comments above and do believe that when we have Jews of the Left, particularly well spoken and knowledgeable ones using a term like tikun olam as their guidepost, making these claims, I believe it simply gives comfort and hope to Israel’s greatest enemies and to some degree to those who simply have a problem with Jews. As I noted above, I completely disagree with this characterization and it concerns me gravely that along with “apartheid, ” it has become yet another in a list of attacks on Israel that mark the country as a horrible regime. Many of us who have known it, its people or have lived there for any length of time strongly believe this is a false point of view.

  28. What I don’t understand from everything that you’ve written is how you agree to a return to the Green Line. Did we have peace then? Why would we remove ourselves from East Jerusalem and the Old City in particular?

    First, I don’t advocate returning to the Green Line with no guarantees of security and no peace agreement. I only advocate such a position AFTER such matters are negotiated & agreed to. But if you’re assuming that even AFTER such a peace agreement that Israel is going to have to defend itself in yet another war, I’d rather not go there. I’m going to trust that a peace agreement guaranteed by the UN, the EU, & the U.S. will hold for both sides. I want to be an optimist at least about this (though God knows optimism is never a good idea regarding this conflict–but one hopes that some day may change).

    Regarding your last question in that passage, I should note that I’m not necessarily in favor of a slavish return to the Green Line. That’s really up to both parties. If Israel can persuade the Palestinians to allow Israel to administer or control the Jewish Quarter or any other piece of territory then that’s fine. My point is that Israel cannot say regarding conquered territory: “we own it–we’re keeping it” which is what its position has been thus far on this issue as on so many others.

    I do aplogize for coming on so strong. I took offense to some of your war crimes comments above

    Thank you for being gentleman enough to say that. We both came on strong. I just hope that Dick Berger is reading this comment because he thinks I treated you badly (& perhaps I did–if so I apologize as well).

    As for the war crimes comment–I agree that it is a strong perhaps even shocking statement. But I went to my first demonstration on behalf of Israel in New York City in 1967 and I’ve never stopped caring immensely about the outcome of the conflict. My position on war crimes comes from utter frustration with Israel’s inability to extricate itself from this horrid Occupation & its unwillingness to acknowledge the cancer the Occupation introduces into the Israeli body politic (including all those horrid human rights abuses we’ve been arguing about). My talk about war crimes comes out of frustration & desperation because there seems no way to drum any sense into Israelis about what must be done if there is ever to be peace.

    I first lived in Israel (for an undergrad academic yr) in 1972 & the impoverished political debate on this issue has changed precious little and we seem about as far from peace now as we were then. Nothing seems to change there. Nothing seems to get better. And it doesn’t have to be that way. That’s the tragedy of this thing & the reason I say what I did about war crimes. Maybe having a single Israeli general go before an international court would introduce a shock into that body politic that might force some realization that things are going wrong and need to be corrected. Maybe not. But who has a better idea?

    And make no mistake. There’s more than enough room in that international court docket for a few Palestinian terror captains as well. The Palestinians too need a shock to their body politic.

    it has become yet another in a list of attacks on Israel that mark the country as a horrible regime. Many of us who have known it, its people or have lived there for any length of time strongly believe this is a false point of view.

    I think I make clear that it is not Israel or Israelis as a whole who I believe are “horrible.” But rather it is Israeli POLICIES that are horrible. There’s a very important distinction there. After all, I consider myself a progressive Zionist so I do believe in the State of Israel. It’s just that I believe that that State has not realized its full potential nor come to terms with some of its most profound problems and contradictions.

    Our Prophets were pretty well despised for their hectoring & moralizing by many of their fellow countrymen & women. Though I by no means deserve that title, I think that Israel’s most vociferous supporters mistake criticisms from someone like me for the actions of an enemy when nothing could be farther from the truth.

  29. I don’t think that you’re an enemy. I think your POV and articulate expression of that POV is the danger here because it strengthens the enemy.

    I have been to too many lectures given on campuses where the speakers attack Israel and use Israeli or Jewish entities, historians or people of some prominence who have criticized Israel in order to make their points. It’s almost like saying, “And there are some good Jews out there [as opposed to the evil Zionists] who also agree with us.” They take your reasonable approach and attempt at fairness and use it against Israel and in some cases against the Jewish community. However, frequently, their intentions are far from noble. When they say they want peace, they visualize peace where Israel does not control Jerusalem or where Israel is no longer a Jewish state. When they attack Israel, it is always in the most extreme of terms using language such as apartheid, cantons, war crimes, genocide, state terrorism, etc., etc.

    In some ways, some of the most well meaning peaceniks have become shills for what has been a very effective decades-long propaganda campaign against Israel. The war crimes accusation, for example, is simply incredible to me. I have met numerous Israeli officers over the years and they are simply far from the blood-thirsty, brutal murderers that one would expect to charge with war crimes. In most cases, I have found them to be quite the opposite. That doesn’t mean that they won’t kill and it doesn’t mean that they don’t take tough actions, but if you compare Israeli actions in a very challenging environment over the decades of the occupation to, say, what Russia has done to Chechnya or China to Tibet (I purposely bring these two nations into the discussion because they were on the high court that ruled the security fence to be illegal), I would say that there’s no question those countries should be in the dock long before any Israeli general.

    You and I both know that no Russian general will ever face censure of any form for their crimes against the Chechnyans. No Chinese general will either and let’s not even go to the discussion where British or US generals may get sanctioned for actions in Iraq. Nope, Israel is the target. Israel is small, full of Jews and its enemies have a resource that the world needs. But if I come to your site, you advocate charging Israelis who have spent their lives in service of the idea of Zionism and of Jewish self-determination with war crimes. As I recall, the Israelis were out of Areas A before Arafat launched his war in 2000. As I recall, before Israel re-entered Areas A, the Palestinians were having amazing success at killing and maiming Israelis. If I look at the stats now, those attacks have been eliminated and the Israeli generals are bragging about how low the innocent Palestinian bystander death toll has become. For this you want to charge them with war crimes?

    Let’s go another route. What if Israelis started to find themselves being charged with war crimes? Is it possible that the same generals who are charged would then decide to act like war criminals? What would that look like? My guess is that war criminal generals would attack Palestinian civilian centers in a way that would ensure mass flight and a Jordanian and Egyptian refugee problem. Sudan anyone? How difficult would it be for the Israelis to accomplish this? Not very considering their firepower. And yet, not only do they not behave this way but, for example, before entering Jenin they didn’t even “soften” the city with artillery and in fact drove around the city for two days warning residents to evacuate for their safety.

    The notion that if some Israeli general is sitting in prison for war crimes, somehow Israel would shape up seems not only to miss the point that Israel is already fighting as humanely as they can while minimizing danger to their soldiers and civilians, but also misses the point that it would be an indictment of the entire army and nation. Why? Why would you support this when we both know that Israel offered the Palestinians a state and when we know they could be brutal with the Palestinians but haven’t been.

    There’s a movie called Checkpoint about the checkpoints in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. It’s a documentary where the filmmakers had good access to checkpoints and filmed for over a year. Of course, like any movie, it seeks to show the highlights of that year but when you watch the film you see that while the checkpoints are maddening and affect the quality of life of the Palestinians, at no point do the Israelis act inhumanely. Quite the opposite. I was struck by how in virtually every checkpoint, the Palestinians felt completely comfortable talking back aggressively to the soldiers. There was no fear there whatsoever; they just talked back or complained or even verbally attacked the soldiers. The soldiers did not retaliate and at times were even defensive.

    If that’s an army whose generals deserve to be charged with war crimes, then I am missing something about what such charges mean.

  30. I think your POV and articulate expression of that POV is the danger here because it strengthens the enemy.

    Now that is an incredibly defensive position to take regarding criticism of Israel. I guess I’m more optimistic than you are both about Israel’s ability to absorb such criticism without collapsing in the face of the onslaught of her enemies. You do no one a favor when you pull your punches regarding issues like this. There is a common refrain among some circles of Israel supporters that all criticism somehow hurts Israel by “opening it up” to the attacks of anti-Semites, etc. I reject this. Well to be more precise I don’t reject the notion that anti-Semites are looking for ammunition to use against Israel. But I do reject the notion that somehow this hurts Israel in any serious way.

    I read somewhere that by some accounts the IDF is ranked fifth among the world’s military forces. I think Israel can more than hold its own against its enemies whether they be Palestinian terrorists or anti-Semites.

    I have met numerous Israeli officers over the years and they are simply far from the blood-thirsty, brutal murderers that one would expect to charge with war crimes.

    I don’t doubt that. There are also IDF officers who reject the notion that they must abuse Palestinians during their military service. But that’s not the majority. The majority serve willingly and follow orders faithfully and are willing (& sometimes even eager) to do whatever it takes to subjugate Palestinians.

    But have you met Yaalon, Halutz, or Doron Almog (who was almost arrested in England on a war crimes charge) all of whom have done or said dreadful things about Palestinians? Did you ever meet Rafael Eitan (a former chief of staff) who likened Palestinians to “cockroaches in a bottle?”

    if you compare Israeli actions…to…what Russia has done to Chechnya or China to Tibet…I would say that there’s no question those countries should be in the dock long before any Israeli general.

    Well, yes certainly I agree with you. But why is this an either or situation? I’d say a few Russian generals, Chinese bureaucrats and Israeli generals should all suffer the same fate–to be tried for their actions. By the way, I again mention that I’d be perfectly content if an Israeli court would adjudicate this issue–but they simply won’t do so.

    no Russian general will ever face censure of any form for their crimes against the Chechnyans. No Chinese general will either

    No, I don’t “know” this nor do I accept it. Remember, justice takes a long view. Justice doesn’t come overnight. But in many cases (not all certainly and not enough) justice does come.

    the Palestinians were having amazing success at killing and maiming Israelis. If I look at the stats now, those attacks have been eliminated

    For which you seem to wish to credit the IDF when I credit at least as much if not more that the two main Palestinian factions that have observed a yr long hudna.

    while the checkpoints are maddening and affect the quality of life of the Palestinians, at no point do the Israelis act inhumanely

    I have not seen Checkpoint & so can’t comment on the contents of the film. But if you believe that Israeli military checkpoints are as a whole loci of Israeli tolerance and understanding you are sadly mistaken. I can point you to several blog posts I’ve written here about absolutely heartbreaking stories including one in which Israeli soldiers deliberately allowed two twin newborns to freeze to death in the winter cold while waiting to unlock a checkpoint gate so the family could travel to hospital. And pls. don’t argue that this is but a single incident. I think we both know I could point you to links for hundreds if not thousands of such incidents. Checkpoints are hell. They make Israeli soldiers into brutes and Palestinians into subjects. There’s simply no way to humanize them. But do I doubt that there may be Israeli soldiers who man checkpoints & who make it a point of treating Palestinians humanely–certainly not. In fact, I’m certain there are such soldiers. But their existence does not ameliorate the Occupation.

    In addition, unless the filmmakers were filming incognito and the soldiers did not know they were filming, I’d fear that they tailored their behavior for the camera. No soldier wants to be seen to abuse someone before a filming camera (except those idiots at Abu Graibh).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *