98 thoughts on “Noa Calls for Israel to Rid Gaza of Hamas ‘Cancer’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if similar sentiments were expressed in Gaza, of a mass demonstration against intended cruelty, or embarrasment over insulting one’s neighbor?

    1. Richard (Witty) what are you smoking? Demonstrations in Gaza after Israel just killed and maimed for life thousands there? I have to question your understanding of human psychology.

      1. They weren’t expressed before and during the resumption of Hamas shelling. They probably weren’t permitted.

        It bothers me, the extent that the left ignores the sequence of events that led up to the escalation.

        The left is asked to regard shelling of civilians as inconsequential.

        I heard a Fresh Air interview with Jimmy Carter yesterday, in which he stated that Hamas had agreed to accept the results of a negotiation between Israel and Fatah, if it was accepted by a plebiscite of current West Bank and Gaza Palestinian residents.

        The key word is “current”. Hamas has never accepted that, but has insisted on diaspora Palestinians receiving a vote in any plebiscite including in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria.

        Carter sounds good and nice, and is wonderful for suggesting finding a way to include Hamas in diplomacy, but he engages and repeats some mis-representative wishful thinking.

        Tonight, there was an enlightening long interview with Ethan Bronner, reporting from Gaza (where he’s been for a week). His comments fit neither side’s propaganda points.

        For example, he dashed my sense that Hamas suppresses free speech or assembly, even as he spoke admiringly of the regular Gaza correspondent (I forgot her name), for accurately reporting of Hamas summary executions of Fatah supporters.

        At the same time, he dashed the conventional wisdom that Gaza was currently under a state of “genocide” (that with now only double the traffic through the crossings as during the “war”, Gaza seemed normal, NOT undernourished). And, that only relatively limited areas of Gaza were targeted.

        He restrained from accusations of “war crimes” siting, “Its impossible to know”. He does not strike me as a self-censoring journalist (as in considering politics), but more discriminating (as in considering whether his words are true or not, rather than speculations).

        1. It bothers me, the extent that the left ignores the sequence of events that led up to the escalation.

          The left is asked to regard shelling of civilians as inconsequential.

          Who’s ignoring the sequence of events? It is you who are ignoring them. What about the Nov. 5th tunnel bombing which killed 6 Hamas operatives? Or is Israel the only one allowed to repy to provocations fr. the other side?

          No one is regarding the shelling of civilians as inconsequential. The only problem I have with that statement is that you only intend it to apply to ISRAELI civilians. You seem to have far less a problem w. shelling Palestinian civilians. Besides, NO Israelis were killed during the shelling that allegedly caused the Gaza war. Shelling is a bad thing which I don’t defend. Nor do I defend Israel’s blatant ceasefire violation in assaulting the tunnel on Nov. 5th. But who violated the ceasefire first? Israel.

          Oh God, please don’t wax rhapsodic about Ethan Bronner. His reporting is exasperatingly off the mark. The fact that you admire him tells us quite a bit. Just Google “Bronner” here & you’ll find 5 or 6 posts I’ve written taking apart his journalistic approach to his subject. The only thing I”ll say for him is he’s not an out & out propagandist for Israel. He has some journalistic chops. But not enough for him to get the story right much of the time.

          Do you call 120 trucks a day coming through the border crossings satisfactory for the provision of all Gaza’s 1.5 million??? That is NORMAL? UN officials are still saying as recently as today that they do not have enough food to feed Gazans. Now, who am I to believe? Ethan Bronner who’s not there & who’s view of the conflict I don’t trust anyway? Or a UNWRA official who IS in Gaza & knows the situation on the ground?

          “Impossible to know” whether there were war crimes? Only impossible to know if you’re a journalist trying your best not to see what is in front of your eyes.

          1. Why the knee-jerk Richard?

            You want credit for “nuance” when you site something, but deny it to others?

            Another bridge that you’ve bought includes your assertion about the November 4th violation, as if that was a permanent renunciation of the cease-fire. Immediately after that sequence, BOTH parties reaffirmed their commitment to the cease-fire verbally publicly, through channels and by action.

            The December 18th permission given to Islamic Jihad to resume shelling was a SEPARATE escalation. Maybe it was a response in the minds of Hamas, but not of fact.

            It is a truth that for the week following the cessation of the cease-fire, Israel incrementally warned that returning the shelling would result in a military response, and delayed that excessive and prepared response until it was obvious that Hamas had committed to a revised state of war.

            You IGNORE that sequence.

            I get that you are angry about what occurred in Gaza. 1300 deaths is horrible. But, you are wrong that Hamas is innocent in the process. Two parties CHOSE to dance.

            And, if the response is more shelling on civilians in Israel, then two parties will continue to.

            I don’t regard Bronner as “authority”. I regard his comments as information. I distrust the sources and interpretations of the left more though frankly. Bronner’s information seems to be overly cautious in conclusion, and risks being incomplete temporarily. The left risks out and out repitition of lies and unwillingness to admit even partial mis-interpretation on their part.

        2. Richard W., you keep amazing me (in the bad sense) with lack of clear moral thinking on your part. With all your comments you are trying to establish some kind of moral symmetry or equivalence b/w Hamas and Israel’s actions. I’ve read a lot of your comments and nowhere do you once express a genuine moral outrage at Israeli actions. It is always something like “I am disappointed by Israel’s response” or “Israel’s reaction is not helpful” along with “Hamas is also this and that”. Richard, this is like seeing a grown-up viciously beating a child for insulting him and saying something like: “The grown-up’s reaction is not helpful” and “You have to condemn the child for insulting the grown-up in the first place too”. Not a perfect analogy, but pretty damn good: creating a moral symmetry b/w actions of a strong, rich, democratic state that purposefully kills and maims thousands; and beleaguered, besieged, impoverished people leaving in squalor of the last 60 years lobbing some annoying but mostly ineffective rockets!
          Your moral compass it totally out of whack. Your lack of moral indignation is shameful.
          I’ve been reading your comments for quite some time: at Realistic Dove, Mondoweiss, here. I was appalled at people treating you badly, especially at Mondoweiss, and tried to stand by you a couple of times. I used to think you were a person whose heart is in the right place but who fails to communicate it effectively. Sometimes you’d say things that would make me scratch my head but I would still give you benefit of a doubt. But your latest comments make the cup overflow. I have to admit that you are either indeed a hasbara flak or just a very deluded human being. You read the latest great post by Realistic Dove; the Second Lebanon Fiasco is just 2.5 years away in the past. How can you in clear conscience not see the parallels, to ignore the fact that Israel again and again is doing the same damn thing? How can you still pretend there is some sort of moral equivalence?

          1. I get your anger Peter.

            But, I think it is misplaced. To IGNORE that Hamas is a participant in a mutual baiting dance, is to accept the dance occurring.

            Also, again, it indicates an implication that Hamas is ONLY victim, and not also potentially a responsible leadership organization. (Victim and leadership being NOT equivalent terms.)

            Certainly the Palestinian citizenry are victims, and very many have experienced deep traumas. All traumas have long-term consequences, blowback if you like that term.

            The ignorance that I perceive from the left, is that shelling civilians in Sderot, Ashkelon, and other places have also invoked present and not-yet-healed Israeli traumas.

            Avram Burg makes wonderful points, that Israel should work to distinguish between actual pain and programmed pain. But, to ignore that there is real pain, because there is also programmed pain, is a further self-delusion.

        3. This is from a Bronner piece from 2004, but I think it illustrates a tendency I see in his work–

          Link

          Notice what he says–Benny Morris has uncovered more massacres (Bronner insists on calling them small-scale) by the Zionist forces in 1948 and he also has found some cases where Arab leaders urged their civilians to flee. Bronner’s conclusion? He says this makes the situation morally grayer.

          Which is “balanced journalism” at its most morally idiotic. There are plenty of real Arab atrocities one can point to, but when speaking of the Palestinian ethnic cleansing it’s ridiculous to say that massacres on the one hand vs. humane recommendations that people flee for their lives on the other make the situation morally grayer. The fact that some Arabs had the good sense to recommend that civilians flee a war zone doesn’t make them at all responsible for ethnic cleansing–in that case, the act of ethnic cleansing occurs when refugees are not allowed to return home.

          This is the kind of “balance” I’ve noticed in Bronner. He’s not a totally bad guy, but I think he subconsciously tries to excuse Israel’s crimes in some of his writing.

          Also, has anyone in any NYT story ever mentioned the fact that the US helped start the Palestinian civil war? Of course the Bushies were hoping Dahlan’s forces would win, but things didn’t turn out that way. When you read the NYT, you’d think that Hamas (which won the election) just decided one day to stage a coup in Gaza back in 2007. Again, that’s NYT “balance” for you.

      2. I agree with Peter. Can we stop suggesting what Palestinians should be doing or thinking as Noa & Witty have done? Can we just try to understand what it is they ARE thinking or feeling before we tell them what we’d like them to do or think?

    2. It is so wonderful to see a Mizrachi Jew overcome the brainwashing of living in a post-Zionist Ashkenazi environment. She has returned to her roots with a passion!

      @Richard
      “This is better”
      This seems a bit cavalier to me. She is world-renown after al!

  2. Udi Aloni answered her, (for some reason the darn url bar is messed up on my screen, sorry, google “Answering Noa” Udi Aloni ,also in the same publication-a couple of days later, as Noa’s “letter”, YNet)

  3. NO “Jewish or Arab intellectuals excoriated Noa for her diatribe”. Noa’s statements were factually accurate, her opinions were spot-on, and any one with any intellectual honesty would have supported them and Noa’s right to express them freely and without censure or childish ad hominem attacks.

    Apparently leftist chic demands a gentle touch to the hegemonic agenda of Hamas and its ilk while requiring a healthy measure of wallowing in anguished self-flagellating.

    And BTW how hypocritical to gasp at how offensive and distasteful for an Israeli liberal to dare criticize Palestinian society when you American liberals are so freely criticizing Israeli society.

    1. NO “Jewish or Arab intellectuals excoriated Noa for her diatribe”

      My man, can’t you bother to read the Haaretz article to which I linked?

      When the two singers’ participation in the concert was announced, another letter was published, demanding that Nini not be allowed to appear. That letter was signed by about 30 Arab and Jewish artists and intellectuals.

      If she wants to put her foot in her mouth and demolish all the good work she has done with Israeli Arab & other Arab performers be my guest. The malarkey about censure or censorship is just that. You rightists would love to latch on to Noa as one of yr new true believers. That’s the only reason you’ve come to her defense.

      My critique of Noa’s statement is far more nuanced than you acknowledge. I have no problem with criticizing Hamas & have done it here. My problem is her histrionics, which include blatantly false statements like the claim that Hamas has raped Gazan women. That’s patently ludicrous & I have no idea where she heard this though given your mastery of anti-Palestinian propaganda you no doubt will have a highly partisan source handy for us.

  4. “You Can’t Talk About The Reality Of Israel”

    Omid Memarian interviews former CIA operative ROBERT BAER

    January 27, 2009 “IPS” — In an interview with IPS, Baer discussed the regional implications of the Gaza conflict and his take on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Hamas and Hezbollah, three major groups in the Middle East which have been called terrorist organisations.

    Excerpts from the interview follow.

    IPS: Some analysts believe that attacking Hamas in Gaza, two years after the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, is a part of a bigger plan which will end with attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Is Israel walking this path?

    Robert Baer: No. I think that there is a military veto in attacking Iran. It’s just not possible.

    IPS: Why is that impossible?

    RB: Well, for one thing, we know there will be an Iranian reaction in the Gulf. Iran will not be attacked like Hamas and just respond locally. It will respond internationally. It has no choice. This is their deterrence power. In Iran, it is very important to understand a lot of lessons.

    If you look on the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps] website, you see the lessons they learned from the Iran-Iraq War. These wars are wars of attrition; they go on forever. You just can’t win them, especially against the United States. So they have developed secondary asymmetrical warfare ability, guerilla warfare, which is very effective.

    You know some of the best minds in Iran went into the Pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards], and they weren’t necessarily fanatics. In a sense, they were much more nationalists. And in my experience, these people in the Pasdaran, in the operational level, are probably the most capable, intelligent/guerilla force/political thinkers in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. And they knew exactly what they were doing. And they do not clearly fit in to any political definitions in Iran.

    IPS: Is the possibility of a limited attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel also out of question? Especially given what we learned in a recent New York Times article that last year, Israeli leaders asked President Bush to carry out such an attack, though the president did not accept.

    RB: Totally out of the question. Even Bush understood this. The New York Times is right when it says that Bush vetoed an Israeli attack, simply because there is a balance of power in the Middle East between the U.S. and Iran, and it’s a fairly even balance of power. I mean not in terms of aircraft tanks or submarines, but in a monopoly of violence, there is equality.

    There is no question there is equality. We could bomb Tehran, but what does that get you? Nothing. It’s sort of like bombing the U.N. compound in Gaza by Israel. What does that give the Israelis? Nothing. Yeah they could destroy it, but what does that give them? Hamas still is going to exist.

    You can bomb all military bases in Iran over a period of two weeks, but Iran is still there – it still has the ability to project power, project its will and maybe even come out of that type of conflict even stronger. And Iran’s power is so economical, the price of oil is not going to make any difference, simply because the idea of arming Hezbollah or supporting Hamas in Damascus is nothing in terms of money. I mean the price of oil could go down to 10 dollars, and it’s still an affordable defence for Iran.

    IPS: Obama has repeatedly mentioned talking to Iranian leaders and bringing change to U.S. foreign policy. How could the designation of Dennis Ross as a key advisor on Iran policy contribute to his promises?

    RB: Dennis Ross – the important thing is the Israelis are comfortable with him. If a dialogue with Iran occurs, they know he won’t betray them. I mean they have had years and years of testing this guy. He’s Jewish, he’s been honest with the Israelis; he’s gone along with their projects, even the crazy ones. If a dialogue is open, the Israelis know they won’t be surprised. If Obama had brought someone new in, some professor from Harvard that the Israelis didn’t know, they would immediately freeze him out and there would be huge political blowbacks.

    IPS: Regarding Ross’s positions on certain issues in the Middle East and particularly Iran over the past decade, how will Obama be able to adopt a new foreign policy path in the region?

    RB: Well, he [Obama] needs the backing of the Democratic Party to get these things through politically, and that’s why he has brought in people like Dennis Ross and Denny Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, simply because he needs that political backing. He cannot bring in untried people and run them against the Democratic Party, because if there is an opening with Iran, there will be a connivance of Israel, maybe a silent one, simply because the Israelis have to go along.

    In American politics, you can’t do anything in the Middle East without the approval of Tel Aviv, at least on some level. It’s impossible. I mean, I cannot think of a country that is so beholden to a small country like this, even a superpower, in all of history. I can’t even think of it.

    IPS: And why is that?

    RB: Look at New York City. Look at the major newspapers. They have a Zionist agenda. They do. I’m not Jewish. I’m not anything. I don’t care about the Israelis. And I’m not anti-Semitic. It’s just a fact. I suggested to my publisher writing a book on Israel, and he said forget it. You can’t talk about the reality of Israel. The only place you can talk about the reality of Israel is in Israel. They tell you things you will never hear in the United States.

    IPS: Like what?

    RB: For instance, why are people on Gaza so unhappy? Well, if you had to live in a prison, wouldn’t you be unhappy? You would never get that in the New York Times. Look at the New York Times; it’s almost an extension of Israel.

    IPS: What is the impact of the Gaza conflict on the future of Iran-Israel and United States relations? Have the recent attacks destroyed Hamas entirely?

    RB: No, it’s impossible. Hamas is an idea. Hamas is not an organisation. Hamas is an idea, and unless the Israelis go in and force 1.5 million people into Egypt, they will never subdue Gaza. They can go in and they can slaughter the leadership and put 10,000 people in jail, and Hamas will come out stronger. The losers in this will be Fatah.

    IPS: What are the main characteristics of Hamas and Hezbollah’s military and political behaviour?

    RB: They redefined the idea of warfare in geography. The fact that Hezbollah dug into caves or the fact that they use fiber optics to communicate shows enormous sophistication and primitive warfare in combination. I mean, what army in the world uses fiber optics except Hezbollah? You can’t intercept fiber optics. There is nothing you can do.

    You look at [Hebollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, and he has redefined Islamic politics because he’s gone into an alliance with a Christians. Bin Laden wants to kill Christians; I’m going to reduce it to that. Nasrallah is looking at them as allies.

  5. I have noticed that many Israelis will join peace movements than immediately turn on that movement and claim it has gone astray from tradition when that movement acts on anything. I wonder if it is a hasbara strategy.

  6. I’d like to request that you change the brand name of your site.

    The term “tikun olam” is a profound spiritual term in Jewish old and modern usage, our tradition.

    The meaning is trivialized by being used as a “brand”. And, it is further trivialized by being applied in ANY partisan manner, especially with ANY implication that those that disagree with you are not similarly committed to the same concepts, from their understanding of truth.

    Certainly, your adopting the personal motivation to heal the world is a wonderful commitment, and you must bring your unique personal understanding of that commitment to the world.

    It is even wonderful if you state often that that concept is a primary basis of your commitment to humanity and holism.

    I personally had a period in which I published material under the moniker “Green Island Productions” based on a song from Bengal “I love this tiny green island. Surrounded by the sea. Touched by the sea, decorated by the sea. Am I a secluded, a meager. No, I am not alone. The “Great” is with me.”

    My personal ethics in how I conducted my media production business did not live up to the high standards of that term. I had set my bar too high, and expropriated for relatively deep and significant commitment, something that was MUCH deeper and MUCH more significant than I was bringing to it.

    1. I’d like to request that you change the brand name of your site.

      That’s rich, Richard. First, Tikun Olam is not a brand name and my blog is not a product. And I object to yr attempt to trivialize my blog by calling it such. It is an expression of my moral-political outlook. As such it is perfectly in synch as a modern expression of the original Kabbalistic concept which I’ve outlined in my About page. The fact that you don’t approve of my use of the term doesn’t really bother me much. Nor does this blog exist to satisfy yr definition of what is proper or improper use of Jewish traditions.

      You seek to deflect fr. my legitimate objections to yr political views by objecting to the name of my blog. Strange strategy I’d say.

      1. Please just consider my comments, rather than only react to them.

        I personally find the use of the term offensive. I’ve stated similarly to Michael Lerner, who similarly uses the term “tikun” as a brand, as well as a guiding principle.

        There is no strategy. I get that you feel that people are ganging up on you, but that is not me.

        You don’t really know my political views if you don’t dialog with me about them.

        I remain critical of Hamas, critical of a left that in my impression gullibly buys into the revision of history that Hamas presents.

        I don’t believe that their actions bear the light of day, and to ignore considering their actions as a player, is to ignore reality in fact.

        My sense is that BOTH the right in Israel and the right in Hamas dance together, and that healing (tikkun olam) ONLY occurs through a therapeutic process, meaning one that regards the experiences (but NOT the demands) of the other as valid.

        I get that you apply a metaphor of “first stop violence, then lets talk”, which I agree to.

        In an abusive relationship between a necessarily married couple in which the husband engages in large violence, and the wife engages in small violence, BOTH violences must stop to begin actual talking.

        And, that applies to the left as well.

        In the last two days, Palestinians (not necessarily Hamas) have resumed shelling southern Israel, which Israel retaliated for by bombing a tunnel.

        1. Richard,
          The real question is:

          Are you in fact living up to the high standard of the term tikkun olam, in all your relations?

          And, does the content that you present on this blog reflect that meaning? (ALL my relations)

          I personally came to the conclusion that condemnation, rather than service, did not realize the meaning of “healing”.

  7. Not surprised here really, this imo is the typical reaction of the so-called Israeli liberal when things get tough. Easier to blame Hamas and use them as the pantomine villain rather than face the reality of what has happened in the the Gaza strip.

    The denial of reality is the only way Liberals can close their eyes to what has really happened – human shields, of course only Hamas use them right, never the IDF who had to be taken to the Supreme Court to desist from using human shields in their urban operations – raising the interesting question of why the IDF would even bother using human shields if Hamas supposedly places such a low value on Palestinians lives. It beggars belief that Israelis still beleive that Palestinians think that human shields would work after the chief of operations of the Israeli airforce has gone in writing a few years ago saying that such ‘collateral damage’ is factored into IDF operations and are not a deterrent factor in carrying out attacks.

    This singer seems mainly to have just talked to a select group of Fatah loyalists to get her view of what Palestinians in the Gaza strip think. The thuggishness of Fatah is overlooked; the gangster tactics of Dahlan’s so-called security services who regularly intimidate and kill critics is overlooked, the fact that Fatah was being armed by the US to overthrow Hamas after it won elections in Gaza is overlooked, the nature of the civil war that emerged in Gaza between Fatah and Gaza after this happened is overlooked, the deeply unpopular nature of the Fatah regime whose main reaction in the West Bank to Israel’s invasion of Gaza has been to violently crack down on demonstrations of sympathy for Palestinians being killed is overlooked.

    This is nothing new, because it is only by overlooking the unpleasant reality can the Israeli Liberal manufacture this fantasy that somehow the only problem is Hamas and that the removal of Hamas will eliminate any obstacle to peace. This betrays a deep misunderstanding of both Israeli and Palestinian reality. Israeli policymakers well know that Hamas can and has adhered to ceasefires effectively; just as they knew that the only rockets launched during the last ceasefire were done by Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa brigades and seveal groups affiliated to Fatah (who somehow don’t lose their status as partners for peace despite this). the problem for Israeli policymakers is that they are committed to a military, economic and political domination of the West Bank and they know that Hamas will never let this happen; hence their desire to destroy Hamas and deal with the more corrupt and unpopular Fatah who they think can be coralled into accepting some bantustans as opposed to a proper sovereign state.

    It also ignores some of the real basis of why Islamist movements like Hezbollah and Hamas are so popular – it is easy to demonise these groups as just a bunch of mad fanatics, but this is simplistic they have a real social base. They deliver effective social services, provide welfare to an impoverished population and are universally seen as less corrupt than their secular alternatives. this is also one reason why the US is so terrified of allowing democracy in states in the region like Jordan and Egypt; since the Islamists would make significant gains. Ironic since almost all Islamist political regimes that have actually come to power have proved to be either unpopular or failures after some initial successes.

    It is however, necessary for the Israeli liberal to overlook or ignore such realities in order to maintain their manichean world view and foist the blame on a handful armed fanatics rather than addressing the real questions in hand.

  8. (Reply to Richard Witty’s comment above)
    Here you go again, Richard. How on earth can you tell that left or anybody is ignorant of the traumas that the shelling caused to the Israeli citizens! It is so absolutely false. during the last 8 years in the American media the Qassams were given a very prominent coverage all the time, including times when Israel used harsh retaliations and killed scores of Palestinians. Still, there were always articles and TV reports emphasizing how terrible it is on the Israelis etc. I mean, ALL THE FREAKING TIME! In fact, the Qassams were the only thing that allowed the world to continue to justify the cruel Gaza blockade: “look, they are being shelled, traumatized there in Israel” etc. To say that somehow the traumas of the Israelis are ignored it either to be totally out of touch or to blatantly call the white black. Which is it with you, Richard W.?
    And during all this time, while Gazans were dying in disproportionate numbers – and I am talking about all these years, not just the latest massacre: during the Second Lebanon Fiasco, for example, hardly anybody was talking about hundreds of Gazan killed! – during all this time there wasn’t nearly as much coverage of that! Do you even begin to perceive how skewed the coverage was? That for any Israeli killed or wounded or merely shell-shocked by a Qassam there could be hundreds of dead and crippled for life on the other side and still the coverage was symmetrical in the best case!!! Could you even begin to imagine the gwald Israel would have raised if anything remotely resembling the massacre of Beit Hanun happened to Israelis?
    Richard W., I repeat, you’re looking at the situation with some moral blinders, I have no other explanation for your egregious refusal to understand what is wrong with your comments.

      1. In your assessment of Hamas’ actions (particularly the timing of resuming shelling of civilians).

        Do you evaluate it as motivated by:

        1. Concern for human lives (beyond their “tribe”)
        2. Defense of their people attacked
        3. Opportunism to gain support among Palestinians and Arabs
        4. Opportunity to gain sufficient support among Arabs and dissenters to force Israel to change its policies

        Or, some combination of the above.

      2. I don’t imagine. I don’t have time to start pulling dozens of your wishy-washy comments from here or Realistic Dove but even in this very thread you do it – start with an absurd assertion that “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if similar sentiments were expressed in Gaza, of a mass demonstration against intended cruelty, or embarrasment over insulting one’s neighbor?”. Oh, you love euphemisms and toning downs! Come on, do you ever get upset so as to raise your voice? Do you ever shout at anybody? I want to hear it. I want to hear you shout to the top about not how “anger is not a particularly effective basis of decision or action.” but about how Israel incinerates civilians with white phosphorus, lets babies starve net to the corpses of their parents for days, refuses aid and ambulances to reach the wounded… Your lack of moral indignation is a brick in the wall that allows these things to continue. Sure, since “anger is not a particularly effective basis of decision or action.”, why get angry, let’s just all sit down and discuss this! Makes me want to puke, sorry.
        Read your own comment right next to this one. Again, Hamas actions this and Hamas actions that. Hamas actions caused the loss of lives of about a dozen Israelis in the last 8 years. That’s less than dies in Israel in one week car accidents. What a load of bull, just stop this.

        1. Got it. You’re angry, and angry at anybody that is not similarly angry.

          Richard too.

          When do you want to talk about content?

          1. You’re not talking about content, Richard W.! When we say talk to Hamas, you ignore it, when Zakai and Halevy say talk to Hamas you ignore it. This is the content. The content is that Israel embarked on a killing spree for nothing and all you can manage is “I hope that BOTH Israel and Hamas undertake self-inquiry as to goals, assumptions, attitudes towards the other, methods, rules of engagement.” I’ll tell you what, if enough American Jews were angry as Richard S. and I, and not “let’s talk about content” like you, you bet Israel would undertake “self-inquiry as to goals, assumptions, attitudes”. But because we are so damn PC, balanced, sensitive to comparisons to Warsaw Ghetto (god forbid!) and such, Israel still milks you and me and its own and keeps killing. Wake up!

        2. I try not to shout at anyone.

          Its never served my better goals in any activity, inter-personal, political, business.

          I won’t shout at Hamas. I won’t shout at Israelis. I won’t shout at you.

          The most that I will do is to name what I see, and/or ask questions that I am confused by.

          I’m looking for a path through this that results in peace in real terms, for as many parties as is feasible.

          I don’t hear many ideas. I hear much more frustration and frankly flailing for a strategy (which is what Israel did in Lebanon, flailed for a strategy, and without clarifying goals even).

          I’ve read extensively on the history and present. I confidently declare that I maintain sympathy for both peoples and both (more than both) narratives. And, I note that all partisan narratives that I’ve heard have been incomplete to the point of mis-representative.

          I hope that BOTH Israel and Hamas undertake self-inquiry as to goals, assumptions, attitudes towards the other, methods, rules of engagement.

          I hope that Hamas and Fatah undertake similarly.

          I sincerely think the shoe is on Hamas’ foot. They need to decide what their goal is, and what is morally justified and effective in achievement.

          If it turns out that Hamas in fact is seeking power in Palestine, and is NOT seeking peace, would your views on the current situation change?

        3. Peter your anger is misplaced.

          War is ugly. War inevitably leads to horrible deaths — whether by phosphorous or shrapnel or concussive shock or 1000 other means of destruction. To talk of a particular means of waging war as a warcrime is absurd. WAR is the crime.

          While Israel may have not responded in every circumstance in the best way — Hamas represents an ideology which makes war inevitable.

          Hamas has explicitly stated that it will not reconcile itself to Israel’s existence, will not have peace with Israel, and not merely justifies but glories armed resistance. At best Hamas offers — not peace — but “hudna” or “tahadiya” words whose implicit duplicity cannot be adequately translated into English. It is educating its children in the most virulent form of hatred of Jews since the Nazis, and brainwashing them with a religious dogma that glorifies death and violence.

          Hamas has imposed War on Israel. Hamas has opted for an armed confrontation which holds as its sacred goal the destruction of the Jewish State. THAT’s the crime. That SHOULD be the focus of moral outrage.

          Unbelievably, you dismiss all of that as if it were nothing. Thousands of missile attacks are ignored because, whether by the grace of god or just dumb luck, they have not caused enough death and destruction to bother YOU.

          Apparently in your mind, Israelis are unreasonable petulant bellyachers just because they don’t want anybody trying to shoot a missile at their homes or blowing up the neighborhood market.

          The obvious solution that presents itself (if we forego the concept of holding Hamas responsible for its own actions) is for more people like YOU to move to Sderot and surrounding towns. The missiles will no doubt keep falling, but we can leave it to you to apologize for not being adequately maimed or killed by them.

          1. DSHARON, you don’t have a freaking clue. In wars there are rules, laws of war. To say that since the war is a crime in itself (what does it mean, by the way, beyond useless rhetorical point you employ?) and thus anything is justified is bullshit. Don’t teach me about wars, I served in IDF and was taught that there is something called “tohar haneshek” – “purity of arms”, a noble principle on which IDF is happy to shit as soon as things get hot. If you don’t understand that failure to protect civilians in war zone is a war crime, you don’t know nothing about international law. Even more so deliberate targeting of civilians.
            Let’s read, for example, the report from what happened in Zeytun:

            Twenty hours later, the wounded were still bleeding in a shed in the courtyard of the house. There was no electricity, no heat, no water. Their relatives were with them, but every time they tried to leave the courtyard to fetch water, the army shot at them.

            Or this:

            Survivors said that Israeli soldiers were aware of the many dead and wounded who were stranded and that the Israelis ignored or rebuffed pleas from fleeing relatives to help the injured. […] Salah recalled telling the soldiers, “We need first aid, and there are many dead back in Zaytoun. You hit us, and we need help.”

            “Go back to your death,” the soldier replied, according to Salah. “You can’t go up this road.”

            Moussa also tried to make it up the street and was intercepted by Israeli soldiers. “I told them there were wounded people, but they told me to shut up,” he said. They detained him in a nearby house for the rest of the day before releasing him, he said.

            The Red Cross report also said that Israeli troops “must have been aware” that there were wounded civilians in need of medical care.

            Salah and others said some Israeli soldiers shot at the fleeing Samuni family members, to try to direct them back to Zaytoun.

            “All the time they were shooting at the road or above our heads,” said Sobhi Mahmoud Samuni, 55. “But we kept running toward the hospitals.”

            Or this:
            “We walked at the head of a group of women and we waved white flags.
            We managed to pass three houses on the street and then I saw an Israeli soldier 40 meters away aiming his weapon at us,” said Yasmin A-Najar.
            “I thought he wanted us to come closer. Ruwahiya and I continued to walk and suddenly the soldier shot at us.”
            Yasmin was wounded in her right leg and Ruwahiya fell on the street with her head bleeding. The rest of the women panicked and scattered, hiding while the shooting continued.

            Yasmin said she tried to return and help Ruwahiya but the soldiers fired at her. They also shot at the ambulance driver who arrived and he was forced to turn back, she said.

            When Ruwahiya was finally evacuated at 8 P.M., she was already dead.

            In the morning, the army continued to destroy houses in the neighborhood, they said. The people who were hiding in the houses, after Ruwahiya was killed, started to flee the tanks, yelling Allahu Akhbar, said Monir A-Najar.

            “We were all holding white flags, women’s head scarves. We were fleeing and they were shooting at us,” Monir A-Najar told Haaretz.

            This is just a couple of cases. There are reports that make you hair stand on end. Would you like to be a Palestinian in Gaza, to have your child die in your arms and then have somebody say to you: “We came to help you out of this affliction that is called Hamas, you should be thankful”?

            DSHARON, go back to your hasbara hole and don’t pollute these pages with your nonsense about Hamas practicing FGM and being the eternal enemy of the Jewish people. My former commander Zakai, who knows Hamas a bit closer than you and other hasbara flaks, says that:

            “The state of Israel must understand that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and it is with that government that we must reach a situation of calm.”

            Israel must also understand that Hamas is a pragmatic organization, Zakai continues. “The moment that the organization understands that Qassam fire is contrary to its interests, it will stop the fire.

            Ephraim Halevy and Diskin said the same. But, no, you and Noa, the two great experts on Hamas know for sure that Hamas will destroy Israel (first it was the fedayeen, then the PLO, then Hizballa and Hamas – Israel always needs to create a new bogeyman when nobody buys the old one anymore.) Here is something to think about, DSHARON. Hamas is not a homogeneous body. It has a more pragmatic wing and a more militant wing and they are in competition and at odds with each other. Strengthen the pragmatic wing, let them rule Gaza, create infrastructure and civil institutions and you won’t recognize it in 10 years. Israel had terrorists for prime ministers too.

            And regarding your “obvious solutions”, you freak, I actually risked my life for the state of Israel and served in Lebanon and the territories and saw bullets and mortars coming on my head. You don’t scare me with your stupid solutions.

  9. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i5hNNGuD4lFw4cMDDisgsuSjf9cw

    Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, releases song for Gaza

    2 days ago

    JERUSALEM (AFP) — Singer-songwriter Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, released on Sunday a charity song whose proceeds will go towards assisting Palestinians in the war-ravaged Gaza Strip.

    Please don’t accuse Yusuf Islam of pandering to Israel for avoiding ALL rhetoric, only service, in his application of tikkun olam.

  10. I did not claim that no Jews or Arabs excoriated Noa — I only dispute the elitist characterization of their being “intellectuals”.

    Instead of addressing the substance of Noa’s criticisms of Hamas — you attack her attitude as one of condescension and cultural superiority, lacking in judgment, analysis or intelligence. For good measure, you attack her singing as well. Anything to avoid speaking to the merits of her points.

    Hamas is most definitely raping the minds of women; endorsing a social dogma which treats women as chattel, sanctions physical abuse of women, stigmatizes their bodies, and engages in (if you excuse the cultural superiority and condescension) the hideously savage customs of female genital mutilation — cutting off the clitoris and labia minora — and “honor” killings. Hamas is indoctrinating Gazan children with virulent hatred and a glorification of violence and death which makes continued war inevitable.

    Indeed, rather than the milquetoast “I wouldn’t personally vote for them” — I am astonished that any person who held civil liberties to be dear would NOT be at the vanguard of those condemning Hamas in the most strident tones.

    Your argument that it is not for US to tell Palestinians how to live their lives is ABSURD. You would never think of applying that concept to NON-JEWS to stifle criticism of Israel. You undoubtedly felt morally superior enough to express your outrage at Apartheid in S. Africa. Why should Palestinians be above criticism? Especially when Palestinians themselves are NOT allowed to freely express their opinions, form political parties or oppose the autocratic rule of Hamas. They CAN’T speak on their own behalf, compelling others to do so for them.

    Of course your point that we can’t blame just Hamas for the evils of Palestinian society is correct. Fatah shares its burden as well. But you are WRONG when you imply that Hamas does NOT want to see Palestinians impoverished and suffering. A Gaza without “food, water, power, medicine or commerce” is essential to foster support for the extremist, war-mongering, absolutist philosophy of Hamas.

    I am sure you are well aware that most Palestinians — given their druthers — would have a “live and let live” attitude towards Israelis. If they had adequate food, water, power, medicine and commerce — most would have no problem with Israel’s existence and probably would come to appreciate the cultural diversity. They would also NOT be Hamas constituents.

    Noa had the intellectual clarity to see this. But, apparently, not you. You are the one suffering from a “moral disconnect”, not Noa.

    And BTW — don’t assume I am a “rightist” just because I have nothing but contempt for Hamas and believe today’s liberals have lost their moral compass.

    1. Wow that was a piece of propaganda.

      A Gaza without “food, water, power, medicine or commerce” is essential to foster support for the extremist, war-mongering, absolutist philosophy of Hamas.

      Sure, but how about those Gazan’s who do not support Hamas. It is a international crime to punish collective the civil population. Equally one could say that it is right to starve all Jews to foster support for the extremist, warmongering, absolutist philosophy of Israel. Did the starving in Warsaw Ghetto make Jews more moderate, I suppose not.

      What DSHARON about the women’s rights among the considerable orthodox Jews in Israel. Sure it is not normal to beat women in who dare to sit in the wrong part of the bus.

      If Palestinians in free elections vote for Hamas, why should Hams be blocked? Especially when Israelis have the right to vote (and the do it in masses) for parties who make Talebans seem moderate.

      By the way DSHARON the latest rockets sent to Israel yesterday were sent by Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s armed wing, not Hamas. Fatah = Palestinian Authority. Hmmmm….

      1. The concept of collective punishment derives from the Hague Convention. Article 2 of that convention states:

        Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

        Hamas is engaged in terrorism, not a declared war and engages in numerous practices that take it outside of the protections of the Hague Convention.

        Hamas has artificially creating shortages — it controls the inflow, warehousing and distribution of food, water, fuel and electricity — or has created real shortages by deliberately attacking border crossings in order to stop or slow the shipment of supplies. Similarly, its massive bombardments of Israeli civilians are intended to provoke some sort of Israeli response — whether it be retaliatory attacks or cutting off of supplies.

        Rather than focusing on Israel’s RESPONSE to these provocations — all would be better served by staying focused on the fundamental problem of eliminating (as opposed to whitewashing) a ruthless oppressive dictatorship which makes peace with Gaza impossible.

        Finally, the role of religion in Israeli society and law is fundamentally different from the honor killing, burka wrapping, genital mutilation, house-bounding and other repressive and dehumanizing attitudes prevalent in Islamic societies. Beating a woman is still a crime in Israel; it is encouraged by Muslim clerics as a legitimate means of educating one’s wife or daughter.

        As for the latest rockets, I agree — what a sick society in which EVERY political faction thinks it can gain political capital merely by shooting a missile at Israeli civilians.

  11. Richard Witty, the emptiness of your endless verbal gas just defies belief. Try to actually SEE and FEEL, man. Do you have a pulse? Do you know what the concept of injustice is? Some of us in the Western world have heard of it. A visual metaphor for what Israel is doing to Gaza could be a big tall soldier violently kicking a small girl down on the ground with his army boots while she screams at him and thrashes at his leg with her small arm holding a stick. That about captures the asymmetry and perpetrator-victim dynamic of the recent events in Gaza. Given the nature of your comments above, and your endless moral equivalencies, your reaction to this would likely be: “That’s too bad for the girl, but it’s unfortunate and unacceptable that that girl is so angry. Maybe if she showed peace and love, it would come around to her, she’s not as innocent and uncorrupt as you guys would like to think.” Your comments are so lifeless and devoid of moral passion and understanding, that it’s difficult to even know where to begin addressing them. Do you have any remote sense of what Israel did in Gaza? The families and children melted by white phosphorus? There’s a tremendous amount of international evidence for like atrocities, despite Ethan Bronner’s tepid equivocating with Terry Gross on NPR. Witty, I’m sorry, but you are truly a moral & intellectually blind individual. At least show some heart for the scores of Palestinian children killed and maimed by the IDF. Or did they ask for it? Is that what you think?

  12. For reference Peter, I did say “talk to Hamas”.

    Its stupid to not to. I hope you understand though the politics of “which side are you on” relative to the Hamas/Fatah struggle. Israel and most peace organizations have sought to negotiate through Fatah, as having committed to peace and renunciation of terror as means.

    As I’ve stated a bunch of times, my sense of Israel’s most important failings have been long-term ones, of failing to offer Abbas the tangible benefits that he’s earned (freeing of prisoners, stopping current settlement construction, enforcing laws stopping outpost construction by settlers, removal of many roadblocks, etc.) And, relative to Hamas, of gradually relaxing the traffic through the crossings in recognition of the relative discipline that Hamas enacted during the cease-fire.

    Those are real, but now past. Hopefully Israel can learn.

    The situation is getting farther and farther towards an either/or situation. The stubborn fighting the stubborn. The politically accommodating outside the discussion, and the civilians caught in the cross-fire entirely outside the discussion.

    Being called “a morally and intellectually blind individual” by those that don’t even probe my views, is a stupid approach.

    There is a fantasy adopted by the left, that Hamas is a “people’s movement” and that solidarity for their current logic is best. It is a “people’s movement” and it isn’t.

  13. Why is everything you say so fucking abstract Witty? You constantly attempt to avoid talking about the facts.

    Who broke the cease-fire? What were the terms and who met them (context)?

    Sub-questions:
    Why doesn’t Hamas recognize Israel?
    Why does Hamas fire those Qassams?
    Why did Israel plan this attack months in advance, despite the cease-fire?
    Why such an intense blockade?
    Has Hamas accepted the 2-State solution or something roughly akin to it?
    What are the pertinent opinions of this topic/conflict, held by Hamas officials?
    Where did Hamas come from and why?

    Etc.etc.

    Those are important preliminary questions to ask before we begin spewing the sort of garbage you regularly fill this and Phil’s blog up with.

    I’ve yet to see you talk about hard facts. It’s always abstraction. Abstraction abstraction.

    This conflict has been going on for over 60 years. Everything matters. How does this current attack relate to previous Israeli-[Whoever] fiascoes? Why did those previous battles and/or massacres take place?

    I know Zionists (mostly Jews) like to talk about Hamas’s charter and it’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Those questions and concerns are diversions. If people read their history and understood the sociological variables of these sort of nationalistic movements, then this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s fucking propaganda.

    You’re disgusting.

    1. “Who broke the cease-fire? What were the terms and who met them (context)? ”

      In November, both.

      In December, Islamic Jihad, PRC with Hamas encouragement. Then later Hamas, then later Israel much more intensely to the level of brutality.

      Why doesn’t Hamas recognize Israel?

      It regards the land as Palestinian and Islamic, though is willing to regard Jews and Christians as accepted minorities, and in a more cosmopolitan manner than in more conservative Islamic states.

      Why does Hamas fire those Qassams?

      Habit, sanction from Koran, sanction from cadre, some odd judgement that that achieves anything.

      Why did Israel plan this attack months in advance, despite the cease-fire?

      They were prepared six months in advance. With no provocation, they could have just as easily abandoned its preparations.

      Why such an intense blockade?

      The blockade element is absolute. No trade via sea occurs. The land border management is conditional, and ranges from horrendously intrusive to inconvenient.

      Has Hamas accepted the 2-State solution or something roughly akin to it?

      Not yet. They’ve floated that they would be willing to IF unlimited right of return is granted to diaspora Palestinians, and literal 67 borders were applied (no Jewish old city of Jerusalem, no adjustment for settlement blocs).

      What are the pertinent opinions of this topic/conflict, held by Hamas officials?

      Various. I know that Meshal is urged to be pragmatic, but is reluctant. Gaza officials, especially the ones that achieved leadership by social service efforts favor reconciliation. Hamas suffers the same leadership litmus test as Israel, that is requiring military heroism as prerequisite to top leadership roles.

      Where did Hamas come from and why?

      Islamic adherents among Palestinians in Gaza when under Egyptian jurisdiction, linking with Cairo Islamic Brotherhood.

      The common underlying theme in my posts is a rejection of militancy as the end product of inquiry. PROPOSAL that respects the needs of both parties is the important objective, and that requires respecting the other (whether the other is defined as Palestine, or as Israel), incorporating the needs of the other (not demands), finding a proposal that accomplishes those needs, then campaigning to realize the fulfillment of the needs.

      It is NOT served by contemptuous comments, nor by habitual complaint.

      Complaint is at best a means to identify issues at play. A starting point.

      To the extent that dissent ends at complaint, and the only “action” proposed is punitive, it harms more than it helps.

      I’d rather attempt to help.

      Richard S has shifted in his focus on this blog from healing (tikun olam) to condemnation, and condemnation of those that don’t sufficiently condemn to his mind.

      But, he seems to personally boycott the next steps, of proposal for solution, and respectful campaigning for that.

      Obama is a great model. He does not lose his cool. He does not condemn, demonize. He works to solve.

    2. LD

      Excellent questions.

      Hamas broke the cease-fire by firing 65 missiles BEFORE the November attempt to dig a tunnel across the Israeli border. The massive bombardment that followed in November and Hamas declared refusal to extend the cease fire are also illuminating (as is the present Hamas position that they will consider a 6 month ceasefire — but not a 12-18 month ceasefire).

      Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel because it is steeped in its Islamic ideology that views Islam as the one true religion. Hamas holds that once an area has been made a part of the Islamic world it must remain Islamic. Hence it will not recognize a non-Islamic non-Arab state in the region (i.e. Israel).

      The IDF like EVERY armed force has contingency plans for (hopefully) every eventuality. That way the country does not get caught with its pants down if attacked. Your implication that PLANNING for a worse case scenario means that you are actively seeking or promoting it does not follow.

      The Israeli government justified the blockade as a response to Hamas missile attacks. For that matter, Israel has every right to embargo another country or region. After all, don’t you support the right of Arab States to embargo Israel. Isn’t their refusal to engage in commerce with the Jewish State a legitimate expression of their sovereignty? Doesn’t Israel have the same right to engage in the same tactic?

      Hamas has DEFINITELY NOT accepted a 2 state solution. That is why it imposed as a pre-condition to Reconciliation Talks with Fatah, that Fatah cease peace talks with Israel. The MOST Hamas will consider is a “hudna”, a Quranic concept which justifies the suspension of Jihad when Muslims are faced by a stronger enemy until such time as the Islamic force attains military superiority.

      Your demand that the discussion be based on “the hard facts” is inconsistent with your sentiment that the Hamas Charter doesn’t matter and is merely a diversion. Hamas ideology, as manifested BOTH in their Charter AND in their actins, AND in the public statements of their leaders, AND in the values they practice in Gazan society and teach to Gazan youth ARE relevant facts that cannot be dismissed simply because they offend your own ideological bent.

  14. Obama is a great model. He does not lose his cool. He does not condemn, demonize. He works to solve.

    Or rather say nothing about the conflict studiously for weeks then appear on a Saudi news channel that is a mouthpiece for the fundamentalist regime in that country and waffle on about ‘respect’ and ‘dignity’ without any specifics and without mentioning Gaza once.

    A ‘man of action’ indeed.

  15. Peter Drubetskoy —

    You are obviously a fanatic. The mere presentation of a differing point of view drives you into fits of rage. Apparently, anybody who doesn’t swallow your version of the world is a freak.

    You claim to have served in the IDF (‘al zeh ani matil safek) and that this experience has made you an unchallengeable expert on war, law, morality, and the inner workings of Hamas. This is both arrogant — and logically unsound.

    Your “hair-raising” stories may be true, may be entirely fabricated, or may be somewhere in the middle. You don’t bother to indicate your source is. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an IDF policy to target Gazan civilians. On the contrary, there is a general consensus that the IDF took measures to avoid civilian casualties that go beyond what other armed forces employ.

    However, from your vitriolic tone, I am confident that you care nothing about facts that contradict your fixation that Israel is evil.

    1. DSHARON,
      תטיל ספק כמה שאתה רוצה, זה לא מזיז לי בגרוש.
      You are right about fits of rage, I admit, maybe I was too harsh on you.
      Now, if I did make it look like serving in IDF makes one an expert in anything, this was not my intention. That there are laws of war is known to all. I did not claim to know the inner workings of Hamas. Like anybody, I absorb the available info.
      My hair raising stories. I brought you three with sources. There are thousands of those in the history of our conflicts, with scores from the last two affairs (Lebanon and Gaza).
      “Nonetheless, there is no evidence of an IDF policy to target Gazan civilians.” – What do you call destroying homes because they “obstruct line of vision”? Shooting at people waving white flags? Not letting ambulances pick the wounded? Using white phosphorus in densely populated
      areas? Killing scores of traffic policemen? Bombing streets in broad day light, when children come back from school? C’mon, give me a break.
      “On the contrary, there is a general consensus that the IDF took measures to avoid civilian casualties that go beyond what other armed forces employ.” – General consensus where? In Israel? In the rest of the world people are aghast at what IDF has done in Gaza. I don’t care what other armed forces do or don’t. At least not to the same extent as IDF, because I care about the way my people behave more than about others. Still, even taking into account the latest big war crimes – the raising of Grozny by Russians or Faluja by the Americans, for example, I think that the bombing of people in cage of Gaza is quite on par.

  16. Dsharon,
    The description of the selection of targets is subjective on both accounts, dissenters and yours.

    Legitimate/illegitimate?

    In Lebanon in 2006, Israel failed in two respects (by its own definition). One is that it was not militarily prepared. (It was preoccupied with similar escalations and abduction from Gaza), and two, that it did not clarify its mission and then rules of engagement to support its mission.

    In Gaza, the IDF was prepared, but also did not clarify its mission, and that resulted in TARGETING of non-military sites, civilian sites. This is beyond the ambiguity of what is a human shield.

    And, I think it is accurate to state that Israel’s normal mode of military engagement is designed to minimize civilian casualties, and does undertake measures to warn civilians, to gain intelligence concisely, to target concisely, to restrain from fire if more civilians are in the crossfire than is justifiable.

    Hamas in targeting civilian centers does not undertake that scrutiny.

    On Obama,
    He is pursuing peace, a long-term reconciliation. Its not clear that either Hamas nor the majority in Israel want peace. Israel says that they do. Hamas doesn’t yet. The PA states that it does want peace.

    George Mitchell is not a mouthpiece. If there is a path, they will find it. If there isn’t a path, then they won’t.

  17. My comment on Obama was a little tongue-in-cheek; the reference was to his interview on the Al-Arabiya channel cast as his attempt to reach out to the Muslim world in the Middle East. This channel is owned by a member of the Saudi Royal family. I made no reference to Mitchell.

    You are incorrect in regards’ to Israel’s normal mode of military engagement; as an ex-soldier (though not of the IDF) I can tell you that the mode of combat for any army is to minimise its own casualties. The IDF’s use of human shields which is well documented as well as the subject of litigation in the Israeli Supreme Court belies this supposed care for civilians that the IDF is meant to demonstrate. The numerous cases of shooting at both unarmed civilians and medical personnel in the Gaza strip during the invasion raise serious questions both about IDF policy and the fire-discipline of their soldiers.

  18. Hamas is most definitely raping the minds of women; endorsing a social dogma which treats women as chattel, sanctions physical abuse of women, stigmatizes their bodies, and engages in (if you excuse the cultural superiority and condescension) the hideously savage customs of female genital mutilation — cutting off the clitoris and labia minora — and “honor” killings. Hamas is indoctrinating Gazan children with virulent hatred and a glorification of violence and death which makes continued war inevitable.

    Days of Atonement

    Visiting Israel just weeks before the current Gaza conflict, Sally Feldman found that rising religious bigotry is one of the biggest barriers to peace

    …Deplorable acts among these cultish communities are not just confined to the home. For the orthodox lobby in Israel is gaining pernicious influence in public life. The recent skirmishes surrounding the election of the mayor of Jerusalem highlight how far religious fanaticism is infiltrating secular life. Once a tiny minority in Jerusalem, the ultra-orthodox now constitute an estimated 38 per cent of Jerusalem’s Jewish population. Now that they have begun to occupy previously secular neighbourhoods, they are demanding that there be no traffic on Saturdays, that neighbours should wear more modest clothing and women should avoid showing their bare arms or legs in public.

    Alarmingly, Jerusalem has recently witnessed the emergence of religious vigilantes, operating very like those in extreme Arabic states. “There are eyes and ears all over the place, very similar to what you hear about in countries like Iran,” says Naomi Ragen. Two alleged members of a secret modesty patrol were recently arrested in connection with the severe beating of a woman accused of “improper relations” with married men. Another man was arrested for setting fire to non-kosher shops and recently a gang of yeshiva students set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament. Fundamentalists are increasingly turning on Israel’s gay communities, with some rabbis proposing a “compulsory healing treatment” and/or a period of “education in a closed institution”.

    Now the preview button is gone here too for me. What the f*** is this?

  19. Does the IDF target civilians? Personally, I’m convinced they do. If they don’t, they should go back to target practice, because they are really bad at it.

    Between constantly hearing the mantra that the IDF does everything to avoid civilian casualties and the fact that they are the most moral army in the world. The image I have of the war in Gaza, is that of a big Gorilla running after a little mouse in a china shop, killing and destroying everything in its path. Its sole aim is to catch that mouse, at all costs. When the Gorilla leaves the china shop, the mouse is still alive, and laughing because it didn’t get caught and the Gorilla really looks bad.

    You can debate it, left, right and center but as it stands right now, the IDF looks like a brute with no self control and no compassion for other human beings. Furthermore, with all the death and destrucion in Gaza, I don’t think they accomplished anything.

  20. Dsharon wrote:

    “Hamas has explicitly stated that it will not reconcile itself to Israel’s existence, will not have peace with Israel, and not merely justifies but glories armed resistance. …

    Hamas has imposed War on Israel. Hamas has opted for an armed confrontation which holds as its sacred goal the destruction of the Jewish State. THAT’s the crime. That SHOULD be the focus of moral outrage. ”

    For long years those who take it on themselves to represent Israel’s interests in the blogosphere maintained that the PLO had never recognized Israel’s right to exist, even when it had. The same game is now being played with Hamas. The cue comes from on high.

    That the political office of Hamas has, in recent times, come up with statements that point in quite a different direction, is covered up.

    Here is one such statement by Khalid Mishal, head of Hamas’ political office, made in March 2008 in an interview that was published in the Journal of Palestine Studies Summer 2008:

    “There is an opportunity to deal with this conflict in a manner different than Israel and, behind it, the U.S. is dealing with it today. There is an opportunity to achieve a Palestinian national consensus on a political program based on the 1967 borders, and this is an exceptional circumstance, in which most Palestinian forces, including Hamas, accept a state on the 1967 borders….There is also an Arab consensus on this demand, and this is a historic situation. But no one is taking advantage of this opportunity. No one is moving to cooperate with this opportunity. Even this minimum that has been accepted by the Palestinians and the Arabs has been rejected by Israel and by the U.S.”

    I owe this quote to Norman Finkelstein.

    Mishal is referring here, inter alia, to the peace initiative of the 22 members of the Arab League made in 1962 and reconfirmed in 1967. The Arab proposal basically follows USC Resolution 242 which orders withdrawal from occupied territories to the pre-Six Day War armistice line (apart from mutual minor corrections) in return for peace. Though the US and Israel are both parties to this resolution they have ignored it as steadfastly as they are now ignoring the Arab peace proposal and the fact that Mishal has claimed that Hamas will go along with it.

    Finkelstein has argued, in my view correct, that these peace overtures from Hamas constituted in fact one of the major reasons for the onslaught in Gaza. Hamas had to be re-radicalized because a palm bearing Hamas might become an acceptable negotiation partner, for the US and the “quartet”. And if it offered to renounce such violence as it can come up with if the Arab proposal would be implemented Israel would lose its main excuse to hold on to stolen land.

  21. Dsharon wrote:

    “Hamas broke the cease-fire by firing 65 missiles BEFORE the November attempt to dig a tunnel across the Israeli border. The massive bombardment that followed in November and Hamas declared refusal to extend the cease fire …”

    Compare this statement with what the Israeli Oxford historian Avi Shlaim said in an interview dated 14th January on “Democracy Now”:

    “AMY GOODMAN: Professor Avi Shlaim, Israel says the reason it has attacked Gaza is because of the rocket fire, the rockets that Hamas is firing into southern Israel.

    AVI SHLAIM: This is Israeli propaganda, and it is a pack of lies. The important thing to remember is that there was a ceasefire brokered by Egypt in July of last year, and that ceasefire succeeded. So, if Israel wanted to protect its citizens—and it had every right to protect its citizens—the way to go about it was not by launching this vicious military offensive, but by observing the ceasefire.
    Now, let me give you some figures, which I think are the most crucial figures in understanding this conflict. Before the ceasefire came into effect in July of 2008, the monthly number of rockets fired—Kassam rockets, homemade Kassam rockets, fired from the Gaza Strip on Israeli settlements and towns in southern Israel was 179. In the first four months of the ceasefire, the number dropped dramatically to three rockets a month, almost zero. I would like to repeat these figures for the benefit of your listeners. Pre-ceasefire, 179 rockets were fired on Israel; post-ceasefire, three rockets a month. This is point number one, and it’s crucial.
    And my figures are beyond dispute, because they come from the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. But after initiating this war, this particular table, neat table, which showed the success of the ceasefire, was withdrawn and replaced with another table of statistics, which is much more obscure and confusing.
    The new story said that Hamas broke the ceasefire. This is a lie. Hamas observed the ceasefire as best as it could and enforced it very effectively. The ceasefire was a stunning success for the first four months. It was broken not by Hamas, but by the IDF. It was broken by the IDF on the 4th of November, when it launched a raid into Gaza and killed six Hamas men.

    And here is Henry Siegman, presently visiting research professor at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, and former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Cou7ncil of America who wrote , under the title “Israel’s Lies” , in the London review of Books of 29th Juan. 2009:

    “Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing”

    1. By your own admission, AFTER the cease fire, Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel.

      Cease fire means the firing has ceased.

      Hamas did not cease its firing of rockets and mortars.

      Your apologetic claim that Hamas observed the cease fire as best it could is absurd.

      You have no knowledge of the inner workings of Hamas,

      You have no way of knowing what executive decisions were made by them regarding the enforcement of the cease-fire.

      You are engaged in mere speculation, where you are impugning the best of motives and intentions to Hamas, and the worst to the Israeli government. You engage in a kneejerk reflex accusation that Israelis tell lies, and remain oblivious to the fact that the deception and immorality of Hamas is on a whole different level.

      Of course, such a complete absence of perspective is essential if one is to be an apologist for a gang of terrorists.

  22. Its impossible to state that Hamas or Israel broke the six-month cease-fire, as nothing was written down, noone was in the same room clarifying exactly what was agreed.

    Hamas’ description of what the cease-fire entailed was VERY different from Israel’s. BOTH creeped to more assertive descriptions over time.

    Hamas implies that re-arming or planning for further military efforts was not part of the cease-fire agreements, that anything goes on its side of the border (land mines, rocket launching sites, etc.) And Israel states that relaxing the border crossings to a “normalized” level, and that applying the cease-fire in the West Bank was never part of the agreement.

    So, there is an “agreement” that there was some agreement, but noone agrees to what it was.

    In early November, Israel violated the literal cease-fire by its attack on a Gaza tunnel system, which escalated for two weeks, at which time through channels and public statements, BOTH Israel and Hamas declared that the cease-fire was restored, and acted on it.

    A day prior to the cessation of the cease-fire, Hamas allowed PRC and Islamic Jihad to resume shelling. (Some Israelis regard the PRC as a related party to Hamas and takes suggestions from Hamas if not orders and assists Hamas, while Islamic Jihad is largely considered independant.)

    The first two days of actual Hamas shelling, it seemed to aim into the desert, as a warning. Israel similarly issued verbal warnings.

    During the week following the end of the formal cease-fire, Hamas returned to shelling civilians, and gradually at longer range (not just Sderot, but to Ashkelon, and even Beersheba), and with more accuracy.

    Push came to shove. Hamas was prepared to shell 30 miles into Israel and did all that it was capable. Israel was prepared to bomb ALL of Gaza, and did much much less than it was capable, instead mostly targeting strategic sites.

    Israel ran out of targets that could reasonably be called strategic, and lost its focus and rationalized many targets as strategic, when in fact they had crossed a grey line to more civilian in character.

    Hamas realized that they were unprepared for what they started and went underground.

    They’re NOT yet signing on to a cease-fire.

  23. Richard you wrote :

    “In early November, Israel violated the literal cease-fire by its attack on a Gaza tunnel system”

    Well, you have become somewhat less evasive on this. In your earlier post you claimed that “both” broke the ceasefire.

    I would like to see some sources for the rest of your assertions. It is midnight on this side of the world so I cannot react in hurry.

  24. Both did break the cease-fire Arie.

    Hamas broke the cease-fire compared to Israel’s self-definition. Israel broke the cease-fire compared to Hamas’.

    That Hamas had longer range and more accurate rockets at the end of the cease-fire is a breaking of the cease-fire agreement as well.

    They chose to use them. They definitely didn’t need to. And, they knew approximately what was the consequence. A choice on their part.

    A difficult one certainly.

    The sources are New York Times and Haaretz reports. Both have historical archives. Look for Gaza November 2008, and Gaza December 2008.

  25. On the time line.

    Dates are undeniable, interpretations are subjective.

    Dates include 11/4 – Israeli bombing of tunnel system 300 yds approximately from Israel/Gaza border

    Intermittant single incidents in retaliations through 11/19.

    Restoration of cease-fire until 12/18. (Cease-fire formally ended on 12/19)

    12/18 Islamic Jihad and PRC claim credit for shelling into Israel from Gaza. Noted as missing Israeli towns by a few miles

    12/19-12/20 Shelling into Israel from Gaza, no casualties, some property damage (noted as unlikely Hamas directly)

    12/20 -12/28 Shelling into Israel from Gaza, Sderot, Ashkelon and one incident of shelling Beersheba using larger and more accurate rockets, a portion regarded as from Hamas, though likely other factions as well.

    12/28 – Beginning of Israeli air campaign, after week of increasing tone of warnings

    Thats from memory. It may be a day off or so.

    The point though is that the cease-fire was restored, and that Hamas at 12/19 faced the difficult decision of whether to keep it (without mediated agreement), or drop it.

    They indicated that their goal was opening the border crossings, but somehow presumed that in an environment of active war, Israel would increase the allowed traffic flow beyond a minimum humanitarian assistance.

  26. “Both did break the cease-fire Arie.”

    Richard my reply is strictly for bystanders because I know from bitter experience on other blogs that, unless you haver made it yourself, you don’t recognise a point when you fall over it. So here goes. That both BROKE (rather than no longer kept up) the ceasefire is extremely unlikely unless they started firing at each other at exactly the same time.

    “Hamas broke the cease-fire compared to Israel’s self-definition. Israel broke the cease-fire compared to Hamas’.”

    “Israel’s self definition” ? Yes, we know that Israel is lying about it. Read Shlaim and Siegman.

    “That Hamas had longer range and more accurate rockets at the end of the cease-fire is a breaking of the cease-fire agreement as well.”

    Remember what you wrote in your previous letter?

    ” So, there is an “agreement” that there was some agreement, but noone agrees to what it was.”

    But of course you wrote that when it was a matter of getting Israel off the hook as far as the breaking of the ceasefire was concerned. When it comes to pointing the finger at Hamas you know, all of a sudden, exactly what that agreement contained.

    “They chose to use them. They definitely didn’t need to. And, they knew approximately what was the consequence. A choice on their part.

    A difficult one certainly.”

    Yes, what could the Israelis expect? As one of the few sane voices over there (that of Shmuel Zakai, erstwhile IDF commander of the Gaza division) had it:

    “When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing” ” (see my previous letter)

    I doubt that Hamas knew approximately what was in store for them because people count, if not on mercy, on a measure of rationality in their opponents. They couldn’t expect that their enemy would deliberately want to create the impression to have gone insane (“the boss has gone mad” remember). Well as far as that is concerned Israel has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams not only in the eyes of the unfortunate Gazans but in those of the rest of the world.

    “The sources are New York Times and Haaretz reports. Both have historical archives. Look for Gaza November 2008, and Gaza December 2008”

    Oh , thank you very much. You call that a source indication?

    Incidentally, I will not react to any further writings from you. I find it unfortunate that you plaster any blog you contribute to all over with your handiwork and I do not feel inclined to play the bell for Pavlov’s dog.

    P.S. Richard S., I have now on a few occasions had the experience that when I try to submit a reply it disappears into the blue yonder. Instead one gets a message from WP-Spamfree that says “Sorry, there is an error. Java script and cookies should be enabled.” It also says that, in case these are already enabled (as is the case here) one should warn the author of the blog.

    1. Arie, I had the same thing you describe. Can be frustrating with a long comment that you then have to re-write. Just learned to Ctrl-C my comment before submitting and re-submit it right away if needed.

  27. Arie,
    The assertion that you and others have made is that “Israel broke the cease-fire agreement”.

    I disagree. Its MUCH more ambiguous than that.

    Following the formal end of the cease-fire, Hamas was the party most responsible in making it impossible to renew (by initiating and escalating shelling of civilians for a week before Israel responded militarily).

    And, at that point, Israel responded in a shock and awe manner, with clear direction and focus for a week, but diluting that shortly after.

    If Hamas had not gone underground, the death tolls on both sides would have had an additional 0 on them.

    I guess we can thank them for that.

    1. Your statement is incredibly ambigous if not outright false. You are just trying to dance around the fact that it was Israel that ended the ceasefire by its assassination of Hamas members on the 4th of November. Your timeline cited earlier then just talks about “intermittent” blahblah then moving conveniently on to shelling by IJ and other groups.

      Also the idea that Israel only responded with full force for a week is completely untrue; aerial bombing carried on much longer than that and there was no dilution until outside pressure mounted. The timeline for deaths recorded clearly indicates this.

      A simpler statistic than your completely speculative one is this:

      number of Israelies killed by rocketfire during the ceasefire: 0

      number of Israelis killed by rocketfire after Israel violated the ceasefire: 3

      by its own policy of trying to protect Israeli citizens’ lives, Israeli military aggression doesn’t seem to have worked.

      1. Lazynative,
        Please don’t live up to your name.

        My reasoning for questions around the November 4 and then retaliatory sequences, is that according to Israel’s definition of the cease-fire, importing weaponry and building tunnels with ANY prospective exit across the Israeli border constituted a cease-fire violation. The tunnels attacked on November 4 were understood by Israel to have exits on the Israeli side of the border.

        I don’t assume that that is accurate. It is ambiguous. Or else I would state that Hamas violated not only the post-cease-fire, but the cease-fire itself.

        Immediately after that exchange, BOTH Hamas and Israel publicly and through channels indicated that they wished the cease-fire to remain in effect, and kept it through mid-December.

        The “violations” were an aberration, not an ENDING of the cease-fire.

        The restoration of the shelling was a CHOICE made by Hamas militants, including Meshal and the military wing. Most of the service wing opposed resuming shelling.

        http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060313.html
        Report: Gaza Hamas heads furious with Meshal decision to end lull
        By Haaretz Service
        Tags: Hamas, Gaza Strip

        Palestinian sources told the Egyptian daily newspaper Al Ahram that the Hamas leadership in the Gaza Strip sought to extend the six-month cease-fire that preceded Israel’s military offensive last month and are furious with Hamas’ Damascus-based political bureau chief Khaled Meshal’s decision to end the truce, Israel Radio reported on Saturday.

        According to the report, two senior Hamas officials in Gaza – Mahmoud al-Zahar and Ahmed al-Jabari – warned Meshal that abandoning the cease-fire was “rash” given that the organization had not adequately prepared for an Israeli ground incursion into the Gaza Strip.

        1. Israel never made clear what exactly it would regard as a violation of the ceasefire; indeed this kind of ambiguity suits it since it can then break ceasefires with relative ease. What was a clear condition of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was that the economic blockade be lifted, something which Israel never did and which senior military figures on the Israeli side criticised their government for.

          On this tunnel; the incursion to assasinate Hamas members occurred in Gaza; where exactly this tunnel is meant to have led to is unknown apart from the IDF claim that it had an exit in Israel. Apart from the severe credibility deficit the IDF suffers from; the norm in observing a ceasefire is that when a violation is seen, instead of unilaterally going in gung-ho and breaking it, the aggrieved side is meant to contact and inform the aggressor side that the ceasefire is being violated and give them an option either to cease the violation or hostilities would be resumed. Israel typically did neither. Given the state of siege that Gaza has been under for the last 18months smuggling supplies through these tunnels is one of the few ways to import a wide range of essentials.

          1. “Given the state of siege that Gaza has been under for the last 18months smuggling supplies through these tunnels is one of the few ways to import a wide range of essentials.”

            NOT in the location it was discovered. The only possible role for that tunnel was for some aggressive purpose.

            Don’t rationalize for Hamas. They regarded themselves as equally at war.

            There was mediated contact between the sides, which is how each reiterated that they desired the cease-fire to remain in effect.

            If the “Israel broke the cease-fire” is a critical element in your math about what is right and wrong, then you are standing on thin ice.

          2. Israel has made it abundantly clear what it wants from a cease-fire: that the firing of rockets and mortars must cease.

            That means not one rocket, nor one mortar shell coming from Gaza.

            It may sound like an incredible, fascist, reactionary, racist, colonialist, imperialist, Zionist, Nazi demand that the Palestinians not resort to violence to resolve their disputes — but there it is. That’s what Israelis are requiring.

            And your sophistry about the tunnel is ridiculous. The tunnel was not a tunnel to nowhere. It was not intended to loop around in Gazan territory. Rather, it was heading for Israeli territory — and this is an attempt at aggression, no different from setting up a rocket launcher. Just because the attempt occurred wholly within Gazan territory does not create some sort of sovereign protection which disappears ONLY when the attack/rocket is launched.

            But it seems that you are coming from the position that Hamas violence against Israelis is understandable, justified and legitimate — so it should be of no surprise that you are morally outraged by Israel’s attempts to stifle it.

            Your claim that lifting the blockade was a condition to the cease fire is false. Israel has every right to impose an economic blockade on Gaza — just as the Arab states have enjoyed for decades the sovereign right to impose an economic blockade and embargo on Israel.

            If Hamas wants the blockade to be lifted — they can sit down face to face with Israelis and negotiate terms.

            They chose not to. Hamas chose to engage in violence as a means of advancing its agenda. Apparently this does not bother you, as while you are quick to accuse Israel of having a “credibility deficit”, you seem to have an inexhaustible store of naivete as to Hamas.

  28. NOT in the location it was discovered. The only possible role for that tunnel was for some aggressive purpose.

    The only information provided for this is from the IDF which is uncorroborated and therefore highly suspect; you have now gone from implying that there was actual incursion that was about to be carried out to saying that the tunnel was “for some aggressive purpose” a sign of sliding justifications if I ever saw one.

    Don’t rationalize for Hamas. They regarded themselves as equally at war.

    Of course they are at war – where did I suggest otherwise. They face an enemy that refuses to allow them statehood, wants to annex their territory and is prepared to use military force to achieve these objectives. What else would they be doing if not preparing for war?

    There was mediated contact between the sides, which is how each reiterated that they desired the cease-fire to remain in effect.

    If the “Israel broke the cease-fire” is a critical element in your math about what is right and wrong, then you are standing on thin ice.

    There are mediated contacts and steps of escalation – Israel chose to ignore them when it unilaterally decided to attack Hamas – there is “if” about this; this is fact. Whatever Israel claims Hamas was doing or not doing; the plain fact of the matter is that unless there is an imminent attack the standard operating procedure is not to unilaterally engage unless you are sure the enemy has already abandoned the ceasefire. If every incident like this led to one side invading the other India and Pakistan would have been perpetually at war and North Korea would have invaded South Korea years ago. The difference is that Israel never took the ceasefire seriously and chose to break it.

  29. DSHARON, browse this link and ascertain that Hamas (or, rather, Palestinian factions in Gaza) were not the only ones breaking the fire during the tahadiye. In fact, the first real violation of the ceasefire came from Israel on the first day (!) of the tahadiye:

    June 20
    – Israeli army troops near the border east of the southern Gaza town of Rafah opened fire towards Palestinian farmers working in al-Amoor, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.
    – Israeli troops east of el-Maghazi camp opened fire towards Palestinian farmers, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.
    – Israeli marine vessels fired towards Palestinian fishermen west of Beit Lahiya, according U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

    1. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, they provide little more information than what you posted. I did try to look up the archives in other news sources to see if there was more background information as to what happened.

      To be fair, one would want to have more information regarding the circumstances of the incident: such as whether these were truly farmers, and what was meant by firing at them (was it firing AT them or firing in the air to warn them away from the border fence).

      Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the Israeli government and IDF soldiers have made mistakes and on occasion behaved poorly. I take no offense at your raising such instances — rather, I applaud you for doing so. A society requires a level of introspection and self-appraisal in order to remain healthy. My objection is only when the extent of this self-critique becomes pathological such as to prevent the acknowledgment of any good or merit to one’s own society.

      Bringing it back to the editorial on Noa, while there is a healthy debate in Israeli society — such that there is little additional perspective required from outsiders that is not raised among Israelis on their own — there is no such debate going on in Palestinian/Gazan society. Hamas, in particular (not that Fatah is any better) ruthlessly oppresses political opposition and dissent. Because of this, it becomes all the more imperative for people outside to speak out against this dictatorial regime.

  30. DSHARON,

    Israel has every right to impose an economic blockade on Gaza — just as the Arab states have enjoyed for decades the sovereign right to impose an economic blockade and embargo on Israel.

    You make it sound as if the blockade on gaza is in any way similar to the Arab boycott. This is, of course, silly: first, because Israel was not allowing anything into Gaza, including basic supplies (and at times threatening to turn off the electricity too); and second because was no other way for Gazans to get those (Egypt is an accomplice int he blockade). so, the Gaza blockade, you know, it was not about Gazans having to drive Subarus and drink Pepsi, buddy, it was about them having to eat grass so as not to die from hunger.

  31. Israel has made it abundantly clear what it wants from a cease-fire: that the firing of rockets and mortars must cease.
    That means not one rocket, nor one mortar shell coming from Gaza.

    This condition was met during the ceasefire; Hamas did not fire one single rocked according to the IDF during the ceasefire. Those organisations that did (many of whom are affiliated with Fatah, which for reasons unknown Israel seems to think is a legitimate partner for peace) fire rockets were according again to Israeli sources restrained to the best capability by Hamas.

    It may sound like an incredible, fascist, reactionary, racist, colonialist, imperialist, Zionist, Nazi demand that the Palestinians not resort to violence to resolve their disputes — but there it is. That’s what Israelis are requiring.

    The demand is reasonable it itself; where it becomes unreasonable is when it is set alongside continued violence by Israelis both settlers and militants. One fact that is little know is that the only Israeli injured by rocketfire during the ceasefire was a settler whose attempt to launch a rocket at Palestinians misfired. But of course Israeli violence is never taken into account; only Palestinian violence is bad and must be stopped – right?

    And your sophistry about the tunnel is ridiculous. The tunnel was not a tunnel to nowhere. It was not intended to loop around in Gazan territory. Rather, it was heading for Israeli territory — and this is an attempt at aggression, no different from setting up a rocket launcher. Just because the attempt occurred wholly within Gazan territory does not create some sort of sovereign protection which disappears ONLY when the attack/rocket is launched.

    There is no sophistry involved about the tunnel at all – I just am pointing out that Israeli attempts to make out that some sort of imminent raid was about to be launched through it is not verified and that Israeli official propaganda tends to be false. I did point out that if you are adhering to a ceasefire there is a protocol to be observed rather than unilaterally breaking it everytime you think it has been violated by the other side.

    But it seems that you are coming from the position that Hamas violence against Israelis is understandable, justified and legitimate — so it should be of no surprise that you are morally outraged by Israel’s attempts to stifle it.

    I did not say Hamas’ violence against Israel was justified or legitimate; though it is understandable since Hamas consist of humans and not alien invaders from Mars whose motivations are inscrutable. Hamas violence is no more legitimate than Israeli violence. The problem for Israelis and their supporters is that they just want to see their violence as justified and legitmate and any violence from the Palestinians as the opposite. Also understandable but not correct in my view. Also please do not use morality in such discussions; there is nothing moral about Israel or Hamas and any pretension otherwise is just sickening. We can talk about what is right or wrong from the point of view of politics and seeking a solution but morality should be left out of this.

    Your claim that lifting the blockade was a condition to the cease fire is false. Israel has every right to impose an economic blockade on Gaza — just as the Arab states have enjoyed for decades the sovereign right to impose an economic blockade and embargo on Israel.

    False as well as ignorant; the other Arab states are sovereign states; they are not occupying Israel and nor is Israel occupying them. A more appropriate analogy would be if the Arab states completely blockaded Israel from the outside world and prevented any trade or supplies from reaching Israel by land, sea or air. This would be unacceptable and quite rightly be seen by Israel as a provocation to war. As your former Foreign Minister Eban said a blockade is incompatible with peace and is merely the prelude to war.

    If Hamas wants the blockade to be lifted — they can sit down face to face with Israelis and negotiate terms.

    Why, Israel has already indicated that a ceasefire is not a good enough reason to lift the blockade; they haven’t done so before why should they do so know – especially since everyone including Hamas knows that Israel wants to depose Hamas from power in the Gaza strip, which lifting the blockade would not accomplish.

    They chose not to. Hamas chose to engage in violence as a means of advancing its agenda. Apparently this does not bother you, as while you are quick to accuse Israel of having a “credibility deficit”, you seem to have an inexhaustible store of naivete as to Hamas.

    Well, non-violence has hardly helped the Palestinians and would have the Israelis keel over laughing as they annex the West Bank and effect population transfer if it was tried. I have never anywhere endorsed Hamas’ agenda and I am not naive about Hamas at all. I just don’t demonise them like you do. Also the lack of credibility of the Israeli govt is now exposed not because of any deep-seated love of Hamas – as usual with the Palestinians, Hamas are poor public advocates and incredibily inexperienced as well as incompetent when dealing with the media; but because of the lies and disseminations that Israel has itself been caught up in during this operation. But given the nature of Israeli hasbara, what it requires is a suspension of all doubt and naivite from its supporters.

    1. Taking your last point —

      The Palestinians have never relied upon non-violence as their response of FIRST resort. Thus, it is hard to dismiss non-violence as a failed strategy for Palestinians.

      As for the Israeli reaction — the Israeli electorate has established a recognizable pattern where they tend to vote left/moderate when the peace process is gaining momentum and revert to the right/hawkish parties in the face of terrorism, war and existential threats. While you accuse me of demonizing Hamas — you are painting a picture of Israelis as reacting to a Palestinian Ghandi by laughingly expelling him from his home. This sounds like demonization.

      As for Hamas, this is not about poor public advocacy or inexperience in dealing with the media. Hamas is a cruel, oppressive theocratically inspired dictatorship which oppresses women, Christians, political opponents and any deviants from its view of what constitutes Islam. Its agenda is extremist. It does not envision a liberal, diverse, tolerant society that protects liberty, rights and due process of law. Rather, it seeks to impose an oppressive Islamic dictatorial regime which opposes such concepts.

      1. The Palestinians have never relied upon non-violence as their response of FIRST resort. Thus, it is hard to dismiss non-violence as a failed strategy for Palestinians.
        This is true; although the examples of non-violent behaviour used by the Palestinians so far have not been very successful. During the 1980s there were several examples of villages and towns refusing to pay taxes and enforcing passive resistance towards the Israeli occupation; they were broken by cutting off all water and electricity and being blockaded. Non-violence can only work in certain situations and it has been given an unrealistic status by its record in the Indian independence movement; where it could depend on much greater numbers and where British colonial rule was heavily dependent on not having the mass of the Indian peasantry mobilised against it. In anycase, what ultimately did for British rule in India wasn’t non-violent resistance but the collapse of British economic, military and strategic power after WWII.

        As for the Israeli reaction — the Israeli electorate has established a recognizable pattern where they tend to vote left/moderate when the peace process is gaining momentum and revert to the right/hawkish parties in the face of terrorism, war and existential threats. While you accuse me of demonizing Hamas — you are painting a picture of Israelis as reacting to a Palestinian Ghandi by laughingly expelling him from his home. This sounds like demonization.

        I should make myself clearer here – what I mean is the state of Israel not the great mass of Israelis themselves and this is an important distinction. The Israeli electorate has almost consistently voted for and accepted a viable two-state solution; the failure lies in their political elites and policymakers who have just as consistently done their best to sabotage such a settlement. Israeli policymaking has not deviated from establishing its supremacy over the West Bank in political and military terms; Israel’s policy of building settlements and its treatment of negotiations makes this very clear. Official Israeli policy still remains hostile towards the idea that a Palestinian state has a right to be formed and that Palestinians have national rights that are justified. Israelis as individuals and even collectively are far more flexible imo and have accepted this a long time ago. The sections of Israeli society that are fanatical enough to forgo such a settlement in return for territorial expansion is very small.

        My point about a Palestinian Gandhi (I would follow the correct spelling here since Indians get touchy if you don’t) is that his tactics simply wouldn’t work unless it was able to mobilise the entire regional Arab population and not just the Palestinian one. Gandhi after all was able to mobilise an entire sub-continent, if he only managed to mobilise the state where he came from (Gujarat) or even just one or two of the bigger states in British India at the time; he could have been dealt with quite effectively.

        As for Hamas, this is not about poor public advocacy or inexperience in dealing with the media. Hamas is a cruel, oppressive theocratically inspired dictatorship which oppresses women, Christians, political opponents and any deviants from its view of what constitutes Islam. Its agenda is extremist. It does not envision a liberal, diverse, tolerant society that protects liberty, rights and due process of law. Rather, it seeks to impose an oppressive Islamic dictatorial regime which opposes such concepts.

        I was making a point about demonising Hamas in terms of their inter-state relations not their internal domestic policy. A polity can be repressive internally while being relatively stable externally – China is a good example and Saudi Arabia a major US ally and Egypt are others. Whatever the faults of Hamas, it was elected democratically and it does enjoy popular legitimacy in Gaza – this doesn’t mean it can’t be replaced but it needs to be done so by the Palestinian electorate there not by Israeli tanks and helicopters. As Robespierre said – no one likes armed missionaries. In anycase, I doubt that Israeli concerns are for the non-hetereosexual, women and other religious minorities of Gaza; since the Israeli state was all too willing to sponsor Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah during the First Intifada. Israeli policy has done little to encourage any sort of democracy or social progressiveness amongst other neighbouring powers and happily allied itself with crypto-Fascist ones such as the Lebanese Phalangists when desirable. Ironically, repeated polling of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank shows that the one facet of Israel that Palestinians admire and want to replicate the most is democratic governance.

        1. Good responses.

          PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE vs. NON-VIOLENCE
          The problem is that Israelis look at Palestinian violence and react to it. Indeed, one of my old Poli Sci professors, Ehud Sprinzak, argued that THIS was the defining element of terrorism. Terrorism was NOT about killing civilians or scaring people per se — i.e., that was not the GOAL but merely the tactic. The GOAL of the terrorist was to encourage a violent unfocused oppressive response by the victim.

          To understand this, Sprinzak observed that terrorists were political extremists who typically advocated a political dogma that was outside of the mainstream — even in their own culture. To these extremists, they were as much at war against their own political moderates as with the outside oppressor. Their agenda was to radicalize the population and isolate the advocates of moderation/compromise. Terrorism was the tool to accomplish this. By deliberately targeting women, children, civilians, the terrorist hoped to incite the enemy population against the home population — thereby isolating and undermining moderates there. Provoking harsh retaliation served to undermine local moderates that a compromise with the enemy was possible. Terrorism is thus a tool for radicalization and a weapon against political moderates and liberals.

          Unfortunately, it works.

          DISTINCTION BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
          Important to do so. The underlying basis for your criticism, I believe, reflects the inherent problems of a coalition government necessary in Israel’s parliamentary system. In order to get a coalition, there is so much horse-trading and balancing of often conflicting political philosophies that it is almost impossible to have an internally consistent policy. It wasn’t for nothing that Churchill derided democracy as “the worst system of governance ever derived by Man…”.

          Of course he did add the caveat “…with the exception of all the others.”

          HAMAS
          I agree that the BEST means of dealing with Hamas would have been (and can still be) for an international consensus that would have ensured that it was deprived of military weaponry and pressured to comply with international law (and not shoot missiles, mortars, kidnap Israelis, hold an Israeli w/o ICRC visits). This would have the net effect of preventing Hamas from exploiting the conflict to excuse its poor performance on the social, economic and political issues facing Gazans.

          FINALLY re/ISRAELI SUPPORT FOR HAMAS IN THE 1980s
          Yes, it’s true. In the face of a communist inspired, corrupt, terrorist organization headed by an evil buffoon — there were Israelis that thought that an organization steeped in the values of the Religion of Peace would be an improvement. Obviously, that was a mistake.

          1. 1) Re Palestinian Violence and Non-Violence: I disagree with your interpretations of terrorism and what it seeks to achieve. Your interpretation seems to me to be a quasi-nihilistic one that is more likely to be found in the pages of a Dostoyevsky novel rather than in broad movements with a deep social base like Hamas. Terrorism always seeks to provoke a response – in the targeted group not the originator agency. The roots of terror have always functioned along these lines, as Hegel noted the concept of terror was first used on a systematic level by the French Jacobin state and has impeccable middle class roots as an instrument of policy.

            I don’t follow your arguements about liberal and extremists amongst the Palestinians; while there may be a disagreement how to govern themselves politically and socially along cultural and religious lines; there is very little distance between most spectrums of Palestinian range of political opinion on what they want from Israel and Zionism.

            2) DISTINCTION BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT: My point goes far beyond just the mechanics of the current coalition govt but is a broader point about Israeli military and political elites since 1967 – namely that they have not seriously reconciled themselves to the idea that they might have to give up political and military control of the West Bank. The entire approach to Oslo I and II indicates that Israeli policymakers have done everything possible to delay, mitigate and sabotage such an outcome.

            3) Hamas needs to refrain from attacking Israel and carrying out aggression against Israel but unless Israel can commit itself to not invading, blockading, carrying out sonic booms, assassination operations etc. It would be unrealistic for Hamas to be expected to carry out suicide by unilaterally disarming. It has also been far more capable in delivering social and welfare services than the corrupt PA or Fatah – one of the reasons for its popularity, so while its social and cultural policies leave much to be desired it is not a failure on the governance front as you seem to imply.

            4) To call the PLO communist-inspired, corrupt and terrorist; is highly simplistic and ignores the fact that for many years it embodied the national aspirations of the Palestinian population. It was no more any of these things than the Haganah or the Irgun were. In anycase, promoting reactionary Islamist political movements as a counterweight was not only unwise but indicates that whatever else it cares about, the rights of Palestinian women and sexual minorities are hardly a priority for Israel.

  32. I enjoyed reading your response — which contained points which deserve more consideration than I have time for now.

  33. LAZY…

    PALESTINIAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS ISRAEL
    I hope you are wrong in your assessment that there is little difference among Palestinian positions vis a vis Israel and Zionism. If they uniformly reject the concept of the existence of Israel or the Jewish character of the Israeli state then it is hard to see how any reconciliation is possible. Part of the problem with Palestinian militancy is that it has typically been phrased as an “all or nothing”; it’s either YOU or ME; Israel OR Palestine. Obviously, if that is the choice imposed on me, I have little problem making my decision as to which one of us has got to go.

    WEST BANK
    If we are talking about the June 4, 1967 lines, I agree, there is a consensus among Israelis NOT to accept such a proposal.

    On the other hand, if there is Palestinian flexibility about the Latrun salient, Jerusalem and the protection of access to Jewish holy places in Nablus, Bethlehem, and Judaism’s Second Holiest City, Hebron — then there IS a consensus from the constituents of Kadima leftwards to accept a Palestinian State on that territory.

    To argue that ISRAEL has done EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to sabotage Oslo I and II is hyperbole, I am assuming that this is a reference to what you consider as excessive, the Israeli reactions to the spate of Palestinian terrorism that followed the initiation of the Oslo process. Nonetheless, Israel has established precedents of both ending territorial occupation and dismantling settlements. It would seem that people of good will would recognize that however odious they may find an occupation or a settlement, the fact remains that both may be undone — whereas the murders committed in the name of resistance to occupation and settlement are irreversible.

    HAMAS THE BENEVOLENT…
    Hamas’ success at providing social services is a result of its first having interfered with the provision of social services, artificially creating shortages, and then distributing needed supplies from its own stockpiles. This, coupled with its ruthless intimidation, including murder, of its critics and whistleblowers, has helped its manipulation of its public image.

    PLO — THE SOLE LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE (SLRPP)
    I remember all too well when the PLO championed itself as the SLRPP, and — similar to Hamas today — ruthlessly removed any potential competing political representatives. (although it cleverly fostered several militia groups who could commit acts of terror (or resistance operations if you prefer euphemisms) for which the PLO could deny responsibility.)

    The Yishuv recognized the need for a single multi-party government with one authorized army. Accordingly, the military arms of the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and Palmah were all incorporated into the IDF, and the political arms became political parties. This was accomplished peacefully because the Yishuv leadership, unlike the PLO, had a clear vision of Jewish national aspirations, and held these aspirations more dear than their personal ambitions.

    This is one of the reasons why the Yishuv was able to transition to an effective government — where as the Palestinians have been wholly unsuccessful.

    1. I hope you are wrong in your assessment that there is little difference among Palestinian positions vis a vis Israel and Zionism. If they uniformly reject the concept of the existence of Israel or the Jewish character of the Israeli state then it is hard to see how any reconciliation is possible. Part of the problem with Palestinian militancy is that it has typically been phrased as an “all or nothing”; it’s either YOU or ME; Israel OR Palestine. Obviously, if that is the choice imposed on me, I have little problem making my decision as to which one of us has got to go.

      There are variants of course; the Palestinian diaspora outside the region is more moderate; the ones in the Occupied Territories centrist, I think it is the Palestinians in the refugee camps that would be the most extremist for obvious reasons. The general default position though won’t be very different from centre-left Zionist positions – i.e. like the Zionists they will see the entire Mandate territory as rightfully theirs and the Jewish settlers/immigrants as unwelcome interlopers; but like most centre-left Zionists they will accept the loss of territory for statehood and a two-state solution. Of course, this is my impression and I certainly won’t claim to speak for the Palestinians.

      If we are talking about the June 4, 1967 lines, I agree, there is a consensus among Israelis NOT to accept such a proposal.
      On the other hand, if there is Palestinian flexibility about the Latrun salient, Jerusalem and the protection of access to Jewish holy places in Nablus, Bethlehem, and Judaism’s Second Holiest City, Hebron — then there IS a consensus from the constituents of Kadima leftwards to accept a Palestinian State on that territory.

      IMO, I don’t think so. Politically noises are made; but Israeli policymakers at the elite level have not yet reconciled themselves to having a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. Their actions speak louder than their words and otherwise make no sense. Most of Israeli civil society has accepted this and would be satisfied with this; I don’t think they have any attachement to annexed territory outside the Green Line with the exception of Jerusalem.

      To argue that ISRAEL has done EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to sabotage Oslo I and II is hyperbole, I am assuming that this is a reference to what you consider as excessive, the Israeli reactions to the spate of Palestinian terrorism that followed the initiation of the Oslo process. Nonetheless, Israel has established precedents of both ending territorial occupation and dismantling settlements. It would seem that people of good will would recognize that however odious they may find an occupation or a settlement, the fact remains that both may be undone — whereas the murders committed in the name of resistance to occupation and settlement are irreversible.

      Well, Rabin came the closest to actually perhaps implementing this and had he won that election he maybe could have pushed something through. But it was very late in the day when mainstream Israeli politicians publicly started using the term Palestinian state, Rabin didn’t do it until his last election campaign. Labour Zionism accepted it late on as well. Of course Likud and the centre-right nominally might pay lip-service to a two-state solution but in effect they are planning for a broken up group of Bantustans not a proper state for the Palestinians in the West Bank. Politicians from this part of the spectrum from Netanahyu to Sharon have been opportunistic in the extreme in sabotaging peace talks wherever possible.
      Also don’t forget the murders, thuggery and wanton destruction carried out by both the settlers and the IDF in the Occupied territories – these are pretty much irreversible too.

      Hamas’ success at providing social services is a result of its first having interfered with the provision of social services, artificially creating shortages, and then distributing needed supplies from its own stockpiles. This, coupled with its ruthless intimidation, including murder, of its critics and whistleblowers, has helped its manipulation of its public image.

      Actually no, this is not right. Hamas like its parent organisation the Muslim Brotherhood and like Hezbollah is very effective in providing such a service and has been doing so for sometime now. I don’t think its popularity can be properly understood otherwise – it is very sharply contrasted with the corrupt Fatah and thugs of the PA which really have misappropriated vast amounts of funds. I doubt Hamas is much concerned with its ‘public image’ since it is an Islamist movement, it is not really interested in what non-Muslims think of it and engages with Muslims directly. I have no doubt that it does indulge in a lot of violence towards its critics, however nobody is claiming that Hamas is some sort of perfect Scandinavian social democratic party. What it is, however, is a legitimately elected party elected by a popular vote which most observers agree was not rigged and they should be accepted as such. We can’t foist leadership that we personally find acceptable onto other nations, I mean many people would prefer to have very different leaders in Tel Aviv for example. I don’t understand why you keep on banging on about Hamas’ public image as if it has a great one – it doesn’t, it is very poorly regarded as a party and as a regime by most of the world.

      I remember all too well when the PLO championed itself as the SLRPP, and — similar to Hamas today — ruthlessly removed any potential competing political representatives. (although it cleverly fostered several militia groups who could commit acts of terror (or resistance operations if you prefer euphemisms) for which the PLO could deny responsibility.)

      Well, though it removed some competitors it grew by absorbing most of the different factions under one umbrella and this was one reason why it was successful in representing the Palestinians. I am unsure what you are referring to by militia groups here; apart from some extremist cells most actual incursions into Israeli territory until the 1970s were carried out by disorganised local groups; which made it easier for the IDF to liquidate them.

      The Yishuv recognized the need for a single multi-party government with one authorized army. Accordingly, the military arms of the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and Palmah were all incorporated into the IDF, and the political arms became political parties. This was accomplished peacefully because the Yishuv leadership, unlike the PLO, had a clear vision of Jewish national aspirations, and held these aspirations more dear than their personal ambitions.

      Actually no, it was accomplished by a threat of violence as the Altalena affair showed. The Jewish Agency rountinely described the Irgun and the Stern Gang as terrorist organisations while keeping contact and co-ordinating with them in private. The leadership of the Yishuv had very different ideas about Jewish national aspirations; the only thing they agreed on was the need for an independent state with as much territory as possible in the Mandate. Different streams and leaders like Ben-Gurion and Begin despised each other personally and ideologically.

      This is one of the reasons why the Yishuv was able to transition to an effective government — where as the Palestinians have been wholly unsuccessful.

      Well this transition only happened after they had created the state; without and in the pre-1948 period the arrangements were very messy and disorganised. I don’t see any reason why the Palestinians won’t be able to replicate the more successful anti-colonial movements in the former colonies in creating a stable govt.

      1. Too much to respond to adequately. But…

        Hamas can only be seen as a successful provider of social services if you are using the PLO as a benchmark. Admittedly, it will be a great challenge to exceed the PLO’s level of political corruption. Nonetheless, as recent news stories indicate, Hamas seems intent on giving the PLO a run for the money (pun intended).

        Your reference to the Altalena Incident is notable because it was just that — an incident (along with 1-2 days of street fighting in Tel Aviv) which so shocked the Yishuv that Begin met with Ben Gurion and agreed to the integration of Irgun fighters into the Haganah. The quality of the Jewish leaders of the Yishuv in their vision of a Jewish State and their commitment to the Jewish people over their own personal glory or power far exceeds anything we see among Palestinian leaders. Ignoring this fact, or dismissing it by presuming that some political event will fundamentally change the character of Hamas thugs and Fatah incompetents avoids the issue.

        Nonetheless, this remains at the core of the conflict. Israelis — even moderate ones — concede that they do not trust the bona fides of ANY Palestinian leadership or their ability to maintain public support based on the quality of their government. Instead, Palestinian leaders have historically relied on anti-Israeli invective as a substitute for performance.

        1. Altalena was far more than “an incident.” It was a decisive & formative event in the history of the Yishuv. It could have gone either way. Had Begin been prepared for an all out rebellion it could have led to civil war along the lines of what has happened bet. Fatah & Hamas. For whatever reason, Begin conceded & Ben Gurion triumphed. But it could have been different. So your crowing about the smooth, peaceful & civil development of pre-State Israel compared with the Palestinian political development is specious. Israel did better, yes. But that was 60 years ago under entirely different conditions. And Ben Gurion had nowhere near the pressures or ferocious & heavily armed enemies bearing down on him that the Palestinians face. Except for the Jordanians, the Arab armies were no match for the Palmach. And the Jordanians were a far less lethal enemy than Israel is to the Palestinians.

          Hamas is an effective social service provider period. It might even be the envy of the Jewish federation agency network. Calling Hamas corrupt shows how bereft of sense or balance you are. The quality of the Zionist leadership was no better or worse than the Palestinian. In addition, no one assassinated Zionist leaders with impunity as has happened to the Palestinian leadership.

          I find it humorous that you call Hamas thugs & Fatah incompentents when I rather think the terms fit many of Israel’s politicians & generals quite aptly. Humorous that you don’t understand that Palestinians have as little trust in Israel as Israel has in the Palestinians. Even IF Israelis somehow came to truth the Palestinians w/o the same trust on the other side a settlement is still impossible. But that never crossed yr mind did it because hardly anything relevant to the Palestinians ever does cross the threshhold of your mind.

          1. Exactly. The competing interpretations of Zionism were equally legitimate and each had a valid for leadership of the Yishuv. However, because Begin and Ben Gurion both placed the future of the Jewish State and the good of the Yishuv above their individual aspirations — Begin more than BG, perhaps. For this reason, Israel, unlike the vast majority of states created after WWII, was able to establish democratic institutions.

            To dismissively characterize pride in Israel’s achievement as “crowing”, and to make the statement that the current Palestinian leadership is as on a par with that of the Yishuv is absurd. Even more baseless is your dismissive attitude of the threat of the invading Arab armies that managed to kill one percent of the Yishuv population — a far more lethal toll than anything the Palestinians have had to suffer from Israel (and that’s leaving aside entirely the fundamental difference between the Arab States wantonly invading Mandatory Palestine in a land grab vs. the Palestinians conscious decision to adopt the “Armed Struggle” as their primary means of resolving their dispute with the Jews).

            If Hamas is such a wonderfully humanitarian social provider — why has the UN cut off aid to them in the face of their blatant theft and stockpiling of aid? Why does Hamas murder its political opponents with impunity? Why does Hamas condition reconciliation with Fatah on Fatah’s discontinuing peace talks with Israel?

            I find it hard to believe that you or any thinking person truly believes that “the quality of Zionist leadership is no better or worse than the Palestinians”.

            Nonetheless, when confronted with any criticism of the Palestinians, you seem to have a knee jerk reflexive need to find some criticism of Israel in order to claim a moral equivalency. I just don’t get it.

          2. More horse manure. Begin & Ben Gurion were not altruists nor were they selfless leaders. THey were just as cruel & vain as any individual Jew or Palestinian for that matter. Or have you forgotten that Ben Gurion was more than happy to allow all the Jews of Europe to perish in the Holocaust if it would allow his beloved Zionist enterprise to flourish. Not very edifying tidbit of Zionist history–is it?

            The only threat to the new state was from the Jordanians in the Jerusalem corridor. It was a serious threat no doubt. But less serious than the threat that the IDF poses to life for Palestinians. The Jordanians didn’t have F-16s, Apache helicopters or nuclear weapons as Israel does. Far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Israelis were killed in the 48 War.

            The UN cut off aid temporarily because in a situation in which people are starving Hamas has decided it knew better how to distribute the UN relief than the UN did. A stupid decision on the part of some individual Hamas officials. But to represent this as something corrupt or to say that Hamas was intending to pillage it or sell it on the black market would be ridiculous. And besides, you don’t know jack shit about Hamas. You only know what you read from the Jerusalem Post or whatever other right wing shmate provides yr twisted version of Palestinian reality.

            Why does Fatah murder & torture its political opponents with impunity? Why does the IDF murder Gazan civilians with impunity?

            I would say the quality of Israel’s current leadership is as bad or possibly worse than the quality of current Palestinian leadership.

            No the diff. bet. us is that I’m willing to criticize BOTH SIDES & you’re only willing to criticize one. I won’t even say I don’t get it. I DO get it. You’re just a pro-Israel nativist who doesn’t know or care about anything outside Israel’s borders. Nor do you believe it’s necessary to do so since Israel can basically impose its will on any Arab who dares to see otherwise. Pitiful, but there you have it.

          3. Talk about a load of manure —

            Ben Gurion was willing to be an accomplice to the Holocaust because it might benefit the Zionist Enterprise — what Ahmadinejad dream world did that come from?

            Begin dismantled the Irgun and integrated it into the IDF because he was vain and cruel and no different from the leaders of Hamas or Islamic Jihad (who refuse to submit to a unified national government)???

            The only threat to the Jewish State in 1948 was from the Jordanians, and then, limited only to the Jerusalem corridor? What revisionist weed are you smoking? Did you forget that one arm of the Egyptian Army was sweeping north from Gaza to Tel Aviv while the other was advancing towards Beer Sheba in an attempt to beat the Transjordanian Army who was similarly trying to swallow up as much of Palestine as it could take. Did you forget the Syrian advance into the Hula and Jordan valley?

            In fact, the Syrians DID conquer and occupy a small part of Jewish Palestine — hence their repeated call to return to the June 4, 1967 lines and NOT the International Mandatory border, which would require them to cede territory THEY occupied in 1948.

            Did you forget that 1 in 100 Israelis were killed in a War that the Arabs started?

            And what’s with the non sequitor as if there is a comparison between civilians killed in the course of Israel’s operation to stop Hamas from firing rockets and mortars into Israel, and Hamas brutally murdering its citizens in order to keep them cowed so that it can continue its extremist and belligerent agenda of Islamification?

            You are willing to criticize BOTH sides? No you’re not. You hear any criticism of Hamas and you start making wild assertions and accusations that Israel is just as bad and therefore has no moral high ground to criticize anyone.

            And as for your assumption that I am unwilling to criticize Israel — this is simply false. The difference between us, is that I apply a single standard in my criticism, I am not an apologist for anyone.

        2. Richard has pretty much said everything I would cover below so I won’t add much. I do think that you need to accept that Hamas along with other Islamist organisations are very effective in providing welfare and social services; the idea that they deliberately create shortage or are corrupt is an unsubstantiated allegation. However both US and Israeli intelligence are well aware of Hamas and Hezbollah’s social activities and know the support base it has built up. It is a denial of reality to think otherwise.

          True, the Altalena incident was only one example but it was a pivotal one that was crucial to the state formation of Israel. I think you great underplay the ideological and personal differences between the Revisionist and Labour wings of Zionism in this period; they had separate political organisations and conducted most of the 1948 war with separate military formations. Hostility between the two was very entrenched and lasted for the first two decades of the Israeli state’s history. Ben-Gurion and many other Labour leaders regarded the Revisionists as little better than crypto-fascists.

          I don’t see where Israelis have indicated that they don’t trust the Palestinian leadership to the degree you seem to claim; the peace constituency and the acceptance of the two-state solution amongst most Israelis seems to suggest otherwise. As for Palestinian governance, that is dependent on Israel actually seriously moving towards enabling statehood for the PA, instead of trying to sabotage the process at every turn. As numerous polls have shown the one facet of Israeli society Palestinians admire and want to copy is democracy so I don’t see how any regime that doesn’t satisfy Palestinian requirements will survive long at the ballot box. Of course you can’t then choose who will be elected.

          1. Again, you make my point. The Hagana/Mapai and the Irgun/Herut (and for that matter Palmah/Mapam) each had huge ideological differences among them. Yet, they managed to cobble together a Parliamentary Democracy which managed to host (at one point) three different Communist parties on one end, and several streams of Orthodox Jewish parties on the other, and pretty much everything in between. And notwithstanding lots of yelling, insults, and ad hominem abuse — Israel has managed to do this without violence (and in the midst of repeated wars, the integration of huge numbers of immigrants and refugees, and in a land bereft of natural resources).

            So yes, we have a right to “crow”. But, more importantly, understanding why Israel had the level of success it had sheds light on why the Palestinians have such a long record of failure. Rather than expending efforts muck-raking so that one can argue that Israel is just as corrupt and thuggish as the Palestinians — Palestinians and Israelis would all be better served by confronting the failings of Hamas and Fatah — and dealing with them.

            It was this reason that I felt that the scathing criticism of Noa was inappropriate and did a disservice to people who have a vested interest in peace and prosperity in the region.

          2. Not quite. This flourishing democracy felt so fearful of the 1/5 Arab minority that it maintained a form of martial law governing Israeli Arabs for nearly 20 years. An injustice as deep as the Japanese internment here. To this day, no Jewish governing coalition will accept an Arab party. That’s a pretty stiff price for a democracy to pay I’d say. IN fact, calling this is true democracy is bogus. It’s a partial democracy. YOu also leave out Ben Gurion’s compromise which essentially allows many aspects of social intercourse to be governed theocratically by the haredi ayatollahs.

            Israel has NOT managed to maintain its democracy w/o violence. You’re forgetting the Occupation aren’t you? How convenient. And no you don’t have the right to crow. Israel is a deeply corrupt country both domestically and in the Territories. If you deny this or are ignorant about it then you’re not reading much of the Israeli press or numerous thoughtful Israeli political observers who’ve written about this in detail.

            As for crow, you will have the right to eat it when a peace settlement is negotiated with Israel returning to 67 borders, settlements are dismantled w. a few exceptions, & Israel & Arab nations exchange ambassadors. And I’ll be happy to provide the bird for you.

            If Palestine didn’t face the obstacles placed in its path by Israel, it would have as many successes to crow about.

          3. This is a pathetic statement at best.

            Yes there was a military rule over the Arabs in Israel until 1964. This is also a function of the fact that there was a civil war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine which had been ongoing since the 1920’s and escalated rapidly after the partition plan was announced.

            Yes, the current status of Arabs in Israel is not satisfactory. This has a lot to do with Jewish apathy and even open hostility towards the Arab minority. But it also has to do with the refusal of Arab citizens of Israel to make their loyalties clear. The whole concept of a “migzar aravi” — where Arabs live in their own separate bubble does not work for either group. Yet NEITHER group is actively seeking a full integration.

            The Occupation as you refer it — is NOT a result of Israel seeking to dominate Palestinians by force. Rather, it reflects the desire of Arab States to eliminate the Jewish State by force.

            The CONTINUED occupation is a reflects the policies of the Arab League’s rejection of 242 and 338 – as stated in at Khartoum when they declared NO negotiation, NO recognition, NO peace.

            As for “obstacles” to the Palestinians — you would be better served to look first at the Arab States, who destroyed the Palestinian State when they invaded it in 1948; and then used the Palestinian plight as a weapon in their attempt to delegitimize Israel. Then you could look at the PLO under Arafat who opted for the most sickening type of terrorism to make a name for himself and the Palestinian people (while amassing his own private fortune).

            As for Israeli corruption. You forget that we KNOW about Israeli corruption because it was PUBLICIZED in Israel’s free press. Moreover, it is called “corruption” because it violates Israeli law and even government ministers up to the Prime Minister are subject to the law. Democracy does not make a person more moral or law abiding. Democracy only allows for the open questioning of someone’s morality and for equal protection under the law.

            As for your prediction of Palestinian successes, I have trouble reconciling your scathing cynicism of anything Israeli with your wide-eyed Polyanna appraisal of all things Palestinian. As I said, I just don’t get it.

          4. Yes there was a military rule over the Arabs in Israel until 1964. This is also a function of the fact that there was a civil war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine

            There was NO civil war between Jews and Arabs in Palestine after WWII. What ignorance or lies. There was little or no domestic Arab resistance to Israel’s creation in 1948. Considering the terrible injustice done to Israeli Arabs & their expulsion on the order of 700,000 worth, it’s miraculous there wasn’t much stronger resistance. There was absolutely NO justification for the treatment of Israeli Arabs from 1948 to 1964. NONE. ANd for you to say there was a civil war is mendacious. Israeli Arabs were and are far more loyal citizens than Israel has any right to expect them to be considering how shabbily they have been treated.

            the current status of Arabs in Israel is not satisfactory

            “Not satisfactory?” Is that the best you can do? Rather feeble if you ask me. Israel’s actual treatment borders on the criminal considering what a waste of human creativity and energy this constitutes. We here in this country have no right to crow about our race relations but we have done a far better job of things than Israel. Israel has no excuse.

            it also has to do with the refusal of Arab citizens of Israel to make their loyalties clear.

            More crap. Every public opinion survey of Israeli Arabs documents a high level of loyalty to Israel, & as I wrote far higher than Israel has any right to expect. Are you deaf and blind or have you not read these surveys? Or do you believe they are a sack of lies or do you just not give a crap?

            You remind me of AMerican whites who accused Blacks of wanting to segregate themselves into ghettos. Are you for real? You think that Israeli Arabs want to live hemmed in in the communities in which they live? You think they wouldn’t assimilate more fully into Israel society if there wasn’t such deep economic, political & ethnic prejudice against them?

            The Occupation as you refer it —…reflects the desire of Arab States to eliminate the Jewish State by force.

            No, I don’t refer to the Occupation, the world does. You mean you reject the term “Occupation?” That’s rich. Do pls. reveal more of yr ideological oddity by telling us you do. That would certainly place yr views into clearer context. As for yr claim that the Occupation results from the desire of Arab states to eliminiate Israel–you’re full of even more crap than I thought. Considering that the very Arab states you claim wish to eliminate Israel offered it as a single body full recognition all the way back to 2002, gives the lie to yr drivel. Arab states DO NOT wish to eliminiate Israel. And even if they did, the Occupation has diddly to do with Arab states and everything to do with Israel’s war against the Palestinians. Again you are either a liar or an ignorant twit or perhaps both.

            The CONTINUED occupation is a reflects the policies of the Arab League…as stated in at Khartoum

            Oh, you mean that the Occupation circa 2009 is determined by an antedated statement by the Arab League in 1968? Come off it. Perhpas you’re fooling yrself with such stupidity. But do you really expect anyone else will buy the bill of goods you’re peddling? Khartoum has LONG been superceded by subsequent Arab League statements & decisions. And you conveniently ignore the most important of all–the Arab League initiative of 2002. Why is there still an Occupation if the Arab states offered Israel full acceptance (which is pretty much the opposite of seeking to eliminate it–right?)?

            You forget that we KNOW about Israeli corruption because it was PUBLICIZED in Israel’s free press. Moreover, it is called “corruption” because it violates Israeli law and even government ministers up to the Prime Minister are subject to the law.

            Israel’s “free press?” You mean the press which military censors can muzzle at will without having to provide the slightest justification for their censorship? And if the corruption violates the law and prime ministers are subject to it then why was Ariel Sharon never “subject to the law” while he served as prime minister? Why was his son the only family member who was punished for crimes of which his father was equally or more guilty? Why did it take the justice system ten years to catch up to Ehud Olmert? Why is Tzachi Hanegbi still sitting in Knesset? Why is Haim Ramon, a convicted sexual harrasser a minister? Why was an ex-president not charged with rape? Why was he allowed to resign with “dignity?” Why will a politicians suspected of money-laundering and close ties to the Russian mob end up likely serving as Israel’s interior minister (or foreign or defense minister)? Seems to me that the Israeli justice system leaves a great deal to be desired and functions only in the breach if then.

            Believe me, you and Israel have nothing to crow about regarding societal corruption. It runs rampant. Some of it is caught & punished. Some, an awful lot in fact, isn’t.

            I’m not starry eyed about the Palestinians. As I’ve said to you and others before, they’ve done no better and not much worse than Israelis. If they were given half a chance to establish a viable independent country they’d give Israel a run for its money economically, politically & culturally. That sort of competition would be a good and healthy thing.

            I just don’t get it.

            You certainly don’t get it. You’re either obtuse, blind, or willfully ignorant and certainly don’t bother to read anything I write here with any level of attentiveness.

            Ben Gurion was willing to be an accomplice to the Holocaust because it might benefit the Zionist Enterprise — what Ahmadinejad dream world did that come from?

            Typical of you instead of grappling with the serious issue you link my truthful statements to an alleged anti-Semite. Try learning something about Zionist history before you go spouting off like that. If you aren’t aware of statements made by Ben Gurion that he would willingly sacrifice the Jews of Europe in order to guarantee the success of the State of Israel, then you ought to crack open your ZIonist history. The primary purpose of the Holocaust for Ben Gurion was as a source of immigration to Jewish Palestine. OTher than that, he had no interest or sympathy for Holocaust survivors. It was a cold, cynical proposition for him. He felt he could not afford starry eyed optimism or sentiment. While I can understand his single minded sense of purpose I do not admire it & reject the impact it has had on subsequent history.

            Begin dismantled the Irgun and integrated it into the IDF because he was vain and cruel and no different from the leaders of Hamas or Islamic Jihad…?

            Begin dismantled the Irgun because he understood that Ben Gurion would kick the shit out of him if he didn’t. He made a shrewd calculation that he would lose and destroy his movement. If Begin’s movement was as powerful as Hamas is today in relation to Fatah, then Begin likely would’ve behaved differently.

            You are willing to criticize BOTH sides? No you’re not.

            You. Are. A. Liar. I have criticized both sides. I will continue to criticize both sides. But I will certainly criticize the sloppy mendacious thinking of people like you very harshly.

            you start making wild assertions and accusations that Israel is just as bad and therefore has no moral high ground to criticize anyone.

            My assertions are not wild and not accusations. They are factual. You have no rebutted them because you cannot. They are uncomfortable no doubt. Which is why instead of rebutting them you dismiss them as “wild.” And yes, Israel’s apologists can begin criticizing Hamas when Israel isn’t guilty of the same or worse sins itself. I find such hypocrisy cynical and repulsive.

            as for your assumption that I am unwilling to criticize Israel — this is simply false.

            Your “criticism” of Israel is feeble in the extreme. Yes, you are willing to use pallid euphemisms to acknowledge Israel has fallen short of the mark in limited ways. But I’m afraid such an approach does Israel no favors. The nation needs radical reform not palliatives or bromides of the sort you prescribe.

          5. I get it now.

            Anyone who disagrees with your fringe political view is marked as ignorant, a liar, a twit, mendacious, feeble, etc.

            Typical of you radical left fascists that cannot fathom or tolerate any form of dissent other than their own.

            No wonder Noa’s comments sent you in a hissy fit.

  34. DSharon, Just to respond to some of your points:

    Again, you make my point. The Hagana/Mapai and the Irgun/Herut (and for that matter Palmah/Mapam) each had huge ideological differences among them. Yet, they managed to cobble together a Parliamentary Democracy which managed to host (at one point) three different Communist parties on one end, and several streams of Orthodox Jewish parties on the other, and pretty much everything in between. And notwithstanding lots of yelling, insults, and ad hominem abuse — Israel has managed to do this without violence (and in the midst of repeated wars, the integration of huge numbers of immigrants and refugees, and in a land bereft of natural resources).

    I would say this is simplistic and brushes over the actual large differences between the two streams of Zionism. The Haganah took severe action against the IRgun when it was felt they went too far, the saison phenomenon indicates this – you couldn’t dream of an Israeli govt hunting down, arresting and handing over 500 Israelis the way the Haganah did with Irgun targets to the British. There could have been a much more severe conflict between the two during the Altalena incident as Begin showed by telling Irgun members not to take an oath of loyalty to the new state and in the stand off several thousand Irgun members deserted the IDF units in readiness for a civil conflict. Begin’s willingness to back down and the fact that the Revisionists were still a minority (though a substantial one) and the imminent war looming with the Arab states all played an important role. Don’t forget that Begin and Herut were almost treated as pariahs by the dominant Labour Zionists for the first two decades of Israel’s existence.
    You also overlook the extent to which Labour Zionist hegemony played an important role in forging both a consensus and a parliamentary democratic character to the Israeli state. The left under Mapam and the other Marxist parties deferred to Labour and Ben Gurion’s leadership – a key development since this stream could have had independent support from the USSR and dominated many of the frontline combat units in the Palmach. Ben-Gurion was able to get the confidence of the Liberal and General Zionists and the support of the left – this left him pretty much unchallenged as the leader within the Yishuv; not for nothing did Begin and the Revisionists resent what they called his ‘dictatorial regime’. Ben-Gurion’s pragmatism and ability to effectively unify the Left, moderate and other streams of Zionism was key in forging a platform of unity. A lesser leader or a more divisive one would not have succeeded. Also the parliamentary democracy was very much an inheritance of the social democratic nature of Labour Zionism; if the Revisionists had come to power instead, God only knows what kind of autocratic state they would have set up instead.

    So yes, we have a right to “crow”. But, more importantly, understanding why Israel had the level of success it had sheds light on why the Palestinians have such a long record of failure. Rather than expending efforts muck-raking so that one can argue that Israel is just as corrupt and thuggish as the Palestinians — Palestinians and Israelis would all be better served by confronting the failings of Hamas and Fatah — and dealing with them.

    Well you don’t have a ‘right’ to crow. The Yishuv had a much more positive relationship with the Jewish diaspora than the Palestinians had with the Arabs in neighbouring states – in effect as we now know, the latter were not interested in an independent Palestinian state unlike the Jewish diaspora which did support a Jewish state. The Palestinians also suffered the brunt of a brutal military repression by the British during the Arab revolt which decimated much of the leadership and potential military cadres. I also don’t see this “long record” of failure that you claim exists for the Palestinians – if anything their nationalist consciousness has strengthened over time not weakened and they operated without any real long-term support from external allies since the support given by other Arab regimes and the USSR was highly conditional, limited and subject to the whims and vagaries of those powers. I would say that the Palestinians have been moderately successful, if anything, for such a small grouping coming from a population that was mainly consisting of a very small urban elite and a mass of uneducated, traditional 19th century peasantry to survive the way they have.

    1. Excellent points, but no, I did not forget them In fact, the saison and the Mapai-Mapam split were very much in my mind. The various political leaders of the Yishuv were deeply committed to their stream of Zionism and had very strong (often not positive) feelings for their competitors. This is probably quite a common phenomenon in all national liberation movements where there is so much to divide a people in terms of the means of best ridding itself of colonial rule, their vision of what type of state to establish, and how to deal with national minorities.

      Nonetheless, the Yishuv leaders held a higher vision beyond short term expediency which allowed them to get past their personal ambitions and ego to establish a workable national consensus. It is here that the Jews succeeded where the Palestinians have (so far) failed.

      I agree with your assessment of BG, who was adept at combining demagoguery with consensus building. Similarly, you make a good point that the bulk of the Palestinian Arab population of fellahin were political naifs. You did not mention the centuries of Ottoman rule, the stifling heritage of the effendi-class absentee landowners, and the vicious oppressiveness of the Mufti in seeking to establish his own political fiefdom. But, each of these had a hand in hobbling the political development of Palestinian Arabs. In that light, I would grant that there has been development.

      1. The various political leaders of the Yishuv…had very strong (often not positive) feelings for their competitors…[They got] past their personal ambitions and ego to establish a workable national consensus

        Does Chaim Arlosoroff’s assassination qualify as the Revisionist Yishuv leaders having “often not positive feelings for their competitors?” C’mon. They could be just as murderous a bunch as the Palestinians. They were just as jealous, just as vicious, just as hateful as any Palestinian leader. The only difference is that Israelis in that period did not have an enemy killing them by the hundreds every yr., both leaders and civilians alike. If they had, who knows how much worse things might have been for Israel.

  35. Richard, do you agree or disagree with the following sentence? (If you agree, please explain your stance on Lieberman).
    “you can’t detest a legitimate representative of the Israeli people and claim in the same breath that you’re all for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. What you really mean is that you’re all for peace as long as Israelis put forward leaders you like.”
    Thank you and Shavua tov,
    Alex

    1. Hey, I left college many decades ago. This post thread isn’t college & you’re not my professor (thank God). Don’t make yr comments come across as final exam questions.

      Hamas won a national legislative election and took over the PA. Lieberman represents nowhere that level of support among Israelis. He is A legitimate representative of a certain racist, rejectionist, extreme nationalist minority constituency within Israeli society. His roughly 13-15% of the vote is being magnified by Netanyahu’s giving him the f.m. portfolio. Further, Lieberman has put forward no proposals that have any semblance of realism (except to him) for resolving the conflict.

      On the other hand, Hamas has put forward a number of pragmatic proposals that are worthy of negotiation. Yet Israel rejects even talking. Notice I did not say that Hamas’ proposals are themselves worthy of being final positions. But they are worthy of being discussed. Lieberman’s proposals are dead in the water. Implementing them would likely involve massive civil conflict with Israel’s Arab minority. I don’t want to say civil war since that may be too extreme. But the amount of resistance would be enormous. And it would spill over into the Jewish community as well. Hell, even Alex Stein might not like them & even do something about it instead of grandstanding here.

  36. So are you saying that it’s ok to detest Lieberman because he only got a relatively small minority of the vote, and hence it isn’t accurate to refer to him as a legitimate representative of the Israeli people?

    1. It’s very hard to follow the logic of yr argument, such as it is. You claimed that if Hamas was a legitimate representative of the Palestinians, why isn’t Lieberman a legitimate representative of the Israeli people. I replied that they are both legitimate though Hamas had actually won a legislative election & Lieberman hadn’t even come close, thus making Hamas a more representative movement of Palestinian opinion than Lieberman was of Israeli opinion. Beyond that, I’m not sure what you’re saying.

  37. Richard, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to have deleted a couple of sentences from the original post. The original sentences read “You can’t detest a legitimate representative of the Palestinains people and claim in the same breath that you’re all for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. What you really mean is that you’re all for peace as long as Palestinians put forward leaders you like.”
    Why did you take it out?

  38. I have already submitted two comments that were apparently not worthy of being published on this site. If I am denied a third time, then it would be clear to me that the argument put forth by the author and the moderators is so weak that any dissenting viewpoint would completely undermine it. So please….
    [ed. comment edited per following reply comment]

    1. This is your 2nd of 3 comments complaining in this fashion. READ THE COMMENT RULES BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN. First time commenters like you are MODERATED, precisely for this reason since there are many who either don’t read the rules or don’t give a fig about them.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link