"J Street" founder Jeremy Ben-Ami: "The fallacy here [regarding the war in Gaza] is the argument that a military victory against an insurgent group actually is achievable."
Of course, there are a lot of much more recent (and often much less bloody) examples of military victories against "insurgent groups" than the Roman victory over Bar Kochba, including, tellingly, Operation Defensive Shield's crushing of the Second Intifada on the West Bank in 2002-03.
I continue to remain agnostic on the ultimate wisdom of the Gaza operation, given the information gap between me and those who planned it. It may turn out to be a brilliant, necessary, tactical and strategic endeavor, and it may turn out to be a fiasco motivated in its timing and scope primarily by domestic Israeli political considerations. But to claim, as Ben-Ami and others (e.g.) have, that military victory against insurgencies is inherently unachievable, reflects the equivalent of an a priori quasi-religious belief in the futility of military force.
UPDATE: BTW, and relatedly, one thing I've noticed about bloggers, including liberal Jewish bloggers, who are confident that Israel's military action in Gaza is a strategic blunder, is that they rarely if ever nevertheless express the hope Israel will win, and win convincingly. One might think that when the battle is between Israel on the one side, tacitly supported by the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Jordan, and Hamas on the other, supported by Iran and Hezbollah, one would at least hope for an Israeli victory, even if one is dubious about its prospects. But I get the feeling that for many, it's more important that Israel, and the world, learn a lesson about the "limits of military force" than that a violent, fanatical, backwards, illiberal, anti-Semitic terrorist organization be humbled defeated.
This doesn't make it wise. But it's hard for me to second-guess the Israeli leadership from the comfort of the middle of Indiana. Hell, I'm an hour and a half from Gary. Pretty safe.
Guerrillas have weaknesses, just like any other fighting force. And not every thing is Vietnam.
"The fallacy here [regarding the war in Gaza] is the argument that a military victory against an insurgent group actually is achievable."
Tell that to Hukbalahap (Wait. Never mind. You can't anymore.) And the LTTE look to be on their last legs. A result, one might add, of the Sri Lankan invasion of Kilinochchi. Which has not generated protest comparable in any way to that spawned by Israel's Gaza incursion.
For. Some. Unknown. Reason.
Israel's situation is a lot harder and it is somewhat understandable that they have lashed out in certainly futile actions but they win no friends by doing so, and in the long run that is what Israel needs. That and partners in Jordan, Egypt and ultimately Syria to act as intermediaries with the Palestinians.
If you want an answer to what our attitude is, think of a family with a self destructive child who have to witness an on-going descent from civilization into the pit of endless conflict. Darkest despair and anguish with only the hope that something can be rescued at the inevitable end.
And this seems to be where Israel goes wrong. Every action they take seems designed to prop up their adversaries.
Well, I certainly hope Israel will win, as would any sensible person, and I'm glad things seem to be going well militarily so far. But I'd love for you to recount an example of the "inane and destructive 'cheer-leading'" I've "displayed."
I think (and hope) that you are being more cynical than is perhaps warranted. It's hard for me to speak for 'liberals' as a class, but don't you think it's a reasonable explanation that people don't want to clutter-up their post with (rather obvious) preliminary language.
So, if I am criticizing the most recent Iraq war, I do not start each post with, "While I hope we are completely successful in bringing democracy to the country, lowering Muslim anger towards the U.S., reducing the likelihood of terror attacks on our soil, etc., etc. . . .". Instead, I just post my feelings that are most on-point to the thread.
Yeah, I am sure some liberals hope that Israel is not successful in the war, just as I am sure that some conservatives hope we are unsuccessful. Always a few bad eggs. But it's not fair to infer that, based merely on our silence.
Same goes re Israel. I can agree or disagree with Israel's conduct in a particular situation, while remaining completely supportive of the Jewish state in general, and while hoping for peace and stability there. Let's not assume the worst about us. (Although I think your expressed point--we don't state out loud our support for Israel--is true, I think you also were implying that our silence = a hope that Israel fails, and this seems like too much of a huge leap for me.)
Maybe off-point, but I certainly see this phenomena in re other topics. Child sex abuse comes first to mind. Some people start their posts with, "While I find child abusers morally repugnant, privacy concerns in this case . . . ." Other people just start off with their main point. But we don't think to ourselves: "Gee, that person didn't emphasize that he doesn't like sex abusers before making his main point. Maybe he does like molesters. Maybe he's a molester himself." Let's be a bit more generous to our fellow posters, and assume the best of intentions. (I am not talking about, of course, particular individuals who--through their history of posting--have made it clear that they do hope for Israel's destruction, legalized child molestation, death to all Jews, or other bad [in my opinion] positions. Those people can be criticized, but it should be done by pointing to what they have actually said, and not what they have not said.)
What makes it difficult to contain an insurgency, it seems to me, is when the insurgents can flee to the sovereign territory of a neutral country, and or be resupplied through porous borders. Insurgencies cut off from such outside sources are much more difficult to sustain against military pressure.
Cf. Laos and Cambodia.
I sure hope the stakes are much higher than merely "humbling" Hamas, et al.
The question is at least partly what counts as victory. Do I want Israelis to be safe from terrorist attacks from Gaza? Yes. Would I like to see Palestinians liberated from dominance by Hamas? Yes. Would I like to Palestinians treated fairly by Israel? Yes. Would I like Israel to be safe from attack by its neighbors? Yes.
Would "victory" in the present campaign mean these outcomes? Maybe, but maybe not. I'm certainly too ignorant of the nuts and bolts of what's going on to know if Israel's strategy is wise or improvident.
My god, every other Instapundit post back then was something along the lines of "These liberal bloggers sure seem like they'd be HAPPY if Saddam raped their children!"
Didn't Conservatives learn from the Iraq War that your critics aren't your enemy? Patriotism can coincide with severe doubts about strategically dubious actions.
I support Israel; I have extended family in Haifa. But to support Israel, I have to sign on with this kind of jingoistic, right-or-wrong crap? And postulate my own Israeli connections just so I can make a critique?
The attacks from Hizbullah and now Hamas, both supported and supplied by Iran-- provocations, kidnappings, and then massive rocketing have demonstrated one important FACT: Land for Peace is a fantasy.
There is now a very well established narrative about murderous Jews, supported by fake footage etc. and a completely owned foreign press --BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera, French TV -- they do not bother to cover their asses. Yes, its infuriating and yes, civilians will and are being killed, some by the Hamas of course. But that is war. It is irrelevant that the Israelis are careful. They should be careful as there is nothing to gain in willfully killing them. But plenty of them are going to die anyway. It is one of the reasons they are fed and maintained as hostage refugees into the fourth generation. Will they be refugees until Israel is destroyed or destroys them? Seems so. And this is not even a topic of conversation. Tell me what is it I am missing?
Are you really advocating killing hundreds of people because of some juvenile desire to prove you have the bigger dick. Military force can be righteously used to pursue greater peace and welfare ( e.g. through effective deterrence). Using it to humiliate some group, no matter how they have wronged you is monstrous.
Many of the critics of this invasion (such as myself) aren't concerned so much about people learning lessons but about unnecessery deaths. You can wish all you want for a world where courageously replying to terrorist attacks with military reprisals would stop those attacks but it doesn't make it so. Hell, I wish Israel could stop the terrorist threat with this sort of invasion but just because this is how the world should work doesn't mean pursuing an ineffective military incursion that kills Israelis and Palestinians alike is justified.
You might disagree about the effectiveness of this sort of incursion but you have to admit it's at least a debatable question whether or not the terrorists killed and arms destroyed will outweigh the deaths incurred in the war and the new Hamas recruits generated.
It is my impression that most people in the world who are angry at Israel for this attack are simply on the other side: they want Israel to be destroyed and they want Hamas to win. This is also true of many (if not most) critics of Israel in these comments. In this context, it is obvious that if one wants Israel to win and Hamas to be destroyed, one should say so, especially if the point of the comment is to criticize the way Israel attacked Hamas. Similarly, if you're at a NAMBLA meeting and you wish to complain about child pornography laws, you might consider making your position regarding child molestation clear.
I think it's pretty clear that, all else equal, most people want to see the end of rocket attacks and the fall of Hamas (as long as it's not replaced with something worse), but most people also probably have a limit on the number of fatalities they'd be willing to accept to achieve that goal—and that number is probably lower for the "liberal Jewish bloggers" than it is for Professor Bernstein.
Israel can kill as many people as it wants, whenever it wants, but the US doesn't have to help finance it any longer.
Fair? Or must you insist that we remain tethered to the whims of another nation?
If you want to go back to 2003, that's when Howard Dean said "we need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush". It's probably "jingoistic" of me to quote the outgoing head of the DNC, while it was a reasoned critique of the administration for him to say it in the first place.
So, what's Isreal's alternative.
Other than continuing to be a rocket sponge, that is.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind:
For decades, Israel rejected making a deal with the PLO, preferring to demonize it. Now Israel is afflicted with the much worse Hamas. If they manage to quash Hamas, likely an even worse enemy than Hamas will spring up. Israel has a habit of strengthening the resolve of its enemies. Remember Hezbollah was nothing till Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982.
Right now Palestinian casualties are 80X Israeli casualties. Oddly enough, this produces sympathy for the Palestinians. Imagine if their brother Arabs, bank accounts bulging with petrodollars, supplied Hamas with military training, aircraft, and tanks, so that they could fight Israel on an equal basis.
1. There are attacks from Hizbullah and now Hamas, both supported and supplied by Iran-- provocations, kidnappings, and then massive rocketing.
2. ???
3. Therefore, Land for Peace is a fantasy.
Please clarify step 2, and in step 3, please say whether the fantasy is for the present only or for all time; if for all time, please explain why in your clarification of step 2.
#2 is "steal the underpants". DUH!
This would be the ideal situation for Israel. The IDF is one of the best military forces in the world when it comes to winning conventional battles with tanks and airplanes. It's much better at that than at dealing with insurgents.
* Hoosier: "This doesn't make it wise."
* Eli Rabett: "[T]hey have lashed out in certainly futile actions but they win no friends by doing so, and in the long run that is what Israel needs."
* TruePath: "Many of the critics of this invasion (such as myself) aren't concerned so much about people learning lessons but about unnecessery deaths. You can wish all you want for a world where courageously replying to terrorist attacks with military reprisals would stop those attacks but it doesn't make it so."
* etc. etc. etc.
There are many on this blog and off who criticize Israel's conduct of this war who don't want Israel to be destroyed and don't want Hamas to win.
I challenge you to find a single comment here, wanting, calling for, or hoping for Israel to be destroyed. The closest I found was
* name: "I actually really don't care who prevails but would hope for a minimal loss of life on both sides."
Even Name doesn't want Israel to be destroyed and doesn't want Hamas to win.
Wow. That some high-quality tendentious misquotation. Here's the comment that phrase was snipped out of:
"To insinuate that I would get rid of Medicare is wrong, it's not helpful. And we need to remember that the enemy here is George Bush, not each other."
Whose side do you think Tony Tutins and Henry679 are on? And the proportion against Israel on this web site (which is pretty much pro-Israel) is usually greater, and it is much greater in the world at large. Usually people who comment here (or report the news on CNN) are too smart to say: "Israel has no right to exist and I hope Hamas defeats Israel, and by the way I also think Israel is using disproportionate force." So they play "good-cop/bad-cop" instead.
The relevance can be drawn from the "Law of Nations" which is similar to the "Laws of Nature" in which individuals are required to observe in their regular interaction. In this particular case, the rule is of necessity. There are 3 groups of people involved. Hamas, Palestinians, and Israel. Could the 2006 motive for pulling out of Gaza have been so that military action could be taken, and any lives lost otherwise are inconsequential?
It's one thing to protect your country, it's another to slaughter innocent people when other methods could have had a better result. In any case, there are no winners when an innocent life is lost, which is why we seek retribution, rather than revenge. If both sides were to come to a cease fire on a condition that appropriate retribution is paid to victims proportionate to their losses, would those declaring military action give up their lives for their decisions if it meant peace?
It's a terrible day when news reports any number of casualties, even more so if they could have been easily prevented. Too many people do what makes them feel better, at the expense of Justice.
*The Sri Lankan example is significant in that it also represents a break-down in the default "Let us negotiate a solution!" response. The Tigers used the ceasefire with the government to carry out a number of terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka, escalating up to attempted assassination of military leaders - and they more or less killed negotiations by making preposterous land claims for the size of their population.
Everytime I hear someone say or argue that you can't win against an insurgency or terrorist groups, I think of this scene from Wise Guys:
Mr. Costello: "Do we really hurt them by killing them?"
Frank Acavano: "It's a good start."
That certainly applies to terrorists of all stripes.
Here is the link.
It is telling that Hamas has never to my recollection used the language of peace. The have supposedly spoken of truce, but with no burden of recognition of Israel and using the coded language of "hudna" to suggest to their Muslim listeners that this is really only a temporary lull before victory.
How do you make peace with a genocidal movement that won't recognize you and that has categorically stated that peace is not its intention? It's hard to take folks seriously when they can't answer that question.
I was under the impression that
a) the core competency of pretty much every military is killing people
b) insurgent groups and terrorist organizations are made up of people
c) killing those people in sufficient numbers will erode the effectiveness of these organizations. This constitutes a victory under any sane definition of the word
So where is this unattainable victory? If you have the military strength, the only remaining variable is the will to use it.
If the organization hides amongst the civilian population and there is no way to win the hearts or minds of that population, you have to resign yourself to the idea that any military action you undertake will produce civilian casualties. Treat the civilians as they behave- enemy support personnel. If the civilian population is already implacably hostile to you, there is really no downside to killing them.
Even the media is not much of a constraint anymore- they've indicated their willingness to fabricate atrocities even when none are committed (the fake story about israelis killing palestinian babies with special anti-baby missiles). If this is so, why not actually commit atrocities and just deny them as further fabrications? For that matter, why not also kill camera crews from hostile reporting agencies?
Which is to say, you seem to be confused about who was refusing to deal with whom. (Unless by "make a deal with" you mean "surrender to." In which case Israel did indeed refuse to do so.)
And you seem to be confused about what "demonize" means, too.
1) Israel gave up Land.
2) Israel did not get Peace, but instead got intensified warfare.
3) Land for Peace is a fantasy.
Arafat was not an Israeli.
Ultimately, if the terrorists continue to shoot rockets at kindergartens in their effort to murder Jews, the area from which the rockets are launched should be forcibly de-populated.
It is Israel's duty to minimize the chances that the terrorists will be shooting their rockets, by any means necessary.
I totally understand the feelings of Americans who, upon losing loved ones on 9/11, came to hate Muslims and called for widespread war against the Arab world. For a forum so dedicated to calling out anti-Semitism, what do you think this kind of action does for the image of Jews worldwide and the ability of Israel to eventually find peace? If the surviving boys of the Samouni clan dedicate the rest of their lives to killing Israelis, would you not understand? Kill a thousand civilians in Gaza, and you've created a hundred thousand family members who will blindly vote for murderous thugs like Hamas and some who are even willing to strap on C4 and head for a border crossing.
Then again, DB and LGF found a questionable clip on CNN, so I guess this is all fake and those children weren't found by the Red Cross emaciated and huddled next to the bodies of their dead mothers. What a relief.
Why don't the Arabs ever fear that Israel will become more hateful? Israel has been way too restrained, and that it did not respond ferociously after the very first rocket was fired in 2005, after its withdrawal, has led to this. Israeli restraint and weakness are and will be Israel's downfall.
If you believe Hamas and its Iranian sponsor with regard to its goals, a Hamas victory will result in mass slaughter of Israeli Jews.
Your premise simply isn't true.
Read the main article in today's NY Times. It is about the US not allowing Israel to cross Iraqi airspace to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
The Shining Path is by no means unique as insurrectionists disposed of by the ruling government through harsh means without much, if any, outcry by the American public. And Hafez Assad, the father of Bashir, surrounded the ancient Syrian city of Aleppo and in short order massacred 10-20,000 to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood, some did condemn the brutality, but that caused him no more heartburn than was protests abroad caused Saddam Hussein when he used nerve gas to kill untold thousands of his citizens.
Now, Israel vis-a-vis Hamas and others around it whose life work is to kill Israelis and put an end to the Jewish state is a different story, isn't it? Yes, some of the American public, to say nothing of the Left in Europe and the Muslim world, do become very lathered up about Israel's responses to those murderous attacks upon it, calling upon Israel to forebear and somehow accommodate those dedicated to destroying the Jewish state. "Double standard" doesn't begin to describe what this represents.
But not the most hardline bloggers, evidently.
And why are Palestinians justified in slaughtering civilians to get back the lands they lost in 1948, when the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from Arab lands are expected to get on with their lives in peace, and not even ask to get their lands and houses and other property back? We would be shocked and horrified if a Jewish refugee from (e.g.) Yemen went back and slaughtered the family living in his stolen house, but many (not I) seem to be perfectly satisfied with the idea of Palestinians slaughtering any Jew they can find anywhere, whether he (or often she) had any connection to the events of 1948 or not. Again, why the double standard?
So good to know we committed all those American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars to make Iraq a sovereign democracy.
You continue to confuse tactics and strategy. Israel can thrash Hamas and thoroughly humilate the Palestinians, but what gives you any confidence that the dragons` teeth they sow won`t come back to bite them?
It doesn't matter in the least how one side treats the rights of women or other minorities. It doesn't matter if one side wants peace and the other wants genocide. Doesn’t matter which side breaks the peace either. The only thing that matters is the perceived weak vs. the strong. The weak side is always forgiven for what it does and the more powerful side is always wrong.
What gives you any confidence that the dragon's teeth the Palestinians insist on sowing won't come back -- aren't right now coming back -- to bite them? Why is it only Israeli violence that makes the other side fight harder? Have you noticed that even the furthest left party in Israel supports the latest fighting? Have you noticed that Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia have shifted from strongly pro-Palestinian to subtly pro-Israel this time? Is your insistence that the Israelis shouldn't fight just wishful thinking on your part? Finally, were you one of the many people who insisted that the Surge in Iraq couldn't possibly work? If so, you were wrong. And did you think that the Israelis couldn't possibly stop the suicide bombing campaign that was killing hundreds just a few years ago? If so, you were wrong. Has it occurred to you that you just may be wrong this time? If it turns out that you are wrong this time, will you be glad to be wrong, or disappointed?
Doesn't Bernstein get tired of making vague statements, one after another? If he thinks some prominent blogger wants Hamas to win, say which one. Say "I think Glenn Greenwald wants Hamas to win this war." And the necessary corollary, "I think Glenn Greenwald wants Israelis to die in order to vindicate his theory."
I wonder why Bernstein isn't willing to do so. Perhaps it's because GG and others are making the exact same critiques they leveled at the Iraq War at inception and beyond. Of course, if we had listened then instead of attacking their patriotism, perhaps we wouldn't've wasted so much time and money.
Per "jingoism." Jingoism in blogging is when a normal blogger turns into Andrew Sullivan -- excitable, any-argument-to-hand bellicose rhetoric with the goal of discrediting an opponent by any means necessary.
Your faith is the ICRC is touching, but not founded on fact. They are about as anti-Jewish as you can get.
The sad reality is that very few people are truly pro-Palestinian, including, alas, the Palestinians. Generally speaking, Arab governments treat Palestinians living in their countries far worse than Israel treats the Palestinians living in Israel proper. And all too many Palestinians are willing to hurt themselves as long as they get to hurt Israel, too. Almost every time I read an opinion piece that's truly pro-Palestinian (as opposed to anti-Israeli), it's written by someone who appears to be Jewish.
The Palestinians needed a Ghandi, and MLK, or a Mandela. It's truly sad they got stuck with an Arafat.
Hoosier: Sorry, I don't understand "steal the underpants". Is this a reference to popular culture, or what?
—————————
Yep. I thought you meant to remind us of a stupid busines plan laid-out in South Park, in which Step 2 of a three-step plan is simply "?".
Apologies. It's really not worth looking it up.
Public_Defender
"The Palestinians needed a Ghandi, and MLK, or a Mandela."
Hamas would kill him.
Further, it seems to me that Israel needs to work toward a defacto alliance with Jordan that might culminate in a union of some kind in another generation. Seems to me the Arab states created in 1922 are heading toward disintegration. Population crisis, no work, no public health, no economy really. Can Israel survive in such an environment? Not optimistic in the longer run actually. See no impulse toward reform or development in the Arab countries. Jew hatred deepens and is a dead end for all. A kind of nihilism we know well from Europe that can only end in mass murder. Add to this the liklihood of pandemic and the future is bleak. In the short run however, I think Israel has demonstrated it remains a vibrant, committed little country which should improve its engagement with the nasty outside world ( a permanent issue in Israeli life) but is demonstrating that its people remain profoundly unified on the fundamental issue: we are not going down.
It was the U.S. side that was losing by the mere continuation of that war; it's the Palestinian side that's losing by the continuation of their war.
"What mostly we do is shake our heads in despair at the level of inane and destructive cheer-leading you and yours display."
What amazes me is the extent to which folks like Eli, excruciatingly conventional in their wisdom, never seem to notice that this is their reaction to anything Israel does or those unafraid to support Israel say.
Perhaps its all about giving you yet another opportunity to condescendingly shake that head? As long as you get to be the smartest guy in the room, its all good.
I'd suggest many people are terrified the lesson won't be what they want it to be. What if Hamas is defeated, more responsible Palestinians organize a prosperous and peaceful society, the UN is marginalized, Israel ignores the opinion of the International Community, and faculty clubs all over the land are left sputtering? That's not a lesson they want learned.
Not to get all Mark Steyn on you, but the demographics of Israel suggest to me that they're the only losers of a never ending conflict.
This is the only real question that I have about the problem: Were they "stuck," or did they willingly choose him? On one hand, evidence suggests that the Palestinians have been so consistently motivated by hatred for Jews that they have repeatedly opted to pursue warfare, even when they themselves are pointed victims of their own political regime. On the other hand, perhaps they are hostages to a corrupt political caste that they honestly lack the power to dislodge.
Another poster evokes: "those children [...] emaciated and huddled next to the bodies of their dead mothers": Hamas is clearly responsible for this. The only live question is whether the people themselves insist on Hamas and are, thus, themselves responsible for their own continuing misery.
Is this the Israeli mindset? That every little conflict is an all-or-nothing doomsday struggle? Invariably I hear this alarmist language - "how dare you question the wisdom, practicality, efficacy, legality, or political motives of this military action - you obviously must want Israel destroyed because this military action is the only thing sparing Israel from destruction."
A serious question: Does anybody really think Hamas has or had the capacity to "destroy Israel"? I just don't see the existential threat. Hamas probably wouldn't make it past the first Israeli village before being completely annihilated. And all this business about Iran: if Hamas is their (not-so) secret weapon against Israel, it doesn't seem like Israel has much to worry about. I'm not at all impressed by Hamas' military prowess. In open warfare (leaving Gaza to invade Israel), they'd probably be wiped out by no more than 200 well-armed pimply 19-year old reservists.
I'm not saying Israel is wrong to attack Hamas, but all the hype about this End of Days battle is a bit much.
Compared with any other foreign policy issue, the Palestine-Israel is just a broken record, and the failure of diplomats to solve it either shows the impotence of diplomacy or that there never has been a good solution that would work.
"Rome crushed the Bar Kochba revolt by engaging in horrifying genocidal massacres that even the most hardline factions would flinch at today
"But not the most hardline bloggers, evidently"
Correct.
I am moderately encouraged by the resolution being shown by Israel so far, but disappointed that the IDF is worrying about civilian casualties.
You can't win that way.
Fatah can be far more brutal without the world's sanction, than Isreal can.
-- Not just Israeli Jews. Hamas' leadership has called for killing Jewish children all over the world. And liberal Europeans and Moslems are in fact doing so. The extermination of European Jewry is happening as we speak. Take Denmark for example. Jewish teenagers shot in malls by the LEADING moslems. Jews are not being allowed into schools because Danish Moslem students are so violently antisemetic and barbaric.
Islam is a violent and wicked cult. The Hamas version, especially so.
If Hamas wins, Jewish children will be slaughtered in the United States and Europe and Israel. (not to mention Mumbai, Turkey, Tunisia, Yemen, etc . . . ) Violent Moslems will be energized by such a victory.
"Israel has no right to exist and I hope Hamas defeats Israel"
That's the mainstream Liberal view. Yes.
"They want Israel to be destroyed and they want Hamas to win."
Yes. LIberals mistakenly think that Moslem conquest brings in a socialist utopia. Whoops! Look at Persia where when the violent Saracens conquered the place in '79 the first up against the wall were the Liberals.
Europe is now learning that Islam is not compatible with liberalism, humanism or democracy. American Liberals are going to learn that the hard way when Michigan become Shari'an. The only succor in watching the Jihad, is how the Liberals, homosexuals, progressive Jews, etc . . . are the first to die.
"Hamas is a genocidal movement"
Have you read their charter recently? As has been frequently commented on this blog - Hamas in intent, are far worse than the German Socialists.
It's like Al Franken who says he is "culturally" Jewish. I guess he likes latkes and corn beef.
Lacking any special feelings about Israel, they treat it as just another country. So, they don't wish for Israeli victory. No more than they root for the Sri Lanka government.
They criticize Israel, and not Sri Lanka, because that is what secular liberals in England and France do. They want to fit in.
They are Jews in name only.
You can't win that way."
In fact, as I argued before, a principled commitment to safeguarding civilians requires a response sufficient to definitively end threats to them. It is immoral to balk at force, thus ensuring decades of continued attacks, as opposed to using force -- however horrendous it may be in the immediate -- reasonably necessary to immediately end future aggression.
Indeed, Israel had blood on its hands for intentionally refusing to use force necessary to end a now decades-old conflict. It is immoral to knowingly perpetuate civilian bloodshed by refusing available means of ending it.
Kevin!: You wrote, "Doesn't Bernstein get tired of making vague statements, one after another? If he thinks some prominent blogger wants Hamas to win, say which one...I wonder why Bernstein isn't willing to do so. Perhaps it's because GG..." Did you miss Professor Bernstein's post at 11PM last night, wherein he wrote, "But, with a couple of liberal Jewish bloggers specifically in mind (one of whose initials is G.G.), I can't help but think that some liberal bloggers, including some who are not intrinsically hostile to Israel per se, will be disappointed if the Gaza operation is wildly successful."
SenatorX: You're right about the moral equivalency, but there is more than just that where the Left is concerned. In the Edward Said narrative, Israel is a colonial power, making the Palestinians an occupied and oppressed people, who are to be give carte blanche to do whatever they will in the name of "resistance." Even when the colonial power is gone (and Israel is most certainly not a colonial power, nor extension thereof), the Left is notably reluctant to be very critical of those they once lionized as heroic "freedom fighters."
We're truly blessed to see so many humanitarian wars in our time. Almost brings a tear to the eye.
A flippant comment by someone so smugly sheltered and self-enamored that he cannot even conceive the magnitude of transgenerational warfare afflicting other people.
Written in Gaza, one presumes. Send Joe the plumber my regards.
This is exceptionally insightful and absolutely right. Lots of wars against insurgents have been won. My fear is that the methods necessary to win such wars are now so politically incorrect that Western countries (including Israel) cannot employ them.
Oh, they can employ them. They simply refuse to. That's what makes Israel as immoral as Hamas: That intentional refusal to end the conflict has cost thousands of civilian lives.
Yeah, um, it has nothing to do with Iraq being a sovereign democracy. It has to do with the fact the US has the strongest air force in the world and significant capacity to intercept any Israeli planes that tried to cross Iraq, while Iraq does not. You seem to think that Iraq has this magical ability by virtue of international law to merely proclaim that Israeli planes will not cross its airspace, and by doing so, cause those planes to magically reverse course.
Granted, Israel winning (as defined above), if they can do so without engaging in morally unacceptable acts (though I think they've already crossed that line) is still better than Israel losing (i.e., being militarily defeated by Hamas). But the idea that the IDF could be defeated by Hamas is just crazy.
In other words, as I see it, the options are thus:
1) Israel crushes Hamas, and puts an end to Hamas's terrorism, by engaging in genocidal slaughter of the Gazans. That would be act of evil, which I will not hope for.
2) Israel crushes Hamas, and puts an end to Hamas's terrorism, while killing a minimal number of innocents. That would be wonderful, but is probably impossible, inasmuch as you can't change the past. But even considering only the future rather than the past, the chances of this successfully happening are only slightly better than the chance of monkeys flying out of my ass. It seems odd to "hope" for something that has virtually no probability of happening.
3) Israel is not militarily defeated, but Hamas's terrorism continues anyway. A bunch of innocent people die in the process. Very bad outcome, but by far the most likely one.
4) Hamas militarily defeats the IDF. This is the second-worst outcome after genocide, but the chances of this one are even lower than the chances of monkeys flying out of my ass.Hamas obviously has no capacity to destroy Israel. Gaza is a third-world quasi-country, and Hamas's military weakness is a direct result. You can still count the number of people their rockets have killed on one hand even though they've sent thousands of them. By contrast, Israel has the second-most technologically advanced military in the world and the richest, most powerful country in the world is a staunch ally.I've never read their charter, inasmuch as I don't speak Arabic and all the translations are by people who have ideological agendas, who make wildly different claims about what it says.
In any case, why anyone would care so much about the rhetoric in a document from twenty years ago is beyond me. Here in the U.S., reading the party platform doesn't give you that much insight into what the party intends to do if they win the election. Party platforms contain all kinds of nonsense the leadership has no intention of delivering on. You'll learn even less if you read the platform from twenty years ago. What makes Hamas so different?
In other words, the question is what Hamas's leadership today actually believes. Of course, Hamas's leadership today is pretty darn awful, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were interested in genocide. But the charter isn't really evidence of that.
No, and the Israelis intend to keep it that way.
Peace won't be had until one side capitulates. Given their respective goals, the best outcome would be for the Palestinians to capitulate. The Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but this particular war is a war they have chosen. Israel is justified in fighting this war until the Gazans surrender. And Hamas bears culpability for any civilian casualties.
The question is having loosed the whirlwind is there any way out. What is certain is that Israel cannot impose a solution. Neither can Hamas, but their interest is a chaos where they emerge victor by force of numbers. The longer the Gaza fighting goes on the more it looks like Lebanon. Israel cannot suppress Hamas the way the Romans did Bar Kochba. It is increasingly likely that a peace will be imposed. That will be an especially risky time for Israel, and something that they have let themselves be drawn into.
With friends like you Israel vanishes into the tragic dust heap of history, not perhaps soon, but more certainly. Those of us who oppose the Gaza fighting do so because we know that its continuation means sooner. For most of us our hope is that Israel continues as a Jewish state. Others want it continue as a mixed arab-jewish state, but at least today that appears whistful. Yet, with continued fighting hope begins to vanish leaving only despair. Despair and disgust at those like you who are destroying a dream by loving it uncritically and unthinkingly.
*the Israeli public no longer believes "peace" is a possible outcome
*Egypt is immediately to blame for allowing the smuggling that fueled the attacks, but also
*Israel's decision in 1967 not to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to the westbank was the worst mistake in Israeli history and led directly to this now-unsolvable situation. The decision was made by right-wingers (not left-wingers) who wanted to reserve the westbank for Jewish settlement. "With nearly 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank today and an additional 200,000 living in the formerly Arab part of Jerusalem, it is almost impossible to draw sensible borders and achieve peace."
*"For many years, Israel has adhered to a number of basic assumptions that have never proven right. . . According to one such assumption, inflicting hardship on Palestinian civilians will make the population rise up against its leaders and choose more "moderate" ones. Hence, when Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, after a short, sharp struggle with its secular rivals in Fatah, Israel imposed a blockade on the strip, pushing 1.5 million Palestinians to the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe. But Hamas has only become stronger."
*"And here's another false Israeli assumption: that Hamas is a terrorist organization. In fact, it's also a genuine national and religious movement supported by most of the people in Gaza. It cannot be simply bombed away."
*"The Bush administration was mainly concerned with keeping alive a diplomatic fiction called "The Peace Process." But there really was no such "process." Instead, the oppression of the Palestinians continued and intensified, even after Israel had evacuated several thousand settlers from Gaza in 2005. More settlements were put up in the West Bank."
*"Rather than design another fictitious "road map" for peace, the Obama administration may be more useful and successful by trying merely to manage the conflict, aiming at a more limited yet urgently needed goal: to make life more livable for both Israelis and Palestinians."
"Those of us who oppose the Gaza fighting do so because we know that its continuation means sooner."
But you DON'T "know" that. You "suspect" it. Some of us don't agree. And gnosticism isn't convincing. What's the solution that does not involve use of force?
When will the Palestinians learn the limit of military force? Who will even ask them to do so?
Are Palestinian lives so worthless that three generations can be squandered in war? Is that not enough already?
One can only hope that some day they will learn to seek peace instead.
Is that a serious question? Assuming you're not just being cute/deliberately ignorant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&feature=channel
According to certain conservatives, that's pretty much what Poland did.
"Every little conflict" and "doomsday" make for a nice juxtaposition, has the advantage of subsuming reality beneath a (very thin) veneer of rhetoric and, voila, is similar to the "Have you quit beating your wife?" question.
But if Hamas were in Mexico and had launched 6,000+ rockets into civilian populations in the U.S. since 2001/2002, had additionally launched similar numbers of mortars, had initiated homicide/suicide attacks during that period, sniper fire as well, other munitions still - and nearly all of it against civilian population centers - one might wonder if you'd subsume the realities below a veneer of rhetoric with such facility.
Additionally, if Hezbollah and other factions were based throughout Canada, in the north, extremely well armed and funded, with a history of incitements and tactics similar to Hamas in the south - one might again wonder if that reality would be subsumed below a veneer of rhetoric so readily.
Additionally still, if Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north were proxies of Iran, Syria and others sources of funding and training - over a protracted period of time and as part of a larger strategy still - one might again wonder about that reality/rhetoric juxtaposition.
Yet other "additionally stills" could be articulated, serving to further frame that "little conflict" you're referring to. For example, we could take note of Hamas's founding charter, effectively it's Constitution. Imagine Canada's and Mexico's Constitutions reflecting the principles articulated in Hamas's founding charter, some high-lights, or low-lights, follow, brief synopses bolded, translated language from Hamas's charter itself in italics (h/t Solomonia):
Hamas is... a part of the Muslim Brotherhood (like the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), here in the US):
...The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life...
It is death-worshiping:
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.
They consider peaceful solutions a betrayal:
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. ... There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.
It is an annihilationist movement:
The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree ...
All that remains but the beginning of how this "little conflict" needs to be framed.
Is it really? I suppose it's like saying Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederacy. I'm not sure how much practical or moral difference it makes, since Hamas would be the government in Gaza if Gazans got to vote on that question, but my understanding is the PA is legally the government in Gaza.
Continuing to exist as a peculiarly Jewish nation within something like its present borders? I'm for that?
Exterminating or driving off the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank? Not so much.
But the enthusiasm for extermination certainly seems high, in this thread at least.
Being left in peace.
Let me be frank. I belive antisemism is increasing again in the heartland-- Europe, but I have a lot of confidence that Euros will find their roots again and begin ethnic cleansing vs. Muslims. This will not be good for Jews but I doubt there is much future for Jews in Europe. Arab propaganda, ownership of much media for decades has taken its toll. There is antisemitism in Japan but not much elsewhere in Asia except where Muslims are entrenched. That is a positive. It is increasing in America largely because of Islamic influence on residual Christian antisemites of the "old school" but I doubt it will take root here. One caveat, there is strong traditional antisemitism among Latinos and it is still very strong in Spain, sheltered from any involvement in the Holocaust. This may have a role in America in the next generation, independent of Israel. Also, I think the trend toward secularism and withdrawal among American Jews is ending. The noxious rise of fundamentalism fueled by Muslims and Hindus is having an effect on all. This is not an altogether positive development. Lennie Bruce was a Jewish prophet manque, and I will miss the disappearance of this element from our culture.
Hercules was able to solve the riddle of the hydra's head, but Israel's supporters have yet to understand there's a problem.
"But Mom! He started it!" is not a good way to resolve a conflict. Hamas is a more bitter enemy to Israel than was the PLO, and Hamas's successor will be more bitter still.
1. Israelis don't believe their lives are as desperate as do Palestinians.
2. Israelis don't need to strap on bombs to blow up their enemies; they have aircraft and tanks.
I want Israel to flourish. Israel has the brains and ability to make peace with its neighbors. Watching 40 years of Israel's near continuous warring with its neighbors has made me a little ticked off. (And again, "Those bad boys are always picking on me" is not an acceptable excuse.)
OK, so what's the answer? What's the policy that will make Palestinians accept the presence of jews in the Middle East.
What do you recommend, what do you think will be the outcome of your recommendation, and why?
In the end, it would take a combination of three things to achieve that victory: military victory, occupation, and nation building. The absence of any one of these will lead to a resurgent Hamas.
Why? If Hamas cannot destroy Israel - or even cause significant harm, then it is not a real existential threat. It is a threat, properly dealt with by military force, sure. By why the hyberbole? Why the extreme mindset? It just sounds paranoid and irrational to me. Just call it what it is - a military campaign to destroy a weak terrorist network, not Armageddon or the War to End all Wars.
And yes, I would classify this as a "little conflict," as of today, as far as the Middle East goes. This is not 1967. Israel is not facing armed invasions at all, much less coordinated invasions from the governments of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iraq. They are not facing waves of child soldiers unleashed by Nasser.
And yes, if there were Mexicans or Canadians lobbing missiles into America, killing a handful of Americans, and the US retaliated by destroying those terrorist entities, that would also reasonably qualify as a "little conflict." The US has had many such little conflicts - see the invasions of Nicaragua or Panama. Quick and dirty campaigns like the one Israel is conducting, but nothing that would qualify as a major conflict.
After the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, Israel wanted to do just that. However, Egypt discouraged Egyptian tourism to Israel (accepting Israeli tourists), expanded business, etc. The semi-official Egyptian press still likes to print articles and cartoons that are clearly anti-Jewish. Check out memri.org sometime.
Engagement requires two sides.
Simple fact? Then it ought to be easy to prove.
While we're waiting for that proof, how about explaining this contradictory particular: I'm left and I always have been. I want Israel to win and I always have.
If I had the answer to peace in the Middle East I wouldn't be typing in the comments box here.
Besides, part of any policy's success is its creation by the people involved, whether from ego drive or intimate knowledge of the issues involved.
Then the US would send in the Cavalry, as we did in our comparable period, from the Civil War till the beginning of the last century.
But consider that the absence of hostilities with our neighbors can be explained by Canadians' living as good as we do, while Mexicans are unwilling to attack the employer of 25 million of their fellow citizens; whose remittances home are one of the largest components of their national income. The keys to peace are thus economic partnerships and quality of life.
Well, that and the absence of a genocidal impulse.
If the simplest theory is correct, and they do in fact mean what they say, what does that say about the likelihood of any peace plan?
If you're willing to tell them what not to do, you must think you know something that would work better.
Well said, but it`s hard to be optimistic. I keep reading Haaretz news updates, but it seems pretty clear that Israelis themselves - including IDF and government - don`t have as to what their own objectives are. The rest of us are even more in the dark.
If I was a secular Palestinian looking for a deal that gives me the best chance of living out my life in peace, it's pretty clear that the two-state solution is idiotic. Any Palestinian government will torn between weakness (Fatah) and militancy (Hamas) for the foreseeable future, and this means that it will always be possible for a handful of jihadis with access to a metal shop to toss a couple of rockets over into Israel. If that means Israel bombs the crap out of an independent Palestine every 5 years, then who cares if they get a national flag and an Olympic team? The Gaza pullout->Hamas election->War is the best simulation of a PA state that we could ask for, and the outlook is grim.
The smart money for non-Islamist Palestinians is on the one-state solution. Non-violent protest asking for permanent annexation and full Israeli citizenship will be much harder to fight than militancy. American taxpayers who do not belong to one of the involved faiths understand "Israel defending itself from rockets" much better than "Israel is keeping these people from voting because they want to preserve the 'Jewishness' of the state". That last idea rubs against a lot of fundamental American beliefs and would stab a stake in the ability of AIPAC to control the narrative in the US.
The funny thing is that the messianic right-wing brought this upon themselves by making separation impossible through settlements. Now we'll see if there are enough Palestinians intelligent enough to see that co-opting the language of freedom and democracy will make them much stronger than the armed struggle they have been losing for 60 years. I'm sure somebody has translated MLK, Mandela and Gandhi into Arabic.
The Mexican diaspora, at least in terms of the extremely large group that we know in the US today, is a relatively new phenomenon (in 1960, for example, Mexicans were the 7th largest foreign-born group in the US, numbering just over half a million). An "economic partnership" does nothing to explain why the Mexicans didn't respond to the Zimmermann Telegram by sending their armies marching into Arizona.
Israel's choice is ultimately victory or death.
The idea that Israel would bomb a hypothetically peaceful Gaza because "a handful of jihadis" had "toss[ed] a couple of rockets over into Israel" is equally absurd. It took hundreds of rockets and mortar rounds to get them to bomb Gaza this time, along with the complete failure of the Gaza authorities to discourage rocket-firing in any way. Did I say 'discourage'? Hamas encourages the firing of rockets and mortars, even in cases where they don't do the job themselves. I've read that an Israeli in Sderot built a home-made rocket to fire back at Gaza, and was arrested by the Israeli police before he could so so. Has Hamas (or Fatah, for that matter) ever arrested a Gazan for firing rockets at Israel, or trying to? They've had thousands of opportunities. It seems to me perfectly obvious that a Gaza that made a good-faith effort to prevent its citizens from attacking Israel would be in no danger whatsoever of being bombed.
The Gaza settlements were much much smaller than the West Bank settlements, and weren't supported by a huge network of roads and checkpoints. Even then, the IDF faced serious opposition to removal and it's a miracle there wasn't more bloodshed.
Have you seen a map of the West Bank recently? I won't link to one because I'm sure there are a dozen little issues with any specific representation, but any of them will show that the settlements stretch through Palestinian areas in a way that makes drawing a line impossible.
As an apparent supporter of Israel, how many dead Israelis does it take to justify massive military retribution? I'm guessing you would say "one is too many", which is a reasonable statement, but one that wouldn't give our hypothetical Gazan inhabitant any reason to sleep at night.
Absolutely. And it's been the case for the last 60 years. I'd support the Palestinians if they were marching, singing "We Shall Overcome" in Arabic. The Palestinians have some legitimate grievances.
Where are all those non-Islamist Palestinians, anyways? Can anything about Palestinians attitudes be inferred given the 60 year absence of non-violent protest?
The analogy offered referred to Hamas and Hezbollah and similar entities (e.g., Palestinian Islamic Jihad) "lobbing missiles" which, in turn, are substantially funded and trained by Iran and Syria. I was using Mexico's and Canada's geography - not their citizens - as factors in the analogy.
"... the absence of hostilities with our neighbors can be explained by Canadians' living as good as we do, while Mexicans are unwilling to attack the employer of 25 million of their fellow citizens; whose remittances home are one of the largest components of their national income. The keys to peace are thus economic partnerships and quality of life." Tony Tutins
That's more than a little naive. At most, it takes into account 5% of the factors offered in the analogy. Too, since Israel does employ a healthy percentage of the Sunni Arab population in question, the logic offered falls apart on that score as well. As to the other 95% of the factors, you'd need, for example, to correlate Hamas's Charter with Mexico's Constitution. But that's why I was using the geography, not Canada's or Mexico's citizens, in the analogy.
I can't find the site I read this on, but as I recall the total number of Israelis murdered by Muslims last year was 36, 28 of them civilians, 8 (I think it was) by rockets and mortars, only 1 by a suicide bomb, 1 run over with a bulldozer, a dozen or more with guns, mostly in school. Doesn't sound like much? Another 947 (as I recall) were wounded, and I believe that was just the ones wounded by rockets and mortars, many of them crippled for life. Again, that was just in 2008.
Does 28 civilians murdered not sound like much? As a percentage of the population, it would be equivalent to 1173 in the U.S., with another 39,675 wounded. Again, anyone who thinks that is not a legitimate casus belli is a fool.
As I wrote on another site yesterday, "All the Gazans have to do to live in peace with Israel is stop firing rockets and mortars at civilians, stop stockpiling them for later firing, return Gilad Shalit, stop trying to kidnap other soldiers, and stop violating the Geneva Convention in every way they can. Is that really too much to ask? Those are all things normal human beings do without being asked." Do you deny that, SecurityGeek?
"Despair and disgust at those like you who are destroying a dream by loving it uncritically and unthinkingly."
I'm sure you're a decent person in real life so I'll put this gently: you don't know the first fucking thing about how much critical thinking goes into my alleged "love" for Israel. As it happens, the only nation I love is this one, and that love flows from the liberal ideals which constitute it.
I do know who our friends are, and more importantly in this case, who our friends are not. Those who spit in the face of those ideals in just about everything they do (the Mullahs and their accomplices shooting those rockets) have worked very hard to earn my justified hatred. It would be ungenerous of me to deny it to them.
Worse, denying it to them just eggs them on. How's that turning the other cheek strategy been working these past decades? You do know that that is what those crazy right-wing evangelicals preach, right?
Free people need to be willing to defend that freedom if they wish to keep it. Other free people people doing so are ill-served by "friends" who miss no opportunity to to launch into smug condescension at their expense. You you have substantive analysis to offer, have at it. The tut-tutting has long been pathetic.
How many Israelis died from that rocket fire? Some sources say one, although a lot of people are blurring dates for when the cease-fire ended. Do you think any Palestinians were indirectly killed by the blockade of Gaza during that period? Would that justify retribution by Hamas?
Anyway, I'm not playing the "he started it!" game here. I'm just saying the two-state solution is dead, that this war proved that once again, and the sooner we all realize it the faster we can move to something that works. It seems likely that small groups will always be able to proud Israel into massive collective punishment of all Arabs in the area, so the idea of gaining protection from a Palestinian state seems ridiculous on its face. This is what Israel is teaching the civilians of Gaza right now: "We will punish you because you are all guilty... of something."
Smart Palestinians should want to be Israelis. At least they would be under a nuclear deterrence umbrella, and I could see the West chipping in big time for economic recovery programs that would look a lot more like reunified Germany than post-Apartheid South Africa.
You are right that who went first is not relevant to the issue at hand. You are wrong that small groups can prod Israel into relatiation, a point that Dr. Weevil made and you ignored. Small groups acting with the support of the local government could do that, which is what is going on in Gaza.
Your point about the two state solution is likely correct, for the reason that the Arab state by current evidence would be dedicated to attacking Israel. On current evidence, also the "smart Palestinians" are overwhelmed by the angry Palestinians, which is an excellent reason why Israel would be crazy to to what you say absorb its enemies within its borders.
I think it's helpful to understand that this is an explicit strategy. As explained nicely here:
But the icing on the cake is that there are folks here who describe the organization behind those words as "anti-Zionist." If that's "anti-Zionist," I wonder what pro-Zionist looks like.
What then of the growing population of arab-israelis? They may be better off than other arabs, but pretty much every piece of news indicates they are not a happy lot either. If Israel doesn't get the quasi-external situation of Gaze and the West Bank settled it will likely become even less pleasant as the internal demographics continue to shift.
Which comes back to a one-state non-jewish nation which at the moment is the best likely solution I see. At least on a fairly long time frame of 75-100 years.
There's a question of what is meant by "the entire land." The apparent answer is found in the Bible, where "boundaries were prescribed." Naturally there's debate about those "boundaries," but one good summary of that debate is here.
OK:
users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bengur62.jpg
There's a question of what is meant by "the entire land."
And also what is meant by "the problem."
If the problem is either:
How do we turn Israel into a majority-Arab state by acquiring Arab-populated territories?
or
How do we create a massive refugee crisis by driving Arabs out of the territories?
then this would indeed solve the problem.
Perhaps you should. It's actually important. It's the difference between aggression and self-defense.
Parents can get away with telling their kids it doesn't matter who started it because they're dealing with minor actions that don't cause real injury.
Yep.
Burning crosses/eyeing your women - it doesn't matter who started it, the important thing is ending the cycle of violence, right?
I'm the one who provided the link and I first read Hamas's Charter several years ago. You're wrong, it effectively is their constitution. Mark Steyn, however, illustrates what a "bunch of rhetoric" looks like, high-lighting some events around the globe, brief excerpt, emphases added:
In Toronto, anti-Israel demonstrators yell “You are the brothers of pigs!”, and a protester complains to his interviewer that “Hitler didn’t do a good job.”
In Fort Lauderdale, Palestinian supporters sneer at Jews, “You need a big oven, that’s what you need!”
In Amsterdam, the crowd shouts, “Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!”
Read the whole thing, it needs to be read to be believed.
Then, contrast all this venomous concern on behalf of the Sunni Arab population in Gaza with the lack of concern on behalf of
... far bloodier conflicts that have been going on around the world, from the long-running genocide in Darfur, with its estimated 400,000 dead and at least 2.5 million refugees, to war in the Congo, with over 4 million dead or driven from their homes, to Chechnya, where an estimated 150,000-200,000 have died and up to a third of the population has been displaced at the hands of the Russian military. None of these tragedies saw protesters flock into the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, Milan, Oslo, Dublin, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Washington, and Fort Lauderdale (to give a brief list), as has been the case during the Gaza crisis.
Rather illuminating, that imbalance.
On the contrary. Ben-Gurion's secular Zionism is arguably more moderate and pragmatic, as compared with the religious Zionist philosophy expressed by chabad. So it's a little hard to tell what you're getting at.
When chabad says "the problem," I don't think they're defining it the way you are. But I see your point.
"Majority-Arab state" is theoretically OK if Israel is no longer a democracy. And I think as a general rule religious Zionists don't place a high priority on Israel remaining a democracy.
And I would like to add that not one single word in this post is anti-semetic. I am merely stating opinions contrary to the official position of a country- A country which claims it is a democracy -meaning that it equally represents all people regardless of race, creed, religion or ethnic background. So I am not singling out anyone in Israel in particular, just the government policies of Israel.
That's only because the aliens from Neptune sold extraterrestrial biological warfare agents to the Israeli military!
This business about removing settlements being the equivalent of rendering an area "judenrein" is thoroughly dishonest. "Jewish settlement" is not a very accurate description of what exists in the West Bank and formerly in Gaza. "Extraterritorial Israeli enclave" is more accurate but opposed because, naturally, there are those who reject the idea that the West Bank and Gaza are outside the territory of Israel. But it is still the case that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction over the "settlements" and cannot regulate who may settle there.
To those who engage in these casual accusations of anti-Semitism: how would you feel if the Mexican government started paying Mexican citizens to build walled-off compounds in the "disputed territories" of southern Texas and California and claimed that state-subsidized Mexicans who settled there were not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Federal, state or local authorities?
Response: "Hamas would kill him."
Two of the three people on my list were assassinated. But they managed to do a lot of good for their people before they died.
My point is quite simple, and your Mexican comparison is an attempt to obfuscate it. Are there any Jews living in Gaza right now other than (probably) Gilad Shalit? It's a simple question, and the obvious answer gives the lie to those who compare Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa. It is the Muslims who refuse to allow any Jews in the territory they control -- and are rapidly driving out the Christians, too -- while hundreds of thousands of Muslims live freely in Israel.
Not sure about that number. The IICC reports that several dozen were injured by rockets and mortars over that period. Although if you include stress-related traumas, it gets up to several hundred.
Before the Second infitada, the West Bank and Gaza economies were closely tied to that of Israel. Tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs worked in Israel, and Palestinian Arab agricultural goods were marketed to and through Israel.
That stopped with the resumption of terrorism after Israel offered 95% of the West Bank to Arafat. He turned it town and, rather than negotiate further (this wasn't a take-it-or-leave-it offer by Barak) he turned on the violence. Israel has brought in Asians to do the work that Palestinians used to do.
My poit: what worked between the United States and Mexico was unacceptable to Palestinian "moderates."
"it seems to me that smug lives quite happily on your block."
Misery loves company, but I'm afraid that your company is out of my league. Perhaps that rarefied air isn't providing enough oxygen for your collective brains...
"Friends don't let friends wage futile wars."
They tell them to lie back and enjoy it? You are aware that those rockets were not intended just to provoke an Israeli response, correct? They also know exactly how you and yours will react by now, creating a sickening cyce of abuse and enabling.
Back in the day, there was a certain sort of "liberal" who could be counted on to make excuses for the Klan and condemn northern "agitators" who attempted to stand up to them. I don't think that it was a coincidence that the New, too busy to hate, South arose at exactly the same time that liberals figured out that haters need to be smacked down until they find better things to do.
If we find the determination to do the same here, I have little doubt that our Arab friends have the wherewithal to do likewise. The Palestinian MLK won't emerge until he can be confident that he, or at least his movement, will be protected by the sympathy of the international powers that be.
Ypo're saying that Jews are allowed to live in Gaza? That if, hypothetically, a Jew without Zionist beliefs wanted to move there, set up a hardware store, and become a Gazan citizen (whatever you call the citizenship of people who live there) but continue to practice Judaism openly, he would be accepted?
Assuming that's true, the religious zionist and non-zionist parties command but 20-25% of the vote. They never have held a cabinet security portfolio in Israel. BTW the Israeli Afab parties get 10-15% of the vote.
The religious West Bank and Gaza parties, which clearly do not put high priority on democracy, control Gaza and are popular on the West Bank. As I said, they run Gaza and sponsor attacks on Israel. And, BTW, the Jewish parties there get-- umm-- 0% of the vote.
On the contrary. Ben-Gurion's secular Zionism is arguably more moderate and pragmatic,
But you asked what one looks like. [Psst! All of those people look the same. So just use the picture I gave you and you'll be fine.]
The nature of Israeli parliamentary politics is that small groups can have a disproportionate impact on elections and policy.
=================
hoosier, if you're not careful you might lose your "valued commenter" status.
Your notion of a one-state solution is just plain silly. Here's another silly one: let's have a one-state solution between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration from Mexico into the US. Presto! Problem solved.
But doesn't that introduce other problems? Ones that perhaps might be more grave than the current situation?
Likewise, if Israel made a one-state solution with Hamas and the PA, that would presumably mean dismantling all of the checkpoints and the barriers, since there couldn't be internal barriers to movement. After doing that, the suicide bombing rate would go back up to what it was in the immediate post-2000 era.
Because here's the thing: suicide bombing attempts haven't decreased. Suicide bombing successes have. The media doesn't report on suicide bombing failures. Just like it doesn't report on a daily flow of rockets into Sderot, unless Israel responds to the rockets. However, out of sight, out of mind would be cold comfort to the Jews who you are sentencing to death by suicide bombing.
Instead of a one state solution, how about a solution where we hold the Palestinians to the standards of civilized behavior? Don't murder, don't lob random rockets, don't collocate civilians and military, don't incite.
The last point is probably the most important. If you haven't read Palestinian textbooks (created by the "moderate" Fatah party), go to MEMRI.org and flip through a little. (As an aside, Fatah means Conquest. Abu Mazen aka Mahmoud Abbas is the head of the Fatah party, the "moderates.") When you're done looking at their textbooks, read their papers, take a gander at their cartoons. Note that their papers are state-controlled; there is no freedom of the press. Maybe read a few of their imams' Friday wishes for the Jews. Note that their imams are put in place by the state.
Once you've read all of this, then you have some idea of what the "moderates" and the extremists have indoctrinated in their people. And any notion of a one-state solution becomes clearly impossible.
When in human history has the cycle of violence stopped? For how long? Does it make sense to make policy based on stopping the cycle?
The Palestinians are fighting because they (1) have a grievance and (2) their life sucks. They're not fighting for economic prosperity, but enjoying economic prosperity would take away many of their reasons and motivation to fight. The middle class are not revolutionaries; revolution would take away the things they have. Look at Europe -- historic enemies like France and England or France and Germany have been at peace for decades. Consider the power demagogues obtained in their respective countries during the Great Depression.
Further, look at the Saudis, the Emirates, etc. They're not fighting, because their lives are good.
I concede that terrorist leadership tends to come from the children of the comfortable middle class -- look at Ayers and Dohrn for examples. Like the unemployed, they have a lot of time on their hands. But because most Americans were satisfied with their lives, the disaffected middle class youth found few supporters.
Unfortunately some measures under way hurt a great deal.
While that's a nice theory, it's simply not true. Study after study on Hezb'Allah or the Palestinians has shown that there is no positive correlation between poverty and terrorist propensity. In fact, most studies have shown a slight inverse correlation. The Guardian (hardly a pro-Israel paper) had a piece on one of the studies about Hezb'Allah several years ago.
People from other cultures do not necessarily think the same way we do. Just because economics are important in the West does not mean they are important in the rest. Cultures can be different and can teach people different values.
Meanwhile, your supposition about the Saudis is belied by the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudis who have been involved in attacks in Iraq. It's not that Saudis have not been terrorists, it's that Palestinians are not worth dying for, to them. They, like all Arabs and the Iranians as well, will gladly fight to the last Palestinian.
I read your comments after I signed off the other day. You mentioned a few different forces. As a factual matter, though, you should be aware that there are more than a dozen forces that report up through the Fatah (Conquest) hierarchy to Abu Mazen aka Mahmoud Abbas. It's not just Hamas, PIJ, Tanzim, and AAMB.
Sounds like the guy who says it's easy to stop smoking because he's done it hundreds of times.
1) They are not fighting, and 2)their lives are good. But why assume causality?
1) They are not fighting, and 2)their lives are good. But why assume causality?
I think there is causality, but it runs in the other direction - their lives are good because they aren't fighting.
Well, that and they sit on a lot of oil.
My sister-in-law has stopped the cycle with her birth-control pills. How hard could it be?
I wrote: "The Palestinians needed a Ghandi, and MLK, or a Mandela."
Response: "Hamas would kill him."
Two of the three people on my list were assassinated. But they managed to do a lot of good for their people before they died.
Good point. Bad phrasing on my part.
I should have specified that timing was my key concern. Because I don't think the leadership of Hamas has an ADD problem with matters like this. Why put off to tomorrow . . .? And all that.
If Israeli settlers want land in the Palestinian Territories, they should emigrate. Either that or annex the whole territory and grant voting rights to its residents.
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Asbat al-Ansar
Islamic Jihad Group
Palestine Liberation Front
Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
That doesn't include Hizbollah in the north, a Shi'a terrorist org funded by Iran and Syria, it additionally does not include a host of minor factions and clan based factions.
All those political/terrorists, in one form or another, have devoted themselves to murdering Jews and eliminating Israel from the face of the planet,
without a single exception.
Iran
Syria
Sudan
That is a good point. However, can you ever have a negotiating partner with so many factions? How can that ever happen?
Wouldn't it make sense to: 1) Allow the development of a PA army and 2) allow them to buy weapons from Israel and Turkey provided that they do truly monopolize warmaking powers?
If a terrorist group in Mexico were lobbing rockets across our border, we would probably work together with the Mexican army to make it stop (allowing them to take the lead). In this case, however, there is no Palestinian army to make deals with. I would note that even in Lebanon, recently, the Army and Hizbullah came down hard on a group of people who allegedly fired the three rockets across the Northern Border. At least there you only have two groups to worry about instead of dozens.
"Unfortunately some measures under way hurt a great deal."
Oddly enough, Obama didn't run for President on the Black Panther ticket, nor the White Supremecists. Wonder why that was?
Also Elliot, thanks for the friendly fire. Read again, with some more imagination.
I have heard there is some handwringing going on right now about the soul of the Republican Party. Not being a party man, I wouldn't know about that, but if there is, they should be figuring out how to get nutcases like Buchanan and Robertson far, far away from them.
It's really, really scary to reflect that both those maniacs were considered presidential material within the past couple decades.
No, he's more like the owl in Jim Wright's parable.
By the way, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Iran are not ethnically Arab. Neither is Morocco. Can anyone point me to an Arab state where Jews are allowed to live as citizens and own property? Not in Jordan, Saudi Arabia or any of the UAE, for starters.
Unfortunately, the initiatives to ban the Arab parties comes from two parties which would seem to be clear parallels to the idea of white supremecism in the US.
However, I find it comforting that Mohammed Barakeh will continue his service to Israel as a member of the Knesset. He has been a consistent advocate of peace with the Palestinians, and his support proved crucial to the Gaza disengagement plan. I don't like his party's Communist leanings, but his party is probably the only real damper to the overly nationalistic approach of many other parties.
Sure, it would make sense if you completely ignored the problem. You incorrectly posit that the problem is ability. It's not, it's willingness.
Once again, go read their papers (state-controlled). Listen to their imams (state-appointed). Read their textbooks (state-created). All of these were created by the "moderate" PA. And all of them are available on-line, in translation. Better yet, learn Arabic, so you don't have to rely on translations. Once you've read (or skimmed) all of this, you'll know about their willingness to stop attacking the Jews.
Your idea of providing the PA an army to consolidate their factions is sort of like the US providing OBL an army to consolidate AQ factions and cells. While it has the advantage of providing us with one negotiating partner with complete control over his cells, I'm sure you can think of some minor disadvantages to this approach, like, oh, say, arming your enemies and all that.
Your idea is further disproved when you really look at the question of ability. The PA is a police state. There are more police per capita in the PA than anywhere in the world. And all of them report up to Abu Mazen aka Mahmoud Abbas. There are other forces, but Abu Mazen aka Mahmoud Abbas could easily control them, given his numerical superiority, if he had the willingness to do so.
Ultimately, though, you have to consider who is responsible for the Palestinian org chart. If the Israelis give the Palestinians a bunch of weapons, will that increase or decrease the complexity of the org chart? Or will it have no effect? I'd take a stab in the dark and say no effect, because the reason for the complexity of the org chart has to do with wanting a police state where everyone is accountable to the top of the chart. If you think more weapons would help consolidate the security forces, you have to explain why the CIA's consistent efforts to give more weapons have not resulted in improved consolidation.
Considered presidential material by whom? Dennis Kuchinich, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and CNN?
Our candidate system has a low bar to entry. All you need is money and the ability to repeatedly entertain a cable TV news audience for seven minute segments.
But, we should probably also note both republicans and the electorate showed little interst in any of these guys. No need to be scared.
What is it you find most objectionable about Pat Buchanan?
I read that same article, and it's hard to disagree with Buchanan's basic presentation, that WWII wound up with a brutal, totalitarian empire dominating a huge new swath of European real estate, and leveraging those gains towards ever more empirical growth. Sure, that's revisionist to our orthodox history, but he didn't make it up out of whole cloth.
Buchanan is an ideological bomb thrower, but better that than real bombs, eh? Too bad the region being discussed here hasn't room for a diversity of thought.
Arabs have a hard time defining who is an Arab. The best they came up with a few years back was anyone who spoke Arabic as a native language. Makes one wonder what will happen if English continues its march across the world.
Ethnicity is a tricky thing. For example, what is a Jew? How is it defined? Is it an ethnicity? And if so, how does it qualify as an ethnicity if Arab doesn't?
Can any given ehnicity simply select its own test? Can Jews use maternal lineage, Arabs use language, British use geography, and someone else use color?
So? My position is that the way to peace is a real occupation and nation-building exercise. I think that if Israel acted credibly in terms of trying to BUILD a Palestinian state, it would go a long ways to avoiding perpetual warfare.
I think the current approach is too much faith in military force and not enough thought as to how to deal with the root problems which are:
1) Lack of hope in national ambitions
2) Radicalization of the Street
3) The idea that Palestinians should remain a stateless people and that their needs don't really matter compared to Israel's (the settlements are a big reason for this sense).
My view still is that Israel, as the main military power, will have security when they do three things:
1) Abandon the settlments (settlers should be allowed to emigrate to the PA if they wish rather than forcibly evacuated).
2) Invade and occupy both Gaza and the West Bank.
3) Build real Palestinian civil institutions (police, army, etc). Establish rule of law.
The other corrollary is that Israel must stop negotiating with one party or another, as a way of being told what they want to hear. The only legitimate negotiating partner is the Palestinian government. However, one needs a legitimate government in place for this to happen, hence the need for an invasion and occupation.
I think that if Israel agreed in principle to the 67 borders, it would provide a great deal more leverage over the occupations necessary to end the radicalization and anarchy in the Palestinian Territories.
"In war, hearts and minds have always been as important as bodies.
"Ideological disputes usually precede and inform territorial ones.
"But fought under the constant scrutiny of a global media played out in instant playback real time, the rules of war have changed utterly."
[...]
"That is why the really important battles are the propaganda ones; that is why Hamas puts so much of its efforts into fighting its war on that very front – and why, on that front, it is winning. Indeed, the more it loses on the ground, the more it wins in cyberspace. This is a whole new war, it is postmodern war, but it is not virtual war; it has fully operational weapons. The rewards of winning the propaganda war are no longer a consolation prize, a pat on the back, a Blankety Blank chequebook and pen and better luck next time. Propaganda wars are real wars, and winner takes, if not all, then at least the promise of it. Journalists should know, and in fairness show every sign that they do know, that their words carry real weight, and can genuinely influence the outcome of the conflict itself."
Read the whole thing.
Jews are Arabs -- actually Semites -- who practice Judaism, along with those who have converted in over the years, plus their descendents. (Egyptians and whatnot are actually Hamites.)
The war between Israelis and Palestinians is actually a family squabble, like the war between (ex-Scot) Protestant Celts and (Irish) Catholic Celts in Northern Ireland.
From day one, Arafat recruited armed forces far in excess of the number authorized by Oslo, and accepted -- in violation of Oslo -- recruits who had attacked and murdered Israelis. He trained them to commit further attacks, and it was not until Israel had proof that attacks were being planned and carried out by the PA security forces that it began blowing up their facilities.
Most objectionable? That's he's a hate-monger. But about that particular screed, that he's so dumb he swallowed the 'die for Danzig' propaganda of Goebbels.
(And, although you didn't ask, about Robertson, that he believes the Sea-Hag character in Popeye is real.)
And not all Jews practice Judaism, just as not all Arabs practice Islam. But as you point out, the only way for a non-Jew to become a Jew is to convert according to the practices of the Jewish religion. Whether it is possible for a non-Arab to become an Arab, I have no idea.
One encounters people who claim that they are not "anti-Semitic," since they "support Palestinian Arabs." But this is silly. "Anti-semitism" has a specific meaning in English, and thus no one would refer to a hater of Arabs as an anti-Semite.
But beyond that is the more fundamental matter that a common root language doesn't make peoples into kindred ethnic groups. In this sense, Arabs are not Semites any more than Spaniards, Portuguese, and Romanians are "Italics."
I have spoken.
Not every situation has a pleasing outcome. Sometimes the best alternative is very bad, and in this case I don't see it being substantially more likely that the rockets will stop for more than a short period after an invasion like this than without it (and that short reprieve is paid for in Israeli lives and the lives of soldiers are no less important than those of civilians).
This is I think one of the worst aspects about democracy. People always believe that if the current situation is unpalatable and unfair that something should be done. However, it's simply not the case that doing something can improve the situation.
"they should be figuring out how to get nutcases like Buchanan and Robertson far, far away from them."
I think you're at least 15 years behind the curve. It's CNN/MSNBC who want to associate Buchanan with the R's, mostly to gratify the prejudices of their anti-R viewers.
Wrong-o Indiana Jones. A bunch of genetic studies were published 7-8 years ago showing a close kinship among Palestinians, Jews, Lebanese, and Syrians. You could google it.
.
.
.
Harry Eagar,
I don't think Buchanan "swallowed" anything, I'd say he's pointing out the reality that Danzig was enslaved by a totalitarian murderer for 60 years, despite the oh-so-wise actions of those who didn't fall into Goebbels' propoganda trap, but rather chose Stalin's instead.
Again, the reality is that WWII wound up with a mass murderering expansionist empire dominating Eastern Europe, including Danzig. Can you describe a worse outcome? You'll have to, in order to counter Buchanan's revisionist arguments.
Hey, I dig the Churchill/FDR warlord saga as much as the next guy. It's fun and easy to understand, was smoothly reported/censored as they wished, and has been lovingly chronicled.
But the aftermath of their work speaks for itself, or it does if we put aside the loving chronicles. Given the blood and treasure we put into that war, and the Cold War following, their work should stand on its own 2 feet, don't you think?
But "Semites" isn't a meaningful grouping of peoples.
Wrong-o Indiana Jones. A bunch of genetic studies were published 7-8 years ago showing a close kinship among Palestinians, Jews, Lebanese, and Syrians. You could google it.
1) I am not "Indiana" Jones: Indiana was the dog's name;
2) My name is actually Henry;
3) There are crystal skulls, but they are recent-vintage frauds;
4) The science of genetics is not so subtle yet that it can detect the historical, cultural, and self-definitional aspects of ethno-national identity;
5) I will take a look at google;
6) Meanwhile, you could take a look at Bendict Anderson's Imagined Communities;
7) Liz Phair has totally sold out since Whip Smart.
Indeed, one almost imagines that Jewish liberals want Hamas to win!
One thing I've noticed about right-wing Jewish bloggers who support Israel (and those who support them on threads like this) is that they don't mind implying that (i) those who disagree with them do not do so in good faith, and (ii) if those who disagree with them are Jewish, that they are not suficiently so, are traitors to Israel or, if they do not spend significant time in Israel, have no right to voice an opinion.
Having your safe haven against genocide ruled by a government elected by people who want you exterminated is... not a good plan. I don't see how anyone who isn't completely deluded or genocidal or maybe just daft can believe in the one state solution.
Insurgencies end either because they substantially achieve what they wish to get, the conflict merely subsides over time as inflaming incidents become less frequent and prosperity gives the insurgents something else to live for, devastating reprisals eventually turn the community itself against the insurgents (and the community is treated decently once incidents subside).
I'm very much open to the idea that in the long run it might be best if Israel adopted a roman style approach to eliminating insurgencies. Say, publicly executing insurgents and their immediate families, and possibly punishing the neighbors. Also they would knock down any building (school, apartment complex, whatever) discovered to be hiding illegal weapons or weapon labs. Unless of course this individual was reported to the authorities by a family member or neighbor.
In other words if Israel was willing to be utterl ruthless in eliminating the Palestinian insurgency they could put it out of commission within relatively short order. Then by offering aid, economic access to Israel and other benefits to the Palestinians I think peace could be achieved.
It might even be worth the cost. It is however, totally impractical. Unfortunately half-assed measures like moving troops into Gaza seems likely to merely generate more recruits to Hamas.
You're right, as long as you apply a loose definition to the word "little." Some history:
Psst. We will never, never mention Bitberg.
Why Israel is Playing Hardball with Hamas
A Mosque Full of Weapons
Arab Journalist: "Israelis value human life more than we do"
Hamas Spokesman [rightly] Gets Slammed [on the BBC, no less]
Hamas Fires Rockets During Cease Fire, Uses Human Shields
Joe the Plumber reporting from Ashkelon
15 Seconds Over Sderot [again]
"Psst. We will never, never mention Bitberg."
Mention all you like - just don't expect anyone under 40 to know what you're talking about. BTW, I'm beginning to suspect that I'm at least 5 years behind the curve myself - see the Schlozman posts above.
I got so used to the Left crying wolf in my formative years, actual wolves do indeed surprise me.
The Shlozman posts are fun, but the tu quoques of Guinier and Lee are also fun.
I'd mention Harvey Silverglass, but nobody under 95 would get it.
It is not genocide if it is not the intent to exterminate all members of a particular ethnic group. Israel is not seeking to kill all Palestinians in the West Bank, or Jordan, or Michigan.
What was the U.S. prepared to do to Japan if their leaders refused to surrender after the atomic bombings?
It is time to reject political correctness.
Political correctness goes against the principle of survival of the fittest.
I do not know.
How many innocent women and children were killed in the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?
But refusing to shoot at the enemey because he has cynically surrounded himself with innocent woman and children, paved their homes with explosives, launched rockets and mortars from inside or among their schools and generally used his own people as human shields certainly paves the way for defeat, continued slaughter of the enemey's civilians, and of your own.
Ethiopians are also Semites, interestingly.
One of the problems with Oslo though is that it was predicated on two faulty assumptions:
1) That it would be possible to have an Israeli-dominated Palestinian state, which would be mostly disarmed and
2) That the PLO would be a credible negotiating partner.
The result of this is that multitudes of war-making organizations have sprung up in the PA and that there is no possible negotiating partner which can provide peace to Israel without a massive civil war in the PA which would not be in anyone's interest.
Also this means that rather than negotiating with the PA as an organization, Israel negotiates with political parties, like Fatah.
There has never been a real serious effort to build a Palestinian state with a capability of monopolizing law enforcement, war making, and other such functions. Today, maybe, it is too late to simply allow a Palestinian army to develop under the state. So maybe a clean sweap is required.
However, what is the alternative? Never-ending warfare until Israel loses?
Certainly, and this is a problem is that, as the underdog, each death provides them political leverage. Killing seems like a simple answer, but it won't work. Maybe military action is necessary as a part of the answer, but using deterrence measures alone will accomplish nothing except making many more Palestinians more angry.
I would encourage you to focus less on the violence and more about what must come after. The violence may be necessary, but unless it is a part of a larger and better plan, it will cause more harm than it solves.
I'm not sure what comes after. We have a new situation. We have a population educated in the vilest ways to hate Jews. What Jews may do or not do is irrelevant. That they live is sufficient for outrage and justification for the most horrid crimes.
And then there are the Palestinians. Just joking. I wasn't referring to Islam in the first graf. Maybe.
There are over a billion people, a small minority of whom would actively prefer Israel survive.
There is a world of anti-semitic support, a world which thinks if only Israel could be thrown to the crocodile everything would be okay, at least for now.
There are morally dead people who can't see Palestinians' most horrid crimes as illegitimate and any of Israel's defensive measures as justified.
The Confrontation States maintain, with UN and western funding, the Palestinians as cannon fodder and proxies in their war against Jews.
Iran will soon have a nuclear veto over much of what goes on in the ME. Iran's leaders have said that losing twenty million Iranians is a worthwile price to pay for the destruction of Israel.
If you can think of any historical situation remotely similar, you may be able to recall how it was addressed. I can't.
IMO, Islam will be trying to destroy Israel until either Israel is destroyed, it is taken over by demography and the Jews are dead or fled, or the the ME goes up in radioactive flame.
Trying to be nice to the Gazans after Hamas is gone will avail the Israelis nothing. Nothing they do will be credited and any bad luck, or normal luck for that matter, will be considered solely Jewish evil.
Recent revelations of the US plan for Japan put the ME in a different perspective.
If Israel killed or deported all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and created depopulated cordons sanitaire on all their borders--on the other guy's territory--they would not have killed as many people as the US was prepared to kill in late 1945.
All the while, their cry is, "Leave us the hell alone. Just leave us alone."
Which will not happen, although, if it did, the problem would be instantly solved.
But it will not happen.
Wow, you've even stumped Google with that one. That's some industrial strength curve behind being.
That is an interesting exercise, but not particularly productive. It avoids dealing with the real world problem faced today in favor of dealing with an imaginary construction of tomorrow. Nobody knows what the state of things will be after the end of the violence. What will it be?
I encourage those so inclned to think about such things, but not at the expense of focusing less on the real problem today.
Richard Aubrey and Elliott123 have answered your point more cogently than i would have. When someone is trying to exterminate you, your first task is to stay alive.
One of the biggest mistakes Israel made in 1967 was allowing the Jordanians in the West Bank, the Syrians in the Golan and the Egyptians in Gazan (all of whom suddenly became "Palestinians" despite their ethnic and cultural differences) to continue running their own educational systems. Funded by the UN, those schools taught ethnic hatred and incitement to genocide. By contrast, when the allies defeated the Axis countries, we made sure that German and Japanese schools were not allowed to teach the same ideologies that had led to the war. The hatred and incitement became even more virulent when the PLO assumed control after Oslo -- see Elliott123's obsevations about the false assumptions underlying the Oslo "peace process" -- a process that led not to peace but to increased deaths of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs by making terrorist attacks easier to commit. It may take a generation or more of re-education before peace can become a realistic possibility. There is sympathy in Israel for the Arabs, but whenever an Arab expresses sympathy for Jews or Israel, the PLO or Hamas has him executed as a collaborator.
I meant Silvermaster.
My new year's resolution: Look up the names first from now on.
I take your point about Egyptians becoming Palestinians at that time. Why wouldn't Egypt have them back, though, in '73, when with the peace treaty signed by Sadat and Begin, they regained the rest of the territory they lost in '67? They wanted the desert, but not the people who inhabited Gaza? Gazans weren't radicalized back then, were they?
Possibly the motivation was to continue to have a provocation presence on Israel's border, or under its control, which was not a sovereign state and could not be treated as such in return for its provocations.
If it were Egypt's territory, and the inhabitants started getting frisky, you could call on Egypt to manage it. But nobody cares what Egypt or Syria or Jordan do to their citizens. That's no good.
Give them to Israel, who will get blamed for whatever, and therefore be restricted in the ways it can defend itself.
When you own Gaza and the West Bank, or when you have them on your border with supposedly legitimate governmental institutions in place, who you gonna call? Hamas or Fatah claim it's not their guys doing all this stuff, so get lost. They can't control the ruffians unless they get a hell of a lot more money or something.
Well, there are "Palestinians" living there today. They came from somewhere. Didn't they remain when Syria lost that ground to Israel in 1967, or were they ethnic Jordanian "Palestinians" who moved north from other parts of the West Bank?
The treaty was not in '73; there was simply a truce in '73. The treaty was not until 1979. Egypt benefitted from getting back the Sinai -- it contained oil. (And Israel gave up its only source of non-imported oil.) There was no benefit to Gaza. The desert contained oil and was benefEgypt had kept the Gazans in squalor and poverty, and had used them as a propaganda tool against Israel. Why take responsibility for them again, especially after the Gazans had experienced increased income, life expectancy, literacy rates and educational levels, and decreased infant mortality under
I have read that Israel begged Sadat to take Gaza back but he wouldn't do it. Reminds me of the old joke that Ohio and Michigan fought a war over who would get Toledo -- and Ohio lost.
Ohio got Toledo, Michigan got the Upper Peninsula and an endless supply of Yooper jokes.
Also, I was a troll before there was an internet.
Points for figuring out the reference.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.