September 13, 2006
“A Volcano of Terror”
SOUTHERN ISRAEL, NEAR GAZA - On June 25, 2006, eight armed Palestinian men emerged from an underground tunnel through a hard-to-see hole in the ground, fired an RPG at an Israeli tank, killed two soldiers, snatched another young soldier, Gilad Shalit, and stole him away into Gaza. The attack lasted seven minutes. The Israeli Defense Forces then launched Operation Summer Rain against the kidnappers, against those who fire Qassam rockets at Israeli civilians, and against those who dig tunnels under the earth so they can smuggle weapons out of Egypt and carry out terrorist attacks inside Israel.
Soldiers keep watch on the border at a small military outpost just south of Kibbutz Nir Am.
There I met Major Tal Lev-Ram, Spokesman for the IDF Southern Command. He unfurled an enormous map of Gaza and asked me please not to take any pictures of it. Code names for villages and neighborhoods were hand-written with red ink in Hebrew.
“When we left the Gaza Strip we didn’t think the terrorism would stop," he said. "We understood that there would no longer be any legitimacy for them to act. A year after they continue to re-arm. The terrorist groups -- Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad -- they did not turn the areas we left into schools, factories, and so on. They became training camps for the terrorist groups.”
The major knows passable English, but he chose to speak to me in Hebrew through a translator. I had hoped for an interview with an English-speaking officer. But none of the spokesman for the Southern Command are fluent in English. All the English speakers were sent to the Northern Command so they could talk to foreign media during the Lebanon war. Only Israeli journalists who write and broadcast in Hebrew showed much interest in the military confrontation in Gaza.
“We also left the Egypt-Gaza border," he said. "The Egyptians are responsible for it now. They are doing an okay job, but there is still a lot of smuggling and so on.”
“They’re using tunnels?” I said.
“We found two tunnels just two weeks ago," he said. "They are very organized, with electricity and everything. One city straddles the border. It’s basically one city on each side. They are digging tunnels to connect them.”
“Do the Egyptians shut down the tunnels?” I said.
“We spend great effort finding and exposing the tunnels," he said. "The Egyptians make an effort, but it is not the highest priority for them.”
I taped our conversation with a digital voice recorder, as is routine for me lately. A young Israeli soldier took notes by hand at the same time. Perhaps it was her job to make sure I did not misquote the spokesman. Or maybe she was checking on him. It's hard to say. I didn't ask her why she recorded everything, and no one in the military ever told me I need to clear my work with any censors.
“We have good defenses on the border fence," the major said. “Last year more than 70 terrorists were killed trying to breach it. Because the area is very confined, terrorism is brewing. They keep trying to find ways to go outside. It is like a volcano of terror. It needs to go somewhere. They try to go around, out into Egypt, and then over to the Israeli side. Sometimes they try to cross back in right next to Gaza. Other times they go down near Eilat [at the bottom of Israel.]”
Gaza is tiny. It's 30 or so miles long and only a few miles wide.
“[They try] to go around the border," he said, "in order to move information, training, and terrorists, and ammunition to their side from the West Bank. They are always trying to find ways to go around the Israeli border. They also fired something like 1,000 Qassam rockets since the disengagement until now. For no reason.”
“How many people have been killed by the Qassams?" I said.
“This year?" he said. "Zero."
Zero! No wonder the Israelis who live near Gaza haven't evacuated. Southern Israel at war is not like Northern Israel during Hezbollah's Katyusha war.
"But terror is terror," he said. "If you are afraid to send your child to a kindergarten, for me it’s the same. For now it’s the Qassam. In the future they will have more than today. 20 people in the past were killed by the Qassams. And like I said, terror is terror. You feel terror.”
I asked him if he thought the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was a good idea. He wouldn't answer and said that his opinion as a military man didn't matter. The Israeli military takes orders from the democratically elected government, and that's that.
“One of the major events after the disengagement," he did say, "was the election of Hamas. They became the government in the Gaza Strip. Their principal goal is to destroy Israel. And they actually commit terror. Israel can’t accept that we left the Gaza Strip and still face daily terror attacks on and over the fence. Around 60 times charges of 50 kilograms were exploded on the fence. Also RPG and M-16 attacks on the fence against our forces. On Passover an attempt was prevented to go into a Kibbutz near the Karni Terminal...The second event that had a significant role in changing the rules of the game was the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. We came to the decision that we need to take some sort of aggressive action in the Gaza Strip. The decision was to act against specific cells in different places. So we’re not talking about conquering land. We’re talking about operations of a few days each. We’re going in to destroy the infrastructure of terrorists. We can’t finish all the terror. But we can punch against it. During these operations more than 200 terrorists were killed. Weapons storages, training camps, all the infrastructure, factories where they make Qassam rockets.”
“How do you know where the factories are?" I said. "Do you have Palestinians informers?”
“We have good intelligence,” he said and laughed. “We have good military intelligence.”
It's no secret that many Palestinians cooperate (or "collaborate") with Israel against terrorists. But I decided to be a good sport and let him deflect the question. He wouldn't be able to say anything on the record that isn't already widely known anyway.
“Another pattern that’s unusual," he said. "They use the civilian population as human shields.” It's not really unusual. Hezbollah did the same thing in Lebanon. Fighters in Iraq do it there, too, although some in Iraq also deliberately murder Iraqis.
“Does the local population let them do this?” I said.
“It’s a problem," he said. "Sometimes we see resistance. But it’s difficult to judge from our perspective. We see a lot of cases where Katyusha or Qassam rockets are fired from within populated areas. More than that, they came up with a system that was based on the fear that we would find the exact location of the rocket launchers. So they place the launchers with a timer. And ten, eleven, and twelve year old children come and take the launcher away afterwards. Often we’re faced with fourteen or fifteen year old youth who come, armed, and place charges along the fence. When we see them, even when we see that they are armed, if they are only fourteen or fifteen we only shoot to scare them. We don’t actually fire at them. Of course, only if there is no immediate danger to our forces.
“Our general instructions," he continued, "not just in the these cases, is if we see a militant who is armed, a terrorist, and there is no immediate danger to our forces, we don’t fire if there is a danger that we would hurt the innocents, people who are not involved. But with that, it’s important to say that when we have such aggressive fighting in populated areas, when there’s an exchange of fire between terrorists and the IDF, there are cases where innocent people get hurt. But we warn as much as we can to step back, step away, to clear the area. So we see the terror organizations as responsible when civilians get hurt. And when there is a case and we know that a civilian was killed by mistake or unnecessarily, we check ourselves. When a rocket is fired and we respond with artillery fire, there could be civilians hurt. We don’t fire into populated areas. Only to the exact spots where they fired Qassams. If it’s in the middle of the city, we will not shoot.”
Sadly it's impossible to fight terrorists, guerillas, or whatever you want to call them, in populated areas without hurting civilians. No one has yet invented the Bad Guy Bullet that flies safely past innocents and hits only the armed. The fact that Palestinian terrorists, like those everywhere else in the Middle East, make blending in with the civilian population part of their modus operandi means civilian casualties are unavoidable in a fight. It doesn't help that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth.
“About a month and a half ago," he said, "another event that shows you the dilemma here: Two terrorists with an RPG tried to shoot a tank. We shot back. In the same house the mother of them, and a cousin, were in the same house. They fired five meters away from where the mother and cousin were standing. The Palestinian headline said that a mother and child were killed. The child was twenty two years old. And he was a member of Hamas. So, I am not happy about the mother. But, this is my right. You know? In the houses of Hamas militants, and all the other terrorist organizations, there are storages of weaponry. That’s because in the past we would avoid attacking houses with families. Which raises the question: Sometimes we as the IDF care more about the families and the children than he who would put them in danger. In a house, let’s say of three floors, a whole floor may be used as a storage.”
A tunnel had recently been found near the Karni terminal where goods and materials cross from Israel into Gaza. I asked if I could see it.
“I will take you to Karni," he said. "But you cannot see the tunnel. It is inside the Palestinian territory. One kilometer inside. You understand? It is one kilometer inside the Palestinian territory." In other words, the tunnel diggers are determined. They will spend Lord only knows how many hours digging and digging and digging, knowing most tunnels are discovered before they're completed, just on the off chance that they'll make it all the way into Israel and get to maybe kill one or two people.
“One more thing I want to say," he said. "We will not stop the military action until Gilad Shalit comes back to us. But -- and I say this to the press all the time -- if there will be silence on our side for our villages it will be quiet on the Palestinian side.”
"How many soldiers have been killed since Gilad Shalit was kidnapped?" I said.
“All the year, before Gilad Shalit, no one. In the Shalit event, two soldiers died. And after that one more soldier died from friendly shooting. That’s all. So this is the big question for them. The spokesman of the government for Palestinians three days ago said the same thing I say all the time. For what? For what? For three soldiers who were killed in Gaza. In all the year something like 500 terrorists died in Gaza. So for what? The organizations of terror need to understand that it’s not worth it for them. And they can choose. We left the territory in the Gaza Strip, so it’s up to them. We will not stop the Qassam only with military pressure. They need to decide that they want to stop it. And if they will stop the Qassams, if they will stop the terror, free Gilad Shalit, we won’t have anything to fight about. And Karni will be open more. And everything will be better for them, not for us. This is the question. This is the biggest question, I think. And if you have time to read what the spokesman for Hamas government said, I think he can replace me.” He laughed. “Yeah? This is the truth. He is a good man.”
And he laughed again. Not because he was joking, but because it truly is an alternate Middle Eastern universe when the spokesman for Hamas echoes precisely the views of the spokesman for the IDF Southern Command.
Skeptical? Read for yourself. Hamas Spokesman Ghazi Hamad comes across like a world-weary man ground down and plainly despondent from a largely self-imposed Palestinian catastrophe.
I had a faint hope after Hamas was elected that the reality check from hell might finally kick in. And at least in one case, and for one day, it did.
The major drove to an area near the Karni Terminal in his jeep.
I followed behind him in my rental car. He took us straight into a dirt field. I nearly took the muffler off my poor little Hundai when I drove over a basketball-sized dirt clod as hard as a rock. We stepped out into the open where there was no shade from the fierce Levantine sun at the end of the summer. Distant machine gun fire was almost, but not quite, drowned out in the wind.
"Kalashnikov," said my translator who, like many Israelis, can identify weapons by sound.
A large truck-mounted surveillance camera monitored Gaza just to our left.
"Two days ago was Gilad Shalit's birthday," said the major. “One soldier from his unit said he was glad to be in Gaza fighting the people who took him. His family and friends released hundreds of balloons into the air from the place where he was kidnapped.”
I wanted to know about that tunnel the IDF found.
“The plan was to use it for suicide bombings at Karni,” he said. “I can’t understand it. Karni is their lifeline, their life. This is the biggest reason we closed it. It’s hard to understand why they keep doing these things at the crossing points unless they are trying to make life harder in Gaza.”
Two months ago Palestinian police stopped a car bomber heading toward Karni. Six months ago the IDF stopped three terrorists with M-16s, grenades, and suicide bomb belts at the Erez crossing point where people, rather than goods, transit into and out of Gaza.
“We think there are many many more tunnels," the major said. "The Kelem Shalom action [where Gilad Shalit was kidnapped] was through a 700 meter-long tunnel. We can’t just stay here and wait for the tunnels to come to us. In a few hours we will bomb that one we just found."
And bomb it they did, from below. Click here to watch the video.
"How many Qassam rockets are they firing now?" I said. I saw more than a dozen Katyushas fired from Hezbollah in the north, but I did not see a single Qassam fired from Gaza.
“Sixty per week at the start of Operation Summer Rain," he said. "Ever since the number has been going down. Now there are only five per week. Hamas has partly put a stop to this because they know terror does not work for them.”
"How good are the fighters in Gaza compared with the Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon?" I said.
“I don’t mean to dismiss anyone," he said. "Some fights are serious here. But you can’t compare them with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has more weapons and uses more guerilla activity. Hamas doesn’t have big rockets yet. Yet. The word yet is very important. Hezbollah also is more organized. You shouldn’t underestimate anyone. We had some people wounded in the fight here. Some in Gaza fight very good. But we killed hundreds of terrorists since Summer Rain. We had only one soldier killed in friendly fire, and ten to twelve wounded.”
"How long until this fight is over?" I said. I meant the current fighting in Gaza, but he seemed to have thought I meant the Arab-Israeli conflict in general.
“I don’t see the end now," he said. "Maybe this part will be soon be finished. Shalit will be back. For a while it will be quiet. The question, you know, is for the other side. Because we went out of Gaza and then it started. If they get more democratic and reduce the chaos…that’s my hope. We need to be strong and give a chance for something else. It’s in the interest of the Palestinian side now to have another life.”
We left the field and drove straight to the fence. I wanted to get as close to Gaza as possible. We parked next to large concrete wall placed there for protection.
"So this wall," I said. "Is it to protect us from snipers or from rockets?
“From everything," the major said. Barriers of all kinds are erected near the Palestinian territories. One road I took next to the West Bank was shielded on one side by bullet-proof glass because some Palestinians like to randomly shoot rifles at cars.
The fenced border between Israel and Gaza was right in front of us. The fence is electric. It won't shock you if you touch it. But it will send a signal to the Israeli military telling them where contact was made so they can dispatch soldiers to that location.
"What would you do," I said, "if you saw somebody from the other side walk up and stand right there?"
“Eh, it depends," he said.
"It depends on what he’s doing?" I said.
“Of course.”
"If he’s just standing there it’s not a problem?" I said.
“No, it’s a problem," he said. "Because sometimes they come like a citizen and they put charges there. If it’s in the day and we see a man, the soldiers come. If someone goes to the fence he has some reason. If we see some people come in the night we have a procedure. We start by shouting to them to go. But if they continue…okay? If it’s in the night, well you know, night is night. The thing is to make them understand not to come. Sometimes Palestinians come and want to go into Israel to work. They want to come into Israel not for military action but to come inside for working. But it is very complicated, especially in the night, to know who is the person."
"How many people who come to the fence aren't here to fight?" I said.
“Here is a sad story," he said. "One Palestinian went to the fence with a grenade. Not a militant. He came to the fence and we did not understand it. Because we told him to stop and he dropped it and everything was okay. Sometimes they want to be in the Israeli jail.”
"To get out of Gaza?" I said.
“Because maybe the food in the jail is better," he said. "I don’t know. It’s a few, it’s not, you know, all the time.”
Gaza itself is often described as a prison. The reason I didn't go in there myself is because I was briefly affiliated with Time magazine and they ordered me to stay out. They had neither the time nor the inclination to take out a war insurance policy on me. But a Danish journalist I know, Louis Stigsgaard Nissen, did get a brief tour of Gaza and she described it as an absolute horror, a far worse place than the West Bank which both of us had visited in the past.
Trash has not been collected for months, so much of Gaza City looks like a garbage dump that happens to have buildings inside it. The garbage is seeping now into the water. Israeli doctors are returning because the Palestinians desperately need medical help. She interviewed a man who lives in a sports stadium with his children. She was nearly run over in the street by a truck driven by gunmen and bristling with weapons.
"Is anyone really in charge inside Gaza?" I asked the major.
“That is the question," he said. "They have a government, but there is a power struggle among the armed groups.”
Once again we heard rapid machine gun fire in the middle distance. He and I stood right next to the concrete wall and could have taken cover. But the shooting had nothing to do with us and sounded just barely far enough away. So we didn’t move. It's funny what you get used to. I've never been in the army, and I'm unaccustomed to being in war zones. But it doesn't take long to get used to it.
“We have a connection with the Palestinian police and with the army," he said. "For example if we found some charges that they put on their side of the second fence the Palestinian police come to take it or to boom it. In the operations today because of the army, and the pressure, and the militants, there was a fire between us and the Palestinians next to a place where gasoline was stored and also some baby chickens, you know, the little ones. And we talked with the Palestinian police and they brought some trucks in to take them out. We saved them from the RPGs.”
He spoke in English now instead of through a translator, and I wasn't sure I understood.
"So the Israeli side and the Palestinian side cooperated in the middle of a war to save baby chickens?" I said. "And then started fighting again?"
“Not exactly," he said. "If you see the story as a simple one, yes. But the ones we talked with were not the ones shooting the RPGs. So it’s a very complicated story. But we talked with the police and the citizens talk with the army to help them. We told the citizens: Not now. It’s dangerous. The militants are firing RPGs.
“It is very strange," he continued. "But it is our world. It is us against them, but they are divided inside. This is the story of Gaza.”
Post-script: Please hit the Pay Pal button and help pay travel expenses for independent writing. I am not a rich person, and I can’t do this without help. I want to do more of this in the future, and I intend to go back to Lebanon soon. Other countries tentatively on my list include Iran, Algeria, Bosnia, Dubai, and Afghanistan.
If you would like to donate money for travel expenses and you don't want to use Pay Pal, you can send a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Fantastic post, Michael. Your reporting is worth more than oceans of print from the mainstream media.
And you're fair, I've never known you not to be fair, even if I've maybe disagreed with you.
I'll re-activate my PenPal account just to contribute to more of it.
Posted by: Rob at September 13, 2006 04:10 AMMichael writes about the "...largely self-imposed Palestinian catastrophe." Is this like the largely self-imposed Native American catastrophe that was only peripherally impacted by the US Cavalry, various Indian fighters, and numerous Indian wars before they finally acquiesed to their dispossession? Exactly!
Posted by: Alan Goldstein at September 13, 2006 04:10 AM
Fantastic post, Michael. Your reporting is worth more than oceans of print from the mainstream media.
I'll re-activate my PenPal account just to contribute to more of it.
You're fair, I've never known you not to be fair, even if I've maybe disagreed with you.
Posted by: Rob at September 13, 2006 04:11 AMSorry for the double comments.
Posted by: Rob at September 13, 2006 04:12 AMGood post Michael. I am amazed about the extent of Israel's restraint; were it my country I would be not be so understanding nor concerned about taking out a house that had combatants in it.
I do not see what the Palestinians are doing for themselves to warrant having a country.
Ron
Posted by: Ron Snyder at September 13, 2006 04:48 AMMichael,
What a great interview. How come the talking heads never seem to find anyone as interesting and informed as the major you interviewed? I just learned more about the complexity of the situation inside Gaza than I learned in a year of watching major media.
Thanks for your hard work; just wish I could contribute more to help with these stories.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Davis at September 13, 2006 06:13 AMVery interesting post.
It should be noted that an article in Haaretz explains that the piles of garbage you described only occur in Fatah dominated areas of Gaza - Hamas has enough money to look after its own, but not the rest of the population:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761958.html
Posted by: David at September 13, 2006 07:45 AMAlan Goldstein, you didn't read what the Hamas spokesman said, did you? Read it. Then ask yourself if you really, seriously, think he's wrong.
I can't believe I'm quoting Hamas to argue with a Westerner. But whatever. Just follow that link. That's why it's there.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2006 09:46 AMInteresting ... but the more I read of the Israelis, the more bewildered I get. Take this Tal Lev-Ram, for instance. I'm sure he thinks he's a moral man making some kind of sense of his job. But when did the Palestinians ever acquire any "legitimacy"? They are not supposed to exist at all, because Israel is a land without a people, so what level of "legitimacy" can they ever have living with Israeli guards on every gate to Gaza, which you correctly observe is tiny? As slaves? As non-citizens living under apartheid? As animals? As citizens of some other country (which one)?
As for their determination to dig a tunnel for a whole kilometer, come on. They're in jail for the rest of their lives in that tiny little Gaza strip. They've got nothing better to do.
Posted by: Diana at September 13, 2006 09:50 AMWhat the heck, Alan, I'll help you out. Here's what the Hamas spokesman said as reported by an Arab journalist.
---
'Gaza caught in anarchy and thuggery'
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
"When you walk in the streets of Gaza City, you cannot but close your eyes because of what you see there: unimaginable chaos, careless policemen, young men carrying guns and strutting with pride and families receiving condolences for their dead in the middle of the street."
This is how Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority government and a former newspaper editor, described the situation in the Gaza Strip in an article he published on Sunday on some Palestinian news Web sites.
The article, the first of its kind by a senior Hamas official, also questioned the effectiveness of the Kassam rocket attacks and noted that since Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip, the situation there has deteriorated on all levels. It holds the armed groups responsible for the crisis and calls on them to reconsider their tactics and to stop blaming Israel for their mistakes.
"Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs," Hamad wrote. "I remember the day when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and closed the gates behind. Then, Palestinians across the political spectrum took to the streets to celebrate what many of us regarded as the Israeli defeat or retreat. We heard a lot about a promising future in the Gaza Strip and about turning the area into a trade and industrial zone."
Hamad said the "culture of life" that prevailed in the Strip has since been replaced with a nightmare. "Life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden," he said. "Today I ask myself a daring and frightening question: 'Why did the occupation return to Gaza?' The normal reply: 'The occupation is the reason.'"
Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred.
"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."
Hamad admitted that the Palestinians have failed in developing the Gaza Strip following the Israeli withdrawal and in imposing law and order. He said about 500 Palestinians have been killed and 3,000 wounded since the Israeli pullout, in addition to the destruction of much of the infrastructure in the area.
By comparison, he said, only three or four Israelis have been killed by the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip over the same period.
"Some will argue that it's not a matter of profit or loss, but that this has an accumulating effect" he said. "This may be true. But isn't there a possibility of decreasing the number of casualties and increasing our gains by using our brains and making the proper calculations away from demagogic statements?"
The Hamas official said that while his government was unable to change the situation, the opposition was sitting on the side and watching and PA President Mahmoud Abbas was as weak as ever.
"We have all been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity," he remarked. "We have lost our sense of direction and we don't know where we're headed."
Addressing the various armed groups in the Gaza Strip, Hamad concluded: "Please have mercy on Gaza. Have mercy on us from your demagogy, chaos, guns, thugs, infighting. Let Gaza breathe a bit. Let it live."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2006 09:58 AMThe last sentence from the Major struck me as perhaps the most significant:
"they are divided inside. This is the story of Gaza."
Reading the Hamas spokesman's comments is also very revealing.
It is clear to me that the Palestinians need to do a lot of soul-searching here and develop something that's been terribly lacking over the years: The ability to be self-critical. Years of having a ready-made excuse (The Israeli occupation), a scapegoat on which to blame all their problems, has atrophied whatever sense of introspection they had. So it's somewhat encouraging to hear some voices, even within Hamas, starting to look past the "It's all Israel's fault" and start to ask the Palestinians to take a closer look at themselves.
Posted by: bad vilbel at September 13, 2006 10:05 AMMr. Totten, in addition to the list of countries you plan to visit in your post-script, may I suggest Indonesia as well, the world's most populous muslim country, undergoing constant change. I recently travelled there and it seems a lot is going on. One of the most fascinating discussions I have ever had was over lunch where I ate with an ethnic-Chinese Christian, two ethnic-Malay muslims, and two Balinese-Hindus. The conversation turned to terrorism and politics - not my choice - and it was interesting to hear their differing viewpoints.
Not sure what kind of contacts or interest you have in the area, but thought I'd just bring it up as a suggestion.
Posted by: swizstick at September 13, 2006 10:44 AMMichael, your reports are fascinating, and though I'm no expert on the area, they seem to me to have the ring of truth. I sent you a small sum through Paypal, and hope others will too. You are performing a valuable service...
Posted by: BillBC at September 13, 2006 11:00 AMMichael- Funny thing is, I did read it. And now two and three times just to be sure. Certainly there is blame all around, but a blanket statement that the "Palestinian catastrophe" is "self-imposed" is a blanket covering the reality of partition and dispossession. There is nothing the Hamas spokesman said which refutes this. Besides, what efforts have the Israelis made to make life harsh for the Palestinians as a means to imposing its will upon them and fracturing the resistance? To what extent does Israel pay informers, spies and agitators to keep Palestinian society fragemented and weak? Despite their own many shortcomings and missteps, the "Palestinian catastrophe" is still one that has been imposed on them rather than of their own making.
Posted by: Alan Goldstein at September 13, 2006 11:21 AMAlan-
The order of blame is:
1. Palestinians (specifically the terrorist groups)
2. Other Arab Countries
3. Israel
Israel has made mistakes, but they are mistakes of error. The terror groups and other Arab countries intentionally inflict harm to achieve their gains.
If the orginal UN Mandate encompassing Jordan, Palestine, and Israel terrorities had just been split along the Jordan, and other Arab countries had not started wars and incited a refugee crisis, then most of the displaced "Palestinians" would be prospering far beyond their Arab cousins in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon - despite being under the Israeli "yoke".
As has been said before and stated by the major, if the attacks from Gaza would stopthere would be peace. Given peace the Israelis would engage the Palestinians economically and eventually socially.
Here's a hint about Native Americans, the ones who got off the reservation and integrated into American society are much better off.
Posted by: Brendan at September 13, 2006 11:48 AMDiana,
What else could the Palestinians do? Well, like some other tiny nations- Malta, or Monaco, for instance- they could leverage a small Mediterranean coastal state into a succesful economy, and perhaps rich arab sheiks would choose to anchor their yachts there instead of the French Riviera. Size doesn't matter when it comes to prosperity, Monaco crams about one thirtieth of Gaza's population into about one two-hundredth of the land, and the Grimaldis and their subjects aren't complaining. And Gaza has more land and So knock off the hot air about the poor trapped prison of Gaza- it's false.
Diana, Gaza has more land and much more cross-border land traffic than Malta. Sure, Malta has fewer people, but it didn't thirty years ago and you can hardly blame the Israelis for that. I agree, unemployed Maltese can probably find work in Italy easier than Palestinians can find it in Israel, but do you really think that would be the case if Malta was lobbing rockets into Palermo?
Of course, to generate a real economy, the Palestinians would have to do things like actually accept gifts of new greenhouses and put them to productive (I'd say "fruitful" but the pun wouldn't be worth it) work, instead of destroying them because they came from Jews. That's what rational people would do. That's what I'd do. But hey, that would mean putting aside their much more appealing past time of hatred and murder. They have options. You like the determination it took to build a one kilometer tunnel? Think about what could be if they only channeled that determination into something worthwhile. There are always options, and Gaza is only a prison if they choose to be inmates. They've chosen to obey a bloody siren song, and blaming it on others is getting really old.
Not a viable state! Hah! What an ignorant argument in the face of existing counter-examples like Malta! They can say "We don't have any hope, let's kill", or "we have a chunk of land on the Mediterranean, let's be like Malta, only larger."
Don't blame the Israelis if the Palestians took the stupid choice.
Posted by: Ben at September 13, 2006 12:13 PMIt isn't people or size, it's power. Gaza had an airport; does it now?
Is there, in fact, anything in Palestine that Israel can't destroy at its whim?
I could go to Malta anytime I want, but can I go to Palestine? Can anyone else, except the Israeli army? Even our Michael here isn't allowed into Gaza, and it sounds like he is nothing but an honest and pro-israeli journalist.
Sounds like a prison to me.
And I've never heard of anyone investing inside a prison.
Posted by: Diana at September 13, 2006 12:46 PMBrendan- I've got no problem with Israel's existence. I've got a problem with Israel's embrace of Zionism. I've got a problem with the idea of Jewish separatism. I've got a problem with Zionism's basic premise of dispossession and its desire to be a "rampart" of the west against the east. That is essentially its racist or colonialist foundation. Call it what you will, but from my perspective Herzl's call to arms, "The Jewish State" 1896, began a movement, not simply to come to Palestine to live and prosper along with the country's other inhabitants, but to come to Palestine to live and prosper by themselves,have the country taken from the indigenous population, enforce a Jewish majority, and become the dominant force in the land. That is the basic problem. A number of Palestinian leaders alive still today were actually born in cities and towns within Israel proper. Abbas is one instance. You cannot seriously believe they should just roll over and betray their heritage? End partition and live together together in a mutual homeland. There will be no peace living separately.
Posted by: Alan Goldstein at September 13, 2006 12:46 PMAlan you are a putz!
Posted by: Kwai Chang Caine at September 13, 2006 12:56 PMDiana: I could go to Malta anytime I want, but can I go to Palestine?
Yes.
Can anyone else, except the Israeli army?
Of course. But Israeli civilians are not allowed inside anymore.
Even our Michael here isn't allowed into Gaza
I already explained why. Time magazine told me no. If I were not affiliated with them at the time, I would have gone in. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians would have gotten in my way.
If you want to go to Gaza, go to Gaza. You don't need a visa. Just buy a plane ticket to Ben-Gurion and take a taxi to the Erez Crossing Point. Have a nice time.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2006 01:05 PMAlan: Certainly there is blame all around, but a blanket statement that the "Palestinian catastrophe" is "self-imposed" is a blanket covering the reality of partition and dispossession.
We're talking about 2006 here, not 1948. No one mentioned 1948 except you. That's an entirely different discussion.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2006 01:06 PMBen- great post. I've been following the intefada for six years, and you speak the truth. Anyone who hasn't read Ben's post, you must read it. People like Diana need to be educated.
Posted by: Mark at September 13, 2006 01:11 PMMr. Totten,
Amazing work. Truly. I took an Arab-Israeli class at BYU in my undergrad studies, and your work here reminds me of the in-depth analysis that took place in that class over the struggle in this conflict.
I can see the exasperation in the Israelis over the continual attacks from the vastly inferior Palestinians. The Israelis keep thinking, "hey guys, life would be good if you just stop fighting." And generally I would agree, but I've got some concerns about whether this is true or not, regarding the Israelis and Palestinians.
I know Israel and Egypt made peace, and it has held now for almost 30 years. Israel and Jordan made peace that has lasted 12 years now. It is possible. But one thing in this report sticks out in my eyes like a sore thumb, an elephant in the room.
The Israeli general describes the tunnels and how the last tunnel found was still one kilometer in Palestinian territory. He says, they keep digging the tunnels. They keep trying to find this way or that way to get at the Israelis.
I can't help but ask, "what would drive men to continually do the vain, impossible and deadly?" Why go through capturing one soldier, killing three total at the loss of well over 500 of your own? What would drive men to such insanities?
In my Arab-Israeli Conflict class, we watched a video that showed some of the problems, including the giving of blue license plates to Palestinians and white license plates to Israelis (I think those were the color--i might be mistaken). With American money subsidizing the costs, Israelis are building beautiful apartment blocks just yards away from Palestinians living in shacks. Israelis get the clean water while Palestinians get dirty infected water. And I wonder why men are driven mad in those situations.
This is no anti-Israeli attack, but rather a realistic look at the situation. Palestinians should be ashamed of themselves for not reaching for a higher standard of living. But, the thing is, without American aid, how could Israel afford to build the great buildings they have, or afford the powerful military it has? The Palestinians are living on the desert land that surrounds them while the Israelis are living on American chariots. Would you be driven mad if someone came to your land and built a big palace for themselves with money from some rich man in another town?
I'm just trying to understand why men would risk being killed digging a tunnel that will inevitably be destroyed, and he killed along with it. It isn't the religion that drives the person to such madness. There are plenty of Muslims (most in the world actually) that are quite rational good people. Other factors are at play here. And Israel is involved.
I don't have an answer for this problem, but we've gotta find an answer soon.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 01:58 PMDan-
I can't tell if your views are formed out of naivete or malicious intent.
1) US aid to Israel is almost entirely for the use of arms purchases, not to subsidize construction. Even if it weren't, do you really believe that with Israel's GDP of approximately $150bn, a cessation of US aid of ~$3bn will stop the construction? Do you believe that all construction is done by the Israeli government and not by private corporations, which are not affected by aid in any case?
2) The peace with Egypt and Jordan didn't come cheap, and it's definitely a "cold" peace (witness the multiple withdrawals of the Egyptian and Jordanian ambassadors to Israel over the past decade). By the way, 60-70% of the Jordanian population is of Palestinian descent, and they don't seem to have a problem living in peace with Israel. They don't fire rockets or cross the border with suicide belts, and there is peace. I'm not entirely clear why you think the same can't be true of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip if they behaved as peacefully as their brethren in Jordan.
Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 02:20 PM2 often repeated fallacies have just been raised here:
1. from Mr "Goldstein" - "End partition and live together together in a mutual homeland" - is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual way of saying exactly what Hamas says - namely that the Jewish state doesn't have a right to exist.
The concept of a bi-national state is only ever espoused by the ultra-leftist Chomskyites who hate Israel - no-one who is serious about peace has ever said such a ridiculous proposal could work.
2. Dan's suggests that the sophisticated tunnels built by Palestinian terror groups indicate how much they must be suffering. This is the same approach that is taken by those who repeatedly ask us to address the "root causes" of terrorist attacks. That is, the worse the attack, the more sophisticated the technique, the more murderous the outcome, their conclusion is always that it indicates only how much the perpetrators must be suffering. Thus they respond in exactly the way the terrorists are hoping - by seeking to help those who have just committed the act of mass murder as much as possible. It is exactly this attitude that has led terrorists to see their attacks as successful, and has contributed to the spread of international terrorism around the globe.
Imagine if we applied this logic to other situations - eg look at how determined the Nazis were to kill the Jews - look at their elaborate gas chambers - they must have really suffered!
Posted by: David at September 13, 2006 02:31 PMDan, Dana and Alan - try answering this one: If the Palestinian Arabs are interested in nothing more than a fair settlement of their situation, why don't they break out the Gandhi/M. L. King playbook? Nonviolent social resistance was tailormade for use against a Western-oriented opponent, and if used by the Palestinians, would swing mainstream American opinion (as distinguished from "sensitive progressive" opinion) to the Palestinian side in about fifteen minutes. Keffiyeh masks, Semtex vests and and Arabic translations of Mein Kampf may make hearts go aflutter in the faculty lounge, but they don't make for good press out here in the real world.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) at September 13, 2006 04:22 PMDavid, all through the 30's, people did excuse the excesses of the Nazi regime on the grounds that the reparations under the Versailles treaty were too extreme, triggering as they did the massive inflation of Weimar Germany and making the great Depression worse. (People who say "XXX is just like Hitler in 1938" have clearly never read the newspapers from 1938. The pro-Hitler editorials are just the kind of Lindberg drivel you would expect, but the anti-Hitler ones are fascinating. My favorite is the one that claims that since we all know history repeats, and this new fellow Hitler as the new military leader of Germany clearly wants war, so Hilter must be just like the Kaiser. Therefore Hitler should be treated as the Kaiser should have been, and would never go to war unless his dignity were insulted. I suppose the moral is that one should seriously beware of lessons from history.)
My earlier post seems to have been eaten, so I shall just observe that I suspect you really mean not that I should be educated, but that I should be run over by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza just like Rachel Corrie. Interesting to know that I'm still allowed to travel there. Isn't Israel always sealing the place off?
Posted by: Dianad at September 13, 2006 04:24 PMDavid,
Imagine if we applied this logic to other situations - eg look at how determined the Nazis were to kill the Jews - look at their elaborate gas chambers - they must have really suffered!
I'll skip on your use of reductio ad Hitlerum.
The reason I bring up their plight is quite simple. I think that Americans, put in a similar situation as the Palestinians, would be just as ferocious, if not more so, in fighting for their "freedom."
I'm not advocating the Palestinian cause here, really. Anytime anyone attempts to look at something from a Palestinian viewpoint, people raise the following:
Thus they respond in exactly the way the terrorists are hoping - by seeking to help those who have just committed the act of mass murder as much as possible. It is exactly this attitude that has led terrorists to see their attacks as successful, and has contributed to the spread of international terrorism around the globe.
This is a nice straw man, but is inaccurate. Those who committed mass murder must get their day of reckoning. But what are we doing to lessen the things that lead someone to commit such murders? That's my point. Asking that in no way helps the terrorist's cause, but actually will help us, as it will help decrease the number of terrorist attacks.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 04:29 PMRicky,
If the Palestinian Arabs are interested in nothing more than a fair settlement of their situation, why don't they break out the Gandhi/M. L. King playbook?
Trust me, I would love to see that. Gandhi/M.L. King type folks are rarer than diamonds though. It is easier to go the way of the warrior and harder to go the way of the peacemaker. Would that all be peacemakers.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 04:36 PMDan, hate to let you know about this, but the latest development in Tibetan resistance to China is, get this, a movement advocating that the Tibetans stop their nonviolent resistance and emphasis on world peace and, copying the Palestinians and Hezbollah, turn to violence. I'm not kidding!
The British in India always 1) claimed they were running India to benefit the Indians and 2) in practice ran it only to turn a profit. Nonviolence and civil disobediance would end both, and in any event there were other forces at work in the late 1940's which were causing the British to roll up their empire. Israel claims the British left in 1948 because the Irgun chased them out; the Indians claim that the British left in 1948 because of Gandhi's nonviolence; and the Jordinians claim the British left Jordan in 1948 because they, well, left. I don't think the dates are a coincidence. There are a lot of countries out there which celebrate 1948 as their first year, and honestly I don't think either the Irgun or Gandhi had much to do with it, however much they might like to think so.
The Israelis aren't claiming they're running Gaza for its own good, nor is there really anything much I can imagine a Palestinian can say which would persuade them the Isrealis the land isn't the ancient Israeli homeland to which the Jews have a superior right.
Posted by: Diana at September 13, 2006 04:43 PMDiana,
Dan, hate to let you know about this, but the latest development in Tibetan resistance to China is, get this, a movement advocating that the Tibetans stop their nonviolent resistance and emphasis on world peace and, copying the Palestinians and Hezbollah, turn to violence. I'm not kidding!
I know, very sad. Calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the last days.
It shows how ridiculously bad the level of violence is in this world when Tibetan Buddhist monks who practice nonviolence are now advocating violence for their cause.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 04:49 PMI'll skip over the myriad strawman arguments, and counter-strawmen arguments in this thread. :)
But one statement has me puzzled. David says:
"The concept of a bi-national state is only ever espoused by the ultra-leftist Chomskyites who hate Israel - no-one who is serious about peace has ever said such a ridiculous proposal could work."
I realize what this means in the context of Israel, and the pro-Israeli folks. And I'm putting aside the realistic situation on the ground, which in my opinion, dictates a two-state solution we all agree on.
But that aside, isn't this a huge double standard? Is there any other country in the world where segregating two people is deemed acceptable? Doesn't it go against the concept of Democracy that the west espouses, to say that cohabitation is impossible by the very fact that Israel is by definition a jewish state, and therefore not suitable for a non-jewish majority?
To use a non-Middle Eastern example. How surreal would this all sound if say, the USA declared it was a country for whites by definition? Would anyone making an argument for Democracy and cohabitation be labeled a leftwing chomskyte as well?
Sometimes, i don't get how people seem to overlook very basic tenets of logic, when applied to the middle east. I guess it's some sort of parallel universe where the laws of logic are entirely inapplicable.
Posted by: bad vilbel at September 13, 2006 04:50 PMBad Vilbel,
Look at the facts as they are. While the status of non-Jewish citizens of the state of Israel is filled with paradox, the fact remains that they are citizens, with rights and representatives. The Israeli judicial system is responsive to their actions.
In contrast, look at the rights of Jews in the Palestinian Authority and in Arab and Muslim countries. Jews may not, by law, own land in areas controlled by the Palestinians. Jews may not, by law, be citizens of Jordan. For practical purposes, Jews are not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. Most Egyptian Jews fled Egypt in the late 1940s and early 1950s, in the general Sephardi exodus to avoid incipient violence and persecution on the Arab/Muslim world.
Is there any other country in the world where segregating two people is deemed acceptable?
France and Germany. Italy and Spain. Greece and Turkey. Actually, in many of these countries, there is preferential treatment in terms of citizenship and benefits based solely on ethnicity. Many of these countries also have formal ties between the government and state churches, as well as political parties with strong religious affiliations.
In other words, policies of Israel that favor Jews, are not dissimilar from policies of many countries around the globe. The only difference is that Israel favors Jews.
If you criticize Israel for these policies without, for example, criticizing Greek naturalization policies that favor ethnic Greeks, you are using a double standard. That's one of Natan Sharansky's "three Ds" that can be used to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli policies from anti-Semitism aka Jew hatred.
Posted by: Bozoer Rebbe at September 13, 2006 06:08 PMBad Vilbel,
"But that aside, isn't this a huge double standard? Is there any other country in the world where segregating two people is deemed acceptable? Doesn't it go against the concept of Democracy that the west espouses, to say that cohabitation is impossible by the very fact that Israel is by definition a jewish state, and therefore not suitable for a non-jewish majority?"
You tell me:
Palestine -> Israel, Palestine, Trans-Jordan
Yugoslavia -> Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia
Czechoslovakia -> Czech Republic, Slovakia
North Korea/South Korea, East Germany/West Germany, North Vietnam/South Vietnam, etc. etc.
Need I go on? Besides, why worry? The existence of Israel allows the surrounding Arab states to keep themselves Judenrein without much complaint from the world community (see Jordanian law no. 7, sect. 2, of April 1, 1963, which states that no Jew may become a Jordanian citizen; Saudi law is similar).
Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 06:25 PMDan, Desperation is not building tunnels to smuggle in weapons and terrorists. Desperation is people fleeing on rafts, as many people have from Vietnam and Cuba.
Posted by: Selkie at September 13, 2006 07:53 PMSelkie,
Fleeing to where exactly? Who would take them in?
They would not be fleeing from an indigenous tyrant like Cubans and Vietnamese are doing, but they would be fleeing from a foreign occupier. Their claim (I don't care how valid or not it is) is that their land is occupied. If you land were occupied, would you flee, or would you try and make it no longer occupied by a foreign entity?
Personally, if I weren't a Mormon and America was occupied by a foreign entity, I'd fight even dirtier than the Palestinians are. Get the foreign occupiers so disgusted with being in my country that they would not desire being there one bit and leave. But I'm a Mormon and have my standards.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2006 08:40 PMYou seem to be forgetting, Dan, that the Israelis left Gaza and elected Olmert to get them out of the West Bank. If the Palestinians want an end to occupation, that's easy at this point. Just sit still and watch the Jews leave.
Fighting the Israelis after the occupation ends just means they get occupied all over again.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2006 09:03 PMBozoer and Jeff,
I understand your arguments. Of course.
Let me ask this though:
Arab-Israelis have rights as full citizens today, but they are a minority. And Israel is a Democracy.
What happens, in 50 years, let's say, if the arab-Israeli population outnumbers the jewish population? One of 2 things:
1. They continue to have the same rights, and probably get majorities elected and in government, making Israel no longer a "jewish state" but still a Democracy.
2. The jewish (now minority) decides to change the rules and prohibit arabs from having a majority rule, Israel stays a Jewish state, but is no longer a Democracy.
My point is, the foundation here makes for an inherent contradiction between Democracy and Israel being a Jewish state.
It so happens this is a non-issue today because arab-Israelis are a minority. But that may change.
Posted by: bad vilbel at September 13, 2006 09:43 PMMike, good post. Parts of it bug me off, but I wouldn't expect anyone honest to go to Gaza, get a tour from the IDF, and not talk about the daily threats to Israeli citizens. Hell, they deserve to be to talked about. To an extent, it helps me rationalize the intense Palestinian suffering in Gaza before and after the pullout.
Read between the lines of the soldiers' statements, and it's easy to tell that who lives and who dies in Gaza is not determined on merit, regardless of the semi-good intentions of whoever might be the determiners. The IDF is there to protect Israelis. Protecting Palestinians is not a strategic objective, despite whatever RoE are input, and the casualty ratio is greater than 100 to 1.
It's tempting to wonder though, that if the combination of withdrawal and the iron fist military in tandem bends Hamas to negotiate, then the end result is good. It's possible that a limp response to the Kassams would only encourage more.
Historically, sometimes harsh reprisals only grow insurgencies, and sometimes they shut them down.
The record is mixed.
As the recent unity government demonstrates, Hamas has just about had enough. It's not the same movement as the Iranian-dominated clique in 1995. Through a combination of emancipation and getting bombed, is has been diffused and blended with ordinary Gazans. As demonstrated by the fact that Hamas allowed that article to be published, in some ways it is more democratic than Yasir Arafat.
I believe that Hamas is no longer sees any benefit in sabotaging negotiations.
The situation is ripe for a period of calm, and I believe that Olmert is the kind of non-ideological person who will deal.
It's a good thing for everyone, if so. The West Bank is a lot harder to secure than Gaza, and if everyone misses this chance, Kassams from there may create a very, very very destabilized situation. Withdrawal - partition - is the prerequsite for carrots and sticks working rationally. It took one painful year for Hamas to distinguish between pre and post-occupation in Gaza, but it is only the beginning, not the end, of the way to coexistence.
The ride in between is bumpy.
This was a good article.
Posted by: glasnost at September 13, 2006 10:23 PMBad Vilbel,
Very good question, but I'm betting on option #2 if it comes down to that. To see why, check out this article on JPost for some examples:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913624780&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
To summarize, it points out how Israeli Arab MKs have been praising Hezbollah, calling for Israeli's enemies to attack her, and generally aligning themselves against Israel (N.B. this has been going on for decades). Not a good sign--right now, the Israeli Arabs are unable to form a governing coalition, but when the day comes that demographics tip that scale, I wouldn't be surprised for them to start persecuting Jews (that is, if one believes the rhetoric of their MKs). I doubt that Jewish Israelis will prioritize democracy over their own survival.
Posted by: Jeff at September 13, 2006 10:31 PMGlasnost: As demonstrated by the fact that Hamas allowed that article to be published, in some ways it is more democratic than Yasir Arafat.
What's really interesting, to me, is that the Hamas spokesman wrote it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2006 10:46 PMMr. Totten,
You seem to be forgetting, Dan, that the Israelis left Gaza and elected Olmert to get them out of the West Bank. If the Palestinians want an end to occupation, that's easy at this point. Just sit still and watch the Jews leave.
The Israelis have come to realize their mistake, though. Unilateral work does not bring about their realized intentions, much as some Americans would like. There is a reason why peace between Egypt and Israel has worked for nearly thirty years (as cold as the peace may be). Neither side unilaterally said they would stop thinking the other as an enemy at war.
Now, when the Israelis unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, I too had mistakenly hoped for the best, and let my feelings of something good happening overwhelm reason and logic. I saw the signs that showed that Hamas felt they were the victor in this unilateral pullout. It was a sign that their battle against Israel was not over simply because Israel pulled out. Had Israel negotiated the pullout through some sort of treaty, most assuredly neither side would have been happy, but neither side would have claimed victory over the other, and felt the need to continue the battle.
This is the folly of unilateralism.
I hope for peace between Israel and Palestine. And honestly, I believe that unless this situation is solved, none of the other issues in the Middle East will be truly solved. The grievances the Palestinians feel toward the Israelis fuels all other anti-Western feelings in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc. We've gotta solve this conflict.
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2006 02:26 AMFantastic post; reasonable comments. [Typo alert early on hold >> hole "hard-to-see hold in the ground" ]
The Jews in Israel have long known about the demographic bomb of a faster non-Jewish birth rate, and it HAS been discussed. This is one big reason no "right of return" for the Palestinians is ever going to happen to a Jewish Israel.
Michael, the 1947 UN partition is more important than you think. The Arabs said NO to a Palestinian state. The ARABS said no. The Palestinian refugee problem, and the horrors they live in, are first due to the Arab leaders of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt of 1947, thru the 1948 war. A war that, legally, is not over -- only a 1949 Lebanon Armistice.
Justice is, ultimately, the main reason that civilized folk support force and violence and war.
In creating Israel in the 1947-1948 timeframe, there were some real but relatively minor injustices against Palestinians.
Since then, most injustices against the Palestinian people have been done by Arab or Palestinian leaders.
I think Israel should list injustices: the laws against Jews, the expulsion / emigration of Jews from other ME / Muslim countries after WW II; but especially the unjust failure of Arab countries to support Palestine in the 1948-1967 years, when the "pre '67" boundaries were easy to use for a Palestinian state.
If Hamas is getting tired, tired of a war they are unlikely to win, a war that is unlikely to even do much harm to the Israelis, a war that shows the world the Palestinians want War, not Peace -- if they are getting tired, that's good.
I wish Israel would more honestly negotiate with the EU on what "peace" should look like, and push Israel acceptance on an EU approved peace -- with the promise by the EU of no cash for Hamas if Hamas fails to agree on the peace agreement.
Like alcoholic enablers, the EU (and other aid) has been enabling Palestinian terrorism. The EU should stop giving aid-for-Jew murder. If this means Israel gives up the post '67 land up to their newly built wall, that is price I think most Iraelis would pay -- for Peace. Real peace, not Armistice, not weapon-collecting for a future war waiting. Not sure this is currently politically viable.
One new thought -- the EU could offer Food-for-guns. Those young Palestinians with guns could be asked to pay for EU food by the EU collecting the guns. I know I'm angry at the idea of "Palestinians are starving, so the EU needs to give aid" -- and then the Palestinians get more guns.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 14, 2006 03:10 AMDan, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the power of unilateral pull-out.
Yes, it did not stop Hamas immediately. However, it DID unite Israel, again, about the justice-based morality of their Israeli response to more Jew-murder from the Gaza.
The murderers say they want Israel out of Gaza; Israel left. Now what do they want? To murder Jews.
Not to build greenhouses and feed the People; not to build businesses and provide jobs and hope -- they want to hate Jews and murder Jews.
Above I support you, slightly, in the need for addressing justice. But there is a COST of fighting for justice. The Palestinians need to accept a SETTLEMENT, which has less justice than they want, because the cost to the Palestinians is too high.*
As Hamas becomes responsible for paying the cost of Jew-murder, and the cost remains so high, it becomes more likely they will change.
Peace can only come when the Palestinians want it -- Israel pulling out of Gaza showed that the Palestinians did NOT want peace. I actually think Hamas might be about to change their mind, but need EU help to stop enabling terrorism.
PS
*Sort of like the 3 million Sudetenland Germans of Czechoslovak citizenship who were ethnically cleaned by the Allies after WWII, and are now mostly happy in Bavaria. Some still complain, but more "justice" is unlikely to happen. By the way, 1938 citizens of ex-Czechoslovakia had a separate Czech, Slovak, German, Hungarian, or Jewish 'nationality'.
Hey Jeff, do the calculation. 3 billion dollars of aid for 50 years = 150 billion dollars GDP
Thank you very much U.S.A
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 06:04 AMHey Joe - get your facts straight. US provided essentially no aid to Israel until the late 1960s. Thereafter, it was provided as a counter to Soviet aid (in the tens of billions) to the Arab "confrontation" states, generally in the form of military assistance credits, which must be spent here. US aid to Israel never approached what was provided to Germany, during the post war period, nor to South Korea today, when you factor in the cost of keeping 40,000 US troops in combat readiness. And, the hard truth is, that the return on investment in Israel has been (and will continue to be) immense - most of those dollars employ Americans at General Dynamics in St. Louis building F-16s. Oh, and while the Arab/Moslem potentates build palaces in the Mid East, and mosques in the US and the west, with their oil trillions - leaving their Palestinian and Egyptian and other poor Moslems in filth and slums, the Jews build decent housing and nice communities with parks and playgrounds for their kids.
Posted by: Reed at September 14, 2006 06:40 AMTom,
I'd like to agree with you about the unilateral actions actually working, but we have another example where it didn't work: Lebanon. Israel pulled out of Lebanon without a negotiated withdrawal, allowing Hezbollah to also claim victory. Moreover, Hezbollah was not bound by any agreement for rearming their military. So what happened? The debacle this past July.
Unilateralism is not effective, no matter who uses it. I don't know of many examples where it achieved its stated results. But again, when negotiated, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt actually worked. It works.
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2006 06:45 AMReed,
Oh, and while the Arab/Moslem potentates build palaces in the Mid East, and mosques in the US and the west, with their oil trillions - leaving their Palestinian and Egyptian and other poor Moslems in filth and slums, the Jews build decent housing and nice communities with parks and playgrounds for their kids.
I think you've stated right there the heart of the problem in the Middle East. Arab nations are not building for the people the housing they need, but instead build for themselves palaces. Then the poor Arabs look at the fine Israeli land and say, "hey why do they get all that good stuff and we don't?" instead of venting their anger at their own government for not helping them, they scream bloody murder at the Israelis. Moreover, I think their autocratic leaders fuel their anger at Israel so as to cover up their own selfish greed. If Arabs truly showed their anger where it deserves to be shown, these rulers would be out of power.
The question for America, yet again, is why do we support these autocratic leaders?
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2006 06:49 AMMichael,
You respond that "We're talking 2006, not 1948. No one mentioned 1948 except you" except that I didn't. Oh, I mentioned partition (which is ongoing) and dispossession (also ongoing.) Besides, is there some kind of law that states we can talk about Jewish kingdoms of 800 BC and the Holocaust (pre-1948), but nothing else? Exactly the strategy to marginalize Palestinian claims and rights in their homeland. The more I read the more I think this is just Zionist propaganda posing as journalism.
Posted by: Alan Goldstein at September 14, 2006 07:18 AMNotice how the anti-Israel rhetoric gradually changes.
A few years ago all we heard was that Palestinian terrorism arose because of Israeli "occupation" and "settlements". But then the occupation ended in Gaza, every single settlement was removed, and the terror attacks increased. And so the rhetoric now must change - note that not one of the anti-Israel posts here has used the word "settlement". Now the issue seems to be the very existence of the Jewish state.
Similarly in Lebanon, the occupation ended, and a new justification was found - the 3 Lebanese prisoners in Israeli gaols.
What is the message? That whatever concessions Israel makes, the attacks will continue, another justification will be found, (there is always some form of perceived injustice in every society) and fanatical hatred will win over rationality.
What troubles me mostly is this thought: that the Palestinian identity seems to be based solely on the principle of victimhood and "resistance". Can anyone identify any other unique facet of culture or identity that unites the Palestinian people? If not, then the Palestinian nation will forever continue to "resist" or else it will not exist.
Posted by: David at September 14, 2006 07:32 AMJoe,
I agree with Reed. And the US has given $60bn in aid to Egypt since 1948 (including $2bn a year to bribe Egypt to maintain its peace treaty with Israel). Egypt has a GDP two times the size of Israel, so one could say it's even less justified in their case, and don't forget to add in the fact that Egypt continues to spew anti-American hatred and sent a terrorist to bomb our WTC (Atta).
The US has budgeted $56bn on reconstruction aid to Iraq in a single bolus, and I think it would probably be easier to ask how effective that's been.
Unfortunately for Dan, if/when the Israel-Palestine issue is solved, Al-Qaeda will turn its attention back to the fact that there are US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and also focus on the lack of Islam in the rest of the world. Aid to Israel isn't the reason why Hamas refuses to recognize Israel in its charter. Aid to Israel does provide a convenient realpolitik method of distracting the Arab world, though. Let Israel be the bait and let the Arabs focus their hate on it, attack it, terrorize it. The Arabs will focus on the Little Satan before they go after the Big Satan, so I think that our aid is a small price to pay for having someone else man the front line.
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 07:39 AMDiana,
Gaza a prison, you say? Why? People can go in, people can go out. That's not a prison.
No airport? But it seems to me, they certainly have a rocket launching base or two. How many prisons launch their own rockets?
Now, here in the USA, we have a great many airports and only a handful of rocket launching sites. Clearly the Palestinians have it prioritized all wrong.
They don't need the rocket launching sites. Serious negative return on those investments, I'd say.
By the bye, your comment about people not investing in prisons... you mean... don't you know? Wow, you really have no idea, do you?
Have some fun:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/BigBucks_BigHouse_LA.html
But hey, don't take it from one web site, Google for Prison Investments and knock yourself out.
Businesses invest in prisons all the time. Gaza is a small stateless state committed to a genocidal war of its own choosing. It's really a modern rendition of a barbarian encampment beyond the frontier of civilization. Who would want to invest in that?
Absorb it: The only thing preventing Gaza from being a Malta is Palestinians. If the Israelis could flip some magic switch and have Malta and Gaza instantly change places, they would in a heartbeat. The Israelis would LOVE to have a decent, prosperous neighbor. Israelis go to Egypt, to places they once occupied, for VACATION now.
The Palestinians could do better, if only they got their act together, and it's not Israel's fault that they can't. You know this is true. So does everyone else, EVEN THE PALESTINIANS. But keeping up the hatred serves the interests of certain people, doesn't it? Certain very warped people. People who enjoy having lots of power and no responsibility. That's why they burned the greenhouses.
Ben
Posted by: Ben at September 14, 2006 08:14 AMAlan Goldstein: Besides, is there some kind of law that states we can talk about Jewish kingdoms of 800 BC and the Holocaust (pre-1948), but nothing else?
Don't be an ass. Of course you can talk about whatever you want. You are allowed to change the subject. But that's what you're doing - changing the subject. Me and the Hamas guy were talking about 2006, and you switched it to 1948.
Hilarious that a man named Alan Goldstein is accusing the Hamas spokesman of peddling Zionist propaganda. You're waaaaaaaay out on a limb here.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2006 09:40 AMNotice how all the pro-Israel rhetoric changes: wasn't Arafat the huge problem? Wasn't the whole reason for Palestinian rejectionism the result of charismatic intransigence of that one guy, Arafat, and as soon as he was dead, "moderate" Arabs, Arabs who had grown up with the experience of Israel, would accept the Jewish state.
Well, the generation of Arabs who grew up with the Jewish state vote for Hamas and produced Hezbollah, and for some mysterious reason no one seems to think Arafat was the main problem anymore.
My own personal belief is that the main problem is George Bush and his pet neocons. Their idiot and unnecessary wars against Iraq, Lebanon, and (sure to come) Iran and Syria, together with the Bush adminsitration's open disavowel on our civil liberties, on science, and on the legal core of America, our own Constitution (check out Bush apologist John Yoo's argument that our Constitution is only supposed to apply to "peacetime" situations) is the principal danger this planet faces. So I am not going to complain about the Palestinians.
Posted by: Diana at September 14, 2006 10:28 AMLet's get it straight here. The problem is plain and simply occupation. The pro-Israelis continue to talk about the withdrawal from Gaza as if it was the end of the occupation. Have they forgotten that during that same period, Sharon increased and fortified the settlements in the West bank while the international community was busy clapping his action in Gaza. Occupation is always wrong, whether it be in France, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa or in the Palestinian territories. If it was not for the United States government (and AIPAC), the World community would have long ago put an embargo on Israel the same way they did against the Apartheid regime. When a war produces a ratio of 200:1 casualties and you still call the other terrorists and yourselves soldiers of a "defensive" army, it is that you are so blinded by your patriotism your morals are down in the gutter. Security and Defense, let us not forget, were the same concepts that groups like the Nazis (defense of the aryan race), the South Africans (protection from black terrorists) and the Serbs (protection from Muslim terrorists) have used to justify their murders. Wake up and do not forget that Israel is not the only country that has a right to exist, to security, liberty, and a homeland. Demonizing the other will only serve to justify your immoral actions (so you can sleep a little better at night).
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 10:47 AMHere is more on the disengagaement from Gaza by Israeli journalist Amnon Apeliouk in Le Monde Diplomatique :
It is clear that the settlement of the Gaza Strip has been a failure. Barely 7,000 settlers have moved in, although there are 250,000 in the West Bank (and 200,000 in the occupied part of Jerusalem). Though they have taken over 40% of Gaza’s land and use half its water, they are nothing compared with the million-and-a-half Palestinians crowded into the area. Providing security for settlers costs a huge amount of money and needs many soldiers, some of whom die doing this terrible job. Withdrawing from Gaza should be as much a relief for Israel as a sacrifice.
But the Israeli government is at pains to present the disengagement, especially abroad, as painful and deeply problematic. It exploits the extremist fanatics who have been demonstrating angrily against the plan, along with pseudo-fascist threats to assassinate Sharon as punishment for his “treason”, to exaggerate its difficulties. So Israel can claim that withdrawing from Gaza is so traumatic that further disengagement - evacuating settlers from the West Bank - cannot be envisaged soon.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 10:58 AM"...So Israel can claim that withdrawing from Gaza is so traumatic that further disengagement - evacuating settlers from the West Bank - cannot be envisaged soon."
Errr... no. Even the most biased of observers must acknowledge that Israel voted in a government who promised, in their only real policy, to disengage from, and dismantle settlements in, the West Bank.
The only "extremist fanatics" who have stopped that now are the ones who decided to fire thousands of rockets from the unoccupied territories in Gaza and Lebanon.
And Diana, please! Nice try, but Arafat wasn't the main problem - but rather the terrorist attacks and other violence that occured under his rule. That is, the very same problem as faced today. The bar has been set very, very, very low for Hamas now - recognise Israel's right to exist, and renounce terrorism. How much more trash will accumulate in the streets of Gaza city before they can bring themselves to do this?
Posted by: David at September 14, 2006 11:24 AMHey David,
Here is what Dov Weisglass, permanent representative in Washington and ex-right-hand man of Sharon said in an interview with the newspaper Ha’aretz about Israel's strategy: “The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians...The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state . . . The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it’s the return of refugees, it’s the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.”
The last prime minister who wanted a durable peace with the Palestinians was assassinated by an Israeli fanatic. Those who followed him have for their security maybe or for their ideology continued to consider the Palestinians unviable partners and terrorists with whom no peace can be concluded. Peace for Israel means concessions they do not want to ever give up. Consider the fact that between Arafat and Hamas, Abbas (a moderate that Israel was asking for) ruled in the P.T. Did Israel decide to negotiate then. No, they continued with their targeted assassination, frustration Abbas' peace considerations and exasperating the local population to the point it voted for Hamas, which let us not forget was a Mossad creation to undermine the power of the PLO in the early 80's.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 11:36 AMDiana,
Actually, you have it right there. Arafat was a dictator who failed to build up the institutions of government and could not be trusted to execute a peace agreement. The hope was that after he died (for in a dictatorial regime, that's the only way to change governments), moderates would grasp the levers of power to build a state for the Palestinians. Abu Mazen was supposed to be that moderate, but he was too weak within Fatah, and years of Arafat's mismanagement and corruption had weakened Fatah itself. If you look at the polls at the time, Hamas drew its support not necessarily because of its politics, but rather because of the perception that it was a clean party interested in the welfare of Palestinian citizens. Hamas hasn't been able to deliver, so they too are losing control in their Gaza power base (or haven't you read Mr. Totten's article?)
I don't feel the need to comment on your left-wing ranting against the Bush administration, as you presented no facts to debate. I can only advise that if the current administration is as monstrous as you believe, you should make haste to move to another country.
Joe,
You're psychotic to claim that France is occupied. The idea of proportionality and casualty ratios as a means of measuring wartime justice is the oddest concept I've ever heard. Let me provide a better framework for you: the Palestinians and Lebanese are conducting war along the WWI framework (i.e. "Total War" in which every citizen is involved in the war effort) while the West operates on the more modern concept of a compartmentalized army fighting a war while civil society continues to function as best as possible as before. That's why Total War practitioners suffer so many civilian casualties.
As for the West Bank settlements, you overlooked the security concerns. Israel is only about nine miles wide in its central sector when the West Bank is excluded. Considering that the Arabs have attacked Israel several times, Israel considers strategic depth (to allow time for the reserves to be called up and organized) to be of vital importance. Many settlements in the West Bank were originally set up precisely for that reason, to operate as front-line bulwarks against any invasion.
Finally, I have a question for you and the other anti-Zionists out there. What is the statute of limitations on "occupation"? The US has been around for over 230 years, and only the fringe now continue to call Americans "occupiers". Scottish and English settlers began settling in Ireland in the 1600s, and now Northern Ireland is still under the thumb of the UK. Alsace was ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, but has changed several times since then, and France has been rather brutal in its alternate expulsions of Germans and suppressing of German culture, but few consider it occupied territory today.
So how long does Israel need to hold on to the West Bank until it's no longer considered occupied? Sorry for the long post.
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 11:57 AMSo how long does Israel need to hold on to the West Bank until it's no longer considered occupied?
That's easy, Jeff: until Israel leaves the West Bank or gives the Palestinians Israeli citizenship.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2006 12:00 PMJoe,
I just wanted to correct your misinterpretation of events. Hamas is outside of the PLO and rejects any treaties with Israel--it in fact denies the right of Israel to exist. Moving back in time a little bit, before Hamas was elected, Abbas did nothing to crack down on the activities of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, so he can't be considered a viable partner. Max Weber defined sovereignty's essential attribute as the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Arafat had untold groups of terrorists running around doing whatever they wanted and didn't crack down. So did Abbas, and so does Hamas. How can the Israeli government negotiate in that kind of environment? With whom does it negotiate? Why should Israel have to sign a separate peace with each Palestinian group? Believe me, Israel wants to negotiate (as you said, the war of attrition is dragging everyone down), but until the Palestinians get their own house in order, they don't have a shot at a negotiated settlement.
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 12:08 PMMichael,
Good point. I can assume, then, that the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem should no longer be considered occupied since Israel extended citizenship eligibility to the residents there?
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 12:13 PMWasn't France occupied by the Nazis. I think that was wrong. As for your question Jeff, I don't think need to answer since Michael already did. It's as simple as that. No matter how many justifications you want to give (they used to be military outposts etc. it used to be a buffer zone.... bla, bla, bla)
On your consideration on the hermeneutics of occupation I see that you align yourself with the Israeli position of no peace process because that is tantamount to giving up settlements.
There are around 3 million Palestinians in the West bank. You either give them their land (100 % of the West Bank and East Jerusalem) or you give them citizenship. The other solution is ethnic cleansing but that is not cool.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 12:16 PMJeff, if the residents of the Golan and East Jerusalem desire independence from Israel, Israel will have to reckon with that, for sure.
But if they desire to remain part of Israel as equal citizens in a democratic society, then it's a bit of a stretch to refer to them as being "occupied" subjects. They are not like the stateless Palestinians who are citizens of nowhere and lack equal rights.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2006 12:19 PMThe other solution is ethnic cleansing but that is not cool.
Indeed. I don't think the proponents of "transfer" have ever actually thought what that would entail. The Palestinians would fight "transfer," of course. How do you foricbly move millions of people against their will without turning the West Bank into another Darfur? The answer is, you can't.
Israelis will never do this. Not after the Holocaust. The Sabra and Shatilla massacre produced a massive convulsion in Israeli society, and that was nothing compared to "transferring" millions of people.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2006 12:23 PMMichael, I would not do much of Hamas spokesman words. He does not have to believe what he says, for him it is enough to believe that he is saying what will help for the Euro money to roll in, i.e. to give the Europeans a reason to vote for the aid money. This is not something new. Arafat used it all the time in his dealing with "international community", obviously Hamas operatives in charge of PR are as cynical.
BTW, much of the Arab/Palestinian demagoguery of imperialist oppression/disperation/Israel as an outpost of American agression/etc. was developed and supplied by the Soviets at the time when Arafat and Co were pretending to be Communists, as the Soviets were the best payers at the time. So IMO, Hamas spokesman "opinion" only shows that the money that is comming from the Arabs states are not enough for Hamas appetite and they disperately want Europeons to pay too. Also,was what he said printed in Gaza in Arabic too?
I can't believe the naivete of people asking why gazans dig their tunnels. The answer is - this is the job that pays. Smuggling weapons and goods is the best business in Gaza. Thus, keeping border crossings close is in the interest of the people in charge of smuggling business. Disperation MA.
Posted by: norar at September 14, 2006 12:24 PMJeff,
I know that Hamas is outside the PLO. Here is what wikipedia says:
Hamas attracted members through preaching and charitable work before spreading its influence into trade unions, universities, bazaars, professional organizations and local government political races beginning in December 2004. “Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks), the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression”, according to L'Humanité.39 Indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat [40]. According to UPI, Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization" [38]. At that time, Hamas's focus was on "religious and social work". The grassroots movement concentrated on social issues such as exposing corruption, administration of waqf (trusts) and organizing community projects.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 12:27 PMMichael,
A couple of years ago there was a case of the one of the Palestinian poller's [Khalidi's?] office destroyed after he published data on the near 80% of Palestinian refugees being ready to accept compensation money and move to the Arab countries.
There would be certainly an option of offering Palestinians money to leave, but the "Arab world" would not stand for this. The Arab regimes have put enough efforts already to make "transfer" a durty word, nevermind that transfer, ot exchange of the populations and territories, have been exceptable and successful solution to many border conflicts.
Let's also not to forget that at Camp David in 2000 Barak offerred to Arafat a part of Israeli territory adjacent to North Samaria, that has majority Arab population, in exchange for some territory of the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. I don't remember anybody in the media minding this offer, except for the Israeli Arabs involved in it; they opposed it vegemently, of course, which is probably the reason it was not editorised more widely, for no amount of rhetorics could put a nice face on this strange opposition of the Arabs to live under the Arab rule of their hero Arafat.
Posted by: norar at September 14, 2006 12:49 PM"The Arab regimes have put enough efforts already to make "transfer" a durty word, nevermind that transfer, ot exchange of the populations and territories, have been exceptable and successful solution to many border conflicts."
Which world do you live in ? So "transfer" is actually cool, but has become a "dirty" word because of those damn arabs ?!!! Do you have any sense of morality ????? What if I you are my neighbor, I'd like to build a tennis court but there is no more space in my yard. Can I come to your house and kick you out ? For me, that would be a an "acceptable and successful solution to a border conflict."
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 12:54 PMOf interest Joe, what do you think of the forced transfer of 7,000 Jews out of Gaza?
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 12:57 PMOnce American soldiers in Iraq are sent back to the United States, will we call that transfer too ? Those 7000 Jews were militants who believed in the idea of Eretz Israel and the big majority of them was not born in Gaza. At some point they had to give the land they were occupying to its orignal owners, especially considering that in a land which is host to 1 million people, they controlled 40 of the land and 50 of the water. They also had their own roads which palestinians were not allowed to use.
Do the math :
1,000,000 Palestinians 7,000 Israelis
60% of land 40% of land
50% of water 50% of water
Is that Apartheid ????????????????
I think so.
And then the Israelis claim that they can make the desert bloom. No wonder - with all that water for 7000 people they should have created rain forests by now.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 01:08 PMI find it unbelievable that twice I am attacked for my last name, Goldstein, just because I don't ascribe to some monolithic thuggish nationalism: Zionism. As if what Jew could possibly believe that the Palestinians were dispossessed by the creation of Israel and still believes the best solution is to end partition? For soon 60 years will have passed with the battle for separatism and inequality. It has gotten us to this point and every year has been a catastrophe. You can dress it up as the war on terror or you can prettify it as a "Vision for a Two-State Solution" but it's nothing but displacement and resistance. Israel wants to be welcomed then it should be ready to welcome the Palestinians. Now, that would be different from what has gone under the bridge for the past century. What kind of Jew would think that? This one- Goldstein.
Posted by: Alan Goldstein at September 14, 2006 01:13 PMJoe, you seem to be getting worked up.
"Those 7000 Jews were militants"
What all of them? Even the babies and children. Wow, I didn't know that. Who did they kill?
"...who believed in the idea of Eretz Israel"
That's a crime now? You really sound like a fanatic. Even Arafat said he believed in the idea of Eretz Israel. Zionist pig!
"the big majority of them was not born in Gaza."
The Palestinians redefined the term refugee after 1948 to apply to anyone who had lived in the area for 2 years or more. So according to the Palestinian definition they are all now refugees.
Do the math Joe,
1,000,000 Palestinians
0 Jews
Is that Judenrein? I think so.
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 01:17 PMArafat believed in the idea of Eretz Israel ????? Maybe you should erect a memorial for him then next to Meir Kahane. Mertel, do you really think it is moral in a land of circa 1 million people that 7000 people control 50% of the water and 40% of land. Many settlers see themselves as the front guard of Israeli expansion (call them militants or Western pioneers if you wish) but if you are calling their eviction a Judenrein then you are belittling the Holocaust.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 01:25 PMJoe, do you even know what Eretz Israel means? It simply means the land of Israel. Arafat (unlike some of the people posting here) stated that he agreed there should be a Jewish state within the land of Israel.
You may be refering to "Eretz Israel Hashlema". Which essentially means Greater Israel, or the concept that Israel should expand it's borders and annex more territory. A concept that holds about as much currency in Israel at the moment as the Goldstein fantasy outlined above.
Obviously in your irrational rage you didn't detect my sense of irony. Your mathematical calculation of 'apartheid' makes no more sense than my mathematical calculation of 'judenrein'. I was just using that example to wake you out of your fundamentalist coma. You can see so clearly the differences in one case, but not in the other.
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 01:39 PMAnd you forgot to answer my question:
"Those 7000 Jews were militants"
What all of them? Even the babies and children. Wow, I didn't know that. Who did they kill?
Mertel,
There is still a difference between political Israel (the one that needs to respect UN resolutions), Eretz Israel and Kahanist Israel. Everytime I argue with pro-Israelis they end up escaping the real debate and resorting to saying that I am full of rage "Obviously in your irrational rage" or a fanatic "fundamentalist coma". Why don't you just call me terrorist, islamo-fascist, monster and so on. Isn't that the tactic Israel uses to demonize the Palestinians?
The way you are trying to retract your previous tactless statement perfectly portrays your sense of irony.
Should I laugh or should I cry ?
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 01:53 PMWho did the settlers kill ? Instead of giving you a practical answer : say, Baruch Goldstein and the Kahane members. I'll say that the settlers have killed everyobody in the Israelo-palestinian conflict both Israeli soldiers protecting them and Palestinians fighting the latter. Aren't they the reason this whole bloody war exists?
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 01:58 PMLaugh or cry, Joe, whatever.
Still waiting for you to either retract or explain your statement that all 7,000 Jews were militants.
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 01:59 PMare they militants ?
watch this clip from the BBC :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KUZXc3F-61w
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 02:00 PM"Aren't they the reason this whole bloody war exists?"
Which war is that Joe? The one fought by Hamas after the settlers left Gaza? The massacre of Jews in Palestine before the state of Israel existed? The war to wipe Israel from the map in 48 or 56 or 67 before there was such a thing as settlers? The attack initiated by Hezbollah after Israel left southern Lebanon?
Did you actually read anything in the post we are all commenting on?
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 02:03 PMJoe
I watched your video. It was of a settler in the West Bank. It didn't exactly explain how he was a militant.
Anyway I am still waiting for you to either retract or explain your statement that ALL 7,000 Jews in GAZA were militants
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 02:15 PMWas Israel in the map in 1948 ? The way Arabs look at the conflict right now is not the same as they did up until 1988 in the UN and 1991 in Madrid when Arafat finally recognized Israel's right to exist. If before it was a colonial war and they wanted their independence just as almost all African and Asian countries under occupation had gained it (some as late as 1966), after 1991 the PLO realized that they can no longer dream of a historic Palestine and accepted a state on the 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as its capital, return of the refugees. This is the war they are fighting. Let me remind you that in 1991, when Arafat was ready to sit down and negotiate Shamir refused. He was pushed by the first George Bush who threatened to cut the 3 billion dollar/year aid to Israel. This year, when Hamas decided to hold a referendum on whether to accept Israel's right to exist, Israel launched an attack on Gaza and kidnapped 2 palestinian brothers. The next day Gilad was kidnapped and a week later two other israeli soldiers were kidnapped along the lebanese border. I would love to give you a more complete and objective history of the conflict, but yours (Jews good; Arabs bad) will probably suit your conscience. It's as cute as a Little Red Riding Hood narrative where the good one wins at the end.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 02:22 PMAlan Goldstein: I find it unbelievable that twice I am attacked for my last name, Goldstein, just because I don't ascribe to some monolithic thuggish nationalism: Zionism.
I didn't attack you for your name, Alan. I'm not an anti-Semite. I just find it ironic that the Hamas spokesman is more moderate and reasonable than you are. That's all. Carry on.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2006 02:24 PMWatch the movie again and listen to every word he says. If you still don't understand, then I can't help you. Maybe they are not militants. Maybe they like to live really close to the Palestinians just because they love them so much; you know, so they can have block parties together, barbecue and all that stuff. Zionism in itself is a militant ideology.
Here is another video for you :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 02:30 PMto joe at September 14, 2006 12:54 PM
No amount of question and exclamation marks can make your rhetoric and you anal-ogies into an argument, or change the fact that transfers of populations and territories helped to settle many land and border conflicts, which is an historical fact.
Posted by: norar at September 14, 2006 02:32 PMnorar. you are one scary person. cambodia. vietnam. sudan. rwanda. nazi germany. ussr. are you really talking about the same kind of "population transfers" I am imagining? maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I hope so because otherwise, you are one scary person.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 02:37 PMjoe at September 14, 2006 02:37 PM
Do you really that obtuse that you try to replace an discussion on negotiated land and population transfer with the examples of ethnic cleansing?
Of course, it's your decision whether to play stupid and move the goal posts. However, you only provide a fine example for my earlier statement that your empty rhetoric does not stand examination by the historic facts, which is (I repeat last time for stupid and deliberately obtuse) - transfers of population and territores helped to end many border and land conflict through the history.
Posted by: norar at September 14, 2006 02:55 PMnorar. can you give any examples of successful transfer of populations and territories ?
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 02:58 PMJoe, joe, joe
I watched that video too.... didn't even mention anything about settlers. Something tells me you're trying to avoid my question.... but I'll try again:
Please! can you either retract or explain your statement that ALL 7,000 Jews in GAZA were militants
Posted by: Mertel at September 14, 2006 03:09 PMjoe at September 14, 2006 02:58 PM
Your question comes way too late in our exchange to treat it is serioualy. You really aren't that clever, as you think. After all, you only show yourself to be too ignorant to take seriously anything you say above or will say in the future.
Posted by: norar at September 14, 2006 03:13 PMnorar. You have stripped yourself naked and are so speechless you are reduced to attack my intelligence. Please don't take me seriously if that will make you feel better.
Mertel, I already answered your question. Again, choose to face it or ignore it. Settlers are militants.
here is the definition of a militant :
a person who is aggressive or vigorous, esp. in the support of a cause
If you are implying that not all 7000 settlers in Gaza were militants because that number includes babies and children, then I concede, you are right. Babies and children do not have the rational capacity to comprehend the injustices committed by their parents, and so they are not militants.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 03:25 PMJoe,
To address your earlier references to supporters of Greater Israel, the difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis is that Israel banned the Kahane party and its offshoots, but Palestinians celebrate the "achievements" of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Now on to the question of transfer. There are many successful examples of population transfer:
1) The Arab world cleansed itself of Jews after Israeli independence. Oh, I forgot, it's ok to ethnically cleanse Jews.
2) Czechoslovakia expelled 3 million Sudeten Germans after World War II.
3) In the partition of India and Pakistan, 5 million Hindus moved from Pakistan to India, and 6 million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan
4) You're going to love this one. Kuwait expelled 500,000 Palestinians during the Gulf War
5) Africa. I hope I don't need to elaborate.
None of these examples include genocide, so it would be hard for you to now claim that such a transfer could only be accomplished through genocide.
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 03:28 PMJeff. I like your disclaimer at the end
1) The Arab world cleansed itself of Jews after Israeli independence. Oh, I forgot, it's ok to ethnically cleanse Jews.
Was this a successful transfer ? Are you antisemitic ?
2) Czechoslovakia expelled 3 million Sudeten Germans after World War II.
Was this a successful transfer ?
3) In the partition of India and Pakistan, 5 million Hindus moved from Pakistan to India, and 6 million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan
Was this a successful transfer ? One million people died
4) You're going to love this one. Kuwait expelled 500,000 Palestinians during the Gulf War
Was this a successful transfer ?
5) Africa. I hope I don't need to elaborate.
Please do elaborate
I cannot possibly understand how Israelis can advocate population transfer considering they have suffered the most from it.
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 03:33 PMJoe,
What, by your definition, is a successful transfer of population?
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 03:39 PMSame dilemma here. You should ask norar. He's the one who believes in the concept of "successful transfer of population".
Posted by: joe at September 14, 2006 03:51 PMJoe,
I catch your drift. I realize that any transfer of population will involve force, the only question is the degree. In that sense, a population transfer (with the aim of transfer) is successful if violence is kept to a minimum. The Jewish expulsion from the Arab world, in that sense, was successful (and by the way, my comment was sarcastic above.. in response to the idea that it's no big deal to transfer settlers). Sudentenland (forced, but not slaughtered), India/Pakistan (deaths due largely to the brutality of the journey and the nature of civil war) and Kuwait (as far as I know, without slaughter) were successful by this definition, Africa far less so (with the exception of the abject failures of Sudan and Rwanda, I'll concede those were genocide. Note that the "world community" doesn't seem to care about the one perpetrated by Arabs). For other African examples, look to Kenya, Burundi, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Posted by: Jeff at September 14, 2006 04:18 PM