Israel-Palestine: Settlements As The Death of Peace
Following Annapolis, the Israeli government made the decision to authorize another 300 plus homes in the Har Homa settlement outside Jerusalem. That is the kind of blunder that has destroyed previous attempts at negotiations.
To her credit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quickly expressed U.S. opposition to the settlement’s expansion -- but that is unlikely to make a difference. The United States has a long record of expressing formal opposition to the settlement enterprise while doing nothing that indicates any seriousness about it. The Har Homa move specifically violates Phase 1 of the Roadmap, which both Israelis and Palestinians are committed to implement.
But even aside from the Roadmap, settlement expansion is a clear obstacle to peace. Given that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are about exchanging land for peace, specifically the West Bank, in exchange for an end to anti-Israel violence, settlement expansion is by definition a flagrant violation. As a Palestinian once told me, “Two people cannot discuss how many slices of a pie each one will get if one of them is busy wolfing slices down as fast as he can.”
There is no doubt that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert knows just how destructive the Har Homa expansion is. But he is boxed in by right-wingers in his coalition who threaten to bolt at the mere mention of freezing settlements.
That is why he probably welcomed Rice’s strong statement of disapproval. The safest way for Israeli prime ministers to do the right thing is when they can tell the hard-liners that “the Americans made me do it.” Rice did him a favor and she knows it.
Of course, like Olmert, she too will come under pressure from domestic opponents of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In yesterday’s Salon, Gregory Levey, a Canadian writer and former speechwriter for Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, described a new right-wing outfit here that is using the fake “dividing Jerusalem” issue to kill the Annapolis process.
The new “Coordinating Council on Jerusalem” consists of all the usual suspects, like the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), but also more serious groups like the Orthodox Union. Also supporting the Council is Watergate criminal Gordon Liddy and the rapture crowd of conservative Christians whose theology requires the in-gathering of Jews to Israel to help precipitate what they call end-times and we can call the end-of-the Jews.
Levey quotes Mort Klein, head of the ZOA, explaining the position of the new lobby. “Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn’t give away any part of Washington. . . . Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It’s not mentioned even once in the Quran.”
Of course, Washington is mentioned in neither book. More to the point is that no one is proposing dividing Jerusalem but rather sharing it.
Vice Prime Minister Haim Ramon has explained that none of the Jerusalem neighborhoods that would come under Palestinian sovereignty were ever part of Jerusalem and aren’t now. “In 1967, after the Six Day War, Israel annexed twenty-eight villages that historically were part of the West Bank and defined them as Jerusalem. They had never been Jerusalem. Now, they are part of Jerusalem. So the response to those who say, ‘You want to divide Jerusalem,’ is to say that we are not dividing anything.”
In any case, Palestinian Jerusalem will not be separated from Israeli Jerusalem. The tourist walking from the King David Hotel to the Western Wall will not know when he is leaving or entering areas under Israeli (or Palestinian) sovereignty.
Free movement by all will be unimpeded because neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will accept anything less. (I doubt there is a single Palestinian living in East Jerusalem today who would accept a division of the city that would prevent him from shopping on Jaffa Road. Nor are there merchants on Salah al-Din Street in East Jerusalem or in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City who want an arrangement that would prevent Israeli shoppers or tourists from spending money at their business).
No one, I repeat no one, is contemplating physical division of the city.
The issue of “dividing Jerusalem” is a total sham, raised not to protect Jerusalem but to guard against any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.
That is clear in an interview Ha’aretz correspondent Shmuel Rosner conducted this week with Jeff Ballabon who directs the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. Ballabon told Rosner that there can be no peace process because “Israel's enemies do not just want Jerusalem. To this day, they demand every inch from the ‘river to the sea.’ The ‘Green Line’ is a bedtime story some Israeli politicians tell, but which has no influence on Israel’s enemies.”
In other words, nothing has changed since 1948. Everybody wants the Jews dead, including presumably the Egyptians and Jordanians who signed peace treaties with Israel that have saved countless lives on both sides -- and Mahmoud Abbas who completely rejects violence and who both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert considered a partner for peace.
For Ballabon, who was the Bush-Cheney ticket’s liaison to the Orthodox community in the 2004 election, Prime Minister Olmert does not even have the right to negotiate on Israel’s behalf. That is because Olmert’s government has as its “primary goal” the “redivision of Jerusalem and the release and arming of terrorists in order to create a state for Israel’s enemies along its most vulnerable border.” In other words, the Israeli government has as its goal the destruction of Israel.
Ballabon has only contempt for that government.
“We have a saying popular among conservatives and libertarians in America: ‘I love my country but I fear my government.’”
In other words, the “Land of Israel, yes. The State of Israel, no.”
At its foundation, this is what the right-wing in Israel (and, more so, in New York) has become: opponents of the real Jewish state for the sake of preserving Israel’s rights to territory in which Jews are, and always would be, a tiny minority.
This is a new kind of Zionism: Zionism as a movement to establish the right of Jews to live as a permanent minority in the land of Israel rather than in places like Tel Aviv, Haifa, West Jerusalem i.e, the State of Israel.
Bizarro Zionism for the bizarro universe where the far right lives.
As to how the Palestinians fit into all this, see today's Washington Post.
Also, note,back in the day when I was a pro-Israel activist on campus, I did it out of love. Now the pro-Israel Right is paying kids a thousand bucks to stand up for Israel. Depressing, Perhaps if the pro-Israel campus groups supported both Israel and an end to the occupation, the kids wouldn't have to be paid or, as AIPAC does, given free all-expenses paid trips to Washington!
IMPORTANT EXPERIMENT: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, DAVAI.
Let him rant all he wants but don't give him the satisfaction of replying to him.As TPM management indicated yesterday, Josh is loathe to ban people but rather relies on TPM regulars not to encourage trolls to fill the place up by engaging them.
Davai is one of only two trolls in these parts. There are others who disagree and disagree strongly, which is cool, but only Davai and the Greenbaum guy attack both the author and TPM posters in general in ugly terms.
December 15, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an experiment Mark. Try telling the truth for a change. On the Rosenberg threads there is almost no disagreement. That is why you find it cool. Everything is Israel's fault and the Arabs and the Palestinians have no role in the situation. The suggested solution inevitably are those that require Israelis to allow their citizens to be killed and will result in the death of large numbers of Jews.
I reject the leftwing ideological version of Bush and neo-Cons. The taking of positions that devoid of fact and are basically anti-Semitic fantaies.
Most of your posts are foolish and silly based as they are on nothing more than anti-Israeli ideolgy. Rosenberg often has trouble with both the truth and logic. I will not be silent in the face of stupidity and dishonesty. There have always been Jews who have assisted the anti-Semites. History shows that being silent in the face of such behavior rarely has a good outcome.
Have a good day.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 15, 2007 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did it ever occur to you, leftAhead, and those who agree with you and Mr. Rosenberg that the reason the settlers are able to wield such influence over the policies of the Israeli government is precisely because of over two thousand obsolete rockets--since Irael withdrew from Gaza in 2005 --aimed from Gaza solely for the putrpose killing innocent Israelis? How much support would the settlers have from that government if Arafat and the Hamas leaders had emulated Anwar Sadat,recognized Israel was here to stay, and cut a deal. In 1980 Ariel Sharon forcibly kicked some of those settlers out of Yamit, in what is now Egypt, because Sadat did make a deal and was prepared to enforce it. When the Palestinians find their Sadat, the support for, or acqiuescence in, the demands of settlers will greatly diminish among most Israelis.
December 16, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Emet18.
"the support for, or acqiuescence in, the demands of settlers will greatly diminish among most Israelis"
Some of the disapora are just as insatiable for the land as are the settlers they succor. The hardcore have no intention of giving up a dunum as their basic attitude to the Government is anarchic and the worst are seditious. The IDF is their militia in the OT and obeys orders from the central Israeli government only if the generals feel like it. Basically means that there is no partner for peace among the current crop of Israeli politicians as their edicts to the IDF have no effect when in comes to the daily lives of their Palestinian charges.
Unless the Israelis get fed up with their fanatic welfare types and have a leader tough enough to give the IDF orders that they WILL obey all the way down the line, things will continue as per usual with always the threat/promise of a bloodbath in the offing.
I'm glad to see that the issue of how much influence the American disapora should have over internal Isreali decisions is churning within Israel. Overreach can be a bitch.
Sderot, rockets and it's utility as-is are a whole 'nother subject.
December 16, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
LeftAhead:
You write to Daniel as follows:
"In this article, MJ gives a concrete example of Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land, and sends Daniel A. Greenbaum on a rant that is a parody of his own accusations against MJ--devoid of fact, foolish and silly."
What nonsense and how unfair. Daniel was responding to a post by Mark Weinberg in which Daniel is called a troll and you then criticize Daniel for not addressing MJ's substantive points?
Baloney, really. And what a metaphor for how these threads have operated in fact.
By the way, including my own comments, and yours too leftahead, how many people in this thread have directly responded to MJ's post beyond the usual, "excellent post MJ", or "you're full of it MJ?"
Bruce
P.S. And, no, I do not condone personal attacks on MJ, from Daniel, davai, or anyone else. I will say, as I've said before, that MJ has in the past been deliberately provocative, and it has colored my perception of how seriously MJ takes this forum. I stand by that assessment.
December 18, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a third alternative: one can be pro-American, and for or against Israel to the extent that relations with Israel promote the national security interests of the United States. Now, whether supporting actions of the State of Israel are attractive in the domestic politics of the United States, just as an implacably hostile policy toward Cuba are attractive to a different voting bloc, is quite another matter.
While there were requests to attack the Nazi death camps in Poland in WWII, the reality, given the aircraft and bases available, is that no effective raid could have been conducted by the West, unless the Soviets gave landing and refueling rights, which they refused. Poland was too far from the bases being used by British and American bombers of the time.
In 1956, Americans were surprised when the Hungarians actually revolted against the Russians. For all the anti-Communist rhetoric, there was little practical action the US could take to avoid the killing and imprisonment of large numbers of Hungarians. The unfortunate events in Budapest, here and there, gave a reality check to various foreign policy activists: don't write a check for another nation, unless you are willing to spend the lives and treasure to cash it.
UN inaction certainly did not reduce the slaughter in Rwanda, although I believe that if the on-scene UN commander, MG Romeo Dallaire, had been given the authority to take specific noncombat action, the casualties were much less.
While I regret the casualties in Rwanda, the US was not involved in that situation. I regret the genocide in Cambodia, but, again, there was little the US could have done about it.
The US first invoked the NATO treaty on 9/11/2001, having taken a direct attack on its soil. Should there be a terrorist threat against another NATO country, or a country with which the US has a mutual defense treaty, the US is obliged to act.
The US has no such treaty with Israel, and the US is not the world's policeman. If the actions of the State of Israel cause it to suffer casualties, and Israel has no effective means of stopping the casualties, the responsibility of the United States is no more than to any country under attack. I'm sure Buddhists are being killed in Myanmar and Tibet, but it is not anti-Buddhist to say it is not the US responsibility.
Right now, I do not consider the actions of the State of Israel to be of net benefit to the United States. Such a statement is not based on religion or perceived ethnicity. It is based on geopolitics, and, if unwise Israeli actions cause security risks to the US, then the US may need to take actions that get the attention of the Israeli government, such as suspending military deliveries. Under no circumstances should the US provide Israel with weapons, such as the M26 rocket, which have been used in violation of the sales agreement, in violation of US doctrine for the use of those weapons, and in a manner that did not either stop Hizbollah or protect Lebanese citizens.
Now, here's an experiment. Try explaining why the M26 was used in that manner, and why there were no alternatives to an approximate 1600:1 destructive reply to a GRAD, much less a Qassam. Explain to me why the US response to such weapons in Iraq manages to be much more selective.
Try explaining why Israel went after the Lebanese electrical power system, and how that relates to the collective punishment clause of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Bombing Beirut International Airport to fine powder would have been appropriate, but that wasn't a significant part of the response.
Try explaining why Israel has stopped joint development of the Nautilus laser system and of the Israeli-modified Oerlikon Skyguard, both of which have been demonstrated to be able to shoot down a light artillery rocket.
You might even try to explain why Israel doesn't seem to be able to infiltrate snipers into Gaza, or use UAVs to detect and engage rockets.
Davai will probably say something silly and incoherent, but why don't you try a substantive response rather than flinging accusations of anti-semitism? Who knows, you might even want to discuss the correlation of nuclear weapons capabiity in the region.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 15, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mark,
On December 11, 2007 - 6:24pm mjrosenberg said:
I don't write to convince my fellow TMPers but to help reinforce them in their views
People who read MJ' posts so that MJ help reinforce them in their views, should skip my comments, and don't reply to them. It probably would be fair for Daniel and other people who might disagree with MJ to warn the readers that reading their comments will NOT reinforce them in their views, so that some readers can skip such dissident comments without reading.
December 15, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fellow commenters, please also take note of davai's Law when making your responses:
December 15, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is a troll here? Can you just ignore me?
Why do you make circus out of MJ thread more than MJ make it by his post?
December 15, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could (and often do) ignore you, davai, but today i'm choosing to make an example out of you:
davai's Law is so that we will never forget the viewpoint of who is davai, and why this person is so discredited and degenerate, an intellectual beggar at the table who is taking advantage of this forum by demanding attention to his niggardly contributions.
Just as with terrorists and cockroaches, you can't convert or kill 'em all, so I don't expect that this will change anything, however, I just want to put the lie to your faux character, dismiss with civility, and definitively prove what an assclown you really are.
In fact, I think that, like Howard's ending quote by Santayana, davai's Law would make an excellent sig--so that we will always be reminded of the words of the great and wise man, davai.
December 15, 2007 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Davai should be banned. Previously I recommended someone find him a job for his own good. However, my cries went unheard. Now, I believe we must ban him.
This is not because of his shrill language and troll nature, but because he degenerates every conversation into a redherring debate on anti-semitism.
Some may say we should just ignore him. But inevitably he ruins most threads by getting personal and changing the subject. Thus destroying the thing that brings me to TPM Cafe, the powerful, competitive exchange of ideas. I think most would agree this website brings about a more issue-centered dialog than the average place. Unfortunately Davai seeks to destroy this through baseless ad-hominem attacks that change the debate.
It is time we put Davai out to pasture, so to speak, so he go back to his normal routine of checking under his bed for anti-semitism.
December 15, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai,
This is the first and only time I will be responding to you. My comment was meant for other posters here not you. I do realize it may be hard for you to understand that the world cares little about your opinion--my post certainly paid yours little concern--however,it may be hard to realize this posting in your mother's basement (Yes, I too can engage in the ad hominem).
While I certainly do not come to this spot to have my opinions reinforced by MJ--I am to the left of him(insert Davai's accusation of anti-semitism)--I do think MJ's opinion is useful. However, to your concern about pointing to "any example (sic) of exchange of ideas in MJ's threads," I will respond.
First, I am not sure how MJ can exchange ideas in his posts. That would likely result in a cumbersome writing style of point, counterpoint. People "exchange ideas," hence the TPM community, not MJ. He writes a column based on his opinion.
Second, if by exchange of ideas you mean that he writes from a nuanced, independent method, I believe he does. For instance, while MJ is nominally of the left, he has taken many opinions that some of us disagree with. He was in support of the catastrophic invasion of Lebanon, believes that Jimmy Carter's rather tepid Peace not Apartheid is wrong, and is wed to the fictionalized narrative of Israel as innocent victim in '48 and '67 (negated by Ben Gurion, Dayan and others)while denying its ultimate territorial motive. This is fine. I disagree with him. On the other hand, despite his past working for AIPAC and other organizations, he is highly critical of settlements, American "friends of Israel," the occupation, and the fiscal isolation of Palestine. It requires guts to disparage past allies and positions, which MJ does regularly.
Finally, in regards to your concern that it is others, not you, that debase the debate, you are way of the mark (par the course). I am curious what accusing people of antisemitism for using the word "neocon" is? Is calling Dick Cheney a neocon anti-semetic? How about George Bush? Further, what is intellectually competitive about calling MJ a murderer and others anti-semetic when they are not? Likely it is because you have no original ideas and rely on rightwing talking points to comment.
If you read this whole post--which seems unlikely since you instantaneously respond to everything, offering useless, baseless rants--I suggest you do not respond. I have little need for your input and I will not be responding. And I will leave you to smear excrement around the bars of your play pen.
P.S. May a suggest a hobby? Maybe Knitting or running. Or reading, perhaps. Yes, think that may do you some good.
December 15, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess your experiment ended in a total failure.
There are bunch of morons who couldn't not help themselves.
December 15, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark:
If management thinks davai is ruining the discourse in these threads then it can and should take steps to remedy the situation.
But, then, seriously Mark, what would you do if you didn't have davai to kick around anymore? You exist in this venue for the sole purpose of taking shots at people like davai. Anyone can review your comments and reach the same conclusion. You and your alter ego Sean below have offerred nothing of substance to these discussions. Calling davai and Daniel and others trolls is not substance.
Bruce
December 18, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well M.J. this should be a normal thread long and full of vituperative comments about you and all of the other posters who share the desire for a two state solution. I look forward to reading this thread either later today or tomorrow. Keep up the good work.
December 15, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see here that MJ is rehashing all the old falshoods we have seen before in one posting.
(1) "No, we are not DIVIDING Jerusalem, we are SHARING it"...PLEASE, this is total nonsense. You claim that the Arabs of Jerusalem don't want the city divided. That is true, that is why most want it to remain under Israeli rule, because they know that putting the Palestinian Authority in charge of parts of Jerusalem means getting terrorist gunmen free reign, AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE ARAB RESIDENTS OF THE AREA. This is exactly what happened in Bethlehem when Israel pulled out and gunmen started firing on the Gilo neighborhood. The local residents of Beilehem didn't like it, but they are not about to argue with someone who is pointing an AK-47 in their face.
(2) You say "No one, I repeat no one, is contemplating physical division of the city". I have pointed out that the Left in Israel does not make this claim, they don't call it "sharing" the city, they call it "dividing the city", and dividing the city means returning to the mine fields, barbed wire and anti-sniper walls that were Jerusalem's lot before the Six-Day War.
(3) You say: "In any case, Palestinian Jerusalem will not be separated from Israeli Jerusalem. The tourist walking from the King David Hotel to the Western Wall will not know when he is leaving or entering areas under Israeli (or Palestinian) sovereignty."
This is totally preposterous. WHO THE HECK IS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF SECURITY IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS? A couple of weeks ago, three official Palestinian uniformed policemen murdered a Jewish motorist in a drive-by shooting. Do you really believe these people will protect the security of Israelis in Jerusalem? Are Israeli police in charge of the Jewish areas, and Palestinian police in the Arab areas, or will it be a joint police force? Where else in the world, in such a sensitive place is there such a cumbersome arrangement?
(4) MJ, you stated "Also, note,back in the day when I was a pro-Israel activist on campus, I did it out of love. Now the pro-Israel Right is paying kids a thousand bucks to stand up for Israel."
Since you are such an idealist, MJ, I suggest you give up your salary at the Israeli Policy Forum to serve as an example to the rest of us. In any event, although we here in Israel oppose this goverment's suicidal policies appreciate the help from the Jews in American who support our position on Jerusalem (which is the MAJORITY position of American Jews), it is we here who will make the major effort and we have plenty of young and old idealists who will do the job.
December 15, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Talmud, for instance, refers to Bar-Kokhba as "Ben-Kusiba", a derogatory term used to indicate that he was a false Messiah.
December 15, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not viewed in Jewish history as a "false messiah" but rather as a "failed messiah". Opinions about him are divided on him to this day. That is why I took that as my pen-name. The "Bar-Kochba controversy" was recently re-ignited in Israel (it comes up every so often) by a new book by Rabbi Dr Benny Lau who blasted him. Leftists like Yossi Sarid were ecstatic about the book. Lau obviously has a political agenda..he is using Bar-Kochba to attack the Jewish settlement movement in Judea/Samaria. But the analogy is wrong. The Jews of Judea/Samaria didn't initiate an uprising againt foreign occupation. The real parallel in modern times to Bar-Kochba is Ben-Gurion who, by declaring the state of Israel, led to a war with the Arab states. Of course, Lau and Sarid don't realize this comparison...they are Zionists and like Ben-Gurion, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, the Arabs oppose any Jewish state within any borders, just like the Romans of Bar-Kochba's time.
December 15, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to point out that the current municipal boundaries of Jerusalem where drawn up shortly after the Six-Day War by then General Rehavam Ze'evi. The assumption was that in the event of the removal of Israeli security control from areas of Judea/Samaria surrounding Jerusalem, it is necessary for Israeli to maintain control of the areas are vital for the protection of the main part of the city. That is why the Arab villages Haim Ramon is complaining about were put within the city's municipal boundaries. Of course, Haim Ramon's demagogic claim that "our forefather's didn't pray for Walajeh and Abu Dis" is nonsense...they prayed for all of Eretz Israel which is holy in Jewish tradition. One could add that he could add to his list the places where the Knesset, the Israeli Museum, the King David Hotel and most of the rest of western Jerusalem which were not within the boundaries of the biblical city.
Ramon and the Labor Party are also in favor of removing the most of the Old City and the surrounding City of David and Mount of Olives from Israeli control and putting them under some sort of ill-defined "international regime" which no one knows how it will work, and these areas were the parts of Jerusalem "our forefathers prayed for" even according to Haim Ramon (BTW-your comment that G Gordon Liddy who is helping us on Jerusalem is a "convicted Watergate criminal", well, your pal Ramon is a convicted sex offender.)
After the Six-Day War it was unthinkable for the entire Israeli political spectrum to divide the city. As late as 1999, both the Labor Party and MERETZ opposed it. What changed? First, the Israeli Left has become post-Zionist and "post-Jewish"--Jewish nationalism has become anathema to them, and giving away Judaism's holiest places is viewed as a positive good. You all have seen MJ's denounciation of Orthodox/religious Jews here and many in the Israeli Left agree with him. They view cutting off the Jewish people from the holy sites as a way to weaken the religious community.
Secondly, the Left, as a result of Oslo has seen that they have been able to get away with destroying the security of Israeli citizens...When the suicide bomber war began in earnest in 2000-2001, Mr Hawk Sharon kept saying that it wasn't possible to stop it, that our "friend" Mr Bush opposed taking action, etc. Finally, after the Pesach Seder Nite Massacre in 2002, Sharon was finally forced to take action, and Mr Bush had to keep silent. Today, the security of the citizens around the Gaza Strip has been destroyed due to the destruction of Gush Katif, and yet there is little public protest and the gov't keeps making idle threats to do something. These people who support dividing Jerusalem, apparently believe that the Israeli population will tolerate the Jewish parts of the city being turned into the insecure shooting gallery it was before 1967. They know dividing the city will bring this situation back and they think they can get away with this crime.
December 15, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Military control without a civilian presence is simply "military occupation" and is unviable in the long run. Jews have lived CONTINUOUSLY for over 2000 years in Gaza and Sharon committed a crime against the Jewish people in expelling the Jews from there.
December 15, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be pedantic about this, but I was unaware there were Jews in Gaza between 1948 and 1967.
Regardless, the argument about dismantling the settlements in Gaza was that the cost of maintaining a population of 8,000 Jews is a sea of 1.5 million Palestinians was not worth it, especially since few Israelis felt any emotional attachment to Gaza.
Also, your argument that "military control without a civilian presence is simple "military occupation" and is unviable in the long run is an interesting one. I have to ask why you think that is the case. Furthermore, under any conceivable arrangement that even you could endorse, there will be a need for Israel to have final say over security matters, whether it is control over airspace or control over borders. It would take 50 years of peace before Israel would relinquish these things. How is that different from the mere "military occupation" you deride?
December 16, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agee, Token 8000 people don't make any difference. I as well as majority American Jews and American people in general can understand simply "military occupation" in the long run as long as it's needed to protect Israeli cities from rocket attacks, but I can't defend military occupation for protection of 8000 settlers in Gaza.
December 16, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Jews of Gaza were either killed or run out at gunpoint in 1948 (many were also forced out as a result of Arab terror in 1936), so your "pedantic" point makes no sense.
How do you think the whole Zionist enterprise got started?....small, scattered settlements all over the country. If Gush Katif had been allowed to develop normally, there would have been tens of thousands of Jews there in a few years, and then more and more. Before the axe fell, most of the houses in the Gush were full and there was demand for more.
December 16, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Zionist enterprise got started, the small scattered settlements were not cheek-by-jowl with a teeming mass of more than a million radicalized Arabs.
I never understood the attachment of some to Gaza. Why did the settlements get started there in the first place? It's not attractive strategically, had no resources or other assets of any value, only had a marginal Jewish presence before Israel was established, was not that important historically and had the most radical, fanatic Arabs to contend with. Didn't Israel try to dump the place on the Egyptians soon after the Six-Day War anyway?
What was the point?
Every country has to make cost-benefit analyses and I have a hard time believing the benefits of establishing settlements in Gaza outweighed the costs of defending it. The early Zionist pioneers made those kinds of calculations all the time. Why are you unable to?
December 16, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should listen to yourself.
December 16, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid you are not up on the history of Zionism. Many existing, old-Yishuv (i.e. pre-Zionist) communities were right in the middle of existing towns with Arab populations such as Jerusalem, Haifa, Tiberias, Jaffa-Tel Aviv, GAZA, Safed, Hevron, Shechem (Nablus) and others. Many newer Zionist settlements were put in areas that had Arabs in the vicinity.
To the Jewish people, ERETZ ISRAEL is holy, and many non-religious people can understand that as well as the religious. That is why the Zionist movement rejected Britain's offer to settle in Kenya (called "the Uganda Plan") even though Herzl supported it. Gaza is 100% part of Eretz Israel and it has many fine qualities, although unfortunately we don't hear about them today. The Jewish community that existed there more or less continuously for the last 2000 years was one of the most prosperous in the country.
The largest synagogue-floor-mosaic from the Talmudic period is found in Gaza City. Settling the area was a high priority for the Zionist movement in the pre-state period.
Yitzhak Rabin and other non-religious people were the prime movers for settlement in Gaza in the 1970's.
December 18, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the sake of argument, let us assume that a people can establish historical occupancy in an area, going back centuries or millenia. Let us assume they, but not necessarily the world, considers the land holy to them. Let us assume that they have been driven from some of their traditional lands, although not in the recent past, and large portions of the population, at that time, was slaughtered.
When, therefore, can the Apache Nation return to their ancestral lands? While the exact rules vary with the tribe/nation, to return to the lands, one usually must be able to document that at least one grandparent or great-grandparent was a recognized member of the tribe. Germany and Ireland use the single-grandparent rule, even if, the grandparent were born in lands that are not part of the current nation of Germany.
There seems to be an exceptionalism at work here.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Britain (Balfour Declaration 1917), League of Nations (1922 Mandate for Palestine) and United Nations (1947 Palestine Partition Resolution) all accepted it, so you had better learn to live with it. Also, at least de jure, so did Sadat in Egypt, King Hussein in Jordan and even Yasser Arafat in his Oslo move (there is no mention of any settlement freeze or the such in the Oslo Agreements). I once rode in a convoy to the Netzarim settlement in the Gaza Strip escorted partly by Palestinian Police under Arafat's command.
December 18, 2007 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Thank you for WP pointers:
The monsters sent this young woman to die, so that in the future it would be hard for Palestinians to get a health care in Israel.
How can you negotiate with such monsters? Until Palestinians get rid of such monsters or at least denounce such monsters, there is no chance for peace.
December 15, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanielGree said:
WOW, I didn't know this about the Rosenberg threads. Tell me more.
"I will not be silent in the face of stupidity and dishonesty." heh heh heh.
December 15, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, Why do you need Daniel to tell you more.
YOu know that "Everything is Israel's fault and the Arabs and the Palestinians have no role in the situation" is the official party line of MJ and his followers and admirers. So why are you trolling here and asking stupid questions? If you have nothing to say, don't.
December 15, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have known John for a number of years and he is far from a troll. Your claim that he is saying nothing shows your lack of reading skills. Maybe he should have added sarcasm tags for you to see the sarcasm embedded in his post.
December 15, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kathy,
I usually ignore that character, however, if I'm ever tempted to post to him, I sing that old song to myself:
"Buckle down Winsocki, buckle down,
You can win Winsocki, if you knuckle down...."
and the urge to post passes, works every time.
December 15, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it useful to remind myself that a canard is sometimes just a duck. At that point, I need not duck the flow of images, but picture the noisy one in a Donald Duck sailor suit, squawking "AFLAAAC!"
Did I mention that I practiced for my Boy Scout silent movement test by sneaking up behind ducks, at the local pond, and goosing them?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 15, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
lulz
December 15, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
"AFLAAAC!"
You're selling Insurance now?
GROAN!
December 15, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's examine davai's latest disinformation nugget--that there is no support by Israelis for sharing Jerusalem. A quick Google search turns up plenty of support, including links such as this one:
PRINCIPLES FOR SHARING JERUSALEM
In the January 31, 2000 issue, Time Magazine reported that "a group of establishment figures in Israel has endorsed the idea of sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians. 'This is the real beginning of slaughtering of sacred cows,' said Shlomo Gazit, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. After meetings between Israeli and Arab academics, diplomats and retired military officers sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation and the University of Oklahoma, the participants agreed that West Jerusalem should serve as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. . .. .'There is ideology and reality, and we have to be realists,' said Joseph Ginat, an anthropologist at Haifa University who initiated the project."
Released January 23, 2000 to the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel and to the Office of the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority:
Signatories
Participants:
Dr. Mohammed Ali, Jordanian
Prof. Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian
Mr. Rateb M. Amro, Jordanian
Prof. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Egyptian
Dr. Taisir Amre, Palestinian
Mr. Abdullah T. Kanaan, Jordanian
(Amb.) Tahseen Basheer, Egyptian
Dr. Menachem Klein, Israeli
Prof. Dale Eickelman, American
Prof. Moshe Ma'oz, Israeli
Dr. Kahlil Elian, Jordanian
Mr. Rami Nasrallah, Palestinian
Dr. Baheildin Elibarchy, Egyptian
(Amb.) Edward Perkins, American
Prof. Abraham Friedman, Israeli
Dr. Hussein Ramzoun, Jordanian
(Gen.) Shlomo Gazit, Israeli
Dr. Yitzhak Reiter, Israeli
Prof. Joseph Ginat, Israeli
Prof. Shimon Shamir, Israeli
Dr. Motti Golani, Israeli
Prof. Shibley Telhami, American
Dr. Mohammed Jadallah, Palestinian
Mr. Khalil Tufakji, Palestinian
Prof. Mohanna Haddad, Jordanian
Prof. Ephraim Yaar, Israeli
December 15, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice, that there were few people dreaming about such thing in 2000. After horors of Second Intifada, how many of them still think this way?
What's the support of such ideas today in Israel?
December 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is the tolerance of the world community for Zionist Israel's flouting of international laws and its own agreements?
December 15, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't care
December 15, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haaretz published just today an article about the recent report by the Red Cross, a highly respected international NGO, outlining the humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Territories (Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem).
In general, there is much more awareness of the Palestinian side of the story of the conflict in Europe.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 15, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie,
Let me repeat:
It’s very unfortunately that bleeding heard liberals, like you never denounce senseless mindless, pointless campaign of Hamas and other terrorist/freedom fighters group directed to create humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Once you and your fellow bleeding heard liberals direct your fury where it belongs, on Hamas, they stop this mindless campaign of temper tantrum.
December 15, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the point: Under international law, collective punishment is NEVER acceptable. Therefore, Israel's actions are not acceptable. Full stop.
December 17, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that Japanese civilians flied to US for medical care during WW2.
I'm not sure that Israel has a duty to provide a medical care for residents of Gaza in Israel anyway, leave alone if goverment of Gaza use "sick" women for suicide terrorist acts.
BTW, Israel continiue to provie madical care for Palestinians in Gaza, however, rocket attacks on Israel and border crossing as well as additional measure that Israel has to take, make such treatment harder to get for Palestinians.
December 17, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You apparently haven't read the stories of the Palestinians who had died in Gaza because they could not leave to get medical care. Try using Google.
Your posts all contain what Wittgenstein criticized most: imprecision of language to create ambiguity. You try to give words multiple meanings so that you wiggle out of their consequences. Here is your routine: You react to an unpleasant fact by trying to minimize it's substance, as if that changes the unpleasant fact. For example, you claim that Palestinian land is not being expropriated for settlements (it is, if only to build access roads), then you concede that only a small portion is being taken. Then you concede that compensation is being paid, etc. (As if that justifies the taking.) If the Palestinians don't want to take the compensation, what is the alternative? They get nothing. I think Don Corleone, a fictional character, called this process "making him an offer he can't refuse."
Your point is to deny the fact, then admit a portion of it, and then deny its consequence. In the law, this is called pleading in the alternative. In rhetoric, it is called moving the goalposts.
Finally, when all else fails, you plead "tu quoque," i.e., the "you too" argument. This is the ultimate kindergarten argument and actually proves nothing. We all know that our wonderful country used to endorse slavery, killing off Native Americans, etc. Relevance?
December 19, 2007 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a One-Stater. That the price the Zionists pay for stealing the best farmland in the West Bank. It can be argued that longer the Peace Process is delayed by successive Israeli governments, the more they doom themselves. Notice how France was quite happy to fete the air plane bomber. The Arabs states have mountains of cash. It's time they used to change American policy forever.
December 17, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid Mr Mythbuster is creating myths. As I explained at length in a recent thread ALL of the Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria were built on empty lands, mostly on uninhabited hilltops. Most are in areas that have little Arab population in the vicinity. No valuable "farmland" has been taken.
In addition, Jews have been living throughout Judea/Samaria more or less continuously for 4000 years so we have as much right, if not more, to be there than do the Arabs.
December 17, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct about "farmland"
But I have a question, why do you need to live
on "uninhabited hilltops"?
I agree that Jews have a right to live throughout Judea/Samaria , however, Jews and Arabs who live throughout Judea/Samaria will have to EVENTUALLY have the same goverment and live in the same contry that would have to govern by Western democratic standards. There is no way around this.
December 17, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
See this is why I don't join the anti-Davai bandwagon. While we disagree, you do make distinctions. Others, unfortunately, do not.
My wife's relatives live in Israel (East Jerusalem) and some others in the West Bank. They are educated and want secular government. In fact, the ones in East Jerusalem work for Israeli companies and do not chant "Death to Israel" nightly.
The settlers are making it very hard for them to support a Two-State solution. By talking the "unihabited land"--i.e. olive groves, etc., the Settlements make a separate state non-viable. And without a viable state, what is the alternative: fusion.
December 17, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any prove that Israel takes "olive groves" from Palestinians and give them to settlers. I'm sure that very small amount of land was taken for the fence. I know you don't like it, but it's a different issue.
December 17, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The farmland is taken for the benefit of Israel. It is land that was not owned or occupied by Israelis. And small amount? That is a very relative term. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
December 17, 2007 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fence has nothing to do with the settlements. It was the Left that wanted the fence so they could dilineate what they hoped would become a border line that would be close to the Green Line (pre-67 cease-fire line), using the suicide bomber attacks as the justification, even though it doesn't really have to do with that. The Judea/Samaria Jews more-or-less oppose the fence.
December 18, 2007 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is what? The Apartheid Wall just puts a limit on Settler Expansionism. Hence, the Settlers don't like it.
December 18, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Del
December 15, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
After months of defending davai, I have now switched to the ban davai camp because of his refusal to heed the warnings of management. A poster who ignores multiple warnings is a troll and davai has amply demonstrated that he can't or won't change his MO. Davai continues to exhibit contempt for MJ, the TPMCafe community and Andrew Golis. In addition, he appears to be escalating his offensive behavior instead of "chilling" as requested.
To me, davai is the type of poster who literally becomes obsessed with a community and in this case, he has also become fixated on MJ to the point where he has morphed into a stalker.
Enough is enough. Off with 'is 'ed.
(If banned, I would fully expect davai zombies to emerge in the future; even using new ISPs in order to "participate". His pattern is a familiar one )
December 15, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, why do you have defend or offend me. I wrote few short comments. If you don't like my comments, ignore them, skip them, write something interesting yourself that people will comment on your comments, It's called competition in markepace of ideas.
December 15, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in this marketplace your comments are consistently given low ratings. Isn't the customer always right?
December 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was totally predictable. The expansion of the Har Homa settlement will scuttle whatever good came out of Annapolis. The only surprise is that the Israelis didn't wait 3 or so months to do so. They know that the US can do nothing to stop this. The lobby is too strong for our government to object. This is why the US government cannot broker an IP agreement.
Given that we are powerless to influence Israeli government policy and given that the West Bank expansion movement within Israel is so powerful I believe it is time for the US to simply back off. Acknowledge that their wars are not our wars, withdraw US funding for their military and occupation and realize that we do not have a dog in this fight. I think the American people will soon come to an agreement that the US no longer has to fight Israel's wars. They are very powerful. Let the warring ME tribes battle among themselves, our role should be over.
December 15, 2007 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 15, 2007 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess depending on your time line this is either good or bad news. In the short term it clamps down the Zionist occupation of the West Bank. In the long term, it utterly destroys the ability of Palestinians to build a state. Hence, it might be preferable to abandon that project and just aggitate for a One State Solution. I think the Settlements are the ultimate act of suicide for the Zionist Project.
December 17, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent article, M.J. I read the Ballabon article the other day and found it absolutely chilling. It's also important to note that many of the far-right extremists who are so against the sharing of the city are justifying the Har Homa settlement on the basis that Israel had annexed Jerusalem in 1967, and therefore it is part of Israel proper and not subject to Road Map requirements for a halt to settlements. They fail to note or mention that the annexation was illegal and not recognized anywhere outside of Israel itself.
It seems to me that it would be just in an ultimate settlement for the Palestinians to receive any real property and infrastructure developed after 1967 by Israel in the Occupied Territories (including those in East Jerusalem). If the Israelis are so opposed to a right of return for Palestinian refugees, this might be a bargain that could be made in return for the relinquishing of that right. After all, all those Palestinian refugees will need real homes someplace. My sense is that this is a lot further than you would go, but I wonder if you have ever heard of such a proposal.
Keep doing what you do, M.J. - it's important work, no matter if the far-right posters here disagree. Oh, and you probably should put quotes around "stand up for Israel" in your last paragraph, as those kids are only putting Israel's survival at risk by working against peace.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 15, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The few dissenters who show up to rebut the distortions and fantasies of the "peace" crowd here are hardly the "far right". It is a convenient way of changing the subject and avoiding engaging in real debate to call them that, but it is simply not the case. If you want to understand what it means to be far right with respect to Israel, I suggest you visit sites like littlegreenfootballs.com.
It is important to realize that "peace" skeptics include people with a very wide range of political views, ranging from middle-of-the-road American Jews like me, to secular Israelis who vote Labor to out-and-out right-wingers. It is simply false to say that anyone who doesn't buy MJ Rosenberg's crap is a "right-winger".
Most people who are skeptical of "peace" initiatives with the Arabs are not against a two-state solution in principle. Hardly anyone I know with this position doesn't feel some sympathy for the plight of innocent Palestinians, although my definition of "innocent" will certainly vary from others. Few are ideologically sympathetic to the settler enterprise. Almost no one wouldn't be happy if the Arabs decided to change course and give up their evil wish to destroy Israel.
People like me are forced to walk a rather fine line. On the one hand, I feel it is incumbent on Israelis and Jews in general to always be probing and experimenting on what possible ways peace can be fostered. We are also aware that simply maintaining the status quo is a risky stance. On this, we can agree with the left. On the other hand, it is equally crucial that we be clear-eyed about the situation. Many of us were full-throated supporters of the Oslo peace process who feel a profound sense of betrayal, both by the Arabs themselves as well as by the left-wing opinion makers who pushed ahead despite no evidence that it would lead to an actual peace. We will not be fooled again.
What does it mean to be clear-eyed about the situation? Primarily it means that while Israel may sign agreements with the Palestinian leadership, the chances of those agreements leading to real peace are zero. Second, it is understanding that while a portion of the Palestinians may be ready for peace with Israel, they are not the majority, not the ones controlling the agenda and they do not have a monopoly on force. It is simply a fact that any agreement signed by the Palestinian Authority now will not bind Hamas or the other radical groups in any way and the Authority does not have the power to impose its will, even if it wanted to.
I stress again, this is NOT a "far-right" position. It is about as mainstream as you can get. The only people who dissent from this position are those who (a) know this is true but have decided they don't care; (b) don't believe it because they are naive about the realities of the region or (c) refuse to believe it because it is inconvenient. That is, they have a vested interest in ignoring it.
The fact is that within the Jewish community specifically and among Americans in general, the views of the "peace" crowd are the ones that are considered marginal and out of the mainstream, not the skpetics. MJ and his acolytes here can persist in calling us skeptics "far-right", "neocon", "Likudnik" and the like, but that doesn't make it true.
December 16, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. posted a number of sources of far-right thought in Israel in his article, such as those who continue to support settlement expansion, the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, the ZOA, Christian Zionists, and specifically Ballabon. I tend to think that strong support for the positions of those sources by posters here also indicates far-right thought. It's always a little difficult in talking about the right among those with a strong interest in Israel, because as you note, there's a lot of diversity within the group, and there are people who have had a long history of supporting left-leaning causes who nonetheless, when it comes to the single issue of Israel, throw that leftwing history out the window and support the rightwing approach. (Daniel Greenbaum is one such poster here who comes to mind as someone who is a good liberal in every respect but Israel, which is why I would never put him in the same deserves-to-be-banned category as davai.)
There seems to be a common blindspot among those who take the far right approach - it may be understandable given the 20th century history of the Jews, but it forms a serious impediment to peace. I would describe the approach that has for decades said, "We want peace with the Palestinians, but just not now," or simply is oblivious to the Israeli part of the responsibility for the conflict, preferring to see it as entirely emanating from the Palestinian side, as right wing. Perhaps we should define anyone who might describe M.J.'s work as "crap" as rightwing.
Why is it that you believe that the chance for an agreement leading to peace is zero, Brad? Can you not envision a scenario in which a mutual peace agreement, release of prisoners, reduction in checkpoints and other harrassment, and halt to all settlement activity, combined with a real improvement in other Israeli-controlled elements of Palestinian lives, could lead those Palestinians who now support Hamas to reasses their position in favor of peace with Israel?
Perhaps you've made the mistake that many do - that is to see Hamas as monolithic in its beliefs. But that's not accurate. Although there surely are extremists within Hamas, a large portion of their support comes about because of their humanitarian activities, rather than their hard line against Israel. You seem to be unaware, or have forgotten, that of all Arab groups, the Palestinians have traditionally been the most secular. It's only the lack of peace that has given Hamas a foothold.
Why you would think that continuing the "no-partner" approach, which leads Israel further away from any true security is something I simply don't understand. Israel had better start thinking about negotiating a deal, because the longer it waits, the greater appeal of those more extreme Hamas elements. After all, when Israel creates ever more significant and draconian obstacles to peace, the extreme wing of Hamas is proved right in the eyes of many Palestinians.
Ahh, but I think the views of the Jewish community are changing, and certainly those of Americans in general are.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 16, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this the case? Don't your views overlap to a degree with those of extremists? As I said in my previous post, the skeptics are a very diverse lot, whose views coincide in some respects and diverge widely in others. Lumping us all together as the "far-right" makes as much sense as lumping together a Scandinavian Social Democrat with an unreconstructed Stalinist. Both may believe in strong unions, but does that mean they agree on everything else?
But I've said explicitly that a large portion of the skeptical position comes from people like me who supported the Oslo process. Surely we can't be accused of having rejected peace for decades. During the same period, people like me were furious at the settlers for complicating the peace process. It was only after the whole thing collapsed that we realized the process was a sham and that in fact the Palestinians had changed very little. Arafat was still going around preaching in Arabic how the peace process was just a steppingstone to the destruction of Israel.
Furthermore, I for one have NEVER been oblivious to Israeli mistakes. But it must be absolutely clear that while Israel has done things that might have made things worse, the root of the conflict has one origin and one origin only, and that is the inability of the Arabs, still, after 60 years, to reconcile themselves to Israel's presence. It's not the settlements, not the checkpoints and not the separation barrier that is fundamentally at issue. It's the acceptance. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.
Why can I not envision this? Because there is zero evidence that it will happen. In Gaza, there are no checkpoints, no more arrests of terrorists, no settlements. And yet support for Hamas is as strong as ever. Even if you subsribe to the view that Israel still controls a lot of their lives, wouldn't you expect there to be some voices saying that the evacuation of the Gaza settlements is an opportunity for the Palestinians to build a real state? Yet there were and are vanishingly few such voices.
What you seem to want is that Israel give in to every Palestinian demand and then basically hope for the best. No country should be expected to do that. The point of the Oslo process was that trust was to be built up slowly over time, so that as certain milestones were reached, more difficult issues could be tackled. It didn't work because the trust never materialized. Now you're saying that you just KNOW that if Israel gives up, the Palestinians will respond with peace. How can you be so sure? How can you, if you're the Israeli government, make such an extraordinarily reckless bet?
I am in favor of Israel working with the Palestinian leadership on experimenting with ways to cooperate to reduce violence and to come up with creative approaches to reducing the burden that Israel's security needs place on Palestinian civilians. Unlike some others who post here, I have no great sympathy for the settlers, and I think that many of them are lawless fanatics. I would favor withdrawing IDF protection from the more far-flung settlements. (If the settlers choose to form their own self-defense forces against the inevitable Palestinian attacks, that's their business.)
But I do not agree that Israel is better off conceding more now to head off the growth of Hamas. No deal is better than a bad deal and by bad deal I mean one that does not place Israel's security needs at the forefront (again, unlike some, I do not think a deal that requires Israel to relinquish land or give up parts of Jerusalem or whatever is, by definition, a bad deal if it is in Israel's long-term interests). Israel's security challenge may be more difficult if Hamas grows further, but it will still be better off retaining the security checkpoints and other measures and not signing a deal if there is no real movement on the part of Palestinians towards reconciliation.
I can understand the argument that says that reconciliation will never happen unless Israel starts to make life easier for the Palestinians. And that may be true of some of the Palestinian population. The problem is that there is strong evidence that while some may take Israeli softening as an olive branch towards peace, others take it was a sign of weakness and a time to press the advantage. And right now those people call the shots (literally). Until those people are eliminated or marginalized, Israel will never feel comfortable signing a deal and the peaceniks will just be tilting at windmills.
December 16, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie,
I look forward to the most direct answer you can give to Brad the Dad's question:
December 18, 2007 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I do not expect peace, but you do not have it now. There are some expensive military systems that can stop or reduce the harassing rocket fire, a term that I use in a technical sense; it is not annihilating.
In the natural world, when territorial predators contest ground, one usually dies. Now, in this situation, it is possible that the Palestinians may respond to things they continue especially egregious. They may not.
What is Israel's position if the radical elements among the Palestinians do not give up? While the IDF has been notably effective against conventional military forces, saying it "won" in Lebanon is perhaps more true than US claims it won the War of 1812, even though the British kept impressing American sailors after the treaty was signed. Impressment, of course, was the major casus belli.
In the War of 1812, the weapons were not as potent, or perhaps not as personal. While the White House was burned, residential areas were not made uninhabitable, there was no real concept of a civilian infrastructure such as electrical power, and there was no significant problem with unexploded ordnance.
The status quo isn't working.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The status quo is working.
December 18, 2007 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
No shit. What's your point?
December 18, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "no shit" means that the least worst of several choices have to be made:
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today's level of terrorism is very low due to the fence and clandestine means such as checkpoints, selective raids, target killings.
December 18, 2007 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, IDF terrorism is effective. I wish we could drain that swamp.
December 19, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, IDF terrorism is effective. I wish we could drain that swamp.
December 19, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, I still don't understand your point as it relates to my expressed anticipation of reading Wordie's answer to Brad the Dad's question.
December 18, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I was trying to answer:
My response is to say you can't be sure. If you try it, you face risks, although I don't see them as existential. If you don't try it, I don't see anything that will change the situation.
When I see notes saying "well, why are they wrecking greenhouses; they could be prosperous," I think of the riots of the sixties in the inner cities, and how they burned their own homes along with stores. It wasn't a rational response, but they are not thinking rationally.
The people in those riots, however, sometimes learned they could be part of a society, even though TV told them otherwise. In Gaza, they are being told, however, they can't be part of what they see as a prosperous society. They are being told they could build one, but I doubt they grasp that emotionally.
So, my attitude is that Israel is not going to get peace under the current conditions. It might or might not if it makes the first moves, but "if you're the Israeli government, make such an extraordinarily reckless bet?" you haven't got a lot to lose. Otherwise, one side is going to have to kill the other.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
the riots of the sixties in the inner cities were not organized and paid by Iran and Syria.
" you haven't got a lot to lose."
Yoi do a lot to lose. Although you don't see risks as existential, they are. Israel can't sustain Hisballa or Hamas rocket attacks few miles from airport, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem for extended period of time. Israel just doesn't have resources to do this even if technologies exists do provice defense.
December 18, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Qassams or GRADs, fired singly, is an existential threat to anything. Soviet design for the more powerful GRAD was to fire 720 at once, run like hell, get to a new firing point, reload, and fire. An individual Qassam has the power of a large grenade.
So, if Israel can't sustain the attack, it would seem that Israel has to kill everyone that could fire rockets, or give up.
As far as airports, Tan Son Nhut in Saigon was in rocket range for years. Airliners didn't land in the nice comfortable way they do in general commercial aviation. They made "assault landings", diving sharply and pulling up on a tight final, then flaring. That assumes the threat is artillery rockets rather than surface-to-air missiles (SAM), but Israel and other countries are actively advertising countermeasures systems against typical portable SAMs.
Please define what you consider to be the damage that would be existential. That would include such things as number and type of rockets fired per unit time, the use of SAMs, and the capabilities of the opposition to deliver more than harassing fire.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, you forget about size of central Israel; Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. We are talking about a strip of coast 10-60 miles. It's just undependable against any light weapon. Ecomomy of Israel would collapse. What international companies would be able to be buy insurance for their employees to do "assault landings"? Where Israel will get money to buy advance weapons if the economy collapse?
Or it can continue to keep military control of West Bank. Compare to alternatives it's much better option.
December 18, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am quite aware of the size of central Israel. You seem unaware of the lack of power of these weapons. A Qassam has the explosive power of a large hand grenade, with a lethal radius of 4-5 meters. The GRAD has a larger warhead, but was still designed to be an area-effect weapon, fired 720 at a time. These are not large aircraft bombs.
Assault landings were routine war risk coverage in Southeast Asia. The economies of Germany, Japan, and Britain suffered but did not collapse under much heavier bombing. Even in 1944, Nazi industrial productivity increased.
Israel is not being hit by anything as severe as WWII area bombing, nor precision bombing such as it used on the Lebanese electrical system. Incidentally, you claimed Israel attacked that system for the same reasons those of Germany and Japan were attacked. Since WWII bombing was not precise enough to attack something as small as a substation or transformer yard, the point is irrelevant.
Well, that depends. Is Israel still going to get a billion or so in grants from the US? A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money, as Senator Proxmire used to say.
I thought you were keeping military control of the West Bank, but were going to collapse? Sorry, you vastly overestimate the power of the weapons in use, or vastly underestimate the resistance of an economy to other than precision bombing.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel will continue to keep control of West Bank, Israel can protect itself.
December 18, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand and appreciate your point, Howard. And I agree that the status quo is unsustainable, but I believe you already knew that from at least some of our previous conversations.
December 18, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your courtesy. I am in the process of writing a long article on counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense (i.e., the US term for assisting a government), and existential threats sometimes need to be considered. In some cases, sadly, existence to the leadership is whether they can leave with a sufficiently large number of suitcases filled with dollars.
In the present context, however, I think of the WWII Strategic Bombing Surveys, and how anything short of total devastation failed to stop civilian life in Britain, Germany and Japan. While WWII population bombing was wildly inaccurate by the standards of modern precision guided munitions, the rockets being used against Israel have no more than WWII accuracy, with much less weight of explosive.
I think of South Vietnam, where rocket and mortar harassment was a reality, and the raids by insurgent sappers were often more devastating and carefully orchestrated than a suicide belt. It is unclear to me why so much emphasis is being put on the level of attack in Israel as existential.
Nevertheless, if it truly is that, without some boldness, I worry that in one direction or another, it will turn genocidal. From the insurgent standpoint, a small team of genetic engineers can develop what approximates a doomsday machine, which I consider far more frightening than anything Iran will be able to do, with nuclear weapons, in decades.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 18, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bottom line: How can you trust an Isreal that keeps expanding settlements or building new settlements? Answer: You can't.
Deceit is Israeli policy.
December 19, 2007 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's "two-state solution" marches on. Read this excerpt from the New York Times.
-December 16, 2007
Despite Isolation, Gazans Show Allegiance for Hamas
By STEVEN ERLANGER and TAGHREED EL-KHODARY
GAZA — About 200,000 Gazans rallied in support of Hamas on Saturday, the 20th anniversary of its founding.
It was a significant show of force from Hamas, which took over Gaza six months ago in a rapid rout of Fatah forces. The rally was intended to display popular “samoud,” or steadfastness, in the face of the diplomatic and economic isolation of Gaza, which Israel has declared a “hostile entity.” It was easily as large as one a month ago for its rival, the Fatah faction, on the anniversary of the death of Yasir Arafat, and estimates ranged up to 250,000 people.
Central Gaza City was filled with green flags and political slogans, and a large banner reading, “We will not recognize Israel,” adorned the back of the stage.
There were fiery speeches from Hamas notables, filled with the rhetoric of defiance toward Israel and the United States, coupled with calls for renewed national unity with the West Bank, run by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, his Fatah faction and an appointed prime minister, Salam Fayyad.
The Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniya, whose government was fired by Mr. Abbas, said: “Your message today is that the movement will not surrender in front of such an embargo. We will not break. The root of the movement is like a good tree in good soil.” He said that the suffering of Gaza’s 1.5 million people from that isolation “will not achieve its goal, which is our collapse.”
He said Hamas had succeeded in the first and second uprisings, or intifadas, against Israel, in forcing Israeli troops and settlers to withdraw from Gaza, in winning legislative elections in January 2006 and forming a government, “due to the will of the people, the will to resistance and steadfastness.” Hamas, he said, “has created a great transformation in the history of the Palestinian cause.”
Mr. Haniya also called for dialogue with Fatah and for renewed unity with other factions.
Mr. Abbas has said he will resume talks with Hamas if it gives up power in Gaza, returns security buildings to Fatah and apologizes, which Mr. Haniya and Hamas seem to have no intention of doing. Fatah and the independent government in Ramallah banned Hamas from having any similar demonstrations in the West Bank.
The Fatah rally for Mr. Arafat in the same Gaza City square on Nov. 12 was also huge, the largest show of support for Fatah since its defeat last June. It was marred by violence, with six people killed and 100 wounded in clashes with Hamas police and security officials.
The crowd featured many who are poor and devout, with many veiled women and masked men. Layali al-Kher, 27, said there was little money in her family, because restrictions on cement and raw materials have led to the closing of factories and a halt to construction. “But this siege was not imposed by Hamas but on them, so why should we criticize them?” she asked. “They’ve put Hamas in a bottle and they are trying to suffocate it. But they have achieved a lot: the streets are safe, the traffic is controlled. They have adapted quickly and have a strong will.”
----cut rest of article
December 15, 2007 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ has been telling us about the "Saudi Peace Plan" and how the Arab world is united in its desire to help the suffering Palestinians and give them a state. Read this excerpt from Barry Rubin in the Jerusalem Post and decide for yourself whether the Gulf States really have any intention of sticking their necks out for
I-P peace.
The first part of the article I cut and deals with the Gulf's States attitude towards Iran.
The Region: Survivor, Gulf style
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rubin , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 16, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's say you rule an Arab state in the Persian Gulf - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. How does the world look to you right now? Remember, of course, that what you think is not necessarily what you say.
Unfortunately, there are many Western observers who don't seem to understand this simple point. Publicly, Gulf leaders complain about the US and the alleged Israeli threat, flaunting their dedication to the Arab cause, passionate commitment to the Palestinians and beliefs in Muslim solidarity even toward neighboring Iran.
Privately, it is something altogether different.
-- cut part of article
AFTER ALL, can they really depend on the US? They complain publicly when the US is tough and privately fear its being soft. While mortified by the prospect of America attacking Iran, fright at it not doing so drives them toward appeasement.
In theory, they are all for a broad front to stop the spread of radical Islamism, yet rarely will they lift a finger to do much for that cause. And their own constant anti-American criticism and opposition to Western policies also undermine attempts to defend them. As a result, they give Washington little help, thus undermining any chance to build an anti-Iran coalition.
This also applies to Iraq, where publicly Gulf Arabs usually urge American withdrawal while privately viewing such an event with horror. Much of the violence in Iraq, of course, is paid for and implemented by Saudis. They carry out the anti-Iran struggle by helping usually pro-bin Ladin Sunnis kill supposedly pro-Teheran Shi'a. On this front, at least, they are battling Iran, but ironically in a way that also fights against the US.
And what of the Arab-Israeli conflict, supposedly their overwhelming preoccupation? In general, their approach - at least behind the scenes - is cynical. A Saudi official opening a secret conversation with an Israeli counterpart some years ago said something like, "The Palestinians must have a state. Jerusalem must be liberated. OK, that's out of the way so let's talk."
Of course, the Gulf Arab rulers know how passionately - partly due to their own propaganda - their masses would be infuriated at peace, and how greatly their political rivals would take advantage of any real moderation to brand them as traitors.
There is in Gulf ruling circles, especially - and perhaps primarily - in Saudi Arabia, genuine hatred, bizarre ideas and tremendous fear of Jews. Yet this is equaled by disinterest in really helping Palestinians.
During the 1990s, American officials went to the Gulf to beg, in vain, for financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. It is not that concern over the Arab-Israeli conflict is phony so much as this issue's priority is ridiculously exaggerated by observers from the standpoint of Gulf Arab regimes.
-----
[BarKochba's comment--the same is true of MJ and those who think like him when he states, like he did recently that "Israel is a pariah state" which it is only in his mind and those of countries like Syria and other Arabs, whereas Latin American states just signed a free-trade agreement with Israel-do they have one with Burma and North Korea? Anyway-back to Rubin ]
-------
IN A REAL sense, the attitude toward the conflict is to tell the West: It's your problem, not our problem. The Saudis might show up at the Madrid conference in 1991 or the Annapolis meeting in 2007 but that's about the extent of their effort. Or at most they will simply give the Palestinians and Syrians veto power, saying that when those two decide the conflict is over the Arab states will accept that decision.
As in other cases, the Gulf Arabs want the US to make problems go away with no risk or sacrifice on their part. They then blame the West for not doing so, a campaign that often finds lots of people in that region foolish enough to believe this propaganda.
What most Gulf Arabs want, though, is neither jihad nor an Islamist empire but simply security for themselves. By cheering on and often subsidizing jihad - at least outside their own countries - they hope to buy themselves immunity from the radicals‚ violence and revolutionary instability. They seek Western protection and practice appeasement simultaneously as parts of a single coherent policy. The goal is material well-being for themselves and peace at home.
Gulf Arab regimes applauded and subsidized the radical Nasserists and Ba'athists for decades convinced that the West they maligned would save them whenever needed. They were proved right. In the 1980s, the US led a coalition to stave off Iran and convoy their oil tankers; in 1991, an American-organized alliance drove Iraq out of Kuwait. History, they hope, will repeat itself.
The problem with this approach is that their policy denies peace, progress and stability for others; in fact, it often makes bloodshed and conflict inevitable in large parts of the Middle East. And, irony of ironies, the same strategy they are pursuing might end by blowing up their own houses.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center (http://gloria.idc.ac.il) at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs. His latest book is The Truth About Syria.
December 16, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 16, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ sez:
"Ballabon has only contempt for that government."
So Jeffrey Ballabon gives advice to a questioner asking how he can help with the Jerusalem problem:
"If you give money to PACs in the U.S., start making it conditional - demand that they commit to only give money to elected officials who support a united Jewish Jerusalem. It's your money, why give it to politicians who are willing to create a Palestinian capital in a divided Jerusalem? And if your PACs won't make the demand in the clearest, most unequivocal way, then they are just sending the message to the politicians that you don't care about the issue or you are unsophisticated, because you'll keep sending them money no matter what they do.
We will be launching the Jerusalem Covenant, a signed commitment to keep Jerusalem intact, safe and united under Jewish sovereignty. We will ask elected officials and candidates to sign the covenant and we will ask "pro-Israel" organizations and PACs, as well.
We will publicize the list of those who have taken the Jerusalem Covenant. Insist that you will only support candidates and organizations that are willing to go on record by signing the covenant.
And, of course, pray. Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935078.html
I'm looking forward to list of names of American politicians who have "taken a covenant" opposing the will of the elected government of a fellow democracy they love to luv.
Bring it on.
December 16, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a succinct column from Ha'aretz (!) by a fellow I happen to be an acquaintaince of (he is NOT Orthodox/religious, like I am BTW) explaining that since the Arabs will not agree to a peace agreement on any terms and "territories for peace" has been a disaster for both Jews and Arabs it is necessary to find a new way forward to a modus vivendi. This, of course, must can only be done by not compromising Jewish historic rights within Judea/Samaria.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935115.html
December 17, 2007 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL at this pearl of wisdom: "Here is a succinct column from Ha'aretz (!) by a fellow I happen to be an acquaintaince of (he is NOT Orthodox/religious, like I am BTW) explaining that since the Arabs will not agree to a peace agreement on any terms and "territories for peace" has been a disaster for both Jews and Arabs it is necessary to find a new way forward to a modus vivendi."
Oh, yes the "Arabs" need a new modus vivendi...like a permanent Zionist military occupation?
This is such wonderful 19th Century Thinking. Should we call it Jewish Man's Burden?
December 17, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what would be the new way? One state?
One state dreamers read the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17cohen.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
about Belgium.
December 17, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You read extremists like Brad,Daniel,Davai etc and you almost forget who are the weak, powerless victims in this conflict and who are the occupiers.
Who is killing who? Blockading who? Then you read the POST story MJ cites and you remember.
If Brad, Daniel and the other neocons were around in, say, 1956, they would have screamed at the evil Hungarians for attacking Russian soldiers. I can think of better examples but I'm too polite.The Palestinians are the victims,boys.The 4th strongest military power in the world which does whatever it wants to whoever it wants to is the victimizer.That is why young Jews like myself have (according to that new AJC poll) lost interest in and sympathy for Israel.That is why you have to pay kids to support Israel on campus.
December 17, 2007 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking about evil Hungarians for attacking Russian soldiers.
I'm talking about the fact that a 21-year-old Palestinian woman passing through Erez for medical care at Soroka hospital in southern Israel was discovered smuggling a 20-pound bomb, which she unsuccessfully attempted to detonate.
The mosters who sent her had simple goal to make sure that it will be harder in the future for real sick Palestinians to get medical care in Israel.
I guess, you support such monsters. What can I say.
December 17, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What can you say, when your side has monsters of its own:
December 17, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no way to know if what you pointed to is true or not. Assuming that this is true, there is no question that the Israeli soldier you are talking about is a monster. However, there is no question who are the bigger monsters.
The mosters who sent a young woman had simple goal to make sure that it will be harder in the future for real sick Palestinians to get medical care in Israel are screwing OWN people for nothing.
December 17, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a question of who the bigger monsters are. IDF state-sponsored terrorism is utterly evil.
December 18, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously fraudulent report.
December 18, 2007 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar:
I couldn't use the link that leftahead provided with this gruesome story, but note that the initials at the end are JDL, which I think are for our own contributor Jdledell. JD can confirm this I think, but the story recounted in the comment from leftahead is remarkably similar to a first-hand account given by jdledell that sent chills up my spine when I first read it. I have to confess that I don't recall JD's account referring to the killing of the Palestinian in cold-blood, but all other components of the story seem to conform to the first-hand account of an incident JD shared with us earlier this year.
Bruce
P.S. I found the link to jdledell's riveting post that leftahead's comment reminded me of. I'm having trouble with the link but it's JD's post (not comment)from January 31, 2007. Here's what JD wrote in part:
December 18, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously believe the IDF would let something like that go? The army high command are all vetted Leftists, chosen for political reliability. An officer I know personally was thrown out of the IDF by General Stern because he made comments critical of Reform Judaism to a group of soldiers. An officer commanding a roadblock where he pushed some Leftist demonstrators was punished, but they would ignore something like that? Come on! I am surprised that you would fall such nonsense.
December 18, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar:
By no means did I intend to disparage the fine boys and girls serving in the IDF in the aggregate. I also believe, as I am sure you do, that individuals of all races and nationalities are capable of despicable acts. Having said that, I would be surprised if the account provided by leftahead is accurate. More specifically, I do not believe the account to the extent that it is alleged that an American at a checkpoint witnessed the murder of a Palestinian in cold-blood and reported what he saw to authorities without results. I don't believe that at all.
I would be less surprised if jdledell's account from January 31 is accurate. Of course, the two accounts are remarkably similar, and again the initials that follow leftahead's story are "JDL". That's what drew me to post what I did.
Bruce
December 18, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak to the specific incident, but the IDF sees itself, I believe, as self-regulating. There may have been reasons for apparently unwise actions they took in Lebanon, but there is no transparency and no independent review.
When I say independent review, I don't mean of things that legitimately need protection. Usually, however, the survivors of an attack know they were hit and probably by what. For example, the US has failed a transparency test in repeated charges that they have been attacked in Iraq by "explosively formed projectiles", and accuse Iran of providing the technology.
Unfortunately, there are roughly three generations of such technology, the first going back to the turn of the 20th century, the next mid-20th, and the last quite recent. Given the ground rules of US briefings, there is no way to tell which generation is under discussion.
In like manner, there is a lack of transparency about targeting and weapons choice decisions in Lebanon. The surviving Hizbollah fighters know, generally, what hit them. There is commercial satellite imagery of some of the damage. Since the weapons and sensors used were almost exclusively US, they aren't going to work differently in IDF hands, so inferences can be drawn. I believe some of the weapons use ranged from questionable to criminal, but the IDF won't reveal any of its rationale. Perhaps they had one, but their culture of secrecy is working against them.
Given that culture, yes, the IDF might very well let something like that go. There have been coverups in the US military that only became apparent from whistle-blowers or media with the troops. In general, I suspect US and Israeli forces are professional, but I don't believe either should judge themselves in all cases.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 18, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply |