Delusions, cont'd
"Hamas legislators won a democratic majority in elections four years ago."--Ethan Bronner, NYT online, Jan. 3.
"Eighteen months ago, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in a coup."--George W. Bush, radio address, Jan. 3.
I was just saying to a friend that the White House seemed vacant. But in truth, it remains much worse than vacant. The long national nightmare, which is far more than a national nightmare, has 18 days left to run, and Israel is taking advantage by striding into Gaza while the delusional American president is a cynic-in-chief flashing the green light. The long, abysmal, wretched Bush years are ending not with a bang but the sort of thump, thump, thump you used to hear when a phonograph needle got stuck.
And while Israel seems to have veered into attempting to uproot delusional Hamas from its position as the government of Gaza--leaving Bronner, for one, in doubt that they have any idea, or care, who would run Gaza without them--the government of the United States is cheerleading its way onward to "seek[ing] an enduring peace," in Bush's words, via an onslaught of Old Testament proportions. All the berserkers in charge no doubt believe that the desert they are making is deserving of the name "peace"--once they're done with the crucial business of Holy War.
The phantasmagorical quality of Bush's grasp of reality is matched by Hamas' belief that it could go on firing rockets into Israel with impunity, which in turn is matched by the phantasmagorical quality of the Israeli leadership's--all the parties'--belief that raw force will settle anything.
I am not saying that there is a nifty kumbaya solution for Israel and the Palestinians. I am not saying that the rockets into Israel are tolerable. But I see no hope for the Middle East unless Obama takes a deep breath and (with Europe) forces a settlement that ends the occupation of the West Bank, divides political authority along lines both sides can agree on, enforces international boundaries, and ceases to treat Gaza, riddled with Hamas rocket launch sites as it is, as a ghetto that it is legitimate to starve.
Maybe this is the challenge (ala JFK with Cuban missiles) that has been predicted for Obama.
Either he
(a) continues Bush's policy of do nothing but rubberstamp the Israelis -which seems an excellent way of squandering the positive feelings towards him internationally that have been the diametrical opposite of the world's disappointment and disgust at GW Bush
OR
(b) he forces the "right to existence" of a Palestinian state down the throats of the Israeli hypocrites -which will lead to his being blamed for the inevitable future misery that will result from such a state being proclaimed
OR
(c) he devises a massive smoke and mirrors stalling operation so as to simultaneously avoid both (a) and (b) -which will drain considerable energy and attention away from at least a half dozen other crises that he is expected to focus on and help solve.
Americans who did not vote to put Sarah Palin in the White House had better hope that Obama can find a way out of this box, and fairly soon after taking office.
January 3, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has already failed the first test miserably. He had an opportunity to help create momentum toward an early cease fire, and possibly prevent an Israeli ground invasion, and tremendous loss of life and destruction of property. He is a star on the world stage, and his words command tremendous attention and carry a great deal of influence. But he chose to stay silent, stay aloof and stay the course. With his silence, he has effectively green-lighted the Israeli campaign. He also looks like a thumb-sucking dork.
There is an old saying in business that to make money one must spend money. The same is true with political capital. By sitting on his political capital in an ultra-timid posture, and refusing to take any risk in spending it, Obama has just squandered an immense amount of it. The expressions of dismay and incredulity are already rolling in from the Arab world. Who has been advising Obama during this fiasco? Not only has he looked out-of-touch; but by refusing to take any position at all he has looked weak and cowardly.
Just about every politically alert and active individual in the world has an opinion, and yet Obama has none?
January 3, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'Arab world' or at least the Arab rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait et al can go suck their thumbs. The Arab governments have a long history of repressing their own people, doing nothing to solve the regions problems, and counting on Israel to repress the militant Arabs in the territories.
I got news, the problem is 50 years in the making. Its not going to be solved by anyone anytime soon. Including Obama.
Unless and until the big boys of the Middle East stop tallying their arms packages from the US and/or counting their petro-dollars while carousing in the casinos of Monte Carlo only Gush Shalom will be there putting their lives on the line to protect the rights of Palestinians.
January 3, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is against the law for Obama to presume to act on US foreign policy before taking office as President. His choices are extremely limited right now. His only acceptable choices at this time are to be supportive of the President, or to say nothing.
The time to judge Obama is after he takes over as President. I will be one of those who makes such judgments. But, expecting him to break the law by trying to run our foreign policy now is a bit much.
January 3, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama is permitted to free his opinion in a public forum just like any of the rest of us can.
January 3, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ideally that is correct, but realistically it isn't. Obama has the two choices I said he has.
January 3, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The skewering of Barack for this is gratuitous and uncomprehending. Better he work to do something he should be able to accomplish with a call or two -- ending the Blago circus with the confirmation of Burris. Think that is dumb? Watch how this plays out if there is no swift end to this matter, for which I blame Fitzgerald and all others for gross ineptitude.
January 4, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#Reichstag_fire_and_the_March_elections
On the morning of 30 January 1933, in Hindenburg's office, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor during what some observers later described as a brief and simple ceremony. His first speech as Chancellor took place on February 10. The Nazis' seizure of power subsequently became known as the Machtergreifung. Hitler established the Reichssicherheitsdienst as his personal bodyguards.
Reichstag fire and the March elections
Having become Chancellor, Hitler foiled all attempts by his opponents to gain a majority in parliament. Because no single party could gain a majority, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag again. Elections were scheduled for early March, but on 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire.[50] Since a Dutch independent communist was found in the building, the fire was blamed on a communist plot. The government reacted with the Reichstag Fire Decree of 28 February which suspended basic rights, including habeas corpus. Under the provisions of this decree, the German Communist Party (KPD) and other groups were suppressed, and Communist functionaries and deputies were arrested, put to flight, or murdered.
Campaigning continued, with the Nazis making use of paramilitary violence, anti-communist hysteria, and the government's resources for propaganda. On election day, 6 March, the NSDAP increased its result to 43.9% of the vote, remaining the largest party, but its victory was marred by its failure to secure an absolute majority, necessitating maintaining a coalition with the DNVP
January 3, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
there's no need to "force" a Palestinian state "down the throats" of the horrible Zionists, PTroub: Israel has no problem with the concept of a Palestinian state. the Islamists, on the other hand, have a MAJOR problem with the concept of a Jewish state, and that's what people like you don't seem to get.
have you read Hamas' charter? I read it last nite; it's easily accessible online. these terrorists are very very clear about what they are fighting for: the destruction of the "infidels." and guess what, that means us as well as Israel.
someone on another tpm thread said that "Israel is trouble" and so we shouldn't support it. let us hope that we don't stop supporting allies because they are too much trouble, and try to do the right thing instead.
which in this case means standing up to Hamas and its Iranian overlords.
January 3, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has no problem with the concept of a Palestinian state? Have you told that to the Israelis? They would get quite a charge out of the joke.
January 3, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is an ally in what respect? How does Israel benefit me? What's in it for me to support Israel? If I'm to risk the wrath of some hundreds of millions of Arabs and billions of Muslims, shouldn't I be getting something out of this deal? I can't figure out what it is.
January 3, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read the Likud platform?
Quoted from the Knesset website:
"Declaration of a State
A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.
Settlements
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
The Partition of the Negev
Israel rejects out of hand ideas raised by Labor Party leaders concerning the relinquishment of parts of the Negev to the Palestinians. The practical meaning of this plan is that the "Green Line" should no longer be viewed as a "Red Line", which draws us closer to the partition plan of 1947 as it opens the door to the principle that the fate of the Galilee, the Triangle and additional areas within Israel is negotiable. The Likud asserts that such proposals by the Labor Party leadership may literally cause the dismemberment of the State of Israel. "
January 3, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see little relevance, Gretz, in getting all excited about an AIPAC or AIPAC-like translation of a supposed Hamas "charter" with a passage about destruction of infidels. There is in fact no threat to America from rockets from Gaza that hit targets in south Israel one in a hundred times, and kill fewer numbers of Israeli adults in toto than Palestinian children are killed in one bombing of one house by the IDF.
Israel has "no problem with the concept of a Palestinian state"?! Go google Wikipedia and Goebbels and "big lie" and then tell me you why you want to believe that example thereof, but not believe that there was an international Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy to turn the world into a matzo ball in 1938.
Israel in fact has had "no problem" with a Palestinian state, since the murder of Rabin in 1995, provided there are zero attacks of violence committed from the territories of that would-be state for an indefinite period during which intense world AND US pressure is applied Israel to accept that state. If that impossible standard had been applied to Israel itself from 1947 on, there would be no Israel today. Try the dictionary for "hypocrisy" for further details.
Israel WAS a valuable ally of the USA once. But that was long ago, when it was a country run by brave, honest, and essentially civilized people. Under Ariel Sharon and his successors, Israel has done nothing useful for America. Just because our president and Congress think they should be door mats for whatever idiocies or atrocities suit the particular political flavor of the month in the Israeli government does not mean American citizens of intelligence and objectivity need be similarly craven and foolish.
BOTH sides are at fault in the Gaza conflict, and it is time to stop the incessant nonsense from GW Bush and other lameduck failures that pretends otherwise.
January 3, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It lies in the transformation of Hamas from a terrorist, theologically warped operation to a less lethal combination of theology and politics and in the evolution of Israel from its own god on our side undercurrent to a willingness to bend to an acceptance of this tranformative necessity.
January 4, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
" Hamas' belief that it could go on firing rockets into Israel with impunity"
Are you lying? Or is this some sort of pathology?
I have to assume you know who Uri Avnery is.
"As a matter of fact, the cease-fire did not collapse, because there was no real cease-fire to start with. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water.
Those who decided to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – knew that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions.
That is the main thing. Then there came the small provocations which were designed to get Hamas to react. After several months, in which hardly any Qassam rockets were launched, an army unit was sent into the Strip “in order to destroy a tunnel that came close to the border fence”. From a purely military point of view, it would have made more sense to lay an ambush on our side of the fence. But the aim was to find a pretext for the termination of the cease-fire, in a way that made it plausible to put the blame on the Palestinians. And indeed, after several such small actions, in which Hamas fighters were killed, Hamas retaliated with a massive launch of rockets, and – lo and behold – the cease-fire was at an end. Everybody blamed Hamas.
What was the aim? Tzipi Livni announced it openly: to liquidate Hamas rule in Gaza. The Qassams served only as a pretext.
Liquidate Hamas rule? That sounds like a chapter out of “The March of Folly”. After all, it is no secret that it was the Israeli government which set up Hamas to start with. When I once asked a former Shin-Bet chief, Yaakov Peri, about it, he answered enigmatically: “We did not create it, but we did not hinder its creation.”
For years, the occupation authorities favoured the Islamic movement in the occupied territories. All other political activities were rigorously suppressed, but their activities in the mosques were permitted. The calculation was simple and naive: at the time, the Palestine Liberation Organization was considered the main enemy, Yasser Arafat was the current Satan. The Islamic movement was preaching against the PLO and Arafat, and was therefore viewed as an ally."
You sound like you'd defend the behavior of the soldiers outside the Warsaw Ghetto.
January 3, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza is Israel.
Open the gates to the prison. Let 1.5 Million people have their freedom. They do not have to earn it. They owe you and Israel nothing!
January 3, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza is Egypt.
January 3, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to play that game?
I'll call your bluff.
It doesn't matter if Gaza is Egypt, the Palestinians are Israelis.
Treat them as such or go to hell, with the Nazis.
Is that what you want? Is that what you want history to call you?
January 4, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That is why Gaza exists: because the Palestinians who lived in Ashkelon and the fields around it – Askalaan in Arabic – were dispossessed from their lands in 1948 when Israel was created and ended up on the beaches of Gaza. They – or their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren – are among the one and a half million Palestinian refugees crammed into the cesspool of Gaza, 80 per cent of whose families once lived in what is now Israel. This, historically, is the real story: most of the people of Gaza don’t come from Gaza."
Don't play games with me, jackass. I'm in no mood.
January 4, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greatness. That's what is lacking in nation states. Maybe it's impossible. That doesn't mean we cannot try harder or again.
I think you're wrong about "with impunity" about Hamas' belief. There's no reason to believe that; some argue that Hamas does it to generate friction and to continue the fight as impotent as it may be militarily or terroristic morally, even welcoming abusive responses by Israel as proof of the situation.
Similarly there's no reason to believe that no factions in Israel find Hamas useful.
January 3, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the problem isn't as hopeless as it looks. The Bush administration has done zip over the last eight years to bring peace to that area. It is not that the solutions have failed. It is rather than the solutions haven't been tried. I don't think an economically viable Palestinian state which is basically the answer is an impossibility. The problem has been lack of will rather than an unsolvable conundrum. At least I hope the problem isn't as hopeless as it looks.
January 4, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Obama or anyone or any country is going to resolve this unless it is first decided to isolate religion from the political. Religion is not a basis upon which to seek common ground to resolve issues. This is why the region has been torn with strife for so long and will continue along its path of self-inflicted destruction. We do the same things, to a lesser degree, in the U.S. which resolve to divisions that are unreconcilable. How long will it take before we learn this? We have a constitution which recognizes this, the principles of which have been increasingly ignored over the course of our history. All we have to show for it is disagreement and illogical decision making that has harmed ourselves and others.
January 4, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel has to do what is best to stop [the attacks]," said the conference's incoming chairman, Chicago attorney Alan Solow. "It's our job to get the story about what's happening here out to the world."
Solow said the close brush with a Hamas rocket wasn't his first experience of terrorism. "I was on Rehov Ben-Yehuda Street [in central Jerusalem] when Sbarro was blown up in August 2001 [on nearby King George Street]. It's a frightening experience, but I have stronger feelings for the people of Israel who live with this. I'm only here for a short visit."
"I've been in Sderot many times, but this is the first time I've seen a rocket attack firsthand," said Ron Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress. "I've never experienced this. I can understand the fear, emotion, anxiety when something like this happens to you. If I was living here with my children, I would be extraordinarily nervous."
The Jewish leaders, including former conference chairman James Tisch, said the vast majority of the American Jewish community supported Israel's operations against Hamas.
"Even among the dovish groups there is widespread understanding for Israel's action," said Hoenlein.
Asked about the influence of far-left groups such as J Street and the Israel Policy Forum who have called on Israel to stop its operations, he dismissed them as "very marginal and not representative" of American Jewish opinion, noting that the dovish president of the Union for Reform Judaism himself castigated J Street's call for an end to the operation. "
Jerusalem Post 1/4/09
Listen up,all of you Israel-haters: you don't speak for American Jews. We do, and we'll do every single thing the law allows to stop you from hijacking the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration. Now fuck off.
January 4, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Sageemetchai and at least one other person (unless sageemetchai is accustomed to using the royal "we" -- something that wouldn't surprise me overmuch) speaks for American Jews! Who knew?
Earth to sageemetchai: there are plenty of American Jews -- and Israeli Jews -- that you don't speak for, no matter how much you would like to fantasize otherwise. Starting, perhaps, with the 500 Sderot residents who just signed a petition to the GOI calling on it to call off its attacks. Or with my friend who just spent (Gregorian) New Year's in bomb shelters in Be'er Sheva' who is now back in the US and just emailed me asking for ideas on retooling herself as a peace activist (her words).
So neither you, nor some unelected and infamously right-leaning members of some self-styled Conference of Presidence of Major Jewish Organizations, can claim, with any shred of legitimacy whatsoever, to speak for American Jews. Neither can Yoffie, for similar reasons. And for you to accept as self-evident truth the self-evidently self-serving description of so-called "far-left" groups like J Street as "very marginal and not representative" shows just how far removed from reality you are.
January 6, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink