On day 10 of the Gaza crisis I would like to weigh in with some thoughts on (1) what needs to happen next and what a more rational, more thoughtful pro-Israel position might look like, (2) on this human tragedy that is unfolding and how to create incentives to sustain a future ceasefire (3) on the bigger picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and some of the nonsense propaganda on "what would you expect America to do under these circumstances," (4) how this is an American problem too in an already dangerously destabilized region that so impacts American security and finally (5) how congress needs to give political space to the incoming Obama administration to get to work on a very challenging Middle East, and not to box Obama in.
1. WHAT NEXT AND WHAT'S PRO-ISRAEL: There is a heated debate within the
pro-Israel community regarding the Gaza crisis, and I am very much in agreement
with the position of J Street, (and others such as APN, Brit Tzedek, and IPF) representing I think a
mainstream, responsible line. Here, for me, is a key point - US political
posturing should not deny Israel
or the Palestinians an exit strategy.
Israel's
leaders are for now rejecting a ceasefire. That is to be expected.
Of course the Israeli leadership has to sound tough and uncompromising in their
positions, that's part of the dynamic of who has a winning narrative and is of
course part of the domestic politics (especially with elections coming up on
February 10th). This should not be confused with a cold look
at the respective interests at play - and for Israel
getting bogged down in Gaza
is a distinctly bad idea.
The way this is set up politically means that Israel has to have a ceasefire
imposed on it - this seems to be what Defense minister Barak is looking for and
he favored the French proposal for a truce last week even before the ground
invasion began. The speculation among Israeli commentators is that
an international demand for a ceasefire is pretty much the only exit strategy Israel has up its sleeve, even suggesting that Israel
may intentionally exacerbate a humanitarian crisis in order to force the
international community to act (that was the expert analysis on Israeli channel
10 TV last night). Things are made even more complicated by the fact two
of the ministers leading the country are competing in the elections next month
- MoD Barak and FM Livni. So it's not just Israel that needs a winning
narrative - each minister needs his/her own particular winning narrative.
So an outside push is a prerequisite for ending this.
In this respect it is reminiscent of the dynamic in Lebanon in 2006 where it took 33
days to get a U.N. Security Council Resolution (1701) and an end to violence.
This time on day 10, things may, in some short-term respects, look good for Israel
but this is unlikely to be the case by day 33. An America that again sits on the sidelines and
does not help work towards an urgent ceasefire is doing Israel no favors.
So what needs to happen next? The elements for a ceasefire are known -
ending the rocket strikes, violence and military incursions in a sustainable
way, ending the blockade on Gaza, preventing new
arms from entering Gaza
and international monitoring for these arrangements/border crossings -- now
they need to be stitched together. For that to work, Hamas
needs to be a party to the ceasefire arrangements. The alternatives -
ongoing Israeli occupation, Israel
handing control to the PA or international/Arab forces are either highly
unrealistic or highly undesirable and dangerous. However, if Israel does get tempted to go for regime change
and removing Hamas then these become the only options that are left, and Gaza will descend into the kind of lawless chaos which is
a gift to al-Qaeda style Salafists and will create a Somalia on its
doorstep.
2. THE HUMAN TRAGEDY: There is a dire humanitarian situation unfolding
here - irrespective of one's views on Israel or Hamas, this needs to be
addressed. Not even the bare minimum of supplies are able to enter Gaza. In addition to
the over 500 deaths, one quarter of whom were women and children and many more
civilians including police, hospitals are running on emergency power, water and
sewage systems are collapsing and basic necessities are unavailable (see the UN
OCHA report and ICRC for more
information).
And in this respect Gaza is not Southern
Lebanon, there is no hinterland for the civilian population to escape to as
there was with Lebanon.
Gazan borders with Egypt and
Israel
are totally blocked and that only leaves the sea - where there is an Israeli
naval blockade.
The blockade on Gaza
is nothing new and this is crucial in also understanding the political
situation. Since Israel's departure in 2005 and even during the 6 month
ceasefire a closure was also imposed on Gaza (sometimes more harsh, sometimes
less so). Collective punishment is never good from a moral perspective
but it also makes no political sense - it meant that no incentives were created
among the Palestinian public to support a continued ceasefire and to act as a
pressure against those firing rockets. Hamas is attentive to public
pressure and this basic equation was ignored. From the Israeli side, after 6
months in which there was no fatality, and life began to return to normal for
the southern communities, there is now rocket fire extending further than ever
and schools are closed.
3. REMEMBER THE BIGGER PICTURE - this crisis has to be firmly
understood in the context of the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. Yes the conflict has been exploited on many sides and certainly
by Iran and other hardliners in the region but if the unaddressed Palestinian
grievance did not exist then it would not be there to exploit (also by Hamas
although my reading of Hamas is that first and foremost they have a nationalist
Palestinian agenda that would be sufficiently satisfied were there to be real
de-occupation for them to end armed resistance).
The peace process and certainly in its new Annapolis incarnation has failed to deliver
and there is an urgent need for a rethink. Destruction on this scale is
hard to describe as an opportunity but it is a reminder that a sham peace
process -- that delivers more settlements and checkpoints instead of
independence for Palestinians and security for Israelis - cannot produce
stability.
There is also some appalling misinformation being spread - one frequently
hears the claim that Israel
left Gaza in
2005 in order to build peace but all it received was terror. I appreciate
the Gaza evacuation of 2005 and how difficult it was and I in no way
condone the launching of rockets against civilian targets from Gaza but the
unilateral nature of the Gaza withdrawal was a mistake (and I said it at the
time) and I don't appreciate this rewriting of history. Israel at the time did not evacuate Gaza as part of the peace
process. Then Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon explicitly said that Israel
"will stay in the territories that will remain." His most
senior adviser who was in charge of the disengagement, Dov Weisglass,
was even more explicit stating
that the plan would freeze the peace process and "prevent the
establishment of a Palestinian state...it supplies the amount of formaldehyde
that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the
Palestinians." This was brought out by the fact that, as mentioned, Gaza was immediately
placed under closure - and those who blame the Gazans for not developing their
economy post-occupation should be reminded of that.
We also frequently hear the claim - what would America
do if it came under rocket fire from Canada
or Mexico?
Again, there can be no justification for rockets targeting Israel's south, and of course America would respond if it were under fire from
Canada or Mexico. But let's at least complete
the analogy and here is that bigger picture. Gaza constitutes under 6 percent
of the '67 territory in which a Palestinian state is supposed to be created
(Gaza, West Bank, Palestinian East Jerusalem), about 94 percent remains under
occupation so under our scenario 94 percent of Canada or Mexico would have
remained under a 40 plus year American occupation with settlements and
roadblocks, and with the "liberated" 6 percent still under
siege. Now I like the Mexicans and Canadians as much as the next person
but is it totally inconceivable that under such circumstances some of them
would have formed hardline armed groups that would even become very popular and
use that 6 percent of territory to launch attacks against America? I will leave
it to your imagination.
4. THIS IS ALSO AN AMERICAN PROBLEM.
There is growing anger directed at the US
and potential blowback for the US
if it continues to be seen as facilitating the ongoing violence and preventing
a ceasefire. There has been an outbreak of popular outrage in the region and
well beyond - it is not only being driven by pro-Iranian or pro-Muslim
Brotherhood Islamist forces, there are also popular reformist, nationalist, and
secular forces involved. And while it primarily targets Israel, there is also often a focus on the
impotence of America's
allied Arab regimes and American complicity. In Indonesia, the most populous Muslim state, the
demonstration in Jakarta was outside the
American embassy and this has been repeated elsewhere including Lebanon and Malaysia.
It's worth noting that where American troops are stationed and in harms way
- Afghanistan and Iraq - there has also been significant popular hostility,
including a fatwa
from Grand Ayatollah Sistani the preeminent Shia cleric in Iraq calling for
action in support for Palestinians.
To be clear, this is not the America-Israel relationship per se that is the
problem (it is for some, but for most this is in the background not the
foreground most of the time). The issue is the outstanding
Palestinian grievance (and again for most it's the basics -statehood,
de-occupation, not the 1948 file and the very fact of Israel's
existence). It all explodes in times of crisis like this when America is
perceived to be totally indifferent to Palestinian humanity and suffering and
inactive or excessively imbalanced in its pursuit of a solution. This is
further destabilizing an already radically destabilized Middle
East.
At the very least, American politicians need to find a language that at the
same time is both staunchly supportive of Israel and its security but also able
to convincingly empathize with the Palestinians and their predicament. And once
the U.S. finds a vocabulary - then it needs to find a policy that can actually
start getting a resolution of this crisis - and not the feckless Annapolis
effort (hints: encourage Palestinian internal reconciliation, engage with a
broader range of regional actors and make this part of a new regional security
architecture, focus on de-occupation as a priority, set down American ideas for
a solution and actively pursue them, address Israeli security concerns via
international forces being temporarily stationed in the new Palestinian state,
use the Arab Peace Initiative to help get Israeli and Palestinian buy-in and
benefits for both ...etc)
5. GIVE THE NEW GUY A CHANCE. The Democrat-led congress should not be
boxing in the new Obama administration to a set of failed Middle
East policies even before it takes office. If this crisis is
still ongoing on January 20th there will be a huge burden of
expectations worldwide on the incoming administration to intervene.
President-elect Obama's credibility moving forward in the Middle East and in
his efforts to restabilize the region will be greatly affected by how this
crisis in handled. It touches on the iconic litmus test issue for the region -
the Palestinians. Obama's studied silence so far is probably a blessing -
he cannot yet make policy, there is no good ceasefire proposal to support and
there is pressure on him to spout platitudes which will undermine his future
capacity to mediate.
On the bright side by January 20th it is very
likely that all sides will want an exit strategy and chances for a diplomatic
resolution will be greater. Then congress will have to give the new
administration space to pursue a realistic ceasefire and new set of
arrangements. Many of the statements in congress
which mimic the existing Bush strategy are narrowing the room for maneuver of
the new president.
If as one hopes this is resolved by January 20th
the Obama administration will have to be picking up the pieces and restoring
America's credibility in that region. And again this will require more than the
pavlovian and irresponsible pro-Israel rants that are being heard from many
quarters today. It will require a more sophisticated and thoughtful
approach to what is pro-Israel and to securing Israel's future in the region, as
part of an articulation of American interests and a very different American
approach. Everyone interested in re-stabilizing a region that is so
important to American security and to restoring American leadership should be
working to create maximum political space in which the new administration can
act - not the opposite. Read members of Congress Donna Edwards, Lois
Capps, Joe
Sestak, Earl Blumenauer, Betty
McCollum, and Keith
Ellison for examples of how to be thoughtful on the issue and helpful to an
Obama Administration that needs to calm the region as it seeks to withdraw from
Iraq, reduce the appeal of Salafi jihadism and restore American standing.
And one final thought at the end of a long post - this is so
terrible for Israel, the anger it is generating in Palestinians and beyond for
future generations, the immorality of this humanitarian crisis, the disaster of
potentially getting stuck in Gaza and the fact that this will deliver neither
peace nor security for a country that I adopted as my home and that I would
dearly love to see enjoy better, much better days.
Want to do something?
Sign the J Street petition and
join J Street.
Daniel, after seeing that JStreet got some heat for their stance, my response was to donate to them. Sanity needs to prevail and JStreet is that voice.
January 5, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"preventing new arms from entering Gaza and international monitoring for these arrangements/border crossings"
Did it work in Lebanon?
January 5, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are enough lessons from Lebanon for everybody.
January 6, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody except the Israelis, apparently.
January 6, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, pretty much everybody.
January 6, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
when the world settles the tamil people in palestine it will further complicate the problem
we are still doing that kind of thing right?
January 5, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lyndon Johnson would just laugh, jerk. He'd say "Boy, where did you learn to count?" You have named six of five hundred thirty five Members of Congress who agree with you.
Very few of the Members J Street endorsed two months have said anything resembling J Street's vile position --to me and my friends J Street's immoral "moral equivalence"--that what Israel is doing is just as bad as the 6,000 Hamas rockets launched against Israeli civilians AFTER Israel left Gaza in 2005. Now, the number of Members who will have anything to do with J Street jerks like you can be counted on one hand. I implore you and your J Street cohorts: please, please, keep it up. You are truly making my day!
January 5, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as I did for Yoffie, I will make an additional contribution to J Street in your honor, sageemetchai. Perhaps I'll send you gift memberships to Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and to top it off, Jewish Voice for Peace as well. But keep on what you're doing! It's most entertaining.
January 5, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
sageemetchai, you expressed the recitation of the talking points with much feeling. Would you like some tea?
January 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to be kidding.
Just like that? All Israel needs to do is open the borders with Gaza, remove the settlements in the West Bank and Hamas will all of a sudden decide that the armed struggle is over and they can get down to building their state? Really?
Amazing.
January 6, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably not "just like that." Recall that Hamas did not so much achieve its electoral victory as Fatah fumbled theirs -- running two candidates in many districts against a single Hamas candidate, for example. But if I read him correctly, Levy suggests that a substantial international arbitration involving coordinated arms control, Israeli commitment to withdrawal from disputed territories, encouraging investment in constructive economic ventures and Palestinian civil infrastructure can altogether lead to a marginalization of Hamas' militant agenda and a productive foundation for viable Palestinian independence and Israeli security.
January 6, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel-- All I can say is more power to you and your J street colleagues.
The fundamental problem remains the occupation and continued expansion of the settlements. I think you under estimate the power of the settlement movement over Israeli politics and its grip on the Israeli lobby that controls both democrats and republicans here. But since I have no idea how to proceed, I hope you the best. As a lonly voice in the wilderness I will continue to advocate for American disengagement from this infernal Israeli-Arab war that the US has joined on Israel's side. Resolution of this mess should no longer be Americas concern.
January 6, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"However, if Israel does get tempted to go for regime change and removing Hamas then these become the only options that are left, and Gaza will descend into the kind of lawless chaos which is a gift to al-Qaeda style Salafists...."
Hamas kept the above at bay in Gaza as does Hezbollah in southern Lebanon....and you can betcha that Israeli MI knows it. Both groups are declared enemies of those global jihadist types because of their consorting with the Zionists and their agents.
"The Democrat-led congress should not be boxing in the new Obama administration to a set of failed Middle East policies even before it takes office."
and
"Obama's studied silence so far is probably a blessing - he cannot yet make policy, there is no good ceasefire proposal to support and there is pressure on him to spout platitudes which will undermine his future capacity to mediate."
Cause and affect?
Let's ask Harry and Nancy.
January 6, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
A constructive analysis Daniel.
But at the risk of contributing to the ever more fraught and convoluted battle of the Mexico-Texas analogies, I have to say that your own attempt make that analogy more precise leaves much to be desired.
We have to imagine that the Texans ethnically cleanse most of their Spanish-speaking and Catholic inhabitants, and confine them in a large internment camp along the Rio Grande on the Texas side of the border. We then have to imagine that the entire boundary of the camp is fenced off and guarded, including by the Mexicans across the river.
We have to imagine that the US and Texas governments will neither permit the people in the camp to move back to their old homes in Texas, nor permit them to form their own state. From time to time they suggest that these ethnically cleansed Texans should move to Mexico. The Texans also periodically reclaim a portion of the camp, move the denizens of that portion of the camp into other more congested corners of it, and then build out more settlements for white, protestant Texans on the reclaimed territory. So the Spanish-speaking Catholics in the camp don't even have control of their own meager little camp.
Now if the people in that camp came into possession of small rockets, and lacking any other effective means of resistance started firing them indiscriminately in the direction of San Antonio, or Fort Stockton or El Paso, killing 10 or 20 people over several years, would the governments of Texas and the United States respond? No doubt yes.
However, would most decent people in the rest of the world, and even in the US, be just a bit more concerned about the abomination on the Rio Grande and the ethnically and religiously motivated confinement of large numbers of Texans in camps, than the the sporadic and mainly ineffective rocket-fire from those camps? I should hope so.
January 6, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of words and the solution is to sign the J Street petition. And how exactly will that help before everyone dies?
January 6, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't they also hold a dance-a-thon fundraiser. It works so well for Darfur.
January 6, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why wasn't there any reporting on Israel attacking an American boat filled with medical supplies--not to mention doctors, surgeons, and former Representative McKinney? There was a CNN reporter on the boat too and even CNN wouldn't give this story attention. WTF?!?!
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/01/israel-attacks-american-medical-supply-boat-headed-for-gaza.html
January 6, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is also waging a PR war quite effectively.
Check the editorials in the NYTimes and WaPo all spouting the same talking points that the Israeli government is handing out. (The comments tell a different story.) Listen to the talking heads on the US Sunday shows all speaking with one voice.
Since Israel does not allow any journalists inside Gaza we should rely on al Jazeera who were in Gaza with the invasion began. They are witnessing the massacre of civilians first hand.
January 6, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
israel is a terrorist state.
start there for peace.
January 6, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"or Israel getting bogged down in Gaza is a distinctly bad idea. "
I do so wish the writer had listed the HUMAN TRAGEDY first instead of worrying about Israel 'getting bogged' down.
Of course Israel will end up in a quagmire because they have destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza leaving people without water, food, heat, shelter. Israel will have to stay to pick up the pieces of the destruction they have wrecked on Gaza.
Israel has to stop bombing, shelling, sniping civilians in Gaza right now!
January 6, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect (I mean that sincerely), please reference evidence of Israel sniping civilians. I would be apalled at such inexcusable action...it would be an unqualifiable atrocity and would go a long way toward opening, indeed changing, my mind if it were to be proved to me that IDF battle plan includes the deliberate targeting of civilians.
In the spirit of vigorous, open and honest debate, please provide references for your claim.
Thank you.
January 6, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, suppose all that you prescribe for Palestine were done, and it still did not stop Arab violence and chauvinism toward the Jews or Jewish defensive-offense. What then?
The analogy of US-Mexico or US-Canada with Israel-Palestine is not apt. The better (never perfect) analogy would be either side of the US Civil War, as it would point out a distinction in the analogy that tells us much.
The US Civil War was a bloody, brutal mess resulting in an estimated 600K to 700K killed. The forces leading to it took some 8 decades from the American revolution before reaching critical mass. In Israel, it's been about 61 years since the 1948 establishment of statehood. These are both wars between connected races harboring different cultural sins (i.e. the things a culture does wrong, yet thinks is AOK). The Israeli-Palestinian conflict between Semitic people hasn't come close to the US Civil War casualty levels, but over a very long time it could. Between Israelis-Palestinians, the civil war keeps erupting.
In the US Civil War, human pride, rage, prejudice, need for food, and need for security reached a point where the carnage of defending those things actually destroyed those things. Everyone was left wondering what the point was, despite the follow-up rationales.
One thing is for sure: it would be positive if Israel and the Palestinians could avoid the scale and depth of destruction that happened between Americans in the late 19th century, whether by mass warfare or long term attrition. So far they have, but not because of enlightened co-existence.
One reason: the dominant side hasn't engaged in a war of extermination. Why do you suppose that is? It has instead engaged in a war of punishment, trying to check the violence of the rebels among Palestinians. Perhaps Israelis are concerned with justice and righteousness after all and are not the infidels that some would have the world believe they are. And same with the Palestinians. And the Americans. We are sick, but we are salvageable.
The children are proof.
Another reason: the Palestinians and their Arab and Persian backers, have not been allowed the power to mount a full scale war. If they had, I believe they would have tried to exterminate, subjugate or exile all Jews -- rapidly or over time -- it doesn't matter.
A diagnosis: this is a spiritual problem. The people of the world are spiritually sick, from the Board Rooms to the farms. Some who are spiritually sick are sick because they worship evil gods. Others are spiritually sick because they don't believe in an all-loving, all-wise and all-powerful God that doesn't force people to be good. All-in-all, as so many say, these solutions "start at home."
Teaching kids to strap on explosives or to hate their neighbors isn't what I mean by "the solution starts at home." As I said, where it really counts, we're sick. Family health, welfare and morals are the cradle of healthier societies. Those who exploit the good morals of such families and try to undermine traditional family life are part responsible for their victims losing focus on spiritual things and picking up the sword. So some may say Israel did that to Palestinian families but I'd say no, that's not the whole story; the PLO did that to Palestinian families; Hamas has done so; Hezbollah has done so. The US/Russia/China/EU members have done so. All have transgressed against God. All have fallen short.
Rebellion against God is like rebellion against the earth. It is like burning one's own fields; polluting one's own water; killing one's own livestock and destroying all the trees. What do we get back from doing all of that?
We experience futility in self-ownership. We learn that ultimately, we grow old and less able to dominate others so that we will realize the true purpose of our existence: to mellow out and love our families; care for them; protect them; and to the extent possible, help our brothers and sisters to do the same-no matter their race, creed, color or whatever. Ultimately the superficial differences will pass away and the actual God of the sane universe will come clear to the world of the insane. Who then will want to be healed or believe they need to be healed?
January 6, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this concise and enlightened essay. As the TPMTV news roundup last Sunday demonstrated, an informed and objective view on the situation is as rare in this country as a camel with it's head through the eye of a needle. Where the world way witness abomination, I see my closest neighbors reaching for their pom-poms. Would they could walk in a Palestinian's sandals for a day, but it definitely appears empathy will not be forthcoming. I remain afraid that the distortions that are accepted as popular opinion will prevent even an unboxed Obama from navigating this to improvement.
That is to say, keep talking please.
January 6, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are all these columns by Jews?
As a Jew, let me say that is a damn good question.
I really would like to hear the Christian viewpoint on the Israeli assualt on Gaza.
Just stopped in to remind my fellow Jews that no matter who many Arabs or Palestinians we kill, it won't make our birth-rate any higher, nor will it keep Jews from leaving the religion.
Anybody want to tell us about a sucessful state based on Judaism?
And I can't possibly leave without telling you Zionists what an inspiration you are to American Christian Dominionists! "If they can do it, so can we, and they will probably help us, if we kkep the money flowing to Israel. Let's make America a Christian State, as Israel is the Jewish State!"
January 6, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not religious, and I am still a Jew. How many Christians or Muslims can say that? Being a Jew is alot like being an Arab: you have your language, your own literature, culture, shared history and calendar to follow it with. So, accepting that Jews could do better by warming up to the fact that Jewish and Arab national rights are not mutually exclusive in the former British Palestine Mandate, what exactly should prohibit Jews from national self-determination in Israel?
January 6, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an athiest, I think the whole lot of people involved in this mess are completely out of their minds.
Here's what it looks like to me:
You've all conflated nationality and religion. One of the few reasons that it is great to be an American is that religion and politics aren't tied together officially.
This war, if turned into a conversation becomes
Jew: "My god is right. Give me my land that my God says is mine."
Palestinian: "No, MY god is right, and give me my land that God says is mine."
It seems batshit insane to me, as an athiest. Crusades and Spanish inquisition levels of insanity. What the hell is wrong with everybody?
January 6, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that you miss the point when you bring God into it. This is politics, pure and simple. Zionism was never a religious movement at its source. If anything Zionism and Israel have been hijacked by the rabbinic establishment in a cynical attempt to keep its power over Jews in the face of modernity (hint: that's why there is a controversy in Israel over the definition of Jewish identity -- Israeli civil law does not follow the rabbinic definition of who is a Jew). Nowadays Zionism has been thrust into the real estate development industry in teritories that no Israeli government has ever shown real interest in annexing.
January 6, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the Palestinian movement was also secular. Fatah was secular, unlike Hamas (Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas as a way to undermine Fatah)
January 6, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were religious persons all out of their minds the great majority / plurality of religious persons influencing the first 200 years of US history would have self-destructed by now. Maybe they'd have taken out a large part of the world with them. Hasn't happened. Show some gratitude.
We are seeing more madness now that many have dropped their faith that there is a good God awaiting the end of our self-destructive drama down here. The fear that all is hopelessly in the hands of fickle men with conflicts of interest drives some to madness.
It is rational to believe in a good, wise and infinite God.
January 7, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check the previous comment. A caveat: while I believe in God and am inspired by Jesus I view organized religions as human fictions that are neither inherently evil nor spiritually necessary.
As for the response of organized Christian religions, I'm sure you can just watch FOX for that view. The fact that it is so far removed from the ministry of Jesus (and the truth) can serve as exhibit A in the case for my above-stated position on churches.
January 7, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, signing a petition ought to help end the violence.
Daniel Levy said:
On Day 10 of the Gaza "crisis" you'd like to "weigh in." What's your rush?
Sorry, but this lopsided "war" is a no-brainer: Either you abide by the Geneva Conventions or you don't. End of story. No windbag equivocation or academic hairsplitting needed. The rules are clear enough (unless you don't believe in them).
If you don't abide by them, it's not just "a distinctly bad idea" (as Mr. Levy so flippantly phrases it), it's criminal.
So, good luck with that position!
January 6, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.... Daniel Levy is such a Likudnik neocon Zionist thug! [/sarcasm]
January 6, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not interested in your sarcasm or Levy's casual flippancy at this point. If you can't step up to a serious and honest conversation, Kafka, then why do you bother engaging people?
January 6, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, why haven't you stopped the war in Iraq yet?
January 6, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the best you can do? Pardon me, but the Israeli-Palestinian nightmare has been going on much longer than the American Iraq War.
Next!
January 6, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you're the one spanking Levy for encouraging us to sign a petition and not having solved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, remember? You want a serious discussion, try discussing something seriously yourdamnself.
January 6, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Levy's post is inadequate, ineffectual, and shockingly verbose. As someone with his expertise and education, he should do better than the sloppy writing he presents here.
His flippant and glib phrases like "Israel getting bogged down in Gaza is a distinctly bad idea" and "Collective punishment is never good from a moral perspective" and "there is an urgent need for a rethink" and "I like the Mexicans and Canadians as much as the next person" are spectacularly preposterous, especially coming from someone with a modicum of authority. What's Levy going for? Hip Israeli-Brit blogger? Well, with such mealy-mouthed input, no wonder the peace process hasn't gotten anywhere!
So go ahead and sign petitions to your heart's content. No skin off our noses that more people die while we have circuitous debates on the internet.
January 6, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what the reaction is to Jon Stewart's comments on last night's Daily Show. He's the only voice in the media I have heard beside Rashid Khalidi who is seriously questioning the proportionality of Israel's military response to Hamas rockets. He pointed out that American media and politicians' response to Israeli actions resembles a Mobius strip - one continuous side.
No doubt he will be called a traitor to Jews by the war hawks. I know some American Jews who think anything less than total annihilation of Palestinians will lead to another Holocaust for Jews.
January 6, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Stewart can take it. I get called a traitor by both Jewish hawks and doves all the time. If I can take it, he can.
January 6, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're interested in a non-Jewish American take, here's one.
Point 4 above: THIS IS ALSO AN AMERICAN PROBLEM.
I'll say. We give Israel $3-6B a year, depending on whom you read, to fight these wars. They're all done with F-16s and Apaches, etc. We keep saying we're fighting two wars, but we've actually been fighting three for years. Where's the outrage over all the billions taken away from ed., infrastructure, medical care, etc., etc. so Israelis can keep massacring people whose land they stole in the first place? And why do we keep saying A. that Bush has been hands off when we've continued giving all this money to Israel and B. that America should be an honest broker? We can't be as long as we're funding one's side's war effort.
Next point above: "American politicians need to find a language that at the same time is both staunchly supportive of Israel. . ."
Why does America have to be any more staunchly supportive of Israel than we are of any other country? If the Israelis want to pursue a bloody-minded policy of driving the Palestinians into the sea, why should we either help or support them?
This whole thing has a nearly exact parallel to America's treatment of native American populations. White settlers came here but didn't assimilate into the existing culture which is what immigrants are expected to do. They took it over and wiped it out. They talked of the Indians as subhuman savages, fought, imprisoned, enslaved, and tortured them, broke every treaty, drove them from their homes, confined them to the res, destroyed their cultures, and ruined their lives. Israel is now in its Indian wars period where it's making the final efforts to ensure that Palestinians will have no geographic, economic, or political lives free of dependence on Israel and subject to the conditions Israel sets. I expect to see a Bureau of Palestinian Affairs set up to administer the subject territories soon.
IMO this parallel is the reason America can't hold Israel's feet to the fire. If we say you can't steal another people's land and destroy them, the Israelis can just say, why not, you did it. It's because we can't tell the truth that we can't force Israel to tell it either.
January 6, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
goethe,
On that note, while I don't know the ethnic nationality of the writer, there was a compelling piece by LithiumCola posted on DailyKos last night:
January 6, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really liked that post, that's out of the box thinking, thanks. (Reminded me to keep my own prejudices about quality reading being virtually nonexistent on Daily Kos in check. :-))
January 6, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
J Street rocks. And yet... still not a single public event or action by any large Jewish peace group. Why?
http://middleeast.change.org/blog/view/j_street_and_brit_tzedek_on_gaza_very_little_for_the_grassroots
January 6, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because we're all a bunch of soulless warmongers. Or haven't you heard?
But seriously, folks. Considering the profound effect that public demonstrations have had over the last eight years, along with the fact that about 80% of the Jews in the American electorate turned out for Obama, my guess is that we are holding our collective breath and hoping that the transfer of power brings the desired change in US foreign policy.
January 6, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It says here that it is about time to end this whole thing by removing the one constant problem... no organized, responsible, stable, Westernized Palestinian government bureaucracy to make a deal with. This means the radicals on that side can keep the whole thing going forever, and the radicals on the Israeli side welcome that. What the US, UN, EU need to do is have Israel make peace with the world as a whole... that is, withdraw from ALL of the West Bank or 95% of it, with compensation to the Palestinian side, period. International peacekeepers take up the borders. The Palestinians work out amongst themselves whether they are one country, two, affiliated with other countries, whatever. If there are attacks, there are counterattacks, just like with any other two countries, but no more occupations. Having the proper organization on the Palestinian side may never happen; it's time to figure out a solution despite that lack.
January 6, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish someone would explain to me what an end game would look like in Israel/Palestine situation.
I'm sure the Israeli's would say a "two state" solution - but that hardly seems pratical because of Settlers on the West Bank and the fact that Israel will never have security (for the foreseeable future) under a two state solution - it's to easy for an agreaved Palestinian to perform some act of terrorism because of the smallness and close proximatey the geography dictates. To us the Palestinians are terrorist. To Palestinians they are native American Indians fighting at Bull Run and Wounded Knee against European colonialism/imperialism.
Enough Israeli's (the settlers and their supporters) won't accept a two state solution
The overriding fact is that the Palestinians are demographically increasing faster than the Israeli Jews in the lands that were formerly known collectively as British Palestine.
The Indians in North America were done in, not just by inferior technology but also by inferior numbers when and where it counted. They lost because of demographics. In this case, Israel has the technology, but is losing the demographic battle.
Palestinians already constitute a majority in the lands formerly known as British Palestine.
Israel is facing an existential threat by way of demographics.
Demographics is why Sharon abandoned Gaza. If you add the non-Jewish Israeli population to the West Bank and Gaza Population, you get a number slightly larger than the number of Jewish people in Israel. And the demographic situation continues to worsen. The clock, then, is ticking against Israel as a Jewish state.
Sharon wanted to avoid putting Israel in the position, and the precedents of South Africa and its white minority rule, complete with Bantustans. For strategic defense reasons, he chose to hang on to tighter control of the West Bank (and its 3.5 million Palestinians). To avoid ethnic Minority rule, that meant letting go of the 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Demographics is also why thoughtful Jews insist on a two state solution. But thanks to Settlers and aggrieved Palestinians (extremist on both sides), the two state solution is not practical - at least under current conditions.
(to arrive at a two state solution the Government is faced with the use of coercive force against Jewish settlers vs. Coercive force against Palestinian - the result is that they can never bring themselves to use coercive force against the Settlers, so that leaves only Palestinians. If Israel were to ethnic cleansing it should have done so in 1967 when the numbers would be a tenth of what they are now).
At this point, why would Palestinians settle for a two state solution?
In a few years Palestinians can look point to the South African precedent and say that what exist in former British Palestine is Minority Rule with Palestinians herded into Bantustans that it has little control over the definition of (thanks to the Settlers). The South African precedent then suggest a South African solution. At that point the best that Jewish Israeli's can hope fore is a single, federalized state with boundaries quite similar to those suggested by the U.N. back in 1948.
Some one explain to me, how over all, the end game will be markedly different than explained here?
Where is the end game that takes us to an Independent Jewish state short of ethnic cleansing?
Given current trends, I just don't see it.
Obviously this is a sticky problem.
January 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I know about the situation is that Israel has no business complaining about rockets from Hamas. That's the actual cost to Israel of a 40-year occupation of someone else's territory. Maybe try observing UN 242 as they had promised to do in 1970 ... but no, a mathematical minority of Israelis wish to keep the spoils of the 1967 war.
9/11 was a hoax, but OBL may have thought they'd succeeded, and he said that ONE of the TWO reasons to have done 9/11 was AMERICA'S SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL. I have no intention of seeing more Americans DIE because we illegally support Israel's wish to keep the spoils of the '67 war.
No more aid to Israel while it violates International Law. No more "defense" by our nation of a pathetic excuse for a civilized Democracy. No more tolerance to listen to BULLSHIT phrases such as "the right to defend ourself" when the entire reason there is a conflict is because you don't acknowledge the same rights inhering in the other side.
Every day the Israelis are content to leave the Palestinians living like dogs after inflicting hell on them contributes to my desire to see Israel's statehood revoked at the UN. I would tell them: choose: the pre-war 1967 borders with full withdrawal of the settlers and the return of East Jerusalem; or the >>1948
One thing's for sure, life's too sweet to allow this crap to go on - and pretend that Israel is in any sense innocent. GET OFF THEIR LAND OR QUIT COMPLAINING WHAT THEY DO ABOUT YOUR OCCUPATION.
Collective Punishment is a WAR CRIME, but committing WAR CRIMES and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY is nothing new for the Israelis while defending "themselves."
January 8, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snarfed by html:
CHOOSE: pre-'67-war borders
OR 1948 borders
and in either case, remove ALL settlers and return East Jerusalem;
OR, we'll just "un create" Israel in the same way it was "created", and the Security Council is not involved: the vote will be 206 in favor of dissolution, with 3 opposed: the US, Israel, and Tuvalu {or substitute another pacific island prostitute.}
January 8, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink