Gaza Is Not Toronto: It Has Been Under Full Occupation For Over 40 Years
"I ask any of my colleagues to imagine that happening here in the United States. Rockets and mortars coming from Toronto in Canada, into Buffalo New York. How would we as a country react?"
It is hard to believe that the Democratic Senate majority leader would parrot that ridiculous line.
But it is in all the "information" packages that the lobby is distributing, changed to reflect geography. In California, the question is what the people of Chula Vista, CA would do if they were being shelled from Tijuana, Mexico. In Burlington, Vermont, the missiles come from Montreal, Quebec. The info packets can apply the analogy to any two places located on an international border.
And the average Joe is supposed to ignore the huge difference in the two situations. The United States does not occupy Mexico or Canada, If we did, the missile attacks on Buffalo or Chula Vista or whatever might not be considered bolts out of the blue. Millions of Americans would demand that rather than bombing Ottawa or Mexico City, we consider ending our occupation of Canada/Mexico.
Here are two numbers everyone needs to memorize: 78:22.
Israeli authority today extends to 100% of historic Palestine. That 100% includes pre-'67 Israel, PLUS the West Bank and Gaza. There is not one acre in any part of that whole in which the Palestinians control air, land, water, etc. Not one acre. Israel ended its military presence in Gaza but that is all. It controls everything else. Gazans have heat, electricity and water when Israel allows them to have it, usually only a few hours a day. Total blockade. And it has been that way for years.
In 1988, the PLO agreed that, from that point forward, it would concede to Israel the 78% of historic Palestine that is Israel -- i.e, all of Palestine minus the occupied territories of West Bank/Gaza. The Palestinians would establish a state in those areas which constitute the 22% that is left. That remains the PLO's position.
On that basis, the Palestinians signed the Oslo agreement in 1993. And, in the 15 years since, Israel has relinquished not one inch to full Palestinian sovereignty. In fact, the number of settlers in the occupied 22% increased from 100,000 to in 1993 to double that by the time Oslo collapsed in 2000.
Hamas does not accept the 1988 compromise. It wants all of Palestine and, to bolster its case, argues that the Palestinians gained exactly nothing for agreeing to accept 22% and yield 78%. That is true.
Here is a piece I wrote a few months ago on the 78-22% ratio. Harry Reid's analogy makes sense only if you don't know that Gaza is under full blockade. It controls neither its borders, its air space, its water, or anything else worth controlling. It is a ghetto. And that is why its people are fighting. I wish they weren't. But the Canada, Mexico analogies are just plain dumb. And the lobby that puts these myths out, that pays top dollar to PR specialists to make this stuff up, knows it.
Well, I've got cousins in Toronto. I hope we wouldn't react by killing their children.
The over the top support for Israel has to backfire at some point. The irony is that the higher the level attention focused on Israel and the wilder are the analogies and protestations of support, the more likely it is that the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not Jews are going to start wondering why Congress is obsessed with something that is way, way down their list of priorities.
January 10, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry is an idiot.
January 10, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we just need our own information package:
"I ask any of my colleagues here to imagine these events happening here in the United States. I ask them to imagine that Burlington, Vermont is a large internment camp, filled with the descendants of English-speakers ethnically cleansed from French-speaking Quebec, surrounded by walls and barbed wire and watch towers, and policed on the North and East and the shore of Lake Champlain by Quebecois security forces who control all passage in and out of Burlington, and keep the Burlingtonians in a condition of forlorn and captive misery.
I ask that they imagine that in order to lift this siege, and in their fond, desperate hopes of recovering what they lost in Quebec, the weak and impoverished Burlingtonians pathetically throw whatever they can into Quebec: rocks, sticks of dynamite and home made rockets, inflicting a small amount of damage to the Quebecois towns to the north, whose inhabitants live on the land siezed from the exiled English-speakers.
I ask that you imagine Burlington is also sealed off on its southern border from the United States by a steel barrier, due to a deeply unpopular deal between Quebec and the US government, but that through a network of tunnels under the barrier, and relying on the good will of their justice-seeking, English-speaking brethren here in the US, the Burlingtonians manage to bring in some additional food and goods, and some meager weapons.
I then ask that you imagine that in advance of an election in Quebec, the Quebecois launch a massive assault on the Burlington internment camp, killing in the neighborhood of a thousand people, injuring thousands more, and reducing many of the Burlingtonians' shacks and hovels to rubble. The Quebecois then demand that the US step up its control of the southern border of the camp, and close or blow up all of the tunnels, so that Quebec's control of the imprisoned Burlingtonians will be total.
How would we expect Americans to react, my friends? Wouldn't we expect them to reach the end of their patience? Wouldn't we expect them to rise up with indignant fury against those Francophone bastards to the north, and fight to bring an end to the incarceration and dispossession of their friends? What red-blooded American could fail to do the right thing in the face of so much oppression, butchery and injustice?"
January 10, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 10, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
SholomA - Would you stop with the 98% nonsense. Camp David came no where near that number and you know it. Taba was closer but it was Barak who pulled that off the table.
January 11, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I was wrong. It was 97%
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html
Ross says Arafat was offered a "Right of Return" for refugees to the nascent Palestinian state and $30 Billion fund to compensate refugees, and Arafat turned it all down, against the pleadings of his own Palestinian advisors.
January 11, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
SholomA says;
Joe Scarborough recently made the same charge about Arafat turning it all down to Zbigniew
Brzezinski on MorningJoe. Brzezinski said Arafat didn't turn it down, he said he would take the proposal to other Arab leaders but before anything could come of it Israel had another election and the proposal was withdrawn.
January 11, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
SholomA - You are being disingenuous. The 97% offer was NOT made at Camp David. At Camp David the Israeli offers were riddled with loopholes and not remotely acceptable. Now Taba was a different story. Taba was a negotiation NOT an offer. Three things scuttled Taba - the second infitada, Clinton running out of time, and Barak being scared the offer was too generous and pulling out of the talks.
January 11, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"historic Palestine" is a joke. Jews were the residents of Palestine thousands of years before The Prophet ever spewed his message of jihad.
really, MJ, have you read the Hamas Charter? you can find it at http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html . at the top it says it is "THE PLATFORM OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS)" and here's a sentence from the early paragraphs:
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."
why in the WORLD would Israel not want to defend itself from this?
you know, if this is what the Left has come to stand for--political correctness (Palestinians are the new favorite repressed minority), anti-Americanism, and this irrational, this SEETHING hatred toward the Jewish people--then I am ashamed I was ever part of it.
January 10, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a proclivity for people to want to cleanly divide a conflict into who is the bad guy and who the good guy (myself included). Either Isreal is all bad or it is all good. Either whatever the Palestinians do in resistance is right or whatever they do is wrong.
But I would argue that for the most part what you are seeing here in support of Gaza is not driven by Seeting hatred toward the Jewish people. Rather it is seen as a powerful state with a powerful military that is oppressing and killing the powerless. To the extent that is true or not is the debate in this country among most of those of the Left, the vast majority who do not have any direct connection to the conflict.
January 10, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gretz - I am no more anti-Jewish or anti-Israel than you are. Yet our views on this conflict are quite different. My attitude toward Hamas comes as close to hatred as my emotions will allow. Yet I am quite pragamatic when it comes to Israel - I want it to live forever as a Jewish homeland. That way when I am buried there I, too, will be "home" forever.
Whenever I was in Israel during the 50's, 60's and 70's the bile and mob demonstrations coming out of Egypt about Israel was worse than anything Hamas says. During this period you could not find 10 people in Israel who would ever believe that peace was possible with Egypt. They all said Egypt is COMMITTED to our destruction and would NEVER change. I was in Israel in 73 for the High Holy Days when the war broke out and I was scared shitless. Egypt has killed more Israelis than Hamas could ever dream about. Yet the 2 parties found a way to make peace. Sadat made an important gesture in his Jerusalem visit but Begin would never had made peace without Carter's arm twisting. That peace agreement has been a boon to Israel.
Gretz - you are not a prophet sent by G-d. You have an opinion which is fine. BUT you do not know if Hamas is capable of change and neither do I. There is only one way to find out - lets negotiate - we can always say no to their offer.
January 11, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what happened? Egypt lost badly two wars.
January 11, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
SholomA - Your are incorrect. Egypt badly lost in 67 but 73 was different. They inflicted a lot of damage and killed a lot of Israelis. That gave them back some measure of respect and dignity. Most historical accounts attribute Sadat's subsequent willingness to negotiate with Israel to the fact that there was once again some measure of equality between the two parties.
January 11, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
gretz,
I saw a documentary on the Jewish people either on the History Channel or National Geographic, and it showed Abraham coming out of Mesopotamia
into Canaan.
January 11, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gretz:
According to the Bible:
Prior to Abraham, the ancestors of the Israeli's never lived in "Israel".
The Israelis voluntarily left the land between the Mediterranian sea and the Jordan river when they left to follow Joseph into Egypt. After 400 years, they returned under the leadership of Joshua.
The current problems arise because the Israelis, under Joshua, failed to follow God's instructions and commit genocide on the inhabitants living there.
When did the world begin for you? 1947?
.
January 11, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiot, If Gaza Has Been Under Full Occupation For Over 40 Years, there wouild be no weapons in Gaza smuggled from Iran to shell Israeli schools.
January 10, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please, please keep on publicly lambasting Democratic Congressional leaders for their support of Operation Cast Lead. Every time you do, my friends at AIPAC, AJ Congress, ADL, AJ Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Groups smile-- because you make it easier for D.C. decision-makers to consider you and your cohorts at J Street a bunch of sanctimonious assholes.
Take a look at my post on Ms. Schor's blog. It lists the names of the candidates J Street endorsed and the Representatives who opposed or voted present on yesterday's resolution in the House of Representatives. How many J Street endorsed members voted against the resolution supporting Israel's operation in Gaza? Very few.
January 10, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
acamus:
this is from Article 28 of the Hamas Charter:
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims."
Hamas is not hiding a thing. they want you to know that the very fact of the existence of Israel is unacceptable, and it is so BECAUSE it is a Jewish state. they hate Jews. they hate Israelis but they also hate JEWS. that's seething enough for me.
as for Palestine being so weak against the nasty Jew bully Israel, then why did they fire rockets? why do they STILL CONTINUE to fire rockets? are they that stupid?
here's one more great line from the Charter, (from Article 13) from the people who are being perceived as the victims:
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement...There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."
what don't you people understand about that?
January 10, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that there are many on the Left who have made Isreal the bad guy, and everything gets filtered through this. So no matter what Hamas does or stands for is filtered out because it would complicate the issue. Likewise, there are too many that want Isreal to be the good guy and thus cannot see when Isreal steps over the line. All other things about Isreal-Palestine issue aside, I do think that there are too many on the Left willing to look the other way in terms of Hamas and their responsibility for this situation in a quest to prove that the state of Isreal is oppressing the Palestinians. Isreal can be carrying out defensive strategies that are unjustifiably oppressive AND Hamas can be a violent organization that no progressive can possibly affirm.
January 10, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why it is MY problem. Why is my Congress wasting time with your problem.
January 10, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that we have more than our own fair share of concerns right now that require an enormous amount of attention, I believe it would be a huge mistake to suggest that we should ignore the problem.
January 10, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gretz - I'll ask you again. How is Hamas' charter any different from the PLO's charter. NO ONE in Israel thought the PLO would ever change it's mind and negotiate with Israel, but they did. NO ONE in Israel ever thought Egypt and Jordan would EVER change their minds about destroying Israel, but they did. Even the wolves of Syria have changed their minds and are seeking peace with Israel.
Hamas is the weakest of all these actors and MAYBE peace with them is possible. You don't know and neither do I. There is only one way to find out - lets talk. Thank G-d Israel talked with Egypt and Jordan, those peace agreements have been a boon to Israel.
January 11, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the juxtaposition between Gaza and Toronto is that it only examines reaction without considering the long-term effects of the reaction. In this case, I believe the reaction will have the opposite of the desired long-term effect of increased security.
January 10, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
acamus: fair enough. we can agree to disagree on the "proportionate response" question.
bluebell whines:
"I don't understand why it is MY problem. Why is my Congress wasting time with your problem."
Pat? Pat Buchanan? sir, are you posting as "bluebell" again? ;-)
it is your problem because fortunately this country still cares about doing the right thing, and we need to support our allies as we would expect them to support us. America is still a superpower (despite Bush's best efforts, speaking of people who destroy countries) and we have a responsibility to the world.
January 10, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
We aren't a charitable institution. We are a bankrupt, grossly over extended, soon to be former superpower which can't even provide health care to its own people. We don't have a responsbility to "the world". We are not the United World. We are the United States and not one of those states is named Israel. We have no social contract with Israel. Israelis do not pay American taxes. They are bound by no American laws. They answer to no American courts. We're supposed to give them an unconditional license to do whatever they want regardless of how wantonly they risk the lives of others. We are supposed to defend them no matter what it costs us and no matter what risk it brings to us.
And I ask, what is in this for ME?
January 11, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, the same that's in it for you when we embargo Cuban cigars.
Second, since you haven't figured it out, Israel has become our client state in the region. During the Soviet era, much of our knowledge of their military tech came from captured equipment from the Arabs. Israel provides a base of operations for the US should we need it. And we have close ties to their intelligence. Why is this important? Check our where a lot of the oil reserves are.
January 11, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our Cuba policy is also insane but Cuba is about as close to the US as Toronto so there is a real defense interest there and an expressed policy dating to the Monroe Doctrine of don't mess with the US in our hemisphere. I'm not totally crazy. Self-defense is legitimate. It's legitimate for Israel. I only object to conflating threats to Israel with threats to the US. We are very different countries of different size, geography, culture, diversity, etc. Many Jews may have Israel so wrapped into their own identity that they cannot make a rational distinction between the interests of the two countries, but you can't expect the 95% of Americans who are not Jews to accept that distorted view of our national interest.
As to the base of operations b.s., that's the same argument that has us in a quagmire in Iraq and those on the Israeli right did their utmost to get us mired there as a base to defend THEM. And guess who did NOT die by the thousands in Iraq? Israelis!
I'm not arguing in defense of the Palestinians and I'm not arguing that Israel has no right of self-defense. I'm arguing for a rational US foreign policy that is first and last in the interest of the American people, in their defense, in the most efficient use of our resources, in the use of our military only when it is needed in our defense, and against the waste of American lives and treasure and against the risk to our own homeland from pursuing policies that are not in our national interest.
January 11, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our 20thc policy in the Mid East (and that is pre-WWII as well) has been driven by one concern: oil. Starting with FDR making deals with the Saudis and trying to grab part of the British sphere of influence in the area.
The same oil that has driven US industry, the same oil that you put in your car.
You also don't seem to understand the relationship between the US and Israel. Israel is not just a "base of operations". There is intelligence sharing and a close military tie. Consider it closer to the relationship that the US had with West Germany than Iraq.
January 11, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well given the sorry state of US intelligence I see no value in this whatever. If anything, we're probably getting fed the kind of "intelligence" that got us involved in Iraq. I just don't buy it at all. As to oil, oil has done as much as anything to totally corrupt our way of life. Our economy is in chaos. The oil barons make billions by manipulating the price. The Cheneyites make dirty deals with the Saudis and send the National Guard to fry in the Iraq desert. It's all a bunch of moral depravity and greed.
And that it why we support Israel? That disgusts me more than supporting them to defend themselves against Hamas. This is why I ask the question. If we are supporting Israel to further our prostitution to the oil states and supporting the plucky long-suffering Jews is just a cynical excuse then where does that leave the plucky Jews once we're done with our expedient use of them? It'll probably leave them in the middle of a world war over oil and neither side in the conflict will give a damn about them.
I came to ranting on this subject out of my anger at how we got manipulated into the Iraq War. The motives in that manipulation are complicated and it's confusing to sort them out. You have Jewish neocons. You have cynical oil interests. You have double triple dealing oil states. You have Russia and Iran and European interests and it makes it hugely difficult to make rational policy decisions. When you just cover it all with this romantic b.s. about the history of the Jewish people and their right to make flowers bloom in the desert you just have no chance to follow the plot.
January 11, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe anything I've said is about the romantic history of the Jewish people.
You are the one that keeps hoping that that will be my response. I keep bringing up the realpolitik answer which is unsettling, I'm sure.
Of course, you live in a nation with subjugated Native Americans.
Does that also bring about same level of emotional concern? Or is it easier to look across the world because that policy doesn't appear so directly tied into your interests?
Tough questions, indeed, and I think few here have really taken the larger view. Part of that involves the destructive factors of religious ideology and rapid population growth in the region. But these are two topics that those even on the left don't want to honestly address.
January 11, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to attribute the romantic stories to you specifically. They're the propaganda that Americans get, particularly Jewish Americans. The romantic stories are a cover for the realpolitik but they make rational discussion almost impossible which of course is why they work so well as propaganda.
I appreciate the impact of population growth but its Israel and American Jews who aren't facing reality on that. The US can't save Israel from the impact of Arab demographics. That's what makes Gaza etc. so futile. That's what made the plight of Native Americans so futile. That's what makes American efforts to keep Hispanics out of this country so futile. And the more Hispanic and Asian our own country becomes, the less we will be captivated by romantic stories of Israeli settlers.
January 11, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This analogy to Canada or Mexico is so mind numbingly stupid I could only scratch my head when it first appeared. But it seems to have legs. This brings to mind a Samuel Johnson story about an unusually obtuse person: 'To be sure he was born with low intelligence, but the level of stupidity currently achieved required many years of hard work'. When it comes to so many supporters of Israel today I can only think that the level of stupidity that they have currently achieved required many years of hard work. The work involved listening to propagandists sprinkled with denial and selective memory acting on a victimization complex.
In any case MJ, more power to you and J Street in your efforts to break through this mind set.
January 10, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush refusal to veto was a breakthrough. And the perfunctory Congressional resolutions, which the leadership in both Houses intentionally brought up quickly and pushed for unanimity also were significant.
The leadership wanted the bills to pass unanimously like a bill to rename a post office so that the resolutions would be seen as what they were -- meaningless pap that demonstrates only one thing: the desire to please the lobby while not really doing anything.
Obama's hands are free. The Middle East portfolio is in his hands and no one else's. Will he do the right thing? I don't know. But I do know what he wants to do: restore America's standing in the region. That means he'll do the right thing. His hand is strong. The Israeli hawks (and their tools here) are weaker than ever before.
See TIME. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870314,00.html
January 11, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty sad when judging accordingly is "a breakthrough." Nonetheless, I believe there is going to have to come a time when those in the U.S. must understand that letting Israel do whatever it wants is not necessarily in the best interest of Israel. Rather than sending a nod and a green light in knee-jerk fashion, our government would help both Israel and the Palestinians much more if it would assess the situation realistically.
I'd like to think that Obama might have the courage to stand up to the forces that demand the knee-jerk compliance. Yet his choices of personnel to address the issue leave me very skeptical.
January 11, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on, M.J.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054246.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ross
January 11, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, SholomA is correct that if Dennis Ross is given the Iran portfolio, it would be a major victory for the right wing-Likudnik forces here and in Israel. He did after all play a major role in sabotaging the 2000 Camp David negotiations.
January 11, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except I know Dennis Ross and he worked just as hard for Jim Baker and George HW Bush (who were not exactly AIPAC) as he did for Clinton (who was pretty close to AIPAC).
He'll do what he's told. That is how it works. And it's how he works.
Of course, I'd rather have Rob Malley. But Ross will tell the Israelis what they dont want to hear if Obama tells him too.
He works for Obama (yeah, poor ShlomoA, the black guy you said was a Muslim terrorist, won).
At least, your PM, Putin is going to be relected, I hear
January 11, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 11, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you call Obama a Muslim terrorist? If so, MJ's response is not an "ad hominem" attack.
So, did you?
January 12, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Gaza is not Toronto.
If it was,
They would've taken Barak's proposal in Camp David and praise Allah for giving handing it to them.
If it was,
They would've used the fact that Israel had left Gaza in 2005 to progress their economy and health systems instead of their military systems.
The siege on Gaza only started in June 2007. Rockets have been fired on Israel since 2001 including the period between Israel's dismisal of Gaza in 2005 and 2007.
So, you're absolutely right. Gaza is not Toronto - it's full of Idiots who think they can do what the most darkest and powerful forces of humanity was unsuccessful of - eliminating the Jewish people.
January 11, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
They would've taken Barak's proposal in Camp David
You seem to have access to some documents that the rest of us have not seen. Could you please share with us those proposals.
January 11, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can buy Bill Clinton's book at the stores near you... He's been there, you know...
You can also conduct a simple google search and find everything you like. Here's Wikipedia for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit
January 11, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK I looked at your wikipedia citation which gives this reference that says:
The details of the proposals are still secret at this time. Israel claims that they were far reaching and generous. The Palestinians have been claiming that the proposals would have perpetuated the precise situation of the interim agreements, in which the West Bank is divided into numerous small areas of Palestinian sovereignty interspersed with a much larger area of Israeli sovereignty.
As I said above, what exactly did the Israelis offer Arafat at Camp David.?
January 11, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
To tell you the truth,
I can't understand why the details are confidential.
Maybe to prevent angry demonstrations of Israelis. Not sure...
I can only use what the objectors to the agreements to the agreement in Israel and president Clinton had to say about the agreement and believe me - they aren't far from the real one.
Again,
My statement above is all about taking advantage of situations, which most Arabs just can't handle.
The Arabs chose to deny Israel's right to exist since 1948 and denied the UN partition plan which gave the Arabs 50% of the territory including Jerusalem. Their acts caused that everybody is talking about the borders of 67 and not the borders of 48.
The countries which agreed to co-exist with Israel, Egypt and Jordan, are the most progressed countries among Israel's neighbors. Look at Syria and Lebanon's condition as a comparison.
Actually, you don't need to go this far. Just look at the Palestinian's life before 2000 and after 2000. They were on the highway to heaven, but now it looks like they're heading the opposite direction.
January 11, 2009 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm... let's not forget who "occupied" Gaza prior to 1967. Of course, back then, you couldn't easily pitch the issue as Jew v Arab.
However, these days it is so much more convenient to have that simple sound bite to sell... but that doesn't represent reality as acamus keeps patiently pointing out.
January 11, 2009 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the "correct" analogy is to imagine if the Native Americans (who *we* put on limited land and control their borders - a nation-within-a-nation status) fired rockets onto surrounding areas.
I guess we know what we'd do, because that's how we got the Natives clustered in the first place.
I'm fascinated with how the left finds it much easier to have all kinds of "solutions" for countries like South Africa and Israel, when we have some identical problems here in this country. I say, let's figure out how to solve our long standing problem and then we can ship that solution over to Israel with the authenticity it deserves.
January 11, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Harry Reid's analogy makes sense only if you don't know that Gaza is under full blockade. It controls neither its borders, its air space, its water, or anything else worth controlling. It is a ghetto. And that is why its people are fighting. I wish they weren't"
chicken or egg. Does the blockade exist without the threat of Hamas rocket attacks? And to say that is why people are fighting- like saying the occupation of the 22% is why they're fighting- conveniently disregards that there'd still be some fighting for the remaining 78.
January 11, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am Jewish and have always been proud to be so but I am deeply ashamed to be tainted by association with the shocking brutality of the IDF as they bomb and kill their way through Gaza, wiping out families, women and children in their merciless rampage of violence and mayhem. There is nothing Jewish in the actions of these soldiers, who act like animals.
There are now reports of the illegal use by Israel of banned chemical white phosphorus to kill and burn those in Gaza. How can Jewish people act like this after the experience of the Holocaust. Does man's inhumanity to man, know no bounds?
January 11, 2009 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
/* There are now reports of the illegal use by Israel of banned chemical white phosphorus to kill and burn those in Gaza. How can Jewish people act like this after the experience of the Holocaust. Does man's inhumanity to man, know no bounds? */
Where do you get these reports from the Protocols of the elders of Zion?
Ridiculous. Are you really a Jewish?
January 11, 2009 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reports of the Israeli use of banned white phosphorus in Gaza are from the BBC and the London Times 10.01.09
January 11, 2009 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand but this claims are only based on photographs. Not on any sample taken from the area.
I suggest we should wait and see if they are true. Like you - I think usage of white phosphorus should be avoided. Other measures can be taken to achieve the same effect.
January 11, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, The question is also whether these bombs were used against civilians or not which is allowed according to the international law.
January 11, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep reading of "the blockade" in reference to Gaza. Can someone please explain how this blockade came about and how it worked?
January 11, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple
Israel closed all crossings into Gaza and blockaded it from the sea
Food, supplies and weapons came thru tunnels on the Eygptian border.
Refusal to open the crossings was Israel's first breach of the 6 month ceasefire
They never did
January 11, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were the Israelis allowing anything like food, electricity, medical, etc. into Gaza?
January 11, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was HORRIFIED too MJ
The better analogy would be what if Baltimore were a giant sealed refugee camp (concentration camp?) from which homemade rockets rained down on Chevy Chase
January 11, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anthony Cordesman
January 11, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli leaders and politicians regularly disgrace themselves for the reason that not one of then since ben Gurion has any higher personal motive other than to empower and enrich themselves, vis the list of Israeli premiers who one after the other have been investigated for serious corruption by the judiciary. Israel is not a country that is altruistic or understands the concept. The focus is always on a self-serving agenda that ignores the humanity of all others. That is the unfortunate mindset that inculcates the thinking that pervades Israel and dehumanises the Palestinians. The IDF soldiers and their spouses dare not even think about the women and children they are slaughtering. To do so would weaken their resolve. And so the massacre of civilians continues, the blood flows in the streets and the houses, the cries reach up to heaven as the IDF soldiers harden their hearts and try not to identify their own wives and children with the corpses they have made that lie mangled and rotting in the streets. This is a war crime, pure and simple. Olmert and Barak must be brought to justice.
January 11, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one way the people of Gaza will extricate themselves from Israeli control: Stop terrorism and reach out to Israel.
There is a reason why Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel and no other Arab entities have. That is because both Anwar Sadat and King Hussein understood the value in making a concerted effort to reach out to Israel and proclaim a desire to make peace. It is why in the early 1990s there was a spirit of optimism about the possibility of achieving a two-state solution. Arafat claimed he had renounced the desire to conquer all of Israel. It seemed that the only obstacles were the intrasigence of the Likudniks who wanted to colonize the territories. Rabin's election in 1992 seemed to remove the last major obstacles. The Oslo process continued, even past the point when it was clear Arafat was speaking with a forked tongue, until the violent outbreak in September 2000 made it clear that not much had really changed.
I recount this history to emphasize one point that can't be overstated. It is up to the Palestinians to reach out to Israel and proclaim a desire to make peace. It is that simple. No Israeli government will loosen its grip over this godforsaken territory until, at a minimum, that happens.
I see a lot of commentary to the effect that it is up to Israel to do this or that action. The power to end the conflict lies with Israel because it is the occupying power. Remove the occupation and all kinds of things can happen.
No.
One does not have to agree with Israeli tactics to understand the essential dynamic of this conflict that has persisted for all these years. When Arabs reach out to Israel, Israel tends to respond. Unless and until that happens, Israel will not have any incentive to try an approach different from the one they are following now. No matter how many UN resolutions, no matter how much condemnation they get from world capitals, Israel will never change its MO until they see some evidence that the Arabs won't just pocket Israeli concessions and continue their long-term project of destruction.
This is also why the Hamas policy of non-recognition of Israel is so important. Even Arafat understood this as a basic requirement to assure the Israeli people that there was a historic rapprochement possible.
As long as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and continue its posture on the fundamental existential question, the best that can be achieved is a long-term pacification and better access to humanitarian supplies. Hoping for more than that is a waste of time.
January 11, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - Abbas has certainly reached out his hand for peace with Israel. Can you tell me what it has gotten for that effort? The West Bank has been quiet for a couple years yet the settlements expand, the number of roadblocks increase.
The reason Israel is willing to negotiate with Egypt, Jordan and Syria is they recognize they have the ability to hurt Israel. However, Israel considers Hamas and Fatah to be more of a nuisance than an existential threat so there is no need to make deep compromises.
Why not bring Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Jordan etc to the table and put Taba up for discussion and see what happens. My guess is a sign on by all parties.
January 11, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abbas does not have control over the territory he is supposed to run. What good does it do Israel to invest a lot of time and energy negotiating with someone who can't deliver on promises he makes?
This is another great myth in this whole sorry affair. We are constantly told that Israel needs to make this or that concession to "strengthen the moderate factions" in Palestinian politics. If only Israel makes some concessions, the argument goes, Abbas and Fatah will be strengthened and...well, it's not too clear what's supposed to be the result of this "strengthening."
We'll all grown old before the so-called moderates of Palestinian politics are strong enough to deliver on promises they make to Israel. That's why I favor accelerating negotiations with the wider Arab states. If Barack Obama wants to change the game in the I/P conflict, the best thing he could do IMHO is start to get the wider Arab world serious about peace with Israel. Only then will the Palestinians see that their dream of Israel disappearing will never happen and support for Hamas and other rejectionists will finally collapse.
Obviously the Arabs won't make peace unless Israel agrees to relinquish territory, in line with the Saudi peace "proposal" of 2002. And Israel will not put itself through the national trauma of uprooting West Bank settlements (a far, far taller order than the Gaza evacuation, one that could lead to widespread violence and possibly a constitutional crisis in Israel) unless it had some ironclad guarantees. Figuring out how to thread that needle will, I predict, occupy a good chunk of Hillary Clinton's time over the next few years.
January 11, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - I concur that the ONLY way for Israel to truly have peace is a conclusive agreement with all the arab parties, Palestinians, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudia Arabia. Given that, can you tell me why the US and Israel have totally ignored the Saudi Plan for 6 years? The Saudi plan has a lot of gaps that need to be filled in and some backbone applied but it's a start.
Is Israel serious about the Saudi Plan eventually being the basis of a Peace agreement? If so why are they expanding the settlements? Why establish Maskiot with former Gaza settlers who will have to move again in even the most Israeli favoring agreement?
Until I hear Israeli politicians tell settlements that they will probably have to be disbanded, I won't believe Israel is serious about peace. Instead, I keep hearing Israeli politicians telling the settlers that "Palestinian Reservations" are the answer. I think this latter is Israel's true aim which is why they have ignored the Saudi plan.
January 12, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't reservations only work then the "reserved" population is small?
January 12, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, anyone who thinks that the Clinton Administration's proposed settlement was workable wasn't paying attention. The Israelis offered bantustans with no water. The PLO should have bowed out earlier, suggesting that when the Israelis were ready to negotiate seriously, the PLO would head back to the table.
Second, if a country really has the right to such a disproportional attack, Miami and Washington, D.C. would have been reduced to rubble in the early 1960s. That's the more apt comparison, and no American would argue that as a Cuban right.
Third, Israel and the US are making exactly the same arguments against Hamas that they made against the PLO in the '60s and '70s, very often word for word. Learn from your mistakes; don't rerun them.
And finally, I don't understand why some American Jews are so intent on a policy that's likely to end in the 77th Intifada. Israel is going to have to settle with Palestine, and I'd like to think that, as an historical people, we would want something that we could look back on 100 years from now and say, "Yes, there were problems in the early years. People had a lot of trouble getting beyond the anger of the occupation. But the settlement was fair to everyone, it gave everyone most of what they needed, and over the years, people have come to realize that."
January 11, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ
You write of the walls built around Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel's control of access to these territories by land, sea and air. It is true that the people of these territories have been hemmed in, and have suffered, but you ignore the reason that Israel has restricted access to this land. Hamas and other militants carried out a devastating campaign of suicide bombings, and after Israel succeeded in keeping Hamas militants out, Hamas responded by lobbing rockets over these walls. I sincerely believe that Israel would have no problem tearing these walls down and allowing unfettered access to these territories if it believed it could live in peace.
January 11, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
poofermartin - I don't care if Israel builds walls between it's territory and the Palestinians and NEVER allow ANY Palestinians access to Isreal. It's Israel's right as with any country. HOWEVER, what MJ and a lot of us object to is Israels' stationing troops in Palestinian territory and preventing all ingress and egress of people and goods,except with Israel's approval.
January 11, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
jdiedell
I think Israel would be willing to allow all ingress and egress to the occupied territories if it thought it could do so safely. There have been surveys which show that most Israelis would be willing to pull both their settlements and troops from the West Bank if they thought they could do so safely. Hamas' actions and rhetoric over the years have convinced them this cannot be done.
January 11, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
poofermartin - If Israel is willing to dismantle all the West Bank settlements and allow ingress and egress as you suggested they are - why have they not put that offer on the table? It's been 41 years of occupation and so far they have never made that kind of offer.
I've made over 70 trips to Israel starting in 1956 and my entire side of the family - 2 brothers (my sister died of cancer in Ariel) aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins scattered all across the west bank settlements. If you talk with Israelis they will agree in a general abstract sense to withdraw from the West Bank but when you start naming settlements to be abandoned they will say - not that one, no we can't leave there etc etc etc.
To think that Israel would ever give up Ariel or Ma'ale Adumim is fantasy - that is where the aquifers are. Not once in 41 years has Israel ever made a formal offer to allow Gaza and the West Bank direct access to the outside world. Camp David did not and even Taba imposed a 6 year waiting period on access with enough caveats to make it unrealistic.
For 20 years of the occupation(1967 - 1987) it was a totally docile Palestinian population - no terrorism or PLO or Hamas. The Palestinians tried non violent means of demonstrations, strikes etc to get their own state or at least autonomy. Israel told them to F*#K off.
Remember the day after the Wye River Accords were signed, Bibi and Sharon told Israelis to grab the hilltops of the West Bank and grab as much land as they can for whatever is left will go to the Palestinians. Well my relatives heeded that call and off they went.
It is a very difficult situation and both sides "have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". It bugs me no end when I see people posting one sided arguments that spin the conflict in only one direction. I am considering making two posts based on my 52 years of history with Israel - 1000 Palestinian mistakes and 1000 Israeli mistakes.
January 12, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Israeli authority today extends to 100% of historic Palestine."
You really need to learn some history MJ. First of all, what is "historic Palestine"? Are you talking about Palestine of the Romans? or the Middle Ages? or Mandatory Palestine. In none of those cases does Israel control "100% of historic Palestine". In fact, of the Palestine that the Jews were promised for their homeland by the British, Israel controls around 20%. The other 80% went to the Hashemites to make Jordan in 1922. The Yishuv went along with that, although there was later some dissent to that decision (ever hear of the Revisionists? Ever wonder what it is they wanted to "revise"?) So of that 20% that Israel was left with, they have to give away 22% of that?
January 12, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The hardest part of discussing this prospect for me is that there is no compromise on the part of those who support Israel. I don't see any commenters in any forum who really have much sympathy with Hamas or with lobbing rockets at civilians, and it's true that many who criticize Israel see only it's military might and not the threats it faces. But far too often those who support Israel's military actions simply refuse to face the key underlying facts- Israel has control of massive civilian Palestinian populations and it denies them the basic rights it grants to zionist settlers. This is the crux of the problem, and the closest mainstream US (or Canadian) political speech comes to recognize this reality is to suggest maybe Egypt and Jordan should be handed the problem populations. Sadly, one thing that history has proven and is proving again now is that neither Egypt or Jordan's political leadership is in any way a friend of the Palestinians.
The kind of discussion and thought M.J. is providing here is far too rare in the US. Thanks much for it.
January 12, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egypt's friendship with the Palestinians is based on their mutual hatred of Israel. Otherwise, they wouldn't pass weapons to Hamas through the tunnels connecting the Sinai and the Gaza strip. As we know this is one of Hamas' main sources of ammunition against Israel. This is called peace between Israel and Egypt?!? This is called "let's say we have peace with Israel, and let Hamas do our dirty work" which Hamas is most happy to do. Hamas deliberately launches rockets into civilian areas because obviously they have no regard for life. They are stupid because knowing that Israel will defend itself by returning fire, Hamas continues with its rocket attack on Israeli population centers. The Egyptians are simply smarter, not more humane "peace-seekers" than Hamas.
January 13, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink