« Proposed Focus of Congressional Hearings on Afghanistan and Pakistan | Home | Top Iran Scholar on What's Next: We're Back to Square One PLUS Chas Freeman Critics Fail To Change The Subject »
Some War! Hamas More Popular Than Ever
I was opposed to the Gaza war from the beginning. I didn't think it would accomplish anything (other than mass suffering) and it hasn't.
Now a new poll shows that Hamas is more popular in Gaza than ever.
What was Olmert thinking?
Advertisement
He was thinking about the upcoming election his party was probably going to lose, and he was thinking he'd start it two days after Christmas, when Americans are less likely to follow the news, and he was thinking get it done and pull out just before Obama's Inauguration.
The same thing he was thinking 6 months previously when they planned the whole thing.
You don't think they knew full well and welcomed the fact that Hamas would be made more popular than ever?
You don't think some contractors in Iraq and possibly Paul Bremmer himself saw chaos in Iraq as an excellent business oportunity? How much money would they have lost if they actually stopped the looting of the entire country's infrastructure? How much money would they have lost if they didn't stop paying the 400,000 Iraqi soldiers who could have helped ensure a smooth political transition, and a quick withdrawal of most of our troops and almost all of the private security and "reconstruction" contractors?
Olmert was thinking a stronger Hamas makes future population thinning and land theft efforts more justifiable, and let's just pray he was badly mistaken.
So far all I've seen is a "that's not helpful" comment from Clinton, and dead silence from both houses of Congress.
That Olmert is a smart dude, in his own sick way.
Netanyahu will expand the basic playbook to include some wildcat offense and misdirection plays. You can count on some old fashioned sweeps too.
March 9, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Bill, and well put. MJ's mistake here is to assume that somehow leaders of Israel give a hoot about the interests of their people. I am less sure about your Netanyahu predictions but they are well within the realm of serious probability.
Israel's political system has become increasingly dysfunctional (not that those of its neighbors aren't either, but their leaders' hypocritical and horrific decisions are not automatically endorsed by a brain-dead U.S. Congress).
It is not -or SHOULD not be- the mission of the U.S. to remedy Israel's political system or rescue the Israeli electorate from the consequences of its own folly. But, we absolutely should, as we absolutely did NOT under the Chickenhawk Cheney administration, protect AMERICA'S INTERESTS from this foreign dysfunctionality. Just as America rightly defends itself against the calculated and perverse criminality of Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.. The U.S. has enough dysfunctionality of its own to deal with.
March 10, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Netanyahu means "Cheney" in Hebrew.
March 10, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it? I thought it meant Donald Duck. Some people actually like him, and he is not known for crouching in secret hiding locations and meeting with lobbyists, only emerging for the occasional snarl.
March 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Gaza War was never designed to affect the popularity of Hamas. Such an outcome, while welcome, would have been very surprising, as all previous military actions against Palestinians have not resulted in decreases in popularity of the Palestinian authorities, whoever they are.
The objectives of the war were not very well articulated by Israel and its supporters. But in general they could be described as follows:
1. Degrade the military capacity of Hamas to attack Israel.
Partly this was about knocking out infrastructure used by Hamas fighters - not to mention eliminating as many fighters as possible. More importantly, it meant doing something about the weapons smuggling. The verdict on how much Israel achieved in this area is mixed. While certainly a lot of infrastructure and a lot of fighers were destroyed, the continued ability of Hamas to shoot off rockets is certainly a high-visibility refutation to any assertion that Hamas's capacity for aggression has been significantly curtailed. As for the tunnel smuggling, my understanding is that it's down considerably, but not completely eliminated. But the bottom line on this is that we don't know the degree to which Hamas's capacities have been degraded.
2. Restore the operational reputation and deterrent effect of the IDF
Given the realities of the Middle East, Israel's best defense has always been the deterrent effect of having the strongest military in the region. That is why the war against Israel has shifted away from national armies and towards guerilla forces like Hamas and Hezbollah. However, Israel can never be sure how strong the deterrent effect is because it is, by definition, psychological and non-quantifiable. After the 2006 Lebanon War, there was a widespread feeling that the deterrent effect of the IDF had suffered due to the perceived (the reality was somewhat different) weakness of the IDF's performance in close combat against Hezbollah. Thus there was a desire to prove to the guerilla groups and to the region as a whole that Israel had not lost the ability or the will to fight. There is no question that in this narrow sense it succeeded. How much of a deterrent will result is unclear.
It's fair to ask, even if both these goals had been unambiguously achieved, whether it was worth it given the cost in blood, treasure and Israel's relations. The unknowable nature of the deterrent effect and the mixed results of the anti-smuggling effect make it not an easy question to answer. On balance, Israel - and of course Palestinian civilians - did pay a steep, steep price to achieve mixed results. We are continuing to learn whether that's the end of the story.
March 9, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How fubar-ed is your morality to write this sentence: " On balance, Israel - and of course Palestinian civilians - did pay a steep, steep price to achieve mixed results."
Israel butchered 412 Palestinian children and you dare to compare that atrocity to some phony "price" Israel paid.
How long have you been pretending to be a human being?
March 9, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Butchered is not the right word, as you surely know.
Israel is fighting an evil enemy, and does its best to avoid civilian casualties. The terrorists it is fighting, in contrast, actively seek civilian casualties.
I detect anti-Semitism in your inflammatory language directed at the Jewish state alone. Remember, this community contains many Jews. I suggest you leave your anti-Semitic rhetoric at the door before you come into a progressive community.
March 9, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not antisemitic to condemn Israel for its war crimes, it's not antisemitic to use the word "butchered" to condemn those war crimes and it's not antisemitic to write a post condemning Israel's crimes while not saying anything about the war crimes and atrocities committed by numerous other groups.
You cheapen the word by invoking it here.
March 9, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I'd agree with you. Trotting out accusations of anti-Semitism in Israel-Palestinian discussions is sort of like Godwin's Law. Usually it means defining anti-Semitism down.
In the case of "mythbuster" I think the bar can be set a bit lower before invoking anti-Semitism. While on his moral high horse, he is given to making Buchananesque statements such as "the goyim are waking up" - presumably to the nefarious Jews and their plots to highjack American foreign policy. There are many Israel-haters that frequent the Cafe and they are usually unsparing in their criticisms of Israel. But they usually don't go around accusing American Jews.
March 9, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know when BTD is losing an argument? He calls you an ant-Semite.
March 10, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You’re right, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF bombs a Hamas politician killing a dozen others, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF cuts off necessities like food and electricity for heat, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF bombs a civilian population that they have trapped in a small area, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF bombs hospitals, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF bombs UN schools, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF shoots families waving white flags point blank, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF attacks medics and ambulances that are trying to rescue wounded children, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF forces families into a “shelter,” then bombs them, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF bombs an apartment building, then rains phosphorus fire down on those who survived the bombing and are running out, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF refuses to allow medical assistance into a civilian area they have bombed for days and children are found starving next to their dead mangled bodies, butchered is not the right word. When the IDF drops a ton of bombs for every man, woman and child in the mosst crowded place on Earth, butchered is not the right word. You’re right. Absolutely.
March 9, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
One could add that white phosphorus was showered down on civilians:
witnessed by the whole world via television,
causing hideous burns to noncombatants,
probably provided by the USA,
probably prohibited by treaty,
ignored by American commentators.
Americans watched it like Fourth of July fireworks ... sickening.
March 9, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This nugget also appeared in today's Haaretz:
"Hezbollah Deputy leader Sheikh Naim Kassem said on Monday that there was little prospect of another conflict with Israel in the near term."
March 10, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to the Two Pillars of Intimidation,
(1) "Degrade the military capacity of Hamas" brings to mind Dorothy Parker's obituary for President Coolidge, "How can they tell?" Even to speak of 'military' exaggerates that particular 'capacity'.
(2) "Operational reputation and deterrent effect" runs together two different variables that almost certainly vary independently. The only ground for lumping them together is that both are psychological, in the mind rather than on the ground.
(2a) It's pretty clear that the pols and the publicists at Tel Avîv (and conceivably less exalted Jewish Statists as well) feel better about themselves after the Gaza Caper. If there is any objective justification for that attitude, however, I fail to detect it.
(2b) "Deterrent effect" refers to the minds of the Arab and Muslim fiends, naturally. Again, I find the alleged phenomenon not easy to perceive. If there are really any fiends who are MORE terrorized of Israël today than they were back in November, somebody could do me a favor by pointing them out.[*] They strike me as insufficiently organized or organic for clobbering one crew of 'em to have much impact on the rest.
Happy days.
___
[*] Not to digress into a separate post of my own, but briefly: the Gaza Caper may have produced a different sort of impact, however, an intramural one on the perpetually bad relations between the Dream Palace Arabs -- Gen. Mubárak and His Háshimí Highness and les altesses royales du Ryad -- and the Street Arabs. It looks as if the al-Jazeera Scare, so to call it, is over: the Street Arabs could view the Gaza Caper from the worm's-eye view, and although it made them "mad as hell" the chances that they are "gonna take it" forever have significantly improved.
March 10, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God Hillary already stated we wouldn't deal with Hamas. We are at least consistent on being wrong headed in the Middle East. Better the corrupt parties you know than the popularly elected ones you don't.
March 9, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Your thinking is backward. If the real goal was to empower a rejectionist Palestinian leadership, then the Gaza War Crime was a success.
If the real goal was to show the futulity of negotiations by a secular Palestinian leadership by accelerating settlement construction in the West Bank, then Olmert is a success.
If the real goal was to discredit secular Palestinians by convincing them to put down protests by their own people even while Israel was killing 412 Palestinian children, then Olmert is a success. Indeed, no Israeli PM has every achieved such "cooperation" from Palestinians to enforce the Israeli Occupation.
How many Jews have been killed in the West Bank this year? In contrast, Palestine: killed by "moderation."
I rest my case.
March 9, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mythbuster: How many Palestinians killed in the West Bank during the war? Isn't that a reason to reject Hamas? Which would you prefer, a government that tries to improve the lives of its people through peaceful negotiation with halting, if inadequate, progress, or one whose steadfast insistence on armed struggle leads to a blockade and a disastrous war? For me, the answer is clear. Apparently, a majority of Palestinians feel differently.
And how do you make sense of this? "Nearly two-thirds believe a Hamas victory in presidential and legislative elections would lead to the tightening of the Israeli-led blockade of the Gaza Strip, whereas nearly as many believe a Fatah victory would mean the end of the blockade."
March 10, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
How has Israel rewarded the West Bank for its years of cooperation and peacefulness? What halting progress have they made?
More like slower bleeding of land than might have otherwise occurred. That's a victory? That is supposed to motivate Gaza to starve quietly when Israel is trying to provoke a war planned 6 months previously?
March 10, 2009 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are rewarding the West Bank Palestinians. They got to go through more checkpoints and watch more of their land being confiscated. The Israelis are helping them disappear.
But don't worry, Armchair will let us know it's actually more complicated than that.
March 10, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll get no argument from me that land seizures and checkpoints are unacceptable - although at least some checkpoints seem legitimately intended for security purposes. Honestly, I don't know enough to comment about how necessary and effective they are, but it seems clear that the number of checkpoints must be reduced.
That said, conditions in the West Bank appear to have improved incrementally of late - though certainly not enough for my taste. Olmert, though a lame duck, has offered far more in the latest peace talks than any Israeli leader.
Compare that to the economic deprivation and 1,300 killed under the strategy of armed resistance pursued by Hamas. Which would you choose?
When George Bush famously said "bring em on," sensible Americans were rightly appalled. Hezbollah engages in a cross border raid, provoking a devastating war, and see their popularity enhanced because they survived and managed to kill some Israelis. Hamas, following the script, steadfastly continues to call for Israel's destruction, to import weapons to kill Israeli civilians and to fire rockets into Israel, provoking an even more devastating war. Sadly, the result appears to be the same, enhanced popularity as even now they continue the rocket attacks.
Again, I would point out that two-thirds of Palestinians believe a Hamas victory in presidential and legislative elections would lead to the tightening of the blockade while nearly as many believe a Fatah victory would mean its end.
So then, if the choice is, (a) blockade and war, or (b) halting, if inadequate, progress, which would you choose?
So, the corrollary to MJ's question ("what was Olmert thinking?") applies with even greater force to the respondents who choose Hamas. Yet, it's a question few around here seem willing to even consider.
March 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Conditions in the West Bank appear to have improved incrementally of late - though certainly not enough for my taste. Olmert, though a lame duck, has offered far more in the latest peace talks than any Israeli leader."
Armchair, what the hell are you talking about here? There are no peace talks, there is no Olmert offer, there is no "halting, but inadequate, progress."
Annapolis brought an Israeli pledge to reduce the number of West Bank checkpoints -- and instead the reality was a substantial increase. Hillary Clinton house demolitions in Arab East Jerusalem "unhelpful," but the plan proceeds.
You seem genuinely puzzled that Palestinians would opt for a "strategy of armed struggle" over the seemingly comfortable status quo They enjoy under Fatah. Perhaps that's because the choice you are positing simply doesn't exist.
You pose the question to your fellow North American commenters: "What would you choose?" Well, our options aren't total subjugation and slow suffocation vs. a "martyr's" death.
People cling to what shreds of dignity they have. If the choice is between deluded hope and no hope at all, we are ill-equipped to condemn those who choose hope.
March 10, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Canadian friend (mon ami Canadien?) See my response below to support my claims.
I am fairly stunned that you posit a choice between "deluded hope," represented by Hamas, and "no hope at all," represented by Fatah. To associate Hamas, the party of suicide bombings, rocket attacks and other forms of martyrdom, with hope is nothing short of perverse. Hamas, it should be remembered, arose in opposition to hope. It's founding principle is its opposition to the peace process. In accordance with its stated, divinely ordained, aims, it has time and again derailed the peace process.
So no, the choice is not between "total subjugation and slow suffocation versus a martyr's death." The choice, rather, is between compromise and accomodation with the Israeli state leading to peaceful co-existence, or an uncompromising fight to the finish. Condemning those who choose the latter is a moral responsibility. Excusing them is an abdication.
March 10, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen your post below. Please see my post below as well.
The economic case you make is pretty thin. An uptick after a full decade of decline and flat-lining? It's almost as good as 1999? This is supposed to be an argument for Fatah's approach?
Tell it to the Palestinians. As the poll shows, they don't seem to be buying it.
To quote your comment: "The choice, rather, is between compromise and accomodation with the Israeli state leading to peaceful co-existence, or an uncompromising fight to the finish."
It seems to me that the essential compromise was made 16 years ago, with Oslo, and it sure hasn't led to peaceful co-existence. In fact, we will soon have an Israeli government openly opposed to a two-state solution. Back to pre-Oslo.
And who's insisting on "an uncompromising fight to the finish?" Well, Olmert and Livni recently scuttled the talks over a long-term Gaza ceasefire, much to the embarrassment of their Egyptian mediators. Netanyahu apparently didn't want his hands tied.
Hamas aren't angels, as you point out. Up till early 2005, they sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel proper, killing dozens. Then -- realizing the PR fiasco they'd created -- they reversed course, declaring their fight in future would be solely political.
From 2006 on, Israel has staged two major assaults on Gaza and one on Lebanon, killing several thousands of people in total, mostly innocent civilians.
Want to go back further? Munich? Lod Airport? How about Sabra-Chatilla? Yeir Dassin?
But who's doing body counts? Nobody wins this game; let's call it a wash.
George Mitchell has seen this scenario before. The Ulster Protestants started considering power-sharing only when census-takers reported "they" would soon outnumber "us."
Precisely where Israel is today. The irony is that both the settlers and the Islamists want a one-state solution -- though both have wildly different views of what it will look like.
I don't object to a one-state solution -- so long as neither side imposes it on the other. Which is why we need two states NOW. At least as an interim stage.
Hamas, with the weaker hand, can probably be brought on board -- they have signaled as much. Israel's problem is that it is so militarily dominant, it believes it can stall for time, improve its "facts on the ground."
Big mistake.
The Gaza "war" seriously undermined international support for the hard line; an Iran attack, which Israel has been threatening and/or pushing for, would eviscerate it.
But that's where we're heading. A Netanyahu gov't can't help but bring on UN sanctions that the U.S. will be too embarrassed to veto.
On the bright side, we'll all get another crack at solving the dilemma here on TPM.
March 11, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"On the bright side, we'll all get another crack at solving the dilemma here on TPM."
Ha. Now that is a solution on which we can agree.
March 11, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
AC - Sadly you are very mistaken- life in the West Bank gets worse each month. There is no economic improvement and as others have stated the number of checkpoints have risen each month the so called Peace talks were held.There are a few checkpoints which are required for security, but most are designed strictly to make life hell for Palestinians. What would you call checkpoints set up one after the other less than 1 kilometer apart just so the Palestinians,after many hours in the sun, give up and go home instead of traveling to a neighboring town?
Exports of farm goods are literaly impossible for the Palestinians. It's almost imposssible for Palestinians to trade perishable goods with a neighboring town. Tomoatoes, fruits etc are held at checkpoints under the guise of checking for weapons until they spoil. Please go to the west bank and see for yourself. Americans treat their pets 10 times better than the Palestinians are treated.
AG - It's really ugly out there and grows worse by the day. Abbas and Fatah have gotten nothing from their peaceful stance. Most of the more rural parts of the west bank have been strangled and are slowly dying. I really don't think the new government will be materially different than Kadima - talk talk talk while more land gets confiscated and settlements grow. It's all part of the same plan I've been hearing for decades.
The fate of the Palestinians will parallel those of the American Indians and we will all be complicit. May G-d have mercy on our souls.
March 10, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Taken to school by two commenters I respect greatly.
Obviously, I have no firsthand knowledge of life in either the West Bank or Gaza. Nor, as I admitted, do I have any hard information on the number and efficacy of checkpoints. Plainly, there are more than necessary. And as you point out, life in the West Bank is not exactly hopeful. But while I perhaps may have ventured a bit far out on an unfamiliar limb, I was not talking completely out of my arse.
Olmert did in fact offer a peace proposal more generous than Barak's Camp David offer. This was reported in September 2008 in Haaretz. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010812.html Abbas subsequently revealed that Olmert had proposed a division of Jerusalem, also in Haaretz. Jackson Diehl, writing in the Washington Post under the title Olmert's Final Failure, harshly critical of the Gaza offensive, wrote:
"The saddest aspect of all this is that Olmert, a former hard-line believer in a "greater Israel," was more committed than any previous Israeli prime minister to ending the country's conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians. Thrust into office in January 2006 by the incapacitation of Ariel Sharon, Olmert won his own mandate by promising to unilaterally withdraw Israeli soldiers and settlers from most of the West Bank. When that project was undermined by the Lebanese war, he launched into one-on-one negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in which he discussed terms for a two-state settlement going well beyond those previously offered by an Israeli government...
As recently as his last visit to Washington in late November, he was still pushing -- after virtually everyone else in Jerusalem and Washington had given up -- for some kind of "framework agreement" with Abbas that would spell out the terms for a deal, and be ratified by the U.N. Security Council.
Despite his bold intentions, Olmert proved unwilling or unable to stand up to the Jewish settlement movement in the West Bank; his government failed to dismantle even those outposts it has repeatedly declared illegal.
But Olmert is not the only one to blame...
Worst of all, Abbas followed in a long tradition of previous Palestinian leaders by reacting to a far-reaching Israeli offer with an uncourageous demurral. Olmert has never publicly disclosed the terms he discussed with Abbas, but sources say he went well beyond what Israel agreed to at the Camp David talks of 2000, previously the closest approach to a deal. I'm told Olmert offered to support the groundbreaking concession of allowing thousands of Palestinian refugees to "return" to Israel over a period of years; he also agreed to divide Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine. Abbas, like Yasser Arafat at Camp David, refused to sign on to a compromise that the world would have hailed.
So Olmert, like Ehud Barak eight years ago, will end his term as prime minister by bombing rather than liberating Palestinians. He will be remembered for his wars -- but it may be many years before Israel again has a leader as willing to make peace."
March 10, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Ledell: When you call me "very mistaken," I think you are mistaking the quote at the start of my comment as being my opinion. It is not; I'm quoting AG. On the contrary, I do not dispute a single word in your comment, and I know you are speaking from firsthand observation.
Armchair: Once they were lame ducks -- or approaching lame-duck status -- Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, Ehud Olmert and George Bush all "realized" they needed to make some effort toward Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Excuse me if I join the near-unanimous Palestinian consensus in dismissing these belated, doomed efforts as window-dressing, public relations, BS and a bid to spin future historians.
There is one overwheming fact here: it not a pathetic number of home-made Kassam rockets being fired erratically out of the concentration camp. It is three or four generations of people -- several millions of them -- living and inevitably dying under humiliating, soul-destroying military oppression.
Forget the politics and strategy for a moment, and wrap your head around that.
It explains everything.
March 10, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moving on to the issue of economic progress or lack thereof in the West Bank, I refer you to this interview with Hashim Shawa, general manager, Bank of Palestine from the Middle East Progress, with the Center for American Progress. http://www.middleeastprogress.org/2009/02/challenges-and-possibilities-a-palestinian-perspective/
Also, take a look at this report from the New York Times' Ethan Bronner. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/world/middleeast/24bethlehem.html?_r=1&hp
"Both Israeli and Palestinian officials report economic growth for the occupied areas of 4 to 5 percent and a drop in the unemployment rate of at least three percentage points. The Israelis report that in 2008, wages here are up more than 20 percent and trade by 35 percent. The improved climate has nearly doubled the number of tourists in Bethlehem and increased them by half in Jericho.
It is not just tourists. The Bethlehem Small Enterprise Center, financed with German aid, has been open for eight months and is busy helping printers improve their software and olivewood craftsmen their marketing.
“It has been the best year since 1999,” said Victor Batarseh, mayor of Bethlehem. “Our hotels are full, whereas three years ago there was almost nobody. Unemployment is below 20 percent. But we are still under occupation.”
March 10, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One might think Olmert was following the very successful footprints of Bush who did so well in Iraq and Afg. with military approaches to political (and religious) issues.
March 9, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East"
FROM THE ARTICLE "When God Spoke to Me": .....During those private interviews, Jacque Chirac had purportedly confessed to the journalist some personal remarks regarding the faith of George W. Bush that seemed quite daunting. He told the journalist that the latter called him twice beseeching him basically, in the name of their common “spiritual faith”, i.e., “Christianity”, to join the collective effort of the coalition being formed to wage a preemptive war against Iraq. In his first telephonic call he reportedly said to Jacque Chirac: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East” and then added that “the biblical prophecies are being fulfilled”.....
ENTIRE ARTICLE -
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14890
March 9, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what really grossed me out in particular ?
When a super-patriot and die-hard supporter ( of that country) told me Rachel Corrie deserved to die. Remember she was killed by an up-armored caterpillar bulldozer.
She was garbage, I was told.
We are asked to show our super-support for a FACTION of that country that works with a tiny FACTION in this country to strangle any progress in solving the problems there.
I have a problem with support for unhinged fanatics and their bloodthirsty schemes.
March 9, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What was Olmert thinking?"
Was Olmert thinking?
March 9, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So M.J.,
Why aren't you criticizing Clinton's (Or Obama's actually) unclear Policy about Israel's conduct and the general conception of the situation in Israel and around it?
Do you know what the power of the US is?
It has- first- the best public-relations means in the world, and it knows how to do it.
The Object of this propaganda is the Israeli citizens first of all: Neutralize the fear.
Second point- Israel's politicians are very weak and in a total lack of an Ideological spine. (BIBI-none- which is the Big-plus that the US must take in to use. Livni thinks she has some Ideology- which makes it tougher. )
They are both absolutely lacking a vision to tackle Israel's problems- from the Occupation ("Security") to the declining economic situation, which is pretty rough as it is.
The US has the power to solve all this mess, and the un-bloody way is the most un-costly one as well, taking the general possible- military-cost-damage … up to a third world war.
The weapons Lobbies are the first to tackle- and they must be arranged with normal-industry and other options for a living. This is what makes a country healthy again – Cut it out of the imperialist-weapon's mass supplier complex and the country will be able to address itself rather than fights and dirty money which people make a living off.
(out of such an activity in general the race for arms will be toned down, the US being such an important racer in it. It should supply weapons for its own army and nothing else.)
YES YOU CAN
Go Progressives!
Enough Naiveté for one comment... It had to be linked to a broader policy.
March 9, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
About the pending indictment he was facing on corruption charges? About his maintaining his reputation for overreacting to minor incidents, turning them into major ones, which in the end don't succeed in furthering his country's best interests but hurting them...first Lebanon and now Gaza?
One of those two would be my guess...
March 10, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The results of this poll are depressing indeed for anyone who believes in a two-State peaceful solution, or indeed any peaceful solution, to the I/P conflict.
As if the results of the Israeli elections were bad enough, we now we learn that Hamas has actually gained in popularity - so much so that if elections were held today, it would appear Ismael Haniya would prevail over Abbas. Once again, the Palestinians appear to express their preference for "armed resistance" to mutual recognition and co-existence. Let's not forget that Hamas' raison d'etre is opposition to the peace process, that it considers any agreement with the Zionist entity to be apostasy, that it is opposed to the "occupation" not just of the West Bank and Gaza, but of Tel Aviv and Haifa, that its charter sanctions, and its members celebrate, the killing of Jews, that the destruction of Israel has been, and continues to be, its aim. And while many legitimately question the timing, necessity and morality of Israel's military campaign, let's not forget the rocket attacks and stockpiling of weapons that precipitated it. Surely, even those who opposed the war must recognize that Hamas bears some responsibility for the suffering and devastation it caused. Yet even now the leaders of Hamas continue to lob rockets into Israel, feeding off the misery that their actions perpetuate and deepen. In the meantime, how many Palestinians were killed in the West Bank during the Gaza war? Was anyone paying attention when Olmert and Abbas were discussing an offer of statehood more generous than anything before? Does anyone really believe it's just a matter of Israel dismantling the settlements?
What is also disappointing is the tone clucking satisfaction in MJ's brief post. We should expect more than "I told you so" from a leader of the pro-Israel, pro-peace alt-lobby.
March 10, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes select specific quotes regarding which I express a specific disagreement.
In this case I disagree with the entire post-not because its abusive or just dumb. Of course it isn't. But because, like a high % of the criticisms of Israel, it doesn't recognize,that when people are at War they say and do all those things.They become warriors.
Sadly,that's human nature.
If they ceased being at war they-or at least most of them-would move on. No doubt at some level those thoughts would remain in their minds but meanwhile they'd be more occupied with fixing the air conditioning system,or watching the World Cup.
There is nothing uniquely cruel and inhuman about the Hamas leaders. Ditto for Netanyahu and his allies.
The war will never end if we think it can only end when the leaders on both sides become saints.
Mitchell will have to deal with non-saints who are currently acting in brutal ways.As we would in their place. He has to reject AG's thinking .And Colindale's.
March 10, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
War is a state of mind. Thus warriors.
March 10, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not entirely sure whether there's some implication I don't grasp but I think I agree.
Right now I'm in the UK where there is concern over 3 killings in Northern Ireland by disaffected Republicans. The sensible commentators-which is most of them-realize that it will take a couple of generations before the Republicans cease having a gut sympathy with the murderers even tho they say the right words.
When you've hated someone for a long time, you keep hating them. It's impossible to change hearts but maybe possible to change minds.
I think too much was made of Arafat's equivocations about the second infatada. And too little made about his entering Israel in disguise to be present at the ceremonies after Rabin's assassination.
Of course he was of two minds(at least). The most we can expect of an Arafat or a Sharon or a Jerry Adams or Paisley is that they say the right words.And actually Paisley has been saying them for the last couple of days.But yes, all warriors.
March 10, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
All warriors are not the same. If Northern Ireland were Gaza, and the UK were Israel, Catholic schoolchildren would be being blown up today in Belfast, and houses and gardens bulldozed all over Dublin, in order to "defend" Dominos pizza delivery boys.
March 10, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Irish Catholics are white people. Different rules apply. Don't you know that?
Dead Arab Child = collateral damage
Dead White Child = Outrage
March 10, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
No all warriors are not the same. But sooner or later some warrior from any country will do something like fly a plane into the WTC, or drop an Atom bomb on Hiroshima. Wars cause people to act like warriors.
March 11, 2009 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Flavius:
Colindale? Me? Same sentence? I have been a pretty regular contributor here and, while concededly sympathetic to the Israeli side, have not hesitated to criticize Israel and attempted to acknowledge and respect opposing viewpoints. There have even been occasions where I have gained agreement from mythbuster.
What I was reacting to is the notion implicit in this post and many comments that the rise of Hamas is somehow an inevitable byproduct of Israel's actions. It is not. And just as it is fair to criticize Israel's leaders, the same must hold true for the Palestinians.
It is one thing to recognize that war affects a population, making them, as you rightfully point out, "warriors." But let's not forget that Hamas' roots lie in its opposition to the peace process. Armed resistance is its theology; war its logical conclusion.
One may legitimately question the necessity, timing and morality of Israel's response, bemoan its unwillingness to confront the settler movement, but there seems to be a willful blindness among Israel's "progressive" critics to apply the same test to the murderous ideology of Hamas.
March 10, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a peep. It's terrible that Hamas kills innocent Israelis. And I won't couple that with a denunciation of the Israelis.
That said, I question whether Hamas' theology should affect our policies towards it. Or Israel's. The IRA's policy was "Brits Out". May still be -certainly that's the policy of the "Real IRA" which murdered 3 people in Northern Ireland over the weekend. But Mitchell profitably negotiated with them.
And every Monday I read on Bitterlemons the comments of some Hamas representative civilly(mostly) discussing a topic
with thoughtful representatives of the Israeli establishment. Perhaps because whatever the "theology" of any organization it will contain believers of all shapes and sizes.
Of course you aren't identical with Colindale(partly I was reminded of him because Colindale is a stop on the Underground), but like him and many within the range of supporters of Hamas , Likud or any other group you have firm opinions, one aspect of which is to cause you to be,well, so firm in your assessments that you are more ready than I to believe that all believers of any "theology" actually adhere to every aspect of it.
It's been amazing over the past years to see on the TV Martin McGuinnes and the Reverend Ian Paisley enjoying one another's company..In fact those one time extreme representatives of particular theologies are now referred to here as the "chuckles brothers" because of the frequency with which they can be seen sharing a joke.
And in this possibly crucial moment,for the first time ever , Paisley over the weekend praised the sermon of a Catholic priest. People change.
March 11, 2009 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Olmert was thinking is what aggressive occupiers always think... that those they attack are going to react to atrocities by giving in to those who commit them. However, in all cases those aggressive occupiers justify what they do by prior atrocities committed against them, in to which they will never give. The grand irony is the 'otherization' that assume the enemy is so different they will react in the desired way which is exactly the opposite of how the attacker reacts. It is an incredibly endemic human form of blindness.
March 10, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree,gpanfile. Olmert was thinking what most Israelis seem to be thinking these days: Let’s beat the hell out of these Arabs who dare to keep fighting back against their occupation and apartheid. They’re doing to Gaza what they did to Arafat and the PA in the West Bank before he died- pen them in, arrest or kill leaders and bomb them into ineffectiveness. But they've taken collective punishment to new heights with the imprisonment of Gaza and subsequent carnage.
That it doesn’t work in the long run is incidental, as strategies on both sides seem to be fueled only by hatred now. If there was one “strategy” it was the one alluded to by politicians, generals and pundits: teach the Palestinians a lesson by making the people suffer. The sight of Israelis picnicking in the hills above Gaza to cheer every bomb dropped on those trapped, already beaten down people was disgusting.
The Palestinians have been refugees for half a century. They have been occupied for decades. Their leaders, even (especially?) moderate, peace-seeking statesmen, have been imprisoned, killed or run off. Most of the duly elected Hamas government (still alive) is imprisoned. Abbas’ term expired and he will not hold an election, so who is the real Palestinian government? An occupier is responsible for the monster created by radicalizing the occupied.
Hamas are fundamentalist Muslims. They and their splinter groups have been responsible for terrorist acts in the past. But they had become primarily a political group (still with a right to resist Israel’s incursions and domination of their territory). Israel helped form Hamas as an anti-PLO organization.
They were elected initially because Fatah and the PA was corrupt and in collusion with the occupiers. They made sincere overtures to Israel about finding a peaceful solution after the Unity government was formed, but US/Israel policy was to destroy them as a political party. The coup attempt backfired and Hamas gained complete control of Gaza. Even after that, Hamas tried to talk peace but US/Israel was more intent on demonizing them and maintaining their representation as the prototype terrorist enemy.
On to Plan B; starve them into submission. But the blockade didn’t hold (that’s why destroying those tunnels was so important to Israel. Sure, small arms were coming through, but most of Hamas’s arms were slipping in through Israel’s sea blockade. Israel broke the cease-fire (or duped Hamas into breaking it).
I offer the standard boilerplate: Hamas has no right to lob shells into civilian territory in Israel with indiscriminate mortars. That goes without saying, but those rockets have little to do with anything except a powerless, dominated people trying to maintain self-respect through a feeble show of “resistance.” Since Hamas was elected, Fatah groups and WB residents have been responsible for more deaths of Israelis than Hamas, but not a peep about those. And how many Israelis were killed last year by those Hamas missiles that became the excuse for this bloody collective punishment? That would be zero. Hamas, like the PLO at one time, cannot be mentioned without the terrorist appellation attached to it. If what happened in Gaza, perfectly planned and synchronized with the US election, is not terrorism, what is?
March 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink