The Israel Policy Forum's Statement on the Crisis in Gaza
Many have written in the past week about the current crisis in the Gaza Strip. I have confessed an ambivalence and genuine uncertainty about whether Israel's actions are justified, in whole and in part, and candidly it just doesn't seem genuine that so many of us, posters and contributors alike, have staked out positions that are devoid of the uncertainty I freely admit to have. Like many of you, I have tried to look past cable news channels and the so-called mainstream media in an effort to move beyond shallow analyses and garden-variety and simplistic explanations more akin to spaghetti westerns with those black and white hats as guides for distinguishing the good guys from the bad.
In the course of my internet wanderings, I stumbled across the statement by the Israel Policy Forum ("IPF") on the crisis in Gaza. I offer it as a possible touchstone for rational discussion between decent people at the TPM Cafe. IPM's statement is presented because I understand it to be a group that has reflected a far more even-handed approach to the I-P conflict than other so-called "mainstream" organizations in Washington, and because our own MJ Rosenberg IPF's Director of Policy Analysis.
At the threshold, IPF calls on the United States to push for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but appears to squarely and without ambiguity blame Hamas for what has taken place:
Israel Policy Forum (IPF) urges the United States to push for an immediate end to hostilities and resumption of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The ceasefire was terminated by Hamas on December 19, despite the stated willingness of the Israelis to extend it and the efforts of the Egyptians to negotiate an extension. Israel's blockade was a response to continued Hamas firing of missiles at Israeli communities and other infractions, and the use of the ceasefire for building up its arsenal of longer range and more sophisticated missiles, the impact of which is now being felt in ever wider areas of Israel.
The statement continues with a declaration that "IPF deplores all loss of life and the suffering of people on both sides of the Israel-Gaza border", and that the military action threatens the long-term interests of Israel, the United States and the Middle East peace process. That said, IPF Executive Director Nick Bunzl also states that Hamas provoked Israel "for its own reasons", and further states that he understands Israel's need to defend its citizens:
"Hamas, for its own reasons, provoked Israel's military response without regard for the civilian population of Gaza, and we understand Israel's need to defend her citizens," Bunzl added.
Finally, IPF calls on the United States, with the assistance of the Quartet and the Arab states in the region, to push for a mutual and long-term ceasefire defined as follows:
IPF therefore calls on the United States to push for an international effort to bring about an immediate Hamas-Israel truce, negotiated by intermediaries. IPF also urges immediate exploration of a long-term armistice, also through intermediaries, in which there will be absolutely no attacks on Israel of any kind and the end to the import of advanced weapons by Hamas in exchange for a commensurate lifting of the blockade by Israel."
IPF's statement resonates with me, but I understand that many of you will have good faith reasons to feel otherwise. Pennies for your thoughts.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
Mass murder is not a defensive action.
Justification is inherently anti-moral. That is, people justify their conduct BECAUSE it is not moral; they make excuses. Making excuses for anti-morality is itself immoral. Moral conduct needs no justification. What the Middle East needs is human morality, not partisan justification.
Hamas can be said to have provoked the Israeli mass murder war crimes which were clearly out of all proportion to the provocation. However, it's clear that Israel's intent had nothing to do with proportionality, rather it is closer to extermination regardless of the cost in life and with only regard to Public Relations of what it could justify in the way of "collateral damage". Further, Israel planned this over many months, just waiting for an excuse to "justify" its criminal behavior. So Israel is in the wrong here. While Hamas' rocket attacks are unfortunate on the small time frame scale, Israel's response is criminal.
The immorality of Hamas in no way justifies Israel's reactive immorality in this case.
Tough talk? Better than abusive PR. Cut the bull. A nation state is murdering people in Gaza because some "thugs" have been firing more or less impotent rockets into Israel. Are the "thugs" behaving morally? No. Can they justify their conduct. Duh, in their terms, yes. But they are of course, thugs, not a nation state.
Israel knows it has behaved immorally. Shame on Israel. Shame on Israelis who through greed or fear have blocked substantive peace processes in the past.
The rhetoric of Hamas can change. What Hamas needs, if not extermination, is a path to modify its extremist charter while not losing face. When the rhetoric of Hamas changes, Israel will have lost one justification for its immoral conduct. It will then have a political opening.
Israel needs to learn a Christian lesson it may know about but has not embraced effectively for far too many years. Israel needs to act with greatness instead of with raw power.
Hamas needs to stop thinking of itself as weak thugs, and step up too, or be exterminated.
I'll leave it to you to assess how many if any pennies my comment offers.
January 2, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 2, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we didn't learn too much Shakespeare out thre is potato farm ('yaz' country) flavius, or at least this mook didn't. But seems like the guy may have been more than a guy who could a put a couple of big words together. Thanks for that. I guess IPF feels that tyrannous had cause to use its strength in this instance, and I guess the key is what would a giant do at this point?
I think you've posted on David Grossman's column from the NYTs on Tuesday, which I link to below. Grossman defends Israel's decision, but unlike the Israel Policy Forum, he believes that giantlike behavior calls for an immediate and unilateral ceasefire on Israel's part. Thanks for your comment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/opinion/31grossman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
January 2, 2009 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did post Grossman's column. And two years ago I posted an in memorian note when his son was killed. I believe they were both pacifists but his son didn't seek an exemption.
January 2, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The news coverage of Uri Grossman's son.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/13/news/soldier.php
January 2, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding me that my prose here lacks poetry!
January 2, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Et tu eds
January 2, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think you've make your position clear eds and thanks for sharing your passion and insight. You reject IPF's assessment of Hamas' culpability and you believe that Israrel is engaged in mass murder.
What about the other point eds, the one that deals with a way out of this? Do you support IPF's call for a mutual ceasefire that is conditioned on, inter alia, Hamas' agreement to cease all missile activity, the importing of weaponry, and Israel's cessation of the blockade?
January 2, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am generally in favor of cease fires, but I'm reluctant to get into detailed tactics when I'm not close to the front lines. I think it's important to frame things well. Perhaps I took your article as a soapbox to go off on a tangent of my own.
Agreeing on the frame is my proposal for a first step forward. That is, human morality over partisan justifications. Public official condemnation, or shame, is the first step forward, before any cease-fire or calls for such. Forgiveness is possible at some point but silence counts as tacit acceptance.
I'm not sure about "culpability". Hamas rocket attacks were used as an excuse by Israel. Israel's massively disproportionate response belies any claims that Hamas is culpable for the out of proportion parts of the response. I don't want to agree or disagree with IPF on that at this point.
January 2, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this. IPF'S proposal is a good starting point. Easy for me to say, I know. Hopefully the Israelis and Hamas/Palistinians will realize that mutual destruction be it through WMDs or attrition does not serve either of their long term goals well. Barth had a good post wherein he quotes a NYT article in which a 13 year old resident whose family home was destroyed by Israeli bombing this week:
Out of the mouths of babes...
January 2, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Miguel and, as the father of four, I am a believer in the wisdom of what comes from the mouths of babes. But I think you would agree that, for whatever wisdom one can glean from a "babe" in defense of Israel, there is another "babe" who will shed wisdom in defense of Palestine. And so it goes my friend. Peace.
January 2, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so it goes. :(
January 2, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
I'm reminded a little of one of Jean Valjean's inner discussions with himself. He wondered, "If the excess weight of the penalty did not wipe out the crime and did not end in reversing the situation, replacing the wrong of the delinquent with the wrong of the crackdown on him. Turning the guilty party into the victim."
I'm in agreement that a mutual cease fire is in order. That the more insane elements of Hamas should cease with the missles and that Israel should lift the blockade.
My question to you is how optimistic are you about these two things occuring?
Too many inside and outside Israel genuinely cannot see the wrongs commited by the people or the government or the military of Israel, essentially denying their humanity. Denying their right to be flawed. To fuck up now and again. To simply make mistakes. This also, I feel, has the effect of denying the humanity of the Palistinians. They can do no right. Only ever fuck up. Are essentially subhuman and therefore cannot stir up empathy of any depth.
How does one rectify this?
January 2, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does one rectify this?
My take--Tough diplomacy from people both sides can should trust. I look to the new American administration with genuine hope and optimism. I'm no "kool-aid" drinker (;)), never was and never will be, but on matters pertaining to the Middle East I do believe that PE Obama is the real deal.
January 2, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Regarding Obama... he is the real deal. I think he genuinely cares and genuinely wants to do something.
But the man is up against it. He is going to have to "negotiate" with the very people I describe above. How do you negotiate with such deeply irrational beings? Maybe that means more heavy handedness, like threatening to withhold aid? Don't know.
I don't envy Barack Obama. But there are few people I'd rather see about to enter the White House in this difficult time.
*fingers crossed*
January 2, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And DAMN am I slow!
Just had me an "Ah-ha!" moment: bslev = Bruce S. Levine.
Need more coffee!
January 2, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Darn it! Bruce S. Levine
REALLY need more coffee!
January 2, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
co sign.
January 2, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
Speaking of the ways to rectify the problems - neither you nor other commenters mention something IMHO quite significant in the IPF statement - a stated need of third party observers and enforcers. Daniel Levy spoke about that quite explicitly on several occasions.
I doubt that US alone has troops, money or appetite to serve as such an enforcer, Obama or not, but NATO or some of its members might. I guess Sarkozy's visit to the region next week might turn out to be quite interesting. (Has anyone read his address to the Knesset? Highly recommended).
January 2, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree anatol. I think that will have to be part of the mix.
January 3, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I want to ask your opinion of something. I agree with and understand the IPF statement until I get to the end: "the end to the import of advanced weapons by Hamas in exchange for a commensurate lifting of the blockade."
1 - What is the definition of advanced weapons? AK-47's? RPG's? anti-tank missles? Anti-aircraft missles? How vulnerable and defenseless is Israel going to require Palestinians to be? Are only offensive weapons going to be banned or everything except for pistols? So far in negotiations Israel has insisted on banning all weapons.
2 - If the blockade is lifted how is the ban going to be enforced? Is Israel going to check every shipment coming by sea into Gaza? Some International organization?
It is my belief that such a ban cannot be enforced. It is against human nature for a people to agree to be entirely defenseless and dependent on the good will of another people. When I was in Kiryat Arba in November, I could not help but notice their supply of RPG's. G-d knows what else the settlers have stored away.
January 2, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jdledell:
I am flattered that you pose these questions to me, but I do not claim to be an expert on weaponry or on monitoring compliance with ceasefires premised in part on a ban on the importation of weaponry. Perhaps you should pose these questions to MJ Rosenberg, whose paying job is to direct policy for IPF, which of course the author of the statement that I offer for discussion. That is not to say that your questions aren't sound and appropriate, you just pose them to the wrong guy.
Bruce
January 2, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
To pen people up. So they cannot flee. And bomb them?
No justification.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/it-is-never-justifiable.php
January 2, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what this statement sounds like to the residents of Gaza - "for no reason whatsoever, Hamas started firing missiles at us, we have no idea why they would fire upon us, we can't think of anything we've done to provoke this, but because we're good citizens of the world, we might begin lifting the blockade on Gaza, in stages of course, when we can be assured that no one is smuggling weapons into the area. We call on the U.S., the least trusted nation in the world and the nation perceived to be on the Israelis' side in every crisis to oversee this."
Until both sides acknowledge and begin to rectify the wrongdoing it will continue.
January 2, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy New Year to you Bev and thank you for commenting and I do hear what you're saying. As I tried to explain above, I offered IPF's statement for discussion because, as I understand things, IPF is not seen as being in the same "hawk" contingent as, for example, AIPAC is viewed. I also think that IPF's position is particularly relevant at the Cafe because the principal contributor on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here is MJ Rosenberg, and he of course is the Director of Policy Analysis.
As to your laudable reminder that we must consider what ordinary Gazans are thinking, let me just say that I agree with you wholeheartedly, but let me also point out that IPF's statement which my post is about is addressed principally to the United States and Americans in general. As to the Palestinian perspective, I link below to Flavius' post from yesterday, in which he in turn links to the contributions on the Bitter Lemons website from two Palestinians and two Israelis:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/flavius/2008/12/gaza-as-seen-from-there.php
In addition, our long-time Cafe member lally offered an incredible link involving an ongoing discussion between a Gazan (Peaceman) and an Israeli in Sderot (Hopeman), which is the principal Israeli town that has been targeted by Hamas and its more militant allies:
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3580687,00.html
I'm just trying to move the debate away from name-calling and polemics Bev; that's really all I feel I can do at this point. I don't disagree with your premise that both sides must change their ways. The immediate question is whether what Israel is doing is necessary, and I am becoming more and more convinced that it is necessary and justified, but in recognizing necessity, I am not saying or claiming that even a complete cessation of missles from Gaza would be a sufficient resolution. Necessity and sufficiency are two entirely different concepts.
Let me finally suggest that Josh's point earlier in the week, that the settlements pose another, or in his words, the most critical problem, is something that also resonates with me. So perhaps it is fair to say that, while it may be necessary for Israel to defend its citizenry from missile attacks, it is also necessary for Israel to confront and take on the settler movement in the West Bank. Such necessary steps are precursors both to what is sufficient, and that is a lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians in the very near future.
Bruce
January 2, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza is a walled ghetto.
There is an uprising in that ghetto led by radicals.
The uprising has no chance of victory.
Remind you of something?
Why does a mandate for a white majority state "resonate with you?"
Why does the expulsion in the name of that mandate of the population of Ashkelon "resonate with you."
Why does a whining Russian emigre in Sderot who "can't live here anymore" but who can move whenever she pleases resonate with you more than the cries of those in Gaza who are unable to leave whether they want to or not?
Citizenship before ethnicity is the rule of modern law.
You either support that, or you don't. If you want a white majority state, move there and defend that state yourself. But don't ask us to help. Why live in a multi-ethnic state and defend everything it stands opposed to?
January 2, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce:
I am flattered that you would comment on one of my posts Seth. I understand your position and I generally read what you write and I'm sorry that some of our Jewish brothers and sisters have called you names like "self-hater" based upon your strong views. We disagree, we often do, but perhaps some day we will see eye to eye. I'm glad that, at least for the moment, you have returned to the Cafe. Happy New Year to you and to yours.
Bruce
January 2, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL I was addressing that to you Seth, not to myself. Sorry.
January 2, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see you back in the Cafe too, Seth. I mostly agree and sometimes don't, but I like the way you see things, even when I'm disagreeing.
January 2, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Seth, I'm neither a lawyer nor a political philosopher, so i don't know how do you define "modern law". Is e.g. the German law modern? I do know though that a Jewish majority state is the basic premise of Zionism, and the only guarantee of a safe haven for Jewish refugees from any hot spot in the world - we had numerous example of that in the 60 years of Israel's existence. This is also the major stumbling block for Israel's Arab neighbors and their amen corner in the West. We're all familiar with reports that Camp David-2, Taba and latest contacts between Olmert and Abbas stumbled not on removal of settlements,territorial exchanges or the status of Jerusalem - Israel was ready for compromises on that, - but on so called Palestinian right of return - i.e. explicit insistence on ending Israel's status as a Jewish majority state. (Please let's leave aside offensive nonsense about white majority - that bullshit does not stand a laugh test in light of Israel's effort to save black Ethiopian Jews, bring them to Israel and integrate them into Israeli society ).
And please hold your condescension to that Russian Jew from Ashkelon - she can't go back to Russia any more than millions of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, Iran, Poland, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and their descendants can go back there. Have you ever though why are there Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza and Lebanon in the first place? As you know, about 800,000 Arabs have fled the newborn Jewish state of Israel in 1948, and about the same number of Jewish refugees have fled Arab countries and Iran at the same time, followed by hundreds of thousands Jewish refugees from all over the world. Ever heard of a Jewish refugee camp in Israel, Seth? Me neither.
But the Palestinian refugees problem has been carefully preserved by their fellow Arabs for decades, up to this day - see how carefully Egypt maintains Gaza blockade from its side. Arab states (except only Jordan, AFAIK) never allowed Palestinians to become citizens. For what reason, Seth? - To use them as human pawns and canon fodder to eliminate the Jewish majority state in a part of Palestine. THAT is the crux of the problem, and that is why reasonable politicians in Israel know that two-state solution is the only way for Israel to survive. Hamas knows that, and that's why they will fight to the last Gazan and to the last Israeli to prevent such turn of events. Let's hope they'll be thoroughly defeated.
January 2, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
" Is e.g. the German law modern? "
Until a few years ago it was not. But considering that the US wrote the Japanese constitution that fact that they didn't do the same for Germany is an issue worth examining, don't you think?
Christian Europe killed the Jews, not the Muslim Middle East.
"As you know, about 800,000 Arabs have fled the newborn Jewish state of Israel in 1948"
The above, courtesy of the commnets here. Nice that it was easily accessible, but it's not news.Do us all a favor, and stop lying. Either defend your white man's land for what it is, or don't.
January 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uri Avnery
"AS A MATTER OF FACT, the cease-fire did not collapse, because there was no real cease-fire to start with. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water.
Those who decided to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – knew that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions."
January 2, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You beat me to the link by an hour.
January 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to bomb people, who have no way to flee, well that's nothing more than target practice. Or roulette. It's abominable!
January 2, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza contains well over 100 square miles. Why are you repeating this "no way to flee" and "penned in" propaganda talk, TheraP?
January 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
100 square miles is not much for the number of people. But apparently it bothers you to consider that they cannot leave there. And now that the ground assault has begun, apparently they want to divide that 100 square miles into 4 parts... and drive the people into the middle. What does sound like to you?
January 3, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The IPF's argument basically reduces to a statement that the problem is the Qassam rocket attacks and Israel's various responses to date (blockade and now bombing) are justifiable responses to those attacks. Hamas would argue, however, that the Qassam rocket attacks are a justifiable response to a 40-year denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and a 40-year occupation in which millions of Palestinians have been denied basic political rights. While it would be nice if the Palestinians were all Ghandis, I think it's a bit extreme to expect a population of millions to submit quietly to a 40-year process of disenfranchisement.
January 2, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
40-year process
Consideration of a 40 year occupation is best informed by a recollection of the general joy with which the end of the German occupations in Europe were greeted, after one tenth the time...
January 2, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple:
I'm not here to defend IPF's statement; that might be an issue to take up with MJ. But I don't think IPF is asserting that a cessation of missile attacks inside the Green Zone is an end in itself. I think IPF, as reflected in MJ's fine post that he offers today, is that ending the missile attacks, even if possible, only begins to address the critical issues separating Israelis and Palestinians. MJ's post, which I wholeheartedly recommend, is linked to below:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/02/the_gaza_war_and_israels_futur/
Bruce
January 2, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, I agree that IPF doesn't believe that ending rocket attacks is an end in itself. I was reacting, however, to the statement's attribution of blame to Hamas as you noted:
At the threshold, IPF calls on the United States to push for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but appears to squarely and without ambiguity blame Hamas for what has taken place.
Personally, I think the reflexive need to place blame on the Arabs is part of the problem with these statements. How do you think Arabs react when they read this? Don't you think as soon as they see that they are being blamed for the problem they just tune out?
January 3, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
For my part I'm trying to avoid the "what's justified" part of the argument. To me the real issue is that an immediate cease fire and a turn back towards negotiating the peace that almost happened is the only answer. Israel can justify its actions however it wants but perpetual war isn't in its interests, justified or not.
January 2, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy New Year destor and fair point. I think IPF supports what you do in a generic sense, to wit, an immediate ceasefire but one that is premised on the cessation of missile attacks. Others, like Mr. Grossman, whom I link to above and credit Flavius with offering several days ago, believe that the time is ripe for an immediate and unilateral ceasefire. Let me also offer a link to an e-mail I just received from Americans for Peace Now ("APN"), in which they call for an immediate and unilateral ceasefire as well, i.e. one that doesn't depend on an agreement from Hamas to cease shelling inside the Green Line:
http://peacenowconversation.org/?p=136
January 2, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy New Year, Bruce.
I continue to be impressed with MJ Rosenberg on this issue. He's really where I'm taking my guidance from.
January 2, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well destor, as to the particular post by MJ today, I recommend and link to it because I believe it strikes an appropriate and effective chord, and I hope it is read by many. How's that? :)
January 2, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you agree!
January 2, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most of us would agree that whether or not Israel was right to begin the bombing, it is wrong to continue it.
I posted above the news article describing Uri Grossman's death. Apart from being poignant in itself, the moment when it appeared eerily parallels today. Plus ca change.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/13/news/soldier.php
January 2, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce: Although I signed the J Street petition (that also called for a mutual ceasefire), I recognize that will be difficult to achieve without addressing the underlying circumstances that led to the rocket fire.
Further, since signing the petition, I've discovered that there were other criteria involved in the ceasefire that expired last month, and that Israel also violated it's responsibilities. You might take a look at this article from last summer for more info on that: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/979167.html
It says, in part,
Was the economic blockade ever lifted during the 6-month period of the truce? I have to admit that I was so focused on the U.S. elections that I don't really know for sure, but I don't think it was. And if it wasn't, then wasn't Israel also in violation of the conditions of last summer's truce? That doesn't mean Hamas was justified in beginning the rocket fire again, but it does seem to be an another element that adds context to the situation.
It's hard to find information though, on the exact requirements of the truce; most of the articles I've found discuss the merits of the truce proposals, not the final agreement. This article, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/993702.html , seems to provide the most information, although it still leaves unanswered questions.
January 2, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
I looked far and wide for information on the blockade, and what what was meant by the parties' agreement in June, which is not an executed document. Most information I found was on Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and on the website of the pro-Hamas Palestine Information Center. I understand from Wikipedia that the official Hamas website does not have an English translation.
Here's some links, and there's a helluva lot more back and forth on both Israel's and Hamas' site, but it takes quite a bit of time to wade through:
From the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/One+month+of+calm+in+Gaza+28-Jul-2008.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Humanitarian_assistance+_to_Gaza_since_June_19_calm_understanding_18_Nov_2008.htm
Here's the website of the english-language Palestine Information Center, which I understand provides a Hamas perspective (as distinguished from Fatah).
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s75H3h9pc0oHsUDcI70AS2nPnhKgxl1Ryci%2f7bo%2fVvHxCD68P1dRCAYdgtJ1h85CjYH%2b11k03WMmSeBXCKwuMPasggUq9oXAgsPARuCvmQufY%3d
http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7TLLxqFxC1%2fxQBvnAICKOiaDFEJ5NKH%2brFxxOVojaTf2riNnocrzegAs1P2mNdnydvyReaRvaKhbIDlOPO7wCfkMGnxN5qC9Tp6f4yN%2biECo%3d
January 3, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bruce, for taking the time to look all that up. It still leaves me with a lot of questions though. I wonder if Egypt's role as negotiator was just another fly in the ointment, as Egypt has it's own issues.
It's still unclear from what I've read whether the blockade was ever really lifted; although it does look like Israel opened the crossings at times, it may be that the amount of time the crossings were open was insufficient to provide Gaza with it's basic needs. And the sense I got from reading the articles written in the lead up to the truce was that Hamas expected a full lifting of the blockade.
I notice that there's quite a bit of information in the second Israeli article that contradicts much of what I've read elsewhere about what was going on. It appears from the article that during the entire period of the truce, Israel kept up a steady supply of basic necessities flowing into Gaza, and it implies that the electricity supply was more-or-less continuous. I guess I'm going to spend some time slogging through google to check all that out; Israel paints a very different picture than what I read at b'tselem:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Siege_Tightening.asp
And there are several articles in the b'tselem archive that paint a different picture as well:
http://www.btselem.org/english/OTA/?WebbTopicNumber=30&image.x=8&image.y=8
(of particular interest are some of the articles written in the time between when the truce started, in June, and mid-December, when it was not renewed.
Of interest is that I read, when researching the issue earlier, that Egypt concurred with Hamas' description of the conditions of the truce, confirming that one condition was the lifting of the siege by Israel. At this point, to me, it really doesn't appear that's what happened; although the Israeli article mentions increased movement of goods, I notice that they give numbers only in comparison to earlier periods when the siege was still in effect. And I recall reading articles during the truce period by outside sources (the UN was one source) that continued to document a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. So whatever happened, that sure doesn't sound like a full lifting of the siege to me.
Another relevant element, in trying to understand all this, is that Israel was planning the current military action for the past six months, apparently from the time the truce began, or somewhat before.
I had replied to you in the other thread and am a bit nervous about something I wrote. I hope you'll keep the lines of communication open if it's something you find objectionable.
January 3, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I will take up with MJ the issue of the advanced weapons ban. However, you have stated on numerous occasions the issue of settlements being of prime importance and a neglected one at that. In November I visited many of the settlements and they are all thriving and seeming to grow. I don't know where the money is coming from but I see numerous empty new houses just waiting for new families.
My IDF nephew took me to Maskiot (I needed him since it is in a closed military zone)and saw it's growth. I have no clue why Israel would authorize such a settlement but the residents there are convinced that the Israeli government assurances that they will not have to move again are true. After Sharon evicted them from Gaza, I cannot understand why the Israeli government would traumatize these people again. Yet Maskiot sits smack in the middle of the Jordan Valley and would be defenseless without the IDF permanently there to protect it.
What I don't get is lots of people around the world and in Israel decry the settlements but not a single finger is lifted to stop or even slow down their development and expansion. This leads me to one conclusion - Israel has no intention (past or present) of ever dismantling the settlements and letting the Palestinians have a viable state. Any other conclusion is illogical. One simply does not make a problem bigger if one has any intention of solving it.
January 2, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The expansion of the settlements is central to the conflict. But the issue is not a simple matter of it being completely ignored. It was, after all, central to the development of the Oslo Accord
Both sides contributed to the failure of that accord. In the linked conversation, both Israelis and Palestinians understand that the expansion of settlements profoundly undermined the process set out in the accord.
So when it comes to "lifting a finger", the first question to ask is if the "effort" you have in mind is the development of a new accord with lots of incentives for both sides or an imposed set of conditions enforced by the international community.
The latter option would certainly be a break from the status quo but would not be an adventure for the faint of heart.
The United States recently embarked upon two little adventures......
January 2, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moat - There are 500,000 Jews living across the "green Line" now. In 10 years there may be 1,000,000. When does the problem get too large to be solved?
January 2, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or another way of looking at it: would there ever be a better time for Obama to grasp that nettle, than 4 years before the next election?
The elephant in the room of course is that any peace agreement would require the US to strongly support the elimination of many of the settlements and some restriction on the growth of the remaining ones.That will be deeply unpopular with Born Again Christian and some -by no means all-US Jews.
If enough time passed and there was a "good enough" peace many at least of those Jewish voters would be willing to put aside their lingering unhappiness by 2008.
January 2, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
jdledell,
You ask a pertinent question. But haven't you avoided mine while asking it? I will put the question differently:
If the "solution" is to come from an international consensus that overrides the shortcomings of the warring parties, won't it have to be very powerful, well coordinated, and willing to stay with the mission for a long time?
By asking I don't mean to preclude the answer. The effort could be the right thing to do.
January 2, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moat - I am reluctant to have the International commnunity (the UN, US or EU) impose a settlement. Their history in making wise decisions is not good. The UN made major mistakes in the initial partition between Israel and Palestine. The fact that Israel had no access to Jerusalem made no sense and would never last. The arabs knew that and so did the Jews. The outside world simply does not understand the passions and prejudices of the area well enough to do a good job.
That being said, the International actors must provide the proper environment and incentives for the two parties to reach an agreement. The two parties must have negotiating teams locked up together with the US or UN having the only keys to the room. No one gets to leave until an agreement is reached. Economic sanctions will apply to both parties and will be lifted only after the agreement has been ratified by both sides population.
January 3, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the real question is this: why is it up to Israel whether or not there can be a Palestinian state?
When the land was carved up and given away in 1948 (given away by groups with no right whatsoever to the land, in fact, like the British to name just one group) roughly half was given to the Arabs for Palestine.
All we really need to do is declare that Palestine is ALREADY a state (nation) and as such can act as a state and can expel non-citizens if it sees fit. Israel does not get to choose their leaders, or oversee their elections, or meddle in any way in the affairs of this SEPARATE nation.
January 2, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are times when the "rightness" of one's position is not all that matters. I hate it that we are the ones that often have to step in and say "enough, already!" but here we are. If we don't, who will?
This killing has got to stop. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, we have got to find a way to mediate these messes w/o loss of life. Children should not have to grow up in constant fear. Families should not have to bury innocent children. It is despicable that in this century we still behave like the animals we claim to be so much better than...
January 2, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
January 2, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, check out David Seaton's blog on this.
I commented that a picture is worth ten thousand words. Maybe it is a million words.
January 2, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rockets fired from Gaza during the "ceasefire" were in general, not the work of Hamas. But, one would have to read the updates and random notes in the Israeli media in order to know that fact. In addition, another unmentioned fact is that rockets from Gaza were responses from some Israeli incursion or raid or asassination or whatever...
A game of tit-for-tat by both parties; much like the kidnap/kill games played by Hezbollah and the IDF.
Despite the pro-Israel coverage in the MSM. I'm sensing a growing outrage among Americans about this action by the Israeli government that was in general, absent during the '06 war on Lebanon.
Outrage and confusion are also growing in Israel and among the American Disapora that considers itself a part of the Zionist left. "Israel hating Israelis" is a brand new epithet coined to address this growing trend. One Op Ed (Ynet) writer bemoaning the perennial inability of Israeli PR to justify their actions even noted that; "(interestingly, Israel academic experts who live abroad are often opposed to the Israeli government’s policy.)"
The pushback from Americans who aren't even necessarily up-to-speed on the mess in the ME has surprised, pleased and puzzled me. Why now? Why this time around?
One thing I come up with is that Israel's actions are somehow, profoundly un-American and run against our almost religious sense of "fair play" and "an even playing field".
Shooting fish in a barrel runs against the American grain.
January 2, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're correct lally that many of the rockets come from groups other than Hamas. My undesrstanding is that most of these groups tacitly "signed" on so to speak to the ceasefire brokered by the Egyptians in June.
January 2, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, given that Gaza is about the size of the city of Detroit with about 50% more people and even greater poverty and unemployment, don't you suspect some of the rocket fire comes from bands of disgruntled, unemployed young men--basically street gangs--who maybe aren't solidly under the control of any larger political or militant group? We have violent street gangs in all our major cities, which we can't fully control. Just imagine what Detroit would be like if it were walled off and left to rot as Gaza has been. I don't think the residents of the surrounding suburbs could expect any more peace from the undesirables behind the wall than the residents of Sderot can expect.
January 3, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is absolutely the case, albeit I think, and lally probably can elaborate on this if she's around today, that most of the non-Hamas rockets are from groups that are jihadist in nature or name. Of course, poverty and despair are undoubtedly what leads many to the ranks of the militant.
The best hope for the Gazans, the real hope, is to be linked with their brothers and sisters in the West Bank, to have a free and open trade relationship with the Israelis, and to become part of the rest of the world. That's where I look.
January 3, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, there are many groups in Gaza, some claims of responsibility come from those no one had ever heard of. There are also militant groups affilliated with Fatah and some evidence that Global Jihadist AQ is trying to establish a foothold there. Some are Hamas' enemies.
AFAIK, no one signed anything. Israeli policy is to assign blame to whomever they please whether or not the targeted entity is responsible. They once bombed Syria for the actions of militants in a Lebanese refugee camp.
By asserting that you don't see support for Hamas and using that as a marker for assessing public opinion, you are missing the point. I've seen countless polls asking that question and find it ludicrous that those citing low support for the Lebanese or Palestinians take comfort in such responses while ignoring the consistant majorities of Americans who favor an even hand by our government.
It's NOT about support for Hamas. It's about disgust with Israeli actions AND the complicity of our own government. The mantra of Israel's "right to defend" blah blah blah has become so tired and overused that it's becoming nonsensical babble in the face of the reality of Israel's seige and murderous assaults.
Again, I reiterate that American anger against BOTH governments is growing.
And rightly so.
January 3, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We shall see lally. I agree it's not about Hamas, and I have tried to state that Hamas is not the only one firing missiles, but I don't think that blah, blah, blah is the sentiment at the threshold when the issue is whether Israel has the right to prevent shells from falling on its civilian populations. That's your take, that's the take in much of the left, but while you may be right, I don't believe that blah, blah, blah carries the day for the moment on this issue. This ain't that "stupid war" lally, and it ain't those cretins masquerading as Jews in Hebron. If this is seen as stopping missile attacks on neighborhoods from Ashkelon to Beer Sheeva, then I think that the self-defense argument will ultimately carry the day.
I also find it interesting that, at least for the moment, Americans aside, there is such muted reaction among Arab governments. It's not the old behind the scenes signals to Israel that we've seen in the past. Arab governments, perhaps with the exception of Syria, are speaking loudly and clearly with their relative silence. What do you make of that?
I'm not happy about what's happening lally; I hope you understand that. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss what is happening as blah, blah, blah.
January 3, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm certainly not "up to speed" on details such as the fine distinctions of groups in Gaza with access to rockets. So my use of "Hamas" may be somewhat stereotyped and too broad. Even so, if Hamas does not repudiate non-Hamas rocket attacks, it's liable for leaving the impression.
I've had a private position on the ME for several years, one which reflects my notion since 2003 that the Bush invasion of Iraq was immoral. That is easy to extend to other uses of violence ostensibly in service to larger ends. I wasn't blogging or particularly politically active in 2006, thus my appearance on the scene in this context, now.
January 3, 2009 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to you and to lally who is one of my mentors on here, I don't sense any groundswell of support for Hamas and against Israel in the non-Jewish American community (yet), and certainly not in the Jewish community. I've had conversations with my principal cliens (teamsters) over the past week--they love to engage me on this stuff and are more pro-retaliation on these matters than I am by far, so that anecdotal evidence does not support your thesis. Candidly, when you ask an American if Israel should have the right to retaliate when a civilian town is shelled, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that most Americans will answer in the affirmative. It all depends how the question is asked but this one, to me with my advocate hat on, for the moment seems like shooting fish in a barrel. Things can and probably will change if, heaven forbid, the next step is a ground incursion. And, quite a bit will depend on what PE Obama does when he finally feels able to speak out. If he says Israel has every right to defend herself, and that the fighting is justified until Hamas agrees to stop missile attacks, I think Israel from a public relations standpoint is going to be on pretty solid ground. If he's more even-handed, less so.
What do you think about the tepid at best reaction to all of this in much of the Arab world? How come the Arab nations have not found the time to convene an emergency meeting? I think the answer is that, at least at the government levels of many states, there is not much love for Hamas. But on that issue I'm not claiming much expertise. Lally knows quite a bit about Syria, which has requested that the UN take action.
January 3, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, I think you're right on American public opinion. I think non-Jewish progressives have become less supportive of Israel and even many Jewish progressives, while still largely supporting Israel, are far more critical of its policies and especially of Israel's recent military actions. Conservatives,though--which is still a larger demographic in the US than progressives--are as strong as ever in their support for Israel and its military actions. The vast majority of Americans, of course, are somewhere in the middle, and these middle of the roaders, I think, are still more likely to feel positive feelings toward Israel than to any Arab group or nation. I can't gauge if these middle-of-the roaders are shifting one way or the other at present, but I'm not surprised to hear that the teamsters you talk with are pro-Israel. That's a demographic that, while progressive on certain domestic issues, tends to be more conservative in many other areas, including foreign policy.
As far as the Arab leadership is concerned, I'm not surprised there's little response. Jordan and Egypt have nothing to gain by getting in disputes with Israel. Both also are extremely concerned about losing control of their borders. A large influx of poor--and especially militant--Palestinians would create major social problems in these countries and would be a huge source of instability. Lebanon doesn't need to be involved in any more conflicts with Israel or add more complications to its already byzantine mix of internal conflicts. Iraq is a mess of course. The oil-producing countries of the Arabian penninsula are distant and more concerned with their business interests. Syria may be the only country interested in doing anything (and it has been leading the call for an Arab summit), but what can it do on its own? So the Palestinians are unlikely to get any help from Arab leadership, and while average Arabs may want to see their leaders help the Palestinians (popular demonstrations in the Middle East suggest many ordinary Arabs would like to see some action from their leaders), those leaders generally are more interested in controlling their populations than being controlled by them.
There is, of course, some concern among Arab leaders about Iran's growing power in the Middle East. This may be a factor in the Arab leadership's hesitancy to support Hamas, but I think the significance of (shia) Iranian influence on (sunni) Hamas may be exaggerated. I believe Arab leaders in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have a much more basic interest, which is staying out of any conflict with Israel and the US.
January 3, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purple:
I think I agree with everything you've written. I also think that the American middle will be influenced by what happens in the next few days (I'm watching the Gaza ground incursion now), and by what PE Obama says when he finally decides to make a public statement.
Bruce
January 3, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, The point I offered was in re lally's questions about why Americans are more interested now. I could not understand your reply here in that context. Maybe I misread the questions?
"What do you think about the tepid at best reaction to all of this in much of the Arab world?"
I am no expert and I cannot argue "tepid". If so, maybe that world is tired of Hamas. Or maybe it's waiting to see what happens. Could be that precision bombing doesn't bother folks.
I suggested many days ago that it looks like Israel is out to "exterminate" Hamas. Recent reports seems to confirm this, or something close to it.
It, the Israeli conduct recently, just looks to me like more of Power triumphing over Greatness, and that then rolling over Humanity both figuratively and literally. And this applies regardless of who launched the "Hamas rockets" and regardless of whether Israel subtly provoked Hamas into more rocket strikes starting late last month.
I can add one thing I may not have mentioned in re lally: I have recently become something of a moralist, or perhaps I've found my moral grounding along with just enough facts to "play with fire" in matters of war and peace. I was a "tepid" conscientious objector in college, vaguely disturbed but trusting of government for years, fooled by Powell, Bush et al until March 2003 when I began to become more informed and thus had better food for thought. My position on Israel is very similar to my position on Bush in Iraq (and Bush in Afg.).
January 3, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds:
You are quite a writer. It's taken this crisis for me to take note; one good thing to come out of this mess. I think you have a point that some in Israel have the goal of eliminating Hamas. Here's an article from Sunday's NYTs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/world/middleeast/04assess.html?_r=1&hp
January 3, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm quite a writer?! Maybe it's the excess verbiage, if it's not some inexplicable rhetorical quality!
Yes, I saw that article. Thanks for the discussion.
January 4, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds:
You're hardly alone about Hamas et al. Lally has spent quite a bit of ink trying to get all of us to understand and keep in mind that Hamas is not the only group with power in Gaza.
January 3, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coming in to this discussion rather late, I beg to offer what may appear to be a quibble.
bslev writes,
The genius of Sergio Leone's "spaghetti westerns" was precisely in their departure from the familiar American genre at the time, whereby all of his characters wore black hats and the subjectivity of the viewer is all that remains to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys. Perhaps therein lies a more effective metaphor for the conflict and its spectators abroad than we give the genre credit here.
Other than that, nice post Bruce.
January 3, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bar. I was hoping that you understand that, somewhere inside, my reference to the IPF replicates an apt comment you made yesterday.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/02/the_gaza_war_and_israels_futur/index.php#comment-3328147
Once again we're on the same page.
Alas, such fine contributions here from folks from all sides of this issue, and I am humbled, but what makes the top of the charts and stays there are one sentence cookie-cutter slogans and subjective interpretation of compelling art. Perhaps it's all for naught.
Late to shul for "Tot Shabbat" and a hokie prayer or two for peace. Oseh Shalom. . .
Bruce
January 3, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, MJ did say I was "cute," so perhaps there is hope for Meaningful Dialogue yet.
Gut Shabbes backatcha.
January 3, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev,
Would it be cynical or enlightening to cut the volume on the Middle East news coverage and substitue it with Ennio Morricone's spaghetti western soundtrack compositions?
January 3, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting piece from Cairo by Steven Erlanger today, where, in reporting on the ramifications of this story
he opines that
and that
and he does back it up from some man on the street quotes from a cafe, while giving equal time to those angry with Israel's actions and Mubarak's response.
January 3, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, in Nigeria some demonstrate against the Zionist entity, while Kony rebels killed 400 villagers in Congo over Christmas where The simultaneous attacks on several villages in the Orientale province show a trail of bloody killings, looting, abductions and torching of villages, Caritas International, a Catholic charity operating in the province, said in a statement.
I don't usually like the Oppression Olmpics thing, but one really does have to wonder why I-P always manages to get all the world's attention like no other conflict.
January 3, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
a p.s. because of the link quota in comments:
I am awaiting the worldwide protests against Qaraguhlis bombing peaceful reconciliation assemblages of Qaraghuhlis, where the U.S. is still occupying supposedly in order to maintain peace, and against Sri Lanka bombing Mullaitivu.
January 3, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA, I read this article this morning as well. I think it's fair to argue that the Egyptian government, essentially a military dictatorship, does not speak for all of its people, and certainly not the growing numbers of fundamentalist supporters of the Brotherhood there. But, here, I find it interesting that the Egyptian government seems willing to criticize Hamas publicly, as opposed to criticizing Israel in public and giving their diplomats a slap on the back in private.
Now, Israeli troops enter Gaza, and the dynamics can of course change overnight. We shall see.
January 3, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA,
To some extent, Jews are often rightfully accused of hiding behind presumptions that we are held to a different standard by people around the world. And sometimes Jews are wrongfully accused of hiding behind presumptions that we are held to a different standard by people around the world.
I was in synagogue this morning. Even in my groovy, progressive Manhatten place of worship, today those with whom I spoke kind of uniformly expressed the view that "they hate us no matter what we do". I don't agree with that assessment, but I confess that this morning I couldn't bring myself to argue the contrary. Been spending too much time around here. :)
Thanks for chiming in AA. I was looking for you.
January 3, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all naturally have our predjudices which make it more difficult to empathize with some cultures and not others.
Here's my dirty little secret on that front. I poured over the large version of this photo in the Times today of the funeral in Jabaliya for the Hamas leader and his wives and children:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/02/world/26325478.JPG
looking for women. I concluded there might be one or two amidst the thousands. I realize it's part of the culture for women not to take part in public funeral activities, so I looked at other photos of protests in Arab countries for women. After not finding any for 15 minutes or so, I gave up. I often do this when Mideast tensions or Muslim tensions in Western Europe flare up, I look for where the women are.
I am a woman and a feminist. I'm prejudiced that way. I find it much more difficult to empathize when something bad happens to a society where the cultural practice is to leave 1/2 of their populace out of public society. Just the kinda gal I am, I guess! I can't get over being judgmental about the other mores and beliefs of such a society that would totally ban the effects of estrogen from their main public functioning, I therefore question everything else they do and find it much harder to empathize with their situation. Whether right or wrong, it is natural for me to think that if women had a larger role in their society, it would be a healthier and stronger and better society able to solve some of its problems.
Likewise, those protesting Muslims in Nigeria. They are like me, but on the other end of the spectrum--they also have their prejudices.
I don't think many Chinese citizens, for a different example, even care about I-P enough to post on discussions on websites about it. That's the opposite empathy problem, not having anything to do with and no knowledge of a culture or its opposite, and therefore having an empathy void.
I do think it's so important for this reason to have balanced coverage of all the atrocities and horrors that are happening in the world, and not to focus like a laser beam on one of them and judge by that picture alone. Since we can't totally avoid our prejudices, it offers a smidgen of a reality check. Here the reality check is that clearly the lives of 400 Palestinians are of far more interest to many in the West than the lives of 400 in the Congo, and that prejudices are involved. And that maybe unraveling those prejudices and removing them from a picture.
The only reason to bring this up in the context of your post is that I think most successful peacemakers have the ability to look at a situation like this without empathy or sympathy, but to remove almost all emotions and prejucides, look at the picture of reality with a cold, hard, yes, even cynical analytic eye. Hence, Mubarak et. al. may be a ruthless dictatorial machine with his own self-preservation at heart, but I think his positions tell everyone else something important about all of this.
January 3, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To reiterate my main point, I would like to add that I didn't see anyone moved enough to do a post on this site about Obama golfing while 400 civilians were slaughtered in the Congo. Likewise, I am not expecting him to make a public statement about the major loss today of press freedom in the land of his father, which has drawn comparisons to Zimbabwe.
January 3, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
and lo and behold, currently there are also protests on Kenyan streets, the protestors outraged at their president and prime minister for not speaking out about the deaths of 400 Gazans.
January 3, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA:
Yes, there is horror throughout the world and I'd by lying if I said that I wasn't thoroughly convinced that the focus on what Israel does is not disproportionate (to borrow a phrase being used fairly regularly this week). In fairness, I think that Americans do have some cause to focus on Israel given the amount of aid that our government has provided to the Jewish state (not always, but certainly since the 1973 war and accelerated as a product of the peace agreement with Egypt). But, again, I would be lying if I were to tell you that in my heart I believed that hatred of Israel in this country is by and large a product of American foreign aid. And, of course, the focus on Israel at the United Nations and around the world is, as you suggest with your current examples of atrocity, something I am at a loss to explain in any logical manner.
Things are the way they are. As to you your feminism and what it causes you to focus on, as you know, it is not something unique to Islam. Indeed, when my sister was thirteen back in 1970, she could not read from the torah on her bat mitzvah or even have her ceremony on Saturday morning, and even today orthodox Jews do not allow women to lead services, to be rabbis, and men and women cannot even sit together. The catholic church wrestles with these issues as well.
And so it goes (my copout line when I don't know what to say :)). In the meantime, this issue of Israel and Palestine continues to rip good people apart, even at the Cafe, fueled by contributors seeking for whatever reason to fan flames with self-righteous diatribes to the converted and the mocking in the worst way of all of those with divergent views, and exacerbated by our own collective inability to break bread and discuss our disagreements with civility and understanding. Why this happens, I don't know.
But we have it easy; we're posting for the most part in anonymity and in the comfort of our own homes. Around the world, in Israel and Palestine, in the Congo, in Zimbabwe, in so many places, I bet we armchair warriors look pretty silly.
Bruce
January 3, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone did do a post about the golfing... Not that I recommend it.
January 3, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - Let me offer my congratulations. This is the 72nd comment on an I/P post. That puts it in the same category as a typical Rosenberg posting. Yet, I have detected not one shrill partison comment - just a rational discussion. I was starting to doubt whether such a thing was possible when the subject was Israel or Palestine, much less both of them.
January 3, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Jdledell. I'm flattered, but right now I am watching as Israeli troops enter Gaza. We have moved into a new phase and I'm sure you share the distress I am feeling right now. It's a new phase; G-d help us all.
January 3, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes me wonder how many recommendations it takes to put a reader blog on "the front page." Too bad Bruce isn't as "provacative" as MJ.
January 3, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank heavens you mean! I spend enough time pissing people off in real life. Meantime Bar, I have the television on and it looks like this thing has been ratcheted up. How do we get out of this?
January 3, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that our choice for leader of the free world is capable of leading a solid and comprehensive diplomatic effort in the region, including some serious and effective ideas to curb an all-too-lucrative global arms industry. In any event, he'll need alot of help.
January 4, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed Bar. No simple task.
January 4, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I just posted this on a Flavius entry but thought it appropriate here:
I have tears streaming down my cheeks. I just got off the phone with a cousin living in Har Homa. He is watching the news of the ground assault as am I. He is joyful and I am mourning and ashamed. I know his call was just to dig at me (we have had numerous emotional arguments about this issue). He is pleased that Israel is using artillary fire because it will level the path and people in front of the soldiers. He wants the march to continue right down to the Rafah crossing so that anyone left alive in Gaza is herded into Egypt.
While he is still hopeful that Israel will do the same thing in the West Bank, he is realistic enough to know that outcome is doubtful. But he does understand this assault puts the peace agreement many years away, if ever. This extra time allows the settlers to complete their takeover of the west bank preventing a Palestinian state.
January 3, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This extra time allows the settlers to complete their takeover of the west bank preventing a Palestinian state.
It's time to divest.
That's how the world treats Apartheid Pigs.
January 3, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
JD:
I don't get to Israel as much as you do, but I have some hardcore family in Safed and in the Old City and I don't know what on earth I would say to them right now. Ironically, last time we were there was in September of 2005, and my wife found herself at the women's section at the wall with friends of my cousin who had just been evicted from Gaza. Oy. I remember the dinner conversation; one of my cousins called David Ben Gurion a communist, and the conversation proceeded accordingly.
The Israelis and Palestinians cannot resolve this issue by themselves. If there will be peace, it's up to this country, and our new president. It's what I hang my hat on now. Keep faith JD.
Bruce
January 3, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't get to Israel as much as you do, but I have some hardcore family in Safed and in the Old City and I don't know what on earth I would say to them right now."
Bruce - LOL - It helps to be retired if you want to travel lots. One of the purposes of spending November in Israel was to explore making aliya. No decisions have been made but I am becoming more and more convinced that I cannot contribute to the peace process here in America - I have to be where the action is. I know I am but a small thin reed but the thought of going to my grave without doing all I can to help achieve peace has shaken me to my core.
January 4, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is a fairly heroic attitude, jdledell. I mean that.
January 4, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blessings upon you in that endeavor.
January 4, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bar Kafka - It isn't heroic yet. Our own kids and their families now live in Tokyo, Amsterdam and Bangalore, India and my entire side of the family lives in Israel. However, my wonderful wife of 40 years has family and ties here in America. So we struggle together with this decision, which won't be made lightly or soon.
January 4, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well jd, I echo Bar's compliments to you and I'm sure it's a tough decision. Two roads diverged in a yellow wood. . .
January 4, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting Action Alert I just received from Americans for Peace Now is linked to here.
http://capwiz.com/peacenow/issues/alert/?alertid=12374481&type=CO
Key points:
1. AIPAC is urging congressional representatives to issue statements emphasizing Israel's right to defend itself, but AIPAC is silent on how to end the crisis.
2. Americans for Peace Now agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself but distinguishes itself from its characterization of AIPAC's position (no folks I don't get AIPAC mailings :))by asserting that war, however justified, will not provide a long-term solution, and there is a need for a ceasefire:
"Israel has the right, and the obligation, to take measures to stop the terror of incoming fire from the Gaza Strip. This right and obligation poses tremendous challenges for Israel, given the nature of Hamas and its rule in Gaza".
"While Israel’s military can achieve short-term tactical gains in Gaza, it cannot destroy popular support for Hamas, stop all rockets from falling, or force the release of its captive solider, Gilad Shalit. Indeed, this escalation risks playing into the hands of extremists, while increasing dangers to both soldiers and civilians – Israeli and Palestinian – and getting Israel bogged down in an open-ended mission in Gaza. It also raises the specter of a two-front war, should Hezbollah decide to renew conflict on Israel’s northern border, with all the challenges to the Israeli military and the danger to Israeli civilians that this would entail."
3. APN does not, however, call for a unilateral ceasefire, even though this Alert follows yesterday's ground incursions. Rather, APN stresses the need for a workable ceasefire with international supervision:
"To succeed, a new ceasefire must have teeth and it must include two elements missing from the previous ceasefire: improvements in the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the re-emergence of a serious, productive political process. Absent these items, any ceasefire risks becoming merely an intermission to allow those attacking Israel to re-arm, re-trench, and enhance their military capability".
I find APN's position stunning. I submit, respectfully, that if some of us who contribute regularly were to post exactly what APN just did, we'd run the risk of being attacked as war-mongers. Why is APN taking this approach, even now when things seem to be spiraling out of control?
January 4, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I am also stunned. Without a cease fire who the hell is suppossed to organize a "cease fire with "teeth" and conditions. Do they really think Haniyeh is taking phone calls right now? While Israel is beating the crap out of Gaza, talking is impossible and there is nothing to stop the war short of a complete Israeli takeover of Gaza with all the attendent deaths. This is totally inconsistent with their "End It Now" campaign. I hope it is just a too hasty and sloppy wording and not a change in policy.
January 4, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt it was written in haste. But I did, perhaps mistakenly, assume that it is calling for international oversight, which I think is the only way there could be any realistic monitoring of both the lifting of the blockade and the cessation of rocket activity and the importation of arms. I have not seen a response to the ground incursion at this time from either IPF or JStreet.
January 4, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink