On the day that Israeli human rights organizations are saying the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza has reached 1,000 and the number of wounded 5,000, the New York Times op-ed page unleashed the 'good cop/bad cop' routine to justify the ongoing violence in Gaza.
First "good cop" Thomas Friedman in "Israel's Goals in Gaza?":
Aside from endorsing war crimes as an "educational" campaign, Friedman at least acknowledges there is an occupation and even broaches the taboo subject of diplomacy as a possible avenue forward with Hamas.
The same can't said for "bad cop" Jeffrey Goldberg in "Why Israel Can't Make Peace With Hamas":
I asked him the question I always ask of Hamas leaders: Could you agree to anything more than a tactical cease-fire with Israel? I felt slightly ridiculous asking: A man who believes that God every now and again transforms Jews into pigs and apes might not be the most obvious candidate for peace talks at Camp David. Mr. Rayyan answered the question as I thought he would, saying that a long-term cease-fire would be unnecessary, because it will not take long for the forces of Islam to eradicate Israel.
It was difficult to find one quote from Goldberg to use, as the entire article is a noxious regurgitation of almost every orientalist, racist, decontextualized and unsubstantiated (Hamas didn't renew the cease fire out of competition with Hizbollah?) justification for the slaughter of the Gazan people. We not only learn that Hamas doesn't believe in the Holocaust or that they think Jews are somehow related to apes and pigs, but Goldberg posits the only hope for peace is to instigate an all out Palestinian civil war. As crazy as that sounds it is unfortunately the foreign policy of the United States. If nothing else Goldberg has accomplished the impressive feat of making Thomas Friedman look measured and considerate. But the thing to remember with the 'good cop/bad cop routine' is that they're both cops.
While the Times is worried about Jewish apes and bombing Gaza into enlightenment, Israeli human rights organizations report:
Related posts:
- Friedman Beat Goldstone to Gaza/Lebanon Comparison
- The case builds for Israeli war crimes in the New York Times
- Young Jewish bloggers leapfrog Friedman, Goldberg et al as leaders on Gaza slaughter
- Breakfast in Gaza with Taghreed El-Khodary of ‘The New York Times’
- This is Ethan Bronner’s chance to seize the Friedman laurels
{ 50 comments }
Friedman Aiding, Abetting Zionist terrorism
Okay, so a major cleric of Hamas, heir of Rantisi and Yassin who never had a problem speaking their minds, TELLS Goldberg straight-out, we will never allow anything but a pause in our preparations to defeat you, you have no rights in Palestine, you are sub-human, those of you who survive our revenge can go back to Germany and be a curse upon Europe, and you think Hamas can be negotiated with in some way? That's POLICY, as far as Hamas is concerned.
What triggered the Israeli "big plan" response was the tunnel and the use of long-range Grad rockets, which indicated that Hamas's goal was to kidnap soldiers AND CONTROL the ESCALATION of the WAR IN SOUTHERN ISRAEL, to Israel's immediate security detriment and eventual destruction.
At this point, there are no good options that will preserve the State of Israel, so why aren't the Gazans happier?
Phil:
It's become apparent now that you are merely angered and saddened by Israel's military success.
Talk about Holocaust denial: I assumed as I read Phil's post that Friedman was the [insane] bad cop, and that Goldberg must have had a revelation, for how can any civilized person so cavalierly call mass murder an effort to "educate"?
If Friedman is such a sadist, what does that make Goldberg, and what does it say the state of American civic life? Unfortunately, everyone who reads Phil's site already knows.
Annals of Zionist projection, Volume 425:
Eurosabra: you have no rights in Palestine, you are sub-human, those of you who survive our revenge can go back to Germany [Jordan] and be a curse upon the Europe [the Middle East], and you think Hamas [Jewish ultra-nationalists] can be negotiated with in some way?
William Lind has already answered all Friedman's sociopathic ("It was not pretty, but it was logical") justifications of Israel's barbarism against Lebanon and Palestine.
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=14057
Thanks, Joachim, for the link!
MM: Tu quoque is an old game in the Middle East, and gets us nowhere. All that tells me is that you are the enemy.
Comparable Israeli groups, like the Machteret Yehudit and Kach, which exist to strike Palestinian civilians whenever possible, based on an ideology of sole Jewish possession of the entire Land of Israel, were put down with force by the Israeli state.
An Israeli state which shared their ideology would be the peaceful possessor of the entire Land of Israel, given the means at its disposal. Cairo under 100 feet of water is no place for the Ikhwan to marshal resistance.
Ironically, based on my long experience of life with Palestinians, I do not think the Palestinian people as a whole could be mobilized to commit genocide, nor the Israeli-Jewish people as a whole. The problem lies in the miniaturization of the means of destruction, and the dissemination of cheap and easy technologies of violence.
This is jewish religio-ideological induced brain disfunction searching instant "what's good for the jews" gratification versus the low frequency pattern recognition algorithm embedded into normal healthy human brain:
"why are these pictures allowed to be published".
Notice how the charges from the jew is that pictures are allowed to be shown (meaning americans are guilty of making her to suffer because of their indiscretion about internal jewish affairs.) And the reaction of the normal humans is to cautiously inform she is part of a greater pattern they have already noticed.
And all you tell us, Eurosabra, is that you are not American. You are
a Jewish Nazi. We need to rid ourselves of you and your ilk.
"Americans are guilty of making her to suffer."
Someone doesn't like ZHIDS, eh?
friedman should be beaten everyday with hog jowls as large as his own if such can be found (hoggers in NC got a fat hog?).
few more months tommy will disappear into his jowls and suffocate.
'course his ass may get wind of this and claim 1st rights to friedman's head. his head has been up his ass for a long time.
Here's an eloquent (almost a poem) list of the recent horrifying history of Zionist-US lies and double-dealing–before slaughter.
Let's see:
We insisted on elections.
Hamas (the wrong group) won.
Hamas was told to disarm in the face of
their enemy or the election results wouldn't be recognized.
They refused.
We supported Fatah in an attempted coup which failed.
A blockade was put in place.
Hamas fights back.
Hamas agree to a cease-fire.
Israel left the blockade in place even though it should have been lifted under the
terms of the ceasefire.
Even with the blockade still in place, suicide attacks stop, rocket attacks are reduced to a trickle.
Israel's 18 mo blockade has the Palestinian population eating grass.
Israel broke the "cease-fire".
Hamas increased the number of "rockets" shot at Israel in response,
Israel indiscriminately shells, bombs everything/everyone and invades,
an action which was planned when the coup failed.
Hamas attempt to negotiate another cease-fire.
Israel refuses and continues it's attack of a confined, blockaded, civilian poplulation.
I think I get the picture.
I also note that Hamas would not exist at all without the direct support of
both Israel and the US…ie: they supported a radical Islam group in order
to weaken the secular Fatah (and were successful).
which leads us to where we are now.
deja vu
Let's face it.
Israel wants the rest of the land.
There are people living on it.
They've got a problem to resolve there.
So how do they go about it?
We can see exactly how they go about it:
A war against trapped civilians and propaganda to justify it.
Israel is doing a good job of making those people hate it for the rest of their lives. That gives Israel an excuse for it's actions against those people. (A lame excuse that only flys if you ignore certain facts, but any excuse is good enough for a politician.)
I can see how Israel treats the Palestinians. I find it difficult to blame them when they use any means at their disposal to fight back.
(You can sure bet that I would, and so would most anyone on this site if they were on that side of the fence.)
Re: the "rockets" that get fired into Israel being used as an excuse for this horror…
again: treat me like a slave and try to starve my kids to death and that would be the least of your problems.
Israel's politicians are it's own worst enemy.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Wed 14 January 2009
http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=dl&s=78919038&f=672198221&x_id=182928&x_subject=Gaza%27s%20Eyes%20to%20Cry%20With&x_dpp=Y&x_link=http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,182928,00.html
Posted in response to
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,182928,00.html
"Gaza's Eyes to Cry With"
by Jeff Huber
Why do I have to keep reiterating that in fact, on this occasion as on some previous ones, it was Islamic Jihad who fired the first salvo, in a response to an air strike on their personnel.
Friedman is an an ego-maniac whose ideas are about half as profound as he thinks they are.
Goldberg is just an Israeli who happens to live here.
This "Jewish Nazi" has saved Palestinian lives with his own hands.
So fuck you.
Phil Giraldi recently had a post about another NYT Jewish Zionist team, Bill Kristol and David Brooks:
"They also work in tandem. Kristol, a good deal less clever than Brooks, sets up the official line on Mondays in terms that are sure to be heavily criticized, and Brooks follows a day or two later with a much subtler presentation of the same bill of goods. The Times reader, impressed by the greater sophistication of Brooks, nods his head in agreement, unaware that he has also pretty much bought into Kristol. This syncretism should not surprise anyone, however, as Brooks once worked for Kristol at the Weekly Standard."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=14044
It should be obvious to a child by now that nearly ALL Jewish Zionists work as a team to advance the Judeofascist agenda, whether they advertise themselves as "liberal" or "conservative." Those labels are really just camouflage for their primary agenda anyway: Jewish supremacism. Every political article written by a Jewish Zionist, whether on the I-P/Mideast wars issues or not, should be viewed through the prism of "what is its Jewish supremacist angle?" because nine times out of ten, there will be one there somewhere.
Jewish Zionsits are experts at framing their own fascism as eminently rational, totally defensive, and completely reasonable, and everyone else’s self-defense against it as outrageous and beyond the pale. They like to laugh about who gullible the gentiles who buy into this fantastical narrative time and again are behind their backs. And I have to say, I’m beginning to wonder myself if the Judeofascists aren’t on to something with their “goyishe kopf ” category, given how often and easily they are able to hoodwink and bamboozle the masses of American gentiles.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055472.html
For the first time, Gaza militants fire phosphorus bomb at Israel
By Yanir Yagna, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service
Tags: Hamas, IDF, Israel News, Gaza
Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday fired their first phosphorus bomb into Israel, which exploded in an open area in the Eshkol Regional Council area in the western Negev.
Ari Uvnery's concept of moral insanity on proud display in the pages of the NYT.
Depraved.
"We will never allow anything but a pause in our preparations to defeat you,..".
I don't get it. I keep looking but I can't find that sentence in the comments that you're talking about, Eurosabra. You've also left out the part where Hamas offers a long term truce based on the Palestinians getting a state. And they've been waiting for quite some time. From there we can observe a number of very solid facts that indicate Israel has never been serious about the peace process. Even now, the ridiculous assertion is trumpeted by zionist-owned media that Hamas won't negotiate with Israel – despite the easily verified fact that Hamas' offers of negotiation have been rejected by Israel.
"The problem lies in the miniaturization of the means of destruction, and the dissemination of cheap and easy technologies of violence."
And so we must continue the occupation, periodically slaughter large numbers of Palestinians, destroy their homes, deny basic needs food, energy etc – and blame them for what we do to them when they resist. Because that's the best way to prevent cheap and easy technologies of violence being used against us.
ps.
I'd really like hear about your experience saving Palestinian lives (in the occupied territories? I'm not being facetious here)
Look – I'm sure you know quite well that Israel has no desire, irregardless of what the Palestinians do, to 'give' them a state -and it's obvious from your comments that you feel the same.
So why bother with the self righteous bullshit? Seriously….
Rayyan was a piece of crap. It's no surprise a racist asshole like Goldberg quotes him. Gotta give the impression there's no possibility of negociations, ya know. Also, antisemitism and zionism are two sides of the same coin. Fuck them both. Fuck eurosabra.
But the truth is the same today as it was when Rayyan said his shit: Hamas didn't break the truce, Israel did; Israel planned the war 8 months before; Israel made Hamas resume the rocket fire. Now some asshole who's Hamas says some shit, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Hamas made the required efforts, Israel broke everything.
"So why bother with the self righteous bullshit?"
I suspect he'd say it's inherited through the maternal bloodlines.
A long-term truce, yes, ten years on the '67 borders, while they figure out how to destroy Israel. The bet is that they would, theoretically, moderate when faced with real-world problems of governance. And, y'know, I don't have a non-military solution to that, but Hamas/Fateh/Jihad really have no way of liberating the West Bank Territories, and didn't "give" enough during Oslo to convince Israelis to do so, in fact the uprising convinced them otherwise, neither did Israel "give" Fateh a state. Which leaves me with an impasse where I am asked to consider Islamist governance of my homeland as a "just solution" and a public good.
For the rest, suicide bombers harm Israeli Palestinians and Palestinian workers in Israel as well, which is how I, as a Levantine Jew, came to be saving Palestinian lives in Occupied al-Karmel aka Haifa. I actually liked ambulance duty in the north the least because the rockets and infiltrators took over from the suicide bombers without letup. The PFLP actually slipped a car bomb in among our ambulances while we were working on people in Jerusalem in Dec '01, which didn't actually do much, but for a few days the police impounded every white 2000 or 2001 Opel in Jerusalem, 7 of which were found with unexploded bombs.
From the Israeli perspective, withdrawal is followed by rockets, so the WB's relative quiet is viewed as a plus, despite the Occupation. And the Palestinians aren't going to get a withdrawal there unless the place is verifiably stripped of long-range weapons.
The reason Israel went big was that the long-range Grad rockets on Ashkelon, Be'ersheva, and Ashdod were viewed as an attempt to rewrite the rules of the conflict to include a permanent strategic threat. You can't try "escalation dominance" and get upset when the other side, um, escalates.
You bring up a good point, Euro. How can any future Palestinian state be "viable" unless it is also armed?
Unless it is able to withstand domination by its neighbor, isn't it really a bantustan?
Eurosabra, artifice is also an old game in the Middle East. All it tells us is you and your clansmen are a bunch of fucking sociopaths. Can you get off the American teat now?
"You can't try "escalation dominance" and get upset when the other side, um, escalates."
I presume you won't be upset should Iran try to escalate, then.
In brief Eurosabra and his fellow murderous racist genocidal Eastern European invaders, interlopers and thieves believe that Jews have the right to plunder and murder non-Jews with impunity.
This idea that seems to have taken root among ethnic Ashkenazim sometime in the 1850s if we look at the history of ethnic Ashkenazi terrorism, sabotage, targeted assassinations, and radical violence.
Jews feel that non-Jews have to take responsibility for violence that has arisen in non-Jewish politics.
When are vile Jewish hypocrites like Eurosabra going to take responsibility for the violence that has grown out of Jewish politics?
A good number of the most horrendous mass murderers of the 20th century have been Jewish.
It is worthwhile to note that one of the first ethnoreligious groups to get really pissed at ethnic Ashkenazim in the 19th century were the Tatar Jews of historic Poland.
Let's see if Eurosabra can find some twisted and perverted way to blame Christian scripture for that hostility, which replaced the cordial relations of the 18th century.
Eurosabra, the reason Israel went big was that it could & there's an Israeli election coming up–what's a few grads next to what the goyische kopfs in the USA gave/give Israel for free?
The Pals fire a few rockets, even some phosphorus — the Israelis
jump on the Pals for having the chutzpah to react to a raid killing
Pals inside Gaza during the agreed lull, and during which Israel has been starving the Pals for years…Israel attacks the Pals, including their babies–with the full might of arms the US goyische kopfs gives Israel under a US government taken over
by fifth columnists and their bought and sold goys carrying water
during the long Saturday we can see only on on video clips, absent
any effective US TV or MSM, any 4th Estate, now controlled by the
fifth column, the Jews born in USA but with first allegiance to Israel.
<>
What organization WOULDN'T seek to upgrade its defensive (and offensive) capabilities, especially when confonting a vastly superior armed rival?
"What triggered the Israeli "big plan" response was the tunnel and the use of long-range Grad rockets, which indicated that Hamas's goal was to kidnap soldiers AND CONTROL the ESCALATION of the WAR IN SOUTHERN ISRAEL, to Israel's immediate security detriment and eventual destruction"
What organization WOULDN'T seek to upgrade its defensive (and offensive) capabilities, especially when faced with a vastly superior armed rival? It's basic deterrence.
"You can't try "escalation dominance" and get upset when the other side, um, escalates"
You presumably won't be upset if Iran escalates, then.
For a Levantine Jew you sure do a good impression of the vocabulary and attitudes of a US teenager.
"A long-term truce, yes, ten years on the '67 borders, while they figure out how to destroy Israel."
There is no conceivable way that Hamas could destroy Israel, whatsoever. It's Israel who has the military capacity to destroy its Arab neighbors, not the other way around.
"Comparable Israeli groups, like the Machteret Yehudit and Kach, which exist to strike Palestinian civilians whenever possible, based on an ideology of sole Jewish possession of the entire Land of Israel, were put down with force by the Israeli state.
An Israeli state which shared their ideology would be the peaceful possessor of the entire Land of Israel, given the means at its disposal. Cairo under 100 feet of water is no place for the Ikhwan to marshal resistance."
You're ignoring people like Avigdor Lieberman, who recently called for treating Gaza the way the US treated Japan during World War II & whose political success is based on a racist scapegoating of Israeli Arabs. And not to mention Likud, which openly advocates an Israeli state in all of "Eretz Israel" – the exact parallel to Hamas' dream of a Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine.
Yet nobody serious calls for excluding Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu from the Israeli political process, or for the EU or the UN to boycott Nehtanyahu or Lieberman.
*******************************************
GLENN GREENWALD'S TAKE:
Tom Friedman Offers a Perfect Definition of 'Terrorism'
by Glenn Greenwald
Tom Friedman, one of the nation's leading propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, has a column today in The New York Times explaining and praising the Israeli attack on Gaza. For the sake of robust and diverse debate (for which our Liberal Media is so well known), Friedman's column today appears alongside an Op-Ed from The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the nation's leading (and most deceitful) propagandists for the Iraq War and a vigorous supporter of all of Israel's wars, who explains that Hamas is incorrigibly hateful and radical and cannot be negotiated with. One can hardly imagine a more compelling exhibit demonstrating the complete lack of accountability in the "journalism" profession — at least for those who are loyal establishment spokespeople who reflexively cheer on wars — than a leading Op-Ed page presenting these two war advocates, of all people, as experts, of all things, on the joys and glories of the latest Middle East war…..
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/index.html
You guys are ganging up on Eurosabra which is fine given that that's the way sentiment falls in this blog and he willingly (and admirably) choses to enter the jousting. But the nasty comments are more than just unnecessary and can make your cause look kinda ugly.
Anyway, for the non-uglies out there who think like me I've got a couple of questions that does make me pause.
First, essentially the world (and me) wants to see Israel return to its '67 borders. Okay, but what then does the world do to guarantee Israel within those borders which I think everyone would acknowledge are very very small?
What guarantees that Egypt won't fall to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hizbullah doesn't take over all the resources of Lebanon, and Syria doesn't get taken over by Iranian-style fanatics, and the same with Jordan? And all these actors then decide that the '67 borders are still too good and they chuck any statements they've ever made to the contrary and now state that Israel ought to disappear entirely?
For all its ability to produce fine words the world community is not exactly inspiring when it comes to action. See, e.g., Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, and etc., etc. to look at recent history only.
Just as a matter of pure military fact, doesn't one have to admit that Israel would be better off in terms of any attack within its present "borders" (that is including those parts of the West Bank it occupies) than within those '67 borders?
And isn't it the case that within those '67 borders any kind of coordinated attack by a bunch of Israel's neighbors would still likely mean catastrophe for a huge number of Israelis if not all?
So if the U.S. were very small and surrounded by potential enemies who may be susceptible to someday wanting not just its political extermination but the extermination of the American people as a type of "race," would you advocate that it give up *any* possible defensive advantage in exchange for all the words in the world about how bad that world would feel if you got attacked?
Like I say I'm in favor of Israel going back to those '67 borders, but I think it might be worthwhile to contemplate why some Israelis are afraid of it. And while I don't deny for a second that there's a big settler sentiment against giving up the territories simply out of greed for land, isn't it possible that lots of Israelis are simply afraid of the possible consequences of same? And shouldn't that be something that ought to be recognized?
Sin Nombre,
Israel is one of the most well-armed countries in the world. With the exception of its occupation of Lebanon, Israel has never lost any wars it's fought, and now it has nuclear weapons. It's never lost a war it's fought in, (with the exception of its occupation of Lebanon, which was a counter-insurgency, not a conventional war).
Even if Jordan, Syria & Egypt were to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood, these countries would be a vast military disadvantadge to Israel. What Israel lacks in borders it more than makes up for in morale, organization, structure, logistics & equipment.
'All that tells me is that you are the enemy.'
Them's fightin' words Euro, a departure from your normally calm exterior. You may soon be surrounded by far greater numbers of people who feel the same way about you. Like those odds? Maybe you will then be able to identify with the Gazans.
'So fuck you.'
A glimpse inside, none too pretty. Let it all hang out Euro, you're among acquaintances here.
'The reason Israel went big was that the long-range Grad rockets on Ashkelon, Be'ersheva, and Ashdod were viewed as an attempt to rewrite the rules of the conflict to include a permanent strategic threat. You can't try "escalation dominance" and get upset when the other side, um, escalates.'
It's got nothing to do with an attempt to rewrite the rules. It is simply rapidly improving technology (virally spread) for making home-made rockets. They will inevitably improve to the point where larger Israeli population centres are at risk, so you are right to the extent that it isn't the rockets so far that have triggered the madness, it's the threat they portend.
There are only two ways to prevent this from happening. One is to kill absolutely every Palestinian on the planet, which I'm sure you'll agree is impossible on a practical level, let alone on the pesky PR front.
The other is to talk to them and come to an agreement. It really is that simple.
If at some point the US teat is withdrawn, and the Palestinians are able to fashion a coalition of Arab and perhaps other states to support them militarily, will you be content for them to murder large numbers of Israeli citizens and hide behind euphemisms like 'going big'? If it's good for the goose, what about the gander?
After all, 'You can't try "escalation dominance" and get upset when the other side, um, escalates.'
'The PFLP actually slipped a car bomb in among our ambulances'
Targeting ambulances! Whatever next. Where would they have picked that up from I wonder?
Sin Nombre, given what you say about tiny Israel amidst all those Arab masses, but also that Israel is the only nuke nation in that area, has the 4th military in the world, plus USA full complete support in every way, the world's only super-power, what will you give the Palestinians?
Ah, abuse, merely for trying to explicate the disaster. Odd that Palestinians have never suffered AT MY HANDS, and a few owe their lives to me. But your psyches are hanging out all over the place, so I suggest you goose-step elsewhere, Kameraden.
I assure you that having been blown up by Palestinian terrorists on no less than three occasions, I am more than capable of sympathizing with the Gazans. There is, unfortunately, no remedy for the situation, other than a return to a reasonable cease-fire. That will not happen, because for both the IDF and Hamas, Gazans and Sderot are disposable.
The US is a significant restraint on Israel. Avigdor Lieberman with nukes should give anyone pause. Likewise, it is actually a significant restraint on Fateh, Egypt, and Jordan.
How's that Massachusetts divestment going, Martillo?
You're right Euro, I mean it's just apologia for genocide after all.
And "explicate"? Why not use the Hebrew word, since it's gaining currency in English now thanks to the constant need to "explicate" war crimes.
Peter H and Query:
What you say about Israel never having lost any wars and having such a strong military and indeed even nukes and then the support of the U.S. too & etc. is all extremely well-put and true.
So okay, here's the question: If you were an Israeli, would they be enough to persuade you to give up the defensive advantages of the territories?
After all none of those things are guarantees, are they?One loss, one mistake, one unlucky attack, and Israel is so small it's a catastrophe if not effectively lights out, right?
I mean, they don't *want* to have to use their nukes, right? And they can hardly use them over their own heads if they are ever overrun. And given the simple time element by the time the U.S. responded on their side after some massive attack they might already be in a hand-to-hand or house-to-house situation, true?
Again on balance I think that continuing to hang on to those territories now is hugely not right on Israel's part. But I have to admit that I can see even an Israeli who was against the taking of them originally having some significant trepidations about giving them back. No-one has the right to insist on any absolute guarantees, but—to turn Query's good question around, what exactly does Israel get for giving up the settlements?
And as to your question Query (what I would give the Palestinians), I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I definitely think that Israel ought to give back those captured territories they took in '67, that's non-negotiable. (With only such minor exceptions as the Palestinians agree to.) And I'd give them a ton monetary compensation for what was done to them in '47 and '48, and I'd give them a state, absolutely, and require Israel to declare its recognition of same.
But again my question to you in this same vein is what you would insist upon from the Palestinians if you were to give them the West Bank and Gaza and a state in terms of keeping them from just starting up against Israel proper all over again? Just a simple pledge from them that they recognize the borders of Israel proper? Do you really think that's enough? Or even a promise not to ever militarize? Do you really think the world would have the stones to do anything if it was found that they had started going back on those promises?
I dunno the big answer; maybe it's just inherent in the situation so that the Palestinians understand that if they get the territories back and a state and yet still allow attacks on Israel from same and Israel takes the land once again that's it, nobody will ever come to their defense again.
On the other hand I think one can even wonder about that: After all what happened when Israel gave Gaza back? It got rockets in return.
Yes the Israelis didn't give it back out of the goodness of their hearts, and yes they didn't exactly make it easy for the Gazans to succeed. But c'mon, it's pretty clear that the Gazans didn't just celebrate, cheer, tell Hamas to cool it and put their shoulder to the hard work of building a society and an economy and etc., did they? No, it seems, what they did instead was immediately start some intramural fighting between the PA and Hamas and then go and actually vote for Hamas. And not to blame them for this stupid incursion by Israel, but what the hell did they *expect* the result of Hamas' election would be? Milk and honey running in the streets? Pfui.
Not to absolve Israel from anything, much less this brutal, cynical incursion, but like I say … c'mon.
You attempt to justify something and then say you're not justifying anything. It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme, Sin Nombre.
Israel never gave back Gaza–they withdrew the colonizers and retained a military blockade and carried out deadly incursions frequently.
It is obvious that Israel will need to make a gesture of good faith EVENTUALLY, if it seeks co-existence with the Palestinians. And the obvious gesture would be giving back the West Bank and relinquishing military domination of Gaza.
Without any good faith to begin with, why shouldn't Israel expect armed resistance?
It's not like a million refugees don't have a legitimate gripe. So negotiate with them or declare war on them, but don't make war and claim you're trying to negotiate. No one buys that anymore.
"What you would insist upon from the Palestinians if you were to give them the West Bank and Gaza and a state …"
You're still thinking in terms of a master-slave relationship. You ask what you should INSIST on receiving when really all that is possible for you is to give back what is not yours and to ask for forgiveness.
Now I agree with you that forgiveness may not be granted, after all the Deir Yassins, Sabras, Jenins, Caanas, Beit Hanouns, Gazas, and Zeitouns. But you still have no other choice but to try.
Take a chance and join the human community.
MM wrote:
"You attempt to justify something and then say you're not justifying anything. It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme…."
MM: Must everyone not only agree with your analysis and judgments but share your certainty in same as well? I wasn't trying to justify anything and indeed don't think I even used the word. Just trying to think things through and understand. More difficult and less satisfying than just being morally omniscient I know, but still interesting.
For instance you say that it's obvious Israel needs to make a gesture of good faith and that giving back the West Bank and granting Gaza full rights is the obvious solution to that. Okay, but this answers none of the questions I posed, the most relevant to this being what if anything you think might reasonably be demanded of the Palestinians in return to try to assure that they would not just use that state to start attacking Israel proper all over again?
So, you got something substantive to say on this, or you just wanna attack me for asking the question again?
Loosen up a bit dude, you're obviously intelligent and well-informed on this subject, share it rather than just blowing off steam, especially the misdirected kind.
D:
Oh geesh, you seize on one word I used ("insist") and go using it to make some polemical point.
So okay, use the word "ask" instead. Do you really feel that if Israel was to give back the West Bank and Gaza and allow a Palestinian state that it would be unreasonable to "ask" the Palestinians to do anything in the way of saying that they wouldn't just use that new state to start attacking Israel proper then? Indeed then, according to you even if the Palestinians all as one rose up and affirmed that if indeed they were granted a state they would indeed just use it to wage war against Israel proper that would be okay with you too, right?
Or isn't that your position?
Whatever, it's fine. Was just asking.
Sure is tough here to cut through everyone's certainty and try to think through the guts of the thing.
Sin Nombre,
Just to clarify, I don't think Israel should make a unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 lines. I think the withdrawal should be in the context of a negotatiated solution, preferably in the context of the 2002 Arab League Initiative. Obviously, there would be no 100& guaruntee of security, but then there never is. I just don't think the scenario you envision – fundamentalist Islamist governments taking over, abrogating the peace treaties & declaring war on Israel – is very likely., and even if it did happen, these states have inferior military capabilities to Israel.
For reasons you yourself have acknowledged, I don't think the Gaza "disengagement" proves antyhing. To make several points, (1) it was a unilateral withdrawal, not a negotiated one (2) it was explicitly intended as a step to put a Palestinian state on the backburner (read Dov Weisglass comments to Haaretz about "formaldehyde") (3) Gaza still remains under Israeli control (4) other parts of Palestine remained under direct Israeli occupation (do you think that if the United States withdrew its forces from Tikrit but occupied the rest of Iraq, attacks from Tikrit would cease?)
A better example & precedent would Israel's peace treaties with Egypt & Jordan.
Comments on this entry are closed.