Could that be related to the attack on the police men? Revenge? Isn’t it understandable from a basic human point of view that if you control activities against Israel, it doesn’t feel right that you are paid for it with six dead man that partly did exactly that? Just a thought.

The main point I’d like to know more about, but I am assuming it is censored, are the exact circumstances on 4th of November. Did any witness survive or are they all dead? What does Hamas know about the event, what does it hide, what does Israel know or hide. Are Gazans not-affiliated with Hamas living nearby? What did they observe on that day, the days and weeks before? Wouldn’t they know about building activities of a tunnel? Perhaps know some of the people doing it? Who exactly were the people killed?

And Richard what do you think about citizen’s (?) argument. If the bunker was the problem in connection with intelligence about another kidnapping action, why didn’t Israel simply destroy the bunker on it’s side or on both sides at a time the people busy there were asleep? Remember there was a ceasefire, and consider the above. I think this is a very valid question. Goal? Goals?

There is no connection, no matter how much you want to twist it into this connection. At one point I looked at these specific volumes, especially at media laws.

I am not a fan of Hamas, but neither do I trust your expertise on what exactly happened. I do not know what laws or legal structures they wanted to abolish.

Facts please. What do you know about law in the occupied territories?

Don’t you think that legal treaties between an occupying power and a dependand occupied people must necessarily cause corruption at a certain level? It seems so obvious that some in the Palestinian authority profited from that? Perhaps as a reward for signing certain treaties? And corruption obviously was a big issue in the elections.

Am I assuming correctly that you don’t know anything about the occupation laws in the territories? E.g. that it is forbid to dig a well. Economic laws, taxes, application? Is the delivery for water at 9 times the price it sells in Israel based on such a treaty? How many treaties restricting Palestinian activities–note: beyond creating bombs–exist? What exactly do you know about it? Beyond the single line you can use as an allusion to the Nazis, even if there is no similarity at all.

*******************************************************************
AGAIN:
you write: The common thread that I referred to between Hamas and fascist approaches was of the renunciation of prior law and treaty, in a revolutionary manner.

What are the exact parallels. Facts please, sources, not propaganda.
*************************************************************************

What I don’t like about the neocon approach are the clairvoyant pretensions. It might be clever, since at one point it is hard to differentiate between what would have happened and what is brought about by the preventive action.

How can one of us ever disprove something that supposedly will be done in the future with supposedly dire consequences, when in fact the mirroring of Hamas intention and the decided preventive actions may just as well have brought it about? Dissimulation, projection, suspicion: goals based on it.

For you there is only one perspective on matters: Israel knows the “Arab mind” better than any of us in the West. There may be a core of truth to it, but what about Israel’s interest in play?

Have you ever looked at the occupation laws and treaties from the point of view of Israeli advantages and Palestinian disadvantages? How could this scenario beyond the change to buy helpful cooperators in a democracy ever work in the long run?

Extremists seem to develop moderate views once they have to work in the administrative, legislative process, how do you know this wouldn’t happen in Hamas case? Are you a clairvoyant like the neocons? Palestinians are voting. Would they vote Hamas again if they didn’t do the best they can for the people they represent? Even if only slowly. If you were a Fatah and Hamas member didn’t you want to have control of e.g. the process to allow people building houses on their land? Wouldn’t you want to abolish legal structures that result in constant demolitions. On your own land, mind you.

Occupation, laws and treaties under occupation corrupt, what is your thought on that. Fine? As long as it benefits Israelis? Than I am afraid you have to harvest what you sow.

To form effective dissenting strategy, rather than only frustrating.”

If that was your main goal you wouldn’t spend so much time condemning Hamas and excusing the Israelis. You’d accept the facts of the matter–all the armed factions, the Israeli govt., the PA, and Hamas stink to varying degrees, but Israel is by far the biggest oppressor and killer–and then you’d make your practical sales pitch. You don’t do this. You waste time with idiotic apologetics (though I admit that I’ve found them perversely fascinating, in a watching a train wreck sort of way.) It would be good to discuss/ argue about practical things we could be doing–I’m thinking of writing letters to congresscritters advocating a more balanced approach at this crucial juncture, but suspect this is a worthless activity.

So it’s okay for Israel to do this, while BDS in any form is bad. There are, after all, no imports of weapons into Israel which Palestinians might be concerned about.

Richard is a nice guy whose moral reasoning faculty has been reduced to jello by his ideology. It happens a lot and there’s nothing to be done about it except study it as a pathology. Maybe he’ll change, maybe he won’t.

What’s interesting here is that he could make a case for shipping non-military goods into Gaza with or without Israel’s consent, but he won’t do it that way and he won’t make his argument for international control of Gazan ports (but not Israeli) without carefully explaining why Hamas is to blame and without essentially tying the success of the whole thing to Israel’s consent. Yet he objects to us blaming Israel because it is “condemnatory” though he can’t even talk about his proposal without blaming Hamas for the blockade.

So I’d support Witty’s proposal, but I don’t think Israel’s consent should be determine its success–they’re the cause of the problem and not the ones who should have veto power, and I also think the same sort of blockade of military imports should be applied to Israel. This won’t compute with Richard–what, treat Israel’s military with the same suspicion one applies to a group of terrorists? His mind boggles.

The common thread that I referred to between Hamas and fascist approaches was of the renunciation of prior law and treaty, in a revolutionary manner.

Some want revolution. Some want other characteristics.

I distrust revolutionary approaches, as they must maintain a state of confusion and animosity to retain their street cred. I prefer more stable and responsible approaches.

In any case, when that happened I worried that things would spin out, which they did for two weeks, then both Hamas and Israel issued public statements that continuing the cease-fire was in their interests (but Hamas stated that it would no longer hold the other factions accountable). The subsequent few skirmishes were between Israel and the other factions. I don’t remember hearing of one between Israel and Hamas, until the end of the cease-fire.

Shingo, read my prior post. Your comment about human shields, I acknowledged and explained my meaning.

So long as Hamas continues shelling Israeli civilians, it remains the responsibility of the Israeli state and the IDF to prevent it and by military means. The scale is irrelevant.

You use the term occupation in two different meanings. One reasonable meaning is the legal term “occupation” which refers to the responsibility of a state that is temporarily occupying another or disputed land, to provide social services, and administer law and policing. That is the meaning that international law refers.

The second use of the term is more rhetorical. That is that the occupier is an expropriator, a bad guy. That is the case in Israel’s incremental expansion into the West Bank, but is not the case with regard to Gaza.

The land borders between Israel and Gaza, are entirely Israel’s right to manage. There is no international law right for free passage of goods across a foreign frontier. It entirely rests on the relations between the two entities.

Historically, until 1967, there was NO commerce or any transit between Gaza and Israel, on the authority of the legally occupying Egyptian jurisdiction, and that was legal. A pain, but legal.

The blockade of ports is a different story. The basis of that blockade is Hamas’ state of permanent war with Israel. It has historically and continues to import materials for weapons to be used offensively against Israeli civilians.

If Hamas even temporarily relinquished claims to sovereignty over the ports and requested an international entity to confidently govern the ports, then Israel might be persuaded to honor that, and the balance could shift to more free commerce in/from Gaza, and better relations between Gazans and Israel.

Its a path. Why not work for it?

You ought to be more worried about your moral consistency than you are–you obviously dismiss all of the criticism we aim your way, but you ought to take time out (maybe a few years, given how hard it is to change one’s mind on fundamental issues) and reflect on it, rather than being so quick to assume that you’re the only one around here interested in real peace. You’re being jumped on because you have said some outrageous things.

People with your sentimental idealized views of Israel and with a tendency to blame Palestinians for the conflict have been running US foreign policy for decades and look where we are.