Ali Abunimah was on Democracy Now this morning condemning the murder of the four settlers and pointing out that thousands of Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been murdered in the last two years by the Israelis. Listen here. He also said that the act surely reflects divisions within Hamas that mirror divisions between the political and military wings of the Sinn Fein in northern Ireland in the late period of the troubles, when the military wing insisted on using violence. But of course George Mitchell talked to the Sinn Fein. Abunimah referred to his NYT op-ed demanding that Hamas be included in all political discussions of the future of Israel and Palestine.
-
-
- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate 13
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses PennBDS conference 2
- Dershowitz justifies war on Iran (and Iraq? again?)– and Mort … 8
- Alumni donor threats and more Nazi analogies as the world … 16
- Sullivan says passionate American supporters of Israel create a ‘problem,’ … 11
- Spanish gov’t builds solar renewable-energy project for Palestinian village — … 2
- Israeli officials say Iran’s ‘existential threat’ is– braindrain of 200,000 … 19
- Barghouti: Attacks on the Penn BDS conference reveal panic that … 11
-
- Israeli soldiers drive tractor over worker’s legs to stop Palestinians … 309
- In the last 24 hours an orgy of land theft … 241
- Video: Atlanta Jewish Times publisher’s tearful anti-apology 119
- Halper vows to rebuild Palestinian home destroyed five times by … 101
- The antiwar movement must rise again. Now 91
- ‘Invented’ Palestinian confronts Gingrich at GOP debate 88
- ‘Center for American Progress’ censors references to Israel from piece … 83
- Three things to consider before mourning for Sheikh Emad Effat 80
-
- New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy 333
- ‘NYT’ gives Israelis its magazine to make an attack on … 142
- Chris Hayes stunning ‘Story of the Week’ featuring Sheldon Adelson 102
- The antiwar movement must rise again. Now 100
- Video: Atlanta Jewish Times publisher’s tearful anti-apology 98
- ‘Tablet’ says writers who talk about Israel Firsters are channeling … 90
- Iran sanctions backlash– oil buyers ditch dollar 78
- Abunimah and Woolsey debate BDS in the ‘Philadelphia Inquirer’ 74
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate (13)
- HRK: The important thing for me doesn’t have to do with characterizing someone as dually loyal; I’d just...
- Opaleye: Is it “innocuous” to point out that this article is silly? Has anybody ever claimed it is...
- Daniel Rich: How about adding ‘anti-semite’ and ‘anti-semitism’ to the list of ‘no-no...
- So the U.S. military doesn’t want to attack Iran and neither does Israel. Who does? (62)
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses PennBDS conference (2)
- seafoid: That is powerful stuff. Compassion and justice for a people who are suffering. The Palestinians have put up...
- NorthOfFortyNine: Don’t mean to threadjack, but has this been reported on yet? http://accessadl.blogspot.c...
- Sullivan says passionate American supporters of Israel create a ‘problem,’ conflating interests (11)
- Citizen: If you listen carefully, Sullivan draws a moral equation (equal lack of responsibility?) between those who...
- Is Israel a failed state? asks ‘American Conservative’ (37)
- john h: An interesting synopsis, teta mother me. You sure got it with this: In 1909, Samuel Untermyer encouraged...
- Alumni donor threats and more Nazi analogies as the world awaits Penn BDS conference (16)
- seafoid: What difference does it make? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =O5DE8UQnM5Y Re Israel- I am so very sickened,...
- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate (13)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Alex Kane
- Kate
- Alice Rothchild
- Ahmed Moor
Blogroll
It’s starting to feel like Democracy Now is the only news source in the United States with any sort of combination of both international resources and actual journalistic integrity.
That is the money quote, right there. It’s proof that these “peace talks” are not that at all — it’s just a ploy to finish hacking away at Palestinian democracy which we set fire to years ago.
We might as well have ended up with Gramps McCain for President, for as far as Obama as diverted from Bush era policy.
“We might as well have ended up with Gramps McCain for President,”
..who would’ve suffered a catastrophic blowout of the ticker (assisted or natural) just months into the Presidency, leaving Sarah Is-Africa-A-Country-Or-A-Continent Palin as Plasticine Presidentess Supreme. It’s too horrific to consider what she would [have been convinced to] do with Israel/Palestine..
Chaos ~ Russia Today seems to have very reasonable coverage. OK, so they’re not a US media organisation, but at least they’re broadcasting in the US, unlike Al Jazeera..
A representative of the political wing of Hamas declared the murders in Hebron as heroic, not morally reprehensible, not strategic poor judgement.
Did the Sinn Fein describe IRA bombings as heroic?
You described the Gaza slaughter of 2008 as necessary. You also insist that Israeli citizens who burn farms and bulldoze homes to put up settlements are not, in fact, international criminals but are really just indulging in the “precious jewel” that is Zionism.
You really do not have any moral high ground when it comes to worshipping terrorists, Witty, considering your warm regard for the terrorists who founded Israel.
Also? We have a Palestinian here openly condemning the attacks, and what is the extent of your commentary? “Blame Hamas blame Hamas blame Hamas blame Hamas etc.”
You’re so predictable. You didn’t even bother to read or listen to anything here, did you?
That’s a fair point about Hamas. Now did the Israeli “left” condemn the Gaza War and the blockade as morally reprehensible and strategic poor judgement?
Notice, btw, Richard, a fair number of us here are condemning Hamas’s murders in no uncertain terms, as immoral first and stupid on top of that.
It’d be nice if you and most liberal Zionists could show the same level of honesty when speaking of Israeli crimes. For me, admitting that Hamas is a rather typical “liberation movement” (i.e., composed in large part of ruthless killers) is simply a matter of acknowledging facts. For you, admitting the truth about Israeli brutality cuts much deeper and you can’t do it. Too bad. There can’t be a sensible discussion with you when you can’t be honest about the crimes of your chosen side.
A fair number of us? At this point the Hamas attack has been universally condemned here. I understand you’re trying to avoid superlatives but in this case it applies. You don’t need to give Witty yet another windmill to tilt at, you’ll just end up chasing him as he berates you for “vocal supporters” of the Hamas attack that don’t exist here.
donald i agree with your last paragraph strongly… richard just follows the hasbara : hamas= terrorists..
all murdering on the part of israel is considered necessary and valid…
this seems to be the basic position richard and other zionists never veer from… in this regard richard is a good window into the ongoing attempt at always framing the conversation in these terms… i think the other part of this is when an israel jew dies it is considered much worse then when a palestinian dies… apparently jews are considered more special then palestinians.. i was noticing something similar in obama’s speech about all the americans who had died in iraq, but no mention of all the iraqi’s that had died from the us invasion…
some people are so attached to their tribe they can’t see outside of it..
James,
It is also the same when Palestinians or solidarity speak of deaths. They only speak of their own.
Humanists care for all. They needn’t even care for all equally frankly, so long as they do care.
You ERR in describing me as not caring about Palestinian deaths.
“James,
It is also the same when Palestinians or solidarity speak of deaths. They only speak of their own.”
So I guess nobody here is either Palestinian or “solidarity”, since we’re condemning the murders of these four settlers.
“Humanists care for all. They needn’t even care for all equally frankly, so long as they do care.”
It’s not that simple. It’s natural to care more about people you actually know. It’s common to care more about one’s ethnic or religious or national group, but that’s the path that leads people to condemn atrocities committed against their own group and rationalize those committed against the Other. You don’t know most Israelis personally, but for some abstract reasons the deaths of some Israelis you’ve never met mean more to you than the deaths of many more Palestinians you’ve never met. And it leads you to condemn Hamas crimes and make excuses for some Israeli crimes.
Should taxpaying Americans care about one more than the other? Should we non-Jewish Americans continue to fund the heavily disproportionate ratio of deaths and maiming amassed as between the two fighting groups? Should we pressure our congress reps to support a more balanced destruction ratio? Should we take a stance of a pox on both murderous houses and withdraw all aid equally, given the endless he said/she said fighting over the decades in terms of who started “it?”
Seems like Uncle Sam has been Judge Anderson Hatfield:
link to straightdope.com
“They needn’t even care for all equally frankly, so long as they do care.”
That’s pathetic. I’m sure certain slave-owners cared for their slaves, to a degree. Some humanists.
You may take your caring and deposit it where the sun don’t shine. For now, it’s worthless.
Justice is composed of suffrage, law, rights, due process, responsibilities and so on. Caring not required, just liberty.
“You ERR in describing me as not caring about Palestinian deaths.”
Prove it.
okay thanks richard… my other comment of you expressing the hasbara: hamas= terrorists, while the idf get a pass is valid then?
too bad some folks are unable to see what state supported terrorism looks like even when it is staring them in the face…
I’ve spoken of state terror. But, not in generalizations.
Some actions by the Israeli state, and by specific Israeli individuals, I would describe as terrorizing in intent, and terrorism in application.
I’m usually asked to distinguish in the heat of the moment, which I usually can’t do honestly. I just don’t know enough, and won’t gamble one way or another.
Those that are “converted” tend to describe any military action by Israel as terror, that none is clear defense, none is ambiguously defense.
That failure to even consider a distinction conveys to me that the writer is rhetorical rather than humanist.
By definition, a missile fired randomly or innaccurately at a civilian target is terrorism in application and likely terrorism in intent. A suicide bombing is terror in intent and application.
Terror in intent, is the intention to scare people away, to make them scared for the purpose of making them scared.
Terror in application is the method employed.
A critical lapse that I observe among dissenters is the utter failure to consider that conflict is mutual, that the “resistance” are also aggressors.
For example:
A big bad power might use an airforce that does terrorize those on the ground, even when they don’t drop a bomb.
In response, a militia might use an innaccurate missile that does terrorize those on the ground, even when they don’t hit a city.
And, in the city, a criminal may hold up a liquor store with a handgun that does terrorize the store owner, even when the gun is not loaded.
And the store owner may yell at any Latino that comes in the store, that does terrorize the individual that is just coming in for some pretzels.
Which of those terrorizes?
“Those that are “converted” tend to describe any military action by Israel as terror, that none is clear defense, none is ambiguously defense.”
Yeah, those “converted” to basic human rights principles, I suppose.
Some of Israel’s violence is defense, but most of it is either terror or violence used to impose an apartheid-like policy or to enforce some other immoral policy such as the blockade on Gaza. Very carefully targeted actions aimed at specific individuals who are engaged in attacks on Israeli civilians would be defense, but most of what happened in the Gaza War was not, and in fact the war (or more accurately, massacre) as a whole was immoral and unnecessary, because the Israelis should have lifted the blockade, which was one of Hamas’s perfectly legitimate demands. And it was clearly intended to hurt civilians.
The burden of proof has to be on Israel to justify each and every act of violence they engage in, because they have been engaged in land theft for their entire existence. They should give a detailed accounting for every single civilian that dies at their hands. Instead, we get the apologetics that Mitchell engaged in (in the Charlie Rose interview that Citizen linked) and that you approve of.
As for the Palestinian resistance, you’ve seen nearly all of us condemn the killing of these four civilians, so it seems to me you’re closer to those “dissenters” who approve of such actions than you are to people here.
Ask the former members of the Irgun and Stern Gang in the Israeli government; they know–google King David Hotel and Deir Yassein.
>> I’ve spoken of state terror. But, not in generalizations.
>> Some actions by the Israeli state, and by specific Israeli individuals, I would describe as terrorizing in intent, and terrorism in application.
>> I’m usually asked to distinguish in the heat of the moment, which I usually can’t do honestly. I just don’t know enough, and won’t gamble one way or another.
Please list some actions by the Israeli state and some actions by Israeli individuals that you would describe as terrorism. And please take your time – I don’t want you to feel any “heat of the moment” pressure that might make you duck and run.
Actually, in face to face presentations, I do speak of state terror in generalizations. I don’t know enough, even after months, to determine which incidents were state terror, which were individual hateful indiscipline, which were ambiguously defense, which were clearly defense.
I don’t think any real skeptic on Israel/Palestine that is distant from the physical conflict can.
That is one of the reasons that conveying the story of the experience, rather than the political demands and threats, of Palestinians is the most effective means to change hearts and minds.
An example might be five two hour simultaneious dramas (on the same stage, maybe even interacting) depicting the lives of actual Palestinian families say during the period of commuting in which encounters with Israeli soldiers take place. If the dramas are presented with some that are utterly undramatic politically, they would be more effective dramatically.
You ridicule my suggestions for imaginative dissent that is likely to strike the compassion of Americans and Israelis. You didn’t like my green thread idea for example.
Its not as dramatic as arms around a Palestinian house about to be demolished. But, much better done than ridiculed.
>> Richard Witty September 2, 2010 at 10:07 am
Wow, SIX paragraphs and you still couldn’t provide a direct answer to a very straightforward question.
>> I don’t know enough, even after months, to determine which incidents were state terror, which were individual hateful indiscipline, which were ambiguously defense, which were clearly defense.
And yet you’re assess and definitively label Hamas’ every action within minutes (seconds?) of reading about it.
You are clearly a biased and bigoted hypocrite.
“Did SF describe IRA bombings as heroic? ”
Presumably an attempt to put down Hamas by comparing to a far more noble outfit. As it happens, the murderers of the IRA were celebrated across Northern Ireland and sponsored across the Irish bars of the US. Not by everyone since not everyone in the community believed in violence. Certainly not at 95% levels as was the case during “Cast Lead” in Israel.
What I found interesting was the settler hasbara. the latest meme :
“Naftali Bennett, director of the Yesha Council, which represents settlers in the West Bank, said in a statement: “This brutal attack again proved that despite what might be going on in Washington right now, the Palestinians have no goal to create a peaceful state for themselves but are entirely driven to destroy our state and our people.”
Nice try, “Naftali”.
“Did the Sinn Fein describe IRA bombings as heroic?”
I am sure they did. or perhaps they thought of it as a necessary evil, just like many Zionists view the Nakba.
Please don’t get all preachy with this Witty. I can see you never condemn the continued civilian Palestinian killings by the IDF throughout this year, but please correct me if I am wrong.
For Talmudic questioner Richard Witty, who can’t be bothered with research:
In the heat of the moment two years ago – just days before Sinn Féin voted to support the Police Service of Northern Ireland – [Gerry Adams] appeared to boast of the Provisionals’ bloody past.
Goaded at a public meeting by republicans who accused Sinn Féin of selling out its principles, he ridiculed the splinter groups that vowed to continue to wage “armed struggle” by pointing out that they “haven’t killed a single British soldier”.
Little more than a year ago he praised the IRA of the Fifties and its border campaign – a dwindling band of republican hardliners with no popular support and few resources – in these terms: “They kept faith with the republican past and they ensured the future of our struggle.”
link to timesonline.co.uk
And this article is from just last year …
Jerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, usually carried the coffins and gave eulogies at the funerals of fallen IRA Volunteers.
Sinn Fein often praised the violent actions of the IRA, but Sinn Fein did a much better job of separating its political wing from its terrorist wing. It helps when you use different names. Officially, Sinn Fein always denied that they coordinated actions with the IRA, but most serious observers believe that two organizations were closely involved on clandestine levels.
Sinn Fein evolved as part of political wing of the Republican movement within Northern Ireland. Despite discrimination, Northern Ireland was still a democracy, albeit a severely warped one. Thus, the Republicans approached the dispute with both ballot and gun. Unfortunately, the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have no political outlet in the Knesset which undermines many of the parallels between the two conflicts.
The key difference in the conflict is that US truly was an honest broker in the Northern Ireland conflict. The Irish American community was organized enough that the negotiations would not simply be a whitewash in favor of the British. It also helped that both Bill Clinton and George Mitchell (as well as Tony Blair by the way) were of various degrees of Irish heritage which made them at least on some level sympathetic to the Irish people. Ironically, that clown, Peter King, a Republican Representative from Long Island, New York, was a very vocal supporter of both Sinn Fein and the IRA. Nowadays he condemns all terrorist actions, but he had a much more nuanced position just 15 years ago.
Even more important for the ending of the Troubles, the World was changing. European integration made the conflict seem even more anachronistic as citizens of all EU countries would soon have the right to live where ever they pleased. Europe was entering into a post-nationalist phase and these forces were stronger than anything going on the ground in Ireland. The British Parliament had begun to embrace devolution with respect to Scotland and Wales, and there was little reason to believe that the same process would not also happen in the North of Ireland.
If you are interested in the Troubles (and God help if you are) I think this UK program “The Provos” is a good place to start. It is available on Youtube. It is a very long series, that delves into much of minutia of the conflict. It has a pro-British bias at times, but still gives an excellent introduction to the conflict.
link to youtube.com
The upshot of the Settler killings is that from 6pm tonight they, the Settlers, will end the supposed moratorium on building in the West Bank.
link to guardian.co.uk
If the settlers that were killed are in illegally occupied territory, they’re in a war zone, and It’s no place for pregnant women. The IDF should warn them that they take their life into their own hands, but
the IDF more often protects these kooks.
No Israeli action in the OPTs is about self defence, it’s about protecting and prolonging the occupation.
or the eradication of the Palestinian population.
I condemn the Hamas executions. Here Mitchell distinguishes the Irish talks from those taking place tomorrow–the situation is analogous, indirectly, not directly comparable: link to nydailynews.com
Abunimeh described that the political wing and the military wing of Hamas are separate organizationally and separate sympathetically.
They commonly hold the view that Palestinians deserve decent lives and real self-determination, but aside from that, they differ as to method and emphasis.
That is EXACTLY how I described Hamas in December, 2008, that the politically and electorally oriented leadership that earned their respect through social service primarily, opposed resumption of shelling of Southern Israeli civilians, while the more militant supported and did the shelling of civilians.
That separation appears to not be the case, or at least partially. Hamas spokesmen praised the murderers, asserted that it would repeat so long as any discussions with Israel were occurring.
I also take issue with Abunimeh’s spending the majority of his air describing that “Israel gave Hamas no other choice”.
Adult human beings are responsible for their actions, plain and simple.
I wish that Hamas were responsible, pragmatic, humane.
It is not a “blame of Hamas”, as much as a clarification.
The assertion is that no peace is possible, no negotiations are possible, without Hamas at the table.
I think that is in error. The PA and Israel can come up with a proposal that they believe will successfully accomplish the mutual needs of the Israelis and Palestinians.
The proposal would then have to be ratified by whatever formal process is determined to be legitimate.
The criteria by which the Palestinian electorate and the Israeli knesset then decide will be “Is this feasible? Is this confident?”
And, if it is, then it will be ratified, and those that seek to deny that ratification would be literally enemies of each state, each claiming to be the “the true Palestinian” or “the true Israeli”, in contrast to the puppet Netanyahu or Abbas.
Preferring the hundred-year war, to imperfect reconciliation, likely stated by western radicals as an “anti-war” approach.
>> The assertion is that no peace is possible, no negotiations are possible, without Hamas at the table.
>> I think that is in error. The PA and Israel can come up with a proposal that they believe will successfully accomplish the mutual needs of the Israelis and Palestinians.
You promote yourself as a supporter of democracy, and yet you’re unwilling to allow the democratically-elected government of the Palestinians (or its representatives) to sit at the negotiating table. Let’s let Hamas and a group of moderate, unelected Israeli representatives come up “with a proposal that they believe will successfully accomplish the mutual needs of the Israelis and Palestinians.” That should please everyone just as much as the current situation.
Oh, and let’s also have Iran hold and mediate the negotiations. Because surely Iran, like America, can provide unbiased mediation.
Excellent proposal. Now if we could just start funneling guns and money to B’Tselem in preparation for their overthrow of the Israeli government, everything should unfold according to plan.
Except that Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a solution that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually.
They declare that that is not relevant to them.
You did read the Meshal interview that Phil posted?
>> Except that Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a solution that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually.
>> You did read the Meshal interview that Phil posted?
Yes, I read the entire interview, but I don’t recall Meshal saying that “Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a solution that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually”. Could you please post the excerpt that supports your assertion? Thank you.
“Except that Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a solution that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually.”
Firstly, the reason Hamas wil not sit at the sable becasue they have been excluded from talks by Israel and the US. Why are you being so dihonest abiout that simple fact?
Secondly,
“They declare that that is not relevant to them. ”
False. They said that the safety of Israeli civilians is not revelant to them. Meshal explcitly stated that his concerns are for the safety of Palestinians.
You did read the Meshal interview that Phil posted?”
Yes we did Witty and that’s not what Meshal said at all you liar.
1. Hamas is not at the table because the US and Israel have rejected their involvement
2. Preserving the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians is not relevant to them because the Israelis are their oppressor. There are no Israeli leaders concerned with the safety of Palestinians.
What Meshal actualy said is no different to what left wing Zionist suporteres fo a 2 state soluition have said all along – that they support a 2 state solution not beasue they care about Palestinians, but becasue they care about Israel.
You clearly only read a few sentences of the interview to grab some sound bites that you could distort.
How typical!
“Imperfect reconciliation” means on the one hand that Israeli extremists don’t get everything they want (which would probably include parts of Lebanon and Jordan with all Arabs kicked out) and on the other hand the very most moderate Arabs will get less than what they want.
Liberal Zionists will get what they want but no Palestinian will–that’s what “imperfect reconciliation” would mean. Sounds perfect for some.
I also take issue with Abunimeh’s spending the majority of his air describing that “Israel gave Hamas no other choice”.
Just another example of your hypocrisy. You expended considerable amounts of verbiage defending “Cast Lead” as “Hamas gave Israel no other choice”, and no you criticize Abunimah when you perceive he has done something similar, but on a much much smaller scale.
I stated that Hamas incrementally shelling Israel demanded A military response.
You are intentionally conflating that to stating that I supported THE military approach that they did do.
I understood the reasoning of it, countered rhetorical falsehoods about it stated by solidarity, and still criticized the extent of it.
You can call that hypocrisy if you like. I call it integrity.
So just how many Palestinian civilians are supposed to die because Israel “must” respond militarily in the most densely populate zone in the Middle East, that is only so densely populated because Israel created a crisis of displacement in the first place by eradicating the original Arab presence from more than 80% of Palestine?
“I stated that Hamas incrementally shelling Israel demanded A military response.”
A statement that is clearly false and grossly dishonest, becasue it ignores the fact that Israel attacked Gaza prior to the shelling, and chose to incite a response from Hamas. It’s ironic that the murder of the 4 Israelis in Hebron is taken to mark the end if the moratorium, yet the killing of 6 Palestinians is dismissed by you Israeli propagandist as the end of the ceasefire.
“I understood the reasoning of it, countered rhetorical falsehoods about it stated by solidarity, and still criticized the extent of it.”
You countered no rhetorical falsehoods, you simply rejected facts or ignored them, adding you fanatical double standards and hypocrisy along the way, along with stories you invented.
1. You repreatedly ingored to mention that Isral broke the ceasefire and chose to attack Gaza without any provocation
2. When you could no longer avoid the November 4th attack, you changed your argument and directred your criticism towrds Hamas for failing to demonstrate sufficient discipline, while admitting that Israel would have responded just as Hamas did if the roles were reversed.
3. You insisted that there had been a return to a bilateral ceasefire in Decemeber, while failinfg repteely to cite a source that reported such a development.
4. You repeatedly ignored the fact that Hamas proposed a return to ceasefire on December and that Israel rejected it.
“You can call that hypocrisy if you like. I call it integrity.”
Clearly you don’t udnerstand the definition or meaning of integrity. You are an insufferable hypocrite.
You wouldn’t recognize integrity if it came up and kissed you on the lips. You blamed Hamas for the IDF’s military action in Cast Lead. You just admitted such, again, by stating that “that Hamas incrementally shelling Israel demanded A military response.”
I have NEVER seen you assert that Israel shelling of Gaza demands a military response from Hamas. You excuse a military response on the part of Israel, regardless of whether you agree with the particulars of that “response” or not. You’re a hypocrite, with zero integrity on this issue.
RE: “Adult human beings are responsible for their actions, plain and simple.” Goldstone agrees. The US and Israel dismissed his findings for the UN as irrelevant when not biased in favor of the Palestinians. So did you, Witty. BTW, those who remember the Nakba feel the same way. Those who don’t simply wish to delegitimitize the Palestine case?
That would maybe hold water, except that Israel bombed and mortarted the Palestinian Parliament — not to mention hospitals, apartment buildings, police stations, refugee camps, schools and mosques.
You can try to retcon it all you like, Witty, but the established fact is you’ve gone on record endorsing Israeli attacks on civilians just for being in physical proximity with Hamas.
Obviously, by your math you think that is true.
It conflicts with my views.
As I stated many times, I respect the on the ground work of Hamas social service people whose views were apparently rejected by the 2008 militant cadre.
>> It conflicts with my views.
I believe you chastised Chaos earlier today for mistaking “views” for facts and yet here you are, hypocritical yet again, asserting your “views” as facts.
I was a physics major. You studied to be an accountant.
Who’s math do you think people trust?
You think that Hamas wasn’t divided in December, 2008?
You are saying that all supported the resumption and escalation of shelling of Israeli civilians at the end of the formal hudna?
“You think that Hamas wasn’t divided in December, 2008?”
No they weren’t.
“You are saying that all supported the resumption and escalation of shelling of Israeli civilians at the end of the formal hudna?”
No we’re not Witty, becasue the resumption and escalation had aleady been started by Israel and Hamas were responding to Israeli attacks.
Have you already forgotten that Israel had broken the hudna and rejected a return to it Witty?
How could you miss such an important detail like that unless you were deliberatly lying?
“Obviously, by your math you think that is true.”
It’s THE math Witty, math according to Israel’s own government. Your view are based on stories you’ve made up in your head about events that did not happen (while ignoring those that did) so that would explain why reality conclits with your “views”.
“As I stated many times, I respect the on the ground work of Hamas social service people whose views were apparently rejected by the 2008 militant cadre.”
Apparently rejected the miltant cadre Witty? Another story you’ve inveted no doubt? We already know you won’t be able to support that allegation with a source.
>> You think that Hamas wasn’t divided in December, 2008?
>> You are saying that all supported the resumption and escalation of shelling of Israeli civilians at the end of the formal hudna?
You enjoy going off topic. You chastised Chaos earlier today for mistaking “views” for facts and then, later on, you wrote: “Obviously, by your math you think that is true. It conflicts with my views.” Your views are not facts. If you’re going to push for facts, present facts.
Speaking of facts, you still haven’t provided the quote in which, according to you, Meshal states “Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a solution that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually.” Is it a fact that he said this, or is this another one of your “views”?
Readers may be interested to know that George Mitchell’s role in the Irish peace process was not quite the single-handed triumph of diplomacy and patience that it is perceived here in America. The image of a brave and persistent peace-maker may be tempting but it is a perception that in no small measure was crafted and burnished by the man himself. The following article in the Jerusalem Post published at the time of his appointment to the middle east by Obama explains a little further: link to jpost.com
Mitchell was working to a script written for him by the British and Irish governments who knew before the peace talks started where exactly they wanted to end up and what compromises on fundamental issues the major participants were ready to make. In particular Sinn Fein & the IRA leadership represented by Gerry Adams were ready to accept and help administer that which it come into being to overthrow by violence, viz the state of Northern Ireland. The Protestant Unionists had signalled their readiness to accept Sinn Fein as partners in government if the guns were put out of commission. Can anything similar be said about Obama’s talks? Ali Abunimah is correct in pointing out the importance of a division within the Irish republican movement during the peace talks but they were more analogous to the split between Fatah and Hamas than to splits within Hamas itself. The Adams wing of the IRA/Sinn Fein embraced the peace process because the IRA had been effectively defeated by the British and because the ballot box offered a route out of a military cul-de-sac. A minority opposed what they regarded as a sell-out and split off. Adams’ Sinn Fein & IRA remained by far the largest group while his opponents quarreled amongst themselves and there were further divisions and splits, weakening the resistance to Adams. Without this set of circumstances the peace process could not have worked. Equally a Unionist political bloc unwilling to do deals with Sinn Fein would have brought the whole edifice tumbling down. Do the same circumstances exist in the middle east now?
Read Mitchell’s approach and assumptions said to Charlie Rose:
link to thepage.time.com
His goal is to end up with an agreement that minimizes reciprocal lack of trust. He thinks he can get the Arab regimes to go along through their
combined fear of Iran. He assumes the majority of Jewish Israelis at core desire a two-state solution. The only US stick he acknowledges pertaining to Israel is threat to drop our loan guarantees to Israel. He does not address the fact it is much harder now to threaten that stick or any associated stick (the full panoply of direct & indirect aid to Israel as discussed in W & M’s Israel Lobby) in light of US legislation guaranteeing aid to prevent any threat Israel announces–Shrub’s “vessels” Israeli insurance policy . He does acknowledge that the IRA did not have to give up its guns but the concept of a Palestinian state without an army (or air or naval force) is not addressed. He says Sinn fein (which came into the talks late) had to go on record as not supporting violent
means to address issues in the (then) future. He downplays the very real on-going expansion of settlements (detailed a few days ago on this blog) since the moratorium and yet will use the threat of that moratorium’s nearing end date to push peaceful negotiations starting tomorrow. He gives no indication the US intends to pressure Israel as it did its ally England to end the Irish troubles yet he agrees Israel in this case is the stronger player.
Thanks for the link. Here’s one passage–
“My point in asking that is are the Israelis continuing to engage in embargoes and sanctions that prevent the Palestinians in Gaza to have some kind of, you know, improvement in their life?
George Mitchell:
Yes, they have not permitted full opening of the crossings –
Charlie Rose:
Do you agree with that?
George Mitchell:
I think they would be better off if they reopened the crossings. From their view, they are trying to contain Hamas and they are trying to maintain the maximum leverage to obtain the return of the captured soldier. Remember now, you have to keep this in mind, Charlie, it’s a very difficult type of conflict in which people are engaged when fighters gather in populated areas, when medical and other facilities are used as military staging areas. To fight these kinds of conflicts in modern times is extremely difficult, particularly with the overwhelming imbalance in firepower that exists. And these are not easy questions to resolve of how do you respond when rockets are sent into your country?–
—————————
Goerge Mitchell sounds like Witty here. In fact, he sounds like a spokesman for the IDF. It doesn’t bode well for the US as an honest broker.
Here’s Mitchell on Shalit. It sounds like he is opposed to any negotiation with Hamas on that subject that results in Hamas gaining something, because it shows that violence works.
“But the point is it’s an excruciatingly difficult decision because it does send the message that their violent resistance has paid off. And of course it will lead others around the world to seek more hostages. And that’s one of the toughest things that — decisions that the prime minister has to make. And we accept the reality that he’s got to keep making this effort. But what we think is that there should also be actions taken with respect to the Palestinian authority, which believes in peaceful negotiation. And that’s the approach that ought to be rewarded.”
This is mind-boggling. Israel has done nothing but use violence all along and Mitchell fully intends to let them profit by it, by allowing some settlements to stand, but it is unacceptable to send Hamas the message that violent resistance has paid off. The PA should be rewarded because they believe in nonviolence (well, aside from their violence against fellow Palestinians but that’s good violence).
And of course Abbas will be a “brave man” if he buckles to further American pressure.
It’s why the process is another sad day in the conflict. Abbas is like the rope in a tug of war, being ripped to shreds. I can only see apartheid down the road, unless the Israeli’s lose a war in a major way.
Mitchell can’t even pretend to be an honest broker in this conflict. Not possible. no way…
Not to mention Mitchell does not put the thousands of imprisoned Palestinians in the balance–not even worth mentioning by Mitchell or Rose…
Another part of the transcript–
If the Israelis thought Israel could live in peace and security, most of the Israeli leaders that you know, would be prepared to support a Palestinian state with some variation of the 67 borders, some respect for East Jerusalem and Jerusalem being an international city. I’m going to what Barak had on the table at Camp David.
George Mitchell:
But remember Barak lost the last one—
Charlie Rose:
I do remember that. But he’s now the defense minister and he has a voice.
George Mitchell:
He has a very important voice. And he’s an outstanding leader.
Charlie Rose:
And remember this, that the Palestinians turned it down; they turned down more than they had been—than they’re likely to be offered today.
George Mitchell:
Well that’s another reason for getting into negotiations right away.
—————————————–
Of course that could just be Charlie Rose’s confusion, but the offer at Camp David wasn’t a good one–even Shlomo Ben Ami admitted that on Democracy Now a few years ago. Mitchell let that statement stand–I hope that was just Mitchell being diplomatic, but again, it’s not encouraging.
I agree with all your comments, Donald. I left the interview with a deep disappointment. Seems Mitchell thinks it’s viable towards peace to basically ignore the Nakba but not the “right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state” and the key settlements already designated by Israel as keepers (as shown on a map on this blog a few weeks ago). The Palestinians are going to be pushed in the same manner as in prior negotiations brokered by the US–the Israelis have prepared for this all along and have picked up evermore throwaway settlements for cheap bargaining chips. Mitchel’s bringing up one Israeli prisoner without asserting all the Palestinians in jail is another key giveaway the charade is on, once again.
I think Mitchell’s comments add credibility to his role as mediator, that he can present without dismissal the needs of all parties.
That he can articulate a confident solution by sober consideration and mutual acknowledgement, rather than just a factionally marketable one as a result of politically orchestrated demand.
“that he can present without dismissal the needs of all parties.”
He didn’t so much dismiss the needs of the Palestinians as simply ignore many of them–their need to be secure from Israeli terrorism went completely unmentioned. He doesn’t mention Palestinian prisoners and couldn’t care less about Israeli war crimes, but feels deeply about the Israeli need to be secure from Palestinian violence. It’s a very bad sign and a strong signal that Israel can continue to use violence and coercion and receive nothing more than a light tap on the wrist, whereas Palestinian violence will be harshly condemned.
Of course you like him, Richard–he’s using the same racist immoral approach to human life that you employ on this issue.
By the way, what’s with the constant use of the word “confident” in ways that are unsanctioned by any dictionary I’ve ever seen?
“I think Mitchell’s comments add credibility to his role as mediator, that he can present without dismissal the needs of all parties.”
Clearly he cannot becasue the matter of Gaza is not even on the agenda.
Something is bothering me. Without getting into the specifics of this particular ambush, I’m getting just a little tired of the use of the term “settlers.” Folks, this ain’t Little House on the Prairie. Many of these West Bank “settlers” are, in fact, heavily armed paramilitary occupiers who engage in terrorism and sabotage, harassing defenseless Palestinians in order to encourage them to “transfer” somewhere else. They work hand in glove with the Israeli occupation forces to make Palestinian life miserable. They are part and parcel of a brutal occupation, not some benign civilians just trying to live and let live. Perhaps we should start referring to them as paramilitary occupiers rather than settlers.
I strongly agree with the sentiment and assertion of “security for all”.
No you don’t. You think Palestinian violence should be met with Israeli violence, but you don’t think Palestinians should respond with violence to Israeli violence.
Donald,
Do you want Abbas and Netanyahu to define a proposal that confidently meets the needs of Palestinians to self-determination in a viable Palestinian state, and security for Israelis, or do you want them to not succeed at that?
“proposal that confidently meets”
What is the meaning of that word “confident” in your lexicon? You toss it around like it means something important.
I want them to reach a solution that Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza can welcome with pride, rather than feeling like they or their puppet leaders were forced into accepting. I want Israelis to stop being narcissistic racists who blame their victims for the violence and become people who accept responsibility for the vast suffering they’ve inflicted on Palestinians and others. On the Palestinian side, they also should recognize that violence aimed at civilians was and is wrong. Not that I equate the two sides–Israel is far worse, but ten wrongs don’t justify committing one in return.
I want a real peace with some degree of justice, not some top-down farcical solution that leaves the worst attitudes entrenched on both sides. Reconciliation can’t come without real self-examination.
Why can’t you bring yourself to mention the security needs of Palestiniasn Witty?
Because he doesn’t care, Shingo.
Does it matter if an excellent proposal is presented by puppets or racists?
Don’t kill the process. Wait to comment on the product.
Hamas wants to kill the process. Israel Beitanhu wants to. Others do as well. Maybe it will bear fruit, maybe it won’t.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.“
Confident means what one can rely on. Confident.
You don’t get to confident by ignoring or ridiculing. That is the way to NOT succeed at crafting a viable proposal.
The process is wrong. It’s top down, with Western-designated Palestinian “leaders”. You like this because there’s no conceivable way it can lead to any agreement that would upset a liberal Zionist. The deck is stacked from the outset against the Palestinians and the spectrum of possible solutions runs from those favored by liberal Zionists over to those favored by rightwing Zionists. The object is to force Palestinians to accept a solution that falls somewhere along that line.
True reconciliation isn’t going to come from these hacks. It’s going to come from Palestinians working with Israelis who are able to see Palestinians as equals, as human beings with rights equal to their own.
And the word “confident” is never used in sentences the way you use it. I’m confident of that.