The bombshell Goldstone reconsideration of nearly two weeks back is generating some great extended pieces of writing. I have now seen two of them. Norman Finkelstein has a paper on the retraction that he will soon publish; and I will be posting a thrilling interview with Finkelstein later today or tomorrow. Second, here is Jerome Slater. With patience and scholarship, he demolishes the retraction and emphasizes that war crimes were committed and builds to a majestic unassailable understanding that Cast Lead targeted the people of Gaza. I have excerpted the piece. The entirety is at the link. --Weiss.
In the over a year and half since its publication, none of the Goldstone Report's major factual findings or the conclusions it drew from them have been refuted--and certainly not by the Davis Committee, which made no such claim. On the contrary, even during the attack major newspapers--including the New York Times, Haaretz, Israel's most important newspaper, and a number of leading European newspapers--made it evident that Israel's massive attack on Gaza was indiscriminate and aimed at a wide range of non-military targets. Since then, the Goldstone Report's major findings have been confirmed by a number of investigations and reports of international and even Israeli human rights groups--among them several UN agencies, the Red Cross, CARE, Oxfam, Israeli Physicians for Human Rights, and Breaking the Silence )an Israeli military veterans organization formed after the attack on Gaza)--all of which not only confirmed but often added new details to the Goldstone Report's factual findings.
In addition, the two most important and prestigious international human rights ngos, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, conducted extensive investigations of Cast Lead and issued long and highly detailed reports that were at least as damning as those of the Goldstone Commission: / Amnesty International: "Israeli forces committed war crimes and other serious breaches of international law in Operation Cast Lead....Among other things, they carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against civilians....Much of Gaza was razed to the ground, leaving vital infrastructure destroyed, the economy in ruins and thousands of Palestinians homeless."
Human Rights Watch: In a 110 page report on Cast Lead, HRW concluded that Israel's "wanton destruction" of civilian infrastructure was unlawful and "can be prosecuted as a war crime." ...
The problem with the Goldstone Report was not that it was too hard on Israel, but rather that it was considerably too soft, and ducked some contentious but highly important issues.
First, while the report condemned the Israeli methods of warfare, it accepted that the purpose of Cast Lead was legitimate: Israel, it said, had a right to "defend itself" against Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks aimed at Israeli towns and villages. In his oped, Goldstone reiterated this argument: "I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within."
For several reasons, the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To begin with, it is based on the false premise that the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005 ended the Israeli occupation there, and that therefore the subsequent attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad could not be considered as resistance to occupation. However, there is a wealth of evidence--much of it from candid statements of high Israel officials--that the real purpose of the withdrawal of the Jewish settlements was to consolidate Israel's continued occupation and ever-expanding settlements in the much more important West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In any event, even in Gaza there was no true Israeli withdrawal, for Israel retained control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace; refused to allow Gaza a functioning airport or seaport; continued to control Gaza's electricity, water, and telecommunications networks; and launched a number of highly destructive military attacks. As the Goldstone Commission put it--notwithstanding the obvious contradiction with its assertion that Hamas attacks on Israel gave that country the right of "self-defense"--Gaza continued to be "effectively occupied" by Israel and was so regarded by the international community.
Consequently, the highly limited Israeli "withdrawal" from Gaza did not end the right of Palestinian resistance, for it hardly met the right of the Palestinian people as a whole for a viable and independent state of their own. The Palestinians living in Gaza are not a separate nation from those living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; to believe otherwise is the equivalent of believing that if in the 1770s the British had withdrawn from New Jersey but continued to occupy the remaining colonies, the residents of New Jersey would no longer have the right to take up arms in support of American independence.
Cast Lead--and all Israel's other economic and military methods of warfare against Gaza--was not designed to defend "itself," but rather to crush resistance to its ongoing and in some ways escalating occupation and repression of the Palestinian people as a whole. In that light, the Israeli attack was a war crime in and of itself--the crime of aggression--even if its methods of warfare had not also been war crimes...
Goldstone's Distortions
That aside, Goldstone strongly distorts the essential findings of the Davis Committee. Adam Horowitz and Yaniv Reich have done a fine job of pointing to the differences between what the Davis Commission said and how Goldstone chose to interpret it, but I do want to add to their comments.
If anything the Davis Committee report should be read as reaching the opposite conclusions of the Goldstone retraction, both on the process of the Israeli military investigations and on their outcomes. The Committee begins by observing that while the Israeli Military Advocate General (MAG) had opened 52 criminal investigations, thus far only three had been submitted to prosecution, resulting in two convictions, one of them of a soldier who stole a credit card....
The Goldstone Retraction and Civilian Destruction.
It is important to bear in mind that the Goldstone retraction referred only to the question of whether Israeli policy in Cast Lead was to deliberately attack civilians, rather than to the issue of whether it deliberately attacked civilian infrastructure, let alone to the question of whether there was any meaningful distinction between attacking civilians and attacking infrastructures.
It is hard to believe that Goldstone was unaware that by limiting the issue to that of deliberate attacks, his retraction would divert attention from the more important point, namely that indiscriminate attacks, in and of themselves, are war crimes. Even so, was he right that the Davis Committee report demonstrated that Israel had not engaged in deliberate attacks on civilians, thereby requiring him to withdraw that part of the Goldstone Commission's findings that strongly suggested that it had?
There is a wealth of evidence that there were a number of "incidents" in which Israeli soldiers deliberately killed civilians, face-to-face. This evidence is not limited to that gathered by the Goldstone Commission, but is included in the voluminous Breaking the Silence testimony of Israeli soldiers who personally witnessed such killings.
Nothing in the Davis Commission report challenges that evidence. In the only specific case that Goldstone points to in his retraction, the Samouni bombing, he claims that the Davis report shows that Israel is seriously investigating the attack, which leads him to be "confident that if the officer [who ordered the attack] is found to be negligent, Israel will respond accordingly." However, as I have already discussed, the Davis Commission not only reached no such conclusion, its language clearly expresses skepticism of the validity of the Israeli "investigation" and the unlikelihood that any one will be punished.
To be sure, the Samouni affair does not demonstrate that it was Israeli government or military policy to directly target civilians, for the war crime was probably only the responsibility of the individual military commander who ordered the attack, even after having been warned by fellow officers that civilians were likely present. The Goldstone Commission cited other cases in which some Israeli soldiers deliberately killed unarmed civilians. Nonetheless, individual atrocities of these kind happen in all wars, just and unjust ones, and by themselves do not prove policy intent.
That said, for at least three reasons the Israeli government is by no means off the hook. First, the long Israeli occupation and repression had created an atmosphere in which the Palestinian people could be dehumanized and dismissed as nothing more than "terrorists," subjecting them to summary execution by some trigger-happy soldiers. Second, individual atrocities and war crimes are supposed to be prosecuted by the armed forces or judicial systems of the states whose soldiers committed them: as the Davis Committee pointed out, in the two and a half years since Cast Lead there have been only two Israeli military convictions of soldiers charged with deliberate killings of innocent civilians, and no one has spent a day in prison for having done so.
Third, and by far most importantly, whether or not there was a policy to attack civilians directly, there cannot be the slightest doubt that there was a policy to systematically destroy much of the Gazan economy and civilian infrastructure, and to do so as a means of making it impossible for Hamas rule to succeed as well as to intimidate ("deter") the Gazan civilian population....
Operation Cast Lead was only the culmination of a three-year period in which Israel engaged in economic warfare as well as massive, systematic, and deliberately indiscriminate attacks on Gaza, thus making the distinction between attacks on civilian infrastructure and attacks on people essentially meaningless. Consequently, Israel's policies in Gaza constituted an intentional violation of the most important and widely accepted moral and legal principle that seeks to constrain the inevitable destructiveness of warfare: that innocent civilians may never be the intended object--direct or indirect--of military attack. When they are, we call it terrorism--or even worse, state terrorism.
Indeed, by accepting what might be called the liberal criticism of Cast Lead--that while its methods were dreadful, Israel did have the right to go to war against Gaza in order to defend itself--the Goldstone Commission failed to point out the true depths of the Israeli war crimes: the underlying purpose of Cast Lead was not "self-defense" but the destruction of all resistance to Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and its external control over Gaza by means of economic and military warfare, warfare that repeatedly provoked Palestinian resistance and retaliation.
For that reason, then, even if its methods had been pristine, Israel had committed the crime of international aggression. Indeed, in those circumstances it is not even necessary, in a sense, to examine Israel's methods: if you don't have a just cause, you are not morally or legally permitted to attack even the other side's soldiers, let alone its people.
… and Breaking the Silence )an Israeli military veterans organization formed after the attack on Gaza) …
BtS was founded in 2004.
Great. So admire Finkelstein. He cuts to the core. No bullshit no excuses.
Ask him if he will attend the move over aipac event in May? I have always wondered if he and Code Pink had some conflict in styles?
He has been on the front lines of this issue for so long and taken such personal hits. A brave man
this is Jerome Slater, Kathleen, Phil’s interview with NF will follow later today or tomorrow.
Fair play to Jerome Slater. He doesn’t pull any punches.
Israel’s treatment of Gaza is bad for Zionists. It is a pity they can’t see it.
A magnificent, persuasive post by Jerry Slater. He demolishes the argument that Israel was “defending itself” by reminding us that the occupation of Gaza has never ended — to this day.
Jerry says it all right here:
I found it thin, repetitive, ignoring the critical questions of admissable scope of war in response to Hamas shelling of civilians, escalating that shelling, declaring that they were fully prepared and armed to defeat Israeli ground troups, and that they would “wipe the Gazan streets with Israeli blood”.
All that adds up to a rationally broader military scope, of which dozens of otherwise civilian targets are now in the set of military targets.
Its another question whether the choices and policies were wise, good, necessary.
But, the significance of the Goldstone report as publicly spun (here), is in the accusation of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Although most rational people describe Hamas’ actions as obviously war crimes (attacks on civilians only), also most rational people describe Israel’s actions as potentially war crimes if the scope of war chosen was deemed legally inadmissable.
Richard: Learn the difference between “it’s” and “its.”
James, have a heart; stop confusing him. He knows darn well that the possessive of “it” is written like the possessive of all other words and it becomes “it’s”.
Witty,
Please learn how to use sentences. You’re gratuitous conjugation violates all the rules of grammar, thereby rendering your sentences illegible, inciherent and convoluted.
As someone pointed out just after the Golatone op Ed appeared, the only time you’re comments have ever Vern concise and legible was when you were gloating. Now that you’re hubris has been revealed to be premature and unsubstantiated, you’ve resorted to word salad comments.
LOL! Slater is Witty’s Goldstone, now that Goldstone is no longer Witty’s Goldstone.
Double standard number 1:
why the killing of 6 Hamas members is not counted as “escalation” by Israel?
Double standard number 2:
how “this”, a bellicose statement about possible DEFENSE, adds to THOUSANDS of “otherwise civilian targets are now in the set of military targets”.
Double standard, or no standard: “question whether the choices and policies were wise, good, necessary”.
Isnt’t what Jerome is discussing? Why the policies were stupid, evil and unnecessary? Raising a question is not an answer.
Apart from everything else, IDF tactics were divorced from the claimed objective, which was “elimination of Hamas”. To that end, they would need to send some “boots” to the ground and check this or that basement. Which may be risky, even with human shields. So instead, civilian dwellings, mosques, police stations, hospitals, warehouses, universities, factories, farms etc. were “classified” as military targets to be shelled and bombed at leisure. In this fashion, Hamas, lacking any military grade weapons, “survived”, while IDF lost only 8 soldiers to “unfriendly fire”.
I really cannot recall a historical precedence of such “strategy”. To a degree, up to Middle Ages it was customary to ransack enemy villages with “fire and sword” to deprive enemy feudal lords of valuable serfs. And some tactics of both sides in WWII can be viewed as similar, but this is precisely why, after WWII, conventions were debated and signed to criminalize that.
Israel’s targettting of civlians and cilina infrastructure took place before ground troops were sent into Gaza, therefore the claims that they woudl “wipe the Gazan streets with Israeli blood” are irrevelant.
Witty, go to your room.
And do your homework. Start by reading the Goldstone Report.
Yeah, Witty, read it over Passover.
ignoring the critical questions of admissable scope of war in response to Hamas shelling of civilians, escalating that shelling,
When are you going to stop repeating this sorry mantra? Hamas shelling of Israeli civilians was done in a context in which, years before, Israel had placed Gaza under complete closure and economic siege, abrogated their democratic elections, declared their elected representatives terrorists and led the entire world to shun them, arrested more of their elected representatives than I can retrace and count, and carried out horrific targeted assassinations (over 200 between 2000 and 2005 alone) of their leaders, including many that resulted in collateral civilian deaths and destruction. And on and on and on.
Imagine an alternative reality, in which Israel had accepted the 2006 parliamentary elections and moved to start building relationships with Hamas, opening borders, encouraging joint economic and political enterprises, fostering education exchanges between Islamic University and Tel Aviv University, and apologizing for past wrongs. (Gazans are, after all, largely refugees from Israel’s 1948 ethnic cleansing campaign.) How many rockets do you think Hamas would have sent Israel’s way under that scenario?
It’s pathetic to keep bringing up the rockets as if they came out of nowhere, just a rabid bunch of bloodthirsty fanatic Mooslim Ayrabs lobbing rockets at poor old Israel. I don’t mean to sanction the rockets in any way – I am against violence against any civilians. But Israel has a very large responsibility in bringing this situation upon itself, and to deny that is just to appear ignorant.
The context does not change their action.
I didn’t say they came out of nowhere.
The responsibility of the IDF remains the same regardless of context.
Israel accepted that the parliamentary elections happened, and learned that the Palestinian community chose a militant organization intent of on war and terror over a prospectively civil organization. And, they changed the nature of their diplomatic and border relations with Palestine on that basis.
If Hamas, following the election, had stated ‘we intend keep all of the agreements negotiated by our predecessor government’, then the situation also would have been different.
‘What would have been.’
So why exactly do Israel’s best interests require Israel to break the Geneva Conventions, to which they signed? Do you really believe that we should undo one of the centerpiece agreements to come out of the resolution of World War II? You do realize that the Fourth Geneva Convention was SPECIFICALLY written in response to the Holocaust, in order to prevent it from happening again.
Why is your so-called “Jewish state” anathema to the Conventions?
Chaos, obviously because Never Again only applies to Jewish victims.
You just made that very argument, that “context” justified Israel’s actions.
Israel only accepted thy elections happened insofar as they used the outcome to justify a raid on Gaza, whereby they arrested hundreds of Hamas law makers and killed hundreds of Palestinians.
Once the carnage was over,Israel not only rejected the outcome (insisting Abbas was the still in charge), but refused to acknowledge the elections had ever taken place.
That’s exactly what Hamas declared in 2005 when they signed the Cairo Declaration of 2005 and the National Reconciliation Document, which, as interpreted by Haniyeh and Maschaal, means that Hamas “fully respects” the previous agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.
So ‘What would have been’ is in fact the way it was.
>> Israel … and learned that the Palestinian community chose a militant organization intent of on war and terror over a prospectively civil organization.
And the Palestinians learned that the Israeli community chose a militant government intent on continuing its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.
>> If Hamas, following the election, had stated ‘we intend keep all of the agreements negotiated by our predecessor government’, then the situation also would have been different.
If Israel, following its parliamentary elections, had stated “we intend keep all of the agreements negotiated by our predecessor government”, then the situation also would have been different.
Israel hoped that Hamas would change and that the people would reject their fanaticism in favor of peaceable democracy.
It hasn’t happened yet.
They remain an enemy, aggressing on civilians every opportunity that they get, and hence a component of rational Israeli foreign policy is to prohibit them getting any opportunity.
What is needed is a change of intention, as passive as that may sound to you.
“Israel hoped…”
Any evidence for this claim?
In my opinion, the public record strongly suggests that Israel strongly contributed to Hamas victory in that elections, and we can cite three major contributions:
a. refusal to cooperate with PA in respect to withdrawal from Gaza, lest any credit would go to PA and PLO;
b. capture and ensuing kangaroo trial of Mustapha Barghuti removed the most serious alternative to Hamas;
c. refusal to offer the most slim “successes” to Abu Mazen so he could build some credibility for his program.
d. surprising amount of energy GoI and its stoooges are spending bad-mouthing Abu Mazen.
The record is clear: good Palestinian is dead Palestinian.
It must be amazing to be Witty.
If the facts don’t support your argument, no problem, just ignore them.
If you’re not well read on teh topic of conversation, no problem, simply ask irrevenat and off topic questions and present some esoteric BS.
That’s demonstrably false. The Wikileaks memo on Cast Lead reveals that Israel were becoming anxious over the fact that Hamas were benefitting politically from the ceasefire, and decided that a military option was needed to cut Hamas off at the knees.
In other words, the fact that Hamas were being moderate and not acting like terrorists was distressing Israel’s leadership.
False again. Hamas had 4 months of opportunities, yet in spite of Israel’s violation of the ceasefire, stuck to it and proposed it be extended.
From Israel, absolutely.
Is that a rhetorical question?
Since when has Witty ever presented evidence Piotr?
The obligations of a military are simple, to protect the civilians of the state. Whenever civilians are being attacked, however caused, it is the obligation of the military to stop the attack.
The statement of scope ONLY rests on the judgment of what scope of military action will accomplish the objectives. There is a question of proportionality, but it is NOT of equality, but of some qualitative scale of distortion from expected harms (not actual). If the expected harms would have been severe, then the admissable scale of military activity would also be then justifiably severe.
And, that is what occurred.
The Goldstone opinion, resulting from time and some discovery and some reforms and accountability in the IDF, changed the nature of judgment from ‘free from doubt’ to ‘with material doubt’.
It can in fact not be enough reform, not enough accountability. I don’t see that there is any way to change the biased nature of the accusation and the mission of the committee given its construction, and therefore I don’t expect the public and UN supervised investigation that is requested to occur as requested. International law does not yet have the force of universal consent to compel that. And, the credibility of the UN and international law are not amplified by this investigation, as the doubts remain material.
The doubts are the ability of the committee to deliver a non-prejudicial evaluation, and of the content of the evaluation itself.
Slater stated in an earlier blog post that the committee did not go far enough, that they were not empowered to condemn the policy decisions of the Israeli government sufficiently. That is an opinion on his part, a prospectively valid one.
“How did it get to this place? Someone is to blame.”
I personally think that terror is to blame, non-acceptance of the other, willingly expressed in the form of intentional and intimate mass murder for political ends.
And, I think that if the committee were to retroactively and with insufficient evidence, second guess the policy-formation process of a democracy, that would be a blow to democratic process and international law, not as much an affirmation of it.
The standard of “if there were a dictator in full control, he/she would be responsible to do x, but applied to a democracy in which the populace is who the government is accountable to, confusing and changing.”
Is there a basement biggest enough to lock in all the Palestinians? That would be premium passivity.
>> Israel hoped that Hamas would change and that the people would reject their fanaticism in favor of peaceable democracy.
>> It hasn’t happened yet.
The Palestinians hoped that Israel would change and that it would reject its oppressive colonialism in favour of peacable democracy. It hasn’t happened yet.
>> They remain an enemy, aggressing on civilians every opportunity that they get, and hence a component of rational Israeli foreign policy is to prohibit them getting any opportunity.
Israel remains an enemy, aggressing on civilians every opportunity that it gets, and hence a component of rational Palestinian policy is to continue defending themselves at every opportunity.
>> What is needed is a change of intention, as passive as that may sound to you.
What is needed is an immediate halt to Israel’s ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, and a sincere engagement in negotiations for a just and equitable peace. As unpalatable as that may sound to you.
Any evidence for this claim?
no piotr, none what so ever but there is evidence to the contrary.
What do you disagree with?
“What do you disagree with?”
We disagree with the part where Israelis get to kill hundreds of innocent people and not be called to account for it. There’s also a problem with the part where Palestinian atrocities are called “terror” and condemned , while Israeli atrocities are excused.
That’s pretty much it. Also, your piece needs to be translated into English.
Again,
The Israeli violence is only excusable in the context of its population demanding that the IDF minimize Israeli casualties, that it would not except either doing nothing relative to Hamas shelling civilians nor exposing ground forces to a large death toll.
Based on history, Hamas claims of preparedness, and verbal baiting “we will wipe the Gazan streets with Israeli blood”, Israel chose a larger scale operation than in the past.
You should be more specific what you disagree with, or if you don’t understand what I mean by a particular point, to ask what I mean.
richard, if you don’t mind could you please source this quote i’ve heard you use on numerous occasions?
“we will wipe the Gazan streets with Israeli blood”
i’d like to read the context (including date). thanks.
That’s false on so many levels.
First, it assumes that Israel changed their plans during Cast Lead, and it assumes they did so based on what Hamas said.
If Israel were so easily persuaded by Hamas statements, the war would never have ended in December, when Hamas proposed a return to ceasefire.
You’re right Witty. The Goldstone Report stated that the object of Cast Lead was to terrorize the people of Gaza.
Of course, you still refuse to discuss the fact that Israel broke the ceasefire after 4 months if calm, and that Hamas had every right to respond to the raid that murdered 6 Palestinians, let alone the occupation, or the blockade and the fact that it is an act if war in it’s own right.
I propose that comments by Witty that include quotes be blocked unless he provides a link to the source of the quotes.
Too often, Witty is pretendigm to present a case or evidence by inventing a statement and simply envenoping it in quotes as though to sugegst he sourced the sattement.
And they are obliged to explore all avenues before resorting to militarim. Israel’s military rejected the option to not break the ceasefire and they rejectejected the option to return to a ceasefire.
The Goldstone opinion, resulting from time and some discovery and some reforms and accountability in the IDF, changed the nature of judgment from ‘free from doubt’ to ‘with material doubt’.
You are simply guessing, and probably lying, because having never read the rport, you wouldn’t know.
The doubts are the ability of the committee to deliver a non-prejudicial evaluation, and of the content of the evaluation itself.
That goes doubly for Israel’s own internal investigations, where the IDF is investigting the IDF.
The facts remain that Hamas did declare that it was prepared for an Israeli ground action, and that it did escalate shelling in the 8-9 days between the end of the cease-fire and the Israeli organized military action.
Facts are by definition, based on evidence. It’s not a fact unless you can prove either one if these statements, which you have failed to do.
On top of this, we also have to consider your habit of reading an article and conning to the complete opposite conclusion thy everyone else does.
Yes, it was rhetorical.
The problem with the Goldstone Report was not that it was too hard on Israel, but rather that it was considerably too soft, and ducked some contentious but highly important issues.
Bingo.
This is a clear-headed, well-written, and forceful takedown. Packs a punch. This is what should have been said of the Report when it first came out, and it is going to rank as one of the best criticisms of the Report and it’s later attempt at a retraction. Should be sent to all congressmen wanting the UN to retract it.
Nice fucking job, Jerry. (This is a keeper. I don’t have to argue anymore. I’m just sending this out.)
I second that. Imagine what the report woudl have looked like had Goldstone even just included Israel’s violation of the ceasefiure, never mind the blockade and occupation.
The Goldstone Report simply begins during the hostilities, without so much as questioning whether there was any basis for them in the first place.
Shingo, Jerry nails it. You can actually feel the oxygen in his thinking between the phonemes in the entire piece.
Proof? You can exhale after you read it.
Phil,
Has anyone tried to contact Goldstone since he penned the op-ed and tried to obtain an interview with him? Has anyone noticed how Goldstone went to ground after this op-ed? It appears that none of those that stood by the Report have been allowed anywhere near him.
Contrast this with the number of interviews and the amount of scruitiny he made himself available to after the Goldstone Report was first released. There was he PBS interview, debates, public appearances. I’m sure Adam Horowitz, Lizzy Ratner and many others would love to interview Goldstone about the substance of his op-ed and the mysterious conclusions he drew from teh Davis investigation.
I attempted to respond at length to the post on Jerome Slater’s blog, but he has not allowed any of my comments to appear.
I was surprised that he would censor commentary. There was no stated disrespect of his person, but definitely a very different opinion on the potential for admissability of Israel’s military response in Cast Lead, as a statement of law.
Perhaps he didn’t want to post your apologetics for war crimes. It’s his blog. If there were some fanatic on the pro-Palestinian side who wanted to post a long defense of suicide bombing, perhaps he’d refuse to post that too.
You are notorious for not being well read on these topics Witty. Your comprehension of the Goldstone report is based on 2nd and 3rd hand opinions that others have provided you.
Slater has written a long and comprehensive analysis which you probably haven’t read, let alone the Goldstone Report.
Based on the diatribes you’ve posted to this thread, you probably haven’t even addressed Slater’s arguments either, but just more rants based on tangential and invented scenarios that are not based on any evidence.
Its up to him if that were his motivation.
He is then pretending to support democratic and civil discourse, pretending to dialog with those that differ from his opinion.
Richard: Do you ever listen to anything? This is the fifth or sixth time I’ve pointed out that “it’s” is not the same as “its.”
Are you the moderator?
james, who was it that s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to witty he was spelling inadmissible wrong (a word he used at least 50 times in one goldstone thread) and still he continued to spell it wrong the rest of the day?
forget it, he’s untrainable (or is that spelled untrainible?) (joke)
and if you are the moderator could you do us all a favor and just trash all his comment for the rest of the day so we can have a vacation from him? or maybe just trash the comments where he spells it is its next time, then maybe he will get the message!
or maybe he is conceptually challenged and just can’t comprehend:
actually when you think about its/it’s there’s one thing it has in common with the i/p conflict….it’s complex and complicated!
“He is then pretending to support democratic and civil discourse, pretending to dialog with those that differ from his opinion.”
What’s any of that got to do with keeping your post off his blog? I’m actually serious about that. Based on what you say here, there’s probably nothing in your submitted post that came to grips with any of the facts and arguments and evidence that Slater wrote about, so he probably feels that there is no “dialog” going on with you anyway. He has printed others who disagree with him from the Zionist side . You might seriously want to consider the possibility that he reads your posts and sees them as a waste of time. I only respond because you annoy me and your views are similar to those of the kneejerk Israel apologists we have in Congress.
Again, its up to him if he desires dialog on his site or only allowing those that agree with him.
I’m not insisting that he agree, just asking that he air opinions that differ with his own, in response to his own.
Again, if you read my blog, you’d notice that my views are very far to the left of the “kneejerk Israel apologists”.
How many of those do you read as having any publicly stated sympathy with the stated goals of BDS (read my blog)?
just asking that he air opinions that differ with his own, in response to his own
richard, starting a dialogue with you is almost a promise for a long and arduous task short on common sense and logic. it is one thing to respond to one or two like that but you frequently just don’t stop and your arguments are sort of circular nonsensical things. maybe he just didn’t want your contributions at his blog. perhaps it is not a reflection of objecting to difference of opinion at all.
Annie,
You are again disrespectful.
I am honest about what I am convinced about and what I’m not convinced about. That I hold to my views is also evidence that I’ve thought them through independantly and remain committed to my convictions (mutual valid truths) and approach (proposal rather than condemnation).
That’s no honesty Witty, that’s just stubborned resistance to the facts presented to you.
You hold views that are not based on evidence and reject the evidence that contradicts them. You meander off and invent scenarios and make believe conversations, meanwhile insisting that Hamas commuted war crimes, but maintain huge reservations as to whether Israel did.
Your agenda is to make this blog about you and derail it. Sadly, you often succeed in doing so.
Richard: There you go again.
Maybe Jerry just wants the comments on his blog to be intelligible.
Witty, what do you expect? You wrote this above:
Which is about the butt-f**k stupidest thing I ever read, or in Shmuel politesse, incoherent.
What do I expect?
I expect intellectual courage to expose his comments to criticism, and to respond respectfully and articulately.
That he has done. What you want him to do is indulge your effort to detail the discussion and go off on tangents that have nothing to do with his piece.
You want to discuss such abstract notions as to what was going through the collective minds if the Israelis as opposed to sticking to the facts and the evidence.
Like I said Witty, your reputation as a troll and a time waster preceeds you.
Witty. “Intellectual courage?” You’ve got some nerve, pal.
The only places on the web where the phrase “wipe the Gazan streets with Israeli blood” is attributed to anyone is from you. No newspaper reports, no online reports, nothing.
I searched Google, Bing, and Yahoo. Nothing. Zip. I even searched the Al Qassam Brigades site (who you claim said it) here: http://www.qassam.ps. Nada. I went through my own voluminous PDF collection. Not a word.
What you are doing is extremely dishonest. The kindest thing I could say is that you are plagiarizing yourself.
Here are the only extant copies of your claim in your accusation against Slater on the web:
Comment by Witty on Mondoweiss April 4
link to mondoweiss.net
Comment by Witty on Shalom Rav
link to rabbibrant.com
Haaretz comments by Witty
link to haaretz.com
That’s it. Yet you waltzed in early at link to mondoweiss.net
with that falsehood, and now with some kind of grandiose sense of your own importance expect Slater to conjure up the “intellectual courage to expose his comments to [your false] criticism, and to respond respectfully and articulately” to same.
Takes the cake.
You’re not confused. You’re cunning. I took the time to do this because I want to expose you. This site may be a boxing arena, which you complain about on your blog, but at least the majority of people here come armed with what they know to be the truth. I’m not up for your Bernays sauce.
thanks for your research on the quote WRW. i asked witty about it this morning (i forget where) and forgot to do a followup, but i searched too and could find nothing except witty repeating it several times.
I also could not find it on the web.
I remember it from a report in Haaretz during the ramp up to the war. I expect that I quoted the source at that time.
I am speaking from memory. The quote was describing the reasoning of the IDF in their conclusions as to the appropriate scale of war to engage, and relied on the assertions by Hamas and their military wing the Al Qassams that they were thoroughly prepared to confront an Israeli military ground assault.
The same thing happened to me. Last year, Witty was citing that Israel and Hamas had returned to a ceasefire between November 4th and the end of December. I asked him to source his claim and his excuse was that he’d read it in the NYT but couldn’t find the article. When I Googled, Binged, and Yahoo’d the claim and all I came up with was Witty’s posts.
Yeah right Witty. Even when you do come up with a source, your interpretation of it is always 180 degrees out of sync with reality.
Richard: This is the most outrageous thing I’ve ever seen you do on Mondoweiss. You are either lying about the quote, or your negligence is criminal. I also searched for the quote, and I also found that the only person who used it was one Richard Witty.
Don’t you think that a quote this incendiary would have been picked up by Israeli hasbara and trumpeted everywhere, and be therefore easy to find?
What if a regular poster here quoted a high-ranking Israeli general as saying, “We will kill Palestinians everywhere we find them,” and then could not find a source?
Wouldn’t the site’s moderators get involved?
Richard, are you reading the Haaretz edition in print or on the net? I suppose the net? Are you reading the Hebrew or the English version? This should be something easy to check. Maybe you can help us to clarify this?
I agree. The Haaretz search engine should be able to find the quote, especially once you narrow it down to late 2009, before Israel attacked Gaza.
If Richard can’t find the source, he should issue an apology here, and on every other site where he made the same claim.
” late 2009, before Israel attacked Gaza. ”
Late 2008–Israel attacked (in a larger way than the norm) at the end of 2008 and for three weeks into 2009.
My mistake, Donald. Thanks for the correction.
I told you that I can’t find the source, but I remember the quote.
It was a consideration in the scale of war that Israel endeavored.
I looked at the Al Qassam statements from the period, but they did not post quotes of their leadership.
I’ll apologize for what I believe I erred on. The only error in this is in not keeping an archive of my sources. As I am not an academic nor a journalist, and this is “conversation”, it is not a grave sin.
Just before the attack on Gaza, Richard Witty said, “Palestinians are violent by nature, and Israel is therefore not required to respect their human rights.”
I can’t find the source, but I remember the quote.
I’ll apologize for what I believe I erred on. The only error in this is not keeping an archive of my sources. As I am not functioning here in Mondoweiss as a journalist, this is “conversation”, it is not a grave sin.
I’m going to post Richard’s quote on other sites, so more people are aware of the outrageous thing he said. In so doing, I’m continuing the “conversation.” Not a grave sin.
Richard: Which of the 10 commandments tells us not to bear false witness? Did God give Moses the commandments intending them to only apply to “academics” and “journalists,” not to “conversations?”
If I may help you Richard. Could it be your source was MEMRI?
The Rise (and Fall?) of the Islamic Emirate in Gaza
[16] link to shmo5alislam.net, August 16, 2009.
Now this source is interesting. Do I understand it correctly that the IP address is the home and thus server for quite a few other activities? Maybe someone is more fit than I am to look into
http://www.shmo5alislam.net
the server location and it’s connections to these activities:
Reverse IP Lookup Result for Shmo5alislam.net | Shmo5alislam
We found 8 hostnames for IP address 66.154.36.72 [ Lookup this IP ]
1. my-idea-backroom.info [ Whois ]
2. rotterdamchinadesk.com [ Whois ]
3. http://www.puertoviejobeachhouse.com [ Whois ]
4. my-article-home.info [ Whois ]
5. http://www.cajdsea.info [ Whois ]
6. my-authors-place.info [ Whois ]
7. n007.info [ Whois ]
8. shmo5alislam.net [ Whois ]
I have to hurry up. Quite a few things to do. Who in Haaretz would cite MEMRI?
great catch leander! personally i think any link to memri should not be allowed to make it thru moderation here because they are known fabricators. that would include any comment peddling their lies.
unless of course we are outing them!
In your case, that would be a lie, North.
Again, the point of mentioning the quote was to describe the considerations that led to the decision of scale of operation.
I don’t know if the Haaretz reference was from Memri or not. It could have been.
The question on the scale of military operations is the content. The combination of statements by Hamas officials indicating their preparedness for the Israeli ground operation was a consideration in that choice.
The November 4th events and the blockade explain some of the motivation for the Al Qassams to resume shelling, but they don’t excuse it, nor do they excuse the IDF ignoring the shelling.
LeaNder: This can’t possibly be Richard’s source. The quote about blood in the streets of Gaza is from al-Quaeda-type jihadists; it is not aimed at Israelis, but at Hamas. I don’t trust Memri, but this link points out violent confrontations between the jihadists and Hamas in Gaza, distinctions totally lost on Richard and on other pro-Israel commenters.
Richard still needs to find his source.
Richard continues to describe ‘blood in the streets of Gaza’ as “a quote.” Until Richard provides the source, we have to call it “a lie.” Richard is bearing false witness.
The quote is a jihadist threat against Hamas; it is not about Israelis.
As it is a memory, what do you think would be the accurate way to present it?
Just before the attack on Gaza, Richard Witty said, “Palestinians are violent by nature, and Israel is therefore not required to respect their human rights.”
That’s my memory.
“In your case, that would be a lie, North.’
The funny thing is, the quote he invented for you actually describes the content of your posts, though you would never state your underlying principles so baldly even to yourself. But you consistently denounce Palestinian atrocities as “terrorism” and as “barbaric”, which is true enough, and you never say the same about any IDF action or any massacre by mainstream Zionists. In practice this means that you think Palestinians are barbaric and Israelis are not, and that Palestinians have no rights that Israelis have to respect, though perhaps they should try spare civilians if there’s no military justification for blowing them up, a judgment call you are willing to let them make without any second guessing by human rights groups.
Richard, if you can’t find the source, then you don’t use the quote or else you say “I think I remember someone saying “X”, but I can’t find the quote. Can anyone else find the quote? Perhaps it is just a false memory.” If no one could, then you’d admit maybe your memory was faulty. Or if someone finds it, then your memory was vindicated.
Now you have such a record of hypocrisy on human rights here that you’d be pilloried even for saying that, but that would be the honest thing to do.
But you don’t use an inflammatory quote as though you know it’s true when you can’t even find the source.
This isn’t rocket science.
richard, you are arguing based on pure conjecture. you have claimed your own paraphrasing is in fact a quote, then you claim it is based on ‘history’ then you use this alleged history as a basis for concluding “Hamas claims of preparedness”(!!!!) for it’s own slaughter, you claimed they engaged in “baiting” AFTER israel had already invaded and killed their men in an alleged ‘preemption’ of an alleged ‘kidnapping’ there has NEVER been one iota of evidence such a kidnapping was about to take place. all based on some ‘quote’ you cannot substantiate!
a quote that is so inflammatory akin to ‘driving jews into the sea’ and ‘wiping israel off the map’ 2 popular hasbara lies we have all heard ad nauseum. yet your alleged ‘quote’ as somehow been lost to the dust bin of history except for…. you!
then, lest you forget, you have the audacity after repeating this lie to say this:
as a result we are being QUITE specific. i merely ask you to source the ‘quote’ all this bullshit witty-logic conjecture is based on and you can’t produce it yet you continue to claim you remember it. you’ve spammed this thread. you demand slater cater to this ridiculous revisionist history of yours and host this crap at his blog and then tell me i’m rude for explaining to you why he may choose to simply not engage you.
grow up!
Great work MRW. I always marvel at how patient you guys are with Witty.
the idf spokesman said “we will wash the streets with palestinian blood”, this history proves israels intent. i read that in the jerusalem post.
(snark)
James, I am circling similarities. You have to keep in mind, he writes if he is quoting from memory, the “original quote” may be slightly different. And I already found one that actually is. A kingdom for searching the Mondoweiss database for the first hit of: Richard Witty: blood AND streets AND Gaza AND soldiers or any hit that contains all these words.
Admittedly for non-insiders this is really very much work.
But given riddle RW a task I find highly interesting; but realise I could easily drown in. You notice the similarity to the quote though? Don’t you.
For whatever reason the data of http:\\www.shmo5alislam.net are unaccessible in Archive org. I’ll check that again. I have never had a simialar problem. Either links are listed and accessible or not. And if I google for hits concerning the domain http://www.shom5alislam.net, I get a rather strange mix. Is it an accident these quotes are so similar?
To declare that it wasn’t said would be a lie on my part. To not disclose it as a component of the thinking that led to the scale of the Israeli invasion, would be a lie.
Which lie do you prefer?
I definitely cannot say that it is a direct quote. Maybe I’m messing up a word or two, and it shouldn’t be in quotes.
But thats as far as it goes.
In contrast, North is intentionally lying about both my quotes and my views, I guess to ‘teach me a lesson’.
I’ve repeatedly tried to reference the Haaretz archives, never with success.
I’ll put it in single quotes, if that makes you feel better, and name it as memory.
The problem is that the quote that LeaNder linked to has jihadists threatening that the blood of Hamas will run in the streets. Are you suggesting Richard saw it and just substituted the word “Israelis?” That is more than “slightly different.” That is like seeing a quote that actually reads, “Avigdor Lieberman says Palestinians are subhumans” and putting it on Mondoweiss as “Richard Witty says Palestinians are subhumans.”
Richard: Instead of naming your statement as “memory” you should name it as “false witness” — and a violation of one of the 10 Commandments. Several Mondoweiss visitors have tried to find your reference; all have failed.
What’s more, a quotation like the one you attributed to Hamas should be easy to find. The great hasbara machine would have posted it all over the internet, just like their (mis)translation of Ahmadinejad’s statement.
You should go to all the other sites where you posted “false witness” and withdraw it.
>> But you don’t use an inflammatory quote as though you know it’s true when you can’t even find the source.
Sounds like a bad case of “Rohrshach”… :-D
LeaNder, et al
Note the dates. How wonderfully self-referential all of this is.
The trick is: create the source link in the bibliography, then scrub the source.
[And if you pay attention, you'll find this rife in so much material related to I/P (or "Islamofascism") that is, IMO, concocted. It's the new favorite trick on Wikipedia with any controversial material to do with Israel, ever since Jimmy Wales tried to bring some semblance of veracity back to his doings. Wikipedia should — if it were honest — be preserving these source materials on its servers — 2Ts of storage cost, what? $129? — and until it does, the notion of a digital encyclopedia is a farce. It's a house of mirrors.]
But no matter what, August 2009 is eight months after Operation Cast Lead.
Again, the point of mentioning the quote was to describe the considerations that led to the decision of scale of operation.
Give it a break, Witty, and concentrate on fooling the people on your blog. They seem willing to accept lower standards of proof, since you’re all united over there in your distaste for Mondoweiss, Phil, and the commenters here. You know, that self-identifying governing thing.
North,
You see false witness because you seem to imagine that I am declaring blame.
I am describing the rational reasoning that supports the scope of war adopted by Israel as potentially admissible. The facts remain that Hamas did declare that it was prepared for an Israeli ground action, and that it did escalate shelling in the 8-9 days between the end of the cease-fire and the Israeli organized military action.
You are just not addressing the content, instead seeking to demean the grammar and the messenger.
Please check the link. All it proves is that jihadists hate Hamas and want to kill members of Hamas. It is not the blood of Israelis that is in question. Richard could not possibly have used this source.
Richard continues to violate one of the 10 commandments. Richard bears false witness.
James, I am not really suggesting anything. But to quote from memory is a very plausible denial. Some kind of: Catch me if you can!
Question: has he ever made a difference between the different fraction inside Gaza? Wouldn’t they to him be all the same? Islamists=Hamas? If you look at it that way. He only personalized the victims: Israeli soldiers. Or somebody else did and he simply rephrased it.
But yes, this is the most interesting Witty moment for years. We should save the link and keep the context in mind. And maybe look more closely into his “quote”. After all this isn’t the first time people asked him to provide links, and over the years he hasn’t been very forthcoming on the issue. If you never need to provide sources and simply make up things, if necessary, you can write 5 comment in the time others write one, always be the first in a thread you think matters.
And since it surfaced lately: What do we know about these factions. If we do not want to rely on MEMRI?
“To declare that it wasn’t said would be a lie on my part. To not disclose it as a component of the thinking that led to the scale of the Israeli invasion, would be a lie.”
This is very revealing in an unintentional way, Richard. When it comes to Israeli crimes and Israeli intentions, no evidence is enough for you. We’d have to get every Israeli official involved in Cast Lead to swear on tape that they meant to commit war crimes to shake your belief in their innocence, and I don’t know if that would be enough.
But your mere memory of something you read from a source you can’t seem to find, and this “fact” is something that has to be revealed to the world and cited as TRUTH or you’d be lying. That’s an interesting epistemological approach you’ve got there, Richard.
I have a suggestion, Richard. Stick to sources you can find and be able to produce them, or else, if you cite from memory, always explicitly say “I think I remember X”. But if Hamas made this boast or some such boast, it shouldn’t be that hard for you to find.
It wouldn’t justify at all what Israel did, of course, but then, I understand that for you the mere use of harsh language by a Palestinian directed at Israelis is enough to justify the deaths of hundreds of innocent Palestinians.
The trick is: create the source link in the bibliography, then scrub the source.
Yes, that was my impression. I watched too many of these peculiarities post 9/11 to not notice, including sources that suddenly were shut down for the public; and just as often peculiar contents from peculiar US IP’s, that sometimes could be traced back to specific US people. But yes they learned.
Suddenly it’s accessible again. It was really different a while back. It only listed pages of special site links that led nowhere. Pages 1, 2, 3, 4 … starting with 2007 links. Now look at the above. There were pages of links before, and suddely there are only 4 in 2007, and 8 in 2008?
Which doesn’t explain us why the site is still used for this kind of stuff..
But the specific link MEMRI gives us is linked to a couple of Arab sites too. What a pity I can’t check them. Hebrew first.
It’s also interesting to follow the MEMRI document on the net, at least to the extend we can. Here it is anchored deeply into the Palestinian context. See the combination? You have to scroll down to the MEMRI document.
The facts remain that Hamas did declare that it was prepared for an Israeli ground action, and that it did escalate shelling in the 8-9 days between the end of the cease-fire and the Israeli organized military action.
Complete misrepresentation of facts. There is no “rational reasoning” in this.
Your “potentially admissible” reasoning is a fairy tale you concocted for yourself to believe in, and which forms the basis of all your comments on the subject.
We have gone over this with you, Witty, for two years, with links, quotes from Israeli generals and newspaper reports, NGO papers, and live video from the actual war. Yet you persist.
You are intellectually dishonest, and that’s the bottom line. The hubris of calling your blog “Liberal Zionism — Humanism with a Jewish Soul” is an insult to Jews, especially the Jews who comment on this blog with a spear in one hand and a glint in their eye at Israel’s lack of humanity.
[I'm kicking this dead horse for one reason. Slater has a following. And because of the historical import of post-Gladstone recantation writings among which Slater's will stand as a marker, this blog will be accessed far into the future in search vehicles (and archive.org) by historians and grad students, etc, looking for immediate reactions and the like, since Slater's original and complete piece is on his own blog. I want future readers to understand that Witty posts here by the good grace of the blog owners because he's a family friend. That does not mean those who also contribute here will put up with the duplicity.]
Thanks, LeaNder.
An honest person would agree to refrain repeating those allegations until they were able to produce or source them. Ive been on pro Zionisty blogs, and if I had tried to pull that stunt, I would have been laughed off the forum and ashamed to re-appear. You on the other hand, have no shame, no humility, no integrity. You don’t consider the inability to produce evidence as a set back to your argument, you dismiss it as trivial or irrelevant.
And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously or trusts a single word you write here.
Phil shoudl be censoring these comments from Witty. Witty should not be given the opportunity to continue lying and insistging he has no obligationb to support his arguments with evidence.
The rest of us go to great lengths to support our argument with sources and links, and Witty shoudl be made to adhere to this standard simply as a matter of respect for this blog and all those that comment here.
You have presented no facts Witty, hence tyou are lying when you refer to these allegations as facts. It is not a fact that Hamas declared anything and it is certainly not a fact that anything Hamas said would have affected Israel’s plans for a ground assault.
The fact is that even if Witty was able to produce the alledged article, it’s highly doubtful that it said what Witty claims it said. On the few occasions Witty has produced links, I have found that the content did not remotely convey the message that Witty took away from them.
Consider these 2 examples.
1) The debate bewteen Morris and Finkelstein. Witty was the only one who believes that Morris made the stronger and more convincing argument
2) The Palestine Papers. Witty alone believed that they were grounds for optimism over a political settlement or that negotiations were working.
“this blog will be accessed far into the future in search vehicles (and archive.org) by historians ”
Yikes. I’ve got to be more careful–too many grammatical mistakes in my quickly typed and insufficiently edited posts.
RW’s posts will be interesting to future grad students as examples of rationalization. And some of our responses (such as mine) will be seen as examples of how effectively a troll can drive people a little nuts.
No Israeli or IDF representative has made this claim. Not one has alluded that the tactics employed by Israel were influenced in any way by the statements from Hamas.
After all, we do know that Israel rejected an offer by Hamas mid December to return to a ceasefire, sock trash to Witty’s argument, Israel’s leaders were not persuaded by anthing Hamas had to say.
All we can conclude is that there are no articles in existence supporting Witty’s story. He made it up, as he dorado often, and is conveniently unable to produceanycsourve to support it.
I also recall that Hamas made some defiant statements. However, you are dishonest, because you are actually aware that there exists something like “military necessity”, and there is just no way to make a convincing argument that IDF tactics were within bound of “military necessity”, apart from the dubious necessity of the campaign itself.
And correspondingly, you wax vague about “expanding the scope” without ANY examples of that.
Actually, what PROBABLY happened was that Ehud Barak did take the defiant threats seriously. An ostensible goal of the operation was dismantling Hamas. That would require to use ample intelligence about possible hiding places of Hamas leaders, send the troops there and search, underground if needed. In which case most of such locations could be traps, mined and with militants striking back in the tunnels. It could be a bloody search for needles in a haystack. So IDF did nothing of the sort.
Instead, they concentrating on bombardment, long distance shelling and invasion of selected areas where there was no resistance, so PROBABLY those areas were exactly where Hamas did not prepare to resist, and Ehud Barak knew it beforehand.
I admit that these are somewhat bold conjectures, but not of my invention: this is the essence of the criticism of Ehud Barak by Ehud Olmert and right wing politicians and commentators. And one can put together pieces of circumstantial evidence. For example, Hamas had made a successful trap for a Merkawa tank in the past, and some number of skillful ambushes, and they did nothing of the sort during Cast Lead. Clearly, such an ambush can succeed only in a prepared location. So either Hamas did not prepare anything, or IDF was lucky. But it was probably more than lack because Israel has many informers among Palestinians.
These conjectures make it more clear why there was such a bitter dispute between two Ehuds. Olmert wanted a convincing victory, meaning, something that would look like “elimination of Hamas”. If that would lead to some losses in troops and equipment, so be it. Nothing less would lead to the most important victory of them all, the next elections. And perhaps he even believed in “elimination of Hamas” as a strategic goal (that is somewhat doubtful, because it would be somewhat stupid, but who knows, perhaps Olmert is somewhat stupid).
If Olmert is not a total liar, Barak’s view was quite different. After all, you could kill all top leaders of Hamas and still get defiant statements in the aftermath. And suppose that you lost say, 100 soldiers and 5 tanks in the process. Another chink in the aura of invincibility of IDF! With the previous chink chipped by Hezbollah. The next elections could be a mother of all electoral defeats, and Barak himself perhaps forced to exile. Much better to have some savage reprisals for, say, a week, declare victory and return to barracks.
Summarizing, war that Olmert wanted would be much more bloody, but in some sense less criminal because it would be directed at achieving some military objectives. Barak’s war was less bloody, but more focused on delivering terror to the population at large. The actual war was a compromize: nearly as bloody as Olmert wanted, and as focused on harmless victims as Barak wanted.
Donald,
“this blog will be accessed far into the future in search vehicles (and archive.org) by historians ”
Damn, you’re right. I should have written ” this post.” But then, what is it that we add? Comment?
leaNder, your “Suddenly it’s accessible again. ” link reads
someone recently (on another site) used the wayback machine for inserting propaganda into the discourse. of course i am completely leary when ‘new’ news i have never heard of can only be confirmed by a wayback link. especially when that waybak leads to a blog i have never heard of and is no longer in use.
A very courageous article by Professor Slater. He’s very persuasive, and argues fully, on the point that what we have here is an onslaught on the civil infrastructure so unrelenting that it amounts to a brutal onslaught on the civil population – on lives, on health, on all manner of rights.
I think I might go one step further than he does and say that the term ‘occupation’ has ceased to apply and should be replaced by ‘conquest’, which as I remember was suggested by Gil M – Irish Moses – a little while ago.
However, Slater is more elliptical on the question of the right of resistance, its nature and limits. This is one of the most painful and difficult questions that we face. Emotionally painful and morally baffling.
The Slater article is a weakly argued, tendentious, and transparently partisan screed. Let us look briefly at just one section of it: “Was the Goldstone report unfair to Israel?”
The professor unsurprisingly concludes that it was not. Goldstone recently asserted that “I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within.”
Slater finds this argument “wholly unpersuasive.”
Why? Well, “it is based on the false premise that the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005 ended the Israeli occupation there, and that therefore the subsequent attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad could not be considered as resistance to occupation…for Israel retained control over Gaza’s borders, coastline, and airspace; refused to allow Gaza a functioning airport or seaport; continued to control Gaza’s electricity, water, and telecommunications networks; and launched a number of highly destructive military attacks.”
From reading the above you might think that the “military attacks” took place just for the hell of it, and not in response to anything as impolite as a Hamas terrorist attack. But it is here in the “false premise” that “the subsequent attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad could not be considered as resistance to occupation” that the game is given away: it is an apologia for Hamas terror against Israel under the euphemism of “resistance” and a defacto criminalization of any Israeli defense against that terror.
He underscores this scurrilous premise with the following:
“ It is true that the rocket attacks aimed at Israeli civilians constituted terrorism, and were therefore correctly considered by the Goldstone Commission as constituting war crimes. Nonetheless the argument that Israel had the right to use overwhelming force in self-defense is false, for Israel’s obvious alternative was to end its occupation and repression of the Palestinian people and negotiate a settlement with the Palestinian leadership, including Hamas. Put differently, there can be no right of self-defense when illegitimate and violent repression engenders resistance–and that holds true even when the form of resistance, terrorism, is itself morally wrong.”
The statement, in justifying terrorism while acknowledging its immorality, not only betrays a noxious moral relativism, its characterization of Israel’s alleged failure to “end its occupation and repression of the Palestinian people and negotiate a settlement with the Palestinian leadership, including Hamas” is simply and demonstrably false on the facts.
The professor seems to forget (or ignores) that the USA and Israel voluntarily installed Yasir Arafat in the territories under the Oslo Accords brokered by President Clinton, where, between 1993 and 2000, the Israelis withdrew from some 98% of the occupied population centers, and released scores of prisoners (some of them hardened terrorists). Arafat, during this time, pocketed numerous Israeli concessions, made none, talked peace to Western audiences, and preached endless jihad on Israel to Arab ones. Arafat’s tenure (or, rather, his dictatorship) in the occupied territories during the Oslo years was a disaster for the Palestinian people. He brought to the West Bank, Gaza and Israel in the 1990′s what he had bought to Jordan in the 1960′s and to Lebanon in the 1970′s and 80′s: a pestilence of corruption, oppression, and mass murder, as well as something hitherto unknown in Israel: the first suicide bombers. Arafat’s “security force” swelled into an army poised for conflict and Hamas and Islamic Jihad literally flourished under his tenure. All of this was largely ignored by the UN, as well as by Western journalists, diplomats, and policy makers. They were focused on “peace.”
In 2000 Israel offered the return of virtually the entire Golan Heights to Syria in return for a full peace; it was refused. In May of 2000 Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon. In the next several months Arafat would be offered over 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, East Jerusalem as a capitol, breathtaking concessions on the sovereignty of the Temple Mount, and the removal of all Jewish settlements from territory ceded to the new Palestinian state (i.e., 97% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza). Arafat rejected all offers put to him, made not a single counter-offer, and launched a futile terror war that would kill thousands of Israeli and Palestinian innocents. In 2005 the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Gaza; the result was the creation of a totalitarian Hamas-ruled terror regime that has launched thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and committed scores of brutal atrocities against their own, largely to the indifference of the UN and left-leaning “peace” activists.
The professor’s characterization of Hamas’ “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) as something engendered by Israel’s alleged “illegitimate and violent repression” is similarly spurious and ahistorical. Hamas’ argument has never been merely with Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem but with Israel’s existence, period. The professor does not make clear what, between Israel’s existence and its non-existence, there is to negotiate.
Hamas is a Palestinian offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Brotherhood has pursued Hamas’ objective of ejecting the Jews from Palestine and destroying Israel ever since the founding of the group in the 1920’s. In 1938 the group declared that to eject the (400,000) Jews from Palestine was an “inescapable obligation on every Muslim.” Also, in 1948:
“Jews are the historic enemies of Muslims and carry the greatest hatred for the nation of Muhammad.”
The Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al-Banna wrote: “In our souls Palestine occupies a spiritual holy place which is above abstract nationalist feelings. In it we have the blessed breeze of Jerusalem and the blessings of the Prophets and their disciples.”
Hassan al-Banna also excoriated his fellow Muslims’ “love of life” over martyrdom in the service of jihad, which he praised as “the art of death.”
All of this is either unknown or unimportant to the professor, who then indulges a grotesque and distasteful analogy between Hamas terrorists and American colonists fighting for independence.
The professor’s blatant denial of Hamas’ total culpability for the entire crisis that led to Operation Cast Lead, his indifference to inconvenient historical facts, his spurious rationalization of Hamas terror, and his refusal to concede any basis of Israeli self-defense to that terror betray his bias and expose the unseriousness of his “scholarship.”
He simply advances a a morally indefensible argument on a historically false premise. Nothing “scholarly” about that.
Interesting post Robert,
Your effort at least makes a welcome change from the vaccuous diatribes we are accustomed to hearing from Witty, though they are just as mistaken and full of falsities.
That might be because was no terrorist attack prior to the November 4th raid on Gaza which killed 6 Palestinians.
In February, a wikileaks memo was released that revealed that Cast Lead had nothing to do with stopping rocket or terror atatacks but in fact, was a reaction by the Israeli government to undemine Hamas, who were benefitrting politcally from the ceasefire. The memo points out that the Israeli government resorted to a military optionn to cut Hamas off at the knees.
On the contrary. Israel deliberately and knowingly violated a 4 month ceasefire(that Israel’s MFA acknowledged Hamas were carefully observing) , hence the November attack on Gaza was a deliberate act if war.
Of course,one should add that the blockade itself (which Israel had agreed to lift as part if the ceasefire) is in itself an act of war.
On the contrary, Slater could have made a much stronger case here. Israel had the option of a) sticking to the ceasefire prior to the November 4th attack on Gaza and b) agreeing to return to the ceasefire, as proposed by Hamas in mid December 2008. These two options would have been much more effective in terms of protecting Israeli civilians than the Cast Lead option.
You seem to forget that Israel not only violated the Olso agreement, but that Netenyahu was caught admitting on video that he personally sabotaged Olso. Israel never withdrew from 98% of the occupied population centers and released very few prisoners (bearing in mind that at least 1000 of Israel’s prisoners are there for no reason).
Arafat gained absolutely nothing in return for reducing violence. You might also have forgotten that Netenyahu personally rang Araft to thank him for his effort.
He brought to the West Bank, Gaza and Israel in the 1990′s what he had bought to Jordan in the 1960′s and to Lebanon in the 1970′s and 80′s: a pestilence of corruption, oppression, and mass murder, as well as something hitherto unknown in Israel: the first suicide bombers.
False. The Second Infada began as a wave of non violent resistance, but Israel met this wave with a brutal crackdown, which was then met wih the wave fo sucide attacks.
As always, you Israeli apologists leave out the crucial details. The discussions collapsed over disagreements over the status of the land by the Sea of Galilee. Israel were forced to withdraw from Lebanon by Hezbollah.
In May of 2000 Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon.
A blantant lie. You’re merely spouting the Ethan Bronner BS account about Camp David. Evidently, you never heard of the subsequent talks that took place at Taba 6 months later?
Allow me to educate you a little. The so called offer at Camp David did not provide a contiguous state, and did NOT offer East Jerusalem. The offer was so inadequate in fact, the the Israeli foreing minister at the time, Shlomo Ben Ami, admitted that he would have rejected the Camp David offer had he been a Palestininan.
What you delibertatly left out is Barak and Clinton both recongnized the inadequacy of teh Camp David offer and came up with the Clinton Pararmeters, which were presented to both leaders at Taba six months later. Both leaders agreed to the parameters, and stated that they were on the verge of a politicla settlement. Barak called off the talks early, citing the impending Israeli elections. Sharon won and the ret is history.
As for Hamas, your lame account is pathetic, and I suspect you know it.
In September of 2005, Israel did withdraw from Gaza, but did so by firing 7,7000 shells into Gaza and as Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar documented (in their book, “Lords of the Land”),
…the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future.
After the election of Hamas (a truly heinous crime in the eyes of Israel) the US-Israeli assault on Gaza escalated in January 2006.
Hamas’ argument has never been merely with Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem but with Israel’s existence, period.
The same argument couldbe made of Likud, who claim to support a 2 state settlement in spite of the fact that their charter explicitly rejects the existence of a Palestinian state. The simple fact is that Hamas have:
1. Endoresed a 2 state selttment along the 1967 borders
2. Proposed a 10 year long ceasefire,
3. Promised not to stand in the way of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002
4. Promised (in the 2005 Cairo Agreement) to recgonize all prior signed agreements between Israel and the PA.
In 1938 the group declared that to eject the (400,000) Jews from Palestine was an “inescapable obligation on every Muslim.” Also, in 1948:
Similarly, on 1905 Israel Zangwill said in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that:
[We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
There are countless statments by Zionists, including Ben Gurion, to this effect.
All of this is either unknown or unimportant to the professor, who then indulges a grotesque and distasteful analogy between Hamas terrorists and American colonists fighting for independence.
You might find it grotesque and distasteful, though it happens to be accurate. After all, Israel, which was founded on terror and violence, stands as a monument to the success that terrorism can bring.
As I have demonstarted above, it’s clear that you are the one that is in blatant denial of the culpability for Operation Cast Lead. You seem to believe that the gratuitous use of the term terror and apology for terror someone grants you credibility and moral authority. It does not.
Israel elected 2 terrorist leaders to the office of prime minister after all.
Your long screed strikes as a pre prepared rant that encapsulates everything you have to say about this subject. I suspect we won’t be seeing you on this blog again.
Jesus, Shingo, what a reply. (altho’ I think you fucked up some blockquotes, I could follow.)
Shingo,
I’m sure glad you’re on our side…nice post!
Thanks for the kind words MRW and lobewyper, but I’m sure you would both agree, there was nothing controversial about what i said. I’m so used to refuting these hit and run Hasbarats that I do it almost by rote.
And sorry for screwing up the block quotes MRW, but I posted this from my IPhone.
In any case, I predicted that we wouldn’t be seeing Robert returning and it appears I was right.
Shingo,
Your wishful thinking about my flight from this blog has been disappointed. I’m baaaack!
Your response to my post covers three general points of contention:
1) My assertions about Hamas’ culpability for the entire Gaza War and the legality of Israel’s responses.
2) My assertions about Israeli concessions and peace offers in the Oslo period and after.
3) My “lame” and “pathetic” characterization of Hamas as a terrorist group unwilling to peacefully co-exist with Israel.
On point #1:
Your assertion that Israel’s blockade is “an act of war” is false and betrays an ignorance of international law. Israel has been in a state of armed conflict with Hamas for more than two decades. When Hamas graduated from insurgent terrorist group to overlords of the whole Gaza strip after the Israeli withdrawal, the war escalated in scope and scale. Hamas’ election victory does not legitimize or legalize their overthrow of the PA in Gaza, for the PA is the only internationally recognized political authority over the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.
In any event, the dubiousness of the Hamas regime’s international legal status does not change the reality that a defacto state of armed conflict thus exists between the Hamas regime ruling Gaza and Israel. Article 51 of the UN charter, which prohibits acts of aggression, excludes acts of self-defense, and the laws of initiating hostilities (jus ad bellum) does not inhibit the use of force in that capacity in non-international conflicts. Yet even if we grant that Israel is an occupier, its actions, in both the blockade and Operation Cast Lead are consistent with Article 43 of the regulations attatched to the 4th Hague Convention of 1907 which states that an occupying power must “take all measures in its power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.” To argue that Hamas’ terrorist attacks are not a threat to Israel’s “public order and safety,” is preposterous. Thus whether Israel is a defacto occupier or an actual one, Israel’s actions are consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter and Article 43 of the 4th Hague Convention. Even the Goldstone report doesn’t pretend that the same is true with Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel.
As for Hamas’ culpability for the Gaza War, this is beyond serious dispute. Do you really want to argue that Hamas was prepared to live peacefully at Israel’s side but was forced to fire rockets and mortars into Israel in self defense? Please. Hamas was shooting at Israel before, during, and after the Gaza withdrawal and is today just as implacably devoted to Israel’s total destruction as it ever was. It is true that Operation Cast Lead was not a specific tactical response to an individual attack, but a sustained strategic assault on Hamas’ entire terror infrastructure in the Gaza strip to thwart further attacks.
As for Israel “violating” the ceasefire, well, that was certainly a shame, but sometimes having a regime who seeks your destruction living next door to you just causes you to lose some of your manners. Life’s brevity simply forbids an enumeration of all of Hamas’ broken cease-fires. For Hamas, it is clear, cease-fires serve a simple, useful tactical purpose: to regroup, rearm, and replenish their weapons stocks for further attacks. That is all. The notion that Israel should have staked the security of its citizens on the trustworthiness of a Hamas ceasefire might seem reasonable to you from the safety and comfort of your computer, but to a government ringed with hostile borders and charged with life and death decisions and the security of its people in the face of the utter contempt and indifference of the rest of the world, it is another matter entirely.
Finally, in order to buttress your flimsy Hamas-as-victim-of-aggression fantasy, you asserted the following:
“In September of 2005, Israel did withdraw from Gaza, but did so by firing 7,7000 shells into Gaza and as Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar documented (in their book, “Lords of the Land”),
…the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future.”
Your assertion and your citation are deliberately misleading. It leaves the impression of an unprovoked and indiscriminate attack. Here is a Reuters article (“Israel shells Gaza for first time since pullout,” dated Sept.27, 2005) reporting:
“GAZA (Reuters) – Israel shelled Gaza on Tuesday for the first time since its withdrawal from the territory in response to a new rocket attack by militants, and vowed no respite in an offensive to halt cross-border salvoes.
An Israeli army statement said troops had fired “a number of artillery shells” at a northern Gaza area used by militants to launch rockets at Israel, and that it would continue to use “any and all means at its disposal” to halt attacks by militants.”
Well then, that certainly sheds a bit more light on the matter now, doesn’t it? By deliberately omitting the fact that the shelling was “in response to a new rocket attack by [Hamas] militants” you sought to falsely portray an act of self-defense as a naked, unprovoked act of “scorched earth” terror. Typical, dishonest anti-Israel BS. Nice try, though.
On point # 2:
It is true that Netanyahu did not believe in Oslo, tried to obstruct it, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into signing and implementing the Hebron and Wye River agreements with the PA. But he did. However, it is not clear to me how Israel “violated” Oslo at this time. Please elaborate.
As for Arafat “reducing” violence. Please. Arafat’s charade as a statesman seeking “peace” was always like that of a violent mob boss who tried to insist that he was just a plumber or a humble shop keeper. He was a shifty double-talker, a recidivist liar, and a violent terrorist who donned the mantle of a moderate statesman when the occasion demanded it. He never “reduced” violence; he simply turned it on and off like a faucet as it suited him, as he had always done.
I got the 98% withdrawal figure from Prof. Efraim Karsh. If it is incorrect, please provide the correct figure and cite a source.
Your portrait of Hezbollah chasing Israel out of Lebanon is a fairy tale. The Israeli withdrawal was the right thing to do, but perhaps not done at the right time. I think it should only have taken place in the context of full peace with Lebanon, but I understand Barak’s motives for doing so. The Israeli presence there was unpopular in Israel, and contrary to Israel’s interests. That Israel’s regional enemies saw the move as a sign of weakness, rather than magnanimity was tragic, but entirely predictable. Barak should have known better.
Your contention that Syria rejected peace with Israel over the small sliver of territory around the Sea of Galilee that Barak insisted on keeping to protect water rights betrays your naïveté and ignorance of the Assad regime and its regional ambitions. Cruel, cynical, and wily, Assad, like Saddam Hussein and the mullahs of Iran, was the most stalwart of the anti-Israel rejectionists. Like Arafat, he made all the appropriate noises about “peace” for gullible Western diplomats and journalists, but that he would have ever have made peace with the “Zionist enemy” whose destruction was an article of faith for him, was laughable. Just as Arafat sought not only the West Bank, Gaza, and E Jerusalem but all of Israel, Assad’s ambitions did not focus merely on the Golan; he sought the creation of a “greater Syria” stretching from Turkey to the Nile. In a 1976 meeting with the PLO he told them:
“You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Do not forget one thing: there is no Palestinian people, no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria! You are an integral part of the Syrian people and Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the real representatives of the Palestinian people.”
You asserted that “The Second Intifada began as a wave of non violent resistance, but Israel met this wave with a brutal crackdown, which was then met with the wave of suicide attacks.”
Hilarious. Arafat or Saeb Erekat couldn’t have put it better themselves. However, as the communications minister of the PA admitted:
“The PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations, by request of President Yasir Arafat, who predicted the outbreak of the Intifada as a complementary stage to the Palestinian steadfastness in the negotiations, and not as a specific protest against Sharon’s visit to Al-Haram Al-Qudsi…The Intifada was no surprise for the Palestinian leadership. The leadership had invested all of its efforts in political and diplomatic channels in order to fix the flaws in the negotiations and the peace process, but to no avail. It encountered Israeli stubbornness and continuous renunciation of Palestinian rights. The PA had instructed the political forces and factions to run all materials of the Intifada.”
In my previous post I asserted: “Arafat rejected all offers put to him, made not a single counter-offer, and launched a futile terror war that would kill thousands of Israeli and Palestinian innocents.”
You called this a “blatant lie” and asserted that “What you deliberately left out is Barak and Clinton both recognized the inadequacy of the Camp David offer and came up with the Clinton Parameters, which were presented to both leaders at Taba six months later. Both leaders agreed to the parameters, and stated that they were on the verge of a political settlement.”
I did not neglect Taba and I did not refer specifically to the Camp David offer alone. I was referring to all of the offers made in the latter half of 2000. I wrote:
“In the next several months Arafat would be offered over 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, East Jerusalem as a capitol, breathtaking concessions on the sovereignty of the Temple Mount, and the removal of all Jewish settlements from territory ceded to the new Palestinian state (i.e., 97% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza). Arafat rejected all offers put to him, made not a single counter-offer, and launched a futile terror war that would kill thousands of Israeli and Palestinian innocents.”
What I said was accurate. Arafat did reject the offer and made not a single counter-offer at Camp David or at Taba. He simply said no to everything. Your assertion that “Both leaders agreed to the parameters” is simply false. Said the Palestinian negotiating team in their January 2, 2001 response to the Clinton plan:
“We wish to explain why the latest US proposals…fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace. It would…force the Palestinians to surrender the right of return for Palestinian refugees…We cannot accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.”
So that was that. The Palestinians’ response to the Clinton Parameters was one big “no.”
The evidence is overwhelming that Arafat never had any intention of making peace and simply used the peace process to pocket as many concessions as he could and entrench himself in the territories for the next round of conflict with Israel. His refusal to compromise and make peace at Camp David in the summer of 2000 and the months following are thus perfectly consistent with this plan of action. He knew there would be no peace. He knew more than anyone the whole culture of maximalist rejection that he himself had cultivated with such care over the decades. He had never attempted to educate or persuade the Palestinian people in the ways of peaceful co-existence with Israel or the necessary and painful sacrifices that would be needed to make a practicable, workable peace with Israel. That was not his style and never his aim. The whole culture of anti-Israel incitement and rejection not only continued under his tenure but flourished and intensified at his behest. To forgo the right of return, that sure recipe to Israel’s demise, to concede the legitimacy of a Jewish state in Holy Palestine, to know that Arab schoolchildren would someday read of him as the “traitor” who “surrendered” Palestine to the Jews, were simply out of the question.
Of course, Arafat was also well aware that making peace with Israel could be hazardous to his health; not for him the fate of Egypt’s Anwar al-Sadat. No thanks. Better to be a live rejectionist than a dead peacemaker. As for the hardships that a prolongation and intensification of the conflict would heap on his stateless and long-suffering people, well, that was their problem; and anyway, what mattered most was not the suffering of his people, but who he knew would get the blame for it: Israel. With images of violence, carnage and death dominating television screens, the UN, the Europeans, the whole cabal of “human rights” and “peace” activists on the internationalist left, and even many Americans would soon resume making all their familiar noises about Israel’s “occupation” and “repression” and in no time everyone would soon forget the peace he had rejected amidst all the fire and smoke and chaos of attack and counterattack. On that he could rely.
The cruelty and the cynicism inherent in Arafat’s strategic calculus were crucial to his success. The manner in which Arafat used the Oslo Peace Process to extract numerous concessions from the Israelis without making any in return was a masterpiece of Machiavellian diplomacy in which every ruse and stratagem advised by the 16th century Florentine diplomat were used with consumate skill and cunning. Diplomacy, for the Palestinians then, is merely war by other means. Of course all this makes a sham out of the words “peace process.” The difference between a war and a peace process is that in a war there is a winner and a loser; in a peace process both sides agree to lose something to win something. Both sides make compromises and concessions toward a common goal: peace. How can a peace-process possibly function and produce results if one side does all the compromising and conceding and the other side remains adamantly inflexible? It can’t. The sad truth is that the Palestinian leadership (both the PA and Hamas) demand nothing less than a full, uncompromising reversal of the 1948 Nakba. This demand is accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge any responsibility whatever for any role that the previous refusals to compromise and peacefully co-exist have played in the creation and prolongation of the conflict. They want victory, not peace, and the sufferings that a further prolongation of the conflict have and are inflicting on the peoples of the West Bank and especially in Gaza are a matter of complete indifference to them. But then again, what else is new?
On point # 3:
“The simple fact is that Hamas have:
1. Endorsed a 2 state settlement along the 1967 borders
2. Proposed a 10 year long ceasefire,
3. Promised not to stand in the way of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002
4. Promised (in the 2005 Cairo Agreement) to recognize all prior signed agreements between Israel and the PA.”
Well, Hamas’ support for the plan is understandable since they know it hasn’t a chance in hell of ever being accepted and implemented. The “Peace Initiative,” which I have read in it’s entirety, is a deeply unserious document. It offers Israel diplomatic relations with all Arab states in return for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders and a “just solution” to the Palestinian refugee problem. All of which sounds reasonable until you examine the fine print: the Initiative invokes UN resolution 194 (a General Assembly resolution passed in 1948 that, unlike a Security Council resolution, is not binding) for the refugees “to return to their homes” i.e., Israel. Israel is thus offered something revocable: peace and recognition, while the Arabs demand from Israel something irrevocable: having their state flooded with several million Palestinian refugees, thus cancelling the Jewish character of the state forever. Hamas will thus offer Israel a ten year cease fire if, in the meantime, it agrees to destroy itself by an act of demographic suicide. How generous. On this insane “right of return” both Hamas and the PA remain adamant and inflexible to this day. The Initiative thus gives the Palestinians a Judenrien state in the territories and the right to “return” to Israel. So that’s how it is with the Palestinians: what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine. Of course all of this will bring peace to Israel–the peace of the grave, that is. And that, of course, is what Hamas’ support for the “peace initiative” is all about.
As for Israel being “founded on terror and violence,” and standing “as a monument to the success that terrorism can bring.” Listen to Abba Eban at the 1947 UN partition negotiations:
“We relied on the general premise of a historical connection, but made no claims whatever about for the inclusion of particular areas on our side of the partition boundary on the grounds of ancient connections. Since Hebron was full of Arabs, we did not ask for it. Since Beersheba was virtually empty, we put in a successful claim. The central Zionist thesis was that there existed sufficient room within Eretz Israel for a densly populated Jewish society to be established without displacing the Arab populations, and even without intruding upon their deep-rooted social cohesion.”
These sentiments hardly express the language of “terror and violence” or racism, ethnic cleansing, or any dispute about the Arabs’ attatchment to Palestine; quite the contrary. All of the radical Zionist quotes in the world will not change the fact that the Jews accepted, and the Arabs rejected, both the 1937 Peel Commission Partition that would have given the Arabs 80% and the Jews 20% of Palestine, and the 1947 partition that would have split it between them. The Arabs’ rejection of the 1947 partition was the progenitor of the Arab-Israeli conflict as we know it today. Everyone at the time knew that the Arabs’ rejection meant war. There would have been no refugee crisis if there had been no war. If the Jews really had meant to found their state on “terror and violence” or ethnically cleanse the Arabs, why did they accept the partition at all, which would have included some 397,000 Arabs living in the Jewish state? And why didn’t they expel and dispossess the 160,000 Arabs that remained in the 1949 ceasefire boundaries? Also, why did the Israelis agree to, and the Arabs reject the 1950 UN plan for resettling some 100,000 or more refugees within Israel proper?
As for your endorsement of Slater’s Hamas-American Colonists analogy; well, I may just throw up. The very idea of comparing the likes of George Washington, Nathaniel Greene, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to bloodthirsty terrorist cutthroats like Abdel Rantisi and Kaled Meshal are enough to make my skin creep.
Slater’s apologia for Hamas terror and your endorsement of his arguments betray the scurrilous attempts to blur the distinctions between genuine terrorism and the defense against it that is at the heart of the attempt to deligitimize the Jewish state. Terrorism is the use of violence and murder to advance a political or religious objective or agenda. Either it is always wrong or it is never wrong. This moral disintegration of means to ends is one of the key features of terrorist groups (and their apologists) as they wade ever deeper into the lies and the bloodshed, and the abandonment of any moral criteria is in some ways a prerequisite for their effectiveness. Dostoyevski made this point brilliantly in his great anti-terrorist novel “The Devils.” The character Verkhovensky, seeking advice on how to be an effective terrorist, is told by the diabolical Stavrogin: “Persuade four members of your group to murder a fifth, on the pretext that he is an informer for the police, and you will at once tie them all up in one knot by the blood you have shed. They will be your slaves.” Only fear and depravity can thus unite them in their grisly tasks, and none can be an effective terrorist who retains the basic elements of a human personality and a conscience. In the “House of the Dead” Dostoyevski also wrote: “Tyranny is a habit, and develops finally into a disease. The habit can kill and coarsen the very best man to the level of a beast. Blood and the power to kill intoxicate….The man and the citizen die with the tyrant forever; the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible.”
Hamas terror is the offspring of violent rejection and underscores what the real culprit in the failure of the peace process is now and has always been: an Arab rejectionism that has run long and deep, a fanatical intransigence that views any sovereign Jewish state in Palestine as illegitimate and views compromise and peaceful co-existence in terms of surrender and shame. The Palestinian leaders do not want a state beside Israel but in the place of it. This is, and always has been, the real obstacle to peace. For peace, as Spinoza once said, is not merely the absence of war, but a state of heart and mind. Until the Palestinians make that peace in their hearts, all the haggling over borders, settlements, and recognition will be futile.
Your move, Shingo.
I’m glad you’re back Robert,
It’s always fun to watch you Hasbara trolls hit hard with your first posts, and then confronted with a comprehensive refutation, returning later with a much more introspective, humble and detailed explanation. You obviously weren’t expecting anyone to take the time to dissect your post, but you deserve credit for trying again, albeit with more recycled Hasbara.
In spite of length of your post, once one separates the substance from the hyperbole and vacuous rants, all that is left are 2 or 3 actual arguments and quite a few admissions.
#1:
The assertion that a blockade is “an act of war” is not mine. Israel made in in 1967 against Egypt’s 1 week partial blockade of the Straights of Tihran. The blockade was not approved by the UN or any international agreements. It was not subjected to any judicial review by the World Court of the ICJ (even though Nasser proposed the World Court be asked to determine it’s legality, which Israel refused) . Israel simply pulled this stunt with Gaza because it could.
As the US and HRW have stated, the blockade is illegal, because it constitutes an act of collective punishment. Furthermore, Israel’s own internal documents reveal that the blockade serves no security purpose, but was simply an act of economic warfare.
link to mcclatchydc.com
And before you bore us with the Sam Remo argument, not only does it not apply to Gaza (seeing as Israel occupies it), but it most certainly does not apply to foreign ships.
Only because that is what Israel it wanted, upping their unrelenting military attack against Gaza from merely vicious to truly sadistic, following the election of Hamas.
Hamas did not overthrow PA in Gaza, they defeated them in an election. Following that election, the US and Israel ordered Fatah to attempt a coup to overthrow Hamas which failed.
link to vanityfair.com
Self defense includes the obligation of any state to explore all options for defending one’s population. Israel rejected the ceasefire and the subsequent call for a return to ceasefire by Hamas, then rejected international calls for a return to the ceasefire (at the UN). In that regard, Israel’s government were derelict in their duty to protect their population.
There was a ceasefire in place in 2008 which Israel broke on November 4th (2008) when they chose to attack Gaza, and killed 6 Palestinians. There was no justification for such an attack and certainly no grounds for self defense.
On the contrary. If Israel is an occupier, then the blockade is an act of collective punishment and violates every obligation under Article 43. Cast Lead even more so, because the obligation to matain “public order and safety” applies to the occupied population too.
However you want to argue Article 43, Israel has violated it both from a perspective of protecting it’s own population as well as the occupied population.
BTW. The Goldstone Report doesn’t pretend to address that argument, seeing as it does not even discuss occupation.
You are right. There is no dispute that Israel broke the ceasefire and chose the day of the US presidential elections to do so (so as to ensure minimal media coverage) and then ended hostilities a few days prior to Obama’s inauguration. Cast Led was a sadistic and cynical exercise and as outlined by the Wikileaks memo that revealed without a shadow of a doubt, had nothing to do with rocket attacks, but was a cynical ploy to undermine Hamas politically.
No and I don’t have to. The Wikileaks memo does that for me. Israel were concerned by Hamas’ ongoing efforts to use the Tahdiya to increase their strength, and at some point, military action will have to be put back on the table.
link to telegraph.co.uk
That’s the beauty of facts and evidence Robert. One does not have to substitute hyperbole and emotive rhetoric for true argument.
False. In 2005, Hamas declared and unilateral ceasefire with Israel, which they held to for much of 2006. This is in spite of the fact that Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza between September 2005 and May of 2006.
False. If Israel were committed to a sustained strategic assault on Hamas’ entire terror infrastructure in the Gaza strip, they would:
a) never have agreed to the July 2008 ceasefire agreement, nor held to it for 4 months.
b) told us so, rather than lie about who broke the ceasefire
I beggars belief that you would dismiss Israel’s blatant breach of the ceasefire as “a shame”. Should we describe the suicide attacks during he 2nd Intifada as a “shame” also? It was an unprovoked act of war and war crime. That’s how you and your tribe would have described it had Hamas conducted a raid into Israel and killed 6 Israelis, especially during a negotiated ceasefire.
This is typical Zionist double standards. You propagandists are outraged at something as benign as a nasty statement from a Hamas official, yet when Israel breaks a ceasefire it’s OK because Hamas aren’t committed to peace anyway. Head Israel wins, tails the Palestinians lose.
So do factual breveties.
Again, if this is the case, then why did Israel agree to the July 2008 ceasefire?
Your argument essentially comes down to the admission that Israel never says what it means or means what it says and that as far as you’re concerned, whatever they do (good or bad) is justified. Like Witty, none of your claims are based on any evidence, or even official statements by the Israeli leadership. You simply claim some psychic ability to be able to tap into what the Israeli leadership was thinking and feeling at the time and try to pass that off as an argument.
It’s a pitty you don’t read your own articles.
From the report, it states The rocket (from Gaza) was fired after a fresh Israeli air strike in Gaza after darkness fell on Tuesday.
So while Israel claim they shelled Gaza in response to the rockets attacks, the rockets attack was a response to an air strike by Israel.
Secondly, the rocket attack was a single incident, and does not explain or justify why Israel maintained a continual barrage of shelling into Gaza for the next 10 months.
Last but not least, upon withdrrawign from Gaza, Dov Wesigalls told the world that Sharon’s plan was to:
a) suspend the peace process in formaldehyde and
b) put Gaza on a diet
Thanks for demonstrating that Israel’s actions were indeed a naked, unprovoked act of “scorched earth” terror. Typical, dishonest Hasbara BS. Nice try, though.
On point # 2:
No he did not and he admitted as such. Do yourself a favour and get yourself up to speed on these topics before tackling something you don’t understand.
link to voices.washingtonpost.com
link to youtube.com
That’s a lot of hyperbole and hysteria, but I don’t see any evidence in your rant.
Would that be the same Efraim Karsh that doesn’t believe there are any occupied territories ?
No, it’s historical fact. Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 with it’s tail between it’s legs after protracted battles with Hezbollah. The Israeli presence In Lebanon was unpopular in Israel because the body count was rising and Israel have no stomach for such macabre realities. There was nothing magnanimous about it. Israel murdered 20,000 people in Southern Lebanon and levelled the country.
No it exposes your false claim that Israel offered to return “all of the Golan Heights. Israel has no rights to any of it, so returning part of what it stole was not up for them to decide. Israel took the Golan for it’s water and for it’s arable land. Access to the Sea of Galilee is as valuable to Syria as it is to Israel.
Yeah right, so what has Assad done in 44 years to achieve a greater Syria? Far fetched chest thumping is no substitute for reality. Assad has done nothing to further any such ambitions. In fact, if a “greater Syria” was ever on the cards, then Assad would certainly have taken wherever he could get.
I must say that it is laughable to hear you complain about Assad’s ineffectual dreams of a greater Syria, while you simultaneously defend and justify Israel’s policies of a greater Israel.
Remember that Ehud Olmert told Congress in a speech to them that he believe in Israel’s right to all to the land from Jordan to the sea.
So what? All Erekat has admitted was that the Arafat knew the Second Intifada was ready to roll out. That in itself doesn’t prove that the Second Intifada was intended to be violent from the outset.
In which case, you lied anyway, because it’s a historical fact that Arafat did not reject or walk away from the Taba talks. They ended when Barak called them off prematurely. No only is is false to allege that Arafat said no to everything.
Wrong again.
LO Chairman Yasser Arafat formally accepted the Parameters on January 3, 2001. He too sent a letter of reservations to President Clinton, in which he demanded complete sovereignty over all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, the dismantlement of all Israeli settlements in those areas, further negotiations on the permanent status of the entire city of Jerusalem, an unlimited right of return for all Palestinian refugees who chose to do so, and financial compensation to both the refugees for material losses and to the Palestinian government.[citation needed]
link to en.wikipedia.org
Both sides expressed reservations about details of the Clinton Parameters, but both accepted them. So clearly, the Palestinians’ response to the Clinton Parameters was NO a big “no.”
This is yet another example of Zionist double standards. When Israel says Jerusalem or the ROR of refugees is a none starter, that’s considered negotiation. When the Palestinians dare to lay down their terms, they’re being rejectionist.
On the contrary. Barak made it clear he was not going to budge on the issuer of Jerusalem and wouldn’t even address the issue of refugees. This is why Shlomo Ben Ami said that he too would have rejected Camp David and not “compromised” on it.
It’s clear that Arafat made mistakes and miscalculations, but to asset that he was simply driven by blood-lust and a desire for violence is simply infantile.
What you and may others before you have always tried so very desperately to dismiss and negate is the fact that Israel is the side doing all the occupying, not the PA, not Hamas not the Palestinians. You pretend that the violence and conflict is the product of irrational hatred or anti Semitism or refusal to accept Israel, when the elephant in the room is all to obvious.
It’s not that peace has been rejected , it’s that Israel has never been prepared to pay the price for peace and that price means the end to the occupation..
Arafat was but one leader who existed on the scene for 36 years of a 63 year old conflict. You can build him up and exaggerate his significance all you like, but the simple fact is that the conflict existed long before he appeared on the scene and has been continuing for a decade after his death.
Clearly, this is not about Arafat, as much as you would have the world believe.
Netenyahu sabotaged Olso, though he clearly had a great deal of help from those who wanted it to fail.
I hate to break it to you, but under international law, that is precisely what they are entitled to. The Nakba was a crime against humanity and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It’s not unreasonable for those victinms to demand justice for the crimes that were committed against them.
The plan to create a Jewish state with a Jewish majority, where no majority existed, is where this problem began. The Nakba was how Israel achieved that ambition and the 1967 war and the subsequent occupation and continue land theft/ethnic cleansing/mass murder are merely continuation so this agenda. The agenda being a “greater Israel”
On point # 3:
> Well, Hamas’ support for the plan is understandable since they know it hasn’t a chance in hell of ever being accepted and implemented.
That sounds to me like a pretty frank admission that Israel is not interested or capable of peace. It’s always fun to watch you Zionists hang yourselves when given sufficient rope.
While you Zionist propagandists constantly lament the “generous offers” made by Israeli leaders (offers that none have been able to deliver), you have no problem with dismissing any offer from the Palestinian leaders of the Arab world as “ unserious”. The only reason it’s unserious is because you know very well that Israel is not interested in peace.
Now who is being unserious? The offer not only offers recognition, but normalisation of relations. As for the refugee issue, it states very clearly that compensation is a realistic alternative to right of return.
That’s very dishonest and unserious of you. The ten year ceasefire offered by Hamas is unconditional. The reason given by Livni and Liebermnan for rejecting it was not any demographic threat to Israel, but that such a ceasefire was “not in Israel’s strategic interests”.
The matter of right of return is a basic human right, and the precedent has been established in Bosnia and Kosovo. Much as you hate the idea, it’s not something you can bargain away. After all, we are constantly reminded that Israel accepted the 1947 partition, but had the 1948 war not occurred, then Israel would never have attained it’s “Jewish character”. So why is a Jews character necessary now if it wasn’t then?
False again. Abbas has stated clearly that Jews would be welcome in the territories (ie. Palestinian state) so long as they agreed to become citizens.
Eban’s spin about making no claims whatever about for the inclusion of particular areas on our side of the partition boundary on the grounds of ancient connections is easily refuted by a statement from Ben Gurion in 1936, who told us that:
”The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.”
And of course, who can forget With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] …. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.
Source: Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 144
Here is something else that Abba Eban had to say:
There was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities, satisfying Israel’s goals.
Commenting on a speech by Menachem Begin, that repreented a picture, Eben said, “of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death an anguish on civilian populations, in mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr Begin nor I would dare to mention by name”
Note that Eban never refuted what Begin said.
Eban’s might not, but then again, Eban was not not calling the shots in 1938 -1948, when Ben Gurion
“We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.” Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
False. The Jews were given over 50 percent of Palestine. Jordan was created in 1922 and never considered part of the partition. None of the partition maps include Jordan.
But in any case, between 1937 and 1948, Jews were never more than 30 percent of the population in Palestine and most were immigrants. Furthermore, they only had ownership of 7% of the land, while Arabs owned more that 50%.
How many populations would accept a foreign power taking 50% of their land away from them and giving it to an immigrant population? The Arabs you might recall were promised independence in 1915 by the British, yet a few years later, they were being asked to give up half of that land.
The progenitor of the Arab-Israeli conflict as we know it today was the desire by the European immigrants to create a Jewish majority where none existed. Between November 1947 and May 1948, Israel expelled 300,000 Palestinians and destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages.
It was obvious to many that the arrival of this colonial project would lead to conflict. Ben Gurion was predicting that war with the Arabs was inevitable as early as 1938.
In 1899 Yosef Diya al-Khalidi (from the renowned Jerusalem family) wrote in a letter to Theoder Herzl explaining that Zionism in practice entails the dispossession and the displacement of the Palestinian people, he wrote:
“It is necessary, therefore, for the peace of the Jews in [the Ottoman Empire] that the Zionist Movement . . . stop. . . Good lord, the world is vast enough, there are still uninhabited countries where one could settle millions of poor Jews who may perhaps become happy there and one day constitute a nation. . . .. In the name of God, let Palestine be left in peace.”
Herzl responded that Zionists do not intend on dispossession and displacing the Palestinians, on the contrary, he stated the Jews will bring to Palestine ONLY material benefits, but Hertzl was a liar. In an entry into his diary from June 12, 1895, he wrote that:
“Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”
It’s obvious that the “refugee crisis” was not only inevitable but from a Zionist perspective, absolutely essential to achieve their Jewish state.
As Ben Gurion admitted, the acceptance of the partition was a stepping stone towards achieving international recondition in the short term, but would be thrown away once that recognition had been received. It’s the same reason why Israel agree to allow the refugees to return as a condition of it’s membership to the UN, but then went back on that promise.
Israel were treading carefully and to have then expelled the Arabs that remained in the 1949 ceasefire boundaries would have jeapordized their UN recognition. They had achieved their Jewish majority after all.
Because:
a) there were another 750,000 refugees created by the Nakba, not 100,000
b) Israel had agreed to allow all refugees to return as a condition of it’s membership to the UN.
And so it should, because in their day, every one of them was considered a bloodthirsty terrorist cutthroat. You might even recall that Ronald Regan (probably a hero of yours) described Bin Lade’n's gang as freedom fighters who, get this, represented the values of America’s founding fathers when they were fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Half of Israeli diplomats agree that the only thing deligitimizing the Jewish State are the policies of the Jewish State.
You can bellow and spout of all the hot air you can muster about terrorism and fighting terror, but like I pointed out previously, Israel stands a a monument to terrorism and what what terrorism can achieve. At the end of the day, terrorism is simply the warfare employed by the weak and powerless. The Hagana went from being a terrorist group to being a respectable military force once the terrorists got what they wanted.
I’m glad you pointed that out. Fear is an essential ingredient to any state that is founded on militarism. Both the US and Israel are similar in this regard, and both are home to the most fearful and paranoid societies. It serves the interests of the military to maintain a level of fear in their societies, because a fearful population is far easier to manipulate.
The other characteristic of militaristic societies is that they play undue faith in the idea that violence can solve all issues. Like they say, if you have a big hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The claim that the Arabs have been rejectionists has been a very successful propaganda campaign by Israel, but as with all lies, the truth eventually surfaces. The nail in coffin of those who cling so desperately to this talking point was the release of the Palestine Papers. It put and end, once and for all, to the lie that Israel has never had a partner for peace and illustrated in vivid detail why the Israelis and their enforcers (the US) have insisted that “negotiations” take place beyond the glare of the international spotlight.
link to independent.co.uk
The Road Map is a classic example of Israel forever wanting to have it’s way and not give anything in return. Israel signed the Road Map and ratified it in 2003. Under Phase 1 of that agreement, Israel agreed to end the settlements. Not freeze them but stop them.
So along came Sharon and tore it up. Why? Because he didn’t like it. Meanwhile, the Quartet, who makes the call, has stated that they are exceptionally happy with the progress that Abbas and Faayad have made in the West Bank under Phase 1. His Gang have fullfilled all of their obligations under the Road Map.
Israel on the other hand have rejected their side of the deal and demanded that they move directly to Phase II, where actual negotiations are supposed to take place. Bibbi has tried to pull a few stunts with the so called temporary “freeze” (which shouldn’t even be necessary) and claiming that the Palestinians won’t negotiate.
This time, the world sees through the charade and thus Bibbi comes up with the conspiracy theory that there is a campaign under way to deligitimize the Jewish State
No matter how many times the Palestinians tell you they support a 2 state solution, you and your
tribe won’t allow yourselves to hear it. No matter what overtures they give you, no matter what conditions they meet, it’s either not good enough, or Israeli’s leaders move the goal posts and demand even more, or people like you will insist it’s part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel.
It’s true that peace is not merely the absence of war, but what is undeniable, is that it cannot exist in the presence of it.
If Israel wants peace, it has every means to achieve it. The question remains, does Israel really want peace, or will it settle for security? Time ran a very revealing story last year that argued that Israel doesn’t care about peace because it’s happy enough without it.
link to time.com
France says Israel is no longer wants peace.
link to haaretz.com
Germany agrees.
link to haaretz.com
The Europeans agree.
link to haaretz.com
The EU considers Israel a threat to peace.
link to guardian.co.uk
It’s pretty clear Robert, that you have lost the debate and the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Shingo,
Re: Part 1
Your comparison of Nasser’s 1967 illegal blockade to Israel’s blockade of Gaza betrays your amateurish misapplication of international law and worm’s eye-view of history. In the aftermath of the Suez war of 1956, the UN held an emergency session in which it would deploy a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to the Sinai to ensure the non-belligerent status of the Sinai and the Gaza strip, and to assure Israeli maritime rights to the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, recognized to be international waterways. In return for the deployment of the UNEF, Israel agreed to evacuate its forces from the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip, both occupied in the recent conflict. In a 1957 speech to the General Assembly confirming Israel’s acceptance of these terms, Israeli UN rep Golda Meir stipulated the following:
“Israel will do nothing to impede free and innocent passage by ships of Arab countries bound to Arab ports or to any other destination.
Israel is resolved, on behalf of vessels of Israeli registry, to exercise the right of free and innocent passage and is prepared to join with others to secure universal respect of this right.
Israel will protect ships of its own flag exercising the right of free and innocent passage on the high seas and in international waters.
Interference, by armed force, with ships of Israeli flag exercising free and innocent passage in the Gulf of Aqaba and through the Straits of Tiran will be regarded by Israel as an attack entitling it to exercise its inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter and to take all such measures as are necessary to ensure the free and innocent passage of its ships in the Gulf and in the Straits.
We make this announcement in accordance with the accepted principles of international law under which all States have an inherent right to use their forces to protect their ships and their rights against interference by armed force. My Government naturally hopes that this contingency will not occur.
In a public address on 20 February, President Eisenhower stated:
“We should not assume that if Israel withdraws, Egypt will prevent Israeli shipping from using the Suez Canal or the Gulf of Aqaba. ”
This declaration has weighed heavily with my Government in determining its action today.
The Government of Israel announces that it is making a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in accordance with General Assembly resolution (I) of 2 February 1957 (A/RES/460). It makes this announcement on the following assumptions:
(a) That on its withdrawal the United Nations Forces will be deployed in Gaza and that the takeover of Gaza from the military and civilian control of Israel will be exclusively by the United Nations Emergency Force.
(b) It is further Israel’s expectation that the United Nations will be the agency to be utilized for carrying out the functions enumerated by the Secretary-General, namely: “safeguarding life and property in the area by providing efficient and effective police protection as will guarantee good civilian administration; as will assure maximum assistance to the United Nations refugee programme; and as will protect and foster the economic development of the territory and its people. ” (AIPV. 659,page 17)
(c) It is further Israel’s expectation that the aforementioned responsibility of the United Nations in the administration of Gaza will be maintained for a transitory period from the takeover until there is a peace settlement, to be sought as rapidly as possible, or a definitive agreement on the future of the Gaza Strip.
It is the position of Israel that if conditions are created in the Gaza Strip which indicate a return to the conditions of deterioration that existed previously, Israel would reserve its freedom to act to defend its rights.”
The above stipulation emphasized that Israel’s 1957 evacuation of territory occupied in the 1956 war was contingent upon the UN’s guarantee of the demilitarization of the Sinai and Gaza, the international status of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, and the inviolability of Israel’s maritime rights there. It further stipulated that any breach of these guarantees by Egypt would constitute an act of war, and that Israel would invoke its rights under Article 51 to defend itself. Nasser’s May 1967 ejection of the UNEF, his remilitarization of the Sinai and Gaza, and his blockade of the Tiran Straits were thus acts of lawlessness and a blatant act of war. Even he made no bones about that. He called the UNEF “a force serving neo-imperialism” and ordered their removal on May 16. Three days later they complied and that evening Cairo Radio blared: “This is our chance, oh Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation.” Nasser said in a speech to a convention of Arab trade unionists on May 27:
“We knew that closing the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel. If war comes it will be total and the objective will be Israel’s destruction. This is Arab power.”
When UN Secretary General U Thant met with Nasser to urge him to reconsider his actions, Nasser told him:
“We will never be in a better position than now. Our forces are well equipped and trained. We will have all the advantages of attacking first. We are sure of victory. My generals told me we will win—what would you say to them?”
As with Saddam Hussein and the 17 un-enforced UNSC resolutions condemning his non-compliance with inspections three decades later, the UN did absolutely nothing about Nasser’s open defiance of international law and his brazen advertising of his intentions to commit an act of unlawful aggression, save complaining aloud about his “unfortunate” and “unhelpful” behavior. Not for the last time, Israel had been completely flimflammed by the UN for accepting its assurances about its security, and utterly abandoned to its fate. On May 30 King Hussein of Jordan signed a military pact with Nasser in Cairo. The same day Iraqi forces took up positions in Jordan. Said President Aref of Iraq on May 31: “Our goal is clear: to wipe Israel off the map.” He added: “There will be no Jewish survivors.” Said Ahmed Shukairy, chairman of the PLO on June 1: “The Jews of Palestine will have to leave…Any of the old Jewish Palestine population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive.” Said Damascus Radio: “Arab masses, this is your day. Rush to the battlefield…Let them know that we shall hang the last imperialist soldier with the entrails of the last Zionist.” Said Hafez al-Assad to his troops in a frightening hint of what he would do to 20,000 of his own people 15 years later in Hama: “Strike the enemy’s [civilian] settlements, turn them into dust, and pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews. Strike them without mercy.” Seeing the forces now massing along their borders, and feeling the noose tightening around their necks in the face of a pending Arab offensive, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on June 5, and not a moment too soon.
What is clear in all of this is that any comparisons between Nasser’s lawless acts of aggression preceding the 1967 war, and Israel’s imposition of a blockade and other military, political, and economic countermeasures to contain Hamas terror in Gaza thus are not only inapt, they are utterly baseless, and even preposterous.
Hamas was founded and exists for one reason: to murder every last Jew upon which they can lay hands, to destroy Israel, and to establish an Islamic totalitarian regime in all of Palestine with themselves as rulers. Israel would have no cause for quarrel with Hamas if this were not Hamas’ ambition, or if Hamas were a peaceful, lawful entity with peaceful, lawful ambitions. But they are what they are: violent, lawless terrorists, and Israel has every right to defend itself and its people against a self-identified terrorist entity openly seeking its destruction whether they are stateless terrorists or rulers of a sovereign nation. All Hamas suicide bombings as well as rocket and mortar attacks on Israel before, during and after the 2005 Gaza withdrawal were and are indiscriminate acts of terrorism and murder against innocent Israeli civilians in the service of their openly stated objectives. The terrorist acts committed by Hamas and the justification of any and all lawful Israeli countermeasures are all so defined according to the following:
–The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which make it a crime to bomb public places with intent to kill civilians and in which Hamas attacks and those culpable for them are considered international terrorists, thus giving Israel criminal jurisdiction over them. All other signatories to the convention (US, Russia, Turkey, France) are all obliged to assist Israel in this capacity.
–The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Article 2 of which defines genocide as an effort “to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, or religious group, as such.”
–The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Financing, Articles 2 (4)-(5) which extends criminal liability to those who “attempt to commit; participate as accomplices; direct or organize terrorist attacks; contribute to acts by terrorist groups with knowledge of the group’s intent to commit terrorist acts or with the aim of furthering their goals.”
–The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. (Re: Gilad Shalit).
–United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 which require all states to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens.”
–UNSC Resolution 1566 which similarly requires all states to deny support or safe haven to “any person(s) who supports, facilitates, participates, or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.”
Both UNSC Resolutions 1373 and 1566 are both filed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, thus giving them the status of binding, international law.
The entire Hamas regime are thus criminal terrorists whose regime exists, and whose terrorist actions occur, in total defiance of any and every conceivable application of all international law, and there is simply no serious dispute about any of this except in your and Jerome Slater’s fevered imaginations.
Also, Israel’s counter-measures against Hamas terror with the blockade, besides being lawful under the right of self-defense against terrorist entities and acts cited above and covered in Article 51 of the UN Charter, does not constitute “collective punishment” under any reading of international law. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Humanitarian Law (IHL) forbids collective punishment on the grounds that “no one may be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual criminal responsibility.” That is, it forbids deliberately punishing an innocent person or persons on the basis of association rather than individual criminal guilt.
The blockade and other political, economic, and military measures by Israel against Hamas are not penal acts inflicted on the people of Gaza; they are demonstrable acts of self-defense against the terrorist regime ruling them. The Goldstone report thus misapplies the concept to political and economic sanctions that are part of lawful self-defense against terrorist acts inflicted by an entity that operates as a safe haven for terrorists, which, among other things, include lawful measures such as the blockade and interdiction of arms and weaponry. In an even more expansive reading of the concept, the Goldstone report even found Israel guilty of collective punishment for partially closing its border with Gaza, neglecting to mention that it was in response to a rocket attack after the June 2008 truce had been declared. The Goldstone report thus misapplies the concept of “collective punishment” to the lawful imposition of economic sanctions and other restrictive measures by a sovereign state in its own self-defense. The report cites no legal precedent for this novel application of the concept of collective punishment, and for very good reason: there is none to cite.
Nor is that all. The report duly, almost perfunctorily, condemns Hamas rocket attacks as war crimes. But in its brief, halting and tentative wrist-slapping of Hamas’ rocket attacks, it not only fails to recognize Hamas as an internationally recognized terrorist organization, but, incredibly, argues for unheard-of legal protections for Hamas terrorists; that Israel’s arrest of, or denial of public support for, Hamas or Hamas affiliates constitute not only collective punishment, but illegal discrimination on the basis of political belief, and a violation of freedom of association. (The same principle, if upheld, would also apply to America’s war with Al-Qeda). The barefaced, almost Kafkaesque audacity of the claim is simply incredible: That the lawful waging of war in self-defense constitutes a form of discrimination and a violation of civil rights. The report cites no precedent for these bizarre applications either, there similarly being none to cite.
In my previous post I wrote:
“As for Israel “violating” the ceasefire, well, that was certainly a shame, but sometimes having a regime who seeks your destruction living next door to you just causes you to lose some of your manners. Life’s brevity simply forbids an enumeration of all of Hamas’ broken cease-fires. For Hamas, it is clear, cease-fires serve a simple, useful tactical purpose: to regroup, rearm, and replenish their weapons stocks for further attacks. That is all. The notion that Israel should have staked the security of its citizens on the trustworthiness of a Hamas ceasefire might seem reasonable to you from the safety and comfort of your computer, but to a government ringed with hostile borders and charged with life and death decisions and the security of its people in the face of the utter contempt and indifference of the rest of the world, it is another matter entirely.”
I was referring in general terms to the strategic dilemma faced by Israel with the fact that Hamas, on countless occasions, utilized cease-fires as mere opportunities to regroup and rearm for further terrorist attacks, and the problems this posed to Israeli authorities when, during the course of a declared cease-fire, their intelligence indicated an imminent attack of some sort. What to do, observe the cease-fire and risk the death of innocents, or disrupt it to thwart the attack? These are the hideously complex life and death decisions that they are forced to grapple with, and you, form the safety and comfort of your computer, are not.
It was just such a situation that Israel was confronted with on Nov.4, 2008. In your post you asserted:
“Self defense includes the obligation of any state to explore all options for defending one’s population. Israel rejected the ceasefire and the subsequent call for a return to ceasefire by Hamas, then rejected international calls for a return to the ceasefire (at the UN). In that regard, Israel’s government were derelict in their duty to protect their population.
There was a ceasefire in place in 2008 which Israel broke on November 4th (2008) when they chose to attack Gaza, and killed 6 Palestinians. There was no justification for such an attack and certainly no grounds for self defense.”
Wrong. Israel did not “reject” the cease-fire and there was full justification for the action.
As reported by the anti-Israel British Guardian:
“A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.
Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.
Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.
One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.
“This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat,” the Israeli military said in a statement. “There is no intention to disrupt the cease-fire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organization.”
You are here pulling the same dishonest stunt that you tried to pull with the September, 2005 shelling incident: attempting to portray an Israeli act of self-defense as a “rejection” of the cease-fire, and an “act of aggression.” The Nov.4 incursion was a necessary and completely justifiable action of self-defense. It was not, as you baselessly and preposterously remarked, an “unprovoked act of aggression and a war crime.” In your disingenuous attempt to keep the dynamic of the conflict blurry, every Israeli counter-terrorist action taken in defense of its civilians and soldiers is thus an excuse for another Hamas terrorist attack, thus becoming a “response” to Israeli “aggression.”
The “violation” of the cease-fire was met by the launching of some 190 rockets and mortars in November, and some 210 between December 1 and December 24, every one of them a war crime. As a reward for this terrorist aggression, Hamas now demanded the following terms for a renewal of the cease-fire: a complete opening of all border crossings, an opening of the Rafah border with Egypt, and a ban on all IDF activity in Gaza. Hamas was thus now demanding a removal of all the restrictive measures and “IDF activity” that the terrorist actions they had previously committed, and were currently committing, had made necessary. On December 24 Hamas launched “Operation Oil Stain” to the accompaniment of an 87 rocket volley. On December 25 Prime Minister Olmert said: “I am telling them now, it may be the last minute. I’m telling them stop it. We are stronger.” This was met with an attack of six rocket attacks, and the next day there were 12 more. On December 27 Israel commenced Operation Cast Lead.
The above makes nonsense of your assertion that “Cast Led was a sadistic and cynical exercise and as outlined by the Wikileaks memo that revealed without a shadow of a doubt, had nothing to do with rocket attacks, but was a cynical ploy to undermine Hamas politically.”
It had everything to do with rocket attacks (some 400 between Nov. 4 and Dec. 27) and your Wikileaks memo, in fact, reveals no such thing. It simply states that Israel was “concerned by Hamas’ ongoing efforts to use the Tahdiya to increase their strength, and at some point, military action will have to be put back on the table.”
Let us not forget: Hamas had fired some 2400 rockets and mortars into Israel before the June 2008 cease-fire. Barak was simply speaking in general terms about what everyone knew was inevitable, and expressing his concerns about the use that Hamas was putting the cease-fire to build up their arsenal. You act as if these were not legitimate concerns. In any event, there is not a shred of evidence here in the memo that he (or Israel) were plotting to sabotage the cease-fire and it most certainly indicates no planned, premeditated intention to do so in the November 4 incident.
Your assertion that “Israel’s own internal documents reveal that the blockade serves no security purpose, but was simply an act of economic warfare” is false. Said the article you cited:
“In response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.
“A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using ‘economic warfare,’” the government said.
Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn’t imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights.”
The Israeli government statement reveals the obvious: that there is an economic dimension to its war with Hamas. Duh! The statement does not say “this is not about security but about punishing the Palestinian people.” That the blockade “serves no security purpose but was simply an act of economic warfare” is thus the subjective opinion of you and Sari Bashi, and not an established fact.
I seemed to have hurt your feelings with my harsh rejection of the Slater’s Hamas/ American Colonists comparison. Sorry about that; didn’t mean to insult your heroes Rantisi and Meshal. Sometimes it’s hard to be a terrorist group; so many to maim and kill, so little time, and so much unfair publicity and press. Poor Hamas! They just don’t get no respect.
It must now be obvious even to you that yours and Slater’s spurious excoriation of Israel as a war criminal and a predatory aggressor and your execrable defense of Hamas terrorist atrocities as “resistance” or self-defense are demonstrably false on the facts and have no basis whatever in international law. Deal with it Shingo, and get real.
Re: Part 2
Netanyahu’s hostility toward Oslo, as I remarked, was no secret. He did, however, fulfill Israel’s obligations under the Hebron and Wye River accords during his tenure.
I made the following characterization of Arafat:
“He was a shifty double-talker, a recidivist liar, and a violent terrorist who donned the mantle of a moderate statesman when the occasion demanded it. He never “reduced” violence; he simply turned it on and off like a faucet as it suited him, as he had always done.”
To which you replied: “That’s a lot of hyperbole and hysteria, but I don’t see any evidence in your rant.”
Here’s your evidence. In a 1996 statement to Arab leaders in Stockholm’s Grand Hotel:
“We of the PLO will now concentrate all of our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps…Within five years, we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. All Palestinian Arabs will be welcomed by us. If the Jews can import all kinds of Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbeks, and Ukrainians as Jews, we can import all kinds of Arabs to us…[The PLO] plans to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for the Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won’t want to live among us Arabs.”
Here was the real man, and his plan. The Phased Plan, to be exact.
Said one of Arafat’s chief deputies, Abu Iyad:
“According to the Phased Plan, we will establish a Palestinian State on any part of Palestine that the enemy will retreat from. The Palestinian state will be a stage in our prolonged struggle for the liberation of Palestine from all of its territories.”
Said PA Radio on April 30, 1999:
“The land of Muslim Palestine is a single unit which cannot be divided. There is no difference between Haifa and Shechem (Nablus), between Lod and Ramallah and between Jerusalem and Nazareth…the land of Palestine is sacred waqf land for the benefit of all Muslims, east and west. The liberation of Palestine is obligatory for all the Islamic nations and not just for the Palestinian nation.”
Got that, Shingo?
I did not make the “false claim” that Israel offered to return “all of the Golan Heights.” What I said was “In 2000 Israel offered the return of virtually the entire Golan Heights to Syria in return for a full peace; it was refused.” You omitted the “virtually.” There was no denial of Syrian water rights, just a stipulation of Israeli access to water on a miniscule stretch of land. Assad never had any intention of making peace with Israel, even for the entire Golan. That is why he raised his price so impossibly high: he did not want peace with Israel to stain his conscience or his legacy. That was the real deal-killer. As Ehud Barak told Benny Morris:
“Assad wanted Israel to capitulate in advance to all his demands. Only then would he agree to even enter into substantive negotiations. I couldn’t agree to this. We must continue to live [in the Middle East] afterward [and, had we made the required concessions, would have been seen as weak, inviting depredation].”
Your assertion that Arafat “accepted” the Clinton Parameters in December 2000/January 2001 is demonstrably, verifiably false and the Wikipedia article you quote is simply incorrect.
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer make the same assertion in “The Israel Lobby”:
“The official Palestinian response thanked Clinton for his continued efforts, declared that considerable progress had been made, asked for clarification on some points, and expressed reservations about others. . . . Thus both the Palestinians and the Israelis accepted the Clinton Parameters and saw them as the basis for continued negotiation, but neither side accepted them in toto. . . . We will never know if peace was within sight by early 2001, but the charge that Arafat and the Palestinians rejected a last chance for peace and chose violence over reconciliation is false.”
This is simply untrue. On December 23, the Clinton Plan had been presented to both sides. Israel accepted the Plan in principle, with some reservations. As Dennis Ross would later write, Israel’s reservations were “within” the plan and Arafat’s were “outside” the plan. On December 27 Dennis Ross met with the PA’s Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) who informed the Americans of the Plan’s inadequacies and its unacceptability. Ross warned him about the consequences of rejection:
“[Y]ou will have Sharon as Prime Minister. He will be elected for sure if there is no deal, and your 97 percent will become 40 to 45 percent; your capital in East Jerusalem will be gone; the IDF out of the Jordan Valley will be gone; unlimited right of return for refugees to your state will be gone. Abu Ala, you know I am telling you the truth.”
Said the Palestinians in their official January 2, 2001 response to the Clinton Parameters:
“We wish to explain why the latest US proposals…fail to satisfy the conditions required for a permanent peace. It would…force the Palestinians to surrender the right of return for Palestinian refugees…We cannot accept a proposal that secures neither the establishment of a viable Palestinian state nor the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.”
You call this an acceptance?! The answer explicitly rejected the alternative of compensation for the refugees and compensated resettlement elsewhere mentioned in the proposal, and could be summed up into two words: no deal.
Elsa Walsh of the New Yorker wrote in her March 24, 2003 article that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia—no friend of Israel—said to Arafat on Jan. 2, 2001:
“Since 1948, every time we’ve had something on the table we say no. When we say yes, it’s not on the table any more. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn’t it about time we say yes?…If we lose this opportunity, it’s not going to be a tragedy, it is going to be crime.”
Wrote Walsh:
“Bandar believed that Arafat’s failure to accept the deal in January of 2001 was a tragic mistake—a crime really. [Bandar said] “I was there. I was a witness. I cannot lie…I still have not recovered, to be honest with you, inside, from the magnitude of the missed opportunity that January.”
Said Dennis Ross of Arafat’s rejection of the Parameters:
“[Arafat's] reservations were deal-killers, involving his actual rejection of the Western Wall part of the formula on the Haram, his rejection of the most basic elements of the Israeli security needs, and his dismissal of our refugee formula. All were deal killers.”
I wrote:
“The sad truth is that the Palestinian leadership (both the PA and Hamas) demand nothing less than a full, uncompromising reversal of the 1948 Nakba.”
To which you replied: “I hate to break it to you, but under international law, that is precisely what they are entitled to. The Nakba was a crime against humanity and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It’s not unreasonable for those victims to demand justice for the crimes that were committed against them.”
This is simply false. Once again you are defining “international law” as whatever you happen to agree with. Resolution 194 which recommended that that refugees “should” be allowed to return to their homes in the immediate aftermath of the 1948 War, is a General Assembly Resolution filed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and lacks the binding force of international law.
Says the UN:
“The basic difference between Chapters VI and VII is that under Chapter VII, the Council may impose measures on states that have obligatory legal force and therefore need not depend on the consent of the states involved. To do this, the Council must determine that the situation constitutes a threat or breach of the peace. In contrast, measures under Chapter VI do not have the same force, and military missions under Chapter VI would rest on consent by the state in question.”
The “state in question” in this instance, would be Israel, who does not recognize the legitimacy of Res. 194, and nowhere has ever agreed to implement it in the form of a right of return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel.
As for the flight of the refugees in 1948 being a “crime against humanity and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.” Well, there you go again. As for the Palestinian people, of course they’ve suffered horribly. Who would ever deny such a thing? It is always important to note that when I am discussing “the Palestinians” rejecting this or that, that I am referring to the actions of the Palestinian leaders, not their long-suffering people. Indeed, the central tragedy of the Palestinian people is that they have never, to this day, had a say in anything about their lives or their future. For over 60 years, they have been used and abused as pawns in the struggle between Israel and the Arabs, or, rather, in the monomaniacal, decades long attempt of the Arabs to destroy Israel. Let us not forget (again): the entire refugee problem was created by the Arab’s rejection of the 1947 partition, their bungled attempt to destroy Israel in 1948, and has been perpetuated by them ever since. If the Arabs had compromised and accepted the creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, there would have been no war and no refugee crisis and everybody knows it. As the overwhelming array of evidence and testimony make clear, most Palestinians fled for three main reasons: to avoid being killed in the fighting, because of the breakdown in administration and services, and because of panicked Arab propaganda radio broadcasts urging them to flee for their lives after the Dier Yassin massacre. They were not all expelled en mass, driven from their homes, or ethnically cleansed; indeed, the pleas of the Jews of Haifa begging the Arabs there not to flee make heartbreaking reading. The comparison with the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars murdered and expelled (“cleansed”) as a matter of deliberate policy in 1991-1995 and 1999 is thus inapt. There was no deliberate policy to expel the Palestinians. The inhabitants and refugees in the West Bank were annexed into the state of Jordan, those in Gaza were subject to occupation by Egypt and the rest were put into refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon where they enjoy none of the rights of the local population and have been forced to live in appalling conditions there to this day. An agreement that would repatriate 100,000 of the refugees into Israel was rejected by the Arabs in 1950. At the same time, some 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries; all were resettled in Israel.
Why then were the Palestinians kept in the camps and not similarly assimilated among the inhabitants of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, or any other Arab country as they were in Jordan? The cultural and linguistic differences between Palestinian Arabs and those of Lebanon and Syria are about the same as those between Americans living in Delaware and those living in Maryland and New Jersey. So why were they not resettled and assimilated? Do you think it was because the refugees chose not to be? No; it was because the refugees were kept by their Arab brethren in camps as human title-deeds to a reconquest of Palestine that they promised but ultimately failed to bring about. As Cairo Radio put it: “The refugees are the cornerstone in the Arab struggle against Israel. The refugees are the armaments of the Arabs and Arab nationalism.” Does it not occur to you what a brutal act of inhumanity this was, and is? What possible responsibility could Israel have had for any of this? Have they forced the Arabs to keep the refugees in their wretched camps against their will to this day?
Consider: In 1937 the British Peel Commission offered to partition some 80% of Palestine to the Arabs and 20% to the Jews. The Jews reluctantly accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it without discussion. In 1948 the UN attempted to partition Palestine roughly 50-50 between Arabs and Jews. The Jews embraced the plan; the Arabs again rejected the plan, sought to destroy the newly created Jewish state by force in total violation of international law, and failed. The choice of the Arabs to embrace armed force and aggression to gain their objectives, and their violent rejection of international law and compromise was, as I said before, the progenitor of the Arab/Israeli conflict as we know it today, and was rife with consequences that haunt us still: it lost the Arabs the 80% of Palestine they could have had if they had compromised in 1937 to the creation of the new state of Israel, and it created the Palestinian refugee problem, which the Arabs have irresponsibly and inhumanely perpetuated to this day. However, even if the Arabs had been successful, there would have been no independent Arab Palestinian state; as we now know, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all had their own designs on the area. In March of 1949 King Abdullah of Jordan formally annexed the West Bank and passed a decree forbidding the use of the term “Palestinian” on any legal documents and squashing any attempts at Palestinian independence. Nasser, in the 1950′s, ridiculed the idea of an independent Palestine, and Syrian strongman Hafez al Assad once said “Palestine is part of Syria.” Indeed, in the nineteen years that the Arabs occupied the West Bank and Gaza they made no attempt to create an independent Palestine. In 1967 the Arabs tried to destroy Israel for a third time and lost. The West Bank and Gaza then fell under Israeli occupation.
Here we can see the blatant hypocrisy behind the whole spurious Israel-as-occupier/oppressor narrative. Notice that no one had ever excoriated Egypt and Jordan for “occupying” Palestinian land and denying the Palestinians a state in the 1948-1967 period, though this is exactly what they did, sometimes with exceptional violence and brutality. Where was all that talk about “violations of international law,” “oppression,” and “illegal occupation?” Apparently, all of these things only happen when the occupiers are Jews.
The way to end the Palestinian’s suffering, for God’s sake, is to end the conflict. And this their leaders will not do. They have never negotiated in good faith and have sought one alibi after another to refuse numerous peace offers. They are still refusing direct negotiations, still rejecting a two-state solution, still demanding an endless “right of return” to Israel, still refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and still insisting that the Jewish people have no legitimate attatchment to Jerusalem and, for that matter, to any of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. These are facts and are all beyond dispute.
Think not? Let’s ignore the history then, and just look at the last two years. Coming into office in Jan.2009, President Obama, eager to “restart” the peace process, ignored the intransigence of the Palestinians and the compromises and concessions made by Israelis in the past decade and, consulting his friends in the pro-Palestinian left-liberal foreign policy establishment, decided to make the freezing of settlements in the West Bank a precondition for further talks. This shocked and bewildered many. Even the Palestinians had never made this a precondition for further talks, as it was always understood since the 1993 Oslo Accords that they would be dealt with in final status negotiations. The Palestinians, who were as bewildered as anyone by Obama’s demand, nonetheless adopted it as their own, as they could hardly afford to be seen as less pro-Palestinian than the President of the United States. After much hectoring, the President obtained from the Israelis a 10 month freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank. Predictably, it did not a whit of good; the Palestinians still refused direct negotiations despite the freeze, demanded an extension of the freeze when it elapsed, and are still refusing direct talks even if it’s renewed, which it will not be. So, that’s where we are today. Obama has achieved a minor miracle of diplomatic incompetence: he has elevated what was previously a non-issue into a central one, given the Palestinians a new alibi for intransigence, and increased Israel’s diplomatic isolation as well as becoming the least trusted American President in Israel’s history. Really amazing.
As for the pursuit of a “Greater Israel” and the “myth” of Arab rejectionism. Please. For myself, it took Arafat’s rejection of a Palestinian state in 2000 to make me realize the true cause of the conflict: the continued rejection by the Arabs of any sovereign, independent Jewish entity on any of the land between the Jordan river and the sea, historically known as Palestine. I saw how this Arab rejectionism ran like a black, sinister thread through the whole conflict: their rejection of the King-Crane compromise in 1919, the rejection of the 1937 and 1948 partitions, Nasser’s “three no’s” of 1967, Arafat’s rejection of autonomy in the territories in 1979, his multiple rejections of a sovereign, contiguous state in 2000 and 2001, and Abbas’s rejection of the West Bank in 2008. These rejections are all a matter of record and are beyond dispute.
Just as clear are the compromises and concessions made by the Israelis: the willingness to compromise in 1919, 1937, and 1948; the return of the Sinai to Egypt after the 1956 war and the second return of the Sinai to Egypt in 1981 along with the withdrawal of all Israeli settlements there; the offer of autonomy to the Palestinians in 1979; the withdrawal of Israel from 98% of all Palestinian population centers and the release of scores of Palestinian prisoners (some of them hardened terrorists) in the 1993-2000 period; the unprecedented offers in 2000-2001 of a Palestinian state in some 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the removal of all Israeli settlements contained therein; the offer of the return of the Golan to Syria in 2000; the unilateral withdrawals of all Israeli troops, citizens and settlements from South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005; the offer of the West Bank to Abbas in 2008, the 10-month settlement freeze in 2009-2010, the repeated willingness, to this very day, to negotiate directly and without any preconditions which has been met with the Palestinian’s usual intransigence and refusal to reciprocate.
Shingo, I can only say this: If the Israelis have been and are indeed pursuing some “Zionist plan” for conquest and confiscation of Arab and Palestinian land, and the creation of a “Greater Israel,” all this negotiating, compromising, conceding, and withdrawing are certainly a strange way to go about it.
See ya!
That was very entertaining, Robert. It felt very year 2000, when nearly everyone in America talked about Barak’s generous offer and Arafat’s refusal, until people like Deborah Sontag and Robert Malley and others complicated the picture with, you know, facts.
link
I particularly enjoyed this part–
“Arafat rejected all offers put to him, made not a single counter-offer, and launched a futile terror war that would kill thousands of Israeli and Palestinian innocents.”
So that “terror war” killed thousands of Israeli and Palestinian innocents and Arafat “launched” it. Funny. I remember Palestinians throwing rocks and being gunned down at the start. Also, my understanding about moral agency is that “terror wars” aren’t persons, but a phrase we give to describe the acts of persons–what actually kills people in wars are other people and in this case Palestinians killed Israeli civilians and Israelis killed several times as many Palestinian civilians. But by all means please continue to demonstrate your fairminded grasp of the history.
Yeah, Donald, Daniel Levy, who was there, doesn’t have Robert’s recollection.
Amen to every word Slater wrote.
Amen to the statement that Israel didn’t have a moral right to respond to Qassams shot at civilians because it had blockaded Gaza?
Amen to 3/4 of Slater’s words.
Amen to the idea that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was a crime. And a simple observation–if Hamas somehow had the power to blockade Israel in the same way Israel would react with violence that would make Cast Lead look like a day at the beach. (Translation into Wittyese–imagine taking Hamas rocket fire and multiplying by many orders of magnitude. Well, that still won’t convey it to you, so further imagine that it was Palestinians doing this to Israelis. There really isn’t any way to translate into Wittyese the idea that Israel could do terrible things to Palestinians and be culpable for it.)
You are still confusing the question of the obligation of the Israeli defense forces to defend their civilians from attack and policy decisions.
You are NOT articulating a path by which the parties can co-exist.
Until that is clear and definitive and secure, then Israeli defense will remain an obligation, and at a very high standard of prevention.
Pressure won’t accomplish that. ONLY mutual respect will.
>> Amen to the statement that Israel didn’t have a moral right to respond to Qassams shot at civilians because it had blockaded Gaza?
No nation has a moral right to undertake offensive military actions (i.e., “start it”) that generate retaliations and then use those retaliations as justification for “belligerent reprisals”.
The statement of fact that “Israel … blockaded Gaza” is not one to be glossed over.
Neither is Israel’s ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, and its unwillingness to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually beneficial peace.
>> You are still confusing the question of the obligation of the Israeli defense forces to defend their civilians from attack and policy decisions.
And you are still confusing the question of the obligation of Palestinians to defend themselves against an ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder with Palestinian policy decisions.
Hamas does not defend its people. That would be wonderful, understandable.
In 2008/9, it grossly put its civilians in harms way. Rather than erring on the side of caution, it erred on the side of aggression, presuming that shelling civilians in Israel was deterrence.
Calm will be responded to by calm.
Wrong again Richard. If Israel takes great care (the sort of care they’d use if Israeli civilians were nearby) to strike at rocket firers, that would be self-defense. But to talk of Israel’s violence as though it’s self-defense in general, as you always do, only sometimes erring a little, is frankly contemptible. You take Israel’s “right” to commit crimes against Palestinians for granted-you only want Israel to stop after a period of negotiation, while Palestinian crimes have to stop immediately or else Israel can use violence (and again, their violence is not limited to self-defense.) But then you only see barbarism when an atrocity is committed by a Palestinian against an Israeli and not when the IDF does it.
If you ever decide to be morally consistent, some of your arguments might be worthy of discussion, but since you are hopelessly mired in your vicious tribal morality, arguing with you is like discussing the morality of suicide bombing with a Hamas advocate. (I’m using an analogy you could understand.) It’s pointless and this is why ridicule and harsh condemnation are appropriate reactions to your posts. Unfortunately your thinking is much like that of the Obama Administration (Susan Rice denied any Israeli war crimes in Gaza).
“You are NOT articulating a path by which the parties can co-exist.”
More nonsense. Israel ceases construction on the West Bank and shows a willingness to withdraw all the settlers if that is what Palestinians demand. Israel lifts the blockade on Gaza and allows Gazans out of their prison. Israel ceases all violence against Palestinians except for what really could be justified as self defense (which would mean very careful targeting of rocket launchers when needed). Israel acknowledges the crimes it has committed against Palestinians and engages in serious discussions about how to bring the conflict to an end, with no proposal off the table.
Palestinians cease all violence against civilians and if Israel ceases all violence, then they also refrain from taking shots at the Israeli military. They then work for whatever goal they decide on, whether one state or two state, but they do so with nonviolent methods. It is up to them, not me, to choose which goal they want to achieve.
The long term goal is not my chief interest, precisely because I think that’s for the Palestinians to decide. My interest as an American is that we stop supporting an apartheid state with our unconditional love.
Witty, has there ever been a time in modern world history, for example, and even during your own immediate family’s collective life span, when either the police or the army of a given state went a tad overboard under the pretext of defending the civilians? And even overboard sufficiently that it was obvious to you that an official slogan, e.g., “to protect and serve” the people became a deep and harsh reality of the exact opposite of that claim? Just wondering.
>> … [Hamas] erred on the side of aggression, presuming that shelling civilians in Israel was deterrence.
With its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization and murder, Israel continues to err on the side of aggression. And yet you continue to fail to condemn Israel as strongly as you condemn the Palestinians.
You are a Zio-supremacist and a hypocrite.
My interest as an American is the same, Donald, however, it extends even further because not stopping the settlements and crushing the Goldstone Report greatly weakens the international legal system spawned from Nuremberg. By enabling and financing rogue Israel, and copying its pretextual war mentality and domestic torture and secret policing justification, the US is becoming a rogue state itself, both internally and internationally. I don’t think my relatives nor I served in the US military and pay taxes for that.
“US is becoming a rogue state itself, both internally and internationally”
That’s true, although to varying degrees I think we’ve always been one. Our support for Israel is just one part (though an important one) of our larger problem.
Witty, you are confusing the question of the obligation of the IDF not to get a bruise or scratch on itself while it pulverizes the Palestinian people for existing on land Israel wants to keep and grab more of.
You are NOT articulating a path by which the parties can co-exist as equal human beings.
Until that is clear, definitive, and secure, the Palestinians’ will to live with heads held high will not break.
Ignoring the premises of your own ethnic faith, Zionism, will not make it a humanistic enterprise.
RichardWitty wrote:
“I am honest about what I am convinced about and what I’m not convinced about. That I hold to my views is also evidence that I’ve thought them through independantly and remain committed to my convictions (mutual valid truths)…”
Richard,
Not quite sure what you mean by terming your views “mutual valid truths.” By what standard do you judge them to be truths?
I listen for peoples’ experience, in contrast to condemnations.
You have not heard me deny the nakba, nor the liberation that Israeli independance represented. They are BOTH true.
If you read my blog, you’d observe that I hold that consistently.
I do however believe that Israel has a responsibility to defend its civilians against Hamas and factions aggressions on civilians. Hamas shelling of civilians remains unilateral and unconditional.
And, therefore maintains a status of conflict, rather than any effort at reconciliation.
Witty, I think the consensus here by those who have followed your comments over the years would be that you don’t follow Judge Judy’s advice to “put on your listening ears.” Further, your comments seldom look people (their comments) in the eye; they are always looking elsewhere. That’s how Judge Judy determines she has a liar before her.
“you don’t follow Judge Judy’s advice to “put on your listening ears.” Further, your comments seldom look people (their comments) in the eye; they are always looking elsewhere. ”
That’s a good way to put it. It doesn’t matter how much detail a post or a comment has regarding Israeli actions– he just types his responses as though he hadn’t read any of it.
The best way for Israel to defend its civilians, and the only way to give them lasting security, is to immediately lift the blockade of Gaza’s airspace and seacoast, and end the occupation of the West Bank ASAP, including unilateral withdrawal at least to the wall. At that point, Israel will no longer be committing aggression against the Palestinians, and will have the full moral right – AND WORLD SUPPORT!! – to retaliate strongly against rockets or other Palestinian attacks. Under such conditions, attacking Israel would prove stupid and futile, and would stop. This is exactly what happened in Lebanon – Israel withdrew COMPLETELY from south Lebanon in 2000, and when Hizbullah came across Israel’s border one day in 2006 and caused the deaths of 10 Israeli soldiers, Israel hit back furiously, and in the 4-1/2 years since the Second Lebanon War ended, Hizbullah hasn’t fired a shot at Israel and the civilians on the northern border have peace and quiet. (Like most of the rest of the world, I supported Lebanon War II for the first week, which was long enough to get the point across to Hizbullah, but Israel blindly carried it on for a month.)
Richard Witty wrote:
“That I hold to my views is also evidence that I’ve thought them through independantly and remain committed to my…approach (proposal rather than condemnation).”
“Proposal rather than condemnation.” Sounds more like a strategy for group psychotherapy than a formula for dealing with violators of international law and human rights. Also sounds like condemnations may justify continuation of same violations, since the Israelis’ self-esteem has been injured by such. (After all, how could we expect a country whose esteem has been attacked be expected to respect the law?) How about if the Israelis stop their violations and make all needed restitution as a pre-condition for meaningful conflict resolution?
If Hamas was merely exercising the right to resist, Israel’s behaviour must, regardless of the nature of particular actions, have amounted to murderous aggression and to a highly deliberate and sustained attack on the civil population. At this rate, Hamas must have been within its rights in all it did.
If on the contrary Hamas had overstepped its rights then Israel must have been exercising a right to bring wrongful action to an end – in effect a right of self-defence against excesses and transgressions – and at this rate the ‘liberal criticism of Cast Lead’ which Slater rejects must after all be valid.
We can’t have it both ways, surely.
Richard Witty:
“I found it thin, repetitive, ignoring the critical questions of admissable scope of war in response to Hamas shelling of civilians, escalating that shelling, declaring that they were fully prepared and armed to defeat Israeli ground troups, and that they would ‘wipe the Gazan streets with Israeli blood.’ ”
I guess the IDF’s military intelligence wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Roughly 1400 Palestinians had to die before they figured out that Hamas was just talking tough and didn’t really have heavy weaponry or anti-aircraft missiles, and that the streets weren’t going to be wiped with Israeli blood after all…
Richard Witty or the history of the mutation of a statement by the IDF to one from the Hamas/Al Qassam Brigades. Or how IDF fears turns into something Hamas, some Hamas Officials, Hamas Officials, Hamas Commanders, the Al Qassam Military Wing, Al Quassam Brigade, Leaders of Al Quassam Brigade said.
The supposed quote: The above threatened to make the streets flow/ bathe Gazan streets/ wipe Gazan streets in Israeli blood. If you know any variant, let me know.
The statement supposedly was reported in Haaretz around December 22, 2008, and was “announce[d by "some" Hamas officials, not one but several, which might explain the variants] publicly during that period of escalation of shelling”
Richard Witty June 14, 2010 at 1:56 pm, Mondoweiss, Source: Hamas Cadre
Richard Witty September 5, 2010 at 1:21 pm, Mondoweiss, Source: Hamas
Richard Witty December 20, 2010 at 1:14 pm, Mondoweiss, Source: Some Hamas Officials
Richard Witty April 4, 2011 at 1:00 pm, Mondoweiss, Source: Hamas Commanders
Richard Witty Says: April 7th, 2011 at 5:38 am, Realistic Dove thread, Source:Al Qassam military wing
Realistic Dove, Dan Fleshler, asks: April 7th, 2011 at 8:06 am for specific Source.
Richard Witty Says: April 8th, 2011 at 3:32 am, Haaretz around December 22nd 2008 or so, Al Quassam Brigade
Richard Witty Says: April 14th, 2011 at 5:25 pm, Source: Leaders of Al Qassam
Richard Witty, Realistic Dove Source Al Qassam Brigades
Richard Witty | April 9, 2011 at 1:35 pm, Rabbi Brent, Source: Hamas Officials
A shift in interpretation of facts, Richard Witty, 12.04.11, 15:01, Haaretz Comment, Source: Leaders of the Al Qassam Brigades
and finally here
Richard Witty April 14, 2011 at 1:01 pm, Mondoweiss, Source: Hamas
oh my. good work leander
>> good work leander
+1. As for RW, he appears to be suffering from a whole lotta “Rohrshach”.
Good lord, Leander. That must have been painful.
It is interesting how pseudoscientific RW tries to sound–his careful parsing of his level of “confidence” –based on virtually no evidence at all, not even Goldstone’s own op ed or his clarification later on, he concludes that there probably not Israeli war crimes, just war. It’s like some imaginary sifting of imaginary evidence going on in his head.
Maybe I should publish the long history of how I solved all the problems of physics, beginning with reconciling quantum field theory with general relativity. Those string theorists have some notion of the truth, but after reading Goldstone’s op ed I can see where they went wrong and I’d explain it all in detail, except the margins of this comment thread leave me no room. Where, you might ask, did Goldstone shed light on fundamental problems of physics in his op ed? Well, it was in the same paragraphs that are the foundation for Witty’s re-analysis.
After LeaNder’s work, no one will ever take a Richard Witty “quote” seriously again.
thanks all,
Dan Fleshler is very focused in his challenge, obviously both arguments are concocted. That’s the problem with Richard, it’s really easy to surrender to distractions in confrontations with him. In spite of the fact he has given up his early label for us: the right /left posse, and substituted or reduced it to a challenge of us dissenters, or a general critique of the left. Which obviously pushes emotional buttons. [One of these days, I will return to Slater's categories. I vaguely remember, I couldn't really clearly locate RW on the liberal or progressive side. So was the right/left posse a mirror game from the start, relying on nothing more than the mainstream combination "nationalism" + "socialism", however badly the problem is understood by this approach? And how unhistorical it is.]
It’s a pity the Haaretz search doesn’t work too well on dates, not even if you look at selective authors. But I waded through the complete documents rendered by the search term Gaza over the years with a focus on 2008. There is nothing. Nevertheless it was an interesting journey back in time. But I don’t think the Haaretz search is reliable.
If you search the Haaretz web site via Google + the relevant time frame it offers a much more focused but also<A href=And Google is much better if you limit the search to the Haaretz.com more complete search
BUT: Once you add adding Gaza + streets + “Israeli blood” it results in zero hits.
Obviously Richard’s second argument that Dan Fleshler challenges is also very far from the historical truth.
Israel has never honored the conditions it promised to fulfill to be accepted at the UN as a nation among nations.