The deafening silence around the Hamas proposal for a 10-year truce

Israel/Palestine
on 245 Comments
Palestinian rescue workers search for survivors under the rubble of a house was destroyed by an Israeli missile strike, in Gaza City, Monday, July 21, 2014. (Photo: Khalil Hamra/ AP)

Palestinian rescue workers search for survivors under the rubble of a house was destroyed by an Israeli missile strike, in Gaza City, Monday, July 21, 2014. (Photo: Khalil Hamra/ AP)

During its first 14 days, the Israeli military aggression on the Gaza Strip has left a toll of over 500 dead, the vast majority of whom civilians, and many more injured. Thousands of houses were targeted and destroyed together with other essential civilian infrastructures. Over one hundred thousand civilians have been displaced. By the time you will read this article the numbers will have grown higher and, despicably, no real truce seems in sight. When I say real, I mean practicable, agreeable to both sides and sustainable for some time.

The Israeli government, followed suit by Western media and governments, was quick to put the blame on Hamas for that. Hamas – they claim – had an opportunity to accept a truce brokered by Egypt – and refused it. Others have already explained at length why this proposal crafted without any consultations with Hamas, was hard to accept by Hamas.

Much less noticed by the Western media was that Hamas and Islamic Jihad had meanwhile proposed a 10 year truce on the basis of 10 – very reasonable – conditions. While Israel was too busy preparing for the ground invasion, why didn’t anyone in the diplomatic community spend a word about this proposal? The question is all the more poignant as this proposal was in essence in line with what many international experts as well as the United Nations have asked for years now, and included some aspects that Israel had already considered as feasible requests in the past.

The main demands of this proposal revolve around lifting the Israeli siege in Gaza through the opening of its borders with Israel to commerce and people, the establishment of an international seaport and airport under U.N. supervision, the expansion of the permitted fishing zone in the Gaza sea to 10 kilometers, and the revitalization of Gaza industrial zone. None of these demands is new. The United Nations among others have repeatedly demanded the lifting of the siege, which is illegal under international law, as a necessary condition to end the dire humanitarian situation in the Strip. The facilitation of movement of goods and people between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had already been stipulated in the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) signed between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2005. Even the construction of a port and the possibility of an airport in Gaza had already been stipulated in the AMA, though the actual implementation never followed. The requested increase of the permitted fishing zone is less than what envisaged in the 1994 Oslo Agreements and it was already part of the 2012 ceasefire understanding. Unhindered fishermen’s access to the sea, without fear of being shot or arrested and having boats and nets confiscated by Israeli patrols is essential to the 3000 Gaza fishermen struggling to survive today by fishing in a limited area which is overfished and heavily polluted. The revitalization of the Gaza industrial zone, which has progressively been dismantled since the 2005 disengagement and by continuous military operations, was already considered a crucial Palestinian interest at the time of the 2005 Disengagement.

The proposed truce also demands the withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border and the Internationalization of the Rafah Crossing and its placement under international supervision. The presence of international forces on the borders and the withdrawal of the Israeli army requested by Hamas is unsurprising, considered the heavy toll of casualties by Israeli fire in the Access Restricted Areas near the Israeli border (i.e. an area of 1.5km along the border comprising 35% of Gaza land and 85% of its whole arable land). The international presence should guarantee that Egyptian and Israeli security concerns are equally met.

The proposal also requests Israel to release the Palestinian prisoners whom had been freed as part of the deal to liberate Gilat Shalit and were arrested after the killing of the three Israeli youths in June 2014 in the West Bank; that Israel refrains from interfering in the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah; and that the permits for worshippers to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque be eased.

Not only are these conditions sensible in light of previous agreements but, especially those who pertain to the lift of the siege, are the minimum standards that Hamas and the people of Gaza could accept in the current circumstances. As Raji Sourani reports, the most common sentence from people in Gaza after the announcement of the Egyptian ‘brokered’ ceasefire was “Either this situation really improves or it is better to just die”. The dire circumstances under which Gazans have lived in the last 7 years have indeed evoked in many the image of the enclave as “the world’s largest open air prison”. A prison which is overcrowded and where in 6 years there will no longer be enough drinkable water or capacity to provide other essential services, as a recent UN report denounces. Facing this gloomy context, for many the continuous launch of rockets from Gaza is a response to the siege and the harsh conditions imposed by the occupation.

One could imagine that an agreement on the basis of the Hamas proposal could not only stop the current round of hostilities but also pave the way towards a lasting solution of the conflict. However Israel has shown no interest in considering this proposal and continues to prefer the military option. As a result one wonders whether Israel really wants a long lasting resolution of the conflict. This resolution would necessarily require compromises on the Israeli side, including relinquishing control over the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu recently made it perfectly clear that this option is off the table. An eventual agreement between Israel and Hamas would further strengthen the legitimacy of Hamas in the newly achieved Palestinian unity, which is a prerequisite for any lasting peace. Legitimizing the Palestinian unity is something the Israeli government is avoiding like the plague as it would push forward their quest for justice in the international arena.

Perhaps more surprisingly, the international community – with the exception of Turkey and Qatar – has spent no words on the Hamas truce proposal although many of the points of the proposal already enjoy international support. This refusal to deal with the proposal is particularly problematic in the current context. Without any pressure by the international community, Israel, the party who has the upper hand in this conflict, will feel legitimized to keep refusing negotiations for a real truce with Hamas. Truces and negotiations are made with enemies not friends. International organizations and Western leaders, echoing Israel and the United States, maintain that Hamas is a terrorist organization and thus any direct negotiations with it are embargoed.

Hamas resorts to violence, which is often indiscriminate and targets civilians – also due to the lack of precision weapons. But so does Israel – no matter how sophisticated its weaponry is. If the point is to help parties negotiate, both parties have to be treated equally, encouraged to consider measures other than military ones and accept compromises based on international law. Especially when sensible proposals are on the table as in this case. The firm refusal to engage with Hamas at this point epitomizes the failure of the international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Unless the international community reverts this pattern by taking a honest stand grounded in international law and diplomacy, the plight of Gaza and of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will continue.

About Francesca Albanese

Francesca Albanese is an international lawyer based in Washington DC. After working eight years for the United Nations including in the Middle East and in Jerusalem, the heart of the conflict over Palestine, she is currently engaged in research and advocacy on various humanitarian issues including the end of the military occupation in Palestine and the full recognition of Palestinians’ fundamental rights under international law.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

245 Responses

  1. a blah chick
    July 22, 2014, 8:49 am

    I’ve read them and they are indeed reasonable, which is why the media is avoiding talking about them. Basically what they say is end the blockade, open our borders and let us build our lives.

    But we really need to understand what all this fighting and dying is about. It’s not about dead hitchhikers or rockets is about the status quo. The unity agreement threatened that and nothing is more dear to the Israeli and American elites than the status quo. The status quo IS Israel’s vision of the two state solution and nothing must be allowed threaten that.

    • Kay24
      July 22, 2014, 1:23 pm

      Good question ABC, why on earth are these short and simple demands NOT mentioned in detail by the media? If Blitzer has the decency to do so, perhaps the viewers who are ignorant about it, might realize that their demands are simply basic freedom and rights.

    • Exchequer
      July 22, 2014, 8:29 pm

      Exactly right. That the conditions are reasonable is precisely why they are being ignored by the U.S. mass media. That might otherwise interfere with their endless demonisation of Hamas and their endless exaltation of Israeli military ‘activities’.

  2. michelle
    July 22, 2014, 8:49 am

    .
    on this day the 22 of July in the year of 2014
    as a citizen on behalf of the United States
    i accept this the proposal put forth by Hamas
    …………………………………………………………………..

    Withdrawal of Israeli tanks from the Gaza border.

    Freeing all the prisoners that were arrested after the killing of the three youths.

    Lifting the siege and opening the border crossings to commerce and people.

    Establishing an international seaport and airport which would be under U.N. supervision.

    Increasing the permitted fishing zone to 10 kilometers.

    Internationalizing the Rafah Crossing and placing it under the supervision of the U.N. and some Arab nations.

    International forces on the borders.

    Easing conditions for permits to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque.

    Prohibition on Israeli interference in the reconciliation agreement.

    Reestablishing an industrial zone and improvements in further economic development in the Gaza Strip.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

  3. just
    July 22, 2014, 8:53 am

    It’s insane that nobody wants to negotiate with or talk to Hamas. If the 2 belligerents are Israel and Hamas, doesn’t it follow that Hamas must be involved? I think that the proposal by Hamas is entirely reasonable, and is one that would have the support of the Palestinian people. I’ll never understand how it is that Israel never negotiates ‘in good faith’– ever! It gets a pass always, and even so, it certainly has not learned that you negotiate with your enemies, not your friends.

    Meanwhile, Kerry and el- Sisi and most probably Blair are in Egypt discussing the future of the Palestinian people! Never mind that neither belligerent party is in the room (Israel is more than well represented with that group), Hamas/Fatah is noticeably absent. Either way, it was the sheer impudence of forming this Unity government that incensed Israel to the point of war & what we see right now. That Unity paved a way toward peace and Israel wanted no part of it. That Unity strengthened the Palestinians and was a threat to the status quo that Israel apparently likes very much.

    • seafoid
      July 22, 2014, 9:12 am

      Hamas is basically the son of the Nazis for Zionist Jews. And its mother is Amalek.

      There is no nice way to shift Israel from its comfortable intransigence

      link to haaretz.com

      “The current situation is preferable in the eyes of everyone crowded into the center and worried about the danger of changing direction. No matter how bad the current situation is, a sharp turn creates a fear of the unknown.
      Everyone has gotten used to the occupation. Many in the center are disgusted by the daily violence, the cruelty to civilians, the children who are shot for the “self-defense” of soldiers wearing bulletproof vests and armed head to toe. But no one speaks up and draws conclusions.
      All the young Labor and Yesh Atid MKs who ostensibly are leftists — or were leftists in their previous careers in the media — keep silent. If only we could say they’ve been bought off with money and favors. But they’re not corrupt or greedy, they’re just helpless. The disaster of Israeli society is that this is the human material that goes into politics”

      • just
        July 22, 2014, 9:21 am

        What a miserable lot.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        July 22, 2014, 10:33 am

        Seafoid: “They’re just helpless.”

        More specifically, I would guess they are frightened of being beaten to a pulp or killed by “patriotic” vigilantes like those who attacked the protestors in Haifa.

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2014, 10:07 pm

        The disaster of Israeli society is that they’re clinging to an illusion that has a tragic end. And when I see them lolling around on the beaches and cafes while this slaughter is happening, I say: they deserve whatever karma they’re creating.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      July 22, 2014, 9:46 am

      ”Meanwhile, Kerry and el- Sisi and most probably Blair are in Egypt discussing the future of the Palestinian people!”

      Nope, not Blair. He’s partying in London. Watch a Channel 4 journalist following him around to ask why he isn’t in Gaza:

      link to blogs.channel4.com

    • Stephen Shenfield
      July 22, 2014, 10:39 am

      Israel put a great deal of effort into pushing Hamas and the PA into an intra-Palestinian civil war, in which they would have given Fatah supplies and other aid and ensure it won. All that effort went to waste. The fact that the PA defied strongly expressed Israeli wishes and formed a unity government instead also showed Israel that even its control over the PA is rather limited. Naturally the Israelis felt frustrated.

    • Walid
      July 22, 2014, 1:00 pm

      “Meanwhile, Kerry and el- Sisi and most probably Blair are in Egypt discussing the future of the Palestinian people! ”

      Just, the Arabs have been doing it to the Palestinians since 1920 and they haven’t stopped. The Egyptian cease-fire plan was drafted in Israel by Blair, handed over to Sisi to adopt it and Abbas agreed to it with none of these parties having discussed a word of it with the Gazans. The West and the Gulf are all for the Egyptian plan, which is just short of a Gaza surrender and return to the status quo.

      • just
        July 22, 2014, 1:05 pm

        That’s a crucial part of the status quo that must end.

        No justice, no peace.

  4. dimadok
    July 22, 2014, 8:56 am

    “Without any pressure by the international community, Israel, the party who has the upper hand in this conflict, will feel legitimized to keep refusing negotiations for a real truce with Hamas”- so if Israel has the upper hand, why is Hamas the one who makes the demands? Why not Israel?
    For example, here is a simple and , in author’s words, ” a very reasonable one”- give up your arms/rockets, proclaim Gaza demilitarized zone under UN/OSCE/LGA control, subject to the international monitoring of goods and people coming in/out of Gaza and denounce the goal of eliminating Israel. Does any of them require loss of lives or any harm to Palestinians- I don’t think so.
    What it does absolutely requires is the fundamental change in mentality and giving up the supposed “Palestinian people’s honor”- therefore I have no doubt that it will never happen.

    • WeAreAllMadeOfStars
      July 22, 2014, 9:23 am

      I have another simple one Dim (though I confess not entirely from me) :
      Give up your arsenal (planes, helicopters, submarines, nuclear warheads, tanks, and the list of mass murdering and destruction tools goes on), proclaim Israel demilitarized zone under UN/OSCE/LGA control, subject to the international monitoring of goods and people coming in/out of Israel and denounce the goal of creating Eretz Israel, withdraw from all occupied territories including Golan. Does any of them require loss of lives or any harm to Israelis?
      No. So what’s your take Dim ?
      I leave to other posters to comment on “Palestinian people’s honor” …
      I am not a Palestinian but I’de be proud if I was (my heart is though, Palestinian that is)

      • dimadok
        July 22, 2014, 3:14 pm

        @WeAre….
        If I would be the losing site (as author mentions) – I’ll perhaps consider your offer for what it worth. Same as Germany and Japan did, but Israel is not a losing side. There is no obligation to provide Gazans with free access to Israel (sic!) territory, there is no obligation to provide the access for their goods to be exported via Israel ports, there is no obligation to not shoot anyone who tries to enter Israel’s borders, and certainly there is no obligation not to defend itself and citizens from the indiscriminate bombardment by rockets from Gaza,

      • Shingo
        July 22, 2014, 5:05 pm

        There is an obligation to lift the siege, get the hell out of Gaza’s air space, waterways, and to stop bombing Gaza for the hell it and breaking ceasefires.

        They also have an obligation to abide by countless UN resolutions, end the occupation and move out if the settlements.

        Handing those buildings to the Palestinians is the very least they could do to begin reparations.

      • talknic
        July 22, 2014, 7:06 pm

        @ dimadok ” Israel is not a losing side”

        You think only of its ability to slaughter and destroy more than the Palestinians with its US funded high tech human slaughtering equipment.

        Meanwhile Israel has lost its moral compass. Lost sight of the basic tenets of Judaism, esp on coveting other folks property, murder, false accusations, lies. Lost contact with humanity, Judaism, ethics, morality

        “…there is no obligation to not shoot anyone who tries to enter Israel’s borders”

        What borders would they be buddy? Care to show where they are? When they were recognized? By who? Don’t try the usual Hasbara, it’s so easily shown to be bullsh*t, it’s a complete dis-service to its own cause.

        The official record shows only what the Israeli Government asked to be recognized by and what you MUST ignore “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ No other borders have ever been agreed upon or recognized.

        Why do you think Israel refuses to adhere to UNSC resolutions mmmm? It can’t afford to recognize it’s actual borders, it’d be sent bankrupt! So under the protection of the US UNSC veto vote it tries to blackmail Palestine into a negotiated settlement, forfeiting even more of their rightful territory to the decaying ‘Jewish’ state, thereby circumventing Israel’s moral & legal obligations.

        ” certainly there is no obligation not to defend itself and citizens from the indiscriminate bombardment by rockets from Gaza”

        There has never been a ceasefire negotiated with a unitary body representative of ALL the people of Palestine. You can blame Israel for preventing a unity Palestinian government.

        So, as long as the population are under occupation, the occupied have a right to bombard the Occupying Power, collateral BTW is permissible….

        Like all idiots for Israel’s illegal facts on the ground policies you’re bitching to the wrong people. Take your whining bullsh*t to those responsible. The Zionist Movement‘s state

      • geokat62
        July 22, 2014, 10:11 pm

        “… but Israel is not a losing side.”

        So I guess you’re a proponent of “might makes right.” By this logic, if the Germans had been the victors in WWII, they would have no obligation to not carry out the holocaust? Do I understand your logic correctly?

      • michelle
        July 22, 2014, 11:37 pm

        .
        if Israel honestly thought themselves
        to be G-ds righteous it would show
        .
        i looked to the land called Israel
        expecting to find G-ds Chosen
        an example of
        how to live my life what to aspire to
        and i found
        i had to look elsewhere
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

    • AaronAarons
      July 22, 2014, 10:06 am

      Shouldn’t the Jewish-run, Western-imperialist-backed garrison state that occupies most of Palestine be demilitarized first?

      • dimadok
        July 22, 2014, 3:18 pm

        @Aaron.
        You may certainly try to demilitarize one state (e.g. Israel) but it would require to announce war on it- are you going to fight it, Aaron?

      • dimadok
        July 22, 2014, 7:18 pm

        @talknic
        I’m sorry but your use of words “b*tching” and “whining” prevents me from fully responding to your comment.

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2014, 10:15 pm

        No, that’s not what prevents you, hasbara liar. What prevents you from responding to talknic’s excellent comment is your impotence in the face of truth.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 2:22 am

        I’m sorry but your use of words “b*tching” and “whining” prevents me from fully responding to your comment.

        I guess if one takes away your “b*tching” and “whining” it doesn’t leave you with a lot to say does it?

      • Mooser
        July 23, 2014, 10:41 am

        Shingo, “dimadok” and the others are trying to force Mondoweiss to give them the whine concession. They want a monopoly on selling whines.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 3:41 am

        They want a monopoly on selling whines.

        Yes, I hear that those who support BDS should be prepared to live their lives without whines, along with mobile phones, personal computers and cherry tomatoes.

    • Ron Edwards
      July 22, 2014, 10:08 am

      “The beatings will stop when morale improves.”

      Your proposal overlooks the blockade. It also forces the 1.7 million people in Gaza to remain prisoners, unable to travel or conduct trade as they will, with their considerable geographic and labor assets shackled. It is “reasonable” only from the standpoint of a person who likes kicking a prisoner deciding that the prisoner must now have his legs broken and his teeth removed, and calling upon the very authorities who are to protect people to enforce these actions, in the interests of “peace.”

      Your post is monstrous and in its framing about being somehow about intangibles, monstrously dishonest.

      • dimadok
        July 22, 2014, 3:16 pm

        @Ron Edwards.
        There is no obligation to provide a free trade access and employment (as one of the Hamas demands). The rest are as unreasonable as this one.

      • Ron Edwards
        July 22, 2014, 6:02 pm

        “There is no obligation” = “Fuckin’ make me.” Which encompasses all the content of any Zionist position at this time. The sneer of the privileged.

      • Exchequer
        July 22, 2014, 8:33 pm

        Yeah, dimadok means ‘we are under no obligation to act like civilised human beings’

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      July 22, 2014, 10:13 am

      ”the supposed “Palestinian people’s honor””

      One of the classic anti-Arab smears propounded by Israelists for decades has been that Arabs are irrational, emotional and concerned about their ‘honour’. Yet any fool can see that it’s the Israelis who are motivated by a ‘shame and honour’ mentality. Look at how they responded to the loss of a few of their precious professional killers in Gaza a few days ago – they went on a rampage killing tens of people, just out of wounded macho spite.

      And any ‘proposal’ which involves the people of Palestine renouncing the right to defend themselves against IDF monsters isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s written on.

    • eljay
      July 22, 2014, 11:00 am

      >> dimadok: For example, here is a simple and , in author’s words, ” a very reasonable one”- give up your arms/rockets, proclaim Gaza demilitarized zone under UN/OSCE/LGA control, subject to the international monitoring of goods and people coming in/out of Gaza and denounce the goal of eliminating Israel. Does any of them require loss of lives or any harm to Palestinians- I don’t think so.

      The rapist has had victims chained up in his basement for months. Recently, they’ve been trying once again to hurt him using punches and slaps, so he has “taken the gloves off” and is currently assaulting them viciously.

      The Zio-supremacist solution to the crisis is not to stop the assaults, liberate the victims and arrest the rapist and hold him accountable for his past an on-going crimes.

      The Zio-supremacist solution to the crisis is to have the victims agree:
      – to halt their attacks on the rapist;
      – to denounce their goal of liberating themselves and having him arrested and prosecuted under the law; and
      – to remain in bondage (but wearing longer chains and padded cuffs) and accessible to the rapist, but under police supervision.

      • michelle
        July 22, 2014, 2:49 pm

        .
        what are the odds that this is not just a rapist
        but a rapist murderer
        and it seems our world leaders are the ‘on-line’
        voyeur pedophiles who get off watching this rape
        torture snuff flick again again
        they pay for it with our tax dollars
        after all isn’t this what is happening
        right here right now
        another just died
        .
        G-d Have Mercy
        .

  5. bilal a
    July 22, 2014, 8:58 am

    Jonathan Cook — Calls for genocide enter Israeli mainstream

    link to jonathan-cook.net

    “This psychosis is not going to get better on its own. In fact, it’s going to get much worse. How much worse will depend entirely on the continuing inaction of western leaders.”

    “western” ? Isn’t it, the west ,providing the diplomatic support and the munitions raining down on the children in Gaza. Isn’t Israel itself a liberal western project populated by and founded by Europeans from the west, with an extensive global European Jewish fund raising and political network
    backing it up? On the same geography of the original crusader states meant to strategically divide the Middle East?

    This is the liberal colonial racial conceit, only non westerners can be this barbaric.

    A belief only achieved through self deception.

    • seafoid
      July 22, 2014, 9:06 am

      Which is linked to this

      link to theguardian.com

      “The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Italy have condemned what they say is a rise in anti-Semitism in their countries amid protests against the conflict in Gaza. From AP:

      In a joint statement the ministers said Tuesday that “anti-Semitic rhetoric and hostility against Jews, attacks on people of Jewish belief and synagogues have no place in our societies”.

      While the ministers say they respect freedom of speech, they say they will do everything possible to fight “acts and statements that cross the line to anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia”.”

      Synagogue in Belfast attacked twice as well.

      Zionism is turning into an absolutely massive clusterfuck.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        July 22, 2014, 9:44 am

        Like a certain Mondoweiss poster, the EU foreign ministers seem far more agitated about anti-semitic attacks than they are about the 6OO dead of Gaza.

      • Bob_Salad
        July 22, 2014, 10:09 am

        It doesn’t take long before the misinformed shift the wider narrative away from the Israel-Palestine conflict and reframe as a Jewish-Palestine conflict. I guess from the Israeli’s side, anti-semetic attacks could be seen as helping to pull the ‘not in my name’ crowd back onboard SS Clusterfuck, but I’m hoping they’ll dig in and shout twice as loud. Afterall, there’s is a very powerful voice and has the potentially to equalize the rise in anti-semitic sentiment.

      • Bumblebye
        July 22, 2014, 11:39 am

        Maybe this too:
        link to theguardian.com
        “3.41pm BST
        A correspondent with BBC Arabic was attacked while delivering a live report from inside Israel at the Gaza border Tuesday.

        Correspondent Firas Khatib was rushed and knocked off-screen by an unidentified man “at the Gaza border,” as Khatib described it. The attacker can be heard cursing at Khatib. He is thrown off Khatib by an unidentified man in press garb.

        Must see. BBC Arabic reporter attacked live on air by an Israeli near #Gaza border link to t.co

        — Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) July 22, 2014
        Khatib, seemingly unshaken, carries on his report off-camera as a BBC anchor in London cuts in. When the camera returns to him Khatib gestures in the direction of the attacker and says Israeli protesters were in the area and the report would be updated later.

        Khatib is a veteran correspondent whose work has included analysis on the Israeli perspective on the Arab Spring.”

        There was also this:

        “2.59pm BST
        UN chief Ban Ki-Moon has just been speaking at a press conference with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv.

        He began by condemning rocket fire from Gaza and the use of schools, hospitals and mosques for military purposes.

        Ban was moved by the murder of three Israeli boys and the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, he said.

        He said the two sides should stop fighting and start talking, urging Israel to exercise “maximum restraint”. ”

        Just ONE proven use of civilian infrastructure, and that was disused! But it leads to Ban parroting hasbara, and it’s that bit that gets quoted on radio and world service bulletins, as if it is a fact.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        July 22, 2014, 11:59 am

        Just ONE proven use of civilian infrastructure, and that was disused! But it leads to Ban parroting hasbara, and it’s that bit that gets quoted on radio and world service bulletins, as if it is a fact.

        And while it’s possible that Hamas owned those missiles, I think it’s more likely that the missiles were placed there by others because Hamas is no longer supervising/suppressing the other armed parties in Gaza.

      • travellerh
        July 22, 2014, 4:12 pm

        What was this one proven use? I must have missed it.

      • Bumblebye
        July 22, 2014, 5:04 pm

        @travellerh
        The recent case of a disused school being used to store weapons (tho’ whose among all the factions hasn’t been made clear) is the ONLY case that’s true and confirmed. None of those Israeli ‘precision’ bombs seem to have caused the secondary explosions that would be proof that they actually hit any other such! DaBakr elsewhere on this site is claiming another, but offers absolutely no link to where he got his news.

      • tree
        July 22, 2014, 5:28 pm

        Bumblebye,

        Unfortunately, DeBakr was correct. UNRWA did release a press statement today about a second vacant school that was found to have rockets stored in it, after they conducted a routine inspection there.

        link to unrwa.org

        However, this does not excuse the IAF bombing schools which are serving as emergency refugee centers (which have no rockets in them). As it has done in Maghazi School.

        link to unrwa.org

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2014, 10:20 pm

        No doubt Zionists will milk this for all it’s worth.

    • ckg
      July 22, 2014, 12:10 pm

      You can add to Jonathan Cook’s list the name Rabbi Dov Lior. Lior says it’s okay to kill innocent civilians and destroy Gaza.

  6. Boomer
    July 22, 2014, 9:02 am

    Yes, I’ve noticed that, and have been frustrated by it. Thanks for your informed and detailed discussion of the issue. The United States has the power to end the killing by endorsing a reasonable resolution, but evidently our leaders think they would pay a political price for doing so, and evidently they are not willing to do that.

  7. wes
    July 22, 2014, 9:04 am

    10 year truce

    why only 10 years?
    why not a permanent truce.

    what happens after 10 years.a renewal perhaps.in 10 years the gaza population will have doubled.then what
    gaza is a dead end.
    A LNG terminal with a port would be a better idea.let most of the population relocate to the west bank
    link a light rail between gaza and ramallah for workers.

    start selling gas to europe

    thats a better proposal

    • tokyobk
      July 22, 2014, 2:16 pm

      Because its a Hudna, which you can google. The 10 years is a reference to a treaty with the Quraysh tribe. Islamophobes point to this as sneakiness (a chance to restock) though in fact, like any government or combatant, including Israel, they want to call the fighting off in beneficial terms other than defeat or apparent defeat. And secondly in Islamic tradition the original Hudna was honored by Muslims but broken by the Quraysh side.

      • rightcoaster
        July 23, 2014, 10:58 am

        “[I]n Islamic tradition the original Hudna was honored by Muslims but broken by the Quraysh side.” And what credence can we give to that tradition, written by the survivors?

    • kalithea
      July 22, 2014, 10:25 pm

      Oh my the hubris in your comment-that Gaza can sell it’s own gas…is A GIVEN. Why should Gaza need Israel’s permission to sell what it owns???

    • Shingo
      July 23, 2014, 2:50 am

      why only 10 years?
      why not a permanent truce.

      10 years is enough time to build trust and begin reconciliation. At least it would be if we weren’t talking about Israel.

      • Walid
        July 23, 2014, 3:46 am

        Shingo, a 10-year hudna serves to let Israel, the Palestinians and the rest of Arabs keep the right of return issue under the rug as by 10 years from now, about 95% of 1948 refugees will have died. For years now, all talk is centered on the siege, on checkpoints, on 67 lines with and without swaps, but never about the return of Palestinians. Israel has succeeded in messing up the Arabs’ heads so much with other issues that the return has practically become a dead one.

      • seafoid
        July 23, 2014, 3:50 am

        Return is valid for up to 2000 years, Walid.
        10 years is a drop in the ocean.

      • Walid
        July 23, 2014, 4:29 am

        seafood, it’s hoped that the Palestinians aren’t going to sing that 2000-year song for just as long. Current Palestinians in the former Palestine have either been or will be ghettoized with not much worrying being done about them, those naturalized in Western countries are comfortable where they are and the only real pressure coming is from those in the camps of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan but these aren’t allowed to raise their voices. Who’s to fuss about the refugees when the Arabs themselves aren’t bothering?

      • seafoid
        July 23, 2014, 4:45 am

        Akiid ya Walid but I wouldn’t give up the Palestinians just yet. This Gaza lawnmowing episode is very interesting. Lots of dynamics can play out over the next few years. Israel is so committed to what is a lunatic policy and the world is picking up on it. Even if the Arabs are all led by donkeys I would still put money on the Palestinians to better their situation.

      • rightcoaster
        July 23, 2014, 11:02 am

        “…Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was “difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel.”[3] However, Hamas later repudiated this offer and claimed they would never recognize Israel or compromise on their position that Israel needed to dismantled and replaced by a single Palestinian state. …” From the Wikipedia article on “hudna”. Why will this hudna have any more theological legs with Hamas than the one cited?

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 3:56 am

        “…Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was “difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel.”

        Hamas has since said they would recognize the state of Israel along 1967 borders.

        However, Hamas later repudiated this offer and claimed they would never recognize Israel or compromise on their position that Israel needed to dismantled and replaced by a single Palestinian state. …”

        They have not repudiated it, so you might want to update your hasbara.

  8. michelle
    July 22, 2014, 9:06 am

    .
    i would have added equal civil rights
    including due process
    and the enforced rights of minor children
    oh and unfettered private waterways,
    .
    G-d Bless
    .

  9. Justpassingby
    July 22, 2014, 9:33 am

    Palestinians also offered truce the first day and netanyahu rejected it.

  10. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    July 22, 2014, 9:42 am

    ”Hamas resorts to violence, which is often indiscriminate and targets civilians – also due to the lack of precision weapons. ”

    But how can Hamas ‘target civilians’ when it has no guiding systems on its weapons? Plus, due to Israeli censorship, we don’t hear of all the rockets which land close to any of Israel’s many military facilities. The Beduin who died a few days ago due to rocket fire lived close to the nuclear plant of Dimona, which was presumably the target. And other than him, and on settler ‘bringing food to the troops’ – whatever that means – ALL of Israel’s casualties thus far have been soldiers.

    • can of worms
      July 22, 2014, 12:29 pm

      “‘bringing food to the troops’ – whatever that means”

      Not only food. Idf donation sites, located in Hebrew University campuses, are asking for basic supplies like clothing, socks, toiletry items and cakes for those doing the massacring of Gaza.

      (….Meanwhile, universities in Gaza get destroyed in the periodic ‘lawn mowing’. And West Bank universities were raided in the collective punishment spree over the alleged kidnapping of 3 teens. One campus had been turned into a holding ground for blindfolded Palestinians during refugee camp raids…so.)

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        July 22, 2014, 4:19 pm

        I wonder do they also supply nappies to the IDF boys? Given that they’re not known for showing courage in battle, I suspect they might need them.

    • rightcoaster
      July 23, 2014, 11:07 am

      You are not reading the papers, if you are reading you are clearly ignoring. If Hamas shoots 1500 or so rockets into a neighboring country and if those rockets have no guidance systems, what is Hamas targeting? Al Jazeera, for example, gets this one right: they’re being shot with the intention of causing fear and doing damage to civilians, since there is no realistic hope of damaging military targets. That tends to equate to terrorism.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 3:49 am

        You are not reading the papers, if you are reading you are clearly ignoring. If Hamas shoots 1500 or so rockets into a neighboring country and if those rockets have no guidance systems, what is Hamas targeting?

        Obviously nothing.

        they’re being shot with the intention of causing fear and doing damage to civilians, since there is no realistic hope of damaging military targets. That tends to equate to terrorism.

        When Israel hits water treatment facilities, power stations, hospitals that it admits have no military value, then that is terrorism.

        These days the hasbara claim about the targeting of homes of hamas officials is that they are targeted because they are command and control centers.. But if you read the right-wing Israeli paper Israel Hayom, it openly and unabashedly admits what is already evident to any inquisitive observer, namely that the targeting of hamas officials’ homes was done as revenge, not because the targeting served any legitimate military objective. I quote it:

        link to israelhayom.com.

        “Israel has also been able to illustrate to senior Hamas operatives just what the “price of losing” entails, by targeting their homes;”

        It’s for “illustration” purposes that innocent families have to suffer, not because Israel has something to gain out of it in terms of military aims.

        That is terrorism.

  11. seafoid
    July 22, 2014, 9:56 am

    link to haaretz.com

    “UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tells Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon: “I appreciate Israel’s security concerns. You need to protect your people from rockets and I strongly condemn the rocket fire. But your military response is causing many civilian casualties. I hope we will be able to see the end of this violence as soon as possible.”

    “My message during this visit was first, stop the violence immediately. Second, return to dialogue, and third, we need to address the root causes of this conflict. Returning to the status quo will not bring a solution.”

    AND

    ” Germany’s Foreign Ministry says it appears that a German-Palestinian family has been killed in Gaza.

    German media reports have identified the family as a Palestinian couple and their five children who all carry German passports. The reports says all seven were killed in a recent air strike by the Israeli army. (AP) ”

    link to gmx.ch

    “Bei den israelischen Angriffen kam auch eine siebenköpfige Familie mit deutscher Staatsangehörigkeit um. Der 53-jährige Ibrahim al-Kilani aus Beit Lahia im nördlichen Teil des Palästinensergebiets sowie seine 47-jährige Frau Taghrid und fünf Kinder im Alter von 4 bis 12 Jahren seien unter den Toten, bestätigten die Rettungsbehörden am Dienstag in Gaza. Die Familie sei am Montagabend bei einem Luftangriff auf ein Gebäude in der Stadt Gaza getötet worden. Der Ingenieur habe 20 Jahre lang in Deutschland gelebt und in der Zeit auch die Staatsangehörigkeit für sich und seine Angehörigen erworben, sagte ein Familienmitglied in Gaza. “Wir müssen aufgrund mehrfacher Hinweise davon ausgehen, dass es sich bei den Toten um diese Familie handelt”, sagte eine Sprecherin des Auswärtigen Amts am Dienstag in Berlin.”

    • just
      July 22, 2014, 10:08 am

      Yep– those “root causes” need some serious scrutiny. Start with Zionism.

      whoops, that’s not very helpful Israel. Merkel will be so pleased. 5 little ones and the parents…

      • seafoid
        July 22, 2014, 10:17 am

        I think a lot of diplomats agree with him on the root causes. The status quo has to go.

        It can’t be whatever Israel wants.

        link to youtube.com

      • seafoid
        July 22, 2014, 11:17 am

        Ban Ki Moon on no going back to status quo
        He means US foreign policy wrt the Palestinians too
        All those know nothing talking heads like Dan Senor…

        Scott Atran: ‘US foreign policy is set by people who’ve almost no insight into human welfare, education, labour, desires or hopes’

        wa nuss

        link to theguardian.com

    • talknic
      July 22, 2014, 7:15 pm

      How will the Hasbarristers spin this? ‘Germany should have evacuated this family but Germany needs the deaths of German children and parents appearing in the papers to get sympathy’

  12. sligoker
    July 22, 2014, 10:09 am

    Great ideas about a ten year truce. However one critical thing is missing in the Hamas offer. It’s time to renounce the statement in the charter that essentially calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. That combined with the 10 year truce might just work. However, since the goal, is either the one state solution, or the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, this won’t happen. So the ten year offer is really a farce.

    Of course, if you are for the one state solution, then there will never be peace in the region.

  13. NormanF
    July 22, 2014, 10:57 am

    Hamas must think Israelis are stupid by offering Israel a hudna that it will readily break when its strong enough and when its in its interest to do so.

    Hamas cannot be trusted to observe a simple ceasefire to which Israel had agreed to on several occasions. Israel cannot solve its grievance, which is the existence of Israel.

    Hamas has two choices: it can lay down its arms unconditionally and surrender or face complete annihilation.

    If it has any consideration for the welfare of the Gazans, it will spare them further suffering in a pointless war its waging that brings them no real benefits. Israel did not seek this war. But its determined to finish it and remove the Hamas threat to its people and country.

    • eljay
      July 22, 2014, 11:50 am

      >> Hamas has two choices: it can lay down its arms unconditionally and surrender or face complete annihilation.

      “Submit to the rapist or die”: This is what constitutes justice, accountability and equality in the minds of Zio-supremacists.

    • quercus
      July 22, 2014, 2:12 pm

      No ceasefire if it means going back to things as they were for the Palestinians. No unconditional surrender for Hamas. This will not be resolved peacefully, only through armed conflict. There is no other way. If I were Israeli, I’d be worried about the outcome. Their soldiers don’t seem to acquit themselves very well, there’s already been what 20+ dead in a short time? They’re very good at sending missiles and rockets, but not much else.

    • Ron Edwards
      July 22, 2014, 6:04 pm

      Name a cease-fire broken by Hamas.

    • oldgeezer
      July 22, 2014, 10:43 pm

      It’s usually Israel that violates the ceasefires. Meaningless to them. They continue to murder with impunity.

    • kalithea
      July 22, 2014, 10:47 pm

      Hamas must think Israelis are stupid …

      The majority of the world’s population thinks so too.

      Israel did not seek this war.

      No, it just begged for it.

      Israel cannot solve its grievance, which is the existence of Israel.

      That’s what you get when you create a state via war crimes and terror against the people already living there.

      Hamas has two choices…

      It can roll over and die; or it can bring out the chickenshit in the IDF and expose them for the racist, supremacist war criminals they really are.

      The greatest threat to Gaza’s people is your superior hubris and the slavish bondage and deception you’re trying to push on those you view as inferior.

    • Shingo
      July 23, 2014, 4:17 am

      Hamas must think Israelis are stupid by offering Israel a hudna that it will readily break when its strong enough and when its in its interest to do so.

      It’s Israel that keeps breaking the ceasefires, not Hamas. It’s Israel that cannot be trusted to observe a simple ceasefire.

      Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?
      link to huffingtonpost.com

      Israel agree to them then break them, citing special reasons or claiming they are allowed to keep killing under a ceasefire.

      Hamas has two choices: it can lay down its arms unconditionally and surrender or face complete annihilation.

      You wish. Hamas has revealed that Israel cannot deal with Hamas by military means alone.

    • American
      July 23, 2014, 7:28 am

      NormanF

      Glenn Greenwald: USA Today, 2013:

      Israeli govt paying students to covertly spread “pro-Israeli” messages on social media link to usatoday.comlink to twitter.com…>>>>>

      Get a different job.

    • zhaomafan
      July 24, 2014, 5:20 am

      yes, a number of the 10 points seem reasonable. However, there’s a very basic “yes, but”, which Hamas supporters seem to wish to ignore. It’s the vile content of Hamas’ charter (its constitution), which calls for the elimination of Israel and indeed for war against “the Jews”, and refers also to the Protocols.

      Eliminate those things and I bet the Israelis will be more amenable to your 10 points. Eliminating those things should be basic and should not be the sorts of “concessions” which await a full and final settlement.

      Retaining those things only reinforces Israeli fears and thus intransigence. I think this is obvious. I write as a long-standing opponent of the settlements policies (which initially were to a great extent the fruits of improvisation following the unexpected outcome of the 1967 war, but have since then crystallised into state policy — how foolish for Israel, and how unfortunate and such a harship for the Palestinians). Peace requires a real ceasefire on both sides, sincere efforts by Israel to meet to the extent possible the Gazan concerns, and revision by Hamas of its charter.

  14. JeffB
    July 22, 2014, 11:02 am

    What deafening silence? As far as I can virtually every media outlet reported that Hamas had proposed a 10 year truce in exchange for terms that Israel has no interest in accepting. This is getting covered the way most proposals for PR value in most conflicts get covered. They get mentioned and then everyone moves on to serious discussion of policy. Why should it deserve serious coverage? It is not going to be accepted, Hamas knows that, the international community knows that, the US government knows that and the USA media knows that.

    The Egyptian proposal which had USA support didn’t get much more coverage once Hamas rejected it. And frankly it deserves the lack of coverage.

    Mostly the 10 terms can be summed up as: in exchange for Hamas stopping ineffectual and at best merely annoying rocket attacks Israel will agree to much broader concessions. Why would anyone treat such a proposal as serious?

    International forces on the border? Why would Israel tolerate troops from a hostile (the UN) inside Israel? The UN is a much more serious threat to Israel than Hamas. That’s just frankly stupid.

    The Rafah crossing is Egypt not Israel. Israel can’t open the crossing. And moreover the Egyptian government doesn’t want to do that because Hamas is allied with an enemy of Egypt.

    As for the trade stuff. That goes 100% against the whole denormalization theme which MW is often so fond of. Palestinians are entitled to economic relations or a policy of as much as possible non-interaction they aren’t entitled to both. Things like joint economic projects and a free flow of goods and services require a high degree of friendly relations, well beyond a full peace treaty, not merely a ceasefire. If the Gazans are beginning to realize that Gaza is not economic viable without Israel it is time they make substantial policy concessions to achieve those objectives. Not shooting missiles that mostly can’t hit anything and even if they do, don’t do much damage is not a substantial policy concession.

    Sure not firing in the first place saves Israel the expense and aggravation of a military incursion and that’s worth something but not really that much. You go to the IDF website and you see their picture of “rocket damage”: link to idfblog.com

    Dry wall collapse? Heck my buddy came pretty close to having that level of damage 2 years ago from a snow leak. Oh save me from the ferocious Hamas snow. A stupid offer is getting treated like one.

    • Donald
      July 22, 2014, 12:11 pm

      “Why should it deserve serious coverage? It is not going to be accepted, ”

      What JeffB means is that Gazans do not have basic human rights. They don’t have the right to trade with the outside world or even to come and go without Israel’s permission. So why should Israel be required to grant something so huge as basic human rights to Gazans in exchange for something so trivial as the cessation of rocket fire?

      From a vicious utterly immoral and racist viewpoint, this makes sense. Might makes right. Gazans are weak and should be treated with contempt.

      • can of worms
        July 22, 2014, 12:52 pm

        Right, Donald. Human rights — anything beyond that is just generating insanity across the board.

      • JeffB
        July 22, 2014, 1:21 pm

        Donald

        First off trade is not in any system human right. No one has the right to trade with a 3rd party, trade requires the consent of both parties. Both the Israelis and the Gazans have rejected the idea of trade. What Hamas is objecting to is being subject to the consequences of their rejection.

        Moreover I don’t see any way that BDSers can make a principled stand on human rights for rejecting restricted trade, non-investment and discouragement from trade as ways of changing the policy of a government. Your entire movement is based on the idea of using economic pressure to influence policies in governments you don’t like. You are just objecting to what’s good for the goose being applied to the gander.

        The concept come from unalienable rights which are those which liberal western democracies believe are granted by God and thus governments cannot rightfully take away. Locke held that governments were compacts voluntarily entered into by men where they agreed to common of property regulation in exchange for property preservation. You don’t believe that so there is no reason let you borrow the moral capital from a political metaphysics you reject. BDS rejects the idea of human rights as Locke would envision them and instead believing in some sort of tribal entitlement theology whereby everyone of the planet is forever bound to the population distribution of the 19th century and thus Palestinians are permanently entitled to territory and Jews permanently not entitled to territory based on who held it during the 19th century. Let’s not confuse Palestinian liberation with the concept of human rights, their and your political metaphysics is total rejection Locke.

        I do however believe in Jeffersonian ideals. I do believe that the people of Gaza should have the right to form such compacts. And I do believe that compact should be negotiating so as to secure the preservation of life and property with those people in an alternative compact. They aren’t doing so. So there is no particular dilemma. If you are going to use the language of human rights Israel not being part of their compact has no reason to be bound by it.

      • dimadok
        July 22, 2014, 3:10 pm

        @JeffB.
        Spot on.

      • Donald
        July 22, 2014, 3:45 pm

        “First off trade is not in any system human right. No one has the right to trade with a 3rd party, trade requires the consent of both parties. Both the Israelis and the Gazans have rejected the idea of trade.”

        Try and get your head out of the hasbara manual. Israel is blockading Gaza–that means Gazans are cut off from the world.

        As for BDS, I’m used to the pathological narcissism of Israelis and their defenders. Israel turns Gaza into a giant prison camp, then whines when someone boycotts them. Typical. If there was any chance of actually imposing the sort of draconian punishment on innocent Israeli citizens that Israel imposes on Gaza, I would oppose it, even though many of those Israelis fully deserve it. But not all–particularly not children. But this is something beyond your understanding.

        As for the 19th century, Israel stole the land in the 20th century and continues to steal more.

        Anyway I wasn’t really talking to you. I’ve never met a defender of Israel’s actions who was capable of moral consistency.

      • JeffB
        July 22, 2014, 3:55 pm

        @Donald

        As for the 19th century, Israel stole the land in the 20th century and continues to steal it.

        Again can’t use that idea and Locke. For Locke, property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources. So when the Israelis cleared a swamp to create farm land they weren’t stealing farmland from Palestinians they were creating property. You are free to disagree with Locke but not to claim that you are the one upholding the notions of human rights when you do so.

        Israel is blockading Gaza–that means Gazans are cut off from the world.

        You are conflating. Hamas’ 10 conditions demanding trade with Israel not just international trade. That’s beyond just ending the blockade.

        As an aside, International trade Israel has generally agreed to contingent upon Hamas being a peaceable neighbor. So for example in 2009 when Hamas agreed to no more rockets, Israel permitted a 20% increase in goods trucked into Gaza, up from 70 to 90 truckloads a day. Israel has clearly indicated those numbers can go up the more cooperative Hamas becomes. Then in 2010 both Egypt and Israel eased the blockade considerably when Hamas became more cooperative. There was an Egyptian easing in 2011. Lately they have been less cooperative so the blockade has strengthened.

      • Donald
        July 22, 2014, 7:03 pm

        “Again can’t use that idea and Locke”

        I’m sure you find it fascinating to use Locke to justify ethnic cleansing, but I’m finding it rather dull.

      • RoHa
        July 22, 2014, 9:58 pm

        Locke did not invent the idea of human rights and most liberal western democracies do not claim they are granted by God. One can appeal to human rights without appealing to Locke or God.

        Locke made the right of property contingent on the rights to life and liberty. If property claims infringed those rights, there was no right to the property.

        And while the Israelis might have cleared a swamp or two, they certainly stole a great deal of land.

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2014, 11:00 pm

        I really don’t like the notion that Israelis cleared a swamp or two and dislike it as much as the notion that they made the desert bloom. What they did is rape and pollute that land with thousands upon thousands of settlement structures, destruction of olive and fruit orchards and in many other ways, aside from stealing it.

      • MHughes976
        July 23, 2014, 1:25 pm

        Trade – in the sense of the ability to sell what is legitimately yours in system not marked by coercion, ie to work without any element of slavery – is clearly a human right. We see this by deduction by the most obvious means from one of the most obvious of moral principles, ie that what you would not wish others to do to you you should not do to them.
        The suspension of rights in the course of war may be mentioned. This can be done in two ways – an absolute dismissal of restraint, roughly in the Hobbesian manner: anyone may do anything to anyone. This may not be as cruel as it looks at first sight: however, it does require the dropping of moral objections to terrorism, by Us or by Them.
        The second way is to claim that normal rights of Them are suspended or modified to the extent that desperate necessity requires, therefore not for the whole duration of the conflict but only for those phases where things are desperate for Us. This involves some continuing respect for proportionality and therefore would be far more available currently to the Gazans than to the Israelis.
        Locke has been mentioned and I would strongly recommend chapter 16 of his Second Treatise, which makes it clear that no rights come from force alone. He thinks that just war gives conquerors rights over war criminals only – though these may be ‘despotic’ rights – and very much not over their descendants or over those guilty of no personal crime. He does not suggest for a minute that taking over and cultivating the land gives conquerors rights to that land over inhabitants who have been dispossessed. He mentions (para.192, last sentence) the right of the Greeks to free themselves from the Turks. I don’t think that anyone could think from the tone of his comments that he believed that a free Greek government would be obliged simply to accept the claimed rights of Turkish landowners, even if they had improved the land’s yield. He does, I think, envisage final settlements after war and conquest in which all parties reach consensus – and I think that all this is consistent with his first principles. He was a great thinker and we are all in his debt.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 6:28 am

        As an aside, International trade Israel has generally agreed to contingent upon Hamas being a peaceable neighbor.

        As always, one would expect that to be a two way commitment, but as is always the case with Israel, the fine print includes a clause that they are not obliged to.

        So for example in 2009 when Hamas agreed to no more rockets, Israel permitted a 20% increase in goods trucked into Gaza, up from 70 to 90 truckloads a day.

        And then Israel had the itch and felt the need to “mow the lawn” in 2012 and bombed Gaza, violating the ceasefire.

        Israel has clearly indicated those numbers can go up the more cooperative Hamas becomes.

        What they don’t tell you is that they reserve the right to bomb Gaza regardless and that Hamas’ cooperation is contingent on them not firing back.

        So less cooperative = Hamas did not stand still and allow us to give them a bloody nose without retaliating.

        So when the Israelis cleared a swamp to create farm land they weren’t stealing farmland from Palestinians they were creating property.

        It is when that land is outside the borders of the state of Israel. If I were to climb the fence into someone else’s property who had neglected their garden for example, it does not become mine if I tend to it as rehabilitate and landscape it.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 9:33 am

        @Shingo

        As always, one would expect that to be a two way commitment, but as is always the case with Israel, the fine print includes a clause that they are not obliged to.

        Nope not doing this. The game here is always to make false claims about Israel and then when called on them to change the topic. The claim was that Israel wouldn’t agree to X. Israel did agree to X. Done, period, end of discussion about what Israel is willing to do. The fact that you don’t like that the agreement was an asymmetrical agreement is irrelevant. The question was whether Israel was willing to increase trade based on Hamas good behavior, and the answer was yes. You are now changing this to this to disagreeing with the asymmetrical nature of the agreement.

        If Gaza policies its territory it gets good stuff. If it doesn’t it gets the horns. It had nothing to do with itches. In 2012 Hamas failed to police and Israel was forced to. Hamas responded with 300 incidents of rocket fire and Israel rained hell upon the Gazans in response. This is simple Pavlovian training: reward, negative reinforcement, punishment. Gaza is the much weaker country, they are not equals.

        What they don’t tell you is that they reserve the right to bomb Gaza regardless and that Hamas’ cooperation is contingent on them not firing back.

        That’s correct. When Hamas is willing to a full extradition treaty with Israel and act on it in good faith then it can have criminal sovereignty in its borders until then it can’t. If it resists Israel carrying out these operations it will be further punished. The question above was about the amount of trade.

        It is when that land is outside the borders of the state of Israel.

        There was no state of Israel in the late 1910 early 1920s when the Israeli nation cleared the farm land.

        . If I were to climb the fence into someone else’s property who had neglected their garden for example, it does not become mine if I tend to it as rehabilitate and landscape it.

        That’s precisely the opposite of Locke’s position. You can disagree but you can’t lay claim to him while disagreeing.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 10:03 am

        Nope not doing this. The game here is always to make false claims about Israel and then when called on them to change the topic.

        Actually, that would be you, making false claims then disappearing when asked to produce a link.

        The claim was that Israel wouldn’t agree to X. Israel did agree to X.

        Donald was not referring to a sham ceasefire agreement Israel wrote, he was referring to a 10 yea truce. Israel have never agreed to one.

        The question was whether Israel was willing to increase trade based on Hamas good behavior, and the answer was yes.

        That’s false to and we know that it’s false because of Israel’s own internal documents.

        Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn’t about security
        link to mcclatchydc.com

        Notice that nothing in these internal policies documents of Israel mention anything about Israel’s willingness to increase trade based on Hamas good behavior.

        If Gaza policies its territory it gets good stuff. If it doesn’t it gets the horns.

        False again. Israeli internal documents also show that in the run up to Cast Lead, Israel’s leaders were worried the ceasefire was benefiting Hamas and increasing their political credibility. They concluded that at some stage, Israel would have to use militarism to cut off Hamas at the knees.

        Dated Aug. 29, 2008 (about two months after the beginning of the Tahdiya, and four months before the beginning of Cast Lead), it notes (emphasis added):

        Regarding the Tahdiya, Hacham said Barak stressed that while it was not permanent, for the time being it was holding. There have been a number of violations of the ceasefire on the Gaza side, but Palestinian factions other than Hamas were responsible. Hacham said the Israelis assess that Hamas is making a serious effort to convince the other factions not to launch rockets or mortars. Israel remains 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. The Israelis reluctantly admit that the Tahdiya has served to further consolidate Hamas’ grip on Gaza, but it has brought a large measure of peace and quiet to Israeli communities near Gaza.
        link to telegraph.co.uk

        The memo does not say that the Israelis believe “military action will have to be put back on the table” because at some point Hamas will break the ceasefire, but rather because Hamas would like to maintain the ceasefire to strengthen its position. Thus Israel’s leaders were planning to break the ceasefire in order to cut Hamas off at the knees.

        In 2012 Hamas failed to police and Israel was forced to.

        That’s rubbish to. Israel committed dozens of ceasefire violations, the first major one being a cross border incursion with 4 tanks and an armoured vehicle that Israel describes as “routine maneuvers”. They shot an killed a mentally disabled boy.

        Then a after a shot exchange of rockets, there was an agreed lull. A Hamas leader was negotiating a ceasefire with Egypt and Israel bombed his car from the air. He’d not taken the usual security precautions because he believed there was an agreed lull.

        So you see, pretty much everything you claim is a lie.

        It was at that point that Hamas responded with 300 incidents of rocket fire and Israel rained hell upon the Gazans in response. And thus, Israel got to mow the land again.

        I suggest you return to the hole you crawled out of Jeff.

      • American
        July 23, 2014, 7:26 am

        jeffb

        Glenn Greenwald: USA Today, 2013:

        Israeli govt paying students to covertly spread “pro-Israeli” messages on social media link to usatoday.comlink to twitter.com…>>>>>

        Get a different job.

      • rightcoaster
        July 23, 2014, 11:16 am

        Very well stated, JeffB, and thank you for it. Unlikely, however, to get past the “cognitive dissonance” here. These ideologues don’t care for discussion, just mutual stroking. When someone presents an idea or three that conflict with the ideology, the cats’ claws come out, the hissing and yowling ensues. Too bad, since most of them seem highly schooled — but evidently not much educated.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 7:00 am

        Some excellent cut downs of JeffB’s sophomoric and moronic hasbara.

        On a side note, I must say that the comments blogs at Huffington Post and Foreign Policy are unanimously critical of Israel – with the odd Israeli propagandist repeating the talking points you mentioned ad nauseum.

      • rightcoaster
        July 23, 2014, 11:19 am

        So, your source of information is comments blogs?

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 3:43 am

        So, your source of information is comments blogs?

        No it’s not oh illiterate one.

        I was explaining to Donald that the comments at the NYT is not reflective of the overall sentiment in the US.

  15. Jon66
    July 22, 2014, 11:23 am

    Instead of a truce, those terms should be for a peace treaty involving Gaza. End the blockade and restrictions, but also end the military threat from Gaza. Allow the people of Gaza to prosper, but not with a time limited truce. If both sides really want peace, then make the conditions permanent. Hamas should propose sovereignty for peace, not a temporary absence of war. Perhaps the peace strategy should be Gaza first. After all, no one seriously thinks Israel is interested in taking Gaza.

    • Donald
      July 22, 2014, 12:18 pm

      Um, no. Should Israel be placed under a draconian blockade until they end the occupation? Or do you think only one side has basic human rights at all times?

      The idea that instead of a truce, there should be a peace treaty is fine–on that point I think the Israeli side could make a strong case. Why settle for a truce? But basic human rights should be non-negotiable. Everyone stops firing, everyone stops violating human rights, and then the negotiations begin.

      But that “everyone stops violating human rights” is the tricky part, because violating human rights is what the settlement regime is all about. The problem here is that I don’t expect Netanyahu has any interest in this whatsoever. He wants the status quo, with continued Israeli expansion in the WB, and the Gazans kept under control and under blockade until they simply surrender to whatever Israel wants from Palestinians in general.

    • a blah chick
      July 22, 2014, 12:22 pm

      “…end the military threat from Gaza.”

      I have been in contact with said leadership and have been authorized, via Twitter, to surrender to the government of Israel the ENTIRE Gazan navy and air force. Also their anti aircraft artillery, tanks, APC’s, and the plans for that nuclear facility they never got around to building. Now do you feel safer? Good, let the negotiations begin!

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 6:37 pm

        Great. Now how about the rockets and tunnels.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 2:22 am

        Now how about the rockets and tunnels.

        Israeli rockets you mean?

    • Abierno
      July 22, 2014, 12:53 pm

      @Jon66. “No one seriously thinks Israel is interested in taking Gaza.” What
      about the proclamation from Moishe Feiglin, who is Deputy Speaker of the Knesset who called for extermination and expulsion of Gazans – this was featured in great detail in Arutz Sheva news; what about numerous posts across the internet
      regarding Israel’s goal to take control of the extensive gas deposits off Gaza;
      what about Israel’s repeated and consistent destruction of water and sewage infrastructure so as to make Gaza uninhabitable, thereby available for Israeli
      annexation?
      Finally, what about the military threat to Gaza from Israel? Were all those “peacetime” killings really about security? What is Israel’s track record in upholding peace treaties with Gaza? Is it not Israel’s mantra, “There are no civilians in war.” Hamas infiltrations to Israel have offered them several opportunities to kill unarmed civilians, have they done so? (Just to keep the record straight, the answer is no, even though it has not been in their best military interest.) What about Israel? I believe the civilian death toll is well above 500,
      with a great many being children.

      • JeffB
        July 22, 2014, 1:25 pm

        @Abierno

        What is Israel’s track record in upholding peace treaties with Gaza?

        Israel has an excellent track record of upholding peace treaties with governments that are capable and willing to secure their borders with Israel. Egypt and Jordan are perfect cases in point. There were exactly the kinds of incursions during the 1950s with both these countries. As they cracked down on their own borders there were broader less frequent conflicts till today when there have been none for many decades.

        If the government of Gaza were exercising its responsibility to keep Gaza absolutely free of any hostile actions against Israel, Israel’s track record suggests they wouldn’t be subject to hostilities.

      • Donald
        July 22, 2014, 3:53 pm

        What JeffB means is that Israel is currently only interested in stealing land in the WB and if Gazans took no interest in the welfare of other Palestinians and surrendered to Israel’s desires, just as Jordan and Egypt basically abandoned their cause, Israel might possibly kill fewer of them or allow them to trade with the outside world.

      • JeffB
        July 22, 2014, 4:10 pm

        @Donald

        Yes. If Gaza wars on Israel based on whatever external causes then it will be punished. If it doesn’t then it won’t be. The point is that no one can claim that Israel doesn’t have a good track record on borders, when the government on the other side of the border does their duty to control their territory.

        Which BTW is the reason that more and more Jordanians are coming to favor a permanent occupation of the WB so as to keep ISIS out. Jordanians know they can trust Israel to defend Jordan’s western border and prevent the kind of leakage that is creating havoc in Iraq and along their Eastern border.

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 6:42 pm

        Why not start with Gaza? Look for peace where you can find it. ” It is better to do something, than nothing, while waiting to do everything.”

      • Donald
        July 22, 2014, 7:08 pm

        “The point is that no one can claim that Israel doesn’t have a good track record on borders, when the government on the other side of the border does their duty to control their territory.”

        JeffB means that when it is in Israel’s own interest to obey treaties, it will do so. When it is able to steal land from conquered and oppressed Palestinian civilians, it will do that. If Palestinians fight back, they will be bombed. Israel reserves the right to steal land and use violence on WB Palestinians and if the Gazans join in the fight, they will be bombed. If they form a unity government, their representatives will be arrested. If they shoot in response, they will be bombed. Moral and ethical reasoning in Jeffworld is simple–strong Israelis have big stick, strong Israelis bash with stick.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        July 22, 2014, 4:49 pm

        ”Egypt and Jordan are perfect cases in point. ”

        Do you mean when Israel sent in a gang of typically inept Mossad clowns to try to murder Khaled Meshal in Amman, ended up getting caught and risked the death sentence?

        I hardly think trying to commit state-sponsored murder in another country’s capital constitues a ‘perfect’ track record.

        BTW I see you speak of ‘borders’. Could you provide a map with Israel’s internationally recognised declared borders?

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 6:46 pm

        Isn’t that what spies do? Russians poisoning in London, American drones, Iranian assassins in Paris, etc. Is there a major power who has not engaged in such behavior?

        I’m in agreement with you on the border issue. Both sides need to be clear about that.

      • ritzl
        July 22, 2014, 6:14 pm

        @JeffB- All that would be true, except that none of it is.

        Just this latest round, Hamas wasn’t doing ANYTHING to Israel except signalling a willingness to moderate, and they get this slaughter in response.

        And that’s just the last six weeks. Every violent exchange is instigated/provoked by Israel. It’s just nuts how maniacally predictable they are. Israel will never stop killing Palestinians on its own accord.

      • JeffB
        July 22, 2014, 6:22 pm

        @ritzl

        I’m not sure what you mean by a “willingness to moderate”. They don’t have to signal to Israel if they want to change policy they just change policy. For example change the charter and then submitting an ambassador with credentials to Netanyahu for approval. That would be moderating. If you mean that Hamas is creeping every closer to defeat, yes they are.

        But meanwhile:
        March 12–14 60 rockets
        April 19 rockets
        June 53 rockets

        That’s not acceptable behavior. They deserve punishment.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 2:24 am

        But meanwhile:
        March 12–14 60 rockets
        April 19 rockets
        June 53 rockets

        That’s not acceptable behavior. They deserve punishment.

        Israel 7,700 shells fired at Gaza Sept 2005 – June 2006

        What punishment would you prescribe?

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 1:53 pm

        I’m not saying that there are not crazy politicians, and there may be a number of them, but no rational person really believes that Israel wants to take Gaza.

      • eljay
        July 22, 2014, 7:31 pm

        >> I’m not saying that there are not crazy politicians, and there may be a number of them, but no rational person really believes that Israel wants to take Gaza.

        I don’t think they want to take Gaza – I think they want to render it so miserable a place to live that its residents will either die or abandon it.

        Then Israel can safely absorb the West Bank and take its time internally crushing all remaining Palestinian resistance to supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 10:38 pm

        If the goal is to depopulate Gaza, it is failing miserably given its growth rate. I don’t see it being abandoned either. I think it is just turning into one giant environmental and social disaster. Food, water, space all a disaster. This territory, and I would say almost any territory can’t handle this type of population growth.

      • eljay
        July 23, 2014, 10:52 am

        >> Jon66: If the goal is to depopulate Gaza, it is failing miserably given its growth rate. I don’t see it being abandoned either.

        In the short term, you may be right. But as you then point out, the longer-term outlook is pretty grim:

        >> Jon66: I think it is just turning into one giant environmental and social disaster. Food, water, space all a disaster. This territory … can’t handle this type of population growth.

  16. Seth Edenbaum
    July 22, 2014, 11:24 am

    Hamas offered a 10 year truce in 2004 and 2006.

    link to weekly.ahram.org.eg
    link to news.bbc.co.uk
    link to theguardian.com

  17. David Doppler
    July 22, 2014, 12:00 pm

    “As a result one wonders whether Israel really wants a long lasting resolution of the conflict.”

    It is perfectly clear that a substantial part of the right-wing coalition supporting the Netanyahu government view a long lasting resolution as an existential threat to Israel, and have made clear their intention to leave the coalition if the “threat of peace,” as they call it, gets too close to reality. There is nothing marginalizing these “dogs of war,” except for progressives willing to take the personal assaults that come from directly challenging these people, whether their leaders in the media, or the mob in the streets.

    Only the United States government has the power to pull the plug on its enabling of this ongoing massacre/war crimes/program of atrocities. Direct rejection of Netanyahu’s and the further-right policies, direct calls for ceasefire on some basis similar to the Hamas 10 point plan, and withholding of foreign aid, refusal to continue to block UN Security Council resolutions, will create the necessary leverage.

    In short, it takes leadership, in the face of AIPAC-led opposition, to break this “cycle of violence,” and the AIPAC hold on the US government. Obama has sought to lead through weakness, and it isn’t going to work against the rabid crowd shouting to kill all the Arabs, and burn the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

    There have to be real consequences for the Netanyahu government to continue to play out this charade of war crimes designed to prevent peace while blaming the victims. Only the US can deliver those. We know what Obama & Kerry believe. We just need for them to lead instead of pandering. Pandering to bullies doesn’t work. A punch in the nose is required, with an expression of righteous indignation, on behalf of right-thinking people everywhere. A clear statement of unacceptability.

    And please, no more “wondering if Israel wants a long lasting resolution.” Clearly, those holding power today do not, and must be replaced, or given the impetus to change.

    • JeffB
      July 22, 2014, 6:30 pm

      @David

      Does a punch to the nose always work? For example we are having problems with North Korea. We have pretty severe trade restrictions on them. Why hasn’t that worked for 6 decades? We gave North Vietnam lots of punches to the nose to get them to agree to the puppet regime in South Vietnam. Why didn’t that work? We helped fund a big war against Iran that killed hundreds of thousands of their people, a pretty good punch to object to their anti-Americanism. That didn’t work either.

      And it doesn’t seem to be just us. England and France gave Germany a huge punch to the nose to stop trying to rise to being a European power in the 1910s. Then they did it again in the 1930-40s. And yet here is Germany a major European power.

      Consider that maybe it isn’t that simple.

  18. just
    July 22, 2014, 12:18 pm

    I was busy doing something and wondered who from Israel was speaking in defense of Israeli actions– looked at the tv and it was Ben Rhodes!

    From the WH site, he is “the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting.”

    super.

  19. MahaneYehude1
    July 22, 2014, 1:27 pm

    BRUSSELS (EJP)—The European Union on Tuesday strongly condemned ‘’the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and militant groups in the Gaza Strip, directly harming civilians.’’

    At a press conference after the ministerial meeting, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said all ministers recognized ‘’Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself against any attacks’’ but the EU statement underlines that the Israeli military operation “must be proportionate and in line with international humanitarian law.’’

    ‘’While fully recognizing Israel’s legitimate security needs, the EU underlines that the humanitarian and socio-economic situation in Gaza must be addressed. It reiterates its call for the immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from the Gaza Strip, in line with UNSC resolution 1860 (2009),’’ the statement said.

    link to ejpress.org

    • concernedhuman
      July 22, 2014, 9:05 pm

      ‘’While fully recognizing Israel’s legitimate security needs, the EU underlines that the humanitarian and socio-economic situation in Gaza must be addressed. It reiterates its call for the immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from the Gaza Strip, in line with UNSC resolution 1860 (2009),’’ the statement said.

      This part of her speech is not reported in J post

      link to jpost.com

  20. James Canning
    July 22, 2014, 2:11 pm

    Israel ignored the Hamas offer of a 100-year truce, prior to Israel’s 2008-09 rampage in Gaza.

  21. Kathleen
    July 22, 2014, 3:14 pm

    the only place I have heard the Hamas offer talked about was on Melissa Harris Perry’s MSNBC Sunday program with Hillary Mann Leverett bringing attention to the offer in her most articulate way. The only mention. Otherwise hearing over and over again how Hamas refused the ceasefire offer. Some bringing attention to the fact that Hamas does not accept Egypt as a close to honest broker. A whisper about how Israel blocked Qatar and Turkey from being the brokers for a ceasefire.

    • JeffB
      July 22, 2014, 3:31 pm

      @Kathleen

      Israel has a close relationship with SCAF (Egypt). Qatar is ally of the Muslim brotherhood which doesn’t matter to Israel but is a problem for their friends in SCAF. Turkey has classified Israel actions as genocide and a crime against humanity so they are anything but a fair broker. Why would you expect them to want Turkey or Qatar to broker a cease fire? Why would you expect them to want their involvement at all?

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        July 22, 2014, 4:54 pm

        And Israel’s ‘friends’ in the junta that came to power through a coup d’etat?

        Yup, they’re real honest brokers.

        By their friends ye shall know them.

      • JeffB
        July 22, 2014, 5:45 pm

        @Maximus Decimus Meridius

        And Israel’s ‘friends’ in the junta that came to power through a coup d’etat?

        Who cares how Israel’s friends came to power. Did it disqualify the Palestinian cause when their friend was Hussein under Iraq?

        By their friends ye shall know them.

        SCAF is an alliance of the Leftists, Nasrists, Socialists, Communists, Christians, Liberals and Copts in Egypt. Essentially everyone but the rural Egyptian muslims and urban poor. Yeah OK, by their friends you will know them. They support all the elements of Egypt that support education and liberalism, oppose Egypt’s cultural shift back towards religious conservatism. Honestly I don’t think Israel should care less who is in SCAF, Israel needs friends whereever they get them. But frankly by your own standard Israel is the voice of science, education, economic progress and cultural liberation against the forces of superstition and cultural oppression.

        That’s pretty good branding for the Israelis.

        ___

        Finally if you think SCAF is so pro-Israel that they aren’t an even honest broker anymore remember that the next time people are being critical of Israeli foreign policy. I consider SCAF to be a huge win, but still consider them somewhat sympathetic to the Gazans; angry at Hamas but not truly hating the people of Gaza. If that’s not true and you were right that SCAF isn’t even an honest broker the Gazans better get clear even faster. Gaza borders Israel, the Egyptians and the Mediterranean. The fish ain’t brokering any kind of agreement. The Israelis really don’t like the Gazans and tend to mess up their territory / country on a regular basis. I’d say given the options they have Egyptians are their best bet. If you think Egypt is even worse…

  22. MahaneYehude1
    July 22, 2014, 5:23 pm

    Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird condemned Tuesday rockets which were discovered in a UNRWA run school in Gaza, and also the fact that the UN organization in all likelyhood, passed the rockets to Hamas officials.

    “Even more alarming were reports that in the first case, officials with the United Nations returned these weapons to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization, once Israeli officials discovered their location.”

    link to ynetnews.com

    • Shingo
      July 22, 2014, 10:02 pm

      Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird condemned Tuesday rockets which were discovered in a UNRWA run school in Gaza, and also the fact that the UN organization in all likelyhood, passed the rockets to Hamas officials.

      Very funny potato man. The Harper giverent to is even more fanatically pro Iseael than Bush was.

      The aim that UNWRA passed these on to Has is blatant lie. Why would UNWRA complain and then hand them to Hamas?

      Hasbara fail.

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 10:30 pm

        UNWRA has said that they turned them over to the “authorities”. With no Fatah in Gaza, this means Hamas. UNWRA said since they don’t have bomb disposal experts themselves, who else would take them away.

      • Shingo
        July 22, 2014, 10:49 pm

        UNWRA has said that they turned them over to the “authorities”. With no Fatah in Gaza, this means Hamas. UNWRA said since they don’t have bomb disposal experts themselves, who else would take them away.

        The authority is the PA. Stop lying.

      • talknic
        July 23, 2014, 3:58 am

        If UNRWA handed them to Hamas where’s the problem? Hamas is the authority. Hamas is permitted to be armed… Morons for Israel seem to think only the rogue state is allowed arms

      • seafoid
        July 23, 2014, 4:09 am

        It’s interesting to read Israel’s attitude before they started the offensive

        link to theguardian.com

        “In a comment piece in Yediot Ahronot, Israeli journalist Alex Fishman suggested: “As far as it is concerned, Hamas’ going ballistic over Israel will position it anew as a relevant player in the region and relieve it from its political and economic troubles. The leaders of Hamas are no longer discussing a ceasefire. They are trying to ride the wave of violence by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the West Bank with the purpose of garnering the support of the entire Palestinian public. And the solution for hitting Hamas without paying a price has not yet been invented, whether in the Israeli home front or in the international arena.”
        Israeli army spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner said: “They [Hamas] chose the direction of escalation. So the mission will go on as long as we feel it is necessary to carry it out. We don’t expect it to be a short mission on our behalf.”

        Now they are looking for an exit

        link to haaretz.com
        “One idea making the rounds in the defense establishment, the foreign ministry and among experts in think tanks with direct links to the Prime Minister’s and Defense Minister’s bureaus is to recreate the exit plan from the second Lebanon War. According to this idea, Israel, in coordination with the US and other allies, as well as with Egypt and the Arab League, will propose a Security Council Resolution, similar to Resolution number 1701 which ended that war in 2006. ”

        Life is full of surprises
        link to ft.com

        “A company that is relentlessly focused on an old rival may compete with it very efficiently but ignore the fact that a new one is sneaking up. It can become blinkered to the true threat by its obsession with the past.”

      • MahaneYehude1
        July 23, 2014, 12:17 pm

        @talknic:

        If UNRWA handed them to Hamas where’s the problem?

        No problem at all, talknic. Storage of missiles in school where children suppose to learn, is a legal act under the international law. You are the man of the international law and I sure you will find the correct UN resolution declares that all Hamas activities are legal.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 5:03 am

        Storage of missiles in school where children suppose to learn, is a legal act under the international law.

        The building was not being used, so no, it’s not.

  23. dannyad
    July 22, 2014, 5:24 pm

    This article is one big joke. Hamas doesn’t want peace and hasn’t offered any 10 years truce. Look at the following interview with Hamas spokesman:

    link to facebook.com

    Interviewer: “Is there a proposal of Hamas?”
    Hamas Spoksemen: “This is just nonsense of the Zionists, and a dream of them to live in peace and clamness for 10 years. We shall keep disturbing the Zionists, until the last of them leaves our Palestine land. Because every truce is temporary, for a certain period of time. We are not talking about a long term truce. We are not talking about a peace agreement. a “truce” in the dictionary of the resistance means preparing for the next battle. Our resistance will keep on developing, producing and filling its arsenals, and in the production of surprising elements for the next battles, until the Zionist enemy leaves our land with the help of Allah.”

    Hamas doesn’t want peace, Mondoweiss is lying to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Shingo
      July 22, 2014, 9:59 pm

      This article is one big joke. Hamas doesn’t want peace and hasn’t offered any 10 years truce. Look at the following interview with Hamas spokesman:

      Hasbara alert. Livni said exactly the same thing 12 hours ago. In 2006, she said a long term ceasefire is not in Israel’s strategic interests. It’s Israel that does not want peace.

      Stand with US is a lie factory.

    • Citizen
      July 23, 2014, 1:44 am

      Ha ha A video clip by StandWithUs! ROFL Now that’s a reliably objective source!

      dannyad, you’re funny.

    • American
      July 23, 2014, 7:32 am

      dannyad

      Glenn Greenwald: USA Today, 2013:

      Israeli govt paying students to covertly spread “pro-Israeli” messages on social media link to usatoday.comlink to twitter.com…>>>>

      Get a different job.

      • dannyad
        July 23, 2014, 2:20 pm

        citizen and his American friend,
        If any one is funny here it is obviously both of you. Is Mondoweiss objective ?????????????????? Don’t make me laugh. Mondoweiss is fully biased and brainwashes you.
        So what if the video clip was from StandWithUs ? The video speaks for itself regardless for its source…….It clearly proofs Hamas doesn’t want peace. In the video you can see Hamas Spokesman, a terrorist called Mushir Al Masri clearly saying that Hamas will never agree to peace with Israel.
        Here are other proofs for Hamas’ evil and vicious character, All these videos show prominents and parliament members, not simple people from the streets. These MPs represent the Palestinian public opinion.

        Hamas Spokesmen calls for genocide of all Jews link to youtube.com

        Hamas MP Ahmad Bahr Calls for the Annihilation of Jews and Americans
        link to youtube.com

        Hamas MP Al-Astal: We Must Massacre Jews, Impose Jizya Poll Tax on Them
        link to youtube.com

        Hamas MP and Cleric on Swine Flu and “the Brothers of Apes and Pigs” link to youtube.com

        PA Fatah MP: Destroy Israel in stages in religious war link to youtube.com

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 7:09 pm

        So what if the video clip was from StandWithUs ? The video speaks for itself regardless for its source…….It clearly proofs Hamas doesn’t want peace. In the video you can see Hamas Spokesman, a terrorist called Mushir Al Masri clearly saying that Hamas will never agree to peace with Israel.

        In other words, your argument is that whatever any obscure member if a political part says must be evidence of their policy.

        OK fine. In which case, we should take the statement by Ayelet Shaked of the Jewish Home party, which is in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, as a factual statement of official Israeli government policy.

        She issued a call for genocide of the Palestinian people on June 30th. She declared that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy. And she justifies their destruction, including, quote, “its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” And she said that Israel would be justified to slaughter Palestinian mothers because they give birth to little snakes.

        From that we can only conclude that genocide and the targeting of women and children is official Israeli government policy and statements to the contrary are lies.

        Stand with Us should rename itself, Stand for genocide.

      • dannyad
        July 24, 2014, 12:28 am

        Shingo,
        I guess it is too much to ask for a real quote from you.
        Ayelet Shaked never spoke about the entire Palestinian population.
        She talked about the the mothers of Hamas’ terrorists who shoot rockets or use tunnel for terrorist attacks.
        While her words are still wrong, they are far less worse than the videos of Hamas’ members which I have shown in my previous message.
        You read biased websites that manipulated her words. This is the real quote from her Facebook page:
        “Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism.
        They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads.
        Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses.
        They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there”

        While I still stand against her words, the words of Hamas’ politicians (if you can call a terrorist – politician) and parliament members which I have shown in my previous message
        are far worse because they talk about the annihilation and extermination of the entire Jewish population(they don’t even talk about Israelis or Zionists, they talk about Jews).

        You want videos of non “obscure” Hamas members as you call them? Fine.
        Here is a video of Hamas prominent, Mahmoud Al Zahar. He is a co-founder of Hamas, no.2 at Hamas after Ismail Hanyia (if you don’t include Khaled Mashall who is located in a comfortable luxury hotel in Qatar)
        If you don’t know who he is, google Mahmoud Al Zahar.

        Watch this:
        link to youtube.com

        These are Mahmoud Al-Zahhar’ words, full of anti-semitism and calls for genocide of the Jewish people:

        “On this occasion, dear brothers and sisters, we cannot but recall the crimes of these criminal [Jews] throughout history.
        Today, we present the world with a bunch of questions, and we challenge it to answer them honestly, for today, interests overshadow moral values, elections overshadow principles,
        and Zionism has overshadowed the truth. “We ask the people of the world today: Why did France, in 1253,
        expel and uproot the Jewish entity, which was represented by the ghetto? Why did they expel them?
        Because they sucked the blood of the French, because they shed the blood of the French, slaughtered them, stole their money, and conspired against them. At the end of the day, the French had no choice but to expel them in 1253.
        “The [Jews] fled north, to Britain, and lived there for only 27 years, until the English realized the criminality of these people, who murdered them,
        sucked their blood, and stole their money. So they slaughtered hem, and expelled them in 1280.
        “We ask the French and the British: Why did you expel them? We ask Germany of pre-Hitler times: Why were the [Jews] expelled in 1384? We ask the [Jews] why France expelled them a second time, in 1360,
        why Hungary expelled them in 1360, and why Belgium expelled them in 1370.
        This was not something new – it started even before 1253, on the day that Pharaoh the tyrant expelled them because they had shed the blood of the Egyptians,
        and had conspired with their enemies against them. So [Pharaoh] expelled them, after they lost their religion, after the time of Joseph.
        “Was this series [of expulsions] anything new? No. After the Czechs expelled them in 1380. Austria expelled them in 1420, Holland in 1444, and Spain in 1492.
        Russia expelled them after they conspired to assassinate the Czar in 1882, and Germany expelled them once again in 1945.
        “The series of expulsions continues to this day. Blood continues to be shed, martyrs continue to fall, our sons continue to hoist the banner high, and Allah willing,
        their expulsion from Palestine in its entirety is certain to come. We are no weaker or less honorable than the peoples that expelled and annihilated the Jews.
        The day we expel them is drawing near. […] “The nation that opens up its doors, its hearts, and its homes to the [Jews] who were expelled from all corners of the earth was the Islamic nation.
        […] “We extended our hands to feed these hungry dogs and wild beasts, and they devoured our fingers. We have learned the lesson – there is no place for you among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world.
        You are headed to annihilation.” […]

        These are the words of no.2 at Hamas – so this is the official Hamas stance – a call for the extermination of the Jewish people.
        Let’s see if Shingo and the rest of the “knights of human rights” will have something to say against this.
        What are you going to tell me now, Shingo, after I have proven you that Hamas prominents call for the annihilation of the Jewish people?
        You’re gonna tell me that Hamas wants peace with Israel? Get Real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 9:41 am

        I guess it is too much to ask for a real quote from you.

        I gave it to you.

        Ayelet Shaked never spoke about the entire Palestinian population.

        Yes she did. She talked about all Palestinians. She made no reference to Hamas.
        Her words, while not unique, are as bad if not worse than the videos of Hamas’ members which you linked to.
        Here is another gem that just came up.
        Israeli scholar: ‘Only raping the sister of a terrorist can deter him’
        link to 972mag.com

        It’s hilarious to hear you accuse me of reading biased websites that manipulated words, when the best you can do is pull a clip from serial liars and propagandists Stand With Us. You hasbarats are unbelievable hpocrites.
        This is the real quote from her Facebook page
        That’s not the real quote, that’s the cherry picked version that leaves out the reference to children being snakes. It also calls for collective punishment of the mother and children of combatants. After all, when it comes to Israel, there is no such thing as a legitimate soldier – anyone who opposed them is a terrorist. Thus the claim she was only referring to terrorists is utter bullshit.
        She goes on to say that “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy”. Note, she does not single out Hamas.
        And to use her logic, Menachem Begin’s and Yitzak Shamir’s whole family should be massacred, along with all their descendants. So should all the descendants of member of the Irgun, Palmac Stern Gang etc. So should many descendants of the Haganah who engaged in terrorism.
        There is no way you can spin this dannyad. She called for genocide against Palestinians – end of story and her words are every bit as gross and egregious as any statement from a Hamas politician or militant. They simply don’t offend you as much because they are not directed as your fellow cult members.

        And yes, Hams talk about Jews because Israeli Zionist Jews call themselves Jews. There is no distinction in the region between Israelis or Zionists, or Jews and that is because Israeli Jews insist on calling themselves The Jews. That is how they insist on being defined.
        And if you want to play the game of who has said what, we can do this all day.
        The leader of Shas is well known for his pronouncem¬ents calling for the “annihilat¬ion of Arabs”.
        The King’s Torah, which is a best seller in Israel, is illuminati¬ng:
        link to www¬.countercu¬rrents.org¬
        Do you want me to bring up all the bile Avigdor Liberman has shred during unguarded moments?

        These are the words of no.2 at Hamas – so this is the official Hamas stance – a call for the extermination of the Jewish people.

        Absolute rubbish. There is no such statement.

        Let’s see if Shingo and the rest of the “knights of human rights” will have something to say against this. .

        Oh cry me a river. Your hero are slaughtering babies, women and children in Gaza and you want to compare that fete with trash talk and insults? Get a life moron.

        What are you going to tell me now, Shingo, after I have proven you that Hamas prominents call for the annihilation of the Jewish people?

        You proved nothing. The Hamas Charter does not call for genocide against Jews, it calls for the destruction if it’s occupier and oppressor, Israel.
        The Hamas Charter actually forbids members harm to those who have not “borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings”. In fact, it calls for a state in which Jews, Muslims and Christians live in peace under Islam

        No such qualifier is seen in the founding documents of organisati¬ons like Likud, Shas and Betar all of which pledge the clearance of Palestinia¬ns from at least the Jordan to the sea.

        You gonna tell me that Israel wants peace? Go ahead and make us laugh you apologist for genocide.

      • ritzl
        July 24, 2014, 10:45 am

        Shingo, “apologists for genocide” is starting to sound way too passive given their stridency about killing more Palestinians as a solution (final or otherwise). “Advocates for genocide” is more accurate at this point.

    • MahaneYehude1
      July 24, 2014, 5:40 am

      @Shingo:

      The building was not being used, so no, it’s not.

      I sure that most readers here, even the anti-Israeli readers, think it is strange argument. It seems to me that you are desperate and invent explanations for any situation since it is hard to you to condemn any act of Hamas.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 10:28 am

        I sure that most readers here, even the anti-Israeli readers, think it is strange argument.

        I am pretty sure they don’t and that it’s your arguments they find strange and repulsive

        It seems to me that you are desperate and invent explanations for any situation since it is hard to you to condemn any act of Hamas.

        That’s hilarious coming from an uneducated potato farmer who makes up international law

      • dannyad
        July 24, 2014, 12:17 pm

        Shingo,
        You are just a supporter of Hamas terrorism, you are all brainwashed and obsessed about Israel.

        At least you admit that the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
        You actually admit that Hamas doesn’t want peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Yes – You actually admit that Hamas doesn’t want peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Because as long as Israel exists Hamas will never want peace.

        This is a quote from the Hamas Charter:
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees.
        The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree)
        would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”

        What’s that if not a call for genocide of the Jewish people, Mr. Wise guy?????????????????????

        You won’t find anything in any Likud official document which calls for genocide of the Palestinian people. You think so just because of your brainwash.

        You wrote:
        “These are the words of no.2 at Hamas – so this is the official Hamas stance – a call for the extermination of the Jewish people.
        Absolute rubbish. There is no such statement.”

        Watch again the video of Hamas’ no. 2, full of antisemitic remarks and call for annihilations of the Jewish people:
        link to youtube.com

        Look at the last sentence from this video:
        “You are headed to annihilation”
        Got it Shingo??????????????
        Do you understand what he says??????????
        Read again:
        “You are headed to annihilation”
        Yes that’s the words of Hamas’ no.2

        If anyone is writing rubbish here it is obviously you.
        All the videos I’ve shown prove that Hamss prominents call for the extermination and annihilation of the Jewish people
        while all you can do is put me some manipulated quotes of Ayelet Shaked (yes she did talk about the mothers of terrorists only
        and not the entire Palestinian population). Whatever Ayelet Shaked said, she is still a billion times better than those
        terrorists of Hamas that you are in love with.
        You support terrorists who shoot rockets indiscrimnately on civiilians.
        You support terrorists who have made dozens of suicide bombings attacks on civilians.
        You support terrorists who have brutally murdered thousands of their own people – Palestinians.
        You support terrorists who have brutally taken over Gaza in 2007. They threw Fatah members from high buildings then entered hospitals and murdered the wounded.
        You support terrorists who use the Shifa hospital in Gaza as their headquarters.
        You support terrorists who use 10 years old children as warriors.
        You support terrorists who use their own people, Palestinians, as human shields.
        You support terrorists whom UNRWA accused for stocking rockets in schools.
        You support terrorists who spent all their money for building tunnels instead of for the benefit of the Palestinian population.

        Yes Shingo, you are simply a supporter of terrorism, you are all brainwashed, fucked up and obsessed about Israel.
        That’s all.

        Don’t bother answering, I won’t be reading your crap anyway.
        I repeat – Don’t bother answering, I won’t be reading your crap anyway.

  24. Donald
    July 22, 2014, 7:11 pm

    I saw part of the PBS Newshour tonight. Kerry and Israel and Egypt are all ganging up on Hamas, trying to get them to accept the Egyptian proposal. The PBS show had Benjamin Rhodes on spouting the usual nonsense. Hamas rejects the proposal so Hamas is the bad guy. Absolutely nothing is said about how Gazans might feel–the lords of human kind are determining under what circumstances they will or will not be killed or blockaded.

    The fix is in, and one can expect much or most or all of the MSM to side with Egypt and Israel and the US in the quest to bully Gazans back into their cage.

    • Kay24
      July 22, 2014, 9:24 pm

      Time the Palestinians got some articulate spokespeople, who would speak about their demands, and explain coherently that all they want is the damn occupation ended. No one seems to be explaining this well. I am sick of the Israeli narrative, lies and accusations. It is always one sided garbage. The Palestinians must be heard.

      • Jon66
        July 22, 2014, 10:24 pm

        Defining the “occupation” is one of the key problems. Is it all the land, everything more than the 1947 UN partition, everything other than 1967 borders? Israel has not defined its borders and each Palestinian group defines “occupation” differently.

      • Shingo
        July 22, 2014, 10:46 pm

        Defining the “occupation” is one of the key problems.

        Rubbish.

        The definition of what is occupied is clearly and unambiguously defined, in spite of Israel’s attempt to confuse the issue.

      • Jon66
        July 23, 2014, 7:44 am

        And that definition is?

      • just
        July 22, 2014, 10:48 pm

        I bet you’d know Occupation if you experienced it, Jon.

      • talknic
        July 23, 2014, 9:35 am

        @ Jon66 “And that definition is?”

        Were you actually interested you’d have looked for yourself. As you’re too stupid or helpless I guess we’ll just have to show EVERYONE who’s reading, which isn’t gonna help your argument at all.

        Let’s start where the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT admits it has borders and occupies territories “outside the State of Israel”

        On May 22, 1948 UNSC S/766 the Provisional Government of Israel
        Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
        “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard.” … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestineoutside the territory of the State of Israel

        “international regulations” at the time say;

        Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
        “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        Every time you flap your ill informed ignorant yap you afford the opportunity to show honestly interested folk factual, irrefutable and incriminating information. Keep up the good work!

      • Kay24
        July 23, 2014, 7:15 am

        Oh so that is why Israel keeps the occupation going, it is very confusing for zionists to fathom that out. Hmmm…..

      • talknic
        July 23, 2014, 9:01 am

        @ Jon66 “Defining the “occupation” is one of the key problems”

        Officially the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT had no trouble in 1948. Two instances
        1) May 22nd 1948 … ” the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel”
        “areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard
        International regulations said and still say Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
        “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

        2) Aug 12th 1948 … Jerusalem Declared Israel-Occupied City- by Israeli Government Proclamation
        Israel has never legally annexed any territories it has occupied.

        “Israel has not defined its borders”

        You’re repeating pathetic ziosh*t pal! The ISRAELI GOVERNMENT proclaimed Israel’s boundaries to the world in its plea for recognition. ” within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized.

        It’s amazing how ignorant zionist poopmeisters are. They know f*ck all about one of the most important documents in the history of the State of Israel.

        “and each Palestinian group defines “occupation” differently.”

        Irrelevant there is only one definition under the Laws of War. (as above)

        Go poop somewhere else buddy, here your wading around in it will only be be laughed at

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 8:01 am

        @Kay24

        who would speak about their demands, and explain coherently that all they want is the damn occupation ended.

        The Palestinians as a people have wonderfully coherent and well spoken spokespersons. The problem is not the lack of Palestinians who know how to speak well. The problem is the population they represent is confused and incoherent when it comes to their demands. For example your claim, about ending the occupation. The first thing a host is going to ask is, “Really? You are prepared to fully renounce right of return?” And of course in the specific case of Gaza the occupation did end and suddenly there were additional demands. What started this last round of fighting was Hamas’ reaction to events on the West Bank not the occupation of Gaza. Hamas’ demands above are not about the occupation.

        But at the core there is a deeper problem. The reason Palestinians don’t have serious spokespeople is that their leadership likes to talk out of both sides of their mouth. With the Americans and the Europeans their demands tend to be limited and in line with the Quartet’s positions. Not that Israel has any intention of allowing the Quartet’s positions to play out regardless of what the Palestinians do, but those are their positions. When talking to their own people they like to present the idea of Palestinians in-volatile rights and a vision of autonomy that can’t possibly be achieved under the Oslo framework. You remember the controversy when the Palestinians papers were published and how the PA (forget Hamas) choose to distance itself from its own negotiating positions. If spokespersons with real rank went regularly on live news shows and had to field actual hostile questions that discrepancy would be impossible to maintain.

        Chris Hayes was complaining yesterday that he couldn’t book anyone from Hamas to the show to explain their positions and goals. 1/2 of Hamas wants to liberate Palestine completely, 1/2 of Hamas is willing to possibly accede to maximalist interpretations of Oslo at least for a long time. It is very easy in a puff crowd like the Arab press to do the whole innocent civilians getting killed, Israel bad. It would be much harder facing a hostile press because they are going to get asked serious questions.

        The Palestinian non-official spokespeople allow the Palestinians to talk about how Israel is also talking out of both sides of their mouth, pretending to be supportive of the Quartet while implementing on the ground their actual position which is probably closer to the Naftali Bennett settlement. But non-official spokespeople can’t answer questions about Palestinian goals and as a result Israel won the debate and has convinced most Americans that Palestinian goals are what’s outlined in the Hamas charter which is not merely ending the occupation.

      • eljay
        July 23, 2014, 9:10 am

        >> JeffB @ July 23, 2014 at 8:01 am

        A thought-provoking post. Dis-unity and discord among Palestinians is certainly counter-productive to the Palestinian side, which explains why Israel and Zio-supremacists do everything in their power to undermine Palestinian unity – most recently, doing everything possible to cripple and demonize the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.

      • talknic
        July 23, 2014, 9:18 am

        @ JeffB “The first thing a host is going to ask is, “Really? You are prepared to fully renounce right of return?”

        Why you stupid stupid person? The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel gave them the right to Israeli citizenship.

        “And of course in the specific case of Gaza the occupation did end “

        So how come Israel can make a military incursion whenever it likes? How come Israel can control Palestinian territorial waters and airspace? Why can Israel demand Egypt close the Gaza Egypt border? These things are only permissible to an occupying power.

        “What started this last round of fighting was .. is Israel’s refusal to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter for 66 years.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 11:16 am

        @talknic

        Why you stupid stupid person? The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel gave them the right to Israeli citizenship.

        Yes and the state has since revoked it. The declaration of my town gave the King’s representative authority to set the tax rate for all the farms. That has since been revoked. The laws of my town are what the people who live here want them to be.

        JeffB: “And of course in the specific case of Gaza the occupation did end “

        So how come Israel can make a military incursion whenever it likes?

        Stronger countries can always make military incursions whenever they like. Russia in Ukraine being a terrific example recently. Columbia wasn’t occupied territory even when the USA was regularly conducting herbicide activities on its terrain, often against the wishes of the government. An occupation requires a replacement of the government not just ignoring some of their wishes.

        How come Israel can control Palestinian territorial waters and airspace?

        Because they don’t recognize the territorial waters and airspace as Palestinians. Countries that are close have to work out arrangements for water. For example the USA and Canada have very complex agreements on these issues because we share so much water. Hamas has refused to form these agreements so Israel has unilaterally declared what the territorial waters will be and is enforcing that.

        Why can Israel demand Egypt close the Gaza Egypt border?
        These things are only permissible to an occupying power.

        Israel can’t demand Egypt do anything. They can request. In this case they aren’t doing that. Egypt is enthusiastic about closing the border.

      • tree
        July 24, 2014, 5:22 am

        Henry Seigman (former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress) has a piece up on Politico:

        Israel Provoked This War
        It’s up to President Obama to stop it.
        By HENRY SIEGMAN July 22, 2014

        There seems to be near-universal agreement in the United States with President Barack Obama’s observation that Israel, like every other country, has the right and obligation to defend its citizens from threats directed at them from beyond its borders.

        But this anodyne statement does not begin to address the political and moral issues raised by Israel’s bombings and land invasion of Gaza: who violated the cease-fire agreement that was in place since November 2012 and whether Israel’s civilian population could have been protected by nonviolent means that would not have placed Gaza’s civilian population at risk. As of this writing, the number killed by the Israel Defense Forces has surpassed 600, the overwhelming majority of whom are noncombatants.

        Israel’s assault on Gaza, as pointed out by analyst Nathan Thrall in the New York Times, was not triggered by Hamas’ rockets directed at Israel but by Israel’s determination to bring down the Palestinian unity government that was formed in early June, even though that government was committed to honoring all of the conditions imposed by the international community for recognition of its legitimacy.

        The notion that it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated a cease-fire agreement will undoubtedly offend a wide swath of Israel supporters. To point out that it is not the first time Israel has done so will offend them even more deeply. But it was Shmuel Zakai, a retired brigadier general and former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division, and not “leftist” critics, who said about the Israel Gaza war of 2009 that during the six-month period of a truce then in place, Israel made a central error “by failing to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians in the [Gaza] Strip. … You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they are in and expect Hamas just to sit around and do nothing.”

        This is true of the latest cease-fire as well. According to Thrall, Hamas is now seeking through violence what it should have obtained through a peaceful handover of responsibilities. “Israel is pursuing a return to the status quo ante, when Gaza had electricity for barely eight hours a day, water was undrinkable, sewage was dumped in the sea, fuel shortages caused sanitation plants to shut down and waste sometimes floated in the streets.” It is not only Hamas supporters, but many Gazans, perhaps a majority, who believe it is worth paying a heavy price to change a disastrous status quo.

        more at link:

        link to politico.com

      • Donald
        July 23, 2014, 9:18 am

        “If spokespersons with real rank went regularly on live news shows and had to field actual hostile questions that discrepancy would be impossible to maintain.”

        Some of what you say here is actually valid. For instance, I think some Palestinians would settle for a 2SS if it were sufficiently “generous” (not really the right word when we’re talking about receiving 22 percent of their homeland). Others want a 1SS. The right of return is huge–I don’t know how many Palestinians would be willing to give it up. I’m not saying they should–as far as I am concerned, if they want to go for one state, one man, one vote, they have every moral right to do so. But it’s not entirely clear to me what the feelings are in the Palestinian community. Of course, with Israel being so relentless in wanting to steal more land, it’s been a moot point.

        But on the part that I quoted, the Israelis seem to get away with murder (quite literally) with the American press–in particular, the claim that every one of these “wars” begins with Hamas rocket fire is a zombie idea that can’t be killed. It doesn’t matter that the NYT itself actually reported Israeli violence that preceded the rockets and even the killings on the WB that preceded the teen murders and sometimes makes a reference in passing to the shooting of Gazan civilians in “ceasefires”. It’s a religious act of faith that all major cycles of violence are started by Palestinians, which is only true in the sense that Israelis become outraged when any of their own are killed, but could not care less what the IDF does routinely. So getting back to your point, you’re right that Palestinian officials who make themselves available to the American press can expect an intense grilling, some of it fair and some not. Israelis go on American TV with the knowledge that many of their talking points, false though they may be, will be assumed true.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 10:52 am

        @Donald

        I think the majority of the USA press tends to view this as unending strife. Terms like “cycle of violence” are more common than the belief that the Palestinians started it. Certainly though very few in the American press believe Israel is the aggressor. There is a real discrepancy there. My guess is the breakdown for how reports report is something like:
        60% cycle of violence
        35% Palestinian aggressor
        5% Israeli aggressor

        I suspect far more actually believe Israel is the aggressor but don’t want to take that controversial of a stand.

        As for you’re agreeing with me about their demands, I’m glad it makes the debate simpler when we can acknowledge there are no clear Palestinian demands. Without a clear statement of what acceptable is there is no way for people in the middle to determine of the Palestinian position is or is not reasonable. My honest opinion is that the majority of the Palestinian population’s views are pretty well reflected by documents like the original PLO charter or Hamas charter. Those positions lack global support so the Palestinian spokespeople end up presenting public positions that their population won’t stand behind.

        So getting back to your point, you’re right that Palestinian officials who make themselves available to the American press can expect an intense grilling, some of it fair and some not. Israelis go on American TV with the knowledge that many of their talking points, false though they may be, will be assumed true.

        Sure. Israel mostly tunes their message to support the mainstream viewpoint. Mainstream viewpoints don’t get questioned. When Israel was outside the mainstream viewpoint, for example their aggressive stance of Iran, they were subject to much more difficult questioning. Where Israel does get questioned is the discrepancy between their behavior and claims. So for example when they are clearly not exercising the utmost care to protect civilians they get asked questions about this.

        Palestinians conversely are going to have to answer basic questions to establish they have a legitimate point of view at all. And the first step of doing that would be to have “a” point of view. That is a single policy. There have been PA spokespeople who have put forward serious end of conflict resolutions for example the Geneva Accords. But those types of documents don’t have remotely majority support from either society. And in the last 15 years Israel and the Palestinians have both moved further away from that sort of agreement.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 5:02 am

        Certainly though very few in the American press believe Israel is the aggressor. There is a real discrepancy there.

        Not true. What they are being told to report as opposed to what they believe are two entirely different things. As we recently witnessed over the MSNBC fiasco, the narrative of the conflict is being tightly controlled by management.

        Max Blumenthal reports that he spoke to an NBC producer who, he said, described, quote, “a top-down intimidation campaign aimed at presenting an Israeli-centric view of the attack on the Gaza Strip,” .

        In his piece for AlterNet, Blumenthal wrote, quote, “The NBC producer told me that MSNBC President Phil Griffin and NBC executives are micromanaging coverage of the crisis, closely monitoring contributors’ social media accounts and engaging in a [quote] ‘witch hunt’ against anyone who strays from the official line,”

        Blumenthal wrote. The producer told Blumenthal, quote, “Loyalties are now being openly questioned.”

        My honest opinion is that the majority of the Palestinian population’s views are pretty well reflected by documents like the original PLO charter or Hamas charter.

        You know what they say about opinions and a certain part of the human anatomy.

        Palestinians conversely are going to have to answer basic questions to establish they have a legitimate point of view at all.

        Maybe inside the US, but not the rest of the world. Certainly not at the UN, where Israel is completely isolated.

  25. lataan
    July 22, 2014, 8:58 pm

    I would have thought it was fairly clear by now that Israel isn’t the slightest bit interested in any long-term truce that will deny them of the opportunity in the future to once again attempt to destroy the enclave in order to fully reoccupy it themselves permanently and to ultimately annex it to Israel. That is what this is all about and has always been about. It has never been about anything else. Same goes for the West Bank. As far as the Zionists of Israel are concerned there will never be a Palestinian state and the ultimate aim is to create a Greater Israel.

    • JeffB
      July 23, 2014, 8:04 am

      @lataan

      It isn’t clear to me that Israel isn’t interested in a long term truce with Gaza. So no it isn’t clear. Wanting to create a Greater Israel on the West Bank is different than wanting to have a long term truce with Gaza. The two aren’t connected issues.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 9:32 am

        It isn’t clear to me that Israel isn’t interested in a long term truce with Gaza.

        If that’s the case, then you have your head stuck so far up your ass there’s no point debating it with you. Livni is on the record stating that a long ceasefire is not in Israel’s strategic interests.

        Wanting to create a Greater Israel on the West Bank is different than wanting to have a long term truce with Gaza. The two aren’t connected issues.

        Rubbish. They are entirely connected. That is why Netenyahu lost his mind when Washington said they would recognize the unity governnment.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 9:42 am

        @Shingo

        If that’s the case, then you have your head stuck so far up your ass there’s no point debating it with you. Livni is on the record stating that a long ceasefire is not in Israel’s strategic interests.

        A statement by one politician does not necessarily represent the policy. There are plenty of Israeli spokespeople that are on record saying that Israel fully respects the 1967 borders and wants immediate withdraw to them. Yet somehow the settlements exist. Barack Obama ran for office unequivocally stating he was opposed to the violations of American privacy under the NSA and that as president he would put an end to them.

        The policy is represented by the consistent action of multiple politicians over multiple years. What they do and what they say consistent with what they do.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 9:49 am

        A statement by one politician does not necessarily represent the policy.

        It does when that person is the foreign minister, as Livni was at the time.

        There are plenty of Israeli spokespeople that are on record saying that Israel fully respects the 1967 borders and wants immediate withdraw to them.

        Rubbish. None have ever said that in public. Not even Rabin said that.

      • talknic
        July 23, 2014, 9:41 am

        @ JeffB ” Wanting to create a Greater Israel on the West Bank is different than wanting to have a long term truce with Gaza. The two aren’t connected issues

        UNSC res 1860 says otherwise … ever dared to read it?

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 9:43 am

        @talknic

        UNSC res 1860…ever dared to read it?

        Yep, doesn’t change anything. The UN is delusional on many issues.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 5:03 am

        Yep, doesn’t change anything. The UN is delusional on many issues.

        No it’s ISrael that is delusional. The only thing that stands in the way of Israel and severe punitive measures is he US veto.

  26. just
    July 22, 2014, 10:19 pm

    Gideon Levy was on Democracy Now today. Here’s his response to the Hamas proposal:

    “GIDEON LEVY: Look, we tend to beat our enemies and never to listen to them. And many times, listening even to the enemy, even to the most bitter enemy, can serve a much better cause than beating and beating and beating. And unfortunately, Israel is just using the violence right now without listening to their conditions. I don’t know if their conditions are acceptable. I don’t know if those are really their conditions. But they say it very clearly: They ask for freedom for Gaza, they ask to lift the siege. Can you recall a more just require than this? But I’ll say something more than this. Doesn’t it serve the interests of Israel, seeing Gaza free and seeing Gaza building its economy and not living those unhuman conditions in the biggest cage in the world, which creates only more hatred and more violence? So, it is really at our door now to decide. Do we want to go from one cycle to the other, from one circle of bloodshed to the other, not solving anything? Or are we willing, once and for all, to put a real, just solution to the problem of Gaza?”

    much more here, including video: link to democracynow.org

  27. Kay24
    July 22, 2014, 10:22 pm

    Mike Bloomberg is quite the trooper. He is taking the El-Al flight to TelAviv tonight, to show that the airport should be kept open. So patriotic of him.
    Wow, sometimes they act like Israel is the 51st state, or can it be they treat the US like it belongs to Israel?
    So any bets who will be next? Menendez, Jane Harmon, Barbara Boxer, Ros-Lehtinen, McCain, Lindsey Graham, Engel, Adelson, how about the entire congress?

    • kalithea
      July 22, 2014, 11:21 pm

      I wish flights were cancelled for a month! What Zionism needs is a major hit in the pocketbook; that what really lossen its teeth i.e. grip! Lol!

      • kalithea
        July 22, 2014, 11:45 pm

        that *will* really…

      • Kay24
        July 23, 2014, 9:05 am

        I agree. They have never felt economically threatened, because their sugar daddies in the US have made sure they have the moola coming in, so a few days of the shop closed, might make them feel the pinch.
        At least they might realize what their poor neighbors go through, when they blast their airports.

  28. just
    July 22, 2014, 10:25 pm

    From DN again, Gideon Levy on ‘A Just Peace':

    GIDEON LEVY: You just have to look at the record. I mean, sure, Israel wants peace. Israel just doesn’t want a just peace. And it’s all about justice. You look backwards, and you ask yourself: In which stage, in which moment, was Israel willing to give up the occupation? Give me one example in which there was a genuine readiness to put an end to the occupation. It was never there. It was all about gaining time and maintaining the status quo. And it’s also now about gaining time and maintaining the status quo—namely, the West Bank occupied, Gaza under siege, peaceful life in Israel. This formula cannot last forever. And I wish I’ll be wrong, but I cannot recall one example in which there was a genuine willingness to put an end to the occupation. This was never. There were all kind of—we had Oslo. We had other peace talks. But it was never there.

    And if you want the most ultimate proof for it, it’s the settlements. Nobody is saying we’ll continue to build settlements if he has an intention to return those lands. But Israel never stopped building settlements. And as Israel never stopped building settlements, Israel said to the Palestinians and to the world, “I have no intention to give up this piece of land.””

    link to democracynow.org

    (I hope he stays safe…)

    • dannyad
      July 22, 2014, 11:58 pm

      Do the Palestinians want peace?
      You look at the words of an Israeli journalist which represent his sole opinion. why won’t we look at the words of Palestinian politicians?
      The following videos don’t show people on the street, they show Palestinian parliament members who represent the Palestinian public opinion :

      Hamas Spokesmen calls for genocide of all Jews
      link to youtube.com

      Hamas MP Ahmad Bahr Calls for the Annihilation of Jews and Americans link to youtube.com

      Hamas MP Al-Astal: We Must Massacre Jews, Impose Jizya Poll Tax on Them link to youtube.com

      Hamas MP and Cleric on Swine Flu and “the Brothers of Apes and Pigs” link to youtube.com

      PA Fatah MP: Destroy Israel in stages in religious war link to youtube.com

      • Kay24
        July 23, 2014, 9:30 am

        If you have some problems with memory, let me remind you of some “brilliant” ones from the Israeli side. The last one from the rabble rouser himself, the call for blood from the Palestinians, and calling the human animals. It seems right now human animals are slaughtering innocent civilians, and the death toll mounts.
        Let’s look at hate speeches from Israeli leaders, and unlike the Palestinian side (that has every right to hate, being under a brutal occupation) they know they have the weapons, military might, and power to carry out these threats (going on right now as we write).

        Interior Minister Eli Yishai:

        “Yishai has urged the Israel Defense Forces “to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages” and destroy the enclave’s infrastructure. Yishai supports a sweeping ground offensive in the Strip.

        Of all the ministers, the one whose party represents a dark, medieval culture is inciting us to send Gaza back to those very days. Many of his party’s elected officials and voters don’t serve in the IDF, yet their leader is exhorting the IDF to get entangled in Gaza, kill and be killed.

        Yishai isn’t the only one making radical proposals. Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz and other politicians have said unacceptable things. But Yishai is the most prominent – he’s a deputy prime minister.

        Let’s not forget Gilad Sharon

        Gilad Sharon, son of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote an op-ed on Sunday calling for even more aggressive Israeli strikes in Gaza.

        “We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza,” states Sharon in The Jerusalem Post.”

        Also Rabbi Ovadia Yosef:

        “The Lord shall return their deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world. It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”
        Haaretz

        That is some from the earlier years. If you have forgotten the recent cries for death and destruction, please do ask, it will be a pleasure to get it for you.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 9:39 am

        Let’s not forget that Ayelet Shaked of the Jewish Home party, which is in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, issued a call for genocide of the Palestinian people on June 30th. She declared that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy. And she justifies their destruction, including, quote, “its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” And she said that Israel would be justified to slaughter Palestinian mothers because they give birth to little snakes.

        She he got something like 5,000 likes for that statement on Facebook

  29. yonah fredman
    July 22, 2014, 11:00 pm

    Here is one Israeli columnist’s reaction to the proposal of Hamas. To summarize: he accepts the proposal and proposes that Hamas accept the Quartet’s conditions and also demilitarization and an international force to ensure that demilitarization. How do you’s all react to that. But maybe I misread what he wrote. Read it yourselves. Ben Dror Yemini.
    link to ynetnews.com

    • kalithea
      July 23, 2014, 9:23 am

      A permanent international force is required to ensure ISRAEL doesn’t continue committing war crimes.

  30. kalithea
    July 22, 2014, 11:53 pm

    The hasbara are so thick on this thread; it’s sickening. I commend everyone who took the time to shred their deception.

  31. kalithea
    July 23, 2014, 12:46 am

    One more rocket landing at Ben Gurion’s doorstep will bring Israel to a standstill. There was a hysterical Zionist woman on the news screaming for the extermination of Gaza just because of this lone wayward rocket that landed close to the airport; I mean she was in nutty hysterics over this one rocket.

    The rocket hit nothing but lemme tell you; this rocket struck very close to the black heart of Zionism if not the Achilles Heel; but it definitely struck more than a nerve. Anyone with the power to bring the Zionist economy to a standstill; will have real power on their side. The solution to ending the Occupation lies with Israel’s economy. Watching that woman’s reaction; I’m thinking Zionists have a very low tolerance for economic pain! This is great news for BDS!

    • JeffB
      July 23, 2014, 10:54 am

      @kalithea

      That was tested in the 2nd intifada. The Palestinians managed to induce a serious recession. Israel didn’t surrender.

  32. seafoid
    July 23, 2014, 4:51 am

    2 more killed after Israel took off the gloves

    link to theguardian.com

    “IDF Soldiers Dmitri Lavitas (26) Natan Cohen (23) killed yesterday in Gaza after being hit by sniper”

    Israel floundering over BGA

    ” Israel’s transportation minister has ordered Ovda military airport, which to be opened to commercial international flights after foreign airlines cancelled flights to and from Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, the Jerusalem Post reports.
    Ovda Airport is located in Beersheba, in southern Israel, which has also been under heavy Gazan rocket fire in the past few weeks. ”

  33. wes
    July 23, 2014, 4:59 am

    No peace unti gaza dimilitarized

    • kalithea
      July 23, 2014, 9:22 am

      No peace until Israel evacuates West Bank completely and allows the refugees to return to their lands, stops the war crimes and collectives punishment in Gaza and stops all attempts to steal their gas.

    • talknic
      July 23, 2014, 9:51 am

      @ wes “No peace unti gaza dimilitarized”

      Gaza has a legal right to be militarized and a legal right to attack the Occupying Power over any Palestinian territory.

      Israel has no legal right to illegally acquire ANY territory by war, illegally annex any territory, illegally settle any territory. Israel has no legal right to demand recognition, no legal right to demand other folks territory for its defense, no legal right to have more defensible borders than its neighbours. No legal right to demand the Palestinians be demilitarized.

      Why should Israel expect peace if it refuses to withdraw from ALL non-Israeli territory, taking its illegal settlers when it goes, as required by law.

    • lysias
      July 23, 2014, 10:54 am

      What about demilitarizing the aggressor, Israel? Just for Israel to disarm itself of the nuclear weapons with which it terrorizes the region would be a good first step. A step that the new South Africa actually took.

  34. German Lefty
    July 23, 2014, 9:13 am

    All In With Chris Hayes 07/22/14
    Rula Jebreal discusses the Gaza ‘media war’
    link to msnbc.com
    FAA bans US flights to and from Israel
    link to msnbc.com

    • seafoid
      July 23, 2014, 10:24 am

      She was really good.

      Media in general, not just TV, only focus on the now, never on the context.

      Ukraine is all about war, nothing about the systematic pillage of the country’s resources by the previous leaders and subsequent economic collapse that led to the situation.

      Gaza is all about rockets, nothing about the evil policies of Israel

  35. JeffB
    July 23, 2014, 9:35 am

    @RoHa

    Locke did not invent the idea of human rights and most liberal western democracies do not claim they are granted by God. One can appeal to human rights without appealing to Locke or God.

    Do it. What is a right? What are the source of human rights? Where do they come from? Why do humans have them?

    • talknic
      July 23, 2014, 9:55 am

      @ JeffB If you really wanted to know about human rights, you’d have looked for yourself and you wouldn’t be asking such idiotic questions.

      • Mooser
        July 23, 2014, 10:46 am

        Oh this is hysterical. A Jew is going to argue for might-makes-right? We better get busy having babies, and even getting whole nations converted before we play that game again. Why do the Zionists want to play the game every other religion has lost? And which we can’t win either? Because it’s the religion, the people who will lose that game, not the Zionists.
        And if you say God will play on our side in that game, I want to see an iron-clad contract. He’s tended to quit mid-season in the past.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 11:00 am

        @Mooser

        Why do the Zionists want to play the game every other religion has lost?

        Judaism literally is Judaeanism. The religion of the people of Judaea. One of the goals of Zionism is that Judaism stop being a religion in the cross national sense all together and return to its roots as a tribal faith. Zionism is the next generation of Judaism.

      • kalithea
        July 23, 2014, 12:38 pm

        Oh, I see, you mean regressing spiritually instead of progressing. Yes, I do see Zionism regressing back to a time of clubs and caves and zero humanity.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 5:59 pm

        Yes, I do see Zionism regressing back to a time of clubs and caves and zero humanity.

        I wonder if that includes reintroducing animal sacrifice.

      • Shingo
        July 23, 2014, 5:58 pm

        . One of the goals of Zionism is that Judaism stop being a religion in the cross national sense all together and return to its roots as a tribal faith. Zionism is the next generation of Judaism.

        In other words, the goal of Zionismnis to violate the principals of Judaism and corrupt into being a cult of idolatry.

        No wonder it’s success a failure.

      • lysias
        July 23, 2014, 6:01 pm

        One of the goals of Zionism is that Judaism stop being a religion in the cross national sense all together and return to its roots as a tribal faith. Zionism is the next generation of Judaism.

        Since I recently read Mein Kampf through in German, I can’t help but be reminded of what Hitler says about religion in his book.

      • yonah fredman
        July 23, 2014, 8:38 pm

        Jeff B-
        The lofty goals of the Zionists vis a vis nationalism and identity are certainly interesting and might shed light on the current tendencies, but are largely irrelevant.

        Judaism has had a glorious history and given birth to two major worldwide religions. The diaspora experience: that is the evolution of Judaism in the 1878 years between the destruction of the temple and the establishment of the state is part of the flesh and bone of the Judaism that existed on the eve of the abyss. The ebb and flow of assimilation, prosperity and exile did not happen in that order or at any specific rate, but that experience for almost two thousand years cannot be separated from the religion that was barely out of its diapers at the time of the Babylonian exile.

        The hard headed leaders of the Yishuv faced with desert and swamp, and hostile indigenous, of course hearkened back to the tribal pre history, because when there is a land to be conquered, it is not the tricks of the trade of the road learned in the exile which show the way, but the biblical forbears and their attachment to land. That’s a natural choice that those who are saying, enough wandering, time to go home, would choose the tribal antiquity rather than the recent: how to pack a bag and leave town in twenty minutes brochure. (or how to smile and curry favor with the local chieftain).

        The challenges facing Judaism circa 2014 are many: modernity, assimilation rather than hatred in America, and hostility between Islam and Judaism due to the struggle on the few thousand square miles called Israel or Palestine. The momentum of thousands of years cannot be denied and if all Judaism needs is a surviving remnant the Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn will keep it going as long as law and order rather than chaos is the rule in the United States of America. But there is something other than survival and that is thriving (live long and prosper isn’t that what nimoy/spock says) well live long we have, but prosper is not apparent. the establishment of the state of israel is great, except for the sin against the palestinians and the violence that israel seems to cause, so here we have a clash of values, a type of survival violence and a type of passivism pacifism and then we have the texts mixed in. the desert warrior of ari ben canaan depicted by uris or conjured in the mind of young Jews is simple and does not satisfy the needs of modern society. constant struggle is a calling, but constant struggle meaning, periodic bombing of buildings in Gaza to maintain the refugees in their submissiveness is not really a spiritual quest, but an olympic feat that satisfies the demands of post 1945, without envisioning a future. the “can’t we all just get along” is so distant today, that I cannot blame those who see the olympic feat as sufficient. but to label this as the ultimate expression of Judaism is to maintain the kindergarten Judaism of Ben Gurion rather than something a little bit more complex as reflecting a history that deserves something more spiritual and complex than Ari ben Canaan.

  36. jerrylevy
    July 23, 2014, 2:21 pm

    A “ten year truce” is not a good thing because after 10 years, it absolves both sides of no longer living in peace. Countries could use the 10 years or any amount of time to rearm with the intent of launching a bigger war so I believe that pushing this rather than a final peace plan is a recipe for further conflict and I question the motives of those who believe a temporary truce is the direction one should take the Middle East.

  37. JeffB
    July 23, 2014, 5:16 pm

    @Donald

    JeffB means that when it is in Israel’s own interest to obey treaties, it will do so. When it is able to steal land from conquered and oppressed Palestinian civilians, it will do that. If Palestinians fight back, they will be bombed. Israel reserves the right to steal land and use violence on WB Palestinians and if the Gazans join in the fight, they will be bombed. If they form a unity government, their representatives will be arrested. If they shoot in response, they will be bombed. Moral and ethical reasoning in Jeffworld is simple–strong Israelis have big stick, strong Israelis bash with stick.

    Yes. That’s exactly what countries capable of acting effectually do towards less powerful threatening entities.

    When it is the USA’s own interest to obey treaties, it will do so; when it isn’t it doesn’t. When it is Russia’s own interest to obey treaties, it will do so when it isn’t they don’t. When it is China’s own interest to bey treaties, they do so…

    Treaties are statements of mutual advantage. When they cease to be so one of the parties repudiates them.

    Moreover when it comes to other countries that are less powerful those countries are smart enough to avoid antagonizing their more powerful neighbors. Thailand to take an example, though they’ve had some rather massive shifts in government all the governments openly declares its foreign policy is centered around “avoiding being crushed by elephants” (the USA and China). They understand they exist because the USA and China has no particular reason for them not to exist, and the primary foreign policy objective of their government is to keep it that way.

    use violence on WB Palestinians and if the Gazans join in the fight, they will be bombed.

    Well yes. If you any country joins a fight against X they expect to get attacked by X. When Germany joined the USA fight against Japan suddenly we were a full participant in World War II and much to their surprise focused our attention on North Africa.

    Moral and ethical reasoning in Jeffworld is simple–strong Israelis have big stick, strong Israelis bash with stick.

    That’s not morality that practicality. Morality is about what should be accomplished and how it should be accomplished. The primary functions of states are to serve the interests of their population. If Palestinians direct themselves contrary to the interests of Israelis the Israeli state is acting morally when it acts against them (to reasonable extents). If the Palestinians don’t want the state to act against them then they make a practical decision to orient themselves towards the interests of the Israeli people.

    • Shingo
      July 23, 2014, 6:02 pm

      Well yes. If you any country joins a fight against X they expect to get attacked by X.

      So why are Israelis complaining so much about rockets after they attack Gaza?

      The primary functions of states are to serve the interests of their population. If Palestinians direct themselves contrary to the interests of Israelis the Israeli state is acting morally when it acts against them (to reasonable extents).

      In other words , you agree with what the Nazus did in WWII against their neighbors and against Jews.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 6:30 pm

        @Shingo

        So why are Israelis complaining so much about rockets after they attack Gaza?

        Mostly no one likes getting attacked. Also it makes good PR. But if you are are asking the more principled question they shouldn’t be if this is a war. Hamas having decided on war is free to try and inflict harm to crush Israel’s will. Of course that won’t happen so this is just stupid senseless violence. OTOH Israel often gets taken to account for crimes against humanity, weapons which are inaccurate are fundamentally attempts to attack civilians.

        In other words , you agree with what the Nazus did in WWII against their neighbors and against Jews.

        No. Jews in Germany were Germans and loyal to the German state. That was an example of pure racism a state acting against its people. That I don’t support. As for the neighbors, being invaded, that’s a more complex question and we’d need to break out which neighbors. Certainly I think the Western front was fully justified.

      • geokat62
        July 23, 2014, 10:52 pm

        “No. Jews in Germany were Germans and loyal to the German state. That was an example of pure racism a state acting against its people. That I don’t support.”

        So what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is not an example of pure racism? You’ve got to be kidding. The Germans were racists for exterminating the Jews because they were loyal citizens, but the Israelis are not racists because they are exterminating the Palestinians because they are disloyal or resisting the occupation. They should just submit to Israel’s will? As I noted before, logic isn’t your strong suit?

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 9:04 am

        @geokat62

        The Germans were racists for exterminating the Jews because they were loyal citizens, but the Israelis are not racists because they are exterminating the Palestinians because they are disloyal or resisting the occupation. They should just submit to Israel’s will?

        There is a distinction between a friendly foreigners (like the USA and Canada) and enemies. Israel treats the Egyptians much better today and they did in the 1950s and 60s not because Israel’s interests have changed but because the Egyptian population and the government has changed their mind regarding how to relate to Israel. Israel treated the West Bank Palestinians much better in the 1970s when they were cooperative than they did after the 1st intifada, much better after the 1st intifada than after the 2nd. The attitude changed so the behavior changed.

        In those areas Israel is incorporating into itself there shouldn’t be an occupation. The Palestinians should become part of Israel, join Israeli society as full members. In those areas where they are not, the relationship should be friendly and supportive. Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States it doesn’t feel the need to launch rocket attacks or send out terrorists. When there were Puerto Rican terrorists in the late 1940s to early 1950s the government of Puerto Rico fully cooperated with the United States in putting an end to that aggression.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 10:26 am

        They should become part of Israel, join Israeli society as full members.

        What the hell are you smoking?

        The population of Gaza and the WB are largely refugees who were expelled, not because of their lack of loyalty, but because they were not Jews. They were prevented from returning becsuse they were not Jews.

        How in the world are they supposed to just become part of Israeli society when Israel would never want them to be?

        Israel treats the Egyptians much better today and they did in the 1950s and 60s because it had them under their thumb and they are no concern to Israel. So long as Egypt shuts up, takes care of their southern border and doesn’t build up it’s military too much, Israel is happy. When Mubarak was overthrown, Israel freaked out at the thought of democracy taking root in Egypt.

        Egypt’s population and the government has not changed their mind regarding how to relate to Israel. They are simply too impoverished to think about Israel.

        Israel treated the West Bank Palestinians much better in the 1970s when they were cooperative than they did after the 1st intifada, much better after the 1st intifada than after the 2nd.

        That’s because ISrael has been tightening the screws continuously since then. But Israel’s attitude towards the Palestinians has always remains the same. They wanted Palestinian land without the Palestinians.

        You’re simply trying to make genocide sound palatable.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 3:53 am

        Mostly no one likes getting attacked. Also it makes good PR.

        Israel attacked Gaza. There were no rockets fired by Hamas from November 2012 to June 29th, 2014, right after Israel bombed Gaza. So again, why is Israel complaining about rockets having started this war deliberately based on a lie?

        It was Israel that decided on war to crush Palestinian will and break the unity agreement with Fatah.

        OTOH Israel often gets taken to account for crimes against humanity, weapons which are inaccurate are fundamentally attempts to attack civilians.

        Jews in Germany were Germans and loyal to the German state.

        They pushed for a boycott of the state, so that is wrong. What we have from Israel is an example of pure racism a state acting against people under it’s occupation.

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 8:30 am

        @Shingo

        Israel attacked Gaza. There were no rockets fired by Hamas from November 2012 to June 29th, 2014, right after Israel bombed Gaza.

        There was a huge upsurge particularly in March of 2014. In terms of total rocket attacks:

        There were 2 more after the cease fire in 2012:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        In 2013 there were about 50:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        And prior to June of this year there were hundreds:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        I don’t believe that hundreds happened with Hamas able but unable to stop them. They failed to stop them. As the government of the Gaza strip Hamas is liable for rocket attacks from other groups they permit to operate on their territory. Same as the Israel government is liable for attacks by settlers.

        [German Jews in the 1930s] pushed for a boycott of the state, so that is wrong.

        They pushed for a boycott once substantial discrimination was in place. There is no question about the order of events or that German Jews had been loyal before and as history has shown were loyal after. The problem was the policy not the intrinsic nature of German Jews.

        What we have from Israel is an example of pure racism a state acting against people under it’s occupation.

        People of the identical race and in fact even the same ethnicity (Palestinian Jews) are treated as full citizens with full rights. Whatever Israel is doing it is not based on race since there is no correlation between race and how people are treated. They are treated differently based on nationality. Nationality is a changeable trait. The Israeli establishment has a large majority of with people whose family often a generation or two before were of different nationalities than Israeli.

        If the Palestinians were offering to be loyal Israelis and that was declined than Israel’s treatment would be entirely immoral and the whole situation quite different.

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2014, 8:53 am

        There was a huge upsurge particularly in March of 2014. In terms of total rocket attacks:

        None by Hamas and this was a non stop barrage of attacks by Israel on Gaza. There are at least 110 attacks by Israel on Gaza in 2014 before Hamas fired a single rocket. I haven’t to count how many Palestinians were killed.
        link to blog.thejerusalemfund.org

        There were 2 more after the cease fire in 2012:

        None by Hamas.

        In 2013 there were about 50: :

        None by Hamas.

        And prior to June of this year there were hundreds:

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        I don’t believe that hundreds happened with Hamas able but unable to stop them.

        Please rewrite that in English.

        As the government of the Gaza strip Hamas is liable for rocket attacks from other groups they permit to operate on their territory. Same as the Israel government is liable for attacks by settlers.

        So what you’re saying is that Hamas or Fatah therefore have the right to fire rockets at Israel when Israel fail to stop attacks by settlers?

        They pushed for a boycott once substantial discrimination was in place.

        But there is much more than substantial discrimination taking place against Palestinians.

        People of the identical race and in fact even the same ethnicity (Palestinian Jews) are treated as full citizens with full rights.

        That’s pure and unadulterated rubbish. There are at least 30 laws that explicitly discriminate against non Jews. It is based on race/ethnicity/religion, so it all comes under the umbrella of racism and racial discrimination. The nationality BS because there is no recognized Israeli nationality and there is no way Arabs can become Jewish naitonals.

        The Israeli establishment has a large majority of with people whose family often a generation or two before were of different nationalities than Israeli.

        According to the Israeli Supreme Court, there is no such thing as Israeli nationality.

      • eljay
        July 23, 2014, 6:38 pm

        >> JeffB: Morality is about what should be accomplished and how it should be accomplished.

        So…according to JeffB:
        – silencing critics (what should be accomplished) by cutting out their tongues and cutting off their hands (how it should be accomplished) is morality;
        – raping babies (what should be accomplished) by stealing them from hospitals and taking them to a dungeon (how it should be accomplished) is morality;
        – killing all Jews (what should be accomplished) in gas chambers (how it should be accomplished) is morality.

        Amazing. JeffB wins the prize for most f*cked up Zio-supremacist ever.

      • JeffB
        July 23, 2014, 7:49 pm

        @eljay —

        Please refrain from fabricated things and saying according to JeffB.

    • geokat62
      July 23, 2014, 11:13 pm

      “Morality is about what should be accomplished and how it should be accomplished. The primary functions of states are to serve the interests of their population.”

      Interesting definition of morality! The more commonly accepted definition of morality is “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” When you say the primary function of states is to serve the interests of their citizenry, you are confusing interests for values. The easiest way to understand this distinction is to think of the difference between “ends” and “means.” The “ends” are equivalent to a states’ interests and the “means” are how it goes about achieving them… do they play by the rules (i.e., at a minimum, to follow the rule of law) or do they break the rules (e.g., by committing crimes against humanity or launching wars of aggression). I noticed in a later post you took issue with Germany’s treatment of Jews during WWII which clearly suggests you do not totally subscribe to the principle of “might makes right.” Which means you think that nations should behave morally. To be consistent, you should hold Israel to the same moral standard rather than invoking might makes right statement such as “Israel has no obligation to not bomb the smithereens out of the pesky Palestinians.”

  38. eljay
    July 23, 2014, 8:09 pm

    >> JeffB: Please refrain from fabricated things and saying according to JeffB.

    You’re right, I should not have said “according to JeffB”. I apologize for my error.

    What I should have said – the accurate thing to have said – is this:
    According to JeffB’s definition of morality:
    – silencing critics (what should be accomplished) by cutting out their tongues and cutting off their hands (how it should be accomplished) is moral;
    – raping babies (what should be accomplished) by stealing them from hospitals and taking them to a dungeon (how it should be accomplished) is moral;
    – killing all Jews (what should be accomplished) in gas chambers (how it should be accomplished) is moral.

    The prize is still yours.

    • JeffB
      July 23, 2014, 10:43 pm

      @Eljay —

      Thank you. I disagree strongly you are applying my definition correctly but at least that’s an honest debate. Now that we are talking my definition of morality. You are still misunderstanding.
      To pick your first example:
      whether critics should or should not be silenced is a moral question. Whether once one has decided that they should be using tongue cutting is both a moral and practical one.

      So you have the whole thing backwards. Your particular examples are incidentally things I don’t agree with.

      • eljay
        July 24, 2014, 9:40 am

        >> JeffB: … You are still misunderstanding.

        Actually, you are misunderstanding. Your definition does not state that either “what should be accomplished” or “how it should be accomplished” is open to discussion or evaluation.

        Your definition very clearly states this:
        morality = a goal + the method used to achieve that goal

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 11:27 am

        @eljay —

        Yes that’s correct. goals + methods are things that can be evaluated by morality.

        4 is a number, an apple is not.
        4 can be said to be bigger than 3 and smaller than 9, evaluated on the basis of math. apple cannot be bigger than 3, because it isn’t a number.

      • eljay
        July 24, 2014, 12:36 pm

        >> JeffBeee: Yes that’s correct. goals + methods are things that can be evaluated by morality.

        Bob and weave (or apple and 3) all you want, but your definition of morality (“Morality is about what should be accomplished and how it should be accomplished”) includes only goals + methods (i.e., kill + knife). There’s no mention of evaluation (is killing wrong? etc.).

  39. JeffB
    July 23, 2014, 11:01 pm

    @Yonah-

    Nice to talk to someone who doesn’t hate the Jewish people or Israel on here.

    The lofty goals of the Zionists vis a vis nationalism and identity are certainly interesting and might shed light on the current tendencies, but are largely irrelevant. Judaism has had a glorious history and given birth to two major worldwide religions.

    I’m not sure I’d give Judaism credit for Islam. I think it derived from Collyridian Christianity which came from the Encratites which came from Gnostic Judaism. Gnostic Judaism was Hellenistic and came from a different branch than Pharisaic Judaism which evolved into Rabbinic Judaism. So I’d say… they are distant cousins. Christianity as it exists today, is even some thing of a stretch. Obviously Judaism has done well as a minor world faith. I’m not sure that it served its people well. Our history kinda sucked. I do agree with the Zionist critique.

    The hard headed leaders of the Yishuv faced with desert and swamp, and hostile indigenous, of course hearkened back to the tribal pre history, because when there is a land to be conquered, it is not the tricks of the trade of the road learned in the exile which show the way, but the biblical forbears and their attachment to land. That’s a natural choice that those who are saying, enough wandering, time to go home, would choose the tribal antiquity rather than the recent: how to pack a bag and leave town in twenty minutes brochure. (or how to smile and curry favor with the local chieftain).

    Yes. Zionism uses Judaism to build on. Zionism also builds on Jews. So it is an appropriate use of our tribal myth to recreate the tribe.

    The challenges facing Judaism circa 2014 are many: modernity, assimilation rather than hatred in America, and hostility between Islam and Judaism due to the struggle on the few thousand square miles called Israel or Palestine.

    I mostly agree though I think American and Israeli Judaism may not be that strongly connected as you have them in the above. Two different peoples (though friendly and loyal to one another) experiencing different pressures.

    The momentum of thousands of years cannot be denied and if all Judaism needs is a surviving remnant the Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn will keep it going as long as law and order rather than chaos is the rule in the United States of America. But there is something other than survival and that is thriving (live long and prosper isn’t that what nimoy/spock says) well live long we have, but prosper is not apparent. the establishment of the state of israel is great, except for the sin against the palestinians and the violence that israel seems to cause,

    All new states cause violence. That’s the nature of state formation. When we decided to form a state we decided to cause violence. The violence grows less and less with time. We finally have real friendship with Egypt. ISIS may very well lead to real friendship with Jordan. And I suspect the Palestinians are close to capitulating. It wouldn’t shock me (though I wouldn’t bank on it) if we are in the last generation of needing to kill large numbers of Palestinians.

    so here we have a clash of values, a type of survival violence and a type of passivism pacifism and then we have the texts mixed in. the desert warrior of ari ben canaan depicted by uris or conjured in the mind of young Jews is simple and does not satisfy the needs of modern society. constant struggle is a calling, but constant struggle meaning, periodic bombing of buildings in Gaza to maintain the refugees in their submissiveness is not really a spiritual quest, but an olympic feat that satisfies the demands of post 1945, without envisioning a future.

    I can think of lots of futures. I believe the Palestinians of the West Bank will soon agree to assimilate. I believe it likely the Palestinians of Gaza will over the next generation mostly leave.

    the “can’t we all just get along” is so distant today, that I cannot blame those who see the olympic feat as sufficient. but to label this as the ultimate expression of Judaism is to maintain the kindergarten Judaism of Ben Gurion rather than something a little bit more complex as reflecting a history that deserves something more spiritual and complex than Ari ben Canaan.

    True. But I suspect that the Judaism / Zionism that comes after Israel will need to be very different than that came before. “Next year in Jerusalem” has been fulfilled. The Judaism of the diaspora needs to come to terms with the reality that the external quest for national salvation is over.

    I don’t know what form the new Judaism will take. What I do know is the Judaism of a desperate diaspora, living as a barnacle hanging off the edge of Christian society should not be our goal. For spirituality we need something. Kabbalah is getting popular. Maybe that can grow in relative importance? I don’t know how it plays out, what I do know though is that the new Judaism must be Zionist.

    • MHughes976
      July 24, 2014, 10:38 am

      Well as to Locke, I do not see a direct reference to defraying the costs of war in para.193, though it is there in paras.183-4, surely as a limited right. The first sentence of para.193 is quite complicated but also quite intelligible. ‘Granting that the conqueror …has a right to…estates…which, it is plain, he hath not…nothing… will follow from hence.’ He means that the premise that the conqueror has a right to estates is a) false b) unable to imply anything about the long-term nature of government. I don’t see that that paragraph is very helpful to you.
      I agree that he does not countenance, at least on the showing of this chapter, the permanent slavery, or exclusion from property rights, of anyone, Jewish, Palestinian, Turkish.
      While I think he does address the question of conquered people still living on the conquered land – he considers that they have the right to regain their freedom and to disregard property claims resting on the basis of conquest – I don’t think he really addresses the question of people who have left and made lives elsewhere.
      My own view is that the most consistent application of the idea that rights may arise from consent but not from force implies that (say) Palestinians moving to the UK and taking citizenship there have all (and only) the rights and obligations common to UK citizens: this is a matter of consent on both sides, not of force. I think that they have to accept that this means laying down their right of return to Palestine as citizens, since we in the UK do not have that right and they are on equal terms with the rest of us. But where they have identifiable private property, it is still theirs, in the same way that property in Mexico would be mine had I legitimately inherited it.
      The first owners of Palestine that we (think we) know of, the Canaanites and proto-Philistines of Genesis, have descendants widely scattered. If someone could by some scientific tour de force prove that (s)he was descended from Canaanites of 3000 BCE no political rights would follow, since any such person must have citizenship elsewhere these days. Nor are there title deeds from those days, so individual property rights would not be in question. If the archaeologists discovered a clearly pre-Canaanite civilisation it would not be worth, at least not for political purposes, seeking out its heirs.
      The various other points I made, about trade as a human right etc., seem to stand and not to have been challenged.

  40. JeffB
    July 23, 2014, 11:28 pm

    @MHuges

    In the very next paragraph 193, he specifically address the case of those people who rebel against their conquering government and does hold they can lose property to offset the cost of the war. I’m not sure how you can possibly see Locke as supporting the MW theory of permanent racial entitlement to property when he explicitly says quite the opposite.

    But moreover if we just focus on 192 that makes thing tremendously confusing. It pretty explicitly says that a conquest does not nullify rights to property to descendants. Which agrees with the idea that the Jews have claim to Judaea since they did not consent to the Roman conquest. Thus their successors (the Romans and then centuries later the Palestinians) would not have title. So 192 supports both people’s claim and 193 supports the Israeli claim.

    More importantly in 189 he denies the idea of permanent enslavement that is the alternative to Zionism. In 190 he argues that people have the right to migrate and form new governments. That governments must have the consent of the population residing in them to be lawful….

    There is simply no way you can twist Locke into supporting the MW morality that Jews should live as permanent slaves in Europe damned without hope due to the Roman conquest, nor that Palestinians have some permanent racial entitlement to Palestine regardless of the population living there.

    • MHughes976
      July 24, 2014, 10:39 am

      For some reason my reply seems to have appeared above rather than below yours, sorry.

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 1:33 pm

        @MHughes976

        No problem I’ll respond here.

        Well as to Locke, I do not see a direct reference to defraying the costs of war in para.193,

        Yes you are right it was 183, ” Here then is the case: the conqueror has a title to reparation for damages received”

        though it is there in paras.183-4, surely as a limited right. The first sentence of para.193 is quite complicated but also quite intelligible. ‘Granting that the conqueror …has a right to…estates…which, it is plain, he hath not…nothing… will follow from hence.’ He means that the premise that the conqueror has a right to estates is a) false b) unable to imply anything about the long-term nature of government. I don’t see that that paragraph is very helpful to you.

        I don’t think so. I think that Locke has 2 cases:

        Case A: people who actively warred against the conquerer. Those people are liable to reparations though their wife and children cannot be left to starve.

        Case B: people who agree to live under the new government lawfully
        Those people are entitled to their property and Locke believes they should not lose it.

        Which isn’t really saying anything that would normally be controversial. A conquering government is a government and has the right to reallocate property like any other government does. They have the right to tax and spend, and to enforce penalties. They don’t have to offer the vanquished the opportunity to live under their laws, but if the vanquished refuse they can be treated harshly for refusing.

        I agree that he does not countenance, at least on the showing of this chapter, the permanent slavery, or exclusion from property rights, of anyone, Jewish, Palestinian, Turkish.

        Which isn’t a minor point here. The whole concept that settlement is “occupation” and less illegitimate is permanent exclusion from property rights. More deeply the whole concept that Israel is illegitimate is based on the belief that Jews should have been permanent slaves and shouldn’t have worked to establish their rightful position as per Locke.

        While I think he does address the question of conquered people still living on the conquered land – he considers that they have the right to regain their freedom and to disregard property claims resting on the basis of conquest – I don’t think he really addresses the question of people who have left and made lives elsewhere.
        My own view is that the most consistent application of the idea that rights may arise from consent but not from force implies that (say) Palestinians moving to the UK and taking citizenship there have all (and only) the rights and obligations common to UK citizens: this is a matter of consent on both sides, not of force. I think that they have to accept that this means laying down their right of return to Palestine as citizens, since we in the UK do not have that right and they are on equal terms with the rest of us. But where they have identifiable private property, it is still theirs, in the same way that property in Mexico would be mine had I legitimately inherited it.

        I think he simply contradicts himself. On the one hand Locke does not believe in permanent racial entitlements. People are entitled to have property and build a life where they now live. There isn’t any concept in Locke that a once vanquished people forever have claim on lands.

        On the other hand Locke wants unjust conquest reversed. But of course all property is the result of a trillion generations of beings who lived by conquest. All property was acquired by force from others who had acquired it by force. That principle eliminates all contracts.

        What I think we can derive from Locke is a sort of rule that good governments that represent their people should have their contracts respected and bad governments that represent their own interests should not. Regardless however of which of these two concepts from Locke one takes, neither supports permanent racial entitlement.

        The first owners of Palestine that we (think we) know of, the Canaanites and proto-Philistines of Genesis, have descendants widely scattered.

        I agree with your point but would expand it. The first owners of Palestine are anaerobic bacteria. The plants usurped their property and stole their planet from them. There is no first.

        The various other points I made, about trade as a human right etc., seem to stand and not to have been challenged.

        Mostly you weren’t following the thread. You were arguing that X is entitled to trade as a human right. That I’d agreed with. But that was never the point in question. The point in question is whether X is entitled to trade with Y as a human right, regardless of Y’s wishes. That’s a much stronger claim. And frankly one that I can’t see Locke supporting. No question the state of Gaza has an intrinsic right to trade, they don’t have an intrinsic right to trade with Israel. That trade requires Israel’s consent.

      • MHughes976
        July 24, 2014, 5:11 pm

        Well, it seems plain from para.186 that Locke denies that consent resulting from force is valid, so I cannot see that he contemplates your ‘second case’. I’ve seen some strange interpretations of Locke in my time! Perhaps the fact that I get my paragraph references right will show others here, who may not be as keen on Locke as you or I, that I am a reasonably careful reader.
        If you think that might is not right – and it isn’t, is it? – then it does follow that all conquest should be negated to the extent necessary to substitute a system whereby everyone has their rights.
        You say that L contradicts himself by denying permanent racial entitlements. He does refer approvingly to ‘the possession of them and their descendants through all generations’ (184: you’ve read it). Your expression ‘racial entitlement’ suggests some sort of unfair discrimination on grounds of race but if we remove that suggestion it seems to me that these words show that he does not contradict himself in the way that you suggest. Of course there can be all sorts of legitimate property transfers: I’ve no reason to think that any ancestors of mine owned the land where I now reside.
        You may not accept my good faith in saying this, but I don’t begin to see that the proposition that Zionism is mistaken implies that people who are Jewish ought to be slaves, lack civil rights or not own property.
        As to the right to trade, I don’t think that any individual is compelled to buy what anyone else wants to sell. As I understand it, Hamas wants Palestinian individuals to be free to trade with such individuals everywhere, Israel included, as do wish to participate. That seems to be equivalent to saying that Palestinians should all have normal economic rights, and that was and is the topic of this rather complex thread. I did mention and deal, fairly I thought, with arguments in favour of the suspension of normal economic rights.

  41. wes
    July 24, 2014, 8:09 am

    Hey jeffb not saying i do not agree with you as your points make sense but sooner or later arabs and jews are going to have to make peace

    If the irish can then anything is possible and that was after both sides went at it hammer and tong no concession.

    I was hoping that the 3 companions i had a vision of was a sign that the 3 relegions of jerusalem were joining together to bring about a better future but then it was changed to the death of those 3 boys near hebron
    unforgivable and those who provided the spark from then to now will pay for there crimes

    a wave of sand,a wave of fire,5 hands will burn to ash

  42. JeffB
    July 24, 2014, 8:41 am

    @Shingo

    Not true. What they are being told to report as opposed to what they believe are two entirely different things. As we recently witnessed over the MSNBC fiasco, the narrative of the conflict is being tightly controlled by management.

    Max Blumenthal reports that he spoke to an NBC producer who, he said, described, quote, “a top-down intimidation campaign aimed at presenting an Israeli-centric view of the attack on the Gaza Strip,” .

    In his piece for AlterNet, Blumenthal wrote, quote, “The NBC producer told me that MSNBC President Phil Griffin and NBC executives are micromanaging coverage of the crisis, closely monitoring contributors’ social media accounts and engaging in a [quote] ‘witch hunt’ against anyone who strays from the official line,”

    That’s nice. There are hundreds of NBC producers who are after all journalists and if one includes syndicated shows more. I’m friends with several and they haven’t heard anything about this directive. Assuming that Blumenthal isn’t just just fabricating the whole thing one is telling this story. That one is probably a BDSer with an active imagination.

    Meanwhile Chris Hayes is a guy with a long history of being critical of Israel who has the 8:00 pm slot and was able to discuss the issue several times. He told Rula Jebreal she was being disciplined by the staff because she had something factually false about Andrea Mitchell during her rant. In other words being protective of their own. That’s both far more believable, a person of higher rank and on the record. So I don’t believe Max at all.

    Palestinians conversely are going to have to answer basic questions to establish they have a legitimate point of view at all. Maybe inside the US, but not the rest of the world.

    We have polling. The public in Europe which gets rather anti-Israeli news is essentially split. link to pewresearch.org
    There is no stomach with those numbers there either for any sort of serious sanctions. The reason Europe doesn’t sanction Israel is not because of the US veto (which they don’t need to impose sanctions) but because they don’t want to.
    For example the UN didn’t authorize the European sanctions against the US prison system that are playing havoc with our capital punishment system, they just did it on their own because on that issue they do care deeply.

    Certainly not at the UN, where Israel is completely isolated.

    Quite true. The UN is an enemy of Israel’s.

    • Shingo
      July 24, 2014, 10:33 am

      There are hundreds of NBC producers who are after all journalists and if one includes syndicated shows more. I’m friends with several and they haven’t heard anything about this directive.

      Yeah sure JeffB, whatever you say. It’s not like you’re a liar or deceitful in any way.

      Assuming that Blumenthal isn’t just just fabricating the whole thing one is telling this story. That one is probably a BDSer with an active imagination. .

      That’s rich coming from a supporter and apologist for genocide
      Meanwhile Chris Hayes is a guy with a long history of being critical of Israel who has the 8:00 pm slot and was able to discuss the issue several times.

      He told Rula Jebreal she was being disciplined by the staff because she had something factually false about Andrea Mitchell during her rant. In other words being protective of their own.

      That’s not what he said at all. He said he agreed with Jebreal but was loathed to criticise Mitchell because of her reputation as a reporter. But he did not refute what Jebreal said.

      So why are were to believe someone who can’t even given an honest assessment of a video clip we all watched?

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 1:35 pm

        @Shingo

        Yeah sure JeffB, whatever you say. It’s not like you’re a liar or deceitful in any way.

        You’ve just crossed the rude boundary. We’re done.

    • Shingo
      July 24, 2014, 10:37 am

      The public in Europe which gets rather anti-Israeli news is essentially split. link to pewresearch.org

      What are you smoking? With the exception of Germany, where criticising Israel is partially illegal, the rest of Europe is staunchly opposed to Israel and pro Palestinian. Based on those numbers, sanctions would be a no brainer if leaders simply abided by sentiments of the public.

      The reason Europe doesn’t sanction Israel is not because of the US veto (which they don’t need to impose sanctions) but because they don’t want to.

      Wrong. The public isn’t swayed by whether the US would veto it. If anything, it probably makes them more militant.

      Quite true. The UN is an enemy of Israel’s.

      What an infantile statement. Is the UN the enemy of Iran and Russia too?

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 11:37 am

        @shingo

        What are you smoking? With the exception of Germany, where criticising Israel is partially illegal, the rest of Europe is staunchly opposed to Israel and pro Palestinian.

        I posted the data. That just isn’t true. In Europe Israel is mildly more popular than the Palestinians.

        What an infantile statement. Is the UN the enemy of Iran and Russia too?

        Iran yes. Russia no.

      • German Lefty
        July 24, 2014, 3:36 pm

        With the exception of Germany, where criticising Israel is partially illegal, the rest of Europe is staunchly opposed to Israel and pro Palestinian.

        WHAT? It’s not illegal to criticise Israel. There is no law that specifically forbids negative criticism of Israel. If there are restrictions on speech, then they apply to any nation, not just to Israel. It’s France where negative criticism of Israel is partially illegal.
        Germans are very anti-Israel, too.
        link to imagizer.imageshack.us
        However, anti-Israel doesn’t necessarily mean pro-Palestinian. As your linked poll result shows, a high percentage of Germans take neither side.

  43. JeffB
    July 24, 2014, 8:51 am

    @tree

    Henry Seigman (former Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress) has a piece up on Politico:

    There were hundreds of attacks prior to June. The situation in Gaza is very bad. Israel has no particular reason to make it bad given a friendly population. They certainly have reason to make it bad given an unfriendly population whose government is actively troublesome. I just don’t find the contrary opinion plausible. One can examine the treatment of the West Bank Palestinians vs. the Gaza Palestinians and see a direct correlation between the degree of trouble each is causing and the degree of collective punishment. One can also examine the situation overtime.

    As for the Gazans wanting a change in their situation. I agree with him. Heney is absolutely right. The Hamas government has the full support of their population for the rocket attacks. I’m not denying that. The Gazans have every right to deplore their situation. Given the choice between being a cooperative and friendly neighbor and being a hostile and troublesome neighbor they choose the later position. The consequences of that have been disastrous for them, and they don’t like the consequences.

    • Shingo
      July 24, 2014, 10:52 am

      There were hundreds of attacks prior to June.

      And there were more by Israel prior to June. The important thing is that Israel’s bombing of Gaza on the 29th was not justified on the basis of rockets, but to punish Hamas for the disappearance of the 3 boys.

      Israel has no particular reason to make it bad given a friendly population.

      They already explained it to us thanks to Dov Weisglass. They want to warehouse Palestinians in Gaza. How friendly they are is not of any concern to Israel.

      I just don’t find the contrary opinion plausible

      Again irrelevant what you find plausible.

      One can examine the treatment of the West Bank Palestinians vs. the Gaza Palestinians and see a direct correlation between the degree of trouble each is causing and the degree of collective punishment.

      One is controlled by Washington and tel Aviv the other is not. The PA are nothing more than contractors for Israeli security but Israel are replicating in the WB what we are seeing in Gaza.

  44. JeffB
    July 24, 2014, 9:22 am

    @Shingo

    None by Hamas…

    Who cares? It was by groups on territory Hamas controls.

    So what you’re saying is that Hamas or Fatah therefore have the right to fire rockets at Israel when Israel fail to stop attacks by settlers?

    I hate the word “right” because it is meaningless. In most senses Hamas or Fatah has the “right” to fire rockets at anytime. Israel is clearly aggressive towards them at all times. However that’s an escalation and is likely to be met by even more force.

    What I was saying is that settler actions that are permitted by the Israeli government are acts that should be seen as originating from Israel. Settler terrorism should be considered policy.

    But there is much more than substantial discrimination taking place against Palestinians.

    No there isn’t. Moreover the discrimination against the Palestinians has escalated as the “resistance” has escalated. In Nazi Germany the issue was racial. That is immoral. In Israel there is religious discrimination and that is also immoral, though to a much lesser extent. There is also a campaign of aboriginal resistance against the society that exists. Israel fighting that is a necessity and there is nothing immoral about it at all.

    That’s pure and unadulterated rubbish. There are at least 30 laws that explicitly discriminate against non Jews. It is based on race/ethnicity/religion, so it all comes under the umbrella of racism and racial discrimination.

    Race is an intrinsic characteristic. Ethnicity is to a lesser extent changeable and religion is absolutely changeable. That’s a dumb umbrella and one I don’t agree to.

    The nationality BS because there is no recognized Israeli nationality and there is no way Arabs can become Jewish naitonals.

    Of course there is. Millions have.

    According to the Israeli Supreme Court, there is no such thing as Israeli nationality.

    The laws of Israel don’t recognize a formal Israeli nationality, which is a very different thing than it not existing. The Israeli supreme court does not get to define the concept of Nation-State. That existed before Israel. That will exist after Israel. The court gets to define the laws of Israel not broader concepts of sociology or political science. Those aren’t questions of law.

    Those Palestinians who are looking to be part of Israel (most of the Israeli Arabs for example) who look to change those sorts of bad laws have always had my full support.

    • Shingo
      July 24, 2014, 10:48 am

      Who cares? It was by groups on territory Hamas controls.

      Because Israel is blaming Hamas for the rockets and accusing Hamas of firing them. They don’t say we hold Hamas responsible for the rockets they are not able to stop. They are accusing Hamas of being behind the attacks.

      Israel is clearly aggressive towards them at all times. However that’s an escalation and is likely to be met by even more force.

      Escalation from what? A status quo where Israel kills them on a nearly daily basis, steals their land and expels them? You’re suggesting they should be happy with that and not to other the Israelis?
      But there is much more than substantial discrimination taking place against Palestinians.

      No there isn’t.

      Yes there is. Israel isn’t only discrimination against Palestinians, it’s abusing them, humiliating them, taking their property and murdering them

      Moreover the discrimination against the Palestinians has escalated as the “resistance” has escalated.

      That’s false too. Between 1948adn1967, Israel imposed martial law on Palestinian citizens of Israel. It’s racial. It’s ethnic discrimination and religious intolerance.

      Race is an intrinsic characteristic. Ethnicity is to a lesser extent changeable and religion is absolutely changeable. That’s a dumb umbrella and one I don’t agree to./blockquote>

      What you agree to is of no relevance. Interfacial law defines racism as encompassing all of these forms of discrimination so suck it up.

      The laws of Israel don’t recognize a formal Israeli nationality, which is a very different thing than it not existing.

      If it’s not recognized by the state and the courts, then it does not exist. The Israeli supreme court does indeed reserve the right to define the definition of the Jewish State.

      Those Palestinians who are looking to be part of Israel (most of the Israeli Arabs for example) who look to change those sorts of bad laws have always had my full support.

      Too bad that Israel doesn’t agree with you.

      • JeffB
        July 24, 2014, 11:35 am

        @Shingo

        Because Israel is blaming Hamas for the rockets and accusing Hamas of firing them. They don’t say we hold Hamas responsible for the rockets they are not able to stop. They are accusing Hamas of being behind the attacks.

        Was the USA and Britain behind the 1953 Iranian coup d’état even though they didn’t supply the direct troops? Saying Hamas is behind the attacks is not the same as saying Hamas did the attacks.

        Escalation from what? A status quo where Israel kills them on a nearly daily basis, steals their land and expels them?

        There have been no expulsions from Gaza for decades.

        Yes there is. Israel isn’t only discrimination against Palestinians, it’s abusing them, humiliating them, taking their property and murdering them

        Your claim was that this was worse than what the Jews were experiencing in Germany, not that it was bad.

        That’s false too. Between 1948adn1967, Israel imposed martial law on Palestinian citizens of Israel.

        First off 1964. They had just finished a major war against them. As things quieted down the martial law became less restrictive and finally was removed. That proves my point not refutes it. Given good behavior Israel reduced restrictions.

        As for the rest regarding nation state you are simply missing the point. Reread what I wrote.

  45. wes
    July 24, 2014, 5:37 pm

    Shingo….. old chap …..

Leave a Reply