Force, Violence and the “One-State” Formula
Published by Ben on March 20, 2008 in Z word blog. Aggregated from solomonia.com
Counterpunch, the online journal which recently coined the term “Neo-Jew” - arguably the most significant development in the etymology of Jew-hating since Wilhelm Marr popularized the term “anti-Semite” - is at it again. This time, the debate is over which solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be more effective in wiping out Zionism.
In the two-state corner, please find Michael Neumann, a Canadian who teaches philosophy. In the one-state corner, meet Jonathan Cook, a British writer based in Nazareth, Israel. It seems odd that Neumann, who in the past has happily exhorted us to “have some fun with antisemitism”, should be advocating a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which would permit the loathed Zionist entity to continue breathing. He has not, of course, joined Peace Now. He just thinks that the one-state formula is an airheaded ideal which would actually end up rewarding the Zionists, “because it leaves ‘Jewish property’, including the settlements, in place.”
So what is Neumann’s theory of justice, as it applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? “It would require,” he says, “that the Jews who came as Zionists to Palestine leave, and with them their descendants.” (By the way, he adds, that’s not ethnic cleansing. Glad he cleared that one up.)
Since this absolute justice can’t be achieved, Neumann continues, and since recent experiments with the multinational or multiconfessional state model have gone awry (think of Lebanon or the former Yugoslavia), the best option for the Palestinians is to consolidate their fight for a smaller state alongside Israel. Neumann does recognize a critical factor which most western advocates of the one-state formula are in denial over; that one-state would amount to a bloodbath. Palestinians and Israelis would kill each other in large numbers - and one suspects, given Neumann’s overall emphasis on power relations, that he thinks the Israelis would have the edge on the killing - so anyone interested in justice for the Palestinians would have to acknowledge the blind alley ahead there.
Nothing in Neumann’s piece should suggest that he regards two states as a permanent solution. The foundation of his argument, essentially a realist one, is that material power counts for much more than moral principles and noble declarations: the Israelis will thus never be persuaded of the need for a one-state solution. It can only be imposed on them: as Neumann says, the “right of return” is an empty demand until the Palestinians become “powerful enough to enforce it.”
The arrival of that day is, no doubt, one of Neumann’s favorite fantasies, but that’s not good enough for Jonathan Cook. Neumann, he complains, has taken his eye off the doctrinal imperative of discrediting Zionism. Two-states, Cook argues, is just as impractical as one-state; just as the Israelis won’t surrender their sovereignty, neither will they surrender their occupation. Cook offers a number of reasons for why this is so, ranging from the unimaginative (they don’t want to give up the West Bank’s water resources) to the outlandish (they would, apparently, lose their “usefulness” to the US in terms of managing the occupation of Iraq).
So who wins, in this particular battle of anti-Zionist wits? I say Neumann, hands down. Cook is woefully short on detail. He ends by insisting that attacking Zionist ideology will, eventually, lead the “respectable facade” of Zionism to crumble. As I’ve argued elsewhere on this blog, it’s fundamentally dishonest to make this particular case and not deal with the contention that one-state could only come about through the imposition of enormous violence against Israelis.
Neumann, on the other hand, does, perversely, get it. That’s why he asks the difficult questions (”Will the settlers be kicked out of their settlements?…Will Zionists be expelled from the armed forces?”) which the commanders of Hamas and Hezbollah would be delighted to answer. If you support a one-state formula, you have to accept that it won’t be possible without coercion. And every Qassam rocket which slams into Sderot is deadly proof of that.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The new AP boilerplate: More anti-Israel bias
Posted on March 20th, 2008 by Meryl Yourish. http://www.yourish.com/
Have you seen the new AP boilerplate lately? It’s in a ton of articles about Gaza or Hamas. It goes like this:
Israel has been battling Hamas since the Islamic group violently seized control of Gaza last June. In addition to its military activity, Israel has imposed a tough economic blockade on the strip.
This paragraph, in two sentences, displays the entirety of the AP (and world media) bias against Israel. First, it blames Israel by saying that the Jewish state is “battling” Hamas. Israel, in fact, is responding to thousands of terrorist attacks in the forms of rockets and mortars fired, shootings, stabbing attacks, bombs planted, snipers firing on farmers, soldiers, and reporters—all of these since Hamas took over Gaza.
As for that, the phrase “violently seized control” blithely overlooks the vicious murders that Hamas committed on its enemy, the Fatah members and their families. It overlooks the fact that Hamas still maintains “order” by using violent methods, including shooting at protesting Gazans.
And last, the language about “imposing” a “tough economic blockade” is given without context. The blockade was imposed after Hamas failed to stop the near-daily rocket fire into southern Israel.
Funny, after all those articles by all those analysts, and all those words by all those Palestinian spokesliars, all insisting that Hamas has absolutely no control over the terrorists firing rockets into Israel (just as Arafat used to lie that he could not stop Hamas or other groups from carrying out attacks), now, when Egypt is trying to get a “truce” in place, the rocket fire has nearly completely stopped.
Isn’t that amazing? It just stopped all by itself. Hamas has no control over it. But now that Hamas really wants the IDF to stop pounding it, the rockets have mostly stopped.
Will the media acknowledge this, ever? Of course not.
----
Links to other informative sources
1. Response to Betsy Mayfield's anti-Israel letter in the Ames Tribune by Miles Weinberger of Iowa City. http://www.midiowanews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19406349&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554188&rfi=8
2. Calls for genocide doctrines have infiltrated Hamas ideologies http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/03/jonathan-dahoahhalevi-calls-for-genocide/index.shtml
3. Ominous developments in the Palestinian-Israel conflict http://blog.camera.org/archives/2008/03/ominous_developments_in_the_is.html
Posted on March 20th, 2008 by Meryl Yourish. http://www.yourish.com/
Have you seen the new AP boilerplate lately? It’s in a ton of articles about Gaza or Hamas. It goes like this:
Israel has been battling Hamas since the Islamic group violently seized control of Gaza last June. In addition to its military activity, Israel has imposed a tough economic blockade on the strip.
This paragraph, in two sentences, displays the entirety of the AP (and world media) bias against Israel. First, it blames Israel by saying that the Jewish state is “battling” Hamas. Israel, in fact, is responding to thousands of terrorist attacks in the forms of rockets and mortars fired, shootings, stabbing attacks, bombs planted, snipers firing on farmers, soldiers, and reporters—all of these since Hamas took over Gaza.
As for that, the phrase “violently seized control” blithely overlooks the vicious murders that Hamas committed on its enemy, the Fatah members and their families. It overlooks the fact that Hamas still maintains “order” by using violent methods, including shooting at protesting Gazans.
And last, the language about “imposing” a “tough economic blockade” is given without context. The blockade was imposed after Hamas failed to stop the near-daily rocket fire into southern Israel.
Funny, after all those articles by all those analysts, and all those words by all those Palestinian spokesliars, all insisting that Hamas has absolutely no control over the terrorists firing rockets into Israel (just as Arafat used to lie that he could not stop Hamas or other groups from carrying out attacks), now, when Egypt is trying to get a “truce” in place, the rocket fire has nearly completely stopped.
Isn’t that amazing? It just stopped all by itself. Hamas has no control over it. But now that Hamas really wants the IDF to stop pounding it, the rockets have mostly stopped.
Will the media acknowledge this, ever? Of course not.
----
Links to other informative sources
1. Response to Betsy Mayfield's anti-Israel letter in the Ames Tribune by Miles Weinberger of Iowa City. http://www.midiowanews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19406349&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554188&rfi=8
2. Calls for genocide doctrines have infiltrated Hamas ideologies http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/03/jonathan-dahoahhalevi-calls-for-genocide/index.shtml
3. Ominous developments in the Palestinian-Israel conflict http://blog.camera.org/archives/2008/03/ominous_developments_in_the_is.html
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
NPR and talking with Hamas
[Aggregated from FresnoZionism.org]
Maybe I need to change the station on my clock radio.
A few days ago I awoke to an NPR interview with a Palestinian plumber, in which the usual complaints about checkpoints, humiliation, and above all the security barrier were rehearsed in personal, emotional detail. Israel’s point of view was represented in entirety by the following statement by NPR’s Eric Westerveldt:
Israeli officials insist the wall and checkpoints are needed to stop Palestinian attacks inside Israel.
NPR has been criticized for their biased coverage on numerous occasions, and they say that although one piece may present a particular point of view, there will be others expressing the other side. So I said to myself “they owe us one”.
Today I got what they probably consider the Israeli point of view: “Israelis, Government Divided on Dealing with Hamas“. Big surprise, the four minute segment is almost all Israelis who want to talk to Hamas. Perhaps 30 seconds is given to a government spokesman who claims that the government is opposed to such negotiations — except indirect talks about the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for over a year — and one woman who doesn’t trust Hamas.
NPR mentions a recent poll in which “two thirds of Israelis favored direct talks with Hamas“, but failed to explain that the question asked referred to talks intended to bring about the release of Shalit! So actually the government is in agreement with popular opinion on this issue.
Then they bring on Shlomo Brom, a former general who is far to the Left in Israeli politics, calling for a cease-fire, opening the crossings between Israel and Gaza, and for Israel to ’supply the needs’ of Gaza’s population.
The impression is given that this position — which is held by only a tiny minority of Israelis — is actually popular, as opposed to the hard-line stance of the government. But of course this is not so.
The reasons to not hold direct talks with Hamas and especially not to negotiate a cease-fire are simple.
For one, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It’s not possible to reach an accommodation with someone whose goal and bottom line is wiping you out. There isn’t a middle path between being and non-being.
A cease-fire would be advantageous to Hamas and bad for Israel. Barry Rubin writes,
A cease-fire is riddled with problems, paradoxically bringing even more violence. Hamas won’t observe it, letting both its own members and others attack Israel while inciting murder through every institution. The ceasefire won’t last long; Hamas would use it to strengthen its rule and army while demanding a reward for its “moderation”: an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation; even Western aid.
Hamas is not a ‘normal’ political organization, as NPR wishes us to think. Hamas was dedicated to destroying Israel when it was out of power, and continued to be so dedicated after it took control of Gaza. Hamas did its best to murder Israelis when Gaza was under occupation, and continues to do its best now that Israel has completely withdrawn. When Hamas could have had international recognition (and aid) simply by agreeing to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, they refused.
Hamas today is funded massively by Iran, which uses it as one of its proxies (the other main ones are Syria and Hezbollah). Iran is very interested in eliminating Israel, as I recently wrote:
There are multiple reasons for Iranian policy towards Israel, which include religious motives, the desire to earn propaganda points in the wider Arab and Muslim world, and their understanding that Israel is a base for American power in the Mideast which must be neutralized in order to expel Western influence from the region.
Naturally, NPR and Shlomo Brom don’t mention the Iranian context at all.
Maybe I need to change the station on my clock radio.
A few days ago I awoke to an NPR interview with a Palestinian plumber, in which the usual complaints about checkpoints, humiliation, and above all the security barrier were rehearsed in personal, emotional detail. Israel’s point of view was represented in entirety by the following statement by NPR’s Eric Westerveldt:
Israeli officials insist the wall and checkpoints are needed to stop Palestinian attacks inside Israel.
NPR has been criticized for their biased coverage on numerous occasions, and they say that although one piece may present a particular point of view, there will be others expressing the other side. So I said to myself “they owe us one”.
Today I got what they probably consider the Israeli point of view: “Israelis, Government Divided on Dealing with Hamas“. Big surprise, the four minute segment is almost all Israelis who want to talk to Hamas. Perhaps 30 seconds is given to a government spokesman who claims that the government is opposed to such negotiations — except indirect talks about the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas for over a year — and one woman who doesn’t trust Hamas.
NPR mentions a recent poll in which “two thirds of Israelis favored direct talks with Hamas“, but failed to explain that the question asked referred to talks intended to bring about the release of Shalit! So actually the government is in agreement with popular opinion on this issue.
Then they bring on Shlomo Brom, a former general who is far to the Left in Israeli politics, calling for a cease-fire, opening the crossings between Israel and Gaza, and for Israel to ’supply the needs’ of Gaza’s population.
The impression is given that this position — which is held by only a tiny minority of Israelis — is actually popular, as opposed to the hard-line stance of the government. But of course this is not so.
The reasons to not hold direct talks with Hamas and especially not to negotiate a cease-fire are simple.
For one, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It’s not possible to reach an accommodation with someone whose goal and bottom line is wiping you out. There isn’t a middle path between being and non-being.
A cease-fire would be advantageous to Hamas and bad for Israel. Barry Rubin writes,
A cease-fire is riddled with problems, paradoxically bringing even more violence. Hamas won’t observe it, letting both its own members and others attack Israel while inciting murder through every institution. The ceasefire won’t last long; Hamas would use it to strengthen its rule and army while demanding a reward for its “moderation”: an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation; even Western aid.
Hamas is not a ‘normal’ political organization, as NPR wishes us to think. Hamas was dedicated to destroying Israel when it was out of power, and continued to be so dedicated after it took control of Gaza. Hamas did its best to murder Israelis when Gaza was under occupation, and continues to do its best now that Israel has completely withdrawn. When Hamas could have had international recognition (and aid) simply by agreeing to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept prior agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, they refused.
Hamas today is funded massively by Iran, which uses it as one of its proxies (the other main ones are Syria and Hezbollah). Iran is very interested in eliminating Israel, as I recently wrote:
There are multiple reasons for Iranian policy towards Israel, which include religious motives, the desire to earn propaganda points in the wider Arab and Muslim world, and their understanding that Israel is a base for American power in the Mideast which must be neutralized in order to expel Western influence from the region.
Naturally, NPR and Shlomo Brom don’t mention the Iranian context at all.
GLORIA's Barry Rubin on Gaza
What To Do About Gaza: The Realistic Scenario Barry Rubin March 17, 2008
Not only is there no good solution to the Gaza problem, there's no "solution" at all. But in the Middle East, solutions are rare; what's needed is the best, imperfect, option among five alternatives:
Current policy. Israel absorbs damage and casualties in Sderot and some other places. Few are affected; almost all the country functions normally. International pressure and casualties are limited. Israel hits rocket launchers, terrorist bases, and leading terrorists periodically. Eventually, there will be an anti-rocket defense.
But aside from government's duty to its citizens, things will change. Hamas will produce larger and longer-range missiles against Ashkelon and eventually Ashdod.
Another problem with this strategy is that Western criticism defines even minimal self-defense methods as disproportionate. If you get slammed for taking punches you might as well fight back. Moreover, the West basically protects Hamas' rule in Gaza, despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation, neither of which might last. As Hamas grows more aggressive, Western policies might become more appeasing. Meanwhile, being "soft" on Hamas doesn't make peace talks work but does make Hamas look more effective than the less violent PA and Fatah.
Finally, public opinion presses government to change policy.
There are three proposals playing off a thirst for neat solutions. A ceasefire is an ideal dovish solution, overthrowing Hamas appeals to hawks, and giving the mess to an international force makes both philosophies happy. Unfortunately none of these ideas work.
A ceasefire is riddled with problems, paradoxically bringing even more violence. Hamas won't observe it, letting both its own members and others attack Israel while inciting murder through every institution. The ceasefire won't last long; Hamas would use it to strengthen its rule and army while demanding a reward for its "moderation": an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation; even Western aid.
Re-occupy Gaza; Destroy Hamas. Sounds good. But how? Israel isn't being hit hard enough to make such a huge undertaking worthwhile. Troops would face constant attack from all directions. Once again, Israel would be involved in the daily rule of more than one million hostile people. Too many soldiers would be tied up to permit proper security in the West Bank and Lebanon border. It would be high-cost in casualties, money, and international friction.
And in the end Hamas will not be "destroyed." To defeat Hamas is not to eliminate it but to keep it as weak as possible (through military strikes, isolation, etc.) and limit its ability to hit Israel.
There's also the plan's second fallacy of turning Gaza over to a "moderate" Fatah and PA. There is no chance of their accepting this gift. In fact, Fatah would rather make a deal with Hamas than fight it. And why believe they'd do a better job than last time?
The International Solution. But there's a gimmick: the idea of turning Gaza over to an international force. This is a fantasy. Countries are not going to send forces into a war there to be attacked every day, nor will they brave criticism from Arab and Muslim states as well as terrorist attacks for no benefit.
Besides, what will the force do? Certainly not arrest thousands of Gazans, kill those trying to attack Israel, hold mass trials of terrorists and sentence them to long prison terms. Definitely not disarm Hamas or stop arms smuggling from Egypt.
And when rockets keep falling that force would block Israeli military action there. The option would also be a political disaster, with the sponsoring countries rushing to establish a Palestinian state and negotiate with Hamas. Finally, as noted above, the PA and Fatah won't take Gaza from an international force.
Push Hamas Back: What is needed is the most realistic option based on reality, not wishful thinking. Israel's interest is to minimize attacks on its soil and citizens while limiting the cost of the response needed to achieve that goal. This can be best done by combining a more active version of current policy and the creation of a security zone in the "northern" Gaza Strip to push Hamas and its allies out of range.
Such a zone could be made relatively secure because it would be on a narrow front, with flanks protected by the sea on the north and Israel proper on the south and east, with Israel controlling the airspace. This is an interim policy until anti-missile, anti-rocket defenses can be implemented, perhaps three years.
Of course, there is risk. Israeli forces will be attacked, yet they would be in a strong, fortified position and know they are protecting the civilians behind them. Some rockets will fall on Israel but the numbers would be far reduced and the area affected limited. Israel would continue to operate within Hamas-held Gaza as needed.
Will the world--which claims Israel is occupying Gaza already--do much if Israel temporarily takes back ten percent?
This issue will not be solved by negotiations, concessions, appeasement, force, or anything else. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is right: "It's not the end, the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning."
The same logic applies to Gaza as for the West Bank and Lebanon border. The main goal is for the army to minimize danger and damage so people can go about their normal lives and build up the country, protected by their soldiers.
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) CenterInterdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 IsraelEmail: info@gloriacenter.org Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-956-8605
Not only is there no good solution to the Gaza problem, there's no "solution" at all. But in the Middle East, solutions are rare; what's needed is the best, imperfect, option among five alternatives:
Current policy. Israel absorbs damage and casualties in Sderot and some other places. Few are affected; almost all the country functions normally. International pressure and casualties are limited. Israel hits rocket launchers, terrorist bases, and leading terrorists periodically. Eventually, there will be an anti-rocket defense.
But aside from government's duty to its citizens, things will change. Hamas will produce larger and longer-range missiles against Ashkelon and eventually Ashdod.
Another problem with this strategy is that Western criticism defines even minimal self-defense methods as disproportionate. If you get slammed for taking punches you might as well fight back. Moreover, the West basically protects Hamas' rule in Gaza, despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation, neither of which might last. As Hamas grows more aggressive, Western policies might become more appeasing. Meanwhile, being "soft" on Hamas doesn't make peace talks work but does make Hamas look more effective than the less violent PA and Fatah.
Finally, public opinion presses government to change policy.
There are three proposals playing off a thirst for neat solutions. A ceasefire is an ideal dovish solution, overthrowing Hamas appeals to hawks, and giving the mess to an international force makes both philosophies happy. Unfortunately none of these ideas work.
A ceasefire is riddled with problems, paradoxically bringing even more violence. Hamas won't observe it, letting both its own members and others attack Israel while inciting murder through every institution. The ceasefire won't last long; Hamas would use it to strengthen its rule and army while demanding a reward for its "moderation": an end to sanctions and diplomatic isolation; even Western aid.
Re-occupy Gaza; Destroy Hamas. Sounds good. But how? Israel isn't being hit hard enough to make such a huge undertaking worthwhile. Troops would face constant attack from all directions. Once again, Israel would be involved in the daily rule of more than one million hostile people. Too many soldiers would be tied up to permit proper security in the West Bank and Lebanon border. It would be high-cost in casualties, money, and international friction.
And in the end Hamas will not be "destroyed." To defeat Hamas is not to eliminate it but to keep it as weak as possible (through military strikes, isolation, etc.) and limit its ability to hit Israel.
There's also the plan's second fallacy of turning Gaza over to a "moderate" Fatah and PA. There is no chance of their accepting this gift. In fact, Fatah would rather make a deal with Hamas than fight it. And why believe they'd do a better job than last time?
The International Solution. But there's a gimmick: the idea of turning Gaza over to an international force. This is a fantasy. Countries are not going to send forces into a war there to be attacked every day, nor will they brave criticism from Arab and Muslim states as well as terrorist attacks for no benefit.
Besides, what will the force do? Certainly not arrest thousands of Gazans, kill those trying to attack Israel, hold mass trials of terrorists and sentence them to long prison terms. Definitely not disarm Hamas or stop arms smuggling from Egypt.
And when rockets keep falling that force would block Israeli military action there. The option would also be a political disaster, with the sponsoring countries rushing to establish a Palestinian state and negotiate with Hamas. Finally, as noted above, the PA and Fatah won't take Gaza from an international force.
Push Hamas Back: What is needed is the most realistic option based on reality, not wishful thinking. Israel's interest is to minimize attacks on its soil and citizens while limiting the cost of the response needed to achieve that goal. This can be best done by combining a more active version of current policy and the creation of a security zone in the "northern" Gaza Strip to push Hamas and its allies out of range.
Such a zone could be made relatively secure because it would be on a narrow front, with flanks protected by the sea on the north and Israel proper on the south and east, with Israel controlling the airspace. This is an interim policy until anti-missile, anti-rocket defenses can be implemented, perhaps three years.
Of course, there is risk. Israeli forces will be attacked, yet they would be in a strong, fortified position and know they are protecting the civilians behind them. Some rockets will fall on Israel but the numbers would be far reduced and the area affected limited. Israel would continue to operate within Hamas-held Gaza as needed.
Will the world--which claims Israel is occupying Gaza already--do much if Israel temporarily takes back ten percent?
This issue will not be solved by negotiations, concessions, appeasement, force, or anything else. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is right: "It's not the end, the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning."
The same logic applies to Gaza as for the West Bank and Lebanon border. The main goal is for the army to minimize danger and damage so people can go about their normal lives and build up the country, protected by their soldiers.
The Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) CenterInterdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya P.O. Box 167 Herzliya, 46150 IsraelEmail: info@gloriacenter.org Phone: +972-9-960-2736 Fax: +972-9-956-8605
Thursday, March 13, 2008
When Palestinian violence stops, there will be peace
Follow The Sequence Of Mideast Violence
By OFER BAVLY March 9, 2008
There is no symmetry between Israel and Palestinian extremists.
There are no shades of gray; there is no cultural relativism, no equidistant, conditional ifs and buts. There is no Israeli action followed by a Palestinian reaction. There is no egalitarian share of the blame and responsibility, and the sooner this fact is understood by the international community, the better.
Recent media reports about the plight of Gaza residents highlighted the fact that hunger, poverty, shortage of electricity and fuel in Gaza were the result of Israel's blockade on that Palestinian-controlled zone. As if Israel decided, out of the blue, to impose collective punishment on all Palestinians out of sheer evil. It was then easy for the world media to present rocket launching from Gaza as a natural, understandable, reaction of a frustrated, hungry population. Similarly, terror attacks against Israeli civilians are regularly presented by Palestinian spokesmen (picked up by "objective" journalists) as retaliation to the Israeli blockade on Gaza.
There is a difference between an arsonist lighting a building, and the fireman putting out the fire. There is no similarity between a robber who attacks his victim, and the policeman who attacks the robber in order to arrest him. Sure, both may use violence. But are they equally reponsible for it?
Too often, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may seem like a vicious circle of violence, a back and forth game of tennis, an eye-for-an-eye that ultimately leaves both sides blind and the international community apathetic at best - and anti-Israeli at worst - mistaking victim for aggressor.
It may be necessary to remind ourselves that in the Middle East, there is a sequence of events, not a cycle of violence. It is a continuum which can be stopped at a moment's notice, by the Palestinians, should they choose to do so or should they feel the necessary international pressure to do so.
In August 2006, Israel pulled out of Gaza. We dismantled our settlements, down to the last one. We redeployed our troops outside Gaza. We left Gaza to the Gazans - no occupation, no Israeli presence. Without our presence there, the Hamas terror organization staged a coup d'etat in June 2007, taking over Gaza from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Since then, they have launched over 5,000 missiles at Israel's southern region.
Remember: there was no occupation of Gaza. There was no blockade of Gaza. That was not retaliation. There was no symmetry, only terrorism. And yet, Israel did not react to that provocation. We did not invade Gaza, or reconquer any part of it. But after thousands of rockets landed on our towns, Israel decided that supplying the Palestinians with fuel, electricity and other basic needs isn't the best policy of self-defense.
A blockade was imposed. When Hamas blew open the border between Gaza and Egypt, they opened the door to a massive influx of arms, ammunitions and terrorists coming into Gaza. They also used the breach to allow terrorists to cross into Sinai and from there into Israel, where they will try to kill more of our citizens.
This is not symmetry. This is terrorism, launched against people whose only crime is being Israeli and wanting to live in peace and security.
Israel will defend itself against this latest wave of terror. Do not call it a cycle of violence. The violence will end when the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking us. If they renounce violence, there will be peace. If we renounce self-defense, Israel will cease to exist. No symmetry.
Ofer Bavly is Israel's consul general in Miami
By OFER BAVLY March 9, 2008
There is no symmetry between Israel and Palestinian extremists.
There are no shades of gray; there is no cultural relativism, no equidistant, conditional ifs and buts. There is no Israeli action followed by a Palestinian reaction. There is no egalitarian share of the blame and responsibility, and the sooner this fact is understood by the international community, the better.
Recent media reports about the plight of Gaza residents highlighted the fact that hunger, poverty, shortage of electricity and fuel in Gaza were the result of Israel's blockade on that Palestinian-controlled zone. As if Israel decided, out of the blue, to impose collective punishment on all Palestinians out of sheer evil. It was then easy for the world media to present rocket launching from Gaza as a natural, understandable, reaction of a frustrated, hungry population. Similarly, terror attacks against Israeli civilians are regularly presented by Palestinian spokesmen (picked up by "objective" journalists) as retaliation to the Israeli blockade on Gaza.
There is a difference between an arsonist lighting a building, and the fireman putting out the fire. There is no similarity between a robber who attacks his victim, and the policeman who attacks the robber in order to arrest him. Sure, both may use violence. But are they equally reponsible for it?
Too often, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may seem like a vicious circle of violence, a back and forth game of tennis, an eye-for-an-eye that ultimately leaves both sides blind and the international community apathetic at best - and anti-Israeli at worst - mistaking victim for aggressor.
It may be necessary to remind ourselves that in the Middle East, there is a sequence of events, not a cycle of violence. It is a continuum which can be stopped at a moment's notice, by the Palestinians, should they choose to do so or should they feel the necessary international pressure to do so.
In August 2006, Israel pulled out of Gaza. We dismantled our settlements, down to the last one. We redeployed our troops outside Gaza. We left Gaza to the Gazans - no occupation, no Israeli presence. Without our presence there, the Hamas terror organization staged a coup d'etat in June 2007, taking over Gaza from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Since then, they have launched over 5,000 missiles at Israel's southern region.
Remember: there was no occupation of Gaza. There was no blockade of Gaza. That was not retaliation. There was no symmetry, only terrorism. And yet, Israel did not react to that provocation. We did not invade Gaza, or reconquer any part of it. But after thousands of rockets landed on our towns, Israel decided that supplying the Palestinians with fuel, electricity and other basic needs isn't the best policy of self-defense.
A blockade was imposed. When Hamas blew open the border between Gaza and Egypt, they opened the door to a massive influx of arms, ammunitions and terrorists coming into Gaza. They also used the breach to allow terrorists to cross into Sinai and from there into Israel, where they will try to kill more of our citizens.
This is not symmetry. This is terrorism, launched against people whose only crime is being Israeli and wanting to live in peace and security.
Israel will defend itself against this latest wave of terror. Do not call it a cycle of violence. The violence will end when the Palestinian terrorists stop attacking us. If they renounce violence, there will be peace. If we renounce self-defense, Israel will cease to exist. No symmetry.
Ofer Bavly is Israel's consul general in Miami
Thursday: More than 25 Qassam rockets fired at western Negev
Fragile truce takes another beating as al-Quds Brigades fire rockets at western Negev; student suffers from shock. Simultaneously, seven mortar shells fired towards border fence
Seven mortar shells were also fired landing near the border fence. A seminary student suffered shock.
The Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, claimed responsibility for the Qassam fire. [ynetnews.com]
Fragile truce takes another beating as al-Quds Brigades fire rockets at western Negev; student suffers from shock. Simultaneously, seven mortar shells fired towards border fence
Seven mortar shells were also fired landing near the border fence. A seminary student suffered shock.
The Islamic Jihad's military wing, the al-Quds Brigades, claimed responsibility for the Qassam fire. [ynetnews.com]
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
When univited guests drop in
Rockets fired at Sderot
Is fragile lull over? Qassam rocket barrage fired at southern town Wednesday night; attack causes some damage, no injuries reported; earlier, Islamic Jihad vows to avenge killing of four terrorists
Shmulik Hadad
03.13.08, 01:08 ynetnews.com
Will truce last? At least eight Qassam rockets were fired at Sderot from the northern Gaza Strip Wednesday night following a brief lull in attacks on southern Israel communities.
Two rockets landed in town, near a school and next to a warehouse, and caused some damage. Security forces were attempting to pinpoint the landing site of another rocket that apparently fell in a residential area. One rocket landed in the Strip, while the others landed in open areas outside Sderot.
--------------------
Terms of endearment
[From the AP] Haniyeh used the word “tahdia,” or calm, to describe the informal cease-fire he sought. He did not use the Arabic word “hudna,” which is interpreted as a more formal truce. Both terms denote a temporary cease-fire rather than a permanent peace, but even the subtle differences between the words has led to fierce debate among Arabs in past cease-fire efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)