Palestine

[Stavros]

Apologists for Hamas attribute the bloodlust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? Does no one remember anything? It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling diehard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza.
And there was no blockade. On the contrary. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its 3,000 greenhouses that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce. The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully and productively side by side. Simultaneous with the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel’s desire to leave the West Bank, too.
And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel.
Where are the roads and rail, the industry and infrastructure of the new Palestinian state? Nowhere. Instead, they built mile upon mile of underground tunnels to hide their weapons and, when the going gets tough, their military commanders who can be found in a 5 star hotel in Doha. They spent millions importing and producing rockets, launchers, mortars, small arms, even drones. They deliberately placed them in schools, hospitals, mosques and private homes to better expose their own civilians. And from which they fire rockets at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Why? Any rocket that seems on course to hit anything of value is almost uniformly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system. Even West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas has asked: “What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?”
It makes no sense. Unless you understand that the whole point is to draw Israeli counterfire. This produces dead Palestinians for international television, which is why Hamas perversely urges its own people not to seek safety when Israel drops leaflets warning of an imminent attack.
To deliberately wage war so that your own people can be telegenically killed is indeed moral and tactical insanity. But it rests on a very rational premise: Given the Orwellian state of the world’s treatment of Israel (see: the UN’s grotesque Human Rights Council), fuelled by a mix of classic anti-Semitism, near-total historical ignorance and reflexive sympathy for the ostensible Third World underdog, these eruptions featuring Palestinian casualties ultimately undermine support for Israel’s legitimacy and right to self-defence.
In a world of such Kafkaesque ethical inversions, Hamas’ depravity begins to make sense. This is a world in which the Munich massacre is a movie and the murder of Klinghoffer is an opera — both deeply sympathetic to the killers. This is a world in which the UN ignores humanity’s worst war criminals while incessantly condemning Israel, a state warred upon for 66 years which nonetheless goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming the very innocents its enemies use as shields.
It’s to the Israelis’ credit that amid all this madness they haven’t lost their moral scruples. Or their nerve. Those outside the region have the minimum obligation, therefore, to expose the madness and speak the truth. Rarely has it been so blindingly clear.

In syria , the death toll is over 170,000 poeple , many of them killed by chemical weapons , but who cares?

In a previous post I blamed Hamas for sparking this most recent round of carnage. You may recall that the situation deteriorated with the kidnap and murder of three Israeli teenagers, followed by the equally needless and gruesome murder of a Palestinian boy. When Hamas launched rockets into Israel, Israel retaliated as Hamas knew it would. Hamas also knew that the violence inflicted on Gaza would be disproportionate to the violence inflicted by Hamas on Israel, because that is what Israel does, just as Israel always bombs an UNRWA building, just as Hamas always locates is rocket launchers in built up areas, though it would be tactically daft to launch them from the beach. That it would be tactically and strategically better not to fire rockets at all has yet to occur to them. But I suspect they don't care.

So we can agree that Hamas having lost the supporters I also referred to in that post, has a lot to answer for.
However, your defence of Israel is not only wide of the mark, it doesn't relate to the view taken by the Quartet (the UN, the EU, the USA and Russia) and its Special Envoy, Tony Blair.

If you look at their website, you will find it states og Gaza that:
Around one-third of the population lives under the poverty line and less than 10 percent of the drinking water meets the required standards of the World Health Organization (WHO). There is also a chronic shortage of electricity in Gaza ranging from 30-50 percent less than actual demand.

In addition, there is what the OQR calls an economic closure regime which is the means whereby Israel, with the full agreement of the Quartet (which claims to be negotiating the details of these controls to secure advantages for Gaza), controls what can go into an out of Gaza, from capital to concrete. Everyone else calls it by its real name: a siege.

You might want to re-adjust your spectacles to see what the impact on Gaza of the siege has been. It is true that Hamas has not provided Gaza with good governance -good governance is in short supply in the Middle East, including Israel- but how can Hamas govern effectively when there is no free movement of goods, capital, people or services into and out of the district? The land, sea and air routes into and out of Gaza are controlled by Israel -and yet critics complain about Hamas being funded from Iran, from Qatar-how else is capital to get into the place, and if it cannot be generated from 'normal' economic relations, Hamas will gladly accept funds from outsiders.

Hard though it might be to believe, nearly 100 years after Britain was 'awarded' the Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations, justifying Palestine's 'A' class rating because it was 'not ready to stand alone under the strenuous conditions of the modern world', the Office of the Quartet Representative states that its objective in Gaza and the Palestinian territories is to promote economic development and institution building in preparation for eventual statehood; as if nothing had happened in the last 100 years.

The Special Envoy to Gaza, Tony Blair, has achieved nothing since being appointed in 2007. He has in effect handed control of Gaza over to Israel, just as he himself is reluctant to visit the District, and neither he, nor John Kerry has met with representatives of Hamas. Israel -Netanyahu in particular- regards Obama as a jerk, and Ha'aretz (the voice of Israel's 'liberal left'!) today or yesterday referred to John Kerry as an 'alien'. If Israel wants to be taken seriously, it needs to make serious decisions that involve the Palestinians, instead of trying to ignore them altogether.

You might want to come up with some solutions, given that Hamas is being treated to the same refusal to engage with reality which meant that from the 1970s to the 1990s Israel, the Americans and the British 'refused to talk to terrorists' -which meant Yasser Arafat, the same man who signed the 1993 Peace Treaty recognising Israel and agreeing to the break up of the West Bank into three zones. Does this mean we wait another 30 years before someone will talk to Khaled Mashal or any other Hamas official, even if they have been elected in a democratic election?

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the disitnguished American geographer Saul Cohen proposed an enlargement scheme for Gaza on the simple basis that the territory was too small to be manageable in terms of population growth, jobs, and resources. He proposed an agreement with Egypt that would see the latter concede territory that would expand the geography of Gaza and offer the Palestinians more options in terms of resources, as well as relieving the pressure on Israel's security borders. He also proposed other land swaps but I fear this creative proposition will not look good to Israel these days, given that Netanyahu has always opposed the 1993 Treaty and done everything he can to derail it.

Another proposition looms which I daresay will get nowhere as it is my idea although someone else must have thought of it. The Eastern Mediterranean is emerging as a potentially lucrative oil and gas (but mostly gas) province with reservoirs that straddle the boundaries of Egypt, Gaza/Palestinian territories, Israel and Syria (probably not Lebanon at this stage). Why not create a consortium of companies which bring together the Egyptians, the Palestinians, Israel and Syria to exploit their offshore resources for the common good and, indeed, the common wealth? This is also my solution to the conflict over the Falkland Islands basin between Argentina and the Falkland Islands/Malvinas.

I am not a genius, but there are solutions out there. And I would rather be sitting around a table talking about solutions than defend the pathetic rockets of Hamas, or the inhuman carnage-on-demand of Israel. Israelis and Palestinians deserve something better.

Office of the Quartet Representaive link to Gaza programme:
http://www.quartetrep.org/quartet/pages/the-gaza-strip/

One version of Saul Cohen's Gaza project from 1993:
https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru...b1-3_cohen.pdf

An overview of the oil and gas potential of the Eastern Mediterranean:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysi...iterranean.pdf

[Odelay]

Somewhere an Israeli contractor is receiving an expensive lap dance via credit card knowing that new money to pay it off is practically in the bank when he is chosen to build a new fence around Gaza.

[buttslinger]

This really is a sickening situation, I guess I sympathize with Israel more, only because they are the more Western nation like the US. But I know if I grew up there on either side I'd be caught up in all the hate and get swept away with it. They've got generations of allegations, against each other, probably both justified, that's the nature of this mother of all family feuds, and on that level the ugliness and hate is a cradle to grave type situation. If it ever ends you can bet it will be a bad ending, probably worse than what's going on now. At least that's my understanding.

[Ben]

Terrorism in the Israeli Attack on Gaza:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...li-attack-gaza

[fred41]

Terrorism in the Israeli Attack on Gaza:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...li-attack-gaza

Greenwald writes some great articles sometimes...but this is pretty biased to me. I guess it's important body counts need to be equal....I know - Israel should cease fighting, maybe let Hamas catch up again by killing some more soldiers (which seems acceptable to Greenwald), and then resume...but let's not get carried away...hell it's only such few Israelis

[broncofan]

I was going to say something similar. Not to detract from the difference in the size of the forces or the casualty numbers which have real meaning, his analysis is a bit weak on at least one point.

Terrorism involves the use of force against civilians to achieve a political objective. There is a difference between trying to kill a militant in a densely populated civilian area and trying to kill civilians. Not for the civilian obviously, who could care less about intent if it kills him. But it is relevant in determining whether a party is availing themselves of the tactic of terrorism, as tactics are all about intent.

The party that acts with the intent to kill a militant but a willingness to kill civilians is still culpable of a serious wrong. They proceeded with the knowledge that they would kill civilians. The other possibility is that they act with the knowledge they will kill civilians and this knowledge makes them more eager to act rather than encourages restraint. This would come much closer to terrorism as the killing of civilians would accrue to their strategic benefit rather than detriment.

Even if Israel has killed an outrageous number of civilians, I think it is cynical to say they are not at least trying to kill militants. I have no doubt that if Hamas could kill more Israeli civilians it would. Afterall, that is what they are aiming for every time they launch a rocket.

Greenwald should have just said that the word terrorist is being used as a pejorative and doesn't determine the equities of a conflict where such a disproportionate number of Gazans have been killed....rather than the skin deep pie chart analysis.

[Ben]

Stocks rise for Israeli drone-maker as Gaza slaughter continues

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/...hter-continues

[fred41]

I was going to say something similar. Not to detract from the difference in the size of the forces or the casualty numbers which have real meaning, his analysis is a bit weak on at least one point.

Terrorism involves the use of force against civilians to achieve a political objective. There is a difference between trying to kill a militant in a densely populated civilian area and trying to kill civilians. Not for the civilian obviously, who could care less about intent if it kills him. But it is relevant in determining whether a party is availing themselves of the tactic of terrorism, as tactics are all about intent.

The party that acts with the intent to kill a militant but a willingness to kill civilians is still culpable of a serious wrong. They proceeded with the knowledge that they would kill civilians. The other possibility is that they act with the knowledge they will kill civilians and this knowledge makes them more eager to act rather than encourages restraint. This would come much closer to terrorism as the killing of civilians would accrue to their strategic benefit rather than detriment.

Even if Israel has killed an outrageous number of civilians, I think it is cynical to say they are not at least trying to kill militants. I have no doubt that if Hamas could kill more Israeli civilians it would. Afterall, that is what they are aiming for every time they launch a rocket.

very well put Bronco...you have a better way with words.

Greenwald should have just said that the word terrorist is being used as a pejorative and doesn't determine the equities of a conflict where such a disproportionate number of Gazans have been killed....rather than the skin deep pie chart analysis.

He new what he was writing...he was getting his smarmy, (un)biased, pulitzer prize winning thoughts out there.

[Stavros]

I was going to say something similar. Not to detract from the difference in the size of the forces or the casualty numbers which have real meaning, his analysis is a bit weak on at least one point.

Terrorism involves the use of force against civilians to achieve a political objective. There is a difference between trying to kill a militant in a densely populated civilian area and trying to kill civilians. Not for the civilian obviously, who could care less about intent if it kills him. But it is relevant in determining whether a party is availing themselves of the tactic of terrorism, as tactics are all about intent.

The party that acts with the intent to kill a militant but a willingness to kill civilians is still culpable of a serious wrong. They proceeded with the knowledge that they would kill civilians. The other possibility is that they act with the knowledge they will kill civilians and this knowledge makes them more eager to act rather than encourages restraint. This would come much closer to terrorism as the killing of civilians would accrue to their strategic benefit rather than detriment.

Even if Israel has killed an outrageous number of civilians, I think it is cynical to say they are not at least trying to kill militants. I have no doubt that if Hamas could kill more Israeli civilians it would. Afterall, that is what they are aiming for every time they launch a rocket.

Greenwald should have just said that the word terrorist is being used as a pejorative and doesn't determine the equities of a conflict where such a disproportionate number of Gazans have been killed....rather than the skin deep pie chart analysis.

If there is a flaw in this argument, it is that the PLO used to describe its actions against Israel as 'armed struggle', as was also the case with the various IRA formations that vowed to carry on the fight for a United Ireland after the 1921 Treaty until today. In this context, 'terrorist' is a pejorative label used to de-legitimise the enemy and suggest their cause is llegally, morally and politically wrong. IRA 'terrorists' were usually called 'Volunteers' and given a soldier's burial.

Al-Qaeda declared war on the USA in 1998 -does this mean its 'operatives' were 'soldiers' and that the USA is right to try Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and others in a Military Tribunal for crimes committed against the USA?

To broaden this concept to include 'militants' is even less secure, although it does mean that anyone behaving in a militant fashion becomes an enemy of the state -Africa Now in Philadelphia, Black Panthers in the USA are two groups that come to mind. The Symbionese Liberation Army probably signed their own death warrant by describing themselves as an 'army'. If military action were take to eliminate those participating in the 'Occupy Wall St' of a year or so ago, could they have been described as 'militants' and therefore legitimate targets for assassination?

We have been here before with this anyway, from the Battle of Karameh in 1968 through the PLO hijackings of civilian airliners in the late 1960s and early 1970s, from the gruesome assassination of Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972 (all actions which undermined and eroded any support the Palestinians sought in the west), through Israel's first incursions into Lebanon a few years later, to the determined aim to destroy the PLO in Lebanon in 1982, and the subsequent military actions there and in Gaza since 1993.

Every time the same cause, the same effect. You hit us, we hit you.

Violence creates more problems than it solves; I could say it is time to think of alternatives, and come up with new solutions, but it takes the courage of a Daniel Barenboim to prove supposed 'enemies' can live and work together, and it is no surprise that some in Israel consider him a traitor.

The alternative is despair.

Only man thinning out his kind
sounds through the Sabbath noon, the blind
swipe of the pruner and his knife
busy about the tree of life...

[Prospero]

Another day - more casualties. A horrific terrible loss of lives. Who can challenge that. We must all mourn when innocent children, innocence is destroyed.

We awake to see TV news, the Internet and the Press carry pictures of slaughtered children, of grieving mothers, of shattered neighbourhoods. We hear the radio newscasters intone details of the latest diabolical carnage.

These are Israeli bombs, missiles and shells.

And so. the propaganda win goes to Hamas. In my view they are the ones on whose hands the blood of innocence rests.

These cynical men who use their own dead civilians to win the sympathy of shocked people around the globe. This organisation whose ongoing commitment is the total destruction of the state of Israel and who, were they better armed, would see as many dead in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as they allow in their own crowded, huddled homeland. And more. Who might unleash a holocaust.

Hamas are Isis by another name - wholly unswerving in their commitment to the wholesale destruction of the enemy.

Let us all hope for some pause - some way out of this vortex.

Stavros said it well above... and these are the final lines of the poem he quoted.

"Pity the planet, all joy gone
from this sweet volcanic cone;
peace to our children when they fall
in small war on the heels of small
war – until the end of time
to police the earth, a ghost
orbiting forever lost
in our monotonous sublime."