Do you post anything other than hate-filled crap?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Do you consider Israel a good country
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Do you post anything other than hate-filled crap?
SandEagle
Lifer
Code:
why Harabec, i am offendeded. i didnt write the article, i just made an observation. if u have a problem with the article, i suggest u contact haaretz or those that conducted the study.
Oyeve
Lifer
It's all the inbreeding that makes them mentally lacking. Really.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
You are so full of hate it is so obvious and sad........
Then you blame your hatred on Haaretz...now that would be funny if it was not so sad....
JEDIYoda
Lifer
that's a lie.......and you know it....
Last edited:
JEDIYoda
Lifer
Must be hard being on the losing end of this Palestinian/Israeli thing.......truth hurts huh....
Misattributed[edit]
[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge... This has been reported to be a direct quotation of Dayan in the diaries of Moshe Sharett, but is actually derived from an interpretive commentary by Livia Rokach in "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" (1980) upon statements of Dayan reported in Sharett's diaries, from accounts provided to him by Ya'acob Herzog and Gideon Raphael — in other words: a third-hand interpretation of Dayan's meaning, based on a second hand report of his arguments. Sharett's summation of Dayan's statements of 26 May 1955 read:
We do not need a security pact with the U.S.: such a pact will only constitute an obstacle for us. We face no danger at all of an Arab advantage of force for the next 8-10 years. Even if they receive massive military aid from the West, we shall maintain our military superiority thanks to our infinitely greater capacity to assimilate new armaments. The security pact will only handcuff us and deny us the freedom of action which we need in the coming years. Reprisal actions which we couldn't carry out if we were tied to a security pact are our vital lymph ... they make it possible for us to maintain a high level of tension among our population and in the army. Without these actions we would have ceased to be a combative people and without the discipline of a combative people we are lost. We have to cry out that the Negev is in danger, so that young men will go there....Rokach's interpretive assessment of this diary entry by Sharett produces: The conclusions from Dayan's words are clear: This State has no international obligations, no economic problems, the question of peace is nonexistent... It must calculate its steps narrow-mindedly and live on its sword. It must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge.. . . And above all — let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.
Last edited:
alkemyst
No Lifer
There was a ton of inbreeding in the US esp. the Southern states.
People are people and most of us don't understand what it's like to never have been in a peace time. The war over there has been fought since before 0 A.D.
Caravaggio
Senior member
Actually, Sandeagle was not telling lies, he was quoting from the former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharret.
Why is that an example of "hitting rock bottom"? I thought you had unequivocal support for Zionism and its leaders?
The link Sandeagle posted is wholly congruent with David Ben Gurion's 1956 admission that Israel drove Palestinians from their homes and farmland in 1947/8. "We stole it", he said.
Your responses to posts on this thread are now merely shrill denials without a shred of evidence. Any criticism of Israel is said by you to be "shameless Jew-baiting", even when the academic source is an Israeli Jewish historian. You are incapable of debate. You are set to "transmit only".
In the world of serious academic history it is accepted that Israel used both terrorism and ethnic cleansing to take control of Palestine.
Only in the history departments of Israel do some still deny this fact. The reason? Israeli history departments are split into two branches, as Shlomo Sand has shown in his book "The Invention of the Jewish People"(2009). He should know, he has experience of that environment.
One side of the department deals with classical Talmudic 'myth history' while the other deals with standard modern historiography.
The problem is that until recently the modernists dared not challenge the old guard. Those who did, like Ilan Pappe and Shlomo Sand had to escape to more rational places like the UK and France. Their lives were threatened, like Gideon Levy is threatened today, for daring to challenge Israel's 'legitimacy'.
Benny Morris, once a young radical 'New Historian' like Pappe, decided to stay in Israel. The price he paid was that he had to accept the old 'myth histories'. His career has prospered, alas, elsewhere, he is regarded with contempt. Avi Shlaim (Oxford) called his sudden change of mind "a betrayal of history".
Yes, it is hard to watch shrapnel taken from a child's face, I acknowledge.
Israel is undoubtedly winning 'at home' and in the Crown Heights area of New York, too, I imagine. Elsewhere Jews are being attacked and their businesses ransacked. Europe is outraged by IDF excess in Gaza.
Strange 'victory' if anti-semitism ( a prejudice I detest) increases as a result?
Strange 'victory' if IS (an awful version of Islam) creeps ever nearer....
JEDIYoda
Lifer
actually no he was not...he was quoting a quote that was Misattributed[edit] and the quote was from this site that SandEagle linked too.....SandEagle knew full well it had been misattributed.....thus it was a lie......
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan
This has been reported to be a direct quotation of Dayan in the diaries of Moshe Sharett, but is actually derived from an interpretive commentary by Livia Rokach in "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" (1980) upon statements of Dayan reported in Sharett's diaries, from accounts provided to him by Ya'acob Herzog and Gideon Raphael — in other words: a third-hand interpretation of Dayan's meaning, based on a second hand report of his arguments. Sharett's summation of Dayan's statements of 26 May 1955 read:
[
JEDIYoda
Lifer
,,,,
Caravaggio
Senior member
Do you dispute that the words represent the true feelings of Sharrett?
What about an answer to the rest of my post?
Are you just playing a game of 'last word here', or are you capable of real debate?
____________________
"Judaism is a religion, not a unique genome, nor an entitlement to someone's land"
JEDIYoda
Lifer
Has nothing to do with the true feelings. Anytime you have a third-hand interpretation of Dayan's meaning, based on a second hand report of his arguments....you will have falsehood and half truths....
I dispute and have proof based on that link I provided that he did not say what is attributed to him......
Caravaggio
Senior member
Your case is that you are claiming that he never said the words recorded? Is that it? Then what DID he say? Or perhaps he never spoke at all? We can return to that issue of 'plausible deniability' later.
Firstly, let's deal with post 161. There are absolutely no original words of your own in that post. It is merely a 'cut and paste' of pro-Zionist waffle already assembled on your 'clip-board', as a goad to anyone who passed by. Sadly, it was unworthy of a response, although I note that you endorse the sentiments of a poster who blames Gazan parents for the deaths of their children.
That did not work at the Nuremberg trials in 1946 and it will not work here. Actors are responsible for their own actions. All else is madness.
So, to your post 163.
Are you arguing that wiki is in error and that you alone have the truth about Moshe Sharret?
Good luck with that project in the history seminar.
The words attributed to Sharret fit very well what we know of his actions and involvements since 1948.
I assume that we can agree that he knew of the existence of Cell 131 before the Lavon affair of 1954/5?
(That was the operation by Israeli secret forces to set off bombs in Egypt targeted at American buildings; libraries, cinemas etc, to discourage the US from warming to Nasser).
The operation carried out by Israelis that would be blamed on the Muslim brotherhood, who had no part in it.
A lot of readers here might be surprised to know that Israel once bombed US targets in the Middle East in the 1950's, but we both know that is true.
Anyone curious needs merely to check 'Lavon Affair', wiki. All will be revealed.
But since you are defending Moshe Sharrett, a man with whom you might identify, given your roots, are you extending your defence of him to the point of claiming, that despite being Israel's Prime Minister at the time, he knew nothing of the Lavon affair? If so, why did he have to resign? Your argument does not add-up.
We know that Israel denied those terrorist bombings for 51 years but they had to admit them in 2005 when the surviving terrorists from those raids were given specials honours by Moshe Katsav.
Or is wiki wrong on that too? Israeli history is always a work in progress, as we know.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
When it is convenient you quote wiki......when it is not convenient you try to dismantle wiki....
You cannot be that dense that you actually believe that there is a great amount of truth coming from a third-hand interpretation of Dayan's meaning, based on a second hand report of his arguments....you will have falsehood and half truths....
according to the wiki site that I posted -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan
It says that quote is misattributed -- you do understand what misattributed means??
Caravaggio
Senior member
You really are one slippery greased weasel.
That is the very opposite of the point I am making.
I am saying that if it is a choice between trusting you or wiki, I would go with wiki every time.
To reiterate, a mis-attributed quote is not the same as a false or invented quote. You have to show that the words you claim as 'misattributed' are unlikely to be Sharratt's actual words. You then need to tell us what you think he actually said, or intended to say.
The quote you dislike actually fits very well with what we know of Sharratt's policies and actions in setting up covert operations in the early fifties.
I ask you once again, and please don't try to wriggle out of answering this simple question for a third time:
'Do you deny that during his leadership of Israel, Sharratt was aware of the campaign by Israeli forces to set-off terrorist bombs in Egypt aimed at blowing-up American assets? That these bombs would be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood?'
Easy, just google : "The Lavon affair", wiki. Then let me know. You seem not to want to acknowledge such an event.
If he knew nothing about the covert ops of his own forces, why did he have to resign?
Just try to focus on my question and stop using your evasions.
_____________________
"Judaism is a religion, not a unique genome, nor a right to someone's land"
Last edited:
JEDIYoda
Lifer
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.
That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have disclaimers.
No formal peer review
Our active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.
None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.
Caravaggio
Senior member
I note that your posts are now devoid of any original content and are just space fillers. You are trying to run away but your dare not stop posting, so you just waffle and evade. You cannot respond with an argument of any sort.
OK, if Wiki is not to be trusted why do you use it?
But if you like, let's move away from Wiki for a while and deal directly with US Government documents, on file in Washington DC, that bear on the US view of Sharett. The US regarded Sharett as a very tricky and duplicitous customer indeed.
This view of Sharett was held by Mark Etheridge, Secretary McDonald, dean Acheson and Truman himself. He was also regarded as not to be trusted by Count Folke Bernadotte who was a central figure at the 1949 Lausanne Conference.
Bernadotte recognised that Sharett had no intention of taking back into Israel Arab refugees who had been ethnically 'cleansed'.
The UN had ordered their return.
Truman drafted a note to his secretary to tell Sharett of his annoyance about Israel's refusal to allow the Arabs to return. Truman spoke to Weizmann expressing his irritating about Sharett's broken promises.
But there was growing irritation in the Israeli delegation. Sharett was annoyed at being reprimanded by Bernadotte, so he and Shamir had a discussion and Shamir ordered the assassination of Count Bernadotte.
All of this is held in US. Archives. See 13 April 1949. Mark Ethridge (US delegate to UN) to US Secretary of State.
Held in "Foreign Relations of the US" . (Near East) volume 6, pages 913-998. Published 1977. US Government Printing Office.
Yep,one of Israel's early 'diplomatic' assassinations. Or are you in denial about that too?
There you are, all evidence provided by your second favourite country, no Wiki needed.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
That was the easiest route to go...and I totally read what wiki-pedia said in that thread...you on the other hand failed to mention or purposefully posted information from the wiki link that you posted --http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan -- that you knew was misattributed.......lie on purpose much??
Which of course you left out this glaring part of the link called --
Several keys parts of sentences -- This has been reported to be a direct quotation of Dayan in the diaries of Moshe Sharett, but is actually derived from an interpretive commentary by Livia Rokach in "Israel's Sacred Terrorism" (1980) upon statements of Dayan reported in Sharett's diaries, from accounts provided to him by Ya'acob Herzog and Gideon Raphael — in other words: a third-hand interpretation of Dayan's meaning, based on a second hand report of his arguments. Sharett's summation of Dayan's statements of 26 May 1955 read
checkmate!!
Last edited:
blankslate
Diamond Member
Israel is a good country whose citizens sometimes (like almost every other country) makes very foolish choices in their leadership.
....
....
Caravaggio
Senior member
In your dreams, sunshine.
If you look at the board I think that you will see that you are in a 'Knight fork' and that it is you who is in check.
You cannot castle out of check either. (But running away, your usual policy, might give you some respite)
The list of topics that you are unable to discuss grows daily.
1) Irgun, Stern Gang and Haganah terrorism against Arabs.
(No debate offered)
2) Ethnic cleansing of both Arab and Christian villages by Jewish militants both before April 1948 and for several years thereafter.
(No debate offered)
3) Extra-judicial assassinations by the Israeli state. Count Folke Bernadotte and many others more recently.
(Complete silence on your part)
4) The Lavon affair. Israel attacks US assets in Egypt during Sharett's leadership
(Again, silence from you)
To which list I might add:
5) Arik Sharon's war crimes in Lebanon.
6) the use of white phosphorus shells against Gazan civilians in 2009
7) letter bombs in the UK post.
8) current use of overwhelming disproportionate force in current Gazan conflict.
9) Israel's attack on the USS Liberty which killed 34 US sailors and injured 171 others.
(The US Clark Clifford report called that last one "An unprovoked flagrant attack...on a vessel in international waters, ...for which Israeli military personnel should be punished")
Were they punished? Nah.
But Israel had to cough-up a fine of $17 million, paid, in the usual way, from the US foreign aid budget controlled by AIPAC. Nice scam if you can get your fines paid by another country's overseas aid! Cool.
So, Yogi, here is the knight fork:
Do you condemn the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty?
That is an attack on the assets of the country in which you are a citizen, by the country you love most.
Answer that simple question, then you will recognise what a knight fork is.
Your move....
Good country? You have to be kidding.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
You have a lot of bent up hostility inside that needs to be vented...fortunately it`s it is obvious you are anti Israel and that's OK!! Being pro-Palestinian just means that you are an outcast even among your Arab brothers and sisters who approve of what Israel is doing under the table....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/israe...-210001308.html;_ylt=AwrTHRtddutTHQYAOe9XNyoA
Israel Finds Silent Backing Among Arab Nations Hostile to Hamas
As Israel seeks to sideline Hamas in any accord on the Gaza Strip’s future, it’s finding quiet support among Arab nations where antagonism toward the Islamist group eclipses their enmity toward the Jewish state.
Egypt, which mediated a second 72-hour halt to Gaza fighting yesterday, is now ruled by an army chief who presided over a crackdown on Hamas’s Islamist patrons. Saudi Arabia’s king didn’t explicitly criticize Israel in a recent lament over civilian deaths in Gaza. The United Arab Emirates, which pledged aid to help rebuild the coastal strip, is also hostile to political Islam.
There’s an “alignment of interests” between nations that aren’t allies yet have “common adversaries,” said Martin Indyk, vice president of the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former U.S. negotiator in the Middle East. “As they see that the U.S. is less engaged than it was before, it’s natural that they look to each other -- quietly, under the table in most respects -- to find a way to help each other.”
Talks in Cairo first delivered a three-day truce that collapsed Aug. 8 amid a barrage of Hamas rockets. Yesterday’s accord was contingent on an end to the rocket attacks, Israeli officials said. Israel and Hamas are pressing for an agreement that addresses issues earlier pacts didn’t resolve. Hamas wants to end the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt, while Israel seeks to demilitarize the territory.
Gulf Money
With Egypt brokering the negotiations and Gulf states promising money to help reconstruct Gaza, Israeli officials have said they may support a bigger role there for the secular Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas, at Hamas’s expense. Following the breakdown of Abbas’s peace talks with Israel, Hamas and Abbas mended a seven-year rift that produced rival governments in the West Bank and Gaza, forming a unity coalition in June that Israel has shunned.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said changes in the region create an opportunity to “fashion a new reality” that is “more conducive to an end to violence, a sustainable peace that can lead to other things.” We are “prepared to see a role” for the Palestinian Authority in post-conflict Gaza, Netanyahu said in Jerusalem last week.
Israel has had greater contact in recent weeks with Arab governments opposed to radical Islamists, according to an Israeli official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Israel, like the U.S. and European Union, considers Hamas a terrorist group.
Gaza Homes
Securing a Cairo agreement to rebuild Gaza will provide an early test of the practical value of the contacts. The United Nations says more than 10,000 homes were destroyed in the fighting that also damaged the strip’s sole power station, schools and medical centers. More than 1,900 Palestinians and 67 on the Israeli side have been killed.
Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. haven’t made peace with Israel, while Egypt and Jordan have. In one area of convergence, Saudi Arabia’s ruling family shares Israel’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.
The U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will be behind the scenes in Cairo, said Christopher Davidson, a reader in Middle East politics at the U.K.’s University of Durham. As the “bank-rollers of Egypt, it’s implicit in any Egyptian peace-brokering that its actions are monitored and pre-approved by these monarchies,” said Davidson, author of “After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies.”
Brotherhood Ban
The two autocracies are staunch opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, the regional group that is Hamas’s parent, and its vision of bringing political Islam to power via the ballot box. Saudi Arabia in March designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
King Abdullah on Aug. 1 condemned those “trying to hijack Islam and present it to the world as a religion of extremism,” while criticizing the international community for “watching silently” as “we see the blood of our brothers in Palestine shed in collective massacres.”
Egypt’s military under now-President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi toppled a Brotherhood-backed government last year, and has tightened the Gaza blockade. Tunnels that were used to smuggle goods have been demolished on concerns militants might use them to attack Egyptian forces in the Sinai peninsula.
Egypt and Gulf states except Qatar “agree on the need to keep Hamas weak,” Khalid al-Dakhil, an independent political analyst based in Riyadh, said by phone. “They want everything to go through the Palestinian Authority.” The problem is that “Israel wants to eliminate Hamas and keep Abbas as weak as possible,” he said.
‘Best Situation’
Abbas’s failure to win a Palestinian state through negotiations with Israel has hurt his standing among his people. Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, said he’s skeptical the fallout from the Gaza conflict will prod Netanyahu to make concessions Abbas sought.
“I don’t see a willingness on the part of the Israeli coalition to give” Abbas the freeze on construction of Jewish settlements and release of a further group of Palestinian prisoners that he wants, Thrall said.
One possibility under discussion in Cairo would be to give Abbas authority over the Gaza-Egyptian border crossing at Rafah, Israel’s Channel 2 reported, without saying where it got the information.
A rebuilding of Gaza led by Gulf countries and Egypt, along with new powers for Abbas there, would be “the best situation,” said Joshua Teitelbaum, senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies near Tel Aviv. “There’s a long road to go.”
‘Great Idea’
In the end, it may be pro-Hamas nations Qatar and Turkey that are needed to arrange a long-term deal in Gaza, according to Moshe Maoz, a professor emeritus of Islamic studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. That will only happen if Mideast peace talks resume and make progress, he said.
Netanyahu’s goal of demilitarizing Gaza is “a great idea, but how do you force Hamas to do it?” Maoz said.
The Saudi and Emirati leaders, who don’t have diplomatic ties with Israel, are unlikely to go public with their common interests, meaning that progress may be slow, said Davidson.
“It’s going to be a great dancing act,” he said. “It has to be cryptic.”
Caravaggio
Senior member
You seem very hostile to the Palestinians. Are you Jewish by any chance?
JEDIYoda
Lifer
Nice try.......
I have stated what I feel needs to happen for lasting Peace between the Palestinians AND Israel.....
Am I anti Palestinian -- umm no!!
I have pointed out over and over that if you take Hamas out of the picture there would be a 2 state solution.......with Hamas in the picture -- there will only be a 2 state solution if and when Hamas is broken......you have to keep punching Hamas in the face until they get the message!
You say what about the Palestinians who are in the middle of all this....
My response is so what??
They elected Hamas -- they made a bad decision.....shit happens!
They also allowed -- YES -- allowed Hamas to dig those tunnels and store the missiles.
It all goes back to these 2 things which are the truth --
Okay so lets get this straight -- We have a country that has no navy, no air force, no special forces, not really an army, no tanks, no place to hide, k-mart rockets, yet they want to fight a war with Israel which is a powerhouse, I don't get it. they built (Gaza) tunnels to surprise the enemy, something like the Trojan horse concept. now who is advising these people to wage war.
The equation is simple for the Palestinian people. They elected a group who has sworn to destroy Israeli. This same group has no problem using Palestinian people as human shields. They should not be surprised when Israeli responds. They control there own destiny. If Hamas would swear off rocket attacks and swear off calling for the destruction of Israeli they wouldn't get bombed. Also if they swore of violence they wouldn't have such a restrictive blockade on them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fd2b48-1d83-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html
Hamas could have chosen peace. Instead, it made Gaza suffer.
In the winter of 2005, Ziad Abu Amr, a Gaza representative in the Palestinian Legislative Council, invited me to speak in Gaza City. As I entered the building for the event, I saw Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the co-founders of Hamas. Before I could say anything, Ziad explained: “We decided to invite the opposition to hear you. We think it is important that they do so.”
I had not expected senior Hamas leaders to be there, but it didn’t alter my main message. Israel was slated to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in several months, so I emphasized that this was a time of opportunity for Palestinians — they should seize it. I told the audience of roughly 200 Gazans that this was a moment to promote Palestinian national aspirations.
If they took advantage of the Israeli withdrawal to peacefully develop Gaza, the international community and the Israelis would see that what was working in Gaza could also be applied to the West Bank. However, I then asked rhetorically: If Palestinians instead turn Gaza into a platform for attacks against Israel, who is going to favor an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian state?
Much of Palestinians’ history might have been imposed on them by others, I said. But this time they had the power to shape their future. If they made the wrong choice, they could not blame the Arabs, the Europeans, the Americans — or the Israelis.
While the audience was not shy about criticizing the U.S. role in peacemaking, no one challenged my main message that day.
Unfortunately, we know the path Hamas chose. Even as Israel was completing the process of withdrawing all its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Hamas carried out a bus-station bombing in Israel. Then, from late 2005 to early 2006, Hamas conducted multiple attacks on the very crossing points that allowed people and goods to move into and out of Gaza. For Hamas, it was more important to continue “resistance” than to allow Gazans to constructively test their new freedom — or to give Israelis a reason to think that withdrawal could work. Some argue that Israel withdrew but imposed a siege on Gaza. In reality, Hamas produced the siege. Israel’s tight embargo on Gaza came only after ongoing Hamas attacks.[/B]
The embargo on Gaza might have hurt the Palestinians who live there, but it did not stop Hamas from building a labyrinth of underground tunnels, bunkers, command posts and shelters for its leaders, fighters and rockets. The tunnels are under houses, schools, hospitals and mosques; they allow Hamas fighters to go down one shaft and depart from another. According to the Israeli army, an estimated 600,000 tons of cement — some of it smuggled through tunnels from Egypt, some diverted from construction materials allowed into Gaza — was used for Hamas’s underground network.
At times, I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built. They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right. Developing Gaza — fostering a future for its people and protecting them — was not Hamas’s goal.
So long as Israel exists, Hamas will seek to fight it. It was not Israel’s opposition to the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) that led to this latest round of warfare. Rather, it was Hamas’s political isolation and increasingly desperate financial situation. The group was broke after Egypt closed the smuggling tunnels into Gaza, Iran cut off funding because of Hamas’s opposition to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and Qatar was unable to send money through the Rafah border crossing, which Egypt controls.
The reconciliation deal relieved Hamas of the need to govern Gaza and meet its financial obligations there — without relieving it of its weapons. But the PA wasn’t willing to pay the Hamas salaries, including to its security forces, so Hamas did what it does best: use force to alter the political landscape.
In the 1990s, when I was the U.S. negotiator on Middle East peace, every time we made progress or seemed to be on the verge of a breakthrough, Hamas suicide bombers would strike Israeli cities. Six months before Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995, he told me that the next Israeli election and Israel’s position toward the Palestinians would be determined not by anything he did but by whether Hamas carried out bombings in Israel. His message was that his security forces — and especially those of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat — had to do a better job of rooting out Hamas or our hopes for peace would be thwarted.
With its finances dwindling, Hamas initiated the recent conflict. This time, however, its leaders held the people of Gaza hostage to its needs, hoping that Egypt would feel the need to open Rafah, that Qatar would deliver money and that Israel would be forced to release Palestinian prisoners.
The Israelis will certainly resist an outcome that offers Hamas any gains. Having destroyed the tunnels that could penetrate Israel, the Israelis have pulled out of Gaza and were willing to extend the 72-hour truce that ended Friday. Hamas was not willing to do so. If Israel hopes to build broader international pressure on the group to stop firing, the Israel Defense Forces will need to avoid targets such as U.N. schools and hospitals. Of course, that is easier said than done, given that Hamas often fires rockets from or near such sites.
At some point, Hamas will stop firing rockets — if for no other reason than its arsenal is depleted. For the people of Gaza, however, the price has been staggering. But Hamas’s leaders have never been concerned about that. For them, Palestinians’ pain and suffering are tools to exploit, not conditions to end.
When relative calm returns, there will understandably be a push for a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas now even less able politically to tackle the core issues , a permanent agreement between the two sides is not in the cards. U.S. diplomacy, therefore, needs to be guided by several considerations and achievable aims.
First, the new strategic alignment in the region must be recognized. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates see the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat, and they will be natural partners in denying Hamas, the Palestinian wing of the Brotherhood, potential gains and assisting the PA’s reentry into Gaza.
Second, because Hamas is incapable of changing, it needs to be discredited. In the short term, humanitarian and reconstruction aid in Gaza must be managed so that Hamas cannot exploit it politically or militarily. The Obama administration should insist that the crossing points cannot be reopened until adequate safeguards are in place to prevent the diversion of the assistance. Not only would this permit the PA to reestablish itself at the Gaza crossing points, but it could also prevent Hamas from seizing materials shipped into the Gaza Strip. For the longer term, the United States should organize a Marshall Plan for Gaza contingent on Hamas disarming. If Hamas chooses arms over civilian investment and development, it should be exposed before Palestinians and the international community.
Third, it is important to build the political capital of Abbas and the PA by showing that they can deliver something in the West Bank. Consistent with its security concerns, Israel can expedite the movement of goods and materials destined for the West Bank, preventing them from needlessly getting held up in Israeli ports.
Fourth, focus on conflict management, not conflict resolution. The United States should try to broker unilateral steps that could change the dynamic between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For example, in what is referred to as Area C of the West Bank, Israel controls all planning, zoning and security. We would ask Israel to open Area C, which is 60 percent of the West Bank, to the Palestinians for housing construction and industrial parks. In exchange, we would ask the Palestinians to forgo moves in international organizations designed to symbolize statehood and pressure Israel.
Fifth, try to persuade Netanyahu to declare that Israel’s settlement construction will be made consistent with its two-state policy, meaning it will not build in areas that it thinks will be part of a Palestinian state. This would not only defuse the movement to delegitimize Israel internationally, but it would also make it easier for the Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis and Emirates to work more openly with Israel.
The point would be to create some positive movement on peace and Israel’s relations with its neighbors. The United States would publicly maintain its commitment to achieving two states for two peoples. Our diplomacy after this recent conflict must foster tangible changes on the ground, not promise a vision that is unachievable. That is the essence of good statecraft, and rarely has it been more needed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
