December 29th, 2008

Hamas and Israel: same old same old, despite Obama

Hamas attacks. Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel will be criticized for doing so. The number of Palestinian casualties is emphasized by the press, and Palesinian reports of how many civilians have been hurt are accepted uncritically.

So, what else is new?

Not much. Oh, there’s the O-factor—that is, how does all of this affect our incoming President? Headlines that read, like this one in the WaPo, “Israeli Airstrikes on Gaza Strip Imperil Obama’s Peace Chances,” show a puzzling and yet persistent belief in the power of a single person to somehow cut through the desire of a terror group such as Hamas to destroy Israel.

I’ve got news for the WaPo, and the analysts quoted at length in the article: the current violence is not an aberration in a situation that would otherwise be amenable to the magic of Obama. And by that statement I am not criticizing Obama; I’m taking issue with those who think any person, or any diplomatic policy of the US, could have the desired effect.

Prior to the 90s and then the post-Camp-David Second Intifada, people could be excused for thinking so. But that avenue has been tried—and tried, and tried—and it does not work. If it did, President Clinton’s efforts would have succeeded. What we have here is a situation that appears to be beyond the reach of diplomacy.

81 Responses to “Hamas and Israel: same old same old, despite Obama”

  1. Jamie Irons Says:

    Neo,

    Ralph Peters has a nice piece on the Gaza situation in the NY Post today, with a heading something like:

    ISRAEL: DAMNED IF THEY DO, DEAD IF THEY DON’T

    Among others, he offers the following trenchant observations:

    [begin quoted material]

    Given the fact that Hamas adheres to the terrorist practice of locating command sites, arsenals and training facilities in heavily populated areas, the results suggest that the IDF – supported by first-rate intelligence work – may have executed the most accurate wave of airstrikes in history, with a 15-to-1 terrorist-to-civilian kill ratio.

    The bad news is that it still won’t be enough. While Israel has delivered a painful blow against Hamas, it’s still not a paralyzing hit. The only way to neuter such a terror threat – even temporarily – is to go in on the ground and scour every room, basement and underground tunnel in a region.

    That would mean high Israeli casualties and, of course, condemnation of Israel’s self-defense efforts by every self-righteous, corrupt and bigoted organization and government on earth, from Turtle Bay to Tehran.

    [end quoted material]

    Jamie Irons

  2. dane Says:

    Even during the cease fire Hamas lobbed missiles at the Israelis – rarely reported. I think Israel needs to defend itself and will be much more prone to do so if Netanyahu is returned to office. It also would not surprise me to see Israel go after Iran’s nuclear program at the first hint they are getting near a weapon. I believe if this happens Obama will throw Israel under the bus (as he did with Ayers and Wright – two others he professed to have “special” relationships with until it was shown to be hurting him politically). I think he (and Hillary) will try to pressure them by threatening to withhold military aid. It won’t work. The Israeli’s are as tough and determined as we in this country used to be.

  3. Martin Bebow Says:

    Yes it does seem to be beyond diplomacy. At least diplomacy in the old world mold. We need new world thinking. We need to realize that a world where nation-state interests supercede global interests is no loinger workable. We need global institutions to deal with global problems. How about this for starts: world leaders agree to fix national boundaries as they currently exist and set up a mechanism of forced arbitration for disputed boundaries. For one thing doing this will undercut legitimacy for all armed insurgencies.

  4. Hyman Rosen Says:

    The lead paragraph of that story says

    Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza yesterday, in retaliation for a nonstop barrage of rocket attacks from Hamas fighters, raised the prospect of an escalation of violence that could scuttle any hopes the incoming Obama administration harbored of forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

    which seems fair, balanced, and accurate, except that it doesn’t give any source for believing that the incoming Obama administration actually harbors such hopes.

    What’s going to happen here is the same thing that always happens. The war will drag on for a while, then there will be a truce that’s kinda sorta honored and things will get relatively calm until the cycle of violence flares up again.

    Bitter enemies living side by side. There is no hope for peace. There is only hope for periods of quiet.

  5. 363 Says:

    You are a pretty cold woman. There are a lot of dead people as a result of the Israeli military. I would not want that on my conscience.

  6. Tom Says:

    The “dead people” of Hamas are perpetrators, not victims, 363. Pacifism, where is thy sting? Where is thy victory?

  7. huxley Says:

    363 — Hamas is literally dedicated to the elimination of Israel. This is not a misunderstanding that can be negotiated.

    Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.
    Hamas Charter

    Or broken out with explanations: The Israel Report

    363, what exactly would you recommend that Israel do?

    Here’s what Obama said last summer when he visited one of the cities being attacked by Hamas: ” “Israelis must not suffer a threat to their lives, to their schools…if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that.”

    How Obama will back that up when he is sitting in the Big Chair remains to be seen.

  8. Hyman Rosen Says:

    The proper response to MB above is “you and what army?” Armed insurgencies don’t need “legitimacy”, all they need are guns. Do you really imagine that the psychic pressure of world approbation is going to make them put down their weapons? “We need to realize?” Who is this “we”? The people in this country are divided into two halves, each of which thinks the other is composed of knaves and fools. When we can’t get along in our own country, who exactly is going to be running this transcendent, all-wise world government?

    Wait a minute – Barack Obama, that’s who!

  9. Politichic Says:

    But wait – isn’t Obama the light at the end of the tunnel and the magical peace potion band-aid that will make it all better?

    Back to your post – I agree. And part of me wonders if this strike back isn’t timed appropriate b/c of the change in administration. All of these things are much more interconnected than any of us are aware.

    I’ve been wondering how Obama and Clinton handles our relationship with Israel. I have a sick feeling they are going to royally screw it up.

    But…I’ll TRY to be optimistic.

  10. FredHjr Says:

    Obama never heard of “hudna.” Neither did his predecessors. Some Israelis know it and what it means.

    Hudna is the best that Obama – or anyone else for that matter – can hope to obtain from a Muslim population.

    Do YOU, neoneocon, know what hudna means?

    As long as educated Westerners refuse to learn about the Islamic scriptures (Qur’an), traditions (ahadith), and the example of the Prophet (Sira), they will never understand this enemy and what motivates them. Therefore, they will not have realistic expectations of diplomacy.

  11. FredHjr Says:

    Netanyahu was just on FOX News explaining what Hamas did with the cease-fire period that just ended. They used it to rearm. And that is exactly what the Prophet and his sock puppet said what a hudna is all about.

  12. huxley Says:

    As long as educated Westerners refuse to learn about the Islamic scriptures (Qur’an), traditions (ahadith), and the example of the Prophet (Sira), they will never understand this enemy and what motivates them. Therefore, they will not have realistic expectations of diplomacy.

    Amen to that.

    Islam is not Christianity with a turban. Whatever spiritual values Islam may embody, it is also a call to subjugate the world to the supremacist vision of Muhammad and the Qur’an.

    Islam means submission.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Israel MUST offer an ultimatum;

    Hamas renounces ALL violence AND renounces its founding charter with immediate recognition of the right of Israel to exist in perpetuity…and guarantee’s the complete and permanent end to violence…

    OR

    Forced expulsion of ALL Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank…with the permanent annexation of those territories into Israel to immediately follow.

    Offer financial recompense but they are ALL gone, the Palestinian’s choice is simply to leave or die.

    Do it tomorrow…

    Nothing LESS will do.

    But Israel will do nothing…because they are as polarized as we are.

    And so the refrain will continue to play until eventually, Hamas manages to obtain and smuggle into Israel a nuclear bomb…and then the ‘Jewish experiment in the desert, by the sea’ will end with the second Holocaust.

  14. FredHjr Says:

    What would happen to the people at Foggy Bottom, Turtle Bay, and Brussels if they were to discover the word “hudna” and what it means?

    Just wondering…

  15. Paul Gordon Says:

    “…and then the ‘Jewish experiment in the desert, by the sea’ will end with the second Holocaust.”

    Except, this time the Israelis have maybe a couple of hundred nuclear weapons, and God-knows-what biological capability.

    This is NOT the “turn the other cheek” crowd, and they will NOT go gently into that good night. Been there, done that; this time, they will take as many of their enemies with them as they possibly could.

    Anyone want to speculate on what they COULD do in that circumstance?

    -

  16. Logern Says:

    I’m taking issue with those who think any person, or any diplomatic policy of the US, could have the desired effect.

    I think it’s fair to say there hasn’t been any lack of conlict resolution attempts.

    If this were a couple of family members who have a big all out fight evey holiday season dragging everyone else in and then rinse repeat year after year, at some point everyone else needs to admit there’s little point in investing a lot of energy in anything more than keeping the home from being destroyed.

    I am not much for investing further brain power in answering riddles for people who keep rejecting every option where one or neither can accept a compromise.

    I’m not at all unhappy that we’ve pursued solutions though, as that is part of the process.

  17. Bogey Man Says:

    Neoneo says negotiations didn’t “work,” but I’m wondering by what standards she makes that assessment.

    I suspect we can all agree that the Palestinian strategy of small scale rocket attacks and a mini-civil war among its factions has been totally disastrous. The conflict between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has prevented sympathetic governments from around the world from injecting badly needed aid and infrastructure support.

    By any reasonable measure, Israeli aggression hasn’t “worked” either.

    Let us recall that Israel helped Hamas get established in the occupied territories. They did so because they held a “blank check” mentality in battling the PLO. So, at the time, it seemed good to them to support a radical Islamist group, because “anything goes” when you believe your moral superiority is unassailable in battling the PLO.

    The Israeli strategy has been disastrous. Even after it stopped directly aiding Hamas, Israel indirectly helped create the monster by destroying the PLO and neutering the Palestinian Authority.

    Recall that Arafat, the only Palestinian leader to have agreed to a peace process, was literally held under house arrest by Israel — his authority destroyed, leaving a vacuum that Hamas quickly filled. Israel routinely pilfered UN and U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, again undermining the authority of the only credible moderating influence on Palestinian radicals.

    The core problem is that both sides believe their moral superiority is unassailable. That prevents them from seeking practical solutions and, above all, from compromising or, even, in defining compromise.

    Israel’s latest response in Hamas will be no less disastrous than its invasion of Lebanon, which merely destabilized that country and ended up increasing the power and prestige of Hezbollah.

    Surely there will be some short-term benefit to Israel in destroying the Hamas infrastructure and putting an immediate and clearly justified halt to the missile attacks into Israel. But mid-term, Israel has shown it will be unwilling to deal squarely with the Palestinian Authority, the only group in a position to moderate Hamas and its ilk.

    Unless and until both Israel and the Palestinian radicals acknowledge that their moral superiority isn’t a blank check, the conflict will continue.

  18. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Unless and until both Israel and the Palestinian radicals acknowledge that their moral superiority isn’t a blank check, the conflict will continue.”

    If the Israeli’s ‘abandon’ their moral superiority, what will happen if Hamas does not?

    If Hamas abandons its moral superiority does anyone doubt that Israel will offer in return almost anything to achieve peace?

    How can Hamas abandon its most cherished principle, and its raison d’etre, the eradication of Israel?

  19. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “This is NOT the “turn the other cheek” crowd, and they will NOT go gently into that good night. Been there, done that; this time, they will take as many of their enemies with them as they possibly could.”

    Yes, they most certainly will. Which even ‘moderate’ Iranian clerics have already stated is a ‘price’ that Islam can easily bear…

    And, in a world of increased nuclear proliferation, as a result of Iranian’s acquiring the bomb… If Al Qeada should ‘steal’ a bomb and then use it upon Tel Aviv…whom shall the remaining Israeli’s attack?

    Al Qeada is Sunni, Iran Shia…

    There are OVER 1 billion Muslims living in many countries, Israel can’t attack them all. Thus Israel will fall and all out of a refusal to face the threat and deal with it while they could.

  20. huxley Says:

    What “moral superiority” could Hamas possibly have? They are committed to Israel’s elimination.

    Israel is willing to live with Hamas; Hamas is not willing to live with Israel.

    This is not about moral superiority. This is war over Israel’s existence.

    And does the rest of the world shrug and turn away because Hamas and millions of other Muslims demand the end of Israel?

  21. Baklava Says:

    Dear Israel criticizers,

    Israel isn’t doing the righ thing in your mind.

    1) What is the right thing for Israel to do?
    2) Has Israel done that said option before?
    3) Has it gotten Israel anywhere?

    The world awaits your answer…

  22. Baklava Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0CzM_Frvc&eurl=http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/12/the_good_fight_in_gaza.asp&feature=player_embedded

    video of Hamas militants loading missiles on truck, IAF makes truck blow up.

  23. Jack Says:

    Hamas deserves what they are getting.

  24. Jack Says:

    Hamas deserves what they are getting.

  25. OmegaPaladin Says:

    There is no point in being humane. There is no point in being civilized. Israel will be criticized no matter what it does. End of story.

    Total war is not politically correct, but it does tend to actually resolve things.

  26. grackle Says:

    By any reasonable measure, Israeli aggression [policy of appeasement and 'measured' reactions to Palestinian aggression] hasn’t “worked” either.

    I just had to clean up the above statement.

    Let us recall that Israel helped Hamas get established in the occupied territories. They did so because they held a “blank check” mentality in battling the PLO. So, at the time, it seemed good to them to support a radical Islamist group, because “anything goes” when you believe your moral superiority is unassailable in battling the PLO.

    I wonder what the writer thinks of the WW2 US-Soviet alliance. Without Russian solders dying by the millions on the Eastern Front Hitler may have prevailed. But the concept of shifting alliances, a common foreign policy and diplomatic concept, seems to be totally foreign to the writer. Simply put: You support entities who are adversaries to your enemy. If these same folks later turn against you – the support stops and you treat them as an enemy. It seems so simple of a thing to grasp yet the writer does not seem to comprehend it.

    The Israeli strategy has been disastrous. Even after it stopped directly aiding Hamas, Israel indirectly helped create the monster by destroying the PLO and neutering the Palestinian Authority.

    Now the writer would have had the Israelis support the PLO! This after lambasting Israel for supporting Hamas.

    Israel routinely pilfered UN and U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, again undermining the authority of the only credible moderating influence on Palestinian radicals.

    Hogwash. Israel “pilfered” nothing.

    The core problem is that both sides believe their moral superiority is unassailable. That prevents them from seeking practical solutions and, above all, from compromising or, even, in defining compromise.

    It is the Palestinians and their supporters who refuse to compromise.

    Israel’s latest response in Hamas will be no less disastrous than its invasion of Lebanon, which merely destabilized that country and ended up increasing the power and prestige of Hezbollah.

    The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was in response to violence from terrorists based in Lebanon. Lebanon-based violence has ceased since then. And this is “disastrous”?

    Surely there will be some short-term benefit to Israel in destroying the Hamas infrastructure and putting an immediate and clearly justified halt to the missile attacks into Israel. But mid-term, Israel has shown it will be unwilling to deal squarely with the Palestinian Authority, the only group in a position to moderate Hamas and its ilk.

    The writer’s faith in the various factions in Palestine being able to moderate each other is touching but not very realistic. They were in an all-out civil war just a short time ago. Israel, in my opinion, has generally been fair in its dealings with the Palestinians.

    Unless and until both Israel and the Palestinian radicals acknowledge that their moral superiority isn’t a blank check, the conflict will continue.

    The only thing Israel wants is to be left in peace – as opposed to the other side, who wants to destroy Israel. Only one side in this conflict has “moral superiority” and that would be Israel, who is fighting for its existence.

  27. huxley Says:

    Thanks for the fisking, grackle.

    I find it fascinating how difficult the insight in your last paragraph is for many Westerners.

  28. rickl Says:

    OmegaPaladin Says:
    Total war is not politically correct, but it does tend to actually resolve things.

    Yes it does.

    It is long past time for Israel to bring the hammer down on the Palestinians.

    As General LeMay said about the Japanese, “If we kill enough of them, they’ll stop fighting.” Guess what? That strategy worked. We didn’t have to endure a half century of cease-fires and temporary truces with Japan.

    Israel needs to pursue a policy of total war, ruthlessly and without remorse. It will end when the surviving Palestinians beg for mercy, and not one moment before.

  29. Perfected democrat Says:

    “Hamas and Israel: same old same old, despite Obama”

    Wait till January, Obama and the Democrats have lined up the most Israel negative team ever seen. Some of them are even Jews… Obama didn’t do everything possible to undermine the Iraq war effort, sit in Wright’s Hamas simpathetic church for twenty years, and do business and dine regularly with his Pali-arab activist friends, from Rezko to Khalidi, for no reason. We haven’t begun to see how badly a bunch of incompetent leftist opportunists can screw things up… Bush and Rice, with their ill conceived political ploy left, promoted the Annapolis sham, while continuing the Democrat’s endless “negotiations” with our most dangerous and mocking enemies, from North Korea to the Pali’s Abbas, Fatah the Hamas Lite, have led Israel and America to the present dismal situation. The Clintons, Carter, Gore, as well as Obama’s campaign, recipients of millions of dollars of foreign arab islamist contributions. They are influenced and beholden to that money whether we want to admit it or not. We needed a Rudy Giuliani in the White House and a John Bolton in the State Department, and instead we bought a probable moslem communist posing as a Christian Democrat, prove to me otherwise… We can’t even get the Judicial Department to enforce the constitution by verifying Obama’s legitimacy as a natural born citizen. America can survive this, but Israel is about to be railroaded into it’s own rape, in the next ” peace negotiations” because of the incompetence of it’s selected far left-wing leadership, and now our own. We have lost control, but can at least, and should, scream bloody murder. Greater Israel and freedom, no submission, no apologies; As Israel’s fortunes go, so shall America’s…

  30. Perfected democrat Says:

    Incidentally, after writing the above, I happened into Clifford May’s latest at NRO:
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTJiZjg4MTFmMmE5MDYyN2Q1M2YwYWM1NzhiOTVjZDE=

  31. dane Says:

    there’s something that no one has addressed – either here (as far as I can tell) – or in our government. Over the years our government gave mucho dinero to the PLO and most of it ended up in Arafat’s pockets – none of it was used to better the lives of the Palestinian people. It is incumbent upon Hamas and other groups to keep the populace poor and hungry. If people are able to feed their families and see a chance at a decent life most will be more inclined toward a peace that will allow that to lifestyle to continue.

    Oddly enough there are many so-called minority leaders in this country who feel the same way about the people whose causes they purport to champion.

  32. Hyman Rosen Says:

    While it may be true that “the only thing Israel wants is to be left in peace”, the problem for the Palestinians is that peace for Israel means that Israel continues to expand settlements and keeps control of Jerusalem. Israel has already won, so of course peace is in her interest. The Palestinians are trying to reverse a situation and the Israelis to preserve it, and that’s just one of the many asymmetries involved.

  33. Baklava Says:

    Hyman without basis in fact wrote, “the problem for the Palestinians is that peace for Israel means that Israel continues to expand settlements and keeps control of Jerusalem.

    Israel keeps giving land back Hyman.

    Israel keeps offering more and more land for peace during these peace talks.

    This is NOT the core of the issue. You need to study the issue a lot more before you can come to the table with words.

    Do you know what the core of the issue is?

  34. Gringo Says:

    363:
    You are a pretty cold woman. There are a lot of dead people as a result of the Israeli military. I would not want that on my conscience.

    Here is what Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita has to say on the issue.

    “The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God.”

    If the people of Hamas have their way, there will be no annihilated Israelis on THEIR conscience, because they apparently have none, at least as regards Jewish people. 363: do you wish to enable the psychopaths of Hamas? While they do not currently have the capability to annihilate the Israeli nation, they definitely have the intention . READ THEIR LIPS.

    When someone talks about “dead people as a result of the Israeli military,” I am reminded of the outcry back in 2002 about the “massacre” at Jenin by the Palestinian and their first world enablers. Here is an excerpt of the Report of the European Union submitted to the UN Secretary General about the “massacre” at Jenin.

    “Palestinians had claimed that between 400 and 500 people had been killed, fighters and civilians together. They had also claimed a number of summary executions and the transfer of corpses to an unknown place outside the city of Jenin.

    The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55. Of those, a number were civilians, four were women and two children. There were 23 Israeli fatalities in the fighting operations in Jenin. .”

    There is a long-standing attempt on the part of the Palestinians and their first world enablers, not just at Jenin, to paint the IDF as ruthless and indiscriminate killers of civilian: facts be damned. Hamas and Palestinians celebrate the death of Israeli civilians. Israel does not celebrate the death of Palestinian civilians, but regrets it, and does all it can to minimize death of Palestinian civilians. If the Israelis were really indiscriminate killers of Palestinian civilians, there would be millions dead, as the IDF definitely has the capability. Do you see the difference, 363?

  35. Baklava Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

    The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over all the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement, although Israel disputes this interpretation. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders for the West Bank.

    Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[1][2][3] As a result, “Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements.”[4] The West Bank would be separated by a road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, with free passage for Palestinians although Israel reserved the right to close the road for passage in case of emergency. The Palestinian position was that the annexations would block existing road networks between major Palestinian populations. In return, the Israelis would cede 1% of their territory in the Negev Desert to Palestine. The Palestinians rejected this proposal.

    Skip down to the “Refugees and the right of Return” section. This is the core of the problem.

    They want the equivalent of reparations 4 decades later and a displacement of Israeli families.

    It won’t happen Hyman

  36. Baklava Says:

    They have to move forward and accept Israel’s right to exist and cut out the teaching of hatred for Israel to their children and stop using terror tactics and “targeting” civilians in Israel….

    … targeting people in weddings, buses, disco’s, using rockets with no targeting capability and lobbing them into cities.

  37. Baklava Says:

    In the “Reasons for impasse” section.

    Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were not offered enough, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more. According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, “most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat.”[10]

    Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% (after many years – see section on territory) of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. But before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was “we can’t accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.”[11]

    Clinton, who promised Arafat that no one would be blamed if the talks failed, did, in fact, blame Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, “I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace.” [4] According to The Oslo Syndrome, “most of the European states followed Clinton in seeing the Israeli offers as very forthcoming and placing the onus for the summits’s failure on Arafat …. Nor did [Arafat's] regime’s post-Camp David complaints regarding Israel’s not recognizing the Palestinian refugees’ ‘right of return’ win over the Europeans or Americans.”[12] The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[10][12][13] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[5]

    In 2004, two books by American participants at the summit were published that placed the blame for the failure of the summit on Arafat. The books were The Missing Peace by longtime US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross and My Life by President Clinton. Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, “You are a great man.” Clinton responded, “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one.”[14][15]

  38. nyomythus Says:

    Jewish West Bank settlements are bad but Hamas lobbing missiles in to Israel is worse … go Israel!

  39. Hyman Rosen Says:

    Of course it’s not going to happen. But stating that Israel wants peace and the Palestinians do not mischaracterizes the nature of the conflict and the goals of each side.

    Giving the Sinai desert back to Egypt seems to have worked out well.

    Saying “they have to do this and they have to stop doing that” is just more whining about that darned enemy who is just so annoying in his refusal to stand still and be shot. From the Palestinian point of view, their method of fighting is well-suited to their goals. They regard Israelis as unjust occupiers of their land, and shooting missiles at them and blowing them up works to prevent the occupiers from living there comfortably. They use guerrilla tactics because they could not possibly win a conventional war. Mixing fighters into the civilian population hampers possibilities for retaliation and increases public relations risk for the enemy, and also provides for a resilient and distributed support infrastructure.

  40. Trimegistus Says:

    Welcome to the future. We are all Israel, or will be in another generation.

    The only way to end Islamic terrorism and aggression is to end Islam.

    We can do this peacefully, by combining Christian evangelizing and Western secularism to neuter Islam as a religion — but that would require Western “intellectuals” to abandon their cultural suicide cult and work side by side with religious Christians.

    Or we can wait until our survival is at stake, and kill billions.

    “Peace” advocates like Hyman and inmate #363 are working to bring about genocide.

  41. Hyman Rosen Says:

    Why do you think I’m an advocate for peace or “peace”?

    Why do you think attempts to end Islam will be any more successful than other historical attempts to end religions? There are still plenty of Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Russian Orthodox around, after all.

    Why do you feel your survival is at stake? Perhaps you should see a doctor.

  42. nyomythus Says:

    Trimegistus

    Secularism is not going to give up the liberalism of the Rights of Man or Jefferson or Lincoln — Christian evangelizing is part of the problem with their alliance with West Bank settlers.

  43. Baklava Says:

    Hyman wrote, “From the Palestinian point of view, their method of fighting is well-suited to their goals.

    There in lies the problem. It’s not well-suited and pacifists who excuse their behavior should be united in the message that their methods are not well-suited for their goals…. Period.

    You do NOT negotiate with a terrorist. The fact that Israel has come to the table in good faith and offered 91% was an opportunity missed and a bad faith dealing by the Palestinians and Arafat. I’m SURE he is in hell right now.

    Hyman, if each time you stand up ‘with’ the terrorists and excuse their behavior and find fault with those fighting against them…. you are with the terrorists. You are not for peace. You are for submission.

    We can all submit or die I suppose. But we fight against evil and your lack of clarity each and every time on each and every issue puts you square on the side of destruction and evil.

    Humanity’s struggle is against confusion a great philospher once said. You choose struggle. The Palestinians and Egypt had choices. They chose this path. Israel gave choices. They refused. Yet Israel gave and gives…

  44. FredHjr Says:

    Baklava,

    You are wasting bandwidth in your attempt to reason with him. He is not reasonable and is but an inconsequential, self-hating Jew who sides with terrorists and other scum of the earth. I’ve been following this discussion with great interest, but I must admit he has written NOTHING but pap and liberal stock nostrums we have seen ad nauseam for many years.

    You tried. You made a superb effort to point out the logical and historical fallacies underlying his stated opinions.

    I must point out to everyone here that the practice of using civilians as shields for the protection of soldiers and weaponry is not an Islamic innovation. This was injected into the already existent miasma of Marxist liberation talk and nazi/Islamic Jew hatred. The Soviets armed and trained the PLO and other Muslim terror organizations back in the Sixties. They taught the use of human shields, because they knew that psychologically this was a very difficult nut for Westerners to crack. The Communists used this during the Vietnam war. Who taught them? The Russians, that’s who.

    During the Sixties three men in the Soviet Union got a hold of the works of Antonio Gramsci and read how he advocated using the enemy’s principles against them. Saul Alinsky did this, in his Rules for Radicals. Using human shields was a way of defeating the Christian and Jewish Westerners, who would be reluctant to incur that kind of collateral damage. It is a thoroughly despicable tactic, and anyone who approves of it or excuses it is a moral reprobate. It comes right from the minds and souls of people who have nothing but the ethics of expediency. It is one of the many reasons why I left the Marxist fold back in ’87. I never approved of it or them, in the final analysis. I thought I could find a way, intellectually, to synthesize a new kind of Marxist “third way” that would be compatible with Christianity. It could not be done. Michael Novak won that argument, and I am hardly a sore loser of that debate about the feasibility of Utopia.

  45. Hyman Rosen Says:

    Labeling your enemy as ‘terrorist’ and ‘evil’ is fine for the propaganda machine when you’re trying to gin up public support, but it’s an error when you’re trying to make realistic assessments of possible courses of action. Once your deliberations have led you to decide that you do not wish to negotiate, couching that decision in terms of not negotiating with terrorists has good public relations value. On the other hand, deciding a priori not to negotiate with some enemy because you have labeled them as terrorists simply limits viable options, probably to your detriment.

    Similarly, learning about your enemy so that you can understand why he behaves in the way he does is useful; saying “they’re just evil” is not. The enemy is composed of people with goals, motivations, likes, and dislikes. Understanding those has nothing to do with excusing or with pacifism; that you would think so means that you have fallen for the Liberal frame in which understanding someone’s behavior absolves him of responsibility for it. Furthermore, understanding your enemy does not mean conducting Talmudic exegesis on his foundational documents, as so many here like to do. It means actual study of actual people, with as little wishful or fearful thinking as can be managed.

    As for refusing submission, what do you think Hamas is doing right now? They’re also fighting evil, as they see it. That’s why labeling is stupid and useless. (And just to be clear, this does not mean that I’m standing up with Hamas, or finding fault with Israel, or being a pacifist, or even being for peace.)

  46. Martin Bebow Says:

    To Hymen Rosen. The ‘we’ refered to is all mankind. ‘We’ need to realize that the time has come for global interests to trump national interests. This is true for the economy, it is true for the environment and it is true for intractible conflicts like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The repeated attempts to have the participants themselves negotiate a resolution has clearly shown that it won’t work. This is because both sides have non-negotiable issues (such as the status of Jerusalem.) An attempt to reach a world consensus for creating a mechanism of forced arbitration should be made (Obama would be a good one to make such an attempt.) Once a consensus is reached an international body made up of non-interested individuals could be formed to conduct the arbitration. And yes I do believe that such a body would carry a real force of world opinion to back up its decisions. Israel, of course, could refuse to accept its decision but refusal would make the a true world pariah. I think this effort would take a long time but would gradually raise expectations for real global initiatives rather than the ad-hoc national inititatives that lead nowhere. Do you really think anything the US or any other nation attempts has any chance of solving such long-standing problems? Won’t they always be regarded as self-serving no matter what nation makes the attempt?

  47. Baklava Says:

    Hyman wrote, “Labeling your enemy as ‘terrorist’ and ‘evil’ is fine for the propaganda machine when you’re trying to gin up public support, but it’s an error when you’re trying to make realistic assessments of possible courses of action.

    Labeling your enemy as ‘rapist’ and ‘evil’ is find for the propaganda machine when you’re trying to gin up public support, but it’s and error when you’re trying to make realistic assessments of possible courses of action….

    Let’s see the flaw with that statement. Israel and I could care less about public support when trying to defend yourself from a ‘rapist’ or ‘terrorist’.

    See?

    You take appropriate actions and you do not offer your wife (or another building or civilian) to the ‘rapist’ or ‘terrorist’..

    You see Hyman. Humanit’s struggle is against confusion and you are clearly confused. You have immense lack of clarity. Clarity is required and you have none. :)

    Hyman with disregard to the facts wrote, “On the other hand, deciding a priori not to negotiate with some enemy because you have labeled them as terrorists simply limits viable options, probably to your detriment.

    Hyman! Wake up ! We have written you about the negotiations that have taken place. You have with sheer laziness disregarded those posts above. The Palestinians were offered 91% of their demands and REFUSED the deal! So when YOU HYMAN with lack of clarity write, “deciding a priori not to negotiate “, you are writing without basis in fact.

    You imply that we or Israel does not try to understand the ‘rapist’ or ‘terrorist’ when you write, “Similarly, learning about your enemy so that you can understand why he behaves in the way he does is useful; saying “they’re just evil” is not.

    Why you make these implications Hyman is beyond me. You set up a wifebeating strawman argument again! Whodathunk you’d do that? :)

    With lack of clarity Hyman wrote, “As for refusing submission, what do you think Hamas is doing right now? They’re also fighting evil, as they see it.

    Hamas needs clarity as you do. Israel is not lobbing missiles randomly and illegaly into Gaza. They are targeting military and Hamas headquarter installations. Israel is not acting with evil. The person who takes a defensive move and shoots the rapist to end the rape is not an evil person. Clarity is key Hyman.

    Here is a label for you – Mr. Unclear ~! :)

  48. Hyman Rosen Says:

    MB, all mankind does not think with one brain. The fact that people fight wars should tell you that. I disagree with you that the time has come for national interests to be subordinated to world interests. I think this means we must start shooting at each other, as I will not go willingly and you will not allow me to act selfishly.

    Sweet Pastry, you need a little less moral outrage and a little more careful reading. I am saying that as matter of principle, labeling your enemy with pejorative terms which implicitly cause you to cut off courses of action is a bad idea. It’s fine to decide, after analyzing a situation, that you would rather fight than negotiate. Understanding your enemy does not imply acceding to their goals or giving up your own. On the other hand, pointing out to your enemy that he is evil and you are good and that he should cut it out right now is not a tactic notable for its success. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re bad, because they don’t care what you think. And vice versa.

    In the case of Hamas and Israel, each side is acting in what they consider their best interests, and in the name of truth, justice, honor, God, and all those good things. Neither side is going to convince the other of the error of their ways. The fighting is going to last for a while, and then there’s going to be a – wait for it – negotiated settlement and things will quiet down for a while before they flare up again.

  49. Baklava Says:

    HR wrote, “labeling your enemy with pejorative terms which implicitly cause you to cut off courses of action is a bad idea.

    I’m saying I disagree. It is with clarity that you make a rapist or terrorist understand their courses of actions KEEP them from their OWN desires. For the rapist – it keeps them in jail or dead. For the terrorist – it marginalizes them. What marginalized the terrorist Hyman? Their own actions – not the labeling of their actions. You cannot negotiate with a terrorist yet Israel has and has repeatedly despite your words claiming/implying that they haven’t.

    Hyman wrote, “In the case of Hamas and Israel, each side is acting in what they consider their best interests

    It is clear that Hamas is NOT acting in their best interest. Their and your lack of clarity is keeping them destitute and marginalized.

    Hyman wrote, “Neither side is going to convince the other of the error of their ways.

    And therefore the Palestinians will remain in poverty. Sad…. and the rapist will never find salvation and a place in society… Sad.

    It would be wise for the evil doer to renounce and repent and find salvation.

    It would be wise for the Hymans’ of the world to get on that message so that we can all with clarity deliver that message. :) Wise up to clarity.

  50. Hyman Rosen Says:

    I seem to recall a line about it being better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, but I guess that speaker was evil too.

    Hamas’s interest is to destroy Israel and then take over running Palestine. In the interim, they wish to demonstrate that they can put up credible resistance to Israel which Israel is helpless to stop, hence the rocket attacks. That seems straightforward. To the extent that anyone else in the Middle East doesn’t find this laudable, it’s only because of religious vs. secular and Shia vs. Sunni issues, not because they wouldn’t like to see it happen.

    OK, fine, they’re evil terrorists with lots of support. So what course of action does the labeling dictate?

  51. Baklava Says:

    Hama’s interest is simply wrong headed and should be condemned and clearly so…

    Hyman wrote, “which Israel is helpless to stop

    Not completely helpless. Have you seen the rocket launcher being targeted and hit by air? Technology is in the works in targeting the source location of rocket launches as well.

    Hyman asked, “So what course of action does the labeling dictate?

    The labeling is irrelevant except to the extent that the more condemnation they receive – the more they understand they will not acheive their objectives with present courses of action.

    At this point – the way forward is for Hamas and Palestinians to stop teaching hatred to their children with Sesame street programs teaching suicide bombing, the way forward is for Hamas to stop ‘targeting’ or randomly launching rockets, the way forward is for Palestinians to seize on opportunities like the one presented to them in the year 2000.

    Everyone is interested in peace except for one set of people. That set needs to be interested in peace. That is the way forward. That is clarity.

  52. grackle Says:

    Of course it’s not going to happen. But stating that Israel wants peace and the Palestinians do not mischaracterizes the nature of the conflict and the goals of each side.

    There is no mischaracterization of goals. The goals of the 2 sides are plain to see and openly declared: The Palestinians, armed and aided by Iran, Syria and others want to do away with Israel. Land is not their goal, independence, prosperity and security is not their goal. Their goal, loudly shouted whenever possible, is Israel’s extinction.

    Israel’s goal is to live in peace and Israel has proved this by trying to compromise, concede and even ignore the violence directed toward Israel.

    Giving the Sinai desert back to Egypt seems to have worked out well. Saying “they have to do this and they have to stop doing that” is just more whining about that darned enemy who is just so annoying in his refusal to stand still and be shot.

    The writer has it all cockeyed: It’s the ‘death to Israel’ crowd that does the “whining.” And it is Israel who annoys enrages them by its very existence and it is the pesky Israel “who is just so annoying in his refusal to stand still and be shot.”

    From the Palestinian point of view, their method of fighting is well-suited to their goals. They regard Israelis as unjust occupiers of their land, and shooting missiles at them and blowing them up works to prevent the occupiers from living there comfortably. They use guerrilla tactics because they could not possibly win a conventional war. Mixing fighters into the civilian population hampers possibilities for retaliation and increases public relations risk for the enemy, and also provides for a resilient and distributed support infrastructure.

    Here the writer actually ENDORSES terrorism. Disgusting. Disgusting, but very common I’m afraid. There is world-wide rise in anti-Semitism. It’s in all the MSM, in all of Europe and of course among the Jihadists themselves. This wave of anti-Semitism is very troubling and I am afraid that it may result in a Final Solution sometime in the future.

    MB, all mankind does not think with one brain. The fact that people fight wars should tell you that. I disagree with you that the time has come for national interests to be subordinated to world interests. I think this means we must start shooting at each other, as I will not go willingly and you will not allow me to act selfishly.

    I really don’t know what the above means. For instance, who does the writer refer to by: ” … I think this means we must start shooting at each other … Who is this “we”? Vagueness, meaningless generalities(all mankind does not think with one brain) and conflation of Jihadism with nationalism is his method.

    Sweet Pastry, you need a little less moral outrage and a little more careful reading. I am saying that as matter of principle, labeling your enemy with pejorative terms which implicitly cause you to cut off courses of action is a bad idea.

    Israel has tried all conceivable “courses of action” except complete capitulation. As for “labeling your enemy with pejorative terms” the writer should review what happens in Palestinian schools to young Palestinian children. The hatred taught there and shouted in the mosques and public gatherings is chilling and stomach-turning. Below is a link to just one of many examples I could link to.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZEGsnWZKh8

    It’s fine to decide, after analyzing a situation, that you would rather fight than negotiate. Understanding your enemy does not imply acceding to their goals or giving up your own. On the other hand, pointing out to your enemy that he is evil and you are good and that he should cut it out right now is not a tactic notable for its success. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re bad, because they don’t care what you think. And vice versa. In the case of Hamas and Israel, each side is acting in what they consider their best interests, and in the name of truth, justice, honor, God, and all those good things. Neither side is going to convince the other of the error of their ways. The fighting is going to last for a while, and then there’s going to be a – wait for it – negotiated settlement and things will quiet down for a while before they flare up again.

    The above is pretty much your standard moral equivalency argument. Each side have their points(“truth, justice, honor, God, and all those good things”), blah, blah, blah …. and the viewpoint is one of a disturbing complacency with terrorism. It is true that simply telling an enemy “he is evil and you are good and that he should cut it out right now” does very little to hinder aggression. But I say that societies that inculcate their children with Jew-hatred, uses them for suicide bombings and wantonly kills innocents is evil if the word ‘evil’ has any meaning at all.

    Labeling your enemy as ‘terrorist’ and ‘evil’ is fine for the propaganda machine when you’re trying to gin up public support, but it’s an error when you’re trying to make realistic assessments of possible courses of action. Once your deliberations have led you to decide that you do not wish to negotiate, couching that decision in terms of not negotiating with terrorists has good public relations value. On the other hand, deciding a priori not to negotiate with some enemy because you have labeled them as terrorists simply limits viable options, probably to your detriment.

    As far as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict goes the above is a totally false analysis. It implies that Israel has not tried negotiating, which is untrue. It also implies that the terrorism perpetrated by the Jihadists is just another tactic on the level of recalling a diplomat or issuing a warning.

    Similarly, learning about your enemy so that you can understand why he behaves in the way he does is useful; saying “they’re just evil” is not. The enemy is composed of people with goals, motivations, likes, and dislikes. Understanding those has nothing to do with excusing or with pacifism; that you would think so means that you have fallen for the Liberal frame in which understanding someone’s behavior absolves him of responsibility for it. Furthermore, understanding your enemy does not mean conducting Talmudic exegesis on his foundational documents, as so many here like to do. It means actual study of actual people, with as little wishful or fearful thinking as can be managed.

    I think the Israelis “understand” their enemy very, very well. But there is a point at which “understanding your enemy” stops and defending yourself begins.

    As for refusing submission, what do you think Hamas is doing right now? They’re also fighting evil, as they see it. That’s why labeling is stupid and useless. (And just to be clear, this does not mean that I’m standing up with Hamas, or finding fault with Israel, or being a pacifist, or even being for peace.)

    Oh no, the writer doesn’t ‘stand up’ for Hamas and the rest. He just justifies their behavior every chance he gets. LOL.

  53. 363 Says:

    Well after reading the above depressing drivel I think most of you are pretty cold. Many of you seem to embrace the idea of other people’s death in a way that would make you excellent members of Hamas. You seem to share their moronic glee at the prospect of violence and inability to contemplate that you may be wrong.

    I suspect the only place this is taking any of us is to more violence and the quicker we get people talking instead of dying, the better. But I imagine talking is all a tad boring to you lot.

    I see neo is a fan of Churchill. Well

    “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

    and that was said by a man who probably knew more of the realities of war than you lot.

  54. FredHjr Says:

    Why do you guys waste your time trying to alter the views of these young moral reprobates like “Hyman Rosen” and “363″? I can tell from the structure of their arguments and the fundamental world view and assumptions that tie them all together that we are dealing with very strong Hard Left people. I’ve seen this stuff hundreds of times before and nothing has changed. It’s almost as if the basic lines of argument are memorized in school/university and then filled in with their own unique styles of rhetoric and delivery.

    They don’t take the Muslims at their word. That much is plain. The destruction of Israel is in all the charters of these terrorist organizations. It’s like the first principles for their raison d’etre. The next goal is the establishment of Sharia Law in all of the land. We know these facts as solid; they are not hyperbole and we are not making shit up. We know that Arafat only spoke of hudna with the Jews; no permanent treaty and no recognition of Israel’s right to exist. We know for a fact that it was Arafat who blew up the Oslo Agreement’s details. We know that the Jewish state has been repeatedly attacked from its inception and even decades before the Muslims carried out razzias against the Jewish settlements. We know that those settlements were on land fairly purchased; there is the historical record of that. The idea of the Jews stealing the land is a fabrication that only Marxist westerners embrace enthusiastically, because it is their habit to embrace lies – especially ones which stoke their hatred for America and Israel.

    Yes, I am accusing them of bad faith argument… and more. What makes their insolence so maddening is that they are allowed to preen as morally superior to us all. Like truculent adolescents, they think if they strut and bluster a lot they will win the argument and appear the winner. Thank God that most of the members of neo’s forum are intelligent adults who can see through this dog and pony show.

  55. Baklava Says:

    363 funnily wrote, “Well after reading the above depressing drivel I think most of you are pretty cold.

    It’s cold to want peace?

    363 funnily wrote, “You seem to share their moronic glee

    We are all sad 363. It is sad that a victim has to shoot a rapist or a country has to defend it’self from terrorists. Nobody is gleeful about the path that Hamas has chosen. Just like nobody is gleeful about a rapist choosing his path. It’s a horrific problem.

    363 wrote, “I suspect the only place this is taking any of us is to more violence

    Submission is still violent – but the victim chooses submission. If the victim chooses to fight are you going to stand with the victim against the terrorist/rapist? Clarity is required 363.

    363 funnily wrote, “But I imagine talking is all a tad boring to you lot.

    Israel has come to the table many times and ‘talked’. The Palestinians refused the deals (see above posts). Who 363 are you implying refuses to talk???? The complete lack of clarity on your part (and laziness in doing any research) is deafening.

    363, As a rapist is doing his dead, are you in favor of the woman:
    a) talking to the rapist
    b) taking a knife to his throat

    Defense is not the victim’s only choice but it is one that is justifiable. You should never preach to a victim to choose submission.

    Pacificism is a dangerous belief as it preaches to allow evil to do it’s deed against good men with good men not standing up to evil.

    http://countmazz.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/dennis-prager-pacifism/

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0606/prager061306.php3

    excerpt:

    That is the consequence of pacifism — far more cruelty and death. But the spread of evil apparently means little to pacifists.

  56. Baklava Says:

    Fred wrote, “I’ve seen this stuff hundreds of times before and nothing has changed.

    Same here.

    Fred wrote, “Thank God that most of the members of neo’s forum are intelligent adults who can see through this dog and pony show.

    I agree. :)

  57. Gringo Says:

    Note that 363 refused to answer my questions, but instead stated that the commenters here “shared the moronic glee” of Hamas.

    No point in communicating with such a person.

  58. Ymarsakar Says:

    I notice that Bogey criticizes Petraeus’ workable strategy in Iraq and the invasion of Iraqi territory.

    Bogey then criticizes the Israeli’s much more moderate and pacifist tendencies, when Israel gave territory back to Hamas and Fatah, criticizing it as unworkable.

    Well, it seems nothing works in Bogey’s eyes.

  59. Ymarsakar Says:

    and that was said by a man who probably knew more of the realities of war than you lot.

    The fact that socialist hicks like you fired him is all we need to know on that score.

  60. njcommuter Says:

    Labeling your enemy as ‘terrorist’ and ‘evil’ is fine for the propaganda machine when you’re trying to gin up public support, but it’s an error when you’re trying to make realistic assessments of possible courses of action. Once your deliberations have led you to decide that you do not wish to negotiate, couching that decision in terms of not negotiating with terrorists has good public relations value. On the other hand, deciding a priori not to negotiate with some enemy because you have labeled them as terrorists simply limits viable options, probably to your detriment.

    The decision was not made a priori. Neither was the label applied a priori, a fallacy you are injecting without having said it. Both the label and the attitude are the result of years of experience with the present generation of Palestinians and their leaders, and with prior generations and their leaders.

    It seems to me that the first problem with modern ‘liberalism’ is its unwillingness to learn from the past.

  61. Hyman Rosen Says:

    I think I understand where you’re all going wrong – you seem to think I’m criticizing Israel. I’m not – I’m criticizing bloggers, i.e., you guys here. You are the ones conducting the Talmudic exegesis of foundational documents and you are the ones doing the labeling which cuts off thinking. Israel is doing just fine in its attempts to balance attacks and negotiations. Israel does not reject negotiations a priori. Even when they say they do, they conduct clandestine negotiations through third parties, whereupon these brokered ceasefires suddenly appear.

    One more clarification – when I said that Hamas wants to “put up credible resistance to Israel which Israel is helpless to stop” the “helpless to stop” part is what Hamas wants. Israel is trying to demonstrate to Hamas that it has miscalculated its chances of achieving that.

  62. Baklava Says:

    But you were.

    The rapist can be labeled bud. It’s irrelevant that bloggers or the victim labels the rapist a rapist. (or the terrorist a terrorist)

  63. Baklava Says:

    The more we all speak with one voice telling the terrorist that their actions cannot be tolerated they may start to see they are not working in their own best interest.

    Of course…

    … they see supporters and they are surrounded with yes men. So this is all really pretty stupid.

    But for Israel to see anybody not standing with them… that’s ridiculous. They have not been surrounded by yes men and it’s about time they see support from the world

  64. Baklava Says:

    Hatred of Palestinians …. IN FLORIDA

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024156.php

  65. scottie Says:

    Something I found interesting in the early reporting was that Israel was specifically targeting supply tunnels dug from Gaza into Egypt.

    When I heard this, I wondered if they were trying to cut off an escape route for Hamas, or if they were doing the dirty work for Egypt with Egypt’s blessing while they took out Hamas in general to eliminate their own problem.

    Sort of a situation where two antagonists have common goals and a common problem.

    Remember, Egypt has maintained a tight security apparatus on their side of the Gaza border and are not allowing Hamas to exit into Egypt.

    It also raises an interesting point in that tunnels were deemed necessary to transport supplies to Hamas from Egytpian sympathizers. If Egypt was so officially supportive, then why lock down the border?

    In general, Egypt appears to be no more enamored of Hamas than Israel is.

    Also, it appears that Fatah factions of the PLO have been assisting Israel in what was targeted.

    Fatah, of course, being the faction that had it’s members murdered by Hamas after Hamas took over Gaza.

    I don’t believe a ground assault will be Lebanon all over again. The last incursion by Israel did end badly, but that’s not the only example.

    Israel successfully invaded Lebanon years ago and had the PLO backed up to the sea before allowing Arafat to leave by ship.

    They are certainly capable of doing so successfully, but you had different planners and priorities the last time they went into Lebanon.

    Also, Lebanon is much larger and shares a border with Syria, which is hostile to Israel and the west in general.

    There is no such similarity in Gaza. If Egypt decides to let Israel do it’s dirty work and get rid of a faction that Egypt also sees as a problem, then Hamas is dead on it’s feet.

  66. Baklava Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

    he he

    Palestinian women should do this

  67. Baklava Says:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/12/022427.php

    Arabs in Israel number 20% of the population.

  68. Martin Bebow Says:

    As the Israeli/Palestinian issue drags on endlessly, more an more of us ARE going to think with one brain on this issue: that it must stop and that both the Israelis and the Palestinians will have to make painful concessions to achieve it. But this can probably only occur when the final decision is taken out of both their hands.

  69. Hyman Rosen Says:

    MB, again, you and what army? Who do you expect to take the decision out of their hands? How? Fairy dust? Magic wands?

  70. scottie Says:

    You will never have a ceasefire, nor a peaceful resolution to any conflict, as long as one party is willing to continue aggressive action towards the other party – and indeed sees any ceasefire as only an opportune time to rearm and prepare for the next phase of hostilities.

    Remember, Israel agreed to a ceasefire and Hamas continued to attack Israeli territory anyway with rockets despite the ceasefire. Those are not the actions of a party wishing peace.

    And to all those demanding that the issue be taken out of Israeli hands, or that borders be set in stone by some international community organization, remember that much of the world has a certain animosity towards Israel.

    As such, Israel would be completely within it’s rights to resist such high-handed treatment by international busybodies and knowitalls who are willing to sacrifice Israeli lives and security to appease hateful organizations that will use any means to destroy Israel.

  71. Ymarsakar Says:

    Scottie, given that Hamas is a off branching of the Muslim Brotherhood, that would be expected if the Egyptian autocracy wanted to keep their heads.

  72. Ymarsakar Says:

    But this can probably only occur when the final decision is taken out of both their hands.

    This does require some enforcement agency. Currently, neither Israel nor Hamas wants American intervention.

    America has proven that we can mediate differences between factions that want to kill each other, at least in Iraq. But only if we have forces on the ground and with the freedom to capture, kill, and make deals with the locals.

    The Israeli vs Palestinian conflict came about due to the proxy warfare between Soviet Russia and freedom loving America.

    Arming and supporting both sides hoping for some kind of sitzkrieg has been tried and it created the situation in the first place.

    Even though American troops can solve the problem, permanently, between the Jews and the Philistines, finding support for this amongst Americans and Jews and Palestinians will be almost impossible.

    The supporters of human progress in Iraq and the enemies of terrorists would optimally want American ground forces to be used elsewhere, in order to attack terrorism, rather than try to hold more ground. The Israelis are not the Shia or the Sunnis of Iraq in 2003. The Israelis can take care of themselves. They can take care of Hamas. They have decided not to. That is their choice to make and since it is their price to pay, they are either satisfied with it or they are not. So long as it is their children that are dying, there’s nothing much we can do or should do.

    The Cold War is over. The Russians are no longer backing the Philistines against our ally in the MidEast, Israel. Israel doesn’t need our help against the Arab nations surrounding her. Israel has proven she can defeat those nations in a conventional war. Israel also has many weapons, such as nukes, unused, if she needs an “unconventional” solution.

  73. Ymarsakar Says:

    Israel is doing just fine in its attempts to balance attacks and negotiations.

    How much must you hate civilian Jews to say that Israel has been doing fine?

    I knew that casualties in war were perfectly fine with the Left, so long as their purposes were served, but do you truly see a never ending cycle of violence and a perpetual war for Israel as being “fine” for Israel?

    “Balancing” attacks and negotiations must ultimately mean more dead civilians to the Left. That is a good thing, supposedly.

  74. Hyman Rosen Says:

    That is, Israel participates in both attacks and negotiations as she perceives suits the moment.

    How much must you hate military Jews to constantly be urging that they be sent into harm’s way?

  75. FredHjr Says:

    “But this can probably only occur when the final decision is taken out of both their hands.”

    I know what this statement means. It is problematical from a variety of perspectives. Let me take a stab at a couple.

    First, the U.N. has no ability to stand down the IDF and the Israeli Defense Establishment from defending the nation and its people.

    Implicit in the suggestion of using international bodies to enforce a cease fire and redrawn map of Israel is a lacuna in one’s understanding of the goals of Islamic organizations and their faithfulness to Allah’s commands and the Prophet’s example. Every single time I read a thought, a statement, an essay, a book, an editorial, a… whatever, that ruminates over the intractability of this conflict I find a corresponding lack of knowledge of understanding of the goals of the jihadists, the theology and scripture they draw inspiration from, a lack of knowledge of the history of jihad conquest, the culture of Islam, and many other considerations besides.

    Those who obey Allah and fight in the way of Allah could care less what an international body has to say about the configuration of the two-state solution.

    There is only the will of the Israeli people to survive and have their nation remain intact. And there is only the will of the Ummah to take back for Allah what they are honor bound to accomplish. That is one of the reasons why the other Arab states have left these people dangling in the wind rather than take them in. An artificial people with an artificial name have been basically told to restore Allah’s honor and drive the Jews out.

    Me, I think the Jews have the rightful claim to all of what used to be their land, taken from them by many usurpers, the latest of which, in the 7th century were the armies of abu Bakr, Muhammad’s successor. I consider Allah to be Satan, and Satan is at war with God, the Lord Creator of the Universe, who has favored a particular people to be the ones through whom He works his salvation of all of us. But, in the interest of ending war, if the Ummah would forsake Allah’s commands, I am amenable to a two state solution as long as Israel retains defensible borders. And that means pretty much a lot of what it gained in war in 1967 and 1948. The pre-1967 borders are not defensible against Arab attack.

    And no one can guarantee that the Ummah will not again resume the jihad.

    That is why I URGE the usual poly sci, psyche, and history types to look up “hudna” and its meaning. If you don’t get into the mind of the enemy, you will never understand exactly where the rubber meets the road.

  76. FredHjr Says:

    Masyus,

    Drum roll please…..

    For your gallant effort to run up the flag for your people.

  77. Scottie Says:

    Masyus,

    ALL of the casualties on the PLO side are civilian?

    Individuals who elect to walk into a school bus and blow themselves and a bunch of school kids up are rational?

    Your argument is nothing more than propaganda…not worth the time to refute.

  78. Hyman Rosen Says:

    To change the subject a drop: from today’s paper,

    The Israeli air force on Thursday afternoon bombed the house of Nizar Rayyan, a senior Hamas leader, killing him along with two of his wives and four children

    So much for all those claims that societies everywhere regard traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman.

  79. Hyman Rosen Says:

    Israel is negotiating with Syria, mediated by Turkey.

  80. Baklava Says:

    Hyman,

    Thanks for pointing out for us an enlightened forward thinking progressive society where they value their women.

    This was a low point in your posting…. Happy New year and hope to see less low points for you…

  81. Voip Termination Says:

    I wanted to follow along and let you know how , a great deal I appreciated discovering your website today. I’d consider it the honor to operate at my company and be able to operate on the tips shared on your web site and also be a part of visitors’ responses like this. Should a position regarding guest article author become offered at your end, remember to let me know. callshops

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge