Levy and Bronner on Israelis’ distaste for peace

61 thoughts on “Levy and Bronner on Israelis’ distaste for peace”

1. Surely there is a difference between fear and distrust of Hamas’ intentions (however justified or unjustified such fear may be) and “distaste for peace?” The import of the data cited by Levy and Bronner seems more that Israelis don’t believe that the recent developments will bring peace than that they don’t want it.
   I might give more credence to polls taken when the cease-fire is a month or six months old.

2. Uri Avnery has a very similar theme:
   http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html

   “And the reaction? An outburst of jubilation? Dancing in the streets? Applause for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense, who at long last have come to their senses?
   Not at all. The expression on the nation’s face is a grimace of disgust. What kind of thing is that? Where is our victorious army?
   The people of Sderot are really angry. OK, so there are no Qassams, but this was supposed to happen only after the army had entered Gaza and wiped it out.

3. What else would be expected of Tony Blair? In 2000 he was fully engaged in 10 years of ceaseless warmongering in Northern Ireland. The man treats peace with contempt. Pity the poor Palestinians at his mercy now.

4. “the world’s inability so far to stop [Iran] from working on atomic weaponry.”
   How fascinating and terribly significant the ease with which the story that Iran is working on atomic weaponry has become the received reality. It is simply assumed now to be the case despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support it, and considerable evidence to call it into question.
   How frightening that propaganda is so easy to catapult.

5. On my recent trip to Israel, I heard the state described by Israelis of the left as ” a military organization with a state attached.” The military nature of Israel is all pervasive. The cililian economy is heavily dependent on income from killing machines passing under the rubric of ” hi tech.” This was not the vision of Israel to the early Zionists, I was told. Military organizations , and their industrial cohorts, fear nothing as much as peace and the lack of an enemy. The panic in the US military industrial complex with the fall of the Berlin wall was palpable. There was a frantic search for a neew threat and a new enemy which has now been resolved and we are back to our confortable war footing. Thanks to timely actions by the IDF, they have never had to face the dreaded prospect of peace. And the Israeli civilian citizenry goes along complacently just we do in the USA.

6. I think, Helena, that you take these people too literally. Gideon Levy has a tendency to always present the negative side of things – which is a nice way of saying that he has found a way of making a living as a malconent. (If you disagree, I challenge you to find one piece of his that is even remotely positive.) At any rate, while Levy is considered by most here to be an “interesting” journalist, he is not seen by many as being overly perceptive (and on occasion, he has been shown to be not so overly honest).
   BTW, it isn’t Bronner who laments the fact that Israel does not have a messiah in Barack Obama to pin their hopes on. He is paraphrasing Yossi Sarid. I think most Israelis are too cynical – or, perhaps, Americans are just more naive – to actually sign on to that train.
   At any rate, I think that you left out probably the most important part of Bonner’s piece that explains exactly why Israelis aren’t exactly extatic about the “regi’a”:
   The Israeli Army radio station, which has a wide audience, has been punctuating nearly every hour’s broadcast with an announcement of the need to “bring our sons home.” This is not merely a turn of phrase suggesting a collective conceit; Israelis relate to one another like members of a large family, and the gnawing pain felt by Mr. Shalit’s parents is widely shared in a country where the vast majority of young people serve in the military.
   In fact, one of the most striking things about Israel’s internal political conversation is how personal it is. This is a tiny country of seven million that often finds itself at the center of international debate. And while Israelis often complain about this — why aren’t hundreds of journalists and human rights activists worried about North Korea or Uganda or Saudi Arabia? — they also take an odd pride in it, as if it were evidence of their secret suspicion that world history really does revolve around the fate of the Jews and their homeland.
   The result is a public discourse that amounts to a bizarre mix of geopolitics and distinctly local news. It is not out of character for the morning radio broadcast to spend 10 minutes on whether Syria is building a nuclear weapon followed by 10 minutes on a young bride whose wedding was ruined when one of the sound system speakers fell on her foot. Since both are given equal weight, it can be hard to separate out the pain of one family from the strategic needs of the state. This makes it challenging for Israelis to step back far enough to gain a view of what is happening.
   It’s not that we suffer from some sort of “fear of peace”, it’s because this “tahidiyya” has been concluded as a temporary “regi’a” – there’s no way around that; it’s been explicit from the start – and, more important, as Bonner indicates it was concluded without the release of Gilad Shalit (a condition that was assumed would be the case).
   So no matter how much you pander to Hamas and Hizballah and speak of “Sayed Hassan Nasrallah” (reminds me of Franz Liebling in “The Producers”: “Wi verent Nahr-zis. Wi ver Nazis!), I don’t think that Israel is the side that overly relies on war – or lack of peace – to maintain sustainabililty. After all, we are not a “resistance” movement.

7. How fascinating and terribly significant the ease with which the story that Iran is working on atomic weaponry has become the received reality. It is simply assumed now to be the case despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support it, and considerable evidence to call it into question.
   You’re completely right. Even the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which concluded that the Iranians are not working on nuclear weaponry, didn’t make the slightest difference and is completely ignored, as if it was never published.
   see National Intelligence Estimate, Washington Post

8. ‘Daily Kos’ Says AIPAC Is Behind Fire-Breathing Iran Legislation
   Is the Israel lobby pushing for a military confrontation with Iran? You betcha. Ratcheting up the pressure on Iran was one of the main currents at AIPAC’s policy conference. Congress is about to approve what Dailykos calls “Iran war” legislation, that Kos’s reporter says is being pushed by AIPAC, in the wake of Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert’s meeting with Nancy Pelosi. There are 169 co-sponsors of this bill, mostly Republican. It brings together all the firebreathers from lib to right, from Dana Rohrabacher to my secret Israel lobby crush, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.
   Richard Witty has often said that I’m too polemical and confrontational. But this legislation is getting no mainstream media coverage, and it could lead to another disastrous military operation in the Middle East. Everything I write on this blog is in the context of Iraq, a calamity for my country that was pushed in good part by neocons who were trying to undermine the peace process, such as it is, in Israel/Palestine. This discussion needs to take place out in the open
   philipweiss.org

9. “why aren’t hundreds of journalists and human rights activists worried about North Korea or Uganda or Saudi Arabia? —”
   They are. An important difference between these countries and Israel is that while you will find very few defenders of say, the North Korean regime, you will find very many vocal and motivated supporters of Israel. So while Israel has become a ‘controversial’ subject – and therefore one worthy of debate and discussion – any editorial criticising human rights abuses in Uganda or NK isn’t going to attract much attention, if only because few would dispute it. Not so with Israel.
   “It’s not that we suffer from some sort of “fear of peace”, it’s because this “tahidiyya” has been concluded as a temporary “regi’a” – there’s no way around that”
   That sounds rather lame – surely even a temporary ceasefire (on both sides) is preferable to conflict? Or could it be that the macho, racist “Iron Wall” mentality is, at the end of the day, more important than the security of a few working class towns in Southern Israel?
   “it was concluded without the release of Gilad Shalit”
   Him, and the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli jails without trial, many of them since the French tank gunner was in nappies. The fact that Israelis can afford to get upset about the fate of ONE captured combatant is a vivid illustration of just how unequal this ‘conflict’ really is.
   “After all, we are not a “resistance” movement.”
   No, just a garrison state with significant social divides which have been papered over by a perpetual state of soft war (soft for Israel, that is).

10. Among the evidence likely to be cited by future historians for the thesis that Israel took the wrong path, is that Israel’s official 60th birthday party was hosted by Ehud Olmert, with Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Henry Kissinger as guests of honor.

11. Well, it may sound lame, but I don’t see your arguments as particularly erudite!
    Based on two news pieces about Israeli attitudes toward the ceasefire, Israelis (in general, I should point out) have a “distaste for peace” and, further, suffer from “eirenophobia, the fear or hatred of peace”.
    I pointed out, in the first place, that one of the reports was selectively referenced, and that the author’s assessment was tempered by what he saw as prevailing attitudes in Israeli society. You choose to explain why these perceptions may be incorrect, a valid argument, but not really to the point here.
    Sure a temporary ceasefire is preferable to conflict. But it’s still temporary and there’s no basis to assume that this is ushering in a new era of peace and tranquility. If Israelis are cynical – or even afraid – of anything, it’s that this temporary ceasefire is just that, with all likelihood that it will end.
    And yes, the fact that Gilad Shalit’s release was not part of the agreement was a grave disappointment to many Israelis. You can’t argue with that and, again, the fact that there are Palestinian prisoners is not the issue here.

12. “Well, it may sound lame, but I don’t see your arguments as particularly erudite!”
    !!!
    “But it’s still temporary and there’s no basis to assume that this is ushering in a new era of peace and tranquility.”
    Of course not – but this is a strawman argument. I’ve not heard a single commentator claim that it is, at best, grounds for very cautious optimism. But even that is more than has been on offer for the past several months, if not years.
    “And yes, the fact that Gilad Shalit’s release was not part of the agreement was a grave disappointment to many Israelis. You can’t argue with that and, again, the fact that there are Palestinian prisoners is not the issue here.”
    I agree – the issue is that, as I’ve said, a society which can get into collective angst over the fate of one single captured soldier – while the Palestinians yearn for the return of THOUSANDS of detainees – is clearly a society which has no stomach for real war, and yet is terrified of peace.

13. a society which can get into collective angst over the fate of one single captured soldier – while the Palestinians yearn for the return of THOUSANDS of detainees – is clearly a society which has no stomach for real war, and yet is terrified of peace.
    Come again??? And a society that glorifies the production of martyrs does have a stomach for “real war” (whatever that is) and thirsts for peace? Get real!
    As Noam Shalit, Gilad’s father, said in an interview the other day, it is regrettable that there are Palestinian prisoners, but at least they are getting medical attention, have access to the Red Cross and are in regular touch with their families.

14. JES, I completely understand and as a parent empathize with the angst of Shalit’s parents. However, he has been in touch with his family and we have no reason at all to imagine that the medical care he’s been getting has not been the very best available to anyone in Gaza.
    It should be noted, too, that Shalit was a serving military man, on duty and in uniform when he was captured. Like anyone in the serving military he had entered a status that allows him in some circumstances to kill and to accept in return the risk that he might be killed, wounded, or captured while on duty.
    The status of vast numbers of the Palestinian detainees held by Israel is very different. Especially those who are duly elected legislators in the Palestinian parliament. Israel has never produced any information that establishes any link between those legislators– or, a large proportion of the other detainees– and responsibility for any acts of violence.
    As a (small-d) democrat, I would expect you to be at least as outraged about the detention of elected legislators as you are about the detention of one serving military man. Thoughts on this matter?

15. Helena, here are my thoughts.
    Gilad Shalit, as a “serving military man” is entitled to protections under the Geneva conventions. He is entitled to be visited by the Red Cross or other international organization. He has been denied this right. He is entitled to be in communication with his family. He has been denied this right. He is entitled to adequate medical treatment, and if such treatment is unavailable from those holding him, he is entitled to be transferred to a third party who can provide such treatment. He has been denied this right.
    Gilad Shalit has not been allowed to receive a single letter – not even a note – from his family. He has been allowed – grudgingly – the opportunity to write and send one letter per year to his family, plus a single audio tape following months without a sign of life – another violation of the Geneva Conventions. In each of these instances, he has repeatedly stated that he is in urgent need of hospitalization and that his medical condition is worsening. Again a clear violation of his rights under the Geneva convention. He has been held in an undisclosed location and apparently in isolation. Another violation. There is every reason to believe that Hamas – who I’m sure you don’t need to be reminded have been the ruling authority in Gaza during the past year of Gilad Shalit’s captivity –
    “purchase” him from the Daghmoush clan; again, another violation of the Geneva Convention, and a war crime.
    The Palestinian legislators are not the issue here (although they are granted all the above rights and protection that Gilad Shalit has been denied).
    I am outraged – OUTRAGED – by the treatment that Gilad Shalit has received, as I am about the treatment received by Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
    I am also close to outrage about your libelous headline for this post. Shame on you.

16. I am also close to outrage about your libelous headline for this post.
    Your outrage leaves me cold. Uri Avnery said precisely the same thing (link above). Even if you don’t agree with Avnery, he is, and deserves to be, a highly respected intellectual.

17. Let me tell you about Uri Avnery. He was one of Begin’s terrorists. His closest associates and greatest past admirers have openly stated that they do not doubt for one minute that he would readily sacrifice them to further his ideological goals (whatever they happen to be at the moment).
    Avnery did, in the past, do some important things and his contribution as editor of “Ha’Olam Hazeh” was significant. Today, however, Avnery is a dottering old man who is completely out of touch with what is going on in Israel.
    A few years ago, one of Israel’s television stations did a revealing documentary on this great intellectual. It was embarassing. He met with his Palmach comrades and related incidents as they looked on, dumbfounded, as if he were ranting about things that he had imagined. Near Hebron, his wife had to literaly drag him into a cave-home where a family lived. The discomfort of being with such primitive people in such a place was written all over his face. Later, he sat in his Tel Aviv apartment, listening to German marches on the stereo.
    I admire Uri Avnery for what he was during one period in his life. I don’t think he deserves a lot of respect for much of the contrived drivel he produces today on Counterpunch.

18. It’s intresting, Jes, that you invoke the Geneva Convention in refrence to Shalit. Especially interesting, in the sense that Israel utterly ignores the Geneva Convention and international law more generally, yet invokes it when it sees fit. Here is a quote from the U.N. Human Rights Council, Seventh Session, January 21, 2008.
    “[T]he serious humanitarian situation in the West Bank is largely the result of Israel’s violations of international law. The wall violates norms of international humanitarian law and human rights law, according to the International Court of Justice; settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention; checkpoints violate the freedom of movement proclaimed in human rights conventions; house demolitions violate the Fourth Geneva Convention; the humanitarian crisis in the West Bank, brought about by Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax money and other violations of international law, violates many of the rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As in Gaza, Israel’s actions constitute an unlawful collective punishment of the Palestinian people.” (“Human Rights Situation in Palestine”, V.g)
    So Shilat is arguably denied the Fourth Geneva Convention? So are the 1.6 million Gazans who are the victims of collective punishment. So I find it very interesting that you choose to apply it in the case of a single Israeli soilder. As elucidated above, power relations in this conflict are utterly ignored, on a scale of 1 to 1.7 million.

19. Avnery is a dottering old man
    You’re getting into mere personal abuse, though of a third-party. Avnery’s articles make perfect logical sense, though typical of an old person.
    The point is any case that both Levy /Bronner, and Avnery, leapt to the same point with great speed. So I should think that more than just they think in this way. and why should your vision be better than theirs?

20. JES, take your PEACE HATING self somewhere you’re wanted.
    Now, on to the peace loving nature of Hezbollah:
    http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=2238
    I really love war,” he says. “I hate this peacetime. It makes you relax, and in our struggle you cannot relax. I miss the war.
    Curse you Google, tool of Zionist oppressors!

21. JES, your outrage over Gilad Shalit not being afforded his rights as a POW under the Geneva Convention would not ring nearly so hollow if you ever expressed similar outrage over the thousands of Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children imprisoned by the Israelis who are given none of the rights they are entitled to under the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international law to which Israel is a signatory.
    Double standard does not begin to cover it.
    Sledge,
    Gilad Shalit, as a soldier, is not entitled to protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

22. Thank you Sledge for bringing up the UNHRC. I needed a laugh.
    Alex, Levi and Avnery are not the ones to judge the mood of the Israeli people in general.
    Right back at ya, Shirin. We’re not talking here about the Palestinians this time, just in case you hadn’t notice. We’re talking about Israelis who have been unfairly labeled “peace haters”.

23. Not very deft dodge attempt, JES.
    Double standards, anyone?

24. “Israelis who have been unfairly labeled ‘peace haters’.”
    If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck…
    Israelis certainly do appear to be conflict-addicted. In fact, it could be said that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

25. …and not a very germane retort on your part.
    BTW Shirin, when are you moving to Syria to live with your servants?

26. JES, I will not help you to turn this thread into a contest of ad hominems. If you are not able to discuss substantive issues, I will exit the conversation.

27. Be my guest. Do as you will, either return to the subject or exit. I don’t really care.
    (BTW, I’m not really certain why asking you about your declared housing plans is ad hominem?)

28. I have been noticing that I am not the only one who has begun to wonder just how much of the present price of oil can be attributed to constant and consistent warmongering by Israel. If we factor in the holocaust that is Iraq, and the ensuing slide of the US dollar (thanks in part to Iraq), it has been estimated that at least 50% has been added to the price of oil. It has been said that the US will finally cut itself loose from the apartheid, colonialist state when it starts hitting the Americans in their wallets.

29. kassandra, Israel (like the US) is an oil importer ie harmed by a higher oil price. Iran is a major exporter and benefits from high prices and market volatility.
    Who stands to gain by hyping a military confrontation here? Especially one that most analysts -including Helena- agree won’t occur?

30. Could it be that Israel, who seems to be preparing for a strike on Iran doesn’t want to fight a two front war so to speak, so the recent “Quiet” is a move almost chess like in advance of a strike on Iran…this way they can have good cause/reason to introduce their allies in their defense in case any truce is broken …

31. Alex, it isn’t really fair to refer to “Levy/Bronner,” because Bronner didn’t draw the same conclusions as Levy. He noted many of the same data points – e.g., the Israeli public’s skepticism about the tahdi’eh and their perception of its terms as a defeat – but he didn’t extrapolate this into some kind of “distaste for peace.”
    I agree with JES here – the fact that Levy and Avnery both leaped to the same conclusion doesn’t have much significance, because they’ve been leaping to that conclusion for years and tend to see all new developments as confirming what they already know. You’ll notice that nobody else has been so quick to diagnose “eirenophobia” in the Israeli public.
    In any event, the skepticism in Sderot may be justified, because Islamic Jihad fired four rockets into the Negev today. (Yes, Shirin, Israel isn’t the only party that violates cease-fires.) Does one really need to resort to “eirenophobia” to explain why Israelis might be skeptical and fearful right now? Those of an eirenophilic bent might better target their concern at Islamic Jihad than at some very ambiguous signs of the Israeli public mood.

32. Yes, Islamic Jihad did fire two rockets into the Negev in response to the murder of one of its members and a civilian college student in Nablus. There is no inconsistency here. It is exactly what they (as opposed to Hamas) said they would do in retaliation. Once again the IDF is doing all it can to undermine the cease fire and restore the violence which justifies their control of the state.

33. It appears that the Jihad militants were killed in a gunfight with the IDF in the West Bank, where there is not a cease-fire. This could be – no, is – an argument for extending the tahdi’eh to the West Bank, but it’s neither a cease-fire violation nor a “murder.” If Islamic Jihad is going to claim the right to breach the Gaza tahdi’eh in response to military clashes in places where a cease-fire has not been declared, then there isn’t really a cease-fire in place, is there? Maybe this is a subject eirenophiles should take up, by urging that all sides maintain the conditions that will permit the tahdi’eh to be extended to the West Bank in six months as is contemplated.

34. Vadim, That may true were we dealing with a rational country. This is a country that is quite willing to carry out its “Samson Option”. Just what were the Israeli airboys doing over the Mediterranean? Just who seems to spend their time vilifying Iran, calling for sanctions, and “leaving all options open”?
    Azazel. Some history for you “a land without people” believers: “Sderot”, was a Palestinian village called NAJD, destroyed on 13 November 1948 by the Israeli Negev Brigade and its surviving inhabitants were transferred to Gaza. The occupiers of Najd better be worried — they are no less an occupying force than the Germans were in France. Doesn’t the Fourth Geneva Convention forbid the settlement of foreign populations on occupied land? But hey, since when has international law bothered the “Samson Option” gang?

35. “Yes, Shirin, Israel isn’t the only party that violates cease-fires.”
    Except that, as is usually the case, Israel fired first, and Islamic Jihad retaliated. Fascinating, isn’t it, how easily and consistently these little sequences of events get buried. Whereas I have not heard a word from the MSM about the attack Israel launched just hours after the cease fire took effect, the Palestinian attack is all over the news this morning.
    PS Correct me someone if I am incorrect, but I believe it was Hamas, not Islamic Jihad that signed the ceasefire.

36. Shirin, we don’t know who fired first. We know that there was a raid in the West Bank that ended in a gunfight, but there isn’t any hard information on whether the first shot was fired by the Jihad militants or the IDF.
    You are correct that Islamic Jihad didn’t sign the cease-fire. On the other hand, unless I’m missing something, (1) the cease-fire terms included a commitment by Hamas to try to restrain rocket fire by other groups; and (2) Jihad indicated its support for “calm” a couple of days before the tahdi’eh went into effect, which was part of the reason Israel agreed.
    I’m not claiming that Israel is blameless here – I’d have to know what prompted the botched Nablus arrest raid to determine that – but Jihad isn’t exactly an innocent party.
    Kassie, I’m quite aware that Sderot used to be Najd. Guess what – Szczecin used to be Stettin. In legal terms, the two are about equally important. Occupation does not exist within the internationally recognized borders of a state, and the Israelis in Sderot aren’t occupiers any more than the Poles in Szczecin, except in the mind of Islamic Jihad and apparently yourself.

37. BTW, for what it’s worth, I’ll admit that I was wrong to simply say that Jihad “fired four rockets” without reading the whole article and learning about the raid in Nablus. The situation is certainly more complicated than I initially gave the impression, but I hold to my opinion that Jihad is not an innocent party.

38. I should add: I also stand by my opinion that, under present conditions, Israeli skepticism about the tahdi’eh doesn’t even remotely demonstrate a “distaste for peace.” Hunter S. Thompson notwithstanding, fear and loathing are two very different things.

39. Shirin, you are absolutely, positively and utterly wrong!
    From the cited article in Ha’aretz:
    Late on Monday night, Palestinians fired a mortar shell at the Negev, in the first such strike since a cease-fire went into effect in the Gaza Strip last week.
    Meanwhile, Israel Defense Forces troops operating in the West Bank city of Nablus killed two Palestinian militants early Tuesday morning.
    Unless the clock moves backwards in Gaza or there is a time difference between Gaza and the West Bank, there was already a violation of the ceasefire before the attempted arrest in Nablus.
    Continuing, the article clearly points out a fact which I assumed most well-read, educated people had already picked up on:
    An Egyptian-brokered cease-fire agreement was struck between Israel and Hamas last week, but the deal extends to the Gaza Strip only, leaving the IDF free to operate in the West Bank.
    Now, exactly what part of that don’t you comprehend Madam?

40. It is absolutely irrelevant whether or not Islamic Jihad signed the truce agreement.
    We have been told, here and elsewhere, that Hamas is the legitimate, elected government and that they are the sole authority in Gaza. They signed the agreement. They have to make it stick. If they do not take immediate action to enforce the ceasefire on their side, then one must seriously question why there is any justification in even discussing such agreements with them.
    Personally, I find it difficult to accept that they cannot enforce the ceasefire, since they had no qualms in taking on a far larger and better armed force last summer, and did not hesitate to throw unarmed cooks off of buildings or open fire on civilians, including small chilren.

41. “(1) the cease-fire terms included a commitment by Hamas to try to restrain rocket fire by other groups; ”
    Yes, to try to restrain. That implies, does it not, a recognition of the impossibility of controlling the actions of each and every group or individual at all times – something even Israel with all its might and with all its willingness to crush anything and everything Palestinian has never been able to do? So, can we interpret every attack by Islamic Jihad or any other group as a breach of the ceasefire, and if so can we also interpret every attack on Palestinians by extremist groups in Israel as a breach of the ceasefire, even though Israel has far greater ability to restrain its citizens than Hamas has over Palestinians? Or do we need to accept that the only absolute requirement we can make is that Hamas and the State of Israel refrain from any attacks, and attempt to restrain other groups and individuals from acts of violence?
    “Jihad indicated its support for “calm” a couple of days before the tahdi’eh went into effect, which was part of the reason Israel agreed.”
    Indicating one’s support for something and signing a ceasefire agreement are two very different things.
    “I’m not claiming that Israel is blameless here – I’d have to know what prompted the botched Nablus arrest raid to determine that”
    Given Israel’s many decades of well-documented history of provoking incidents and then pointing the finger at the Palestinians (or Syrians, or Lebanese, or Egyptians, or Jordanians) for retaliating, and using that as an excuse to resume full-blown hostilities, the burden of proof is on Israel.
    “but Jihad isn’t exactly an innocent party.”
    I don’t recall anyone saying they were. I certainly have not. But we DO have to keep in mind, among other things, who has been occupying and stealing whose land and resources, and who the oppressor and oppressed parties are.

42. Just who seems to spend their time vilifying Iran, calling for sanctions, and “leaving all options open”?
    Uh, the entire EU for one. They just called for and imposed a new set of sanctions. Further, I don’t believe that they have ever taken any options – including the military option – off the table.
    Your entire argument makes no sense. There are multiple reasons for the high price of oil that have to do with both supply and demand; Israel is not one of them (except, perhaps in terms of momentary fluctuations). You can blame the cyclone in the Philipines, global warming, the fact that the Cubs haven’t won a penant and your bulging waistline on Israel if you want. That doesn’t make it so.

43. Yes, Shirin, “try to restrain”. So far, the IDF has not responded. I assume because Israel is giving Hamas a chance to show that they are somehow trying.
    …even though Israel has far greater ability to restrain its citizens than Hamas has over Palestinians?
    Precisely my point, dear Shirin! Israel has a far greater ability to restrain its citizens (against criminal activity) because it’s government acts like one. Hamas, on the other hand, appears to be impotent when it comes to maintaining law and order (except when they take on Fatah).
    Again, whether or not PIJ signed, agreed to or spat on the agreement is totally irrelevant. We have been lectured to endlessly over the past year about how Hamas is the elected government and sole authority in Gaza. Do you understand the difference?
    Given Israel’s many decades of well-documented history of provoking incidents and then pointing the finger at the Palestinians (or Syrians, or Lebanese, or Egyptians, or Jordanians) for retaliating, and using that as an excuse to resume full-blown hostilities, the burden of proof is on Israel.
    Hawgwash! A tautological argument if I’ve ever seen one. The burden here is clearly on Hamas, and what they must do is to stop all elements of the population of Gaza from breaking the ceasefire that they signed with Israel. It may take a little more time; it may take a little less; but eventually they will have to do it or face the consequences.
    I don’t recall anyone saying they were. I certainly have not. But we DO have to keep in mind, among other things, who has been occupying and stealing whose land and resources, and who the oppressor and oppressed parties are.
    Again, totally irrelevant. But I repeat myself…

44. Shirin, what was that you were saying about “conflic-addicted” and walking like a duck?

45. So, JES, do you hold the Israeli government, with all its advanced law-enforcement systems and infrastructure to the same standard as you hold Hamas, with its crippled (largely as a result of Israel’s actions) systems and infrastucture in regard to controlling every single group and individual in the population? Is the Israeli government to be held responsible, as Hamas is, for every act of violence on the part of its citizens toward Palestinians?
    No, I didn’t think so.

46. Jes, Israel has deliberately and systematically destroyed and/or crippled the Palestinians’ ability to govern. They have systematically gone after civil infrastructure and systems, and have, in particular, specifically targeted law enforcement infrastructure and systems. And you have the temerity to suggest that Palestinians have the exact same ability of governance and law enforcement as the Israeli government has?

47. Good grief, JES, have you resorted to crying “crocodile tears?” Do you have no personal integrity left? There is a Lou Reed line that goes: “stick a fork in him, turn him over, he’s done.” You apparently have lost touch with reasoned discussion, and you can only be described as a fool.
    Have you no awareness of the unjust conditions which exist in political contest when there is a clear imbalance of power between two adversaries (though they be mutually fanatical about their irredentism bred from religious nationalism) and each side will not stop violating the other?
    Have you no capability left for sound reasoning? So you only give us crocodile tears. Can you not see what is clearly seen to the entire world? I suggest you need a long vacation from commenting on this website if you do not understand that one of the two adversaries in this political contest has his steel jack boot on the throat of the other adversary, and this other adversary barely manages to strike mere pin pricks on the mighty booted leg standing astride his throat.
    This imbalance of power is obvious to the entire world, and the entire world sees that the adversary with the steel jack boot needs to compromise furthest in the interest of peace, particularly if that adversary expects to have normal relations with the neighboring friends and allies of the pitiful strangled one with his back in the dirt struggling to breathe.
    The fact you are a partisan in this adversarial relationship has clouded your mind. You must have fog on the brain because this is the only thing which could explain your sorry crocodile tears. It must be condensation leaking from your sinuses.
    Please spare us your crocodile tears. I did not think it was possible I would ever witness this day. It is truly odious, a contaminant to the general environment.
    Pal, you are done. The fork has already been inserted and you were turned. Take a vacation. There are plenty of other Hasbaristas doing a much better job than you shedding crocodile tears.

48. If the Israeli government fails to do all it can to prevent Israeli citizens from attacking Palestinians, or is negligent in investigating and discovering threats of same, then yes, Israel is culpable.
    And in terms of the Palestinians’ capacity to govern, what you say might be true of the West Bank, but in Gaza, Hamas does what it wants and has by far the greatest institutional and military strength. Hamas has also shown its ability to use that strength on a number of occasions. For Hamas to plead weakness in Gaza is somewhat disingenuous.

49. Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language:
    Origin: from an old belief that crocodiles shed tears while eating their prey.
    Meaning: insincere tears or a hypocritical show of grief or excessive emotion.
    Example: “I am outraged – OUTRAGED – by the treatment that Gilad Shalit has received, as I am about the treatment received by Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.”

50. Azazel, I appreciate your more even-handed point of view. It is certainly an outrage to see Israeli soldiers standing by watching while Israeli settlers do everything from harrasing and abusing Palestinians, to damaging and stealing their property, to injuring and killing them.
    However, to think that under the circumstances Hamas has equal wherewithal to govern Gaza as the Israeli government has to govern Israel is to ignore reality. I have a very good friend whom I have known for years who works in IT for the Police Department in Gaza City, and aside from the fact that the government has not been able to pay its employees for months because Israel was illegally withholding tax money collected from the residents, purchase and upkeep of equipment and facilities is also a huge problem. I also have a very good friend who is a physician in Gaza and the situation he has described to me is beyond appalling, all a result of Israel’s actions.

51. With all respect, Shirin, I think the capacities of the Gaza City police force or medical facilities aren’t germane to the tahdi’eh. The subject under discussion isn’t the ability of Hamas to catch thieves or treat the sick; instead, it’s whether Hamas has sufficient military force to restrain other militias from mounting attacks. I don’t think there can be any serious dispute that Hamas is the strongest and most disciplined force in Gaza, or that it has managed to keep its soldiers supplied with weapons and money.
    The police and medical care issues you mentioned are, of course, human rights concerns to be addressed in their own right. I don’t mean to belittle them in terms of humanitarian impact. But in terms of the specific governmental functions put in issue by the cease-fire, they’re neither here nor there.
    Can we agree that neither party is as eirenophilic as it ought to be?

52. Are you suggesting, Azazel, that infrastructure and systems are not needed to sustain the kind of military force Hamas needs to control every action of every group and every individual in Gaza? Are you suggesting that it is realistic to expect Hamas to do what Israel has been unable to do after decades of trying?
    You simply cannot reasonably compare the ability of Israel to govern its population and control extremist elements within it with that of an impoverished group crippled by occupation, isolation, systematic economic deprivation, devastating blocks and embargos. Just a look at the fuel and power situation in Gaza should be enough to understand that.

53. Gaza is geographically small, and Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to physically control the area. And yes, I do expect Hamas to do better than Israel in that regard, because Israel was an occupying force while Hamas is not. Hamas has a critical factor that Israel lacked: legitimacy.
    And infrastructure and systems are certainly relevant – although I’d argue much more so for routine policing and patrol than for controlling militias – but as I said, Hamas has always had sufficient infrastructure capacity to keep its own people supplied with cash and guns. It forced Fatah to surrender in just a few days and Fatah has stayed defeated, so I don’t think it would be impossible for it to discipline a much smaller group like Jihad.

54. Maybe I should qualify the above somewhat: (1) Hamas does have less institutional capacity than Israel, but it has a much smaller territory to cover; (2) the other militias have even worse infrastructure problems than Hamas, given that Hamas has the most efficient smuggling and financial networks; and (3) Hamas can’t reasonably be expected to be perfect in policing other groups, but it can be expected to try, and by “try” I mean more than words.
    Also, from what I understand, Hamas has been able to drastically reduce the level of clan violence in Gaza. If so, that would seem to indicate that it does have policing capacity. You know more people in Gaza than I do, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

55. Azazel, we agree on some things. Certainly Hamas should do its utmost to control other groups in order to prevent as much as possible violent activity against Israel.
    However, to be fully effective they need, for example, effective and consistent communication and transportation infrastructure. Compare what they have in Gaza, which has been systematically devastated by destruction and deprivation, to what they have in Israel.
    You know, this is one of the tricks that Israel has pulled on the Palestinian Authority so many times over the years. They make them responsible for every rocket that is fired, and every stone that is thrown, then they “punish” the slightest failure by further destroying their ability to function as any kind of a government. It is utterly kafaesque.

56. Shirin, why don’t you take a deep breath and then try to read and comprehend. You cannot, on the one hand, assert that Hamas should be negotiated with because they are the sole governing representative and then beg off when they do not live up to their agreements by asserting the contrary.
    To argue that they have no policing capabilities is ridiculous, and to try to make an argument by comparing them with Israel is just plain, irrelevant special pleading. NB: Hamas isn’t being asked to take on Israel; They are being asked to take on the PIJ!
    Hamas adequately demonstrtated less than a year ago their abilities to enforce their will against Fatah – by far a superior force in both size and arms to the PIJ. They did this forcefully, decisively and to the cheers of many of the usual suspects here. Since then, they have further increased the size of their security forces, taken over the armories of the Fatah security forces and smuggled in tons of weapons.

57. I’ve talked to your mother and I’ve talked to your dad
    They say they’ve tried, but it’s all in vain
    I’ve begged and I’ve pleaded
    I even got mad
    Now we must face it, you give me a pain
    How can I miss you when you won’t go away?
    Keep telling you day after day
    But you won’t listen, you always stay and stay
    How can I miss you when you won’t go away?

58. And here is a good example of why Hamas probably cannot control its population:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/995864.html

59. I just want to note that, while we’ve had many fine discussions on the JWN comments boards over the years, the above exchange between Azazel and Shirin is one of the best. Thanks, friends!
    You may or may not succeed in persuading each other (or anyone else) of the validity of your respective points of view. But by engaging with each other’s views in such a calm and respectful way you’ve made a really constructive contribution to the general education of everyone who reads this discussion.

60. Wondering what you all thought of this article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

61. Thank you, Helena, and also for hosting a forum where such discussions are possible.
    After reading the discussion as a whole, do you stand by your diagnosis of “eirenophobia?”

Comments are closed.