In case you’re confused… even more….
…you have good reason. What is going on between the Israeli government and Hamas? Here are two accounts that try to make sense.
Here is Juan Cole trying to make sense of the Israeli attacks on Gaza.
And here is Ethan Bronner of the New York Times.
Very different interpretations, except for the targets: civilians. Each side terrorizes the other’s civilians in order to justify the continuing attacks. A new strategy? Mutual efforts at keeping the conflict going and keeping the support of your citizens.
Even more Jeffrey Goldberg is not the most objective blogger on our subject (but then who is?), but his postings on the Israel-Gaza conflict indicate that he fears no one, especially Israel, is going to win this one–and for a variety of reasons.
Roughly speaking in agreement with Jeffrey Goldberg: Stephen Walt: “Tragically, what we have here is just another example of a mindless, tit-for-tat of violence devoid of broader strategic purpose. No matter how this latest round ends, Israelis will claim to have “restored deterrence” for the umpteenth time. But we can be confident that a few months or years will go by and they will have to restore it yet again. No matter how this latest round goes, Hamas will claim it has taught Israel a lesson and reaffirmed its right of resistance. But the alleged “lesson” won’t be clear and we can be confident that it won’t galvanize any serious rethinking in any of the places that matter. In short, this latest little bloodletting won’t make Israel more secure and won’t move Hamas or the Palestinians an inch closer to their stated national aspirations. In their ceaseless competition to outdo each other’s myopic behavior, Israel and Hamas are in a dead heat.”
I am!
I’m confused about why there’s still no thread on the death of Savita.
We also must keep in mind the secondary losers in this entire mess: the rapidly-disappearing Christian communities througout the Holy Land. I first visited there in 1987 and last in 2006. The difference in what I saw of indigenous Christianity between those 2 time was shocking. The largest sign of this change was that in 2006, Bethlehem had taken on the appearance of San Quentin prison: http://www.bethlehemassoc.org/sub_pages/TheWallinBethlehem.htm
Approximately 200 rockets from Gaza struck Israel in 2010. Over 600 rockets struck in 2011. Over 800 rockets struck Israel in 2012 before Israel acted on November 14. In the 4 days before November 14, that is, from November 10-13, 121 rockets struck Israel from Gaza.
As the rocket attacks escalated in the last few months, Israel repeatedly warned Gaza that there would be consequences if it did not stop. Israel has the same right of self defense as any other country and Gaza has the same duty as any other country to refrain from its acts of aggression.
No one can fight an urban war without inflicting unintended casualties on civilian populations. Not Israel. Not the United States. Not NATO in Libya. Not the opposition to Assad in Syria. No one ever has and no one ever will. If Israel is to avoid such casualties, then it must not fight back. And that is the real aim of some who accuse Israel of war crimes whenever a Palestinian civilian is killed – to make it morally unacceptable for Israel to defend itself.
The difference between Israel and Gaza is that every rocket aimed at Israel is intended to kill civilians. Civilians are the acknowledged and undeniable target.
Gaza deliberately stores weapons in schools and hospitals and mosques. Under the Geneva Convention, it is a war crime to do so. And although Israel has refrained from attacking such sites, under international law, it is permitted to attack civilian sites that are being used for military purposes.
Juan Cole is an anti-Israel fanatic from way back. His account of things is so lopsidedly false that I hardly know where to begin. And to rebut his charges in detail would take more time and energy than I have to expend.
You seem to have the time and energy to repeat the Israeli side of the issue; that is your opinion. But no need to defame Juan Cole. He is a knowledgable critic of Israeli and Arab politics alike, to say nothing of our own politics. I’d think a lawyer of your standing would be more careful.
For a brief account of Cole’s background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole
I agree with Jeff about the deliberate targeting of civilians: the Israelis are not doing this but the Palestinians are.
Margaret. Thank you for your compliment about my standing in life. I think, however, that you exaggerate. But you are correct that I am a lawyer, now retired. Have you been researching me to see who I am? This would be another compliment of sorts.
I stand by everything I said about Juan Cole. I’m not interested in whether he has credentials or not. I’m just interested in how completely unfair is his constant drumbeat of anti-Israel rhetoric. Do you deny the existence of this constant drumbeat? Do you really think he’s fair and judicious on the subject of Israel?
As for my post in so far as it concerns Gaza and Israel, if I have said anything that you believe to be untrue, please tell me what. And if you believe that I have omitted things that you believe it is essential to say, please tell me what and I will be happy to respond and engage you in the same civil (but disputatious) discussion that we have had in the past. Who knows, perhaps we can learan a thing or two from each other.
(Reuters) – Gaza hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties from Israel’s bombings and face critical shortages of drugs and medical supplies, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday.
…. Officials in Gaza said 43 Palestinians, nearly half of them civilians including eight children, had been killed since Israel began its air strikes. Three Israeli civilians were killed by a rocket fired from the enclave on Thursday….The WHO, quoting Health Ministry officials in Gaza, said 382 people have been injured – 245 adults and 137 children.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/17/us-palestinians-israel-who-idUSBRE8AG0I120121117
This was the sub-head in the Jerusalem Post: Hamas fires on capital for first time, Tel Aviv for second day in a row; no injuries or damage reported in either attack.
There were some Israeli civilians killed earlier in the week… but no numbers are given in this story. http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=292171
Juan Cole: His credentials are impressive but as you say not determinative. His blog will give you a sense of where he stands. I do not find him anti-Israel; he is sympathetic to the existence of Israel; he is critical of Israeli government policies in Gaza and the West Bank. He has been critical of Palestinian attacks and intransigence. He can be equally critical of Arab governments. The Wiki bio describes him as an anti-neocolonialist. I think that’s accurate. He is opposed to Western (i.e., European and American) efforts to dominate the Middle East. That puts him in opposition to many U.S. policies vis a vis Israel, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc. That may seem a debatable position to you, but it is a coherent and reasonable one.
As you may remember, he came under vicious attack as anti-Israeli when Yale was considering him for a post, one for which he was qualified having both the “credentials,” language skills, experience, and background. Perhaps your view of him dates from those attack.
Since 2000, the Arabs have killed over 1,000 Israelis, including 150 children. It is true that Israel is more powerful than the Palestinians so that when it strikes it will inflict more casualties than the Palestinians. Israel’s military prowess was acquired in defending itself in 3 wars of aggression waged by the Arab world against it in the space of 25 years — wars intended to destroy Israel, kill Israelis and steal their land. In the first of these wars, Israel’s War of Independence, the Arabs killed one percent of the Jewish population. If that does not sound like much, then reflect on this: In all of WWII, 400,000 Americans were killed. Had it been one percent of the population at that time, 1,400,000 Americans would have been killed. So proportionately speaking, in a war that lasted a little over a year, Israel lost 3.5 times the Americans killed in all of WWII.
I regret any civilian casualties, but as I’ve pointed out in my previous posts, this is a war brought on by Hamas and the other Gazan terrorists, and if Israel is to strike at all in the urban areas from which the terrorists operate, there are going to be civilian casualties. All Gaza has to do to stop the war is agree to stop firing rockets into Israel. There would have been no war absent the Gazan rocket fire.
Margaret. I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree about Juan Cole. I used to read his blog, “Informed Comment,” from time to time, but that was a couple of years ago. I just have a completely different take on Cole and Israel than you do. And the link that you posted is, as far as I’m concerned, evidence of his deep bias. But people will have to judge for themselves.
I, too, am an anti-colonialist, but I don’t know what this has to do with Israel.
For the life of me I can’t grasp why Ms. Steinfels defends Hamas. They are clearly the aggressor that is deliberately terrorizing the Israeli civilian population. Their rockets are not aimed at military installations in Israel but on highly populated areas. I know the Hamas narrative: Israel is unjustly occupying land that belongs to Palestinians which makes Israel always and forever the enemy that must be driven into the sea. On what basis can Israel negotiate peacefully with an entity that is sworn to no objective short of complete destruction. It is a well established fact that Hamas purposely locates its rocket launchers in civilian areas hoping they can take full PR advantage of collaterol damage. If Palestinian leaders are truly interested in developing an economy that will give hope to its people, let them hitch their wagon to Israel which knows how to transform the dessert. Israel surrendered land for peace and got destructive rocket attacks in response.
Margaret. Thank you for your link to Jeffrey Goldberg. He’s pro-Israel all right, but that doesn’t disqualify him from being “objective.” The test of objectivity is whether he can a make a persuasive case in favor of Israel, taking into account all of the facts, both the facts that speak well of Israel, as well as those that don’t. I’m sure Goldberg is not perfect in this regard, but in the main, he is thoughtful and without bombast, and he is certainly not part of the Israel-can-do-no wrong crowd. I don’t always agree with him. I don’t even agree with everything he said in your link. But I respect him. Thank you again for the link.
Given Goldberg’s history and previous views, his view that the Netanyahu government’s policy (including Ehud Barak) may not be in Israel’s national interest, I’d say his views deserve attention.
Fr. Feehily, you can’t understand (for the life of you) why I defend Hamas? That’s because I don’t defend Hamas.
Walt is correct that this war will not solve the Gaza problem for Israel, but it may buy a few years of relative peace just as Cast Lead of 2008 did. Perhaps, the best Israel can do is muddle through. But the alternative, to do little or nothing about the thousands of incoming rockets from Gaza, is unacceptable to one million Israelis living in southern Israel.
Walt’s position that the problem is occupation and settlements is demonstrably false when it comes to Gaza, where there is no occupation and there are no settlements and where Hamas is forthright in saying that the problem for it is the existense of Israel, whose destruction is its stated long-term goal.
As for the West Bank, it is Abbas who refuses to enter into peace negotiations, not Netanyahu. Walt says Abbas does so because he knows Netanyahu is in bad faith. How does he know this? There is only one way to find out and that is to enter into negotiations and see. I have my own doubts about Netanyahu, but I have equal doubts about whether Abbas and the Palestinians are ready to commit to peace and normalization in exchange for statehood. After all, at Camp David in 2000, it was the Israelis who were in good faith and the Palestinians who were not. Just the other day, Abbas said something that some commentators believed was a hint that Abbas would be prepared to give up the “right of return” in negotiations. Rioting broke out in the West Bank and the next day Abbas denied that he had ever intended to communicate a willingness to relinquish the right of return.
So, let’s be honest about it. There is justifiable doubt about both sides. And the only way to see who, if anyone, is in good faith, is to enter into negotiations and see what happens. But Abbas refuses.
There’s a strategy operating here alright — its goal is getting Bibi re-elected in January: keep the little folks scared and he will look irreplaceable.
Why attribute a tawdry motive to Netanyahu as though a legitimate motive — the demand of 1,000,000 Israelis in southern Israel that the government put a stop to thousands of rockets from Gaza landing on them — does not exist? Netanyahu is the odds on favorite to win the upcoming election. He does not need a war to do so. Israel is united in its support of this war.
According to an article in Haaretz, Hamas is now threatening to restart suicide bombings of Israeli civilians in bus stops and cafes. The video posted by Hamas is apparently so crude that it has become an object of parody on the web. But it underlines once again the Hamas default position of targeting civilians. You can find the artilce here http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-video-threatening-israelis-draws-more-parody-than-fear-1.478726
The Israeli election and Gaza: Can we agree that there are many reasons/motives for Israel mounting a major offensive against Hamas. It is hard to ignore the coming election. The Israeli press acknowledges as much. Every candidate, whatever their political position, has had to come out in support of Netanyahu’s policies (including especially Barak, the minister of defense, who was sounding a tad dovish recently). This is similar to the Obama/Romney match during our election: Who is Israel’s strongest and true supporter. Romney lost the match, but Obama had no wiggle room, if he had wanted it.
I’m no big fan of Netanyahu, but it would take some pretty strong evidence to convince me that he or any other Israeli prime minister (or any President of the United States, for that matter) would take his country to war to win an election. And Israeli support of the war is not some politically forced consensus. Almost all Israelis believe that the rocket fire from Gaza has to be stopped and that this war is a just war. Differences may arise, however, about the conduct of the war. We will just have to wait and see.
As for Obama/Romney, Obama won the election, but the general consensus was that Romney would be the stronger supporter of Israel. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding millions of dollars and untold ink by Romney supporters to convince American Jews to vote for Romney, exist polls show that 69% of American Jewry voted for Obama. American Jews stood with African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans as the four strongest voting blocs for Obama.
As they say, it’s complicated. In the bigger picture, Israel has done everything it can to humiliate and impoverish the Palestinian people. They have mis-appropriated land and have refused to take steps toward productive negotiation. They have done much to bring about the resentment that has spawned hatred and terrorism.
That said, Israel cannot tolerate the steady barrage of Hamas rockets and mortars into Israel, done with the express purpose of causing civilian casualties. Israel has actually been fairly restrained in retaliation, but finally reached the point that they so often do of disproportionate response.
While I don’t want to fall into the ‘moral equivalence’ rhetorical trap, there is plenty of blame to go around, and apologists for one side or the other are not particularly helpful in either the long term or the short one.
Listen to NPR reporter Anthony Kuhn report from Gaza that rockets are being fired at Israel from right beside the media building that houses foreign and domestic journalists. He says, “While I was there interviewing the journalists, militants fired off a rocket just right next to the media building. So, apparently the militants think they can use the journalists as a form of cover or human shield to fire off rockets.” You can listen here http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=165400983&m=165399609
As always, more to the story: “The attacks on the two high-rise buildings damaged offices of the Hamas TV station, Al Aqsa, and a Lebanese-based broadcaster, Al Quds TV, seen as sympathetic to the Islamists. Germany’s public broadcaster ARD; Russia Today, a state TV network that broadcasts in English; and Sky News Arabia said they lost equipment in the attacks.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84007.html?hp=r2_b2
Its the same old dog and pony show – Israel punch Palestinians in the nose, Palestinians finally have enough and fight back, Israel express outrage and demolish Palestinians. BiBi will get re-elected in January and no matter what we (US) stand w/Israel – we are the dog the tail is wagging. And we, the US taxpayers, are paying in every way. I firmly believe we should adhere to George Washington’s admonition, “No entangling alliances”. I know I will be attacked by pro-Israelis – that is how they engage in “civilized dialogue”.
Correction: expresses, demolishes
This TIME article … http://world.time.com/2012/11/14/facing-hamas-israel-rolls-the-dice-will-there-be-another-gaza-war/ … mentions the upcoming election in Israel but points out that a war in Gaza has the potential to go either way – to reflect well or badly on the prime minister – and that it’s unlikely he would be starting a war for that reason. It seems more probable that there’s an offensive now because of the changes in Egypt’s leadership and the availability to Hamas of better weapons.
As always, even more to the story. Israel says that the building was being used as an operational communication site by the Gaza militants attacking Israel. Obviously, I can’t confirm this and you can’t disconfirm it. We’ll just have to wait and see whether more light is shone on this aspect of the story. But if it was being used in this way, it is a war crime to use a civilian facility for military purposes. In any event, we do know, because an NPR reporter is an eyewitness to it, that the building and the journalists inside were being used as a shield to fire at least one rocket at Israel. That’s definitely a war crime. Although Israel had a right under international law to attack, it remains to be seen whether it was wise or humane to do so.
How about this: Both sides are violating international law. Both sides are violating various strictures of just war thinking. Hamas is targeting civilians; Israel is actually killing more of them (though it claims it is only targeting buildings that Hamas uses for cover). The elected leaders of both sides or their representatives seem to be discussing a cease fire (in Cairo), and yet they continue the onslaught.
In the NYTimes this afternoon: “The airstrike, which the Israeli military said was meant to kill a Palestinian militant involved in the recent rocket attacks, was the deadliest operation to date and would no doubt weigh on negotiations for a possible cease-fire. Among the dead were five women and four small children, The Associated Press reported, citing a Palestinian health official.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html?hp
Why should we here on the CWL post defend either side?
A discouraging article. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=292466&R=R1&utm_
If I read you right, you are saying that even though Israel and Gaza haven’t yet been able to agree to a truce, why don’t you and I declare one between ourselves. If I’m right, I certainly appreciate the sentiment and I share your sadness, even depression, at the whole bloody mess.
I am aware of the deaths that you describe in the NYT article. Some initial reports indicate that Israel believed it was striking the militant who was organizing the rocket attacks upon Israel, but struck the house next to it by mistake, but to the best of my knowledge, Israel has not yet officially addressed the incident and I would like to withhold judgment until I hear from the government. Whatever the explanation, however, Israel will pay a price in world opinion for the carnage.
Yet, I have to be honest with you that I do not believe Israel is violating international law. As I said in my very first post, civilian casualties are going to occur when the enemy must be attacked in urban areas. I would at this point mount a vigorous defense of my position, but in the spirit of your post, I will instead be silent. I hope you are not too angry with me for not completely accepting your peace offering (again assuming I have read you right). Shalom.
Jeff: No need to be silent! Important to have these matters out. Even if we may agree on more than is apparent here.
JBruns: the author of that op-ed piece appears to be Ariel Sharon’s son. Ironic?
It is. I’m very surprised that the J Post ran it.
The current situation in the Middle East is painful and tragic on both sides. But it is a local phenomenon. Jesus (a ‘Jewish commentator’) said there would be painful and tragic occurrences of increasing intensity and frequency in his future; our present, perhaps? Mt 24,25; Lu 21; Mr 13.
If his statements were relevant- and Paul wrote similarly at 2 Tim 3:1 ff.- what sort of persons should Christians be today?
“It is a local Phenomenon.” If only.
The unstinting support of the U.S., dragging Europe along, has got to be one of the significant factors in fostering the intransigence of one side and thereby encouraging the intransigence of the other.
There’s a very instructive article in Haaretz, the left-leaning Israeli newspaper, about the civilian casualties in Gaza and why they are occuring:
“One indication that the campaign in Gaza is starting to get into trouble, as far as Israel is concerned, is the constant increase in the number of casualties among Palestinian civilians. Even before the al Dalou family, reports about casualties among children, women and the elderly have been increasing over the past two days, while harm caused to militants from Hamas or other organizations has been relatively limited.
There are several reasons for this: Hamas, of course, operates from within a civilian population and conceals its arsenals in built-up areas. The same is true of missile launchers, rockets and more. In addition, most Hamas militants make sure not to remain above ground most of the day. They stay in the network of tunnels built by Hamas beneath the Gaza Strip in recent years and, in effect, are at very low risk compared to the vast majority of the Gaza population. And the process of launching the rockets is extremely quick and is sometimes done by remote control, so that the ability to strike at those militants is very limited.
…
One possible explanation for the growing number of strikes against the civilian population is the decline in the number of quality targets available to Israeli intelligence and the Israel Air Force. In the afternoon, there was a report of the assassination of the head of the Hamas rocket program, Yahye Rabiya – of whom nobody in the Gaza Strip had ever heard and whose name for some reason was not even mentioned on the lists of those killed in Gaza.
But the attacks on empty facilities belonging to Hamas — or what used to be called “bombing real estate” — can also attest to a certain frustration in the Israel Defense Forces in light of the continued firing of rockets even more intensively, despite the innumerable aerial strikes and bombings in Gaza.
Another problem with which Israel has to contend is the fact that it is doubtful whether the large number of casualties among Gaza’s civilian population actually leads Hamas leaders to reconsider the firing of rockets. Perhaps even the opposite is true. Apparently the many pictures of women and children killed in the present campaign (a total of 67 dead so far, including the organizations’ militants) help to create especially supportive Palestinian and Arab public opinion for Hamas.
On the Internet and on the social networks, there is a clear call to take revenge against the Israelis and to bomb Tel Aviv, as though firing missiles at Gush Dan, the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, will solve the problems of the Strip’s residents. Hamas at this stage seems to be intoxicated by the support it is receiving from the public and especially from the Palestinian media, which cast no doubt and ask no questions, even for a moment.
Wrapped in the warm embrace it is receiving from Arab countries, Hamas seems to be in no hurry at all to end the fighting and is continuing to present very inflexible positions in the negotiations being conducted via Egypt regarding a temporary cease-fire.
At this stage it looks as though the organization sees Israel’s threats of a ground operation as empty posturing. A similar attitude was heard from the Hamas leadership a few days after the start of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. Then, too, Hamas did not believe that Israel would enter the Gaza Strip on the eve of elections, and when the ground operation began, the Hamas members fled from the fighting and left the population to absorb the fire.
It appears that the organization’s leadership has not learned the lessons of that campaign. Thus, tracking the Hamas media and the arrogant words of the organization’s leaders sometimes gives you a feeling that Hamas is about to conquer Israel at almost any given moment. The most recent proclamations of the organization’s military arm, Iz al-Din al-Qassam, included claims of firing a missile that landed north of Herzliya, sinking an Israel Navy ship, downing an IAF F-16 and more.
The problem is that while Hamas members are claiming credit for nonexistent achievements and are continuing the “fighting” while they are hidden in fortified tunnels, the residents of the Gaza Strip will continue to be the ones to pay the price. And the bombing Sunday in the center of Gaza is just another painful example of that phenomenon.”
I have omitted portions of the article discussing the civilian deaths because admittedly my interest was in getting you to focus on Hamas’ tactics. But you can read the entire article
here http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/as-idf-strike-kills-entire-family-in-gaza-israel-is-starting-to-get-in-trouble-1.478879
Jeff,
Thank you for your welcome, informed series of comments here. At last, at last.
Here is testimony from a British commander familiar with the record of the Israel Defense Forces when it comes to civilian casualties. He spoke before the UN a few years ago:
http://youtu.be/_hmT4Ri78aM It may be necessary to copy and paste the link.
As for Juan Cole, here is a detailed analysis of one of his more noted distortions:
“I was not surprised to see Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan denying that Ahmadinejad, or indeed Khomeini, had ever made this call for the removal of Israel from the map. Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community…
Cole continues to present himself as an expert on Shiism and on the Persian, Arabic, and Urdu tongues. Let us see how his claim vindicates itself in practice. Here is what he wrote on the “Gulf 2000″ e-mail chat-list on April 22 (2006):
It bears repeating as long as the accusation is made. Ahmadinejad did not “threaten” to “wipe Israel off the map.” I’m not sure there is even such an idiom in Persian. He quoted Khomeini to the effect that “the Occupation regime must end” (ehtelal bayad az bayn berad). And, no, it is not the same thing. It is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all. Ariel Sharon, after all, made the Occupation regime in Gaza end.
There are two separate but related matters here. For a start, let us look at the now-famous speech that Ahmadinejad actually gave at the Interior Ministry on Oct. 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole’s.) The relevant portions read:
(1) Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. …
(2) Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor (US) in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime (Israel). …
(3) For over fifty years the world oppressor (US) tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime (Israel), and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.
Ahmadinejad then denounced the recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Gaza as a sellout and added, “If we get through this brief period successfully,
(4) the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill.”
Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term “occupying regime” means Israel and the term “world oppressor” stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini’s injunctions are referred to twice. CD inserted the numbers for easier reference below.
Quite possibly, “wiped off the map” is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:
Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast. My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini.
Here is the translation: “Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.”</i?
This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."
Professor Cole has completely missed or omitted
the first reference in last October’s speech (“Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map”),
skipped to the second one (“Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime.”)
and flatly misunderstood the third (“For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime”)
(The fourth one, about “the path of eliminating the occupying regime,” I would say speaks for itself.)
He evidently thinks that by “occupation,” Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Israeli seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. But if this were true, it would not have been going on for “more than fifty years” now, would it? The 50th anniversary of 1967 falls in 2017, which is a while off. What could be clearer than that “occupation regime” is a direct reference to Israel itself?
One might have thought that, if the map-wiping charge were to have been inaccurate or unfair, Ahmadinejad would have denied it. But he presumably knew what he had said and had meant to say.
In any case, he has an apologist to do what he does not choose to do for himself. But this apologist, who affects such expertise in Persian, cannot decipher the plain meaning of a celebrated statement and is, furthermore, in need of a remedial course in English.”
Christopher Hitchens on Slate http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/05/the_cole_report.html
Sorry, should have had quotes at beginning of my last entry.
The insertion of references in parens in Ahmadinejad’s speech that identify the “world oppressor” as the US and the “occupying regime” as Israel are mine. It made it easier for me to follow the text in going back and forth between Ahmadinejad and Hitchens’ references. Hope it is not too confusing.
Carolyn: I woke up this morning to find your kind remarks. Thank you. My goal here is to change minds, not vent anger (although at times I am very angry). My hope is that if I can present a fact-based, rational defense of Israel, taking into account facts and points of view that do not usually find there way into opinion pieces critical of Israel, then maybe I can at least get those who are disposed to be against Israel to reflect upon the pro-Israeli view of things. That alone would be a small victory.
Although I can’t confirm it at this moment, my recollection is that Iran itself placed online an English translation of Ahmadinejad’s remarks that translated them as “wipe Israel off the face of the map.”
Yesterday, the editors of Commonweal posted an editorial on the current conflict, some of which I agreed with and some of which I didn’t. I posted a comment to it, too. You may want to as well. You can find it here http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=21985
Jeff,
Thank you for your welcome, informed series of comments here. At last, at last.
——
DITTO!
Margaret. I have just read your most recent post, By the Numbers, but for some reason, it says that comments are closed, so I’ll just respond here.
When you say that Hamas targets Israel, I think it would be more to the point to say that Hamas targets Israeli civilians.
There is some disagreement between Israel and others about how many Palestinians have been killed, especially during Operation Cast Lead, but your larger point is accurate. Israel has killed a lot more Palestinians than the other way around.
Of course, it matters what dates you pick. Since 2000, the Palestinians have killed over 1,000 Israelis, including 150 children. I’m sure Israel has killed more Palestinians than this during the same period — assuming your figures are ball-park accurate, Israel has killed more just since 2006 — but the numbers would not be anywhere near as disproportianate as those you cite.
But what I’m really interested in is what conclusions you draw from these figures. It is not that the IDF is targeting civilians since you begin your post by saying that it isn’t. Which I appreciate.
Is it that killing more of the enemy than they kill of you makes you the wrongdoer? If it does, then the U.S. was the wrongdoer in WWII, since we killed far more Germans and Japanese than they killed Americans. And we bombed their cities into rubble, whereas to the best of my knowledge not one German or Japanese bomb fell on the continental U.S.
Is it that Hamas is not to be too seriously faulted for storing its weapons stockpiles in civilian areas or firing its rockets from civilian areas? Or from hiding in bunkers all day, except to come out quickly to fire rockets and then scurry back to safety while leaving the civilian population exposed above them?
Is it that Israel does not have the right to attack so as to stop the rocket fire if the respective casualties are this far out of proportion? That so long as Gaza rocket fire in the thousands does not kill too many Israelis, one million Israelis in southern Israel have to take it, except perhaps for engaging in some minor tit-for-tat exchanges that do not put a stop to anything? [In fact, this is the approach that Israel has taken for years prior to Operation Cast Lead and prior to the present operation until Israelis couldn't stand it any more.]
Please tell me what conclusions you draw from these figures so that I can understand what point you are trying to make.
Jeff: Somewhere further up, I believe you referred to a “just war” on the part of Israel. The numbers suggest that whatever the intentions of both parties may be, there is a disproportionate effect in their means. The Israelis are better at using their weapons and thanks to the United States (and their own ingenuity) they have better weapons than the Palestinians. The Iron Dome anti-missile system provided by the U.S. seems to be successful in destroying the Palestinian rockets. Thus Israel manages to protect its own population while raining destruction on the Palestinians living in Gaza. My point on which I thought we previously agreed was that both sides deserve our criticism.
I recognize that the default position for most Americans is to support Israel irrespective of the consequences. I think, as I have written in many previous posts, that we do a great disservice to the future of Israel by our uncritical and unstinting support of their policies in the West Bank and Gaza. That is a tragedy for all parties.
Here is an essay from an editor of Haaretz at variance with many of the posts here, but worth reading for anyone wanting to keep some perspective on the current violence.
The opening paragraph: “One of Israel’s tremendous propaganda victories is that it has been accepted as a victim of the Palestinians, both in the view of the Israeli public and that of Western leaders who hasten to speak of Israel’s right to defend itself. The propaganda is so effective that only the Palestinian rockets at the south of Israel, and now at Tel Aviv, are counted in the round of hostilities. The rockets, or damage to the holiest of holies – a military jeep – are always seen as a starting point, and together with the terrifying siren, as if taken from a World War II movie, build the meta-narrative of the victim entitled to defend itself.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/israel-s-right-to-self-defense-a-tremendous-propaganda-victory.premium-1.478913
Margaret: There are things I fault Israel for and I try to be faithful to the facts, even those that do not speak well of Israel. Perhaps it is my vanity, but I think I am more faithful to all the facts than many on both sides of this controversy. But I am sure that it is obvious to you that having tried to assess all the facts critically, I remain a proud and committed Zionist.
As for the current conflict, if I said anything to indicate I did not think Israel was mainly in the right, I did not mean to. As you say, I believe it is a just war. And although I do not enjoy seeing innocent Gazans killed, and it can cause me gloom, I have been clear from the outset that there will be inevitable civilian casualties in an urban war. And I have been scathing in my comments about Hamas’ ways of fighting that are war crimes and that are designed to maximize Gazan civilian casualties. This war would never have started absent ceaseless rocket fire from Gaza and it would end in a moment if Gaza would just agree to stop firing rockets at Israel.
Although you did not say so explicitely, it sounds as though you are concluding that because of the disproportianate number of Gazans killed, Israel should not be waging this war and 1,000,000 Israelis in southern Israel should just learn to live with the rocket fire from Gaza. If this is your position, then I respectfully disagree.
I have just begun to read the article from Haaretz and will have to respond to that later.
I have just seen that an Israeli civilian and soldier have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza. Over 140 rockets have hit Israel today. So, you see that Iron Dome, though a wonderful thing, is far from complete protection. And why Israel should have to spend umpteen million dollars keeping it constantly replenished, just so Gaza can keep firing rockets at Israel, is beyond me.
Let me say a few general things about Haaretz. It is a liberal-to-left Israeli newspaper, particularly respected for its reportage. Since that is also my political perspective, it is my Israeli newspaper of choice. Seldom a day goes by when I don’t look at its online English-language edition. It also publishes commentary by some who believe that Israel is mainly at fault, both historically and currently, for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This is a very tiny view in Israel and is probably even a minority view within Haaretz. Haaretz commissioned a poll among Israelis to gauge support for the war and more than 90% of Israeli Jews support it.
Nevertheless, I support Haaretz’ right to air these views. Long may the free-press flag waive! No Palestinian would ever be allowed to publish anything remotely as critical of his or her side, and particularly in Gaza, but also perhaps in the West Bank, anyone trying would be assassinated, maimed or beaten to within an inch of his or her life. You know its so.
The ranks of those critical of Israel used to be larger among Israelis, but Palestinian intransigence at Camp David in 2000 and the follow-on bombing campaign of Israeli restaurants, buses, weddings and Bar Mitzvahs decimated their ranks. The fact that the withdrawal from southern Lebanon resulted in an extra-governmental army, sworn to Israel’s destruction, bristling with an estimated 50,000 advanced Iranian-supplied missles pointed at Israel didn’t help either. Neither did the fact that ending the occupation and settlements in Gaza did not result in a more peaceful neighbor, but in an enemy also sworn to Israel’s destruction, virulently anti-Semitic (not just anti-Israel, but deeply Jew hating), attacking Israel with thousands or rockets and thousands of rounds of mortar fire.
Friend: On the intransigence at Camp David in 2000, you might want to read Dennis Ross’s (yes, that Dennis Ross) book, “The Missing Peace,” Chapter 24. There was plenty of intransigence to go around. On that score, Yasir Arafat met his match in Ehud Barak.
Maragaret: My understanding is that the Israeli side made good faith, substantial offers (not take-it-or-leave-it offers, but opening offers in what was supposed to be a process of negotiations leading to a peace treaty) that the Palestinians rejected without ever making a counter offer. My understanding is that Arafat claimed the Jews should have no interest in the Temple Mount because the Second Temple was a Zionist fabrication. I haven’t read Ross’ book, so I don’t know what he says. I do remember reading at the time Robert Malley and Hussein Agha’s defense of the Palestinians in the New York Review of Books, and thinking it was a pretty tepid defense. Nevertheless, in the 9/20/2001 issue, there was a letter to the editor taking issue with it and laying the blame for failure squarely at the feet of Arafat. The author of the letter was Dennis Ross. Here it is in full:
To the Editors:
I read the article by Rob Malley and Hussein Agha [“The Truth About Camp David,” NYR, August 9] with interest and, unfortunately, some dismay. I know and respect both men. Rob served on the peace team that I headed during the Clinton administration. And Hussein, a longtime adviser to the Palestinians, is someone who has consistently sought to promote peace and reconciliation.
But their account of “the tragedy of errors” of Camp David—though correct in many aspects—is glaring in its omission of Chairman Arafat’s mistakes. One is left with the impression that only Barak did not fulfill commitments. But that is both wrong and unfair, particularly given Arafat’s poor record on compliance. Moreover, while striving to prove that the reality was far more complicated than Israel offering and Palestinians rejecting, they equate tactical mistakes with strategic errors. Did Prime Minister Barak make mistakes in his tactics, his negotiating priorities, and his treatment of Arafat? Absolutely. Did the American side make mistakes in its packaging and presentation of ideas? Absolutely. Are Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton responsible for the failure to conclude a deal? Absolutely not.
Both Barak and Clinton were prepared to do what was necessary to reach agreement. Both were up to the challenge. Neither shied away from the risks inherent in confronting history and mythology. Can one say the same about Arafat? Unfortunately, not—and his behavior at Camp David and afterward cannot be explained only by his suspicions that a trap was being set for him. Indeed, his mistakes cannot be reduced to his being “so fixated on potential traps, he could not see potential opportunities.”
Throughout the course of the Oslo process, Chairman Arafat was extremely passive. His style was to respond, not initiate ideas. That is a good tactic, especially for a weaker party that feels it has little to give. If it was only a tactic, it should have stopped when serious ideas or package proposals were put on the table. Whether the Israelis put a generous offer on the table is not the issue. The issue is, did Yasser Arafat respond at any point—not only at Camp David—to possibilities to end this conflict when they presented themselves?
Any objective appraisal would have to conclude he did not. Consider that in June when Barak was pushing very hard to convene a summit, and we were resisting on the grounds that we needed more preparation, more of a basis, Arafat resisted all our efforts to develop that basis. As Rob and Hussein rightly say, Arafat sought more time for preparation before going to the summit. But they neglect to say that he was neither revealing anything himself nor authorizing his negotiators to do anything to make additional preparation possible. On the contrary, at this very time, his negotiators hardened their positions, not being willing even to discuss security arrangements until the Israelis conceded the eastern border.
Consider Arafat’s performance at Camp David. It is not just that he had, in the words of President Clinton, “been here fourteen days and said no to everything.” It is that all he did at Camp David was to repeat old mythologies and invent new ones, like, for example, that the Temple was not in Jerusalem but in Nablus. Denying the core of the other side’s faith is not the act of someone preparing himself to end a conflict. (What’s more, in the completely closed environment of Camp David, he did nothing to control the fratricidal competition in his delegation—effectively giving license to those who were attacking other members who were trying to find ways to bridge the differences.)
Consider that near the end of September, when we had just concluded three days of quiet talks with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and Arafat knew we were on the verge of presenting ideas that would have been close to those the President presented in December, he allowed the violence to erupt and did nothing to prevent it or contain it. This, despite a phone call from Secretary Albright asking him to act and reminding him of what we were about to do.
The President’s ideas went well beyond those raised at Camp David. When Arafat proved unable to accept these ideas, he convinced the Israeli public that he could not accept any ideas for solving the conflict. Would it have made a difference if the President’s ideas had been presented on October 1, rather than December 23? Rob and Hussein would probably say yes. I am less sure, but we will never know because the Chairman, knowing the violence was about to erupt, did nothing to stop it.
I am not one who believes that Chairman Arafat is against peace in principle. Nor am I one who believes that Palestinian negotiators made no concessions. But at no point during Camp David or in the six months after it did the Chairman ever demonstrate any capability to conclude a permanent status deal. Because it requires personal redefinition and giving up myths, I simply do not believe he is capable of doing a permanent status deal. But the choices before us cannot be either a permanent deal or nothing. There is a need to stabilize the current situation and to create a political process to provide direction and hope. There is a need to reestablish the core premise of peacemaking: security for Israelis, the end of Israeli control of Palestinian lives for the Palestinians. And there is a need for real accountability on both sides so that commitments made are commitments fulfilled.
But there is little prospect of ever ending this conflict if we do not face up to the lessons of the past. I am now writing a book that looks at the last decade of peacemaking with the aim of telling the story of what happened and what we need to learn from it. Rob and Hussein have told a part of the story of Camp David. However, in their desire to show that there was a reason for Palestinian behavior—and for Arafat’s suspicions—they may perpetuate a mindset that has plagued the Palestinians throughout their history.
It is not, as Abba Eban said, that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is that in always feeling victimized they fall back on blaming everyone else for their predicament. It is never their fault. History may not have been kind or fair to the Palestinians. They have suffered and been betrayed by others. They are, surely, the weakest player with the fewest cards to play. But by always blaming others, they never have to focus on their own mistakes. And that perpetuates the avoidance of responsibility, not its assumption.
Like Rob and Hussein, I believe that Camp David and the Clinton ideas, by breaking the taboos and responding to the essential needs of each side, will eventually provide the basis for solution. But, given the damage done by nine months of violence, it will take a long time to create the conditions in which solutions can again be discussed. And that day will not emerge as long as the Palestinians avoid facing painful truths, and leveling with their own public about what is possible and what is not. They, too, must assume responsibility and be accountable. They, too, must face up to their mistakes and learn from them.
Ambassador Dennis Ross
Counselor and Distinguished Fellow
The Washington Institute for Near
East Policy
Washington, D.C.
Jeff, thank you for the clarification by Dennis Ross of Arafat’s non-responsive stance. Passive aggressive comes to mind.
Another historian’s comment: “As Dennis Ross, an American diplomat present at the summit, astringently put it, Arafat “never offered any substantive ideas, not once” at the talks. However, “He did offer one new idea, which was that the Temple didn’t exist in Jerusalem, that it was in Nablus.” With this, Jerusalem’s pseudo-history became formal Palestinian Authority policy.”
Further: “Palestinian Arabs now claim that Canaanites built Solomon’s Temple, that the ancient Hebrews were Bedouin tribesmen, the Bible came from Arabia, the Jewish Temple “was in Nablus or perhaps Bethlehem,” the Jewish presence in Palestine ended in 70 C.E., and today’s Jews are descendants of the Khazar Turks. Yasser Arafat himself created a non-existent Canaanite king, Salem, out of thin air, speaking movingly about this fantasy Palestinian Arab “forefather.” http://www.meforum.org/pipes/3676/what-jewish-ties-to-jerusalem
A comprehensive article on the Muslim claim to Jerusalem http://www.meforum.org/490/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem covers religious and political history through the ages. It’s a long read but well worth the effort. The author comments elsewhere: “In a consistent and predictable cycle repeated six times through 14 centuries, Muslims focused on the city when it served their (political) needs and ignored it when it did not.” Ample documentation.
I’d say it’s a stretch to consider the Middle East Forum and Daniel Pipes fair observers of Islam.
This post has strayed into the territory of apologetics and in the interests of a peaceful holiday, I absolve you all of responsibility for setting things straight!