Daily Kos

On Phony Claims of Blaming Israel

Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:30:36 AM PDT

To the I/P-ers who repeatedly raise the false meme that any criticism of Israel during the Palestinian civil war is "blaming" Israel or "absolving" Hamas and Fatah of all responsibility:

I don’t know why I’m surprised anymore at this tactic, since it matches so many of the other debating tactics used in I/P.  When someone makes a reasonable or accurate criticism of Israel, what should you do?

  1. Take hold of the criticism yourself,
  1. Restate the criticism to accuse Israel of being responsible for all evil in the world,
  1. Mock the critic for being so over the top.
  1. Repeat as necessary.

It’s a silly tactic, and it only serves to distract from honest discussion.  So let’s drop it and focus on the real issues.  Fatah and Hamas are certainly not innocent in this civil war.  Both are incredibly brutal and almost certainly committing war crimes.  Additionally, they are undermining the Palestinian national project by fighting against each other.

However, Israel is not innocent either.  It, along with the US and Egypt to some extent, has worked obsessively to undermine the elected Palestinian government.  It has armed a rival party and certainly helped spark this brutal war.  It has made the economic conditions so atrocious in Gaza that chaos has erupted and street gangs and criminal elements have become major power centers.

What the Palestinians have done unintentionally (undermine the Palestinian national project through in-fighting), Israel has done intentionally.  Though it is often considered un-PC to say so, many here are happy to have Israel do so, and support Israel’s refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians until they are completely broken.  Many support Israel’s work to undermine the Palestinian national project.  This is the real issue when it comes to criticism of Israel:

Israel’s undermining of the Palestinian government is one more in a long string of strategic Israeli mistakes.

Israel has a long history of harming itself through overreaching.  In 1967, fearing pan-Arab nationalism, Israel decisively smashed the armies of its neighbors.  In doing so, however, it overreached and began an occupation that drains Israel militarily, economically and morally to this day.  In 1982, seeking to force a settlement on Palestinians by smashing the PLO, Israel bogged itself down in a useless and bloody war. At the same time changed the dynamic within Palestine itself.  Palestinians stopped waiting for the PLO to rescue them from the outside, and instead organized themselves within Palestine.  A few years later they launched the Intifada and permanently changed the character of the Occupation.

Today, we are seeing another mistake.  Israel and its allies are unwilling to negotiate with Hamas.  Worse, they overreach: trying to destroy Hamas completely by crushing Gaza economically (and militarily) and by arming its rival Fatah.  What is the result?  

Hamas will soon be stronger than ever.  The split in Gaza may soon be over and Hamas will have a unified land under its sole command.  Fatah will be delegitimized by defeat and its support for Israel.  Further, Hamas will know that Israel cannot break it by military invasion, economic boycott or by arming rebels within Palestine.  Hamas will emerge stronger, more confident, better armed (from captured weapons sent by Israel and Egypt), and more committed to violent resistance.  

The crime of Israel here is not that Israel is somehow responsible for the choices that Fatah or Hamas make.  The crime is that once again, through overreaching and lack of foresight, Israel has made its strategic situation worse and has given yet another boost to the war that has claimed and will claim so many Palestinian and Israeli lives.  

Tags: Israel, Palestine (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 185 comments

  •  inflamatory language not needed. (16+ / 0-)

    1. When people disagree, you shouldn't call their tactics "silly"- it shows you belittling them, which is  not the way to engage them in thoughtful dialog.

    2)The US, Egypt, Israel haven't tried to "undermine" the government, just that part which has called for the destruction of Israel, the weakening of Egypt, and attacks on the US.  What do you do when people who want to hurt you climb to the top, suddenly become their friends?

    3)The Palestinians have not "unintentionally" done this- that's really "silly" talk- they have intentionally taken up arms against each other, with countless cease-fires broken.  That's intent, not accident!

    1. Why is it a mistake to not negotiate with people who do not even recognize you, want to kill you, and have not shown any sign of attempting to change?  They tried to kidnap another Israel soldier last week, in the midst of all their internal fighting they still want to commit terrorist attacks!  You don't talk to that kind of person or group, you protect yourselves from them.

    Stop with the "crime of Israel" bullshit- it shows very clearly that you have already convicted them without a trial.

  •  I respect Jews and Palestinians both... (11+ / 0-)

    And it saddens me to see the Israeli government continue to shoot themselves in the foot with their "overreaching".  

    Whether it's illegally expanding their borders to usurp holy lands, firing rockets into crowded city streets to take out one person, bulldozing people's homes, or building a nuclear arsenal in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, Israel has become its own worst enemy.

    Where they once had the sympathy of countries around the world, they've now lost the moral high ground.  

    Which is worse?  A country that is unable or unwilling to crack down on its rogue suicide bombers, or a country that brutally steals holy lands with no apparent regard for international laws?

    It's hard for peace-loving people to choose the lesser of these two evils.  

    And America's biased support for one over the other only highlights our own hypocrisy, and further degrades our standing in the world.

  •  Meh. (15+ / 0-)

    The crime of Israel here is not that Israel is somehow responsible for the choices that Fatah or Hamas make.  The crime is that once again, through overreaching and lack of foresight, Israel has made its strategic situation worse and has given yet another boost to the war that has claimed and will claim so many Palestinian and Israeli lives.  

    Well, as long as we somehow manage to get an Israeli crime into what seems to the casual observer to be a completely intra-Palestinian bout of violence, all's well in the world, eh?

    Typical.

    Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

    by MBNYC on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:06:34 AM PDT

    •  True story. (6+ / 0-)

      I was in a barbershop in Turkey, not too far from the Iraqi border, on the day that Iraq invaded Kuwait.  When the news was announced, a man came running in and said (as reported to me -- I didn't understand the Turkish) "Iraq has invaded Kuwait and Israel is doing nothing!"

      Much like a troll I responded to last night who felt that gay people were always staring at him, some people just have these fixations and it biases their ability to discern what's actually going on.

      That's not to say that it doesn't serve Israel's purposes to have the Palestinians at each other's throats (nor that there aren't gay people staring at that troll), but the immediate crime here has more to do with Hamas and Fatah tying each other up and throwing each other off tall buildings -- something I think it would take an enormous leap of logic to place on the Israelis no matter how devilishly clever one may believe them to be.

      John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

      by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:46:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why you need to read this diary. (8+ / 5-)

    For the falafel, of course.

    FALAFEL
    INGREDIENTS:
    1 cup dried chickpeas or 16 oz. can of chickpeas or garbanzo beans.
    1 large onion, chopped
    2 cloves of garlic, chopped
    3 tablespoons of fresh parsley, chopped
    1 teaspoon coriander
    1 teaspoon cumin
    1/2 teaspoon baking powder
    Salt
    Pepper
    Oil for frying

    PREPARATION:
    Place dried chickpeas in a bowl, covering with cold water. Allow to soak overnight. Omit this step if using canned beans.

    Drain chickpeas, and place in pan with fresh water, and bring to a boil.

    Allow to boil for 5 minutes, then let simmer on low for about an hour.

    Drain and allow to cool for 15 minutes.

    Combine chickpeas, garlic, onion, coriander, cumin, salt and pepper (to taste) in medium bowl. Add baking powder.

    Mash chickpeas, ensuring to mix ingredients together. You can also combine ingredients in a food processor. You want the result to be a thick paste.

    Form the mixture into small balls, about the size of a ping pong ball. Slightly flatten.

    Fry in 2 inches of oil until golden brown (5-7 minutes).

    Serve hot.

    Serving Suggestion
    Falafel can be served as an appetizer with hummus and tahini, or as a main course. Stuff pita bread with falafel, lettuce, tomatoes, tahini, salt and pepper. As an alternative, falafel can be formed into patties and served like a burger.

    Serves 4.

    •  Oh come on (11+ / 0-)

      This ain't the greatest diary, but it doesn't sink to the level where recipes are required. Save those for the Ron Paul diaries.

      Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

      by MBNYC on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 10:21:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe not, but (4+ / 0-)

        It definitely falls into the category of "Not a single person will come away from this diary knowing a single thing that he didn't already know."

      •  Actually, I just re-read the diary (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Pumpkinlove, Doodad, Shane Hensinger

        It is actually really ridiculous, and IMHO, deserves recipes.  But only Middle East recipes, of course.

        •  He's not a troll. (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          unfounded, npbeachfun, dennisl, MBNYC

          But there are some things that were written in the diary that need to be questioned and which can't go unchallenged.

          •  I'm sick and friggin' tired (6+ / 0-)

            of all the "we're making up the false criticism" crap.  You, on the other hand, have been more than reasonable lately.  This diary is crap, pure and simple.

            •  He could have made his points without that. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Pumpkinlove

              And I understand that is a kneejerk reaction, but he did say this:

              It’s a silly tactic, and it only serves to distract from honest discussion.  So let’s drop it and focus on the real issues.  Fatah and Hamas are certainly not innocent in this civil war.  Both are incredibly brutal and almost certainly committing war crimes.  Additionally, they are undermining the Palestinian national project by fighting against each other.

              So, it is clear from this that he does not exclusively blame Israel.

              On the other hand, Hamas is losing badly in the polls and I do not see where he gets his claim that Israel supported Hamas to undermine the PLO in the late 1980's. I've heard that charge thrown around a lot, but I would like to see that substantiated before people make that claim.

              •  Here's the real problem (4+ / 0-)

                It's not about the substance of your comment.

                Here's the real timeline of what happened:

                  1) Someone wrote a very good, well-balanced and fair diary about what's going on in Gaza and the West Bank;

                  2) Someone comments in the diary, usually fairly quickly, that at least some of this is because of how Israel (and in some cases, the US) funded one side and didn't recognize the other side (take note that the original diary doesn't make this statement at all);

                  3) Someone then points out that this is a Civil War between Hamas and Fatah, and doesn't involve Israel (please note at this point that nobody has ever said that anybody claimed the entire blame was Israel's); and, finally, and almost predictably,

                  4) We get a diary about the Phony Claims of Blaming Israel.

                Like I said before, crap.   Pure crap.

                •  But really it's the same as any I/P diary (8+ / 0-)

                  1. someone attempts to write a balance I/P diary (either side).
                  1.  someone comments in the diary that at least part of the blame for continued violence has to fall on say, Hamas refusing to recognize Israel or some terrorist attack or the continual quassam rockets.
                  1.  Someone then refuses to acknowledge any of that, and reiterates some heinous behavior by Israel, claiming the comment in (2) was apologist for this heinous behavior (please note at this point that nobody has ever said the entire blame was Hamas' or whatever); and finally, almost predictably,
                  1.  We get a diary or comment decrying all the Israel apologists and AIPAC and whining how any criticism of Israel is not allowed.  When in fact it was criticism of the OTHER side that fomented the entire debate.  In diary after diary.

                  There is almost NO pro-Israel poster who does not criticise Israel!  It boggles the mind every time I read that criticism supposedly is not allowed?  By whom, since we all criticise Israel?

                  And again, in a situation where folks are dying RIGHT NOW at the hands of Fatah and Hamas, brutal execution style murders in the streets, the choice to post anti-Israel screeds seems really strange.  

                  Israel may have helped foment this brand new civil war (along with anyone else who armed EITHER side), but Israel is not in a position to end it, and people are dying.  The focus should be on anyone who can END THIS so no more people die.

                  "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

                  by delphine on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:56:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What they really mean (0+ / 0-)

                    when they say

                    ".... criticism is not allowed"

                    is that their brand of criticism is criticized or "outlawed."

                    And, usually, they are told, rightly, to take it somewhere else.

                    A day without sunshine is like, you know, night.

                    by Doodad on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 05:53:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Israel armed both sides over the years. (2+ / 0-)

                  So, I fail to see how they can escape responsibility for their part in the conflict.

                  •  Israel never armed Hamas. (0+ / 0-)

                    Please document this assertion.

                    "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                    by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:26:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                      •  Wrong, wrong, wrong. (3+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        arielle, unfounded, Pumpkinlove

                        Israel never armed Hamas, and your source (which is third hand at best) says quite the opposite.  When Israel supported Yassin, he was involved in "humanitarian" works exclusively, and Hamas was barely a glint in his eye, if that.

                        Stop twisting the truth and re-read your own source,  then I recommend you turn to a credible history of Hamas, like "Hamas, Political Thought and Practice" by Khaled Hroub.

                        "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                        by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:37:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So, what was Israel's purpose? (2+ / 0-)

                          In supporting Yassin?

                          And why would Yassin turn on Israel and form Hamas?

                          I go back to Rumsfeld's support of Saddam. He did not seem like such a bad man back in the day. And neither did Bin Laden; he was a freedom fighter working to stop Communism.

                          I have ordered the book and will read it, but please explain in your own words the basis for Israel's support of Yassin.

                          •  Yassin operated one of many "humanitarian" (2+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            arielle, Pumpkinlove

                            organizations in the West Bank and Gaza.  All Israel did was put their organization on a government approved list which meant they could receive some Israeli subsidies for their charitable works.  In my own research on this, I have been unable to find out exactly how much, but they were not the only recipients of the program.

                            What you have repeatedly and erroneously suggested is that Israel armed Hamas, but let us say (for argument's sake), Israel was attempting to support alternatives to the PLO.  How responsible are they, when a social works organization they supported with some limited amount of money, "morphs" into an entirely new (and renamed) terrorist group?

                            "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                            by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:19:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  Not according to the experts. (3+ / 0-)

                              "Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies. Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official."

                              Middle East analyst Ray Hanania concurs:

                              "In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel's control over the occupied territories."

                              It was not simply a pittance; Israel funded them so that they could rise to be a political alternative to the PLO. Your question is based on the faulty premise that Israel did not fund them very much at all. But in fact, the facts showed that Israel funded them for the specific purpose of undermining the PLO.

                              And you have not answered my question -- why did Yassin turn on Israel the way that he did?

                              •  Still wrong. First, you find a primary source. (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                Pumpkinlove

                                Next, tell me how much "simply not a pittance" is.  Your current sources (including the above unattributed one) suck.  Ray Hanania is a comedian and a occasional pundit, too young to speak first hand about the history or motives behind Israeli policies of the 1970's.  

                                As for Cordesman, all anyone ever quotes from him about this, is one single brief (AP, I believe) report with no details... and then comes the third, fourth and worse hand riffs on it.  But it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - Hamas was not even founded until the late 1980's.

                                Why did Yassin turn?  Why did the intifada happen?  Or maybe he had other ideas all along.  I do not see the relevance of that question to anything.  At minimum, he was a cleric involved in charitable works, not a warrior like Bin Laden, and I do not think that Israel should be condemned for attempting to reach out to other factions in Palestinian society.  Do you?

                                "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                                by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:10:04 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  You can wish it away all you want. (2+ / 0-)

                                  But you will not make it go away. Both Cordesman and Hanania specialize in the Middle East. Now, if you think that they are not credible as sources, then you have to prove that they are not credible instead of just your word that they are not. Otherwise, that is like Rush whining about the "Liberal Media" when the facts do not fit his argument.

                                  Now, you can put whatever spin you want on Israel's support of Yassin. But Israel cannot escape blame for what is happening today. At the very least, they showed poor judgement by trusting someone like Yassin who wanted a fundamentalist Islamic state instead of the secular state that the PLO wanted. At the very worst, they were instrumental in the formation of Hamas.

                                  That is now settled fact, and now, let me add something else -- Israel helped Yassin take over the Islamic University of Gaza from the PLO:

                                  "Encouraged Israeli authorities to dismiss their opponents in the committee in February of 1981, resulting in subsequent Islamisation of IUG policy and staff (including the obligation on women to wear the hijab and thobe and separate entrances for men and women), and enforced by violence and ostracization of dissenters. Tacit complicity from both university and Israeli authorities allowed Mujama to keep a weapons cache to use against secularists. By the mid 1980s, it was the largest university in occupied territories with 4,500 students, and student elections were won handily by Mujama."

                                  So, not only did Israel support Yassin financially, they aided and abetted his takeover of a university that would subsequently serve as one of his primary bases of action. "Charitable works" my ass.

                                  •  Lies or honest errors? (0+ / 0-)

                                    You began by insisting over multiple posts, that Israel supplied Hamas with weapons.  Your own source said different and you have yet to provide a single source that supports you.  Lie?  Honest mistake?  Still googling?  Or is it time for the gracious concession?  

                                    Your sourcing in our ongoing discussion, as I said, sucks.  At least you could go back to Cordesman and Hanania's actual original words, and I think you would be surprised, but you rely on an agitprop web site's regurgitation of odd facts, plus later offering a couple of unsourced grey boxes - not too impressive.

                                    As far as Cordesman's info, I have already noted that Hamas wasn't even extant until the late 80's, which is common knowledge to most and easily confirmed.  Therefore, no matter what an expert he may be, what you offered us is clearly in error.  And it certainly doesn't say a word about arms.  Maybe you can scrape out a better bit from his original article.  Give it a try.

                                    As far as the comedian, Hanania, he only graduated from college in 1975 and spent most of the next ten years working the city hall beat for the Daily Southtown, a Chicago Paper.  Hardly a primary historical source for the origins of Hamas.  None of this is to suggest that he is a liar or a fool, but your out of context, second-hand, unsourced quote offers little besides the suggestion of a motive for Israel's interest in Hamas.  Actually, he has written much on the subject, and here's a bit:

                                    Although Sharon and his Likud (formerly Herut Party) government colleagues could not anticipate that the Islamic leaders they backed would eventually evolve into Hamas and suicde bombings, the two have benefited from each other's extremism over the years.

                                    Please keep in mind, I have never disputed that Israel provided support to Yassin so long ago - my questions to you have focussed on the scope and scale of Israeli involvement, the applicability of assisting a PLO alternative, and most significantly, whether or not Israel encouraged an Islamic fundamentalist terror group, particularly by providing arms.  From your own source, you can see that this is clearly not the case.

                                    The case for Israeli "blame for what is happening today," is really a larger separate issue to our discussion of Hamas.  Let me suggest, while some blame may be directed at Israel, the USA, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other players, this is a Palestinian power struggle between secularists and Islamists, entirely similar to the struggles occurring within other ME polities, unquestionably, primary responsibility rests with Fatah and Hamas leadership.

                                    But why allow the participants to absorb the blame for their own actions, when Israel is conveniently at hand.

                                    And though I don't presently have the time to dig into your unsourced comments about the Islamic University of Gaza, I do not find it remarkable that an Islamic cleric would have a claim on an Islamic University, as opposed to the secular gang, not a government at that point, that was the PLO.  

                                    As far as " 'Charitable works' my ass," your own original source make that very same charitable works claim:  "...mosques, clinics, kindergartens, and other educational institutions flourished not only because they were lavishly funded, but also due to being efficiently run. Sheik Yassin and the future leaders of Hamas acquired a reputation for "clean" governance and good administrative practices...."  And in case you weren't aware of it, Saudi Arabia is by far Hamas' largest source of funds.

                                    Lies or honest errors on your part?

                                    "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                                    by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 07:52:24 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  So: (1+ / 0-)

                                      Recommended by:
                                      npbeachfun

                                      The case for Israeli "blame for what is happening today," is really a larger separate issue to our discussion of Hamas.  Let me suggest, while some blame may be directed at Israel, the USA, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other players, this is a Palestinian power struggle between secularists and Islamists, entirely similar to the struggles occurring within other ME polities, unquestionably, primary responsibility rests with Fatah and Hamas leadership.

                                      Is the Bush administration not responsible for the similar power struggles that are going on in Iraq? By the same logic, you can argue that they were not responsible for that at all. And by the same logic, you could argue that the Reagan administration was not responsible for Saddam's rise.

                                      But the problem with your whole line of reasoning is that this is a matter of judgement -- can this person be trusted or not. And even back in the 1980's, radical Islam was a problem. Yet, they helped Yassin in his power struggle to take over that university. Now, given that Yassin was so adamatly working against Israel's interests, why was it good judgement to help him even though he was already dead set against Israel's interests?

                                      Although Sharon and his Likud (formerly Herut Party) government colleagues could not anticipate that the Islamic leaders they backed would eventually evolve into Hamas and suicde bombings, the two have benefited from each other's extremism over the years.

                                      Now, maybe they could not see that Yassin could have done what he did. But they could have anticipated that he would only make the matter worse for Israel given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism that was already taking place even if they could not have foreseen the formation of Hamas.

                                      Now, as for your question about the scope, the answer is very clear -- Israel directly funded Yassin, formed a bunch of village leagues which they rigged so that Yassin's followers could dominate, they helped them stage the takeover of the Islamic University of Gaza, and they would always side with the Islamists against the secularists in political disputes. And the architect of all this was none other than Ariel Sharon.

                                      Yes, other countries are responsible for this mess, such as Saudi Arabia. Yes, there is a lot of responsibility that lies with Hamas and Fatah. But the fact of the matter is that when you play with fire, you will get burned in the end. Any time you support dictators and authoritarians such as Yassin, you get burned in the end. You are not working for peace; you are simply sewing the seeds for the next war. The only people happy are the Military Industrial Complex people.

                                      •  So, did Israel provide weapons to Hamas? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                                        "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                                        by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 09:46:23 PM PDT

                                        [ Parent ]

                                        •  No. (1+ / 0-)

                                          Recommended by:
                                          Eric S

                                          I was wrong on that point. But they did provide substantial financial and political support to Yassin, who would go on to form Hamas, and Israel was helpful in his rise to power.

                                          Now, was this good judgement on Israel's part, or was it not?

                                          •  Well, it's about time. (0+ / 0-)

                                            I can't figure out why I have to argue every peripheral issue with you, post after post, push and shove, before you concede what was proven in my first comments - by your own source!

                                            When (early in this string) I didn't have a salient fact - the amount of money contributed by Israel to Yassin - I made a point of clearly stating so.  But in your world, it's OK to claim over and over, that some unspecified immense amount of money was involve - and you still haven't offered a single lick of proof to back up that assertion.  

                                            Now, you want to know if I think the Israeli government made a poor judgement?   With the benefit of hindsight, it would be hard to argue that point.  But proving that Israel (or the Palestinians or any government or any polity or...)  makes mistakes in judgement is like proving fish need water.  Big deal.

                                            The bottom line is, we have gone from "Israel armed Hamas" to "Israel exercised poor judgement."  Hallelujah.

                                            "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

                                            by Eric S on Thu Jun 14, 2007 at 10:32:44 AM PDT

                                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Inside Hamas by Zaki Chehab is good too nt (0+ / 0-)

                        •  and when the CIA supported OBL? (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          npbeachfun

                          he was fighting the 'Evil Empire'. the parallels are amazing. After all at the time WTC II was barely a glint in his eye.

                          "I will sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection..." Thomas Jefferson

                          by tony the American Mutt on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:32:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Are you saying (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Rusty Pipes, npbeachfun

              that Israel's policies in the territories have been entirely suitable, effective, and appropriate?

              Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

              by Eiron on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:08:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Or perhaps... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Pumpkinlove, MBNYC

        ...the sock puppet field guides?

    •  As tragic as the story is, I still love (8+ / 0-)

      the one where Islamic fundies threatened to kill felafel dealers in Baghdad, because felafel was not around at the time of Muhammed. The dealers were smart enough not to mention that AK-47's weren't either.

  •  Hell, I'll ask the question you conveniently... (9+ / 0-)

    ...ignore.

    Why is it Israel's responsibility to support the Palestinian government?

    America, along with many other countries in the world, choose to support their allies and withhold support from others. I think we can all agree that Israel shares partial responsibility in working with other regional powers to reduce or end the violence and bring a stabilizing peace to the region. I fail to see how you can jump from that to holding Israel responsible for the successes or failures of the Hamas-led government.

    •  Who said it was? (9+ / 0-)

      Why is it Israel's responsibility to support the Palestinian government?

      Naturally, Israel has some responsibility to the people as the Occupying power (moreso in the West Bank, of course), but were did I claim Israel must support the Palestinian government?

      It's so odd.  I say: Israel is making a massive strategic mistake.
      You respond: Why does Israel have to support the Palestinian government?

      Way to miss the point.  Israel's mistake is destructive for both Israel and Palestine.  But I guess that is acceptable for some people...

    •  He didn't say this: (3+ / 0-)

      I fail to see how you can jump from that to holding Israel responsible for the successes or failures of the Hamas-led government.

      What he said was this:

      Fatah and Hamas are certainly not innocent in this civil war.  Both are incredibly brutal and almost certainly committing war crimes.  Additionally, they are undermining the Palestinian national project by fighting against each other.

      I am not following you at all. I fail to see how you can say that he is holding Israel responsible for the successes and the failures of the Palestinian government when he states that both are responsible. Wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that he chose to focus on Israel's part in this mess as opposed to exclusively blaming them?

      •  He's not difficult to follow. (6+ / 0-)

        He's brilliantly proving weasel's point.

        The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

        by callmecassandra on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:38:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly the same as in (5+ / 0-)

          any other I/P diary.  Any criticism of Hamas or support for Israel is equated with being "apologist" for EVERYTHING Israel does.

          No matter how much we begin every freaking comment with "I'm against the occupation" or "I don't support Israel's military overreach".

          So here, Weasel gives a halfhearted condemnation of some really heinous behavior (that IMHO is uncalled for no matter WHO might be arming WHOM and should be wholly condemned without mention of Israel) and then launches into a full scale attack on Israel and anyone who wonders why the focus is on Israel political machinations here when Palestinians are freaking torturing one another and throwing one another off buildings!!!!!!

          Sorry, we're talking "Damn that Israel for arming the side most likely to recognize its right to exist" v. "OMG the Palestinians are being tortured and executed in the streets!!" and you can't understand why people think weasel's focus is off?

          "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

          by delphine on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:46:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, (4+ / 1-)

            I can't understand what the hell it is you're going on about.

            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

            by callmecassandra on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:57:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, again (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              leftynyc, Doodad, Shane Hensinger

              with the silly passive aggressive, let's see if we can piss off Delphine" comment.

              It's quite obvious what I'm saying if you don't have your head up your ass.

              Sorry if I'm less upset that Israel may have been ONE of the countries or groups who armed ONE of the sides in this conflict, but people are fucking dying RIGHT NOW and so yeah, it's difficult to see the need for pointing out Israel was "part" of what fomented this current slaughter instead of discussing solutions that might stop people from dying today or tomorrow.

              In fact, your comment is so stupid, useless, insulting for no fucking reason except to incite, and my comment is perfectly reasonable except you just don't like it, so here you go.

              "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

              by delphine on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:13:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I dub this TR (4+ / 0-)

                as your brilliant performance in proving weasel's point.

                Please. Continue....

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:17:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I just gotta ask though... (4+ / 0-)

                did you really think to piss me off with this? You actually make the point, not undermine it as you had intended....

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:19:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I won't respond to you any more (5+ / 0-)

                  in any diary callme[expletive deleted] because you actively refuse to see my points, call me out, go after me in ridiculous and uncalled for ways, and goad me.

                  I won't be goaded any further.  Leave me alone.  Don't ridicule perfectly reasonable comments of mine - just pretend you don't see me here.  

                  I did not make the point of the diary by trollrating YOU for being needlessly and deliberately insulting, "trolling" for recommends for putting the pro-Israel diarist "in her place".

                  The point of the diary is one that can be made about any I/P diary, but for the other side.  The fact that people can't see it is just a reflection of their own bias.  

                  The fact that you refuse to see the point made in well-written comments only makes YOU look ignorant or stubborn.  It doesn't reflect badly on me at all.  Nor does getting recommends from the usual suspects reflect well on you.

                  In the meantime people are dying in Gaza today, as we speak, and perhaps finding a way to end that should be our focus instead of arguing whether Israel is partially to blame or meta-arguing about criticizing Israel in general.  

                  If that last sentence doesn't get through to you, well, you are really whacked.  Sad.

                  "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

                  by delphine on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:47:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow (5+ / 0-)

                    Delphine has now declared his own comments to be both "perfectly reasonable" and "well-written."  High praise indeed.

                    Meanwhile, those who criticize are "stupid," "useless," "insulting," "whacked," and have their "head up your ass."

                    PhillyGal, can I get an "off to the races!" comment?  Please?

                    •  No, not those who criticize (0+ / 0-)

                      but those who criticize needlessly and without cause.

                      Saying "I have no idea wtf you're talking about!" is not criticizing.  There was no analysis of what I said, no comeback, in fact it sort of sounded like

                      I GOT NUTHIN' so I'll go on the offense

                      Please feel free to criticize any and all of my comments at will.

                      Spend your entire day criticizing my comments.  

                      It's not so much to ask that you actually SAY something though, is it?  Like (a) is wrong and (b) is misguided and (c) here's why . .

                      Instead of "Nyah nyah, I can say I don't understand and she'll look foolish!"

                      Yes, my comment is reasonable and well written.  Show me where it isn't, and I'm glad to reconsider.

                      "WTF??" is not a comment.

                      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

                      by delphine on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:47:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Is this really honest-to-gosh true? (3+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    pb, weasel, npbeachfun

                    See, I gave you the 4 in anticipation that you will never, never bother me again. I grow tired of you, really. But if it's only for this diary, I must rescind.

                    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                    by callmecassandra on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:11:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Then, how do you explain this: (2+ / 0-)

            How do you explain the fact that Israel arms Fatah now and they were arming Hamas back in the late 1970's?

            You want solutions? I'll give you a possible solution -- how about we throw out every last Israeli politician that insists on arming one side or the other out of political expediency?

            And doesn't the Israeli arming of both sides suggest a consistent track record over the last 30 years of creating as much discord as possible in order to undermine any meaningful peace process?

            •  Stop saying this! (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              weasel, Pumpkinlove

              Hamas was not even involved in military action in the late 70's; it wasn't even really Hamas back then.

              "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." - Jim Moran

              by Eric S on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:30:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They sent financial aid. (3+ / 0-)

                For the specific purpose of undermining Arafat. 30 years later, the operation was successful, but the patient died -- we have yet another monster on our hands.

                •  Yeah, but they didn't arm them (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Pumpkinlove

                  At the inception of al-Qassam brigades, the military wing, Hamas had a total of something like 20 rifles.

                  And this aid was before that - who knows why they sent it.  Maybe they thought the charity work was useful.

                  •  That does not make sense. (2+ / 0-)

                    Why would they send aid to Yassin for no reason whatsoever? Or for merely charity work? They did it for a reason -- what was that reason?

                    •  I have no idea what your point is here nt (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Pumpkinlove
                      •  Oh wait I know (4+ / 0-)

                        "Israel sent a small amount of money and no weapons to Hamas 30 years ago so they're somewhat responsible for the current murderous rampage"?

                        What do I win?

                        •  Not a small amount of money. (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          npbeachfun

                          They sent quite a lot.

                          Amid all the howls of pain and gnashing of teeth over the triumph of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, one fact remains relatively obscure, albeit highly relevant: Israel did much to launch Hamas as an effective force in the occupied territories. If ever there was a clear case of "blowback," then this is it. As Richard Sale pointed out in a piece for UPI:

                          "Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies. Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official."

                          Middle East analyst Ray Hanania concurs:

                          "In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leade