Israeli apartheid

Here's a nice Spitting Image sketch, from the 1980s/early 1990s:

(h/t to Jews sans frontieres)

On this topic, worth recalling are the words of Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's (Jewish) Minister for Intelligence Services, who said of the Israeli occupation:

"The occupation reminds me of the darkest days of apartheid, but we never saw tanks and planes firing at a civilian population. It’s a monstrousness I’d never seen before. The wall you built, the checkpoints and the roads for Jews only - it turns the stomach, even for someone who grew up under apartheid. It’s a hundred times worse...

We know from our experience that oppression motivates resistance and that the more savage the oppression, the harsher the resistance. At a certain point in time you think that the oppression is working, and that you’re controlling the other people, imprisoning its leaders and its activists, but the resistance will triumph in the end."

Gaza today has become less a Bantustan and more an "animal pen whose denizens cannot be domesticated and so must be quarantined." The 1.4 million Palestinians surviving in Gaza, over half of whom are children, have been "intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution" by relentless siege and bombing, which has caused "widespread deterioration of health services, industries and private sector" with a "grave [humanitarian] impact".

Israeli repression in Gaza and the West Bank continues -  As'ad Abukhalil notes that while Olmert was meeting with Abbas yesterday to indulge in more meaningless meta-talks, three Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces - purportedly in reponse to the firing of Qassams into Israel by Palestinian militant groups. The reality is that the Qassams are primarily a reaction to Israeli incursions, an attempt to create a deterrent to Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip. In any case, Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a ceasefire in exchange for an end to the siege. Israel has flatly rejected the idea, consistent with its frankly stated policy to overthrow the Hamas government (as outlined, for example, by Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh on last week's HARDtalk). The reason for this hostility towards Hamas is not because it is involved in terrorism against Israel: the Fatah-affiliated al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades have claimed responsibility for far more attacks than Hamas, which until recently had largely refrained from military action against Israel. Neither is it the result of Hamas' political rejectionism: quite the opposite, in fact, as Henry Siegman explains:

"The siege of Gaza was imposed by Israel because Israel’s government and the US administration intended to undo the results of Hamas’s victory in the elections of 2006. Initially, they thought they could achieve this by arming Fatah’s security forces and encouraging them to promote anarchy in Gaza in a way that would discredit Hamas. When Hamas ousted Fatah security forces, Israel blockaded Gaza in the hope that its population would overthrow Hamas. The Qassam rockets were the consequence, not the cause of these misguided Israeli and US manoeuvres...

Hamas had announced its willingness to submit to a popular referendum any agreement that resulted from permanent status talks between Fatah and Israel. Israel boycotted Hamas because it did not want Hamas to play any role in a peace process, fearing that this would exact a far greater price than negotiations with Fatah from which Hamas was excluded."

In other words, Israel fears the threat of a Hamas "peace offensive" far more than it does the pathetically inept Qassams.

And in the background to it all, the construction in the settlements continues as inexorably as ever. People often point to the ongoing settlement as being somehow incongruous with the "peace process", but in fact the two are indivisibly linked. As Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir explained of his participation in the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference,

"I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years and meanwhile we would have reached a half million people in Judea and Samaria." (via)

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

•  One of the links above

  deserves to be highlighted again:

  'House demolitions cause Palestinians to leave village'

  "A small, overcrowded Palestinian village in the southern West Bank, under threat from Israeli-conducted house demolitions and land confiscations, is rapidly becoming poorer.

  "Every house here has one child at least who left because we can't build new homes. Some went to Hebron, but others left for Amman [Jordan] and places abroad" said Ghassan, a young man from Beqaa village, who is a refugee registered with the UN.

  Bilal Jaber, who recently received papers saying his house was illegal, is worried it will be destroyed.

  "I saved money when I worked as a labourer to build my home," the now unemployed man said. "If the Israelis destroy it, I can't rebuild."

  [...]

  Beqaa, outside Hebron, was founded in 1973 by Palestinians, including refugees from the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

  Most left the city as it became overcrowded, but the new village is now also overloaded, since there are only about 55 homes for over 1,800 people. Around 20 other homes have been demolished in the last 12 years by the Israeli authorities, according to residents and the Christian Peacemaker Teams, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) working in the area.

  Furthermore, three water cisterns have been destroyed, and in late 2007 a demolition order was issued against a fourth well. The village also continues to lose farmland.

  "My family has lost 20-25 dunams [20-25sqkm] of land in recent years, because of the settlements," Muhammed Kamal Jaber, also a refugee, told IRIN."

  This is ethnic cleansing, plain and simple, and it's far from an isolated example.

  by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:11:56 AM PDT

•  Maybe if Hamas quit

  firing rockets at Israeli civilians things would start to improve for Palestinians.

  by bugscuffle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM PDT

  •  It did

    and they didn't.

    by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:14:06 AM PDT

    •  Nice fair analysis, except you forget

      a couple of important points.  This is the peaceful Hamas who Israel is targeting.

      via wikipedia:

      The Covenant of Hamas
      See also: wikisource:Hamas Covenant
      The 1988 Hamas Covenant (or Charter) states that the organization's goal is to "raise the banner of God over every inch of Palestine," in order to establish an Islamic Republic.

      The thirty-six articles of the Covenant detail the movement's Islamist beliefs regarding the primacy of Islam in all aspects of life. The Covenant identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and considers its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." Hamas describes resisting and quelling the enemy as the individual duty of every Muslim and prescribes vigilant roles for all members of society; including men and women, professionals, scientists and students.

      The Covenant outlines the organization's position on various issues, including social and economic development and ideological influences, education, as well as its position regarding Israel. Amongst many other things, it reiterates the group's rejection of the coexistence principle of the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

      [edit] Antisemitism
      Hamas' critics argue that Hamas is "full of hatred towards the Jews." Critics also state Hamas is primarily anti-Zionist, but perceives Judaism as wholly embracing Zionism, and therefore has often failed to distinguish between the two.

      The Covenant cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the propagandist book falsely attributed to Jews, stating it embodies a "Zionist plan" for "limitless" territorial expansion:

      Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

      Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to Robert Wistrich,

      "Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant [18 August 1988], there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace."[65]

      In 1998, Esther Webman of the Project for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Tel Aviv University wrote: "...the anti-Semitic rhetoric in Hamas leaflets is frequent and intense. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism is not the main tenet of Hamas ideology. Generally no differentiation was made in the leaflets between Jew and Zionist, in as much as Judaism was perceived as embracing Zionism, although in other Hamas publications and in interviews with its leaders attempts at this differentiation have been made."[66]

      According to Meir Litvak's 2003 study, "In Hamas' literature, antisemitism became almost dominant. Earlier antisemitic motifs are developed time and again in their magazine Falastin al-Muslama. Almost every issue contains anti-Jewish articles using elements from the Islamic tradition. Judaism is presented as a religion based on lies, which from its origin called for aggression against others and their exploitation."[67]

      Co-founder of Hamas Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi reiterated beliefs of Holocaust denial in 2003, contending that the Holocaust was a Zionist – Nazi collaboration for the purpose of encouraging emigration to Israel.[68]

      Also in 2003, the director of Hamas Children’s Summer Camp in Gaza City, Sohab Alissa, was anti-Semitic:

      "The first thing we want to teach them is their cause. They know from daily experience that their enemy is the Jew — our job is to explain why. In the Koran much is said about the bad behavior of the Jew. Some teachings say God cursed the Jews"[69]

      The chief of Hamas's political bureau Khaled Meshaal also denied antisemitism in Hamas's ideology in February, 2006:

      "Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected." "Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."[70]

      On 30 March 2007, Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan ended his "prayers to Allah" in a sermon broadcast on the Palestinian Authority’s TV quoting the hadith "The Hour [of Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: 'Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!'" Al Aqsa mosque would be "liberated" "through the rifle", since the Israeli occupation knew no other language. He asked "Jihad-fighting worshippers" in "Palestine and everywhere" and Allah to take away the oppressor Jews and Americans and their supporters!"[71]

      In April 2007, Palestinian Media Watch released a video in which "Dr. Ahmad Bahar, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council," refers to Israel's Jewish citizens as a "cancerous lump" and prays to Allah to "count them and kill them to the last one, and don't leave even one."[72]

      In an article published on April 23, 2007 in the Hamas paper Al-Risalah, its author Kan'an Ubayd stated: "... the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds on a land, to which Allah gave his blessing for the sake of the inhabitants of the worlds."[73]

      by Rational Choice on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM PDT

      •  The Charter is essentially irrelevant

        in terms of the way the movement currently operates (as all serious scholars of Hamas recognise). Members of Hamas have made reprehensible statements in the past about Jews, no doubt about it. That doesn't change the fact that Hamas entered office in 2006 in the middle of an 18-month unilateral, self-imposed ceasefire with Israel calling for a long-term ceasefire based on a two-state settlement. Hamas' statements regarding a two-state settlement have been at the very least ambiguous, which is far more than can be said for Israel.

        by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

        •  This is not true

          Here is what you don't understand.  Hamas political leadership does not have the political power nor military strength to attempt to enact a 2 state solution.  While Haniyeh and Meshal might be open to the idea, people like Zahar, who have more influence over the radical elements of Hamas will never agree to it.  

          Meshal and Haniyeh fear their own military wing as much as they loathe Fatah, but unfortunately they have no choice, but to give their military wing what they want, which is no peace w/ Israel under any condition.  Failure to do so, would fragment Hamas who would then be facing a Fatah led coalition looking for revenge.  

          To blame Israel is as completely unjust.  Do you really believe Israeli's do not want peace?  

          by Rational Choice on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:36:52 AM PDT

          •  It's true that there are divisions within Hamas

            U.S./Israeli policy has thus far served, predictably, to undermine the 'moderates' and to strengthen the hand of the extremists.

            Everyone wants "peace". It's the details that matter. In any case, public opinion and government policy are not the same thing.

            by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:53:41 PM PDT

        •  Hamas has never uttered the words

          "two state settlement" , hang it up heath

          what they want is time to build up a huge arsenal, grow their militias and coordinate with Hezbollah/Iran/Syria for future aggression against Israel

          sorry rubes

          by Keith Moon on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM PDT

          •  yeah, and also develop a Diamond bourse,

            equities market exchange, pharmaceutical industry, and nuclear weapons.

            Then NEXT week......

            by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM PDT

        •  Israelis would be nuts to shrug off the Covenant

          They're not.

          by Finck II on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM PDT

    •  Either you're lying, or you're ignorant.

      Which is it? There hasn't been a day without rocket fire into Israel in years.

      by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM PDT

      •  One doesn't preclude the other. nt.

        by MBNYC on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM PDT

      •  Speaking of ignorant

        Hamas held a ceasefire for 18 months.  And then another for 4-6 months after that.  

        "There hasn't been a day without rocket fire" is an example of just how far things have gone.  I've read enough of your comments to know that you are an intelligent and informed debater, but you appear to be building backwards from conclusions.  Since Palestinians are evil rocket launchers, they must have been launching rockets even when they didn't.  

        by weasel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:37:10 AM PDT

        •  Even if you believe Hamas did

          Some credit Hamas with respecting a ceasefire, but even if you believe that, other groups were responsible for continuing mortar and rocket strikes.

          by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM PDT

          •  Yeh - 'other groups'

            not Hamas. What was that about either lying or being ignorant?

            by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM PDT

            •  Because rocket attacks did not stop

              Do you think Israel cares which group claims "credit" for such attacks?

              by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM PDT

              •  Come on now,

                at least have some intellectual honesty and stop changing the subject. I pointed out that Hamas did go for a period without firing Qassams. You responded that I was either lying or ignorant. In fact I was right, as you now concede. The decent thing to do would be to apologise, but I'm not holding my breath.

                by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM PDT

                •  IF you think splitting hairs

                  Entitles you to an apology or some concession - then, I'll concede you might be right. It's possible that Hamas did stop shooting rockets at Israel, but it's absolutely certain they did nothing to stop other from continuing to do so. Either they can do that, and chose to allow it -- in which case, the cease-fire was just a big joke -- or, they are unable to prevent such attacks, in which case Israel has little incentive to negotiate with them.

                  by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM PDT

                  •  It's not a joke

                    at all. The fact that Hamas unilaterally stopped attacking Israel means something, I'm afraid. It means they're increasingly concentrating on the political as opposed to military sphere, and it reflects their evolution in strategy towards achieving political compromise with Israel.

                    Of course Hamas isn't going to police other Palestinians except in the context of a political process. It would be politically suicidal. In any case, Fatah made the mistake of becoming Israel's enforcer in the territories in the 90s, and all it did was undermine its political support in exchange for a near doubling of the number of Israeli settlers. Hamas is not about to make the same mistake. It has talked about imposing the ceasefire on the other factions, but it understandably isn't prepared to begin doing so in the absence of a ceasefire agreement.

                    by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:53:20 PM PDT

                    •  It means something, but not as much as you make

                      A unilateral cease-fire is fine, and Hamas can declare that at any time. They're asking for a mutual cease-fire. What is Israel supposed to do, if Hamas can't or won't stop attacks supposed;y coming from other groups?  Not defend itself -- not try and hit the missile launchers, and not go after bomb-makers? What goog is such a mutual cease-fire? I gree it would be welcome if Hamas would show sincere interest in peaceful co-existence. THey can start by a unilateral cease-fire, and a rea; one, this time. They broke off one such cease-fire because of a stray Israeli shell - a shell that would never have been fired if missiles weren't still flying at Israel.

                      So, is Hamas offering to stop all such attacks with this mutual cease-fire? If so, why didn't they do so before, and why should Israel believe them now? If not, then what good is this cease-fire to Israel? It's not really mutual at that point.

                      by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM PDT

                      •  *chirp*

                        by unfounded on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:51:44 AM PDT

                      •  This is silly

                        A unilateral ceasefire accompanied by overtures towards talks is the most one can expect from Hamas (or any Palestinian organisation). In fact a unilateral cessation of violence is going well beyond any reasonable expectation one can have of a resistance movement to a military occupation.

                        Again: Hamas has offered a ceasefire involving other factions as well. Israel has flatly rejected the idea, as it did before.

                        It's interesting that you take it as read that Israeli military action is simply a response to Palestinian violence. In reality, history has shown that when Palestinians stop using violence Israeli violence continues. Indeed, the video embedded at the top of this very page notes that, according to Amnesty International, Israel killed 540 unarmed demonstrators in the course of only two years. Most importantly: the occupation is itself a military aggression, and it's one Israel has shown no interest whatsoever in bringing to an end.

                        It's true that by submitting to Israeli military rule, Palestinians could ease Israeli repression somewhat. But they aren't prepared to do that, and quite right too.

                        In the meantime, Palestinians demand that any overtures be reciprocated. Israel rejects that demand, and so the violence continues.

                        by heathlander on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

                    •  So you'd be ok with the occupation

                      If Israel just abolished it on paper and released a bunch of heavy weapons to the settlers saying "Here you go, we're not responsible for you"?

                      That's what you're pretty much arguing here.

                      by unfounded on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM PDT

        •  The Hamas cease-fire ended...

          The Hamas cease-fire publicly, officially ended when an errant Israeli shell struck Palestinain beachgoers.

          The thing is, who were the Israelis shooting at? They were firing at Palestinains who were launching Qassams. While Hamas claimed to be respecting a cease-fire, the rockets continued to fly.

          by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM PDT

  •  Oh please.

    For over 50 years the Palestinian people have been chased from their homes, hunted and caged. Their episodic and neccessarily low-tech resistance has taken a variety of forms but has only very rarely and briefly ever approached the lethality of Israel's routine violence against the Palestinians. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do, Israel will continue to terrorize them, colonize their lands and otherwise make their lives so unbearable that the only alternative to exile becomes "martyrdom." When the Palestinians fight back the Israelis kill them and take their lands and when they don't fight back the Israelis kill them and take their lands. Is it any surprise that under such circumstances a certain nihilism arises that sees dignity in strapping explosives on ones body or launching crude and inaccurate rockets at civilian targets?

    Israel is engaged in an ongoing process of colonization of Palestinian lands. Attempts to shift the blame for this fundamental fact on to the resistance that such colonization generates is, at the end of the day, nothing more than an apologetic for the colonization.

    by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM PDT

    •  "Breaking the Silence" IDF speaking truth to

      their fellow Israelis.

      Israeli Soldiers in the West Bank

      Yehuda Shaul talked about his service in the Israeli Defense Force in the West Bank, and about the organization, Breaking the Silence, he founded of Israeli soldiers whose mission is to give public witness to the impact on Israeli society of military service in the West Bank and Gaza. He presented a computerized version of the photo exhibition that the group is bringing to Philadelphia, Cambridge, and Boston during February and March. He responded to audience members’ questions.

      This talk at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also was sponsored by Brit Tzedek v'Shalom.

      by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:23 AM PDT

      •  I Saw A Presentation Of "Breaking The Silence"

        on CSpan.  It is heartbreaking what is is being done to the Palestinians.  It is heartbreaking what the Israelis are doing to themselves.

        by mattman on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM PDT

•  when people are occupied, resistance is justified

  I hate that in this society, if you criticize Israel, you're treated like an evil anti-Semite.

  Palestinians have just as much right to safety, security, and basic freedoms as Israelis. Yeah, some factions of their population have made serious mistakes and done terrible things. But does that justify retaliation? Killing protesters and even aid workers? Does that justify the imprisonment of millions of innocent people simply on the basis of their religion and ethnicity?

  The apartheid system in place in Israel makes me sick and it would make me sick no matter what country was doing it. When will people learn that holding down an entire population never makes anyone more secure?

  by eColt on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM PDT

  •  It's not the criticism that warrants the charge.

    It's the belief in the Protocols of the Elders, the bugs bunny ripoff calling for death to the Jews, etal etal.

    by burrow owl on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM PDT

    •  Palestinian anti-Semitism

      has clear and obvious material and historical roots. It is a symptom of the occupation, not a cause.

      by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM PDT

      •  Then how do you explain Mark Twain's famous

        depiction of it almost a century before Israel's birth?

        by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:26:43 AM PDT

        •  Mistaken.

          Twain was not the first nor the last person to erroneously describe a land as unoccupied. The history of America's westward expansion is rife with similar nonsense.

          Twain was an incisive social critic and anti-imperialist. It is unfortunate that one of the few times when he really got something wrong has been elevated in this way to justify a process of colonialism that he would undoubtedly have been repelled by if he had lived to see it.  

          by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM PDT

          •  He never said no one was living there

            He said that Jews were treated like dirt under the law.
            That the Arabs, both Christian and Muslim treated Jews horribly and hated them for no real reason.

            by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM PDT

            •  Well

              that part was true enough, but its unclear to me how that justifies the wholesale displacement and caging of the Palestinians.

              IIRC there is another passage where he describes the land as essentially barren and and barely populated. And it was certainly much less populated then than it is today.

              My objection is really to the selective and propagandistic citation of a well-known writer as a substitute for serious scholarship about a complex history.  

              by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:50:28 AM PDT

              •  Arab anger is based on the fact that

                Arabs can't treat Jews that way anymore.

                by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:01:14 PM PDT

                •  Please explain. n/t

                  every history I have read documents that Jews and Arabs lived together in harmony until Herzl's grand experiment.

                  by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM PDT

                  •  The Truth

                    presumably lies somewhere in between the two absolutist narratives.

                    by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM PDT

                •  Ummm

                  And the massive dispossession of their lands has nothing to do with it? I mean c'mon.

                  by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:19:34 PM PDT

                •  israel is a

                  "humiliation to islam."  

                  by bobisbob on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:45:03 PM PDT

            •  The Problem is, Jews are a minority

              Between the Jordon river and the Egyptian boarder, Jews are now a minority.  You can get this by going to the CIA online almanac, Fact Book, and add the populations of the West Bank, Gaza and the % of Isreal proper that is not Jewish.

              By this means, slightly more than 10 million people now live in the land that Twain said was largely empty, and slightly less than 5 million are Jewish and slightly more than 5 million are non-Jewish.

              This creates a real problem for a Jewish state in Palestine. There survival as an independent state will increasingly rely on undemocratic means. Meanwhile the Palestinians can now just ask for "one man, one vote" for the overall territory.

              Slowly, over time, Jews will begin to resemble Jews in other places, a minority that knows how to make a buck better than the people surrounding them.

              They have bungled their position a number of times.  Perhaps their biggest mistake was not just pushing all the Palestinians out of the west bank, and perhaps all of Palestine in 1967 and occupying the land by right of conquest. It would have been very ugly and very unhumain, but then there were only a few hundred thousand living on the West Bank. Today there are over two million.  

              Perhaps they should shop around for another strip of land.  They could buy the Kalliningrad Oblast from the Russians and move back up to the Baltic.  Or maybe they could find an underpopulated Island some place.  

              The present is an awfull reality for the Palestinians, the future is an awfull prospect for the Jews.  I see no winners.

              by The Wonder Moron on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:13 PM PDT

      •  That doesn't make it any less vile,

        even if correct (which I reserve judgment on)

        by burrow owl on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM PDT

        •  and? /nt

          by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM PDT

      •  right

        that's why the Arabs attacked Israel pre occupation

        hang it up heath

        by Keith Moon on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM PDT

        •  Palestinian hostility to Zionism

          and later to the Israeli state was entirely understandable. Read Benny Morris, for example:

          "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism."

          Or Odd Bull, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, explaining the reason behind Palestinian infiltration from the WEst Bank in the 1960s:

          "The main reason... was that the boundary was so drawn that the Arabs in that area were the victims of great economic hardship, since their villages were cut off from the land which for generations had been the source of their livelihood. ...

          It is not difficult to picture the state of desperation to which they were driven when they were obliged to contemplate Israeli farmers exploiting the land which they and their forefathers had cultivated for so many hundreds of years. ...

          It was these sorts of people who were responsible for infiltration over the demarcation line, their aim being to steal from what had not so long ago been their own land, to carry out acts of sabotage, and so on." (Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict: p. 248 footnote 4.)

          Now, however, there is basically a consensus among Palestinians in favour of the two-state settlement. Resistance today is this motivated not by opposition to the occupation.

          by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:33:15 PM PDT

    •  isn't it time to stop picking old scabs?

      just sayin'

      by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM PDT

      •  evil bugs bunny is

        new

        by Keith Moon on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM PDT

        •  these are new also

          "Hatred's Kingdom;" Dore Gold
          "Power, Faith, and Fantasy;" Michael Oren
          "Thugs;" Micah Halpern
          "The Final Move: Beyond Iraq;" Mike Evans

          for starters

          What they have in common is
          ~Jewish authorship
          ~outrageous anti-Arab bias
          ~pretense of scholarship
          ~referenced to inflame and incite

          by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM PDT

          •  Well, I presume...

            ...the target audience of those books isn't children, nor were those books produced by the government of Israel itself. I think those are key differences.

            by dennisl on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM PDT

            •  Target aud = hi level decision makers

              what power do children have to affect the arc of their lives?

              by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:12:52 PM PDT

  •  well said /nt

    by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:23:54 AM PDT

  •  The pot calling the kettle black

    I hate that in this society, if you criticize Israel, you're treated like an evil anti-Semite.

    Usually, it's because you are. For example:

    Yeah, some factions of their population have made serious mistakes and done terrible things. But does that justify retaliation?

    Yes. doing terrible things does justify retaliation.

    by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:25:44 AM PDT

    •  an eye for an eye

      makes the whole world blind.

      You don't have to hate one group to sympathize with another.

      And your ideas about retaliation are exactly what got us into our own clusterf*ck of a war.

      by eColt on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM PDT

      •  in other words: Judaism is masochism.

        Maschochism is NEVER a good policy.

        by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:40:10 AM PDT

    •  "Retaliation."

      Lets not be vague here. Israel's preferred forms of "retaliation" (firing missiles into densely populated apartment buildings, etc...) routinely produce lots of civilian casualties. Earnestly crafted post-facto PR expressions of "regret" notwithstanding, these outcomes have been so consistent that they must be viewed as intentional. Israel has a de facto policy of inflicting  massive civilian casualties on the Palestinians and often does so during prolonged Palestinian cease-fires when the concept of "retaliation" is even more tenuous.

      by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM PDT

      •  Anyone who supports Israel's

        collective punishment of Gaza must, if they are to be morally consistent, support Palestinian attempts to collectively punish Israelis, through means such as Qassam rockets and suicide attacks. The analogy is unfair on the Palestinians, of course, but the basic point is valid.

        by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:00:26 PM PDT

        •  IT's a war, and the Palistinians started it.

          The wanted this, they got it.

          by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:02:39 PM PDT

          •  This statement can make sense only if

            the "war" is being waged on territory that belongs to Israel.

            West Bank and Gaza do not.

            That's where the 'war' is.

            Therefore, Israel = the aggressor.

            Either that, or Socrates is no longer a man.

            by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM PDT

            •  Being that Socrates has been dead

              for 2400 years, he's no longer a man. He's dust in the wind.

              by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:31:09 PM PDT

  •  there's no apartheid in Israel

    even Jimmy Carter said that

    the wall was put up separating the territories from Israel due to suicide bombings....that's the way it goes/

    bad corrupt leadership has plagued the Pals from day one sadly

    by Keith Moon on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:57:32 AM PDT

    •  Intellectually dishonest. but you knew that. nt

      by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM PDT

    •  The wall was built partly on Palestinian land.n/t

      by klizard on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:07:56 PM PDT

      •  Mostly on Palestinian land (around 80%) /nt

        by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:13:05 PM PDT

•  No dog in this fight for me

  but I just flashed back on a conversation I had back in the early 90's.  

  I told a Jewish friend, "I'm sick of hearing about the so-called "peace process".  "Process, process, process" and nothing ever changes and there's no peace in sight.  Who are they kidding?".

  And she signed, and said, "Yeah, well, okay ...the negotiations may seem pointless sometimes, but what else is there?"

  I don't know how this trouble spot on the globe will ever become less troubled.  Remember when little Georgie Bush actually got his feelings hurt because he couldn't resolve it on his first whack?  

  by lgmcp on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM PDT

  •  The region will become less troubled

    when it runs out of oil.

    by chesapeake on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM PDT

    •  Gaza Owns 1.3 trillion cu ft natural gas

      in its territorial waters.

      Israel's military guards it; in fact, Israel's military prohibits Gazans from even fishing in Gaza's waters.

      When talks about developing Gaza's natural gas broke down, Ohlmert's hostilities toward Gaza heated up.

      by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM PDT

      •  Link?

        This is an interesting claim that I'm unfamiliar with.

        by Christopher Day on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:40:46 AM PDT

        •  see this old Diary Israel, Oil, Iran: A 60 Yr

          Israel, Oil, Iran: A 60 Year Long Struggle

          by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM PDT

      •  Link

        Gaza Natural Gas

        by Orpheus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM PDT

  •  "but what else is there?"

    Well, another option would be to conduct serious negotiations with legitimate Palestinian representatives based on the international consensus two-state settlement, which has been sitting on the table gathering dust for some 30 years in the face of U.S.-Israeli rejectionism.

    by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM PDT

    •  What planet are you on?

      Are you saying that the Israelis refused to talk to the Arabs for the last 30 years? WOW!

      by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM PDT

    •  legitimate representatives

      Tell me, who are the legitimate palestinian representatives you are basing this on?  The ones the palestinian elected Hamas, have sworn to annihilate Israel.  

      In their own charter they reiterate the group's rejection of the coexistence principle of the peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

      So who is this legitimate representative that is going to agree to the 2 state solution?

      by Rational Choice on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:31:20 AM PDT

      •  Hamas refuses to talk to Israel

        The Palesinians chose Arafat. He signed the Oslo accords. No Arab would appear in public with ANY Israeli prior to 1977. Aside from Egypt, no Arab would appear in public in the same room as an Israeli (not including the UN general assembly, which was a specal case) until 1991.

        Arafat and Rabin, on the white house lawn shaking hands. Didn't that happen?

        by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:48:26 AM PDT

      •  Well, Hamas was the legitimate

        representative of the Palestinian people after they were elected in January 2006. Israel and the U.S. responded with a relentless campaign of collective punishment and humanitarian siege which finally resulted in the Hamas takeover in Gaza last June.

        What should happen now is for Hamas and Fatah to enter talks with a view to creating a natinal unity government. Such a government was established in January 2007, if you recall, but Israel and the U.S. ensured its collapse by continuing the sanctions. At the moment, Hamas is all for such talks but Fatah, under U.S./Israeli influence, is rejecting them. In the absence of even basic cooperation between the two factions, any talk of a meaningful "peace process" is simply deceptive nonsense.

        by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM PDT

        •  I understand your intentions now

          You are pro-Hamas and think that despite their own words and charter, people should let them control the situation through violence and oppression.  

          You brought up the word apartheid earlier which I am guessing you do not understand or are just to blinded by your hatred of Israel to really care, but do you think Apartheid ended through the barrle of a gun lie Hamas is trying to pursue?

          by Rational Choice on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM PDT

          •  What you just wrote defines the status quo option

            that has been oh so successful in solving the conflict.  snarko.

            Hamas was elected in a free and fair election encouraged by the US.  Once they won, the US and Israel held back aid and worked to abort the election result.  The terms became stop the violence, but if you use violence to stop the violence it will be just as bad as if you didn't stop the violence (rockets/mortars) in the first place.

            Hamas used violence to quell violence but were condemned for using violence to do so.  It was used as an indication that the Palestinians are simply violent, and as a result, no "partner for peace."

            Because of this tautology, Palestinians, imho, cannot strenuously interdict rocket attacks because they will be labeled as violent, and are labeled as violent because they continue.  What are they to do to become a "partner for peace" in Israel's and the US's view?

            Seems like a no win to me.  And because it's a no win for the Palestinians, and has been for a few decades (Hamas is just the latest manifestation), what's to be done about it?  What do you propose to mitigate the conflict and/or move closer to a resolution of the problem?

            Your "j'accuse" comment shows that you have little understanding of this circularity, let alone of  heathlander's "intentions."

            by Terra Mystica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:31:22 PM PDT

    •  The fact that my tax dollars are funding

      this insanity really grates.  Israeli intransigence has no downside-for the Israelis.

      by Bluesman48 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:32:29 AM PDT

      •  Except perhaps the downside

        of living more or less constantly on a war footing, and ensuring their children will face the same.

        by lgmcp on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM PDT

•  For real?

  "the pathetically inept Qassams"? If Mexican militants were firing dozens of rockets every day at Brownsville, Texas, would you dismiss them because they're "pathetically inept Qassams"?

  If you want to move minds, you can't be so disingenuous and ridiculously skewed. These missiles rain down on Israeli towns everyday. They send people to bomb shelters -- they have forced the cities to become hardened fortresses (bus shelters are now built to be outdoor bomb shelters, etc.), and people are wounded, sometimes seriously and permanently, and even killed by these pathetic Qassams.

  Start with first principles. It's unconscionable to use these weapons every day, with the hope of causing civilian casualties. Second, suicide bombs, and other package bombs left to cause maximium civilian casualties -- these are unforgivable ways to fight even a war of liberation.

  The Palestininas would be far better served to dare Israel to live up to its rhetoric and principles. If they give up threatening Israel, Israel will have no justification for cutting off Gaza. But, the miiltants know this. And they fear a "peace offensive" far more than they do Israeli tanks and air-to-ground missile strikes.

  by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:31:35 AM PDT

  •  Mexico isn't being occupied

    and yes, the Qassams are pathetically inept. They have killed four Israeli civilians inside Israel since August 2005: that's less than the average number of Palestinians killed by Israel per week during 2007.

    I agree that attacks deliberately aimed at civilians are morally wrong and, in the case of the Palestinians, strategically ineffective.

    by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM PDT

    •  Sure it is. Ask the Azlatan crowd

      They say Denver Colorado is illegally occupied Mexico.

      by YoursTruly on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:49:32 AM PDT

    •  Again

      It's too dismissive to say that. If it was your home or your town being struck, you wouldn't say the only problem with the missiles is that it's morally wrong to fire them. You'd be afraid of getting injured or killed -- or losing a loved one.

      When Israel is trying to suppress the rocket fire, it's morally questionable to try and compare the casualties. By your logic, Isreal's actions are worse, because they're more effective and better targeted. That's ass backwards logic.

      by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM PDT

      •  It's not dismissive

        there's no doubt that the residents of Sderot are suffering horribly from the Qassams.

        I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. The rocket fire is primarily a response to Israeli aggression. If Israel were serious about stopping the Qassams, it would cease the military incursions into the Gaza Strip, take Hamas up on its offer of a ceasefire and engage in serious talks towards achieving a genuine two-state settlement. It's not doing that, because it has no intention of withdrawing to the Green Line.

        "By your logic, Isreal's actions are worse, because they're more effective and better targeted. That's ass backwards logic."

        No, Israel's actions are worse because they cause suffering on a far larger (and equally indiscriminate) scale and because they are perpetrated in the course of an aggression as opposed to in self-defence.

        by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:55:37 AM PDT

        •  Question for you?

          "take Hamas up on its offer of a ceasefire and engage in serious talks towards achieving a genuine two-state settlement"

          It seems to me that neither side has unanmbiguously expressed interest in a cease-fire.  However, I have never heard of anyone in Hamas expressing interest in talks toward a two-state settlement. It would be nice if they did. I'm sure Israel would welcome them into the Annapolis process, if true.

          by FischFry on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

          •  That link

            proves my point, not yours. It shows Olmert flatly rejecting any ceasefire with Hamas. It's true that Barak posited the idea of maybe stopping attacks if Hamas stops first, but a) that's not a ceasefire since it requiers one party to act first, and b) it makes no mention of ending the siege.

            Hamas came into office talking about a 10 year truce, or even longer, on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line. For a sample of statements from Hamas leaders indicating that they would accept a two-state solution, see here. Even more important, Hamas agreed to abide by any resolution to the conflict settled upon by Abbas and Israel, provided that its application be subject to a Palestinian referendum.

            The Annapolis process is about preventing a two-state solution, not achieving it, which is precisely why Hamas was excluded.

            by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:46:26 PM PDT

      •  But, one might say to one's self, "Why are they

        firing those missiles?"  Then one might look around and see that homes and farms are being bulldozed to make way for settlements, etc.

        The fact that this kind of political introspection doesn't seem to be happening in Israel or here in the US is the truly bass-ackwards aspect of this all.

        Nearly everyone agrees that settlement activity is a poke in the eye of the Palestinians. Are they to not respond?

        Heathlander says it well that the peace discussions are (and imho, always have been) "meta."  Settlement continues no matter the negotiation circumstances/outcome or what the Palestinians do.  If I was a Palestinian, I would conclude after a decade or three that there is probably not going to be any good outcome to talks, or a relationship with Israel.  Seems like a dead end.

        Faced with a negotiation dead end and continued confiscation of your land, again, what would you do?  And surely Israelis know what is happening on the WB.  Why do they not vote out people that support those policies?   It would seem that a majority of Israel is OK with stealing their neighbor's land at gunpoint.  Israel is better than that, and can do better than that.

        The fact that she does not see fit to do so is second class or at least very immature historically, imho.

        by Terra Mystica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM PDT

        •  Right

          "If I was a Palestinian, I would conclude after a decade or three that there is probably not going to be any good outcome to talks, or a relationship with Israel.  Seems like a dead end."

          That's why polls show that a majority of Palestinians both support a two-state settlement and think that peace will not be achieved without the use of violence. Unlike some people here, Palestinians know that Olmert's rhetoric is bullshit because they can see with their own eyes how the colonisation of the West Bank continues.

          by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:34:15 PM PDT

        •  I think it's also important for Americans...

          ...to understand the situation with the settlement construction and the checkpoints; the way the entire West Bank has been divided into small parts by settlements and Israeli-only roads connecting them. Insisting that Israel cease settlement construction and remove the checkpoints is an essential prerequisite for a meaningful, successful peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.

          by klizard on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:42:31 PM PDT

•  Tired, regurgitated, deceptive crap.

  The reality is that the Qassams are primarily a reaction to Israeli incursions, an attempt to create a deterrent to Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip.

  Untrue, because the rockets were fired even before the Israeli withdrawal. Not that it matters, because it's pretty clear that if that were the goal, the method would need to be considered ineffective.

  In any case, Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel a ceasefire in exchange for an end to the siege.

  And they've kept on demonstrating how earnest they are by allowing Islamic Jihad to fire rockets at civilians.

  Israel has flatly rejected the idea, consistent with its frankly stated policy to overthrow the Hamas government (as outlined, for example, by Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh on last week's HARDtalk).

  Israel has rejected Hamas' offers of a hudna or truce, because this falls short of the Israeli requirement of full recognition. Also not a mystery. As to the illegal Hamas regime in Gaza, the overthrow thereof is PA policy as well.

  The reason for this hostility towards Hamas is not because it is involved in terrorism against Israel:

  Well, yeah, it is.

  the Fatah-affiliated al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades have claimed responsibility for far more attacks than Hamas, which until recently had largely refrained from military action against Israel.

  What you leave out is that AAMB foreswore violence after the Hamas coup, and before that, was treated exactly as was Hamas. Honesty - give it a try.

  Neither is it the result of Hamas' political rejectionism:

  No, sweetness, it's just because teh Israel it iz bad bad bad. Even as I/P diaries go, this is a piece of deeply dishonest vomit.

  For people interested in actual peace in the region, here's an interesting article on cross-border peace efforts in Haaretz. Turns out that blogs can be used for things other than obvious disinformation or demonization.

  by MBNYC on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM PDT

  •  MBNYC is smarter than Israel

    MBNYC says:

    The reality is that the Qassams are primarily a reaction to Israeli incursions, an attempt to create a deterrent to Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip.

    Untrue, because the rockets were fired even before the Israeli withdrawal. Not that it matters, because it's pretty clear that if that were the goal, the method would need to be considered ineffective.

    You should really tell Israel that.  Just last week, Haaretz (that tired, regurgitated, deceptive journal) said in "New Hamas tactic: Bomb Israel into a truce":

    One of the main reasons for the escalation stems from the attempt by Hamas to establish a new deterrent against Israel.

    Since mid-January, Hamas has operated differently in the Strip. It no longer uses short-term and irrational responses to IDF ground raids or air attacks.

    For each Israeli operation, especially if it involves a large number of casualties from the ranks of the organization, Hamas responds with a drawn-out rocket barrage of three to four days.

    ...
    The message: henceforth, every Israeli operation will result in a similar response. Hamas is hoping that Israel will agree, after repeated bombing of Sderot, to a tahdiye (calm) in the territories, and even believe they can bring about an end to the arrests that the IDF is carrying out in the West Bank.  

    by weasel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:43:10 AM PDT

    •  Yup, as linked to in the diary

      which, of course, MBNYC read thoroughly.

      by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM PDT

    •  Awesome.

      So now they have a new reason to do what they've been doing all along. Even better, they know that it's not going to work, based on that most universally reviled metric among zealots, actual experience.

      And isn't this diary's tortured rationale in part that Hamas is peaceful, when this is clearly a self-perpetuating escalation?

      by MBNYC on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM PDT

  •  re.

    "Untrue, because the rockets were fired even before the Israeli withdrawal."

    And? There was no offensive Israeli military action in Gaza before the "withdrawal"?

    "And they've kept on demonstrating how earnest they are by allowing Islamic Jihad to fire rockets at civilians."

    Hamas isn't going to act as Israel's enforcer in the territories except as a result of a political process. They offered Israel a ceasefire deal which included other factions, and in fact Israel's military intelligence stated that Hamas could actually follow through on it. Israel, as I say, flatly rejected the proposal.

    "Israel has rejected Hamas' offers of a hudna or truce, because this falls short of the Israeli requirement of full recognition."

    The Israeli "requirement" is pure bullshit, and everyone knows it. In any case, we're talking about a temporary ceasefire, not a political settlement.

    "As to the illegal Hamas regime in Gaza, the overthrow thereof is PA policy as well."

    The Hamas regime in Gaza is no more "illegal" than the Fayyad regime in the West Bank. And yes, thanks largely to U.S./Israeli policies, the collaborationist Palestinian government in the West Bank has, thus far, rejected attempts by Hamas to reach a negotiated power-sharing arrangement (which is a necessary pre-requisite for any serious attempt at peace.

    "What you leave out is that AAMB foreswore violence after the Hamas coup, and before that, was treated exactly as was Hamas."

    Right... The AAMB has been more involved than Hamas in the Qassam firings. In any case, the point is that the militant actions of the AAMB didn't stop Israeli political engagement with Fatah.

    "No, sweetness, it's just because teh Israel it iz bad bad bad. Even as I/P diaries go, this is a piece of deeply dishonest vomit."

    OK, I'm content to leave it here.

    by heathlander on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:45:12 AM PDT

    •  Of course you are.

      OK, I'm content to leave it here.

      Well, thank god. Because it's still a load of unsourced opinions vomited here with the sole aim of having another juicy flamewar circle jerk.

      And? There was no offensive Israeli military action in Gaza before the "withdrawal"?

      Shorter you: no matter what, there will be rockets. Screw civilians who happen to get in the way.

      Hamas isn't going to act as Israel's enforcer in the territories except as a result of a political process. They offered Israel a ceasefire deal which included other factions,

      Too bad, because if they want peace - which they don't, but you know that - they're going to have to act to control their territory.

      About that suicide bombing, per Haaretz:

      Hamas announced late Monday that members of its organization from the West Bank city of Hebron had carried out the attack, in which a woman was killed and dozens wounded.

      ...and:

      A Fatah source said Monday that the "Army of Palestine" branch of Al-Aqsa had carried out the attack. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) also claimed responsibility.

      The group's spokesman said the two suicide bombers were Luay Laghwani, 22, from the Sabra neighborhood in Gaza, and Musa Khalil Arafat, 24, from Abasan village near Khan Yunis.

      The spokesman emphasized that the two came from Gaza.

      ...which underscores neatly how devoted Hamas is to a cease-fire, by allowing groups that are quiescent in the West Bank - Fatah denounced the att