Polling your face off

First up, the Israeli assault on Gaza has had a predictable effect:

'Israel Defense Forces attacks in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have boosted the popularity of the Islamist group's leader Ismail Haniyeh among Palestinians in that territory and in the West Bank, according to a poll released Monday.

The survey by the West Bank-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research showed that if new presidential elections were held, Haniyeh would receive 47 percent of the vote compared with 46 percent for President Mahmoud Abbas of the rival Fatah faction.

The figures represented a sharp strengthening of Haniyeh's popularity. He served as prime minister in the Hamas-led government Abbas dismissed after Hamas seized the Gaza Strip from Fatah in June.

Quote continues overleaf...

The center's previous poll, in December, gave Gaza-based Haniyeh just 37 percent of a potential presidential vote compared with 56 percent for Abbas, whose peace efforts with Israel are opposed by Hamas.

The latest poll was conducted shortly after Israel ended an offensive in the Gaza Strip in early March that killed more than 120 Palestinians, almost half of them were identified as civilians.'

Ma'an has more:

'The same poll suggests that if elections were to be held between Fatah's strong man Marwan Barghouthi, who is serving a lifetime sentence in an Israeli jail, and Isma'il Haniyeh, then the former would receive 57% and the latter only 38%.

The sample of respondents was 1270 Palestinians from 127 areas.
Of the respondents 34% claimed that they would boycott elections if they were to be held between Abbas and Haniyeh, whilst 24% would boycott elections between Barghouthi and Haniyeh.

The poll likewise revealed that the gap between Hamas and Fatah had also lessened - with 35% claiming they would vote Hamas and 42% saying they would vote Fatah.

As for support of the Palestinian caretaker government headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, 38% said that they would prefer the government to continue whilst 55% of the said that the government should be toppled.'

This just underscores the fact that, as Helena Cobban writes, those interested in political progress cannot avoid engaging with Hamas any longer.

------------------

Next up, an Opinion Business Research poll (.pdf) conducted between 24 February-5 March found that:

• a majority (53%) of Iraqis view the "surge" as unsuccessful in reducing the violence in Baghdad. Among residents of Baghdad, this rose to 55%.

• 70% of Iraqis - 60% of Sunnis, 78% of Shia and 64% of Christians - want coalition forces to "leave" the country. Of this 70%, 65% of Iraqis (64% of Sunnis, 68% of Shia) want all coalition forces to leave the country "immediately / as soon as possible". A further 13% want a full withdrawal within six months.

• a plurality (48%) think that, so far, the 2003 invasion was not in Iraq's best interests.

• a slight majority of Iraqis (51%) say that they are better off under "the present political system" than they were under Saddam Hussein.

These results largely fit with another recent poll (.pdf) of Iraqi public opinion, conducted for the BBC between 12-20 February. It found that:

• 50% of Iraqis think the 2003 invasion was wrong (23% "somewhat wrong", 27% "absolutely wrong"), while 49% think the invasion was right (21% "absolutely right", 28% "somewhat right").

• asked whether, in the country as a whole, security in the past six months has become better or worse, 36% said "better", 26% said "worse" and 37% said "stayed about the same". Of those who said it had become "worse", a plurality (20%) said that "US forces operations" were mostly to blame.

• a majority of Iraqis (66%) want a unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad.

• 4% of Iraqis have a "great deal of confidence" in U.S. occupation forces. By contrast, 46% have no confidence "at all", while 33% have "not very much confidence".

• a majority of Iraqis feel the Iraqi government has done a bad job (30% say "quite a bad job", 26% say a "very bad job"), and a majority (58%) disapprove of Nouri al-Maliki's performance as Prime Minister.

• a majority of Iraqis feel the U.S. and other coalition forces have done a bad job in Iraq since the invasion (35% say "quite a bad job", 35% say a "very bad job").

• only 7% of Iraqis "strongly support" the presence of Coalition troops in Iraq. By contrast, 41% "strongly oppose" this presence, and a further 31% "somewhat oppose" it.

• 53% of Iraqis say that the "surge" in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces has made security worse in those areas, while a further 10% say it has had "no effect". A plurality of Iraqis think that the "surge" has made security worse for Iraq as a whole, worsened conditions for political dialogue, made it harder for the Iraqi government to carry out its work and worsened the pace of economic development in Iraq (in all these cases, a large majority of Iraqis thought the surge had either had no effect or made the situation worse).

• a plurality of Iraqis (38%) want Coalition forces to leave the country immediately.

• overall, 61% of Iraqis think the U.S. presence in Iraq is making security there "worse". Only 27% think it is making security better.

• 42% of Iraqis view attacks on Coalition forces as acceptable, while 57% say they are not acceptable. This result marks a change from previous polls, which registered majority support for resistance attacks against the occupying forces.

• A majority of Iraqis (59%) think security in Basra has either improved (28%) or stayed the same (31%) since the British withdrawal. 38% say it has deteriorated.

• A plurality of Iraqis (46%) think the security situation would improve if U.S. forces left the country entirely. A further 23% say it would remain "about the same".

In short, most Iraqis think that the Coalition presence is making security worse and that the "surge" has failed to improve either security or the political process. Most Iraqis oppose the Coalition presence and a majority or a plurality, depending on the poll, want a full withdrawal either now or in the near future.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

•  Tips

  thanks. Re. a time scale for withdrawal: the BBC poll didn't offer participants the option of choosing, say, a "withdrawal within six months" or a "withdrawal within a year", etc. If it had I suspect the results would've been more in line with the ORB poll, which offered respondents choices based both on time scale (e.g. "within six months") and on security benchmarks (ie. we want Coalition forces withdrawn after progress is made on security - only 12% picked this option).

  by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM PDT

  •  This TR should be removed

    We have disagreements with the diarist but nothing is hideable about this diary or the tip jar - let's be nice now.

    by Shane Hensinger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM PDT

    •  I countered...

      with a rec...

      by LtdEdishn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM PDT

    •  And the perp (dfb1968) ...

      is too much of a chickenshit to even leave a comment explaining himself/herself.

      by James Benjamin on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:13:26 PM PDT

•  What a strange diary

  I'm confused about two disparate places and events in the Middle East being thrown together - the situations in Iraq and Israel have little-to-nothing to do with one another. Perhaps it's because you have polling data on both - but it's a bit of a jarring contrast.

  But I do agree there must be a new course of action in Gaza, the present one is a disaster for everyone involved.

  by Shane Hensinger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    it's just because I read about the three polls one after the other.

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM PDT

    •  It stands to reason...

      that Palestinians in Gaza would favor the Hamas leader after Israeli strikes...after all, those living in Gaza have been the recipient of the strikes...

      In Iraq, the polling has always shown the people really don't want us there.  It is difficult saying just how accurate all polling coming from Iraq might be...the populace barely has water or electricity...over half are unemployed...do they have telephone service?

      by LtdEdishn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM PDT

      •  Right

        the point is that they blame Israel for the violence, not Hamas. And, I might add, quite right too.

        re. the polling - given that numerous polls over a long period of time have shown pretty consistent results, I think we can be quite confident about their basic conclusions: Iraqis think we're making the situation worse, and they want us out.

        by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM PDT

      •  hard to imagine that those Iraqis

        who can't even afford cell phone service are going to be any more in love with us than those who can.

        by corvo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:30:37 PM PDT

        •  good point /nt

          by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM PDT

  •  incidentally, it's instructive to note

    how little attention is paid to Iraqi public opinion in mainstream commentary. When it is brought up, it is usually to either lie about what the polls actually say or to dismiss it as irrelevent.

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:19:41 PM PDT

    •  I believe we've all

      seen similiar polls of Iraqi public opinion - what was in your diary wasn't a surprise to me.

      I've always felt that the answer to the dearth of leadership among the Palestinians would come from the jails and prisons. In much the same way as the liberation struggle in Ireland was nourished and strengthened from the prisons - almost all of Sinn Fein's current leadership came from the jails.

      by Shane Hensinger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM PDT

      •  yes, the polls have been fairly consistent

        for a long time now, so it shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. But Iraqi public opinion, as expressed in numerous polls over a sustained period of time, is barely taken into account by most mainstream commentators, who insist on giving us their opinions on what should we should do in Iraq without even mentioning what Iraqis want (which is actually the most important thing).

        about Barghouti (to whom I assume you're referring) - I agree that he has the potential to be a great Palestinian leader. However, I don't think any Palestinian leader, no matter how competent, is in a position to achieve a just peace without a serious shift in current Israeli policy. That shift, as far as I can see, can only come from pressure from the U.S.

        by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM PDT

        •  For an example of what I mean

          see here.

          This Chomsky quote is apt:

          "Invading armies have no rights, only responsibilities. Among them are the responsibility to pay reparations for their crimes, and to hold the guilty accountable. A crucial responsibility is to pay careful attention to the will of the victims...

          You and I are entitled to our own opinions as to what the invaders should do. We can even have an academic discussion about the topic. But our opinions mean nothing, just as the opinions of Bush, Blair, Cheney, and others mean nothing. What matters is what Iraqis want the occupying armies to do."

          by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:38:04 PM PDT

          •  Another excellent

            article on this by Chomsky that's well worth reading:

            'You all know, of course, there was an election -- what is called "an election" in the United States -- last November. There was really one issue in the election, what to do about U.S. forces in Iraq and there was, by U.S. standards, an overwhelming vote calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces on a firm timetable.

            As few people know, a couple of months earlier there were extensive polls in Iraq, U.S.-run polls, with interesting results. They were not secret here. If you really looked you could find references to them, so it's not that they were concealed. This poll found that two-thirds of the people in Baghdad wanted the U.S. troops out immediately; the rest of the country -- a large majority -- wanted a firm timetable for withdrawal, most of them within a year or less.

            The figures are higher for Arab Iraq in the areas where troops were actually deployed. A very large majority felt that the presence of U.S. forces increased the level of violence and a remarkable 60 percent for all of Iraq, meaning higher in the areas where the troops are deployed, felt that U.S. forces were legitimate targets of attack. So there was a considerable consensus between Iraqis and Americans on what should be done in Iraq, namely troops should be withdrawn either immediately or with a firm timetable.

            Well, the reaction in the post-election U.S. government to that consensus was to violate public opinion and increase the troop presence by maybe 30,000 to 50,000. Predictably, there was a pretext announced. It was pretty obvious what it was going to be. "There is outside interference in Iraq, which we have to defend the Iraqis against. The Iranians are interfering in Iraq." Then came the alleged evidence about finding IEDs, roadside bombs with Iranian markings, as well as Iranian forces in Iraq. "What can we do? We have to escalate to defend Iraq from the outside intervention."

            Then came the "debate." We are a free and open society, after all, so we have "lively" debates. On the one side were the hawks who said, "The Iranians are interfering, we have to bomb them." On the other side were the doves who said, "We cannot be sure the evidence is correct, maybe you misread the serial numbers or maybe it is just the revolutionary guards and not the government."

            So we had the usual kind of debate going on, which illustrates a very important and pervasive distinction between several types of propaganda systems. To take the ideal types, exaggerating a little: totalitarian states' propaganda is that you better accept it, or else. And "or else" can be of various consequences, depending on the nature of the state. People can actually believe whatever they want as long as they obey. Democratic societies use a different method: they don't articulate the party line. That's a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe.

            That was the case here. This is a classic illustration. The whole debate about the Iranian "interference" in Iraq makes sense only on one assumption, namely, that "we own the world." If we own the world, then the only question that can arise is that someone else is interfering in a country we have invaded and occupied.'

            by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM PDT

            •  Chomsky is a linguist

              not an international law expert or an attorney.

              by Shane Hensinger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM PDT

              •  A better question would be:

                Is he right, and if not, why?

                by corvo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:18:29 PM PDT

                •  He's only right if

                  You can apply his rules fairly and uniformly.  Since they cannot be in the real world, and moreover, he personally seems only inclined to apply those rules to the US and Israel (third-worldism!), it becomes a bunch of amoral crap that rewards bad behavior by thugs while ignoring the concerns of the vast majority of Palestinians who just want the fighting to stop so they can get on with their lives.

                  Israel took this territory in 67 because there was a very real threat of national annihilation if they didn't secure their borders.  Admittedly there was a little bit of triumphalism for a couple decades but by 87 and the beginning of the first intifada the writing was on the wall, Israel spent the 90s trying to build a PA so they could leave and it blew up in their face.  If everyone was following his rules, there wouldn't even be an occupation.  

                  As it is, his rules imply zero accountability for one of the sides in the conflict.  That just never works, no matter who you identify with.

                  by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:10:04 AM PDT

                  •  re.

                    "he personally seems only inclined to apply those rules to the US and Israel"

                    Not at all - he focuses on the U.S. and its clients because he is a U.S. citizen. Makes sense, really.

                    "it becomes a bunch of amoral crap that rewards bad behavior by thugs while ignoring the concerns of the vast majority of Palestinians who just want the fighting to stop so they can get on with their lives."

                    What a strange argument. In what way is, for example, pointing out that what matters is what the people under occupation "amoral"? How does it in any way "reward bad behaviour by thugs"? Surely quite the opposite is true.

                    "Israel took this territory in 67 because there was a very real threat of national annihilation if they didn't secure their borders.  Admittedly there was a little bit of triumphalism for a couple decades but by 87 and the beginning of the first intifada the writing was on the wall, Israel spent the 90s trying to build a PA so they could leave and it blew up in their face.  If everyone was following his rules, there wouldn't even be an occupation."

                    Well, this is just cartoon history. But leaving that aside, what "rules" of his exactly do you object to, and why?

                    by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:20:19 AM PDT

                    •  Third worldism

                      And listen to me here because you're guilty of this particular blind spot, hey, we all have them and it's good to know where your error rate naturally leans.

                      Third worldism is when anything bad that happens in the third world is of course the logical consequence of something the imperialist jerks did or didn't do or did incorrectly.  It's racist, implying that those cute little natives with their dinky spears couldn't possibly act on their own or even, gasp, not fit your mold of the peaceful native as opposed to our industrial abomination.  Ever been to a third world country?  They're dirty as fuck and have tons of violence.  It's incorrect, since it usually involves a whole bunch of hand waving and multiple logical steps when the far simpler explanation is "The people who live there did it".  And it's unproductive and morally objectionable because of it's tendency to excuse bad actors in the third world.  Bad actors hurt their own much more than they hurt us.  By taking the bad actors side against the imperialists, thinking you are standing up for the underdog, you are crushing the real underdog.  The real underdog is the people who have to put up with the bad actors because they have no choice.  They don't get mentioned in the headlines, all you get is Hamas vs Israel, so you go well I suppose I must pick Hamas then.  Meanwhile, Hamas is condoning the launch of rockets that they know full well will bring misery upon their people, for the sake of their ideology.

                      Now, you can flip all that around and be like "What are we world police to go around eliminating bad actors?"  Hell no, for the most part we should live and let live as far as getting involved in foreign conflicts, my personal opinion.  But by supporting groups that are more focused on violence than they are on reconciliation, you are supporting the oppression of those you claim to be speaking on behalf of.

                      Basically I am saying that Chomsky's entire conception of everything is utter bullshit because it doesn't hold people in the third world accountable for themselves.  It's racist (or reverse racist, not sure which), and it leads to bad policy ideas that empower bad actors while being indifferent to good ones.

                      by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM PDT

                      •  Case in point,

                        in your defense of your theory of Hamas as the noble savage who was unfairly attacked, below, you basically say that because Fatah was receiving arms from US/Israel, they were justified.  

                        by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM PDT

                        •  Well, it's a bad sign

                          when you have to resort to cheap caricatures to try and win a debate ("noble savage").

                          I guess I don't know what else to do but to repeat what I said again: a group of Palestinian militants was working with the occupation to topple the elected Palestinian government, repeatedly launching violent attacks that had brought complete chaos to Gaza. The Hamas takeover of Gaza, whether you think it justified or not, was a response to this violence. These are simple facts: it has nothing to do with "Third Worldism". If you want to dispute them, then go ahead, but you're gonna have to address the arguments and the evidence that have been presented, not the one's you've invented yourself.

                          by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:42:47 AM PDT

                      •  I know what you're saying

                        but, like I said above, it's simply incorrect. Chomsky is a U.S. citizen, and as such is principally concerned with exposing the U.S.' role in the world and trying to change it. So if your "accusation" is that he focuses on U.S. crimes more than on, say, the crimes of the Sudanese government, than you're right. But it's not really a criticism, as far as I can see. It makes sense as a general principle to focus on one's own crimes before looking to someone else's, particularly when you happen to be living in one of the world's most powerful and most abusive states.

                        "It's racist, implying that those cute little natives with their dinky spears couldn't possibly act on their own or even, gasp, not fit your mold of the peaceful native as opposed to our industrial abomination."

                        I'm afraid you're arguing with a straw-man here. I certainly don't recognise this attitude from Chomsky - quite the opposite, in fact. Perhaps if you gave an example? It seems like what you're actually objecting to is any attempt to expose and analyse our role in, for example, "internal" Palestinian politics and developments. I think attempts to do this are necessary and should be welcomed, not condemned by lazily conflating it with denying Palestinians any agency at all.

                        It's a bit like the right-wing response to attempts by rational people to explain the attacks on 9/11 - any analyses that linked the attacks to U.S. foreign policy were derided as attempts to exculpate the hijackers from any responsibility for their actions. Clearly this was not the case, but you're deploying a similar argument above.

                        "By taking the bad actors side against the imperialists, thinking you are standing up for the underdog, you are crushing the real underdog."

                        It depends what you mean. Everyone has a right to self-defence, and thus everyone has a right to resist a military occupation. This is true regardless of one's politics. So Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli occupation, whether we agree with their ideology or not. The same applies to Iraqis under US/UK occupation today, and the same applied to the NLF in Vietnam. Support the right of a people to resist does not equate to support for their politics or their ideology.

                        "Meanwhile, Hamas is condoning the launch of rockets that they know full well will bring misery upon their people, for the sake of their ideology."

                        This isn't the case at all - the Qassams, whatever one thinks of them, are part of a rational military strateg designed to force Israel into accepting a ceasefire. Hamas has relentlessly pushed for a ceasefire for months now - everytime we get close to achieving one, Israel goes and kills some more Palestinians and the violence begins anew.

                        'Now, you can flip all that around and be like "What are we world police to go around eliminating bad actors?"'

                        This misses the point that Western states are "bad actors", and it is our responsibility as citizens of those states to do what we can to change this.

                        "But by supporting groups that are more focused on violence than they are on reconciliation, you are supporting the oppression of those you claim to be speaking on behalf of."

                        Not at all - again, it depends on what you mean by "support". Palestinians have a right to resist occupation, no matter what their politics. We should be concerned with our role, which in this case has been unremitting support for the Israeli occupation. It is therefore our responsibility to do what we can to end this support and to use what leverage we have to force Israel to make the Palestinians a reasonable offer. Once this happens, then we can see what the Palestinians do. Until then, it is utterly perverse to focus our energies on criticing the methods Palestinians use to resist an occupation in which we are complicit and which we could very possibly bring to an end ourselves if we only made the effort.

                        "it doesn't hold people in the third world accountable for themselves."

                        Well, that's just nonsense, I'm afraid. If you want to give an example of this alleged "reverse racism", then go ahead.

                        by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM PDT

                        •  This sentence:

                          the Qassams, whatever one thinks of them, are part of a rational military strateg designed to force Israel into accepting a ceasefire.  Hamas has relentlessly pushed for a ceasefire for months now - everytime we get close to achieving one, Israel goes and kills some more Palestinians and the violence begins anew.

                          Let's set aside how Hamas is pushing for a ceasefire by permitting constant rocket fire.  You're holding Israel to a higher standard than the Palestinians.  Much higher.  As in, oh, of course the Palestinians fire rockets, what do you expect of them?  But Israel then has to go and kill some of them, reigniting the cycle of violence.

                          The Palestinians are not robots, they are not animals, they are statistically as smart as you and I although maybe not quite as educated -- this isn't multivariable calc here, though.  They can be held accountable for their actions.

                          You are saying that it's on Israel to be the "bigger man" so to speak and unilaterally back down but we never hear condemnations of Hamas in the same vein.  Because you expect savagery from them, and the only way to change it is to change their inputs?  They are thinking individuals.  They are responsible for their actions and the quite predictable consequences.  Fire missiles at your neighbor and they strike back?  Unfair!

                          by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:40:51 AM PDT

                          •  You don't need to tell me that Palestinians

                            are not robots or animals - I'm aware of that, thanks.

                            "You're holding Israel to a higher standard than the Palestinians.  Much higher.  As in, oh, of course the Palestinians fire rockets, what do you expect of them?  But Israel then has to go and kill some of them, reigniting the cycle of violence."

                            What are you talking about? You said that Hamas fires Qassams "for the sake of their ideology". I said no, the Qassams are part of a rational military strategy. I never said that Israel "has" to kill Palestinians, and I certainly never used the phrase "cycle of violence". I said, quite simply, that the Qassams are part of a military strategy aimed at forcing Israel to the negotiating table. However they have failed thus far because whenever ceasefire talks looks like they might be going somewhere Israel, deliberately, goes and kills Palestinians with the intention of collapsing the diplomatic process. In other words, there's no "cycle of violence", there's a brutal military occupation that kills, abducts and impoverishes  Palestinians as a matter of course, and there is a feeble attempt by those occupied Palestinians to resist (the Qassams and the now rare suicide attacks).

                            Palestinians have no duty of care towards Israel. Indeed, they are absolutely entitled to attack Israel, should they choose to do so. So yes, Israel does have to meet different standards than the Palestinians - it is an occupying state, and they are an occupied people.

                            Everyone is responsible for the forseeable consequences of their actions, and of course this includes Palestinians as much as anyone else. But, like I say, it would be perverse for someone in my position (or in yours) to focus my energies on criticising Palestinians who are fighting for their lives against an occupation in which I am complicit instead of doing my best to end the "root cause" (quoting John Dugard) of the violence - namely, the Israeli occupation. That doesn't mean I don't think that the Qassams are illegitimate, or that I don't recognise the many flaws of Hamas. Of course I do. It's about where you focus your energies, and anyone serious about stopping the Qassams, as opposed to merely using them to distract from and justify Israeli crimes, should be doing their utmost to end the Israeli occupation.

                            "You are saying that it's on Israel to be the "bigger man" so to speak and unilaterally back down but we never hear condemnations of Hamas in the same vein."

                            Have you not read what I've just written? No one's calling for Israel to do anything other than to stop violating the law, agree to a mutual ceasefire with Hamas and offer the Palestinians a genuine two-state settlement.

                            by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:06:43 PM PDT

                            •  This is where you're wrong--

                              "root cause" (quoting John Dugard) of the violence - namely, the Israeli occupation.

                              And it's the third worldist blind spot I'm talking about, all bad actions by third worlders must be a result of western provocation.

                              They've been trying to destroy Israel since 1947.  To the hard-liners, the root cause isn't the occupation of their cousins in the West Bank or the sanctions on Gaza.  The root cause is the existence of Israel anywhere, the Negev, Tel Aviv, all of that.  That's what you're missing here.

                              I'm certainly on board with any ceasefire, though.

                              by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM PDT

                              •  re.

                                "all bad actions by third worlders must be a result of western provocation."

                                That's not what I said. If I told you that the root cause of the conflict between the Native Americans and the European settlers was the desire on the part of the colonialists to settle America at the expense of the indigenous population, would that be a "third worldist" point of view? No, it would be accurate. Similarly, it is accurate to say that the driving cause of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians today is the Israeli occupation.

                                "They've been trying to destroy Israel since 1947.  To the hard-liners, the root cause isn't the occupation of their cousins in the West Bank or the sanctions on Gaza.  The root cause is the existence of Israel anywhere, the Negev, Tel Aviv, all of that.  That's what you're missing here."

                                Firstly, and we should be clear about this: the success of Zionism necessarily came at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population. And this expense was huge, in fact - the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-48, and many more since then. To expect the Palestinians to accept the right of recent immigrants into Palestine to create a state that explicitly excluded them on land which they had lived and worked on for generations is just a joke. Palestinians (correctly) recognised that the ambitions of the Zionists necessarily entailed devastating consequences for them, and hence they opposed the Zionist project strongly.

                                That was then. More recently, since the 1970s the Palestinian leadership has accepted the idea of Israel on the 1967 borders. In contrast, since 1967 not one single Israeli leader or government has ever recognised the right of the Palestinians to a state on the West Bank and Gaza. The conflict today continues because Israel refuses to withdraw to its legally recognised borders. If you disagree then you're simply ignoring history, but even so, you can't really complain about Palestinian rejectionism when they've never been given a reasonable offer to reject.

                                by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:10:59 PM PDT

                                •  Palestinian "leadership"?

                                  Hah.  What are the people with the guns saying?

                                  Oh, and you're even wrong on that line -- Arafat didn't formally recognize Israel until Oslo in 93... when Israel did the same.  You're hopeless.

                                  by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:55:29 PM PDT

                                  •  Oh, go learn some history

                                    I'm done here. (You might want to start with the 1976 UN resolution calling for a two-state settlement, endorsed by Arafat and the PLO but vetoed by the U.S.)

                                    by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 03:42:14 PM PDT

                        •  And by assigning the "right"

                          To resist "occupation" (scare quotes mandatory in Gaza's case) to Palestinians but not the right to defend themselves from rocket attacks to Israel, we get to the crux of the matter.

                          You defend the actions of Hamas while criticizing Israel's reaction to those actions.  Thus, favoring bad actors and punishing those they claim to speak for, the teenager who got crushed under 4 tons of rubble for the crime of living next to Jihadi John.

                          by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM PDT

                          •  re.

                            "And by assigning the "right" ... To resist "occupation" (scare quotes mandatory in Gaza's case) to Palestinians but not the right to defend themselves from rocket attacks to Israel, we get to the crux of the matter."

                            Firstly, I didn't do that. According to many human rights organisations, Israel is allowed (obligated, even) to defend itself from ongoing attack - that is, if a Palestinian is on his way to launch a rocket at a civilian target, then Israel is entitled to do what it must to prevent the attack from happening, so long as this defensive operation does not cause disproportionate harm to Palestinians.

                            Now, personally, I'm not sure whether I agree with that. The occupation is an aggression in itself, especially given that Israel has consistently refused to even offer to withdraw to its legal borders for some 40 years now. So I'm not sure that attacks on Palestinians, whether civilians or combatants, can be classified as "self-defence" - when an aggressor kills people resisting its aggression, that's not self-defence. It's murder.

                            "You defend the actions of Hamas while criticizing Israel's reaction to those actions."

                            I've never defended Palestinian attacks on civilians at all - your whole argument seems to be based on a straw-man.

                            by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM PDT

                            •  You defend their right to make those attacsk

                              Calling it "resistance to aggression/occupation".  Hello? Israel withdrew from Gaza THREE FUCKING YEARS AGO.  Start treating the Palestinians with some respect and hold them accountable for their actions.

                              by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM PDT

                              •  It's resistance

                                to the Israeli occupation - that's not really debatable. Whether it is legitimate resistance is something else, and I've never said that deliberate attacks on civilian are legitimate. In fact I've repeatedly condemned them - the only difference between you and I, it seems, is that I condemn them no matter the perpetrator. That said, I definitely do not equate Palestinian and Israeli violence - one is carried in self-defence and in the course of resistance to an illegitimate and brutal military occupation, while the other is carried out to maintain the occupation and crush all resistance to it.

                                by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM PDT

              •  So what?

                If you take issue with something Chomsky said in that excerpt, what is it specifically?

                by James Benjamin on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM PDT

                •  Apparently our boy genius

                  with all the scholarships was never taught that ad hominems didn't make for convincing arguments.

                  by corvo on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:45:40 AM PDT

  •  i added a little separator bar

    to make things a bit clearer.

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM PDT

•  It's been clear for some time now

  at least since they breached the border wall, that Hamas's politico-military diplomacy has been immensely successful in creating diplomatic openings for Hamas that the US had been working assiduously to keep slammed shut.

  This polling data shows just why Hamas has been successful -- their actions have resonated strongly with a Palestinian population that feels itself isolated and repressed by the international community.

  The US approach to Hamas -- isolation and military attack -- is doomed to failure, in fact has already clearly failed.  The only way to reach peace is through reconciliation.

  The sooner we get a new president willing to do the hard work to make that happen, the better off we all are.

  by litho on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM PDT

  •  couldn't agree more

    sadly, however, all Presidential candidates on both sides have ruled out diplomatic engagement with Hamas.

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM PDT

    •  What candidates say publicly

      is not always the same as what they intend to do privately.

      Hamas, furthermore, has more than amply demonstrated its ability to force its foes to take it seriously.  So regardless of their intentions now, a less ideological president -- one who recognizes the need for diplomacy -- will find him/herself negotiating with Hamas.

      by litho on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM PDT

      •  clearly, but

        unless we are mind-readers then what they say (and, more importantly, what they do) is all we have to go on. In any case, U.S. support for Israel is based on a virtual consensus among elite planners that the maintenance of a strong, militaristic Israel benefits U.S. strategic interests in the most strategically important region on the planet. Whatever the personal feelings each candidate may have, they aren't going to be able to change this significantly without making a big shift in U.S. policy priorities more generally. And I really can't see any of the mainstream candidates doing that, unfortunately.

        (I don't think the reason for not negotiating with Hamas is "ideological". How can it be ideological? The U.S. negotiates with (and even supports) "terrorist groups" when it sees doing so as in its interests. No, the U.S. refuses to negotiate with Hamas for strategic reasons - Hamas is a threat to U.S./Israeli dominance, and must be crushed accordingly.)

        by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:39:45 PM PDT

  •  re: your last paragraph:

    won't happen in our lifetime . . .

    by corvo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM PDT

    •  ...without a major effort

      by the general public.

      by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM PDT

      •  precisely the problem n/t

        by corvo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:45:59 PM PDT

        •  a problem, yes,

          but a problem that can be overcome with enough effort.

          by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM PDT

•  After listening to some of the

  Winter Soldiers talks, I say it is long past time to leave Iraq. These men are well worth listening too. Thanks Heathlander.

  by Owllwoman on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:36:09 PM PDT

  •  On which note,

    41% of respondents to the BBC poll said that "unnecessary violence against citizens by US or Coalition forces" had occurred "nearby".

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM PDT

•  Latest FAIR alert

  No Antiwar Voices in NYT 'Debate'

  It refers to this farce, and might well have added: "no Iraqi voices either".

  by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM PDT

•  Was the Israeli response not predictable as well?

  Was Hamas not gratified? I mean, do you really think this came out of left field, or was it, as you say, "predictable"? Who has the most to gain from the "predictable" surge in support for Hamas?

  by wxlr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM PDT

  •  There was an Israeli

    aggression, not an Israeli "response", and yes it was entirely predictable if one assumes that Israel is not interested in peace or a ceasefire. Otherwise, Israel's actions were not predictable at all - they were totally incomprehensible.

    Clearly, Hamas has most to gain from a surge in support for Hamas.

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

    •  You've got to be kidding

      or a shameless propagandist. Israel has brought the hammer down countless times, and I'm sure you've diaried each one of them. Enough attacks and they respond. Just about every time.

      You're saying that Hamas was too stupid to see this coming and capitalize on it? Provoke it?

      by wxlr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM PDT

      •  We know what happened

        because it was reported on extensively (in the Israeli and Palestinian press, at least). Hamas wanted a ceasefire and was in the meantime observing an informal "lull" in rocket fire towards Israel. In January, Israel decided it had had enough and killed the most number of Palestinians in a single month for years (a 40% increase on December 2007). Then Israel started to assassinate Palestinian militants who were not involved in hostilities at the time of killing. Finally, Israel assassinated five members of Hamas in a car and in response, Hamas began firing rockets. Israel then used this as an excuse to kill 130 Palestinians in five days.

        The same thing happened again last Wednesday.

        by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

        •  See, that's kind of funny.

          From an Israeli pov, the rockets were flying for a long while out of Hamas' Gaza. How many arrests did they make while they were touting their ceasefire and "lulling"?

          You summary is actually a narrative. It leaves out plenty of incidentals and ignores inconvenient data. We both know that, right? Would it be fair to say that any argument from me would be wasted?

          by wxlr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:54:37 PM PDT

          •  who knows?

            you've yet to try it.

            by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM PDT

            •  Positive news for you

              from your poll

              "Rejection of Hamas's violent takeover stands today at 68% and acceptance of the takeover at 26%. Rejection of the takeover stood at 73% last September."

              Only 68% of Gaza's residence now disapprove of the takeover! That's 5% more coming around to your extremist position. Congratulations!

              As to arguing...listen, I read stuff, think on it and sometimes my opinions shift. I'm a reader, mostly. I'm a target. You're a publishing giant. You're not here to browse and ponder contrary views, right? You're here to push an agenda (to me), sharpen your rhetoric (on me) and sell the idea that Israel is a bad actor and Hamas is a good actor. Fine.

              You say I can "try" to argue with you. If I believed you were actually having an impact on American policy or Democrats, then I'd probably feel compelled to. I'm nowhere close to that. Also, I sleep and move about in the sun. I can't keep up with you.

              And I have the upper hand here, Englishman. I'm in-line with my party (not mention the rest of the country) and I have a vote. You have to do the hard work of selling theocratic, homophobic, civilian-targeting resistance movements on a Democratic website.

              How's it going so far? Getting anywhere?

              by wxlr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM PDT

              •  Well, ignoring most of that comment,

                argument-free as it was, it's not surprising that most Gazans disapprove of the takeover, given its consequences and given the brutal way in which it was conducted. I would point out that I have never said that I "approve" of the takeover - rather, I have recognised (as have such other 'extremists' as the ICG, the IISS, Conflicts Forum, Henry Siegman, Alistair Crooke, the Financial Times, Ephraim Halevy, and so on) that it was carried out as an essentially defensive operation against Fatah forces that were actively engaged in preparing to launch a coup, in collaboration with Israel and the U.S. This is a question of fact, and the facts happen to be pretty well established by now. You're entitled to disagree, but if you want to do so persuasively you're going to have to address the argument.

                by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:09:05 PM PDT

                •  Well, ignoring most of that comment

                  I'd rather just capitulate. No skin off my back.

                  by wxlr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:31:40 PM PDT

                •  Actively engaged in preparing to launch?

                  Wasn't Hamas doing the same thing at the same time?  They didn't dig those tunnels overnight, dude.

                  Neither of us know what was said in any conversations between Dahlan and whoever Hamas's Gaza chief is immediately before the fighting.  However, saying Hamas was justified in aggression because Fatah had the gall to arm themselves is fucking ridiculous.  I mean, if Fatah made a mistake in Gaza it was to not arm themselves faster and more aggressively.  

                  by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:15:15 AM PDT

                  •  No

                    look, read the Vanity Fair article (for a start). Dahlan's thugs were being armed and trained and financed by the occupiers with the express purpose of toppling the elected Hamas government. They had repeatedly attacked government forces and infrastructure and were making life essentially ungovernable in Gaza (which is why, initially, many Palestinian in Gaza welcomed the "coup" because it at least restored some order).

                    I'll say it again, just to be clear: a group of militants allied to Fatah under and the control of Muhammad Dahlan were conspiring and acting with the U.S. and Israel to topple the elected Hamas government. The Hamas "coup", whether justifed or not, was carried out in response to this threat.

                    by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM PDT

                    •  So they were being armed,

                      By the OCCUPIERS (of what?  Not Gaza, right then).

                      Hamas was being armed by Iran.  You gonna tell me that if Fatah was even weaker, they wouldn't have taken over?  

                      Events proved Fatah right to arm themselves -- they just didn't do a good enough job of it.

                      And any talk of a Fatah coup... I mean, clearly they were not in a position to pull that off.  You're making excuses for people you don't know and have never met just because you've chosen to pick a "side" in a conflict that doesn't concern you.  Try taking a step back and being objective -- was Fatah capable of it?  No?  What are the sources for information that a coup was planned, do we have anything hard?  No?  

                      When all your assumptions line up the same way, prepare to rethink your conclusion because you are probably wrong.  Even if we give you 50/50 odds on being right of each stage of assumptions you're chaining together, which we shouldn't, you're still at .5 (fatah being armed) * .5 (fatah planning coup) * .5 (fatah capable of pulling off coup), .125 chance of being right.  

                      And what, exactly, would Fatah have stood to gain from a coup against Hamas?  What was the motivation?  Why would they want the resultant situation?  Illegitimate control of Gaza combined with islamic illegitimacy and all the downsides to actually being expected to be accountable?  Would've been much easier for them to hang in the minority a few years and let Hamas burn themselves out reconciling their rhetoric with reality.

                      by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM PDT

                      •  OK, well,

                        I really don't want to repeat myself again. Gaza is occupied, the evidence (which you've again failed to address) that a group of Fatah militants were collaborating with the U.S. and Israel to topple the elected Hamas government is overwhelming. I've discussed the evidence at length in numerous diaries - all you're able to do is repeat your standard assertions as if the evidence simply didn't exist. Of course we have "hard" evidence that the Fatah forces were engaged in a coup against the Hamas government - we've got overwhelming evidence, in fact.

                        Fatah forces were actually quite a bit stronger than Hamas' on paper, and more importantly the longer Hamas waited the stronger Dahlan's militia would have become (given that more and more of them were being trained and armed by the U.S. as time went on).

                        "You're making excuses for people you don't know and have never met just because you've chosen to pick a "side" in a conflict that doesn't concern you."

                        Nope - what I'm doing is looking at what the evidence shows. If we're going to play this game, then I could accuse you of doing exactly the same thing (picking Fatah's "side"), only my accusation would have far more merit given that, unlike me, you've never bothered to address the evidence at all.

                        As for this:

                        "Even if we give you 50/50 odds on being right of each stage of assumptions you're chaining together, which we shouldn't, you're still at .5 (fatah being armed) * .5 (fatah planning coup) * .5 (fatah capable of pulling off coup), .125 chance of being right."

                        Well, I really don't know what to say.

                        by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM PDT

              •  He doesn't really care to argue either -

                at least with me.  My questions cut a bit too close to that tender spot where reality and propaganda part company.

                He's been bellyaching with the refugees at pff, I ruined the reception for his marvelous photo album of London's recent Hezbollah love fest.  Two comments was all that took, now I'm "unworthy," sez he.  For cryin' out loud, they were just some cracker photos or photos by some cracker... whatever.  (Sorry, not up on your latest British slang, J).  

                Then he cries when no one shows up for his grand announcement of last week's Hamas "breakthrough."   Good thing we have another one this week.  But I think you really do know Jamie, the party gets dull fast without the loyal opposition.

                by Eric S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:27:17 PM PDT

      •  Jamie does not "kid" and

        has never displayed a sense of humor, to the best of my recollection.  That leaves only your other proposition.

        by Eric S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:33:19 PM PDT

        •  I have a whole line

          of razor-sharp children's toys I'd like to bring to market. I'm looking for the perfect person to do inexhaustible PR work. Any ideas?

          by wxlr on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:49:45 PM PDT

          •  You'll need someone indefatigable, singleminded &

            willing to overlook certain questionable characteristics of the product.  Expertise at video games a plus.

            I don't know anyone personally, though.

            by Eric S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:55:07 PM PDT

        •  When you say "Jamie," are you referring to

          the diarist?

          If so, isn't outing people by using their real first names (if they haven't used them here themselves) a bannable offense here?

          by Poo Hole on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM PDT

          •  I have gone through this several times, but

            since I have always been so close to my own poo hole, I'll explain it all again, special for you.

            Jamie constantly links to his blog, wherein he uses his own name, his full name throughout - and he cross posts everywhere.  Ultimately, it is not an outing when you out yourself, right?  That's how it was explained to me many moons ago.  Finally, he has even said that he doesn't care about the use of his name, which certainly makes sense considering....  

            Now, if you disagree with something else I've said, don't hold it in, you could cause yourself terrible homeostatic disruptions.

            by Eric S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:48:34 PM PDT

          •  How did you know the diarist..

            ..hasn't used "his real first name here himself" user #155594?  You seem awfully concerned and knowledgeable for for a brand new user.  And, looking at your brief comment history I see the same pattern.

            Not that I'm defending Eric S, mind you, and his constant refusal to address heathlander by his dkos user ID.

            by sofia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM PDT

            •  Good catch, and

              that "constant" should read "almost constant."  See below.

              Oh, and two more things:  feel free to call me Ricky, and did you see this sad little diary... please forgive the pimping, but I've had so few visitors and I would love you especially, to know me better.

              by Eric S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:58:06 PM PDT

              •  Well..

                ..without getting into your diary which I don't have time to read and reflect on at the moment -- let it suffice, that owing to some commentsat pff and this user's brief comment history -- it's likely that Poo Hole is Stupid Asshole, or another Pffer.

                That said, let me point out that someone was banned last week for referring twice to another user by his real name, rather than his dkos user ID, even though that user linked to his blog, where one could easily determine his real-life name.  I won't link to the exchange because that would further "out" the later user, but I do know that the user had lodged a complaint with admin. re the "outing."

                I'm not sure how heathlander feels about this, but I guess I would keep that in mind.

                by sofia on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:27:19 PM PDT

                •  He did say he was indifferent to it,

                  and, were he to ask me not to, I would oblige him.  

                  I've always liked the name "Jamie," "Sofia" too, for that matter.  Never cared for my own name much, but it's far, far better than "Stupid Asshole."

                  by Eric S on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:50:31 PM PDT

                  •  "Eric" is a nice name..

                    ..think, Eric Clapton, a great favorite of mine, although somewhat before my time.

                    But I guess if "Jamie" wanted to go by the name of Jamie here he would have done so; yet he went with the pseudonym "heathlander", which I always thought referred to landings at Heathrow, but what do I know. :)

                    by sofia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:15:26 AM PDT

                    •  I am at a loss to understand how a living

                      performer, one who still tours and records, could quite be described as "before your time."  

                      As much as "Sunshine of your Love' and "White Room" were a part of my growing up, it was Ginger Baker, the raw, boney speed-freak (named Ginger, of all things) who separated out from the Cream in my young mind.  

                      For rock and roll namesakes, I chose a hit-maker from a slightly earlier day, Eric Burden of the Animals.  A small man with a big voice, whose songs were the pure stuff of youthful rebellion:  Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, It's My Life, We Gotta Get Out of This Place, and the organ driven reworking of Bob Dylan's arrangement of the mythic, House of the Rising Sun, (reputedly stolen by Dylan from Dave Van Ronk).  Later, in the days of psychedelicide, Burden teamed up with War, and  Spill the Wine became the favorite it still is.  All of these are worth searching out if you're unfamiliar with them.

                      But the name "Eric" has always felt a bit incongruous.  A little too much nordic pretense and assimilationist ambition for a nice Jewish boy from Queens, only one generation displaced from the Pale of Settlement.  But it's mine - I've lived with it a long time and don't care to disrespect my parents good intentions.

                      Oh yes, another musical "Eric" I neglected to mention - Eric Von Shterick, "the world's loudest tuba player."  Have you heard of him?  He can't be found on Google, but is resident within an important niche in American culture.  My extreme kudos to anyone who can correctly identify him.

                      by Eric S on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:48:05 AM PDT

                      •  Big oops!

                        It's Eric Burdon, not Burden.

                        by Eric S on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

                        •  Either way you should be proud

                          of your first name, as it is the best name EVER!!!  But then again, I may be a little biased. but this half jew from the other coast has always liked his name.  Interestingly (to me at least) my parents named me Eric because at the time (1967) it was a rare name.  However, everyone seemed to have the same idea as I always had at least 1 or 2 Eric's in my class in grade school.

                          Coincidental i too have a 9 year-old son, with the intelligence greater then my own but the wisdom of a 9 year old, which can lead to some interesting situations.

                          by ETinKC on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM PDT

                          •  Your comment is encouraging, and hopefully

                            your wisdom will be passed down to your son... though I rather expect it will.

                            Thanks.

                            by Eric S on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM PDT

                  •  i'm sure i've asked you not to

                    maybe not. in any case, i am now. it feels wrong coming out of your keyboard.

                    by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:38:54 AM PDT

                    •  Here, writ small, some of your bigger problems.

                      "i'm sure i've asked you not to[...] maybe not."

                      Unable to to squeeze untempered honesty from your fingertips...

                      "it feels wrong coming out of your keyboard."

                      ...dogmatism, childish cant, gracelessness in the face of a concession - these are not the attributes of a peacemaker, nor a leader, nor a fully constructed individual.

                      Luckily, you still have plenty of time to improve on this.  

                      I tell my older son, a bit of a prodigy not unlike yourself, and much smarter than me - intelligence is overrated and pales before wisdom.  And wisdom comes from the mixture of experience, compassion and honesty.  There are dumb animals out there, even stones, wiser than some men.

                      Isaac, he's nine now, has a distinct advantage over you in this attainment.  He has a robust sense of humor and a grave difficulty perpetrating untruths.

                      Finally, on the name issue, I'd neglected to mention, my one and only sister, my baby sister, her name is Aimee.  We are the dearest friends.

                      Now, as you've asked, I will discontinue addressing you by your given name.

                      Though I did come up with a rather clever and fitting new nickname for you; please tell what you think - how about "the anti-Zionist entity?"

                      by Eric S on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:06:53 AM PDT

            •  For the record...

              .."Poo Hole" is now history.

              by sofia on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:48:32 PM PDT

•  My face, my beautiful face!

  Thanks for the data.  I saw this as well.  This data comes in sharp contrast to folks like Another American and others who have been crowing over the last 6 months to a year at Hamas's declining poll numbers.

  I hope folks understand what this means.  While everything sits in stasis, Hamas's numbers will indeed decline. The seige of Gaza has been ineffective at reducing violence, and has had an enormous human cost, but it has indeed reduced Hamas's poll numbers.  This is to be expected, since people, especially needed people, want action out of their government.  Thus, if Israel's only goal was to embarass and/or undermine Hamas's rule (though not really weaken it as an organized force), then the seige appeared to have some success.

  However, the current poll highlights just how hollow that "success" was.  Hamas's numbers decline while there is stasis, but there is never stasis.  Whever Hamas acts, such as by breaking down the Egyptian wall, or when Israel acts, by attacking Hamas, Hamas's numbers go up.  Any action rally's the Palestinians against Israel and for those who fight Israel.

  Thus the seige strategy is hopeless.  It does not weaken Hamas.  It does temporarily drive down Hamas's poll numbers, but only until Hamas takes action or trigger's Israeli action.  Then all that is lost.  

  The only outcome of the seige is the further impoverishment of Palestinians.  It has no other effect.  If Israel's goal is impoverishment of Palestinians for its own sake, then the seige should continue.  If Israel's goal is actually security, then this poll proves that it is long past time to abandon the failed policy and to finally sit down and talk.  

  by weasel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM PDT

  •  agree with most of this

    although I'd point out that Israel's actions were responsible for the increasing support for Hamas as much as actions by Hamas (although undoubtedly the breaching of the wall must have had some influence).

    Also I'd take issue with your characterisation of Hamas 'triggering' Israeli action. Quite the reverse is true.

    Finally, it's true that some on here were "crowing" about the decline in support for Hamas, and it just shows how morally bankrupt they are. The decline, such as it was, was a direct result of the immoral and illegal sanctions regime that Israel and the "international community" had been imposing upon the Palestinians for over a year, causing (for example) poverty to jump by 30%. That support for Hamas decreased was merely evidence that it is possible to break a population's will through the infliction of massive suffering over a sustained period of time. Hardly something any half-decent person would "crow" about, in other words.

    by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:08:24 PM PDT

    •  Triggering

      Yeah, I knew someone would call me out on using the word.  I tried to find something neutral.  Hamas's action certainly did not "cause" or "force" Israeli reaction, and no Israeli action is inherently justified by pointing on that Hamas (or someone else) fired rockets at civilian towns (which is also not justified) some time before or after the Israeli attack.  

      What I was trying to get at is that the Israeli policy of "massive retaliation" actually backfires.  Hamas can, at any point it wants, hit Israel hard enough that Israel will be "forced" to take action (which is to say that Israeli leaders will be forced to appease the right wing).  Israel takes action for a variety of other reasons, including to intentionally scuttle truces, but Hamas does have the ability to trigger Israeli reactions.  

      I'm trying to highlight the point that, as far as Hamas's poll numbers are concerned, Hamas is in control.  Israel cannot control the internal Palestinian public opinion, which is entirely as it should be.

      by weasel on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM PDT

      •  I know what you mean

        but what I'm saying is that what Israel does is in no way a "retaliation". It's aggression, pure and simple.

        by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM PDT

      •  Or rather

        yes, sometimes Israel action is a response to specific threats. Given that there is another option on the table (in the form of ceasefire talks), however, it can't really be said to be a 'retaliation'.

        by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:29:30 PM PDT

  •  The siege of Gaza

    simply can't be effective at reducing violence (assuming that this violence is measured in Qassams) without

    --cutting off all supplies to Gaza, or monitoring to the ounce the location and use of all supplies that can be used to build a Qassam; and
    --occupying or destroying each venue in which a Qassam can be manufactured.

    It's common knowledge that a Qassam can be tossed together from fairly common ingredients, and that they can be assembled in buildings the size of a Quickie Lube.

    In other words, nothing short of the total destruction of Gaza (think: Third Punic War) is going to force the Gazans to stop making the things.  

    The Israeli leadership knows this.  Certainly the Israeli people know it, few of whom are fooled by the Olmert/Barak/Livni saber-rattling.

    The best explanation I can come up with is that the Israeli leadership is reacting cluelessly ("We don't know what to do, but we've got to do something, so let's do another round of bombings and incursions").  All other explanations make the Israeli leadership look even worse.

    by corvo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM PDT

    •  It's clear that Israel

      is supremely unconcerned by the Qassam rockets (and this is quite understandable - they cause a lot of suffering to the residents of Sderot, but realistically they pose no major strategic threat to Israel's security). It's not that Israel doesnt know how to respond to the Qassams - it's that Israel keeps deliberately killing Palestinians at regular intervals to keep the Qassams coming. Every time it looks like a ceasefire might be achieved, Israel goes and assasinates some Palestinian militants. Groups like IJ and the AAMB then respond with a few rockets, and Israel launches a massive attack. This pattern has been repeated over and over again. Israel needs an excuse to keep the siege going and, ultimately, to try and topple Hamas, and the Qassams provide that.

      by heathlander on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM PDT

    •  As far as "We don't know what to do", you're righ

      t.  Got any solutions yourself besides trying to defend the parties that continue to abett and encourage these rocket launches, bringing predictable responses on their own people?

      by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:18:21 AM PDT

      •  Christ!

        A whole diary on the rising Hamas poll numbers and the need to DIALOGUE with Hamas, and the only thing you can respond with is:

        Got any solutions?

        Do you even read anymore?

        by weasel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

        •  Figured the diary was just boilerplate

          Dialogue with Hamas, eh?  But they're not launching the rockets, right?

          I mean, you seriously think there haven't been feelers put out their by the least popular PM in Israeli history?  "Seriously guys, how can we get these rockets to stop, everyone hates me".  

          But then... look at these Hamas poll #s they got as a result of fighting with Israel!  Why would they want them to stop?

          by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM PDT

          •  To expand, "dialogue" means crap

            What do you think, have another summit at Aqaba or maybe Camp David, some pictures, handshakes and that'll fix everything?

            What can Israel give Hamas that would incentivize it to stop these rockets from being fired?  What should Israel give Hamas?

            by unfounded on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:08:26 AM PDT

            •  Thank you

              "dialogue" means crap

              There you have it. This is what "Pro-Israel" has come to mean on this site.  Understand that it is a position MASSIVELY to the right of the Israeli population itself, which favors dialogue and a truce.  The Pro-Israelis here on DKos are committed to preventing Israel from reaching a truce that Israelis themselves say they want.  Disgusting.

              by weasel on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:17:15 AM PDT

              •  exactly

                Enemies are for killing, not talking to. And if killing them means killing everyone surrounding them, so be it.

                by heathlander on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM PDT

              •  Great job weas,