Hamas Getting Stronger During Truce

So no surprises here. As anyone who knows anything about Hamas and isn't a Hamas apologist predicted, Hamas has been busy rearming, planting mines, building new and improved missiles, smuggling in better rockets and weapons, consolidating their iron grip on Gaza. I mean it's the A B C's of Islamist rule.

Hamas has been taking advantage of the truce in order to plant mines in wide areas in the Gaza Strip, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin warned the Knesset's Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.

"This is one of the reasons I objected to the ceasefire," he said. "I'm not saying how we should do things, but in order to fight terror we have no choice but to be present in the area."

The Shin Bet chief added that the truce is enabling Hamas to get stronger. They have not abandoned their long-term plans. They were not required to stop the weapons smuggling and return (kidnapped soldier) Gilad Shalit in return, and they have achieved their main goals."

According to Diskin, there is no other way but to control the area. "Ever since Operation Defense Shield, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of terror attacks originating in the West Bank due to the IDF's presence in the area and due to the (separation) fence."

http://www.ynetnews.com/...

Diskin briefed the MKs on the improved rockets produced by the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. He said that Islamic Jihad has independently produced rockets with a 19-kilometer range and that Shin Bet had intelligence indicating that military-grade rockets, whose range is longer, have been smuggled into the territory. Some of those rockets, Diskin added, can reach Ashdod, 30 kilometers away.

Militant groups in the Gaza Strip have also obtained military-grade mortars from Iran, with a range of approximately nine kilometers, Diskin said.

He said there has been no drastic change in Egyptian efforts to prevent arms from being smuggled into the strip. Diskin confirmed, however, that there has been some improvement, but argued that "Egypt accepts the fact that there is smuggling from its territory... [which] is part of the Middle Eastern theater of the absurd.

http://www.haaretz.com/...

Oh and in my diary from yesterday, Young Palestinian Arab Children Taught Terror , I had a discussion with a poster about Hamas corruption. He insisted there was no proof of any. I stated that the top dogs in Hamas want for nothing while they hold the people of Gaza hostage to their glorious uber violent revolution against Israel and anyone with any sense can put two and two together. So what does da Moonman happen onto today, while perusing the latest news.... Yeah, exactly the type of example I was alluding to in that exchange. (the light shines on da MoonMan!)

The sanctions that Israel imposed on the delivery of gasoline were a salient example. The residents of Gaza stopped driving their cars and the fact that it was only Hamas men who had enough gas to enable them to continue driving around, for the first time made them look corrupt.

http://www.haaretz.com/...

moon

•  tip jar

  by Keith Moon on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM PDT

  •  Islam to blame?

    I don't think so.

    That would be like saying Judaism is to blame.

    Wouldn't it?

    by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:52:28 PM PDT

    •  What's that in response to? nt

      by burrow owl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM PDT

      •  In response to

        I mean it's the A B C's of Islamist rule.

        by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM PDT

        •  That quote refers to Islamism, rather than Islam.

          eom

          by burrow owl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM PDT

          •  I don't give a shit how you spin it

            It's still basely offensive.

            by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM PDT

          •  What is Islamism?

            No, seriously?

            by otheruser on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM PDT

            •  You can't look it up?

              I mean, I would, but really?

              by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM PDT

              •  Not the intent of my question.

                I'm quite capable of using the net; thanks for your concern.

                I wanted the poster's definition of Islamism, as many indisputably equate the word with Islamic and Muslim.

                by otheruser on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM PDT

                •  If you equate Islamism with Islam

                  why add the suffix that suggests "Islam as a political ideology"?

                  by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM PDT

                  •  I wanted the poster's definition of Islamism

                    I wanted the poster's definition of Islamism

                    Also, where did you read that I equate Islamism with Islam?

                    The answer is: nowhere.

                    by otheruser on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:14:24 PM PDT

                    •  No no, you said

                      OTHERS equate Islam with Islamism.  I apologize for my informal use of the second person pronoun.

                      If, as you contend, some people "indisputably equate the word with Islamic and Muslim" then why would those people use the word "Islamist"?

                      by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM PDT

            •  Islam is a religion. Islamism entails theocracy.

              Islamism (Arabic: al-'islāmiyya) is a term that denotes a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.

              Hamas (The Islamic Resistance Movement) defines itself in a way that does not separate religion and politics:

              The Islamic Resistance Movement  . . . is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.

              By way of comparison, Hamas distinguishes itself from Palestinian nationalist movements like the PLO:

              Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies.

              That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.

              by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM PDT

        •  So you'd have a problem with

          someone criticizing "the Christian right"?

          by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:21:03 PM PDT

          •  I'd have a problem with saying,

            I mean it's the A B C's of Judaicalistic rule.

            I think that's a bit less straw-manning, thank you.

            by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM PDT

            •  If there were a convention where "Judaicalistic"

              rule meant "fundamentalist & militant Judaic" rule, I don't see why you'd have a problem with it.

              by burrow owl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM PDT

              •  I don't like labeling by religion

                You should just say the Arabs are the Terrorists and the Israelis are God's chosen ones or whatever the Hell they believe.

                Come right out and say it.

                I know that the British soldier I knew who had to go fight "terrorists" in Palestine at the end of WWII didn't mince words about who he meant when he said he battled "terrorists."

                by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM PDT

                •  So you WOULDN'T use the terms

                  "Christian right" or "Evangelical conservative" or "Religious Zionist"?

                  by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM PDT

                  •  If I did, would it be worthy of emulation?

                    Nay.

                    Mostly I just say "wingnut."

                    But if I slipped, and said, "Christian whackjob," it still wouldn't make the original diary acceptable.

                    That would be like these guys in the impeachment hearing today saying how Clinton was actually worse than bush when the impeachable actions of Clinton have no bearing on the impeachable actions of bush.

                    Thanks for the thorough derailing into ad hominem though.

                    I LOVE when it's all about me.

                    by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:30:26 PM PDT

            •  How's about Jewish theocrats?

              Because you'll find me criticizing United Torah Judaism and Shas, etc, as well -- of course, they're not terrorist groups.

              If "Judiacalism" referred to Shas and UTJ, I'd have no problem with a criticism of them, no.

              by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:42:33 PM PDT

              •  What about Big Bullies

                Taking advantage of little underdogs?

                You ever say that?

                Like pickles?

                I don't.

                Isn't it fun to talk about ourselves!!!

                by eroded47095 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM PDT

                •  In the competition to be the underdog . . .

                  ... both the Palestinians and the Israelis can make a strong case, but it's a game for losers. Kneejerk sympathy for either side based on its victimization is hardly a path to resolving their conflict.

                  by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM PDT

    •  but, dontcha know

      if it wasn't for Judaism, there would be no Israel. and, therefore, no Hamas. (end snark)

      by theRoaringGirl on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM PDT

  •  Great diary, Keith

    Thanks for your insight here.

    by oldskooldem on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM PDT

    •  and what exactly is that "insight?"

      Seriously, I'd like to know.  There's nothing here I haven't read elsewhere, and "insight" is something different than that.

      by Aunt Martha on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM PDT

      •  There is nothing about I/P written at dKos ...

        ... that you couldn't read elsewhere. With rare exceptions, the diaries written from all perspectives on those issues are tired regurgitations of the same basic points. If you and others made the same comment you just made every time one of these diaries appeared (regardless of viewpoint), we might be spared some of these unproductive and distracting discussions on the topic that seems most likely to divide this community.

        by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM PDT

•  Yep

  Additional Headline:  Israel Also Getting Stronger During Truce

  Looks like peace is good for everyone.  I hope it lasts.  

  by weasel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:52:46 PM PDT

  •  It won't

    It will dissolve once Hamas launches another of its terrorist attacks.  Hamas's idea of a truce is not the same as a Westerner's idea.  To us, a truce is a ceasefire .... period, no ands, ifs or buts.  Hamas sees a truce as a chance to recuperate, regain strength, rearm, and then attack once they feel sufficiently recovered.

    by TLS66 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:12:12 PM PDT

    •  "Westerner's idea"?

      Er, I think you mean Israeli idea...

      Or are you somehow equating all Westerners as Israelis? Sounds a tad racist.

      by otheruser on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM PDT

      •  Actually, I think Israelis know

        exactly what this ceasefire means.  "Westerners" would be American and European observers.  They may get the false sense that this truce is an overture towards peace.

        by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM PDT

        •  That's exactly what I meant

          Not Israelis, but US and EU observers, not to mention our own media.  Our pols and media celebrate each truce as if it's a new beginning.

          by TLS66 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM PDT

    •  Do you mean that Israel

      has not been increasing its military strength during this period of time?

      by Aunt Martha on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM PDT

      •  I'm sure it has

        with the intent to defend against the inevitable Hamas attack.  To borrow from the late Golda Meir, the only way it will stop is when Hamas and like-minded groups love their children more than they hate Israel.

        by TLS66 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM PDT

        •  or perhaps Hamas is strengthening itself

          against the inevitable Israeli attack?  There's plenty of blame and hatred on both sides, you know.

          by Aunt Martha on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:10:31 PM PDT

  •  I tend to think you alternate headline is

    actually true, but the "peace is good for everyone" mischaracterizes the current ceasefire.  It's not peace.

    Hamas is rearming, and Israel is also strengtening in the sense it is likely exploiting its intelligence assets and the unpopularity of Hamas in Gaza (and resurgence in popularity of Fatah there.)

    Neither Israel nor Hamas have the intention of making this ceasefire last.

    by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM PDT

    •  What are you disagreeing with?

      You think peace is bad?  Or you don't think it's actually "peace" if there will again be war in the future?

      That is a disgustingly distanced viewpoint.  Peace is very good, even if it isn't permanent.  The people who AREN'T being killed this week would, I'm sure, disagree with your take that this peace doesn't really count because it isn't permanent.  

      by weasel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM PDT

      •  No, I don't think this ceasefire is peace

        A lull in the action in a prolonged war isn't a move to peace in and of itself, and neither side appears to be making moves to peace.

        The people of Europe in 1940 weren't necessarily the beneficiaries of the lull in action, even if they weren't getting killed that week.

        by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM PDT

        •  Fair enough

          Certainly no one is required to agree with me.  You, Keith, and a few others are against a truce, ceasefire, temporary peace, or however else you like to call it.

          You are now, to most reasonable people, more extremist than Hamas.  

          by weasel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

          •  I'm more extrmeist than Hamas

            because I believe real moves should be made toward peace rather than ceasefires intended by both sides to provide space for rearming and preparations for broader conflict?

            by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM PDT

•  You care about mines because of the children

  accidently stepping on them right?  Or are you worried that Israeli's will be killed by mines in Gaza?  If the IDF stays out of Gaza you don't have to worry about the mines hurting anyone will you?  

  by michlawa2 on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM PDT

  •  IF

    Hamas stops sending rockets into Israel then Gaza won't have to worry about the IDF coming into Gaza

    by ASC on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:11:18 PM PDT

    •  if Israel

      didn't occupy Gaza, then maybe they wouldn't have to worry about being shot!

      by pacified on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM PDT

  •  Don't we all care about landmines ?

    Antipersonnel mines cannot be aimed: they do not distinguish between the footfall of a soldier or a child.
    They lie dormant until a person or animal triggers their detonating mechanism.
    Then, landmines kill or injure civilians, soldiers, peacekeepers and aid workers alike.

    Once there is peace most soldiers will be demobilized and give in their guns, mines however don't recognize a cease-fire.

    They are a danger to the people of Gaza, probably more so than to the IDF. With a worldwide effort underway to ban landmines, it seems petty to focus on who the diarist cares about more. New landmines are bad news anywhere.

    by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:08:59 PM PDT

•  Uri Avnery

  Here's what Uri Avnery has to say about Hamas.

  It is said that Hamas was created by Israel. Is that true?

  Israel did not "create" Hamas, but it certainly helped it along in its initial stages.

  During the first 20 years of the occupation, the Israeli leadership saw the PLO as its chief enemy. That's why it favored Palestinian organizations that, it was thought, could undermine the PLO. One example of this was Ariel Sharon's ludicrous attempt to set up Arab "village leagues" that would act as agents of the occupation.

  The Israeli intelligence community, which in the last 60 years has failed almost every time in forecasting events in the Arab world, also failed this time. They believed that the emergence of an Islamic organization would weaken the secular PLO. While the military administration of the occupied territories was throwing into prison any Palestinian who engaged in political activity – even for peace – it did not touch the religious activists. The mosque was the only place where Palestinians could get together and plan political action.

  This policy was, of course, based on a complete misunderstanding of Islam and Palestinian reality.

  Hamas was officially founded immediately after the outbreak of the first Intifada at the end of 1987. The Israeli Security Service (known as Shabak or Shin Bet) handled it with kid gloves. Only a year later did it arrest the founder, Sheik Ahmad Yassin.

  It is ironic that the Israeli leadership is now supporting the PLO in the hope of undermining Hamas.

  http://www.antiwar.com/...

  by William Domingo on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:01:51 PM PDT

  •  They arrested the founder

    within a year of Hamas' founding and this is used as evidence that Israel "helped it along" and "handled it with kid gloves"?  OK ....

    by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM PDT

    •  arrested the founder

      I don't know the time-line exactly, but I think they immediately let him go. Do you know who Sheik Ahmad Yassin was? He's was the so called "Blind Sheik" who they finally killed with a rocket, but not until 2004. They "let" him do his thing for a long, long time. Uri Avnery (do you know who he is?) said it was because they wanted him to cause trouble for the PLO.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      by William Domingo on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM PDT

      •  And Arafat died of natural causes

        And they didn't arrest him with decades of opportunity.  Does that mean Israel was "handling the PLO with kid gloves"?

        by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM PDT

        •  didn't arrest him with decades of opportunity

          Decades of opportunity? I thought they were trying to arrest or kill Arafat for decades (while he was outside the country). He wasn't allowed to return until 1994 because of a peace deal agreement. Anyway, you're going to have to argue with Uri Avnery about this. He's the one who says when Hamas (and other Muslim groups) were formed, they were handled with "kids gloves".

          by William Domingo on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:24:05 PM PDT

          •  I am disputing Averny's account, yes

            And sorry for saying "decades" when I should have said "over a decade."

            by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM PDT

      •  For the sake of accuracy..

        ..Israel arrested Yassin in 1989, held him until 1997, when he was freed in a prisonor swap after the failed assasination attempt of Khaled Mashaal in Jordan.

        link

        In 1989, Sheikh Yassin was arrested by the Israelis and sentenced to life imprisonment for ordering the killing of Palestinians who had allegedly collaborated with the Israeli army.

        He was eventually released in 1997, in a trade-off with Jordan for two Israeli agents involved in an assassination attempt on a Hamas leader in Jordan.

        by sofia on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:58:06 PM PDT

•  there seems to be a

  disturbing amount of very broad stroke anti-Islam sentiment here lately.
  re:

  I mean it's the A B C's of Islamist rule.

  or this posted on my recent diary:

  The tryanny over Muslims pales in comparison to the Tryanny over Jews and Christians that exists today in ALL Muslim countries.

  They do have something in common... a legacy of hate, war and murder.
  Some Brotherhood, huh?

  another point of view, even though the cameras were distributed last year, we get the news now:

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

  by educonfidential on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:09:56 PM PDT

  •  Disgusting.

    How the hell do people like that consider themselves progressive?

    Yuck.

    by otheruser on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM PDT

    •  That is a good question.

      How DO people who defend reactionary religious theocrats call themselves progressive?  It's really bizarre.

      I understand the defense of national liberation movements, the defense of cultural tolerance, but the defense of Islamism just doesn't make any sense.

      by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:51:49 PM PDT

      •  Asking for a person's definition of Islamism

        is "defending reactionary religious theocrats"?

        Er, what?

        Eh, forget it, there's no point...

        by otheruser on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM PDT

        •  No, defending Islamists from

          criticism and suggesting Islam is equivalent to Islamism is "defending reactionary religious theocrats."

          I wasn't really referring to your obfuscation, I was responding to other users' explicit defense of Islamism.

          by Anarchofascist on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM PDT

•  hamas

  Hamas represent an occupied people and under International law have every right to resist. I note your concern for children being taught hatred doesn't apply to the Israelis, who steal,murder, and brutally repress Palestinians using god is in the real estate argument and other racist formulations. Did you protest when the Israeli government used snipers-snipers!-against arab Israelis? The Israelis have as much right to self defence as the germans did in Paris in 1940. Only in the US do we get this rubbish where the oppressors are victims and the victims are "terrorists"

  by Anorish on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

  •  I agree with what you say, however you left out

    the fact that under international law hamas is not entitled to carry out, sponsor, or support attacks on civilians as part of the exercise of the rights to which you refer. So long as we agree on that, I think I'm with you.

    by diranuk on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM PDT

    •  diranuk

      Of course, that goes without saying and of course must be applied to Israel as well. My problem is with the focus on the violence of the victims and the lies and distortions about self defense for the occupiers.

      by Anorish on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:38:14 PM PDT

      •  So, are you cool with the Hamas landmines? n/t

        by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:46:56 PM PDT

        •  landmines

          I think the entire focus on the victim's violence is a fraud, probably racist in nature, and a deliberate attempt to distract from the theft of Palestinian land and the murder of its people. The Americans and Europeans do not fund Hamas; they do fund the violence against the Palestinians, so we need to look at the mote in our own eye and stop funding evil.

          by Anorish on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM PDT

          •  Evasive and amoral

            It is possible to focus on both Palestinian suffering (regularly diaried here) and the means of resistance to it. A successful resistance movement does not use methods which invite the condemnation of world opinion. The Palestinian people would have much more support, and Israel less, without the car bombings, suicide bombings, hijackings and rockets.

            Most people are capable of recognizing that there are victims on both sides. But victimization does not excuse every response. If it did, the nation victimized by the 9/11 attacks would be justified in torturing captive members of Al Qaeda - but I think we can all agree that we need to focus on the American response to those attacks as well as the attacks themselves.

            by word is bond on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM PDT

  •  HRed

    for:

    The Israelis have as much right to self defence as the germans did in Paris in 1940.

    False. Despicable.

    by blueness on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 05:57:34 PM PDT

    •  False?

      By what right do the Israelis occupy and steal Palestinian land? Unless you believe God is in the real estate business or holy books are title deeds, the only thing dispicable here is you inability to see the occupation and resistance to it as somehow outside of history. By what right do those heavily armed, racist thugs-often with American accents- colonize the west bank and terrorize its people? It is what it so obviously is, at least in the rational world.

      by Anorish on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:02:08 PM PDT

  •  Over the top

    As someone whose family members distinguished themselves fighting the Nazis, I resent the implied comparison of the French Resistance and the Allied armies with Hamas. Moreover, equating Israel with the Nazis is pretty much an automatic HR. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has something pertinent to say about "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis".

    by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 08:45:26 PM PDT

    •  I'd agree with you except it was a reference

      to the Germans as an occupying power, and resistance in that context.  It wasn't equating Israel with the Nazis.  He should have said, the Russians in post-war Berlin, or the Chinese in Lhasa, or the Russians in '56 Hungary, or the Sioux, or New Hampshire in '76 with "Live Free or Die", or, or, or.  So, yes unfortunate in that regard.

      But isn't the basic point valid that adversarial occupation begets resistance, and violent occupation begets violent resistance?  Your own family history suggests that.

      It seems that that is such a fundamental aspect of human nature that it would suggest an equally obvious and fundamental solution.  While ending the occupation would still leave a lot of residual hate on both sides, the question to me is how to draw down and move toward the objective, in a way that neither side shows "weakness" (an equally fundamental human aversion, imho).

      This truce seems to be one such method of drawing down, despite the dire warnings (though probably fact-based) of the commander of Shin Bet, of all people.  The truce seems to be holding, mostly.  If it does hold all the rearming becomes defensive, maybe even irrelevant.

      Kind of combining two replies in one here.

      by Terra Mystica on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM PDT

      •  The trouble with analogies

        is that they are never perfect and they can head in directions that may not have been intended. They need to be chosen carefully, and of course the Nazi analogy is universally recognized as the most problematic: you simply can't limit it to "occupation" and disregard the context.

        Your alternate suggestions are interesting. Every occupation is unique, and the history of the relationship between Arabs and Jews in the Holy Land is quite different from the others, but there are some significant similarities. The Russian occupation of Hungary shares a common element with Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank: in both cases, the occupation was largely the result of military victory against a third party. Russia in Berlin 1948 shares with Gaza the element of blockade; I wonder if that was on Obama's mind when he wrote his speech. Like the Palestinians, both Tibetans and Sioux are/were challenged by a process of permanent settlement.

        In terms of resistance, which is what Anorish sought to justify, I find little to compare between Hamas and Paris, Berlin, Tibet or Hungary. In none of those cases am I aware of the random, brutal, and self-destructive methods employed by Hamas and some other Palestinian groups, methods that are directed against arbitrary and innocent civilian targets (some of whom are tourists or Arabs themselves). Even the Sioux, who did choose civilian targets, only attacked those who directly infringed on their lands.

        I agree that occupation begets resistance, but circumstance vary. The current situation did not have to develop, and fault lies on both sides. (I'll have to forego several paragraphs of elaboration at least for now.) The bottom line is that violence has not worked either for the Palestinians or the Israelis; it has only invited further violence.  Violence is not the only possible response to violence, and for purely pragmatic reasons they need to find a different path. I criticize Hamas not only on moral grounds, but also for lack of wisdom in pursuing a counterproductive strategy.

        I therefore mostly agree with your third and fourth paragraphs. While I don't believe Hamas wants peace enough to accept a permanent two state solution, and I don't believe Israel will ever agree to a solution acceptable to Hamas, I also think the Palestinian and Israeli peoples want peace enough to reach an  outcome they could adopt and implement with the right leadership. The truce may be a ruse, but it is worth trying and as you say it may lead to a condition of peace beyond the intentions or expectations of the parties.

        The challenge is how to draw down with security assured and dignity intact. Both Israel and the Palestinians will eventually have to delimit their territorial objectives and find ways to assure each other of security and honor.

        by word is bond on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:50:18 AM PDT

        •  Quibble here. Quibble there, but yeah, mostly

          agree.

          I think the big divide comes here:

          While I don't believe Hamas wants peace enough to accept a permanent two state solution, and I don't believe Israel will ever agree to a solution acceptable to Hamas,...

          My belief is almost the complete opposite of that.  I don't believe that Israel wants peace enough to truly take steps and risks that would slow or stop the creation of willing martyrs, or at least advance the cause of Palestinian normalcy as a counterforce.  I think that Hamas does want some form of permanent cease-fire. I don't think they are blind to the way the people of Gaza live.  I could elaborate here as well, but basically it's that zero tolerance is not a risk.  

          I'm not sure the current Israeli government wants a successful "sovereignty for peace" model with the Palestinians in Gaza because it would empower Hamas and adversely affect (the peace clock would be ticking) their interests in the WB.

          So basically, imho, they both are in the throes of a less than zero sum situation seamed with antagonistic sub-interests.  Both [We both] seem to intellectually see the need to stop the violence and get on with it, but neither side seems to be able to stop "tickling the dragon."  It's kind of like watching "Moby Dick" play out right before our eyes. And as you say it's minority elements within both sides that cause the problems.

          That's why I think this truce should be latched onto as a positive with all the force both sides can muster. It should not be treated with a yawn.  It's a break in the insanity that is really the only opportunity for peace that we have now. It should be treated as if it is the only opportunity they/we will ever have, because sooner or later that will be true.

          My fear is that it is coming sooner.

          Peace.

          by Terra Mystica on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:23:51 AM PDT

        •  I left out maybe the most important point, which

          was the question of how the way I view the conflict and the way you view the conflict can be, oh, "dovetailed"  (I'm not sure of the right word, but it's not reconciled, too rainbowish, and it's not merged, too indistinct).  Maybe entrained with a common fact set.  

          I dunno, but I always get the feeling that something's missing in these threads that is sitting right in front of everyone in plain sight.  Same in the region.  Some tangible mutual benefit or something.  Anyway, it's not wise to ramble on this issue in public.  Time for sleep.

          by Terra Mystica on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:55:14 AM PDT

          •  I don't mean to be a pessimist

            and I think your analysis is mostly sound. Your point that zero tolerance is not taking a risk is an important insight. Neither side seems to be able to exercise much forebearance when provoked, which may reflect the power of the more extremist sub-groups.

            If there is a viewpoint that obviously divides the two of us, it is our trust in the ability or willingness of one side or the other to reach a peaceful resolution. If I am right that the great majority of Palestinians and Israelis yearn for peace, lack of trust is perhaps also the principle stumbling block in the region.

            It is indeed difficult in these threads to reach a point where the discussion is productive, and I agree that there must be a missing piece that entails mutual benefit.

            Perhaps a major and immediate internationally-financed program of economic development for the occupied territories (or at least the West Bank if the political obstacles in Gaza are too great) would empower the forces for peace and mutual cooperation. Clearly, too, there should be demonstrable and significant progress in Israel's withdrawal of settlements that are not near the Green Line.

            To induce Israelis to get used to the risks they will perceive in such measures, some reciprocal concessions would be necessary. Perhaps the most significant contribution that Palestinian leaders could offer at least cost would be (1) a firm commitment not to challenge Israel's continued existence within borders to be agreed upon in negotiations that use the 1967 lines as the default, and (2) a change of rhetoric and a modification of educational programs so that Israelis will not feel that future generations are being indoctrinated to work for their destruction.

            I want to believe that both Israelis and Palestinians are capable of finding leaders who can reach a peaceful resolution. I don't think it can be as quick and easy as some American presidents seem to think in the final year of their term of office. Bargaining just doesn't work that way in the Middle East, there is too much at stake, and the internal politics are too challenging.

            Perhaps, as you say, Hamas is capable of being pragmatic and preserving a de facto peace without stepping away from its current ideology. In that case, much will depend on Egypt's willingness to establish extensive relations with Gaza. In any case, we should all give the truce credibility and hope that it lasts.

            On the Israeli side, I am more optimistic than you are. I think the Israeli people are experiencing something like a torture of a million cuts: every time they ride a bus, go to a market or cafe, or head for school they must have the same feelings as an American might experience walking at night in a crime-ridden urban neighborhood. Except for fringe groups, Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to accept narrow boundaries and withdraw from occupied territory in the past, and under the right conditions I think they can do so again. For many reasons, it just doesn't make sense for Israel to have a long term wish to continue occupying the West Bank and Gaza, and I think they know that they are incapable of achieving it even if they wished it.

            Well, I have come back to this thread after a delay and I don't really expect an answer. I just thought I would ramble a little as an expression of respect for your two comments.

            by word is bond on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:49:32 AM PDT

•  So, are you proposing....genocide?

  Because that's the logical conclusion devolving from your assumptions. If Hamas commands broad support from Palestinians in Gaza (and it does), if they are irredeemably wedded to violence and if a "truce" is only a feint by Hamas to permit further preparations for "terrorism", then what's your solution? After forty years of increasingly brutal Israeli occupation, perhaps Hamas' maximalist violence is a logical position. I'm not saying for a minute I agree with that, but there's some demented logic to it.

  So, are you advocating carpet-bombing of Gaza until all the Palestinians are dead? I mean, why not just use poison gas and be done with it? Otherwise, the solution would appear to be for Israel to, you know, actually honor their end of negotiated agreements, stop encouraging & facilitating Palestinian corruption, and start treating Palestinians like human beings rather than rats in a cage.

  by Ralphdog on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM PDT

  •  What does Hamas propose?

    Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it

    That's the second paragraph of the Hamas covenant.

    You are wrong that the logical conclusion in the face of Hamas' "maximalist violence" (your phrase) is to retaliate with maximum violence. The logical conclusion is to step back, look for Palestinian leaders who have the willingness and ability to achieve a peaceful solution, and hope that the Palestinian people will support that approach.  There is no reason to believe that the great majority of Palestinians prefer continual conflict under current conditions as compared to living in peace and dignity in a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

    by word is bond on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM PDT

•  That's just a bunch of war propaganda:

  Hamas has been taking advantage of the truce in order to plant mines in wide areas in the Gaza Strip, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin warned the Knesset's Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.

  "This is one of the reasons I objected to the ceasefire," he said. "I'm not saying how we should do things, but in order to fight terror we have no choice but to be present in the area."

  The Shin Bet chief added that the truce is enabling Hamas to get stronger. They have not abandoned their long-term plans. They were not required to stop the weapons smuggling and return (kidnapped soldier) Gilad Shalit in return, and they have achieved their main goals."

  Why do you blindly believe one person's word for it? You should know quite well that truth is the first casualty in war.

  by Eternal Hope on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM PDT

  •  It is broadly true, of course,

    that Hamas is using the truce to get stronger.  So is Israel (which is importing all kinds of arms constantly).  Otherwise, neither party would have signed it.

    The question is, is it meaningful?  Not really.  Neither party has or will have the ability to destroy the other.  Thus, neither will have a real military solution.

    So Keith posts an entirely meaningless diary.  Several folks have responded, like the person who noted that Israel helped Hamas get its start, with fairly meaningless points (it's true, but so what?).

    That leaves the rest of us to issue meaningless commentary about the meaningless comments.

    Lots being said and none of it worth much.  I'm glad it's friday.  

    by weasel on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 02:57:43 PM PDT

    •  it is even more non-sensical

      To wit, Diskin alleges activities like smuggling and clandestine rocket construction that do not require ceasefire.

      Not that it ever happened that a head of an intelligence agency was presenting tall tales of informants as "the truth".

      by Piotr on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM PDT

  •  Colin Powell II

    Well even worse than that as the head of the Shin Bet admits he has a personal agenda against the cease fire which his government agreed. Now he presents unsubstantiated or dubious claims (like Powell) to ramp up the tension and undermine the agreement.

    Rather more to the point, if the Israeli government negotiators agreed this in the knowledge of his reservations and still went ahead, they are really stupid and easily duped. Is that what Moon is claiming about the current Israeli administration?

    Without details it is impossible to comment. If these are supposed to be anti-personnel mines, I would condemn it in exactly the same way I condemn the Israelis for dropping cluster munitions which turn into these when they fail to explode. There are still reservations if they are anti-tank mines but these are much less likely to cause civilian injury.

    The statement could also be softening up the Israeli public for losses during a planned incursion into Gaza. These mines would then be blamed for the tank losses but Al Jazeera recently had a documentary on how the weaknesses of the main Israeli battle tank, the Merkava, to guerilla attack have been discovered. These weaknesses and the willingness of fighters to engage them at very close quarters appear to have been the main reason for the defeat in Lebanon.

    Since it was first produced in 1979, Israel's Merkava tank has gained a formidable reputation as one of the world's best-protected fighting machines.

    Yet, in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah guerrillas in Southern Lebanon shattered this image.

    In just over a month 49 of Israel's home-produced Merkava tanks – the symbol of the Jewish state's military prowess – were reported damaged or destroyed.

    Moon's latest effort no doubt is to demonize Hamas to poison people's minds. There is currentlya wave of violence and bombings in Gaza against Hamas targets which are being blamed on militants from Fatah. That is the "ruling" party which is being promoted by the Israelis and the USA as part of their "counter terrorist" efforts.

    On the other hand, it may well be to divert attention from yesterday's report by the UN  Relief and Works Agency about the worsening conditions in Gaza. He would, no doubt, point out that they only have themselves to blame for voting for Hamas in the usual tactic of blaming the victim for their plight.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:20:54 PM PDT

•  It's true, I saw Hamas at the gym yesterday

  Their bench press is really coming along.

  by The Red Pen on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM PDT

  •  and poor, wimpy Israel can only lift pencils

    I mean, really.

    by Aunt Martha on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:28:32 PM PDT

•  More Moon Lies

  In case anyone is wondering, the negative references in his diary to "Hamas apologist" and the remarks about corruption now added;

  are in directed at me following his inability to justify this statement in his diary yesterday.

  I like the insinuation that Hamas is somehow not corrupt tho. They hold their people hostage cause they launch thousands of rockets into Israel,play thier little kill an innocent Israeli civilain game, but the Hamas leadership feels no pain. They've got direct access t0 that Iranian cash pipeline. The top fuckers in Hamas are every bit as corrupt as Fatah. It's all a sham. All propaganda.

  Challenged to provide proof of this he was unable to do so but now provides a statement by the head of the Shin Bet that Hamas members were the only ones with fuel (again not substantiated) and this "made them look corrupt." You will realize that the alleged use of gasoline hardly compares to his claims that:

  billions upon billions of dollars were stolen from the Palestinian people, spent on useless warfare against Israel and pissed down the drain for decades.

  My response was that the people of Palestine had voted for Hamas to a large extent because of the corruption within Fatah.Diskin himself admits in the Haaretz article Moon links to:

  Hamas is stronger than Fatah, and if a joint "government of experts" is set up, its status will increase even more. Had Israel not arrested, after Gilad Shalit was kidnapped, Hamas' parliament members and ministers in the West Bank, Fatah would no longer be in charge of the PA in the West Bank.

  That's not the sort of reaction that results from a population believing that a party is corrupt. Hard luck Keith, not even close and no cigar!

  by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM PDT

  •  There's little doubt that Hamas

    is less corrupt than Fatah, and significantly less corrupt than the Israeli government. But this is, in any case, a non-issue for us. Palestinian corruption is an internal Palestinian matter - it's a problem for them to deal with. For us to start lecturing Palestinians on "corruption" even as we facilitate a military occupation that is systematically destroying their country truly plummets new depths of moral perversion in the service of power.

    by heathlander on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM PDT

    •  There is cause

      when aid given to improve the lot of the people is diverted into the hands of corrupt officials (see also Iraq). Moon claimed large scale corruption of that sort was happening within the leadership of Hamas but provided and continues to provide no evidence for this in accordance with the site rules.

      by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM PDT