In the Arena

What is Israel’s Game?

Under normal circumstances, as our colleague Andrew Butters reports here, the assassination of Hamas arms supplier Mahmoud al-Mabhouh would be seen as Middle East tradecraft as usual–if a bit clumsily done, since the assassins used the passports of actual Israelis with British, Irish and French dual citizenship and since the Mossad clearly underestimated the sleuthing capacity of the Dubai police. Mabhouh was a legitimate target, the killer of many Israelis…but one has to wonder about the timing.

Why kill Mabhouh now, at a moment of relative tranquility between Israel and the Palestinians? No doubt, the opportunity to kill your enemy’s arms supplier doesn’t come along that often–but this hit may well occasion a violent reaction from Hamas, which is feeling increasingly frustrated under the yoke of the Israeli siege in Gaza, breaking the cease fire that now exists between the parties (although, Palestinians could argue, with justification, that the assassination did precisely that).

And then there’s this: Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement that two historical (actually, mythical) landmarks on the West Bank, in Hebron and Bethlehem, would be added to Israel’s official register of historic sites. The announcement caused some rock-throwing in Hebron yesterday…and one has to wonder why, with the West Bank Palestinians making a good faith effort on security, governance and economic development, would Bibi want to poke this finger in their eye at this particular moment? It is redolent of Ariel Sharon’s 2000 walk on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which provoked the Second Intifada. And in this case, since the landmarks are well within Palestinian territory, it is an illegal international encroachment–sort of like Greece naming the ruins of Troy, which are in Turkey, as a national historical site (although, in fairness, the Arab refusal to acknowledge Jewish historical sites like the Western Wall and other abundant evidence of Jewish presence in the region dating back at least 3000 years is infuriating and ridiculous).

The choice of Abraham’s alleged burial place in Hebron seems a purposeful outrage. The Tomb of the Patriarch is revered by Muslims and Jews alike; it was the site of a famous massacre of Muslim worshipers, carried about by a Jewish settler named Baruch Goldstein in 1994. And Hebron remains the site of the most egregious Israeli settlement–400 fanatics, many of them Americans, plopped in the middle of an Arab city of 500,000, guarded by 4000 Israeli soldiers, their presence causing roadblocks that force some Hebronites to detour as much as 8 kilometers to get from one side of a central neighborhood to the other.

Israel is in a commanding position at the moment. Netanyahu is without any significant political opposition. The Palestinians are divided, between Hamas–which was crushed in the Israeli campaign against Gaza last year–and Fatah, which controls the West Bank. But it is an interesting moment as well: the Palestinians have pretty much ceased aggressive actions against the Israelis. For the first time in the 30 years that I’ve been following this story, the Palestinians are making a good faith effort to govern themselves effectively–the subject of my print column this week–on the West Bank. Which means that the Israelis–who have made most of the good faith efforts toward peace in the past–are increasingly seen as the primary obstacle to a two-state solution, especially given the presence of right-wing fanatics in Netanyahu’s government who are completely opposed to any sort of deal.

And so, the question: Are Bibi’s recent actions calculated to provoke the Palestinians? Does he want to prove to the world that you still can’t trust those volatile Arabs? I mean, if he were really caught up in historicity, he might propose a tripartite commission–Muslim, Christian and Jew–to establish the mutual designation of historic sites on both sides of the green line. But I have a sneaking feeling that this isn’t about historicity at all.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • spob

    Screw the timing. You get a chance to whack a guy who killed your citizens, you do it. Every single time.

  • Joe Klein

    Ok, spob–I acknowledged that. But what about the historic sites?

  • square1

    Normally I would say that you should never underestimate Netanyahu’s ability to undermine the peace process, but I am inclined to agree with spob that “target of opportunity” theory is most probable.

  • spob

    there are certain things that arent negotiable–and thats that. people learn to adjust.
    .
    and joe, perhaps you ought to mention the 1929 hebron pogrom . . . .

  • trifecta55

    The answer is that Bibi is an a-hole. He wants a permanent state of war, because fear is what generates power for Likud. If he gets more rock throwers, he gets more votes.
    .
    Sort of like the relationship between W and Osama which was mutually beneficial for several years.
    .
    The hardliners in Palestine should send Bibi flowers.

  • afguy

    …and one has to wonder why, with the West Bank Palestinians making a good faith effort on security, governance and economic development, would Bibi want to poke this finger in their eye at this particular moment?
    .
    To demonstrate that he has the power to do so. And, as the same time, to demonstate that, once again, there will be no substantial criticism from the US for those actions.
    .
    You don’t demonstrate power by going along with what everyone admits is the prudent thing to do. Go against the grain… then stick your tongue out at everyone else.

  • Jonathan Evans

    Spob, Hebron is located deep within the territory that would be part of a future Palestinian state. You’re right that it’s not negotiable; it’s not a negotiable part of a two state solution. It is a Palestinian city, through and through. I’ll grant you your rationale about killing the arms dealer, but the historical sites issue is egregious and provocative. Joe Klein’s argument is convincing about that point.

  • afguy

    That’s over 80 years ago, spob. Are you implying that this is somehow payback for that?
    .
    And you forgot to include that some of the Arab citizens hid Jews in their own houses then to save their lives…
    .
    Think that would be done today?

  • http://www.compuduck.com/cardcomp/ Steve Stein

    This is incidental to your point Joe, but your statement “It is redolent of Ariel Sharon’s 2000 walk on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which provoked the Second Intifadah” is sloppy and false. Even Marwan Barghouti says that the 2000 Intifada was going to happen in October:

    http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-16.htm

  • northpoleresident

    I understand the assasination, these things happen all the time all over the globe. However the historic sites are perplexing. These are established palestinian territories.
    .
    It seems Isreal does not understand the radicalization of the palestinian youth inside of Gaza and even the West Bank. Isreal seems to believe they can just close their eyes to the suffering and pretend it isnt happening. Maybe to the benefit of short term politicians but in the long run the radical youth will grow up and become the next generation of Hamas or whatever resistence group. The children who have seen their mothers, brothers and sisters slaughtered by Isreali forces who deliberatly targeted civilians in Gaza will have lifeless eyes and no remorse. What a sad situation.
    .
    As an Iranian American I usually have little sympathy for the arab nations in that region. To me it seems they have chosen not to move ahead and progress with the rest of the world and they wonder why they are behind and why their governments are taken advantage of by western countries. Many arabs will never be happy with any land owned by Isreal no matter what Isreal concedes. In this respect Isreal must go ahead and take care of its own business. As the more mature and develped nation they must take the lead in making sure that the suffering is not later transformed into radicalism.

  • afguy

    Sounds like we’re not the ONLY ones who “need” enemies…

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Which means that the ,b>Israelis–who have made most of the good faith efforts toward peace in the past–are increasingly seen as the primary obstacle to a two-state solution…
    ~
    Say what? These Israeli good faith efforts, would they happen to include the Palestinian concession of 78% of the original British Mandate of Palestine over to Israel in 1993? What about the Israeli “offer” in 2000 that the Palestinians accept only 86% of that remaining 22%? The Palestinians rightfully rejected this, but of course, this was an Israeli “good faith effort,” right, not a proverbial slap in the face? (Israeli PM Shlomo Ben-Ami, “If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.”) What about Israeli PM Barak’s rejection of and recoil from the talks in Taba, Egypt? What about the Arab League initiative, by far the largest and most important good faith effort made by any side in the history of the conflict?

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Swampland commentators:
    ~
    Israel in one word, your thoughts?
    ~
    I’ll start it off.
    .
    Liability.

  • spob

    Ah, so Israel has to accept the results of a pogrom? Fine. Then, I guess Arabs have to accept the realities of wars they started.

  • maverick2k9

    Apartheid

    Because it reminds me of the situation that prevailed in South Africa for a long time.

  • afguy

    Frustrating – for obvious reasons.

  • afguy

    Ruthless.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    What exactly is your point here, Spob? You wrote that certain things are not negotiable and people must learn to adjust. So, Israel’s decision to classify Hebron, indisputably Palestinian land, as an Israeli national site is not negotiable? Why? Because there was an incident in 1929? What about the “incidents” that occurred in Arab villages, most of which are within the widely accepted borders of current day Israel? Should Israelis just accept that the Arabs are going to lay claim to those now? Should the Israelis simply learn to adjust? I didn’t think so. Israelis don’t have to adjust, right, just those dirty, uncivilized Arabs…

  • afguy

    spob,
    .
    THAT made even less sense than usual. What is Israel accepting? Are you saying that their actions today are justified based on something that happened 80+ years ago?
    .
    Did you miss the fact that some of the Arabs worked to save the Jews during that event? Can you see any of the current Israelis working to help the Arabs today in Gaza?
    .
    Or does that part not fit in with your pre-determined Israel = good, Arabs = bad theme?

  • afguy

    Don’t worry, spob… I’m not going to insult you by accusing you of “intellectual consistency” in your argument. You’re safe.

  • discostu570

    And if the Palestinians see an opportunity to strike at a high value Israeli target, would that also be something other than undermining the peace process?
    .
    The kindest thing you can say about Israel’s actions is that it’s at least possible that provoking increased violence wasn’t their intent. Even if that’s the case, they’re guilty of undermining the peace process. A cease-fire is meaningless if one side continues to kill (it doesn’t, after all, mean “only fire if the opportunity is just too sweet”).
    .
    Some comments have referred to this as a display of power, but I don’t think that goes far enough. Israel doesn’t flex it’s muscles to scare Palestine, it uses it’s muscle to put the squeeze on Palestine, on an almost daily basis. There’s a big difference between the threat of force and the ongoing use of force.

  • kbanginmotown

    …Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia…

  • kbanginmotown

    What about the Spanish Inquisition?

  • kbanginmotown

    The-scrappy-younger-brother-whom-you-love-but-wish-to-God-would-stop-picking-fights-with-all-the-guys-in-the-neighborhood-who-don’t-like-him-because-he-looks-different

  • afguy

    Hi, kbang!
    .
    I thought that was “Christian-on-Christian” violence…
    .
    Did the Jews and Arabs manage to get in on that funfest too?

  • afguy

    Sneaky, kbang…. VERY sneaky…

  • Cliff

    I second Exile’s term.

  • rdw56

    Joe writes “Israelis–are increasingly seen as the primary obstacle to a two-state solution… in every other article about the Middle East since he’s been at Time.

  • kbanginmotown

    Speaker-to-Furniture, how are you?
    .
    ‘fraid the Inquisition was an equal opportunity funfest doled out by the Catholic Church, with special attention to Jews and Muslims (Link).
    .
    Of course, Mel Brooks provided the Cliff Notes summary:

  • kbanginmotown

    Actually, afguy,
    .
    I was trolling for Monty Python fans to reply thusly:
    .

  • afguy

    kbang,
    .
    Thanks for the education on the Inquisition.
    .
    I find either Mel Brooks OR Monty Python to be a perfectly acceptable response to any political question.
    .
    Think we could hire them (at least the ones still with us) to provide the needed clarity to the Health Care Debate?
    .
    They COULDN’T make it any more ridiculous…

  • kbanginmotown

    Rules? What rules? ;)

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    ‘fraid the Inquisition was an equal opportunity funfest doled out by the Catholic Church, with special attention to Jews and Muslims.
    ~

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    …Ah, nevermind.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Not today, pal. Please.

  • kbanginmotown

    afguy,
    .
    re: Israel’s Game & Inquisition. Silliness aside, my point was that we could play the “he started it” game ad infinitum. It’s time to move forward.
    .
    re: HCR & humor. Some folks are trying to point out the ridiculous. Not up to Python standards, but it’s a start:

  • sasquatch08

    I’m going to have to defend spob on this one despite some inconsistencies in his statements. All of this talk about Israel getting back at the Arabs for something that happened 80 years ago being ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
    .
    We may think that 80 years is long enough to let things go but honestly in the Middle East that’s simply not true. Many of the arguments between the Jews and Palestinians are over religious debates that go back hundreds or even thousands of years. Personally I find both sides infuriatingly stubborn. That said I generally support Israel here because I have never heard any member of the Israeli government talk of pushing the Palestinians “into the sea” which the Arabs have said for years. (And which Israel is fully capable of doing should they choose to.) Further, while many people whine that the Israeli’s are unfairly targeting civilians, it’s not true. The simple fact is that in wars civilians unfortunately get caught in the middle and this situation is no different. The difference between the Israelis and Hamas or Hezbollah is that the Arab groups target civilians intentionally as well as the use of indiscriminate attacks that hit mainly civilians. Lots of people complain about the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the West Bank, but it has been proven again and again that many of the people bringing in “humanitarian aid” are also smuggling weapons to groups like Hamas. Ships of supplies from Europe have been stopped with thousands of tons of medical supplies and food but also have been found to have hundreds of tons of weapons on board.
    .
    To me, none of this is surprising, it’s a violent chess match in one of the most violent places on earth. Personally I find the restraint Israel has shows in the last 10 years amazing, and I couldn’t care less if they designate sights this way or that just to anger the Palestinians. The Palestinians have shown themselves to be sheep, easily corralled by the likes of Hamas or the PLO under Arafat, groups and people who intentionally starve their own people to gain political capital on the world stage when they blame big bad Israel for massive refugee camps which the Palestinians set up and in some cases were caught not allowing their own people to leave. Mainly because the worse the situation in the camp the more sympathy they get for their cause from the international community which is easily suckered by news broadcasts about the “terrible plight of the poor Palestinians” and never give a thought to the idea that maybe, just maybe Hamas and the PLO are playing them for the suckers that they are. These groups also hide among the civilian population, so taking them out without causing civilian casualties is virtually impossible.
    .
    The Arabs started the wars that lost them the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights. As such I have no sympathy for them when they whine that Israel is somehow oppressing them and want me to forget or ignore the fact that they launched wars intended to destroy Israel and annihilate the Jews living there. We can argue for days about the way Israel was set up after WWII and what would have been smart or not so smart, but the fact remains that the Arabs were the aggressors in these wars and I would not expect Israel to forget that it fights a daily battle not for territorial integrity but for survival of its state and its people. As I said before the patience Israel has shown is amazing. Many people, myself included, at times would have been tempted to raze all of Gaza and the West Bank, chase out the Muslims, take back the Dome of the Rock etc. Would I actually have done this, no, but I would have been tempted. You can call intentionally launching missiles at civilians what you want; but to me it is one thing and one thing only: terrorism. It is a vile and despicable act which should be stopped, if necessary by killing those who propagate it, provide support for it or harbor those who do.

    My one word: Pragmatic.

  • stuartzechman

    Can you see any of the current Israelis working to help the Arabs today in Gaza?
    .
    Actually, there are many Israelis concerned with human rights, and the abuses of their government. There’s a more honest conversation about these things in the Israeli press than exists here.
    .
    It’s wrong to cast an entire nation of people in this fashion, regardless of what kind of atrocities the Likud party endorses.

  • stuartzechman

    “Foreign”

  • maverick2k9

    sas, which world do you live in? About Israel not targetting civilians – There are multiple instances when IDF snipers have taken out unharmed civilians; not just Palestinians,but a few British nationals and UN aid workers too.
    .
    And if you want to go back in time (like spob), How about the Deir Yassin massacre?
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

  • greuven

    I’ve been following the Swampland gang of commenters for a while with a combination of amusement and consternation, but I feel that I have to weigh in on this particular issue.

    I’ll start with Joe Klein’s post: There’s no question that decisions made by the Israeli government frequently leave me scratching my head (or banging it against the computer screen), whether because of poor timing, lack of foresight, or just plain cluelessness. I, for one, have my doubts as to whether the Dubai hit was in fact Mossad, namely becuase it’s hard to accept that an organization competent enough to carry out such a complex operation could neglect to change the names on forged passports so that they don’t match Israeli citizens. I don’t have a problem that a terrorist arms dealer was assassinated, though doing so in relatively moderate Dubai wasn’t necessarily politically savvy. (On the other hand, why wasn’t there an outcry about the fact that this guy was in Dubai to begin with?)

    In terms of the historic sites, this appears to be a rerun of Bibi’s incomprehensible decision to open the tunnels under the Temple Mount in his first term, leading to an outbreak of violence with dozens dead on both sides: a terrible decision, though the reasoning for those riots was fed by the lie that the tunnel’s purpose was to undermine the foundations of the Al-Aksa mosque. In this case, Israel has no justification for claiming ownership of sites which are in territories it occupies, which makes this decision mind-bogglingly idiotic. However, it has been overlooked that the purpose of this list of sites includes distribution of funds to maintain and improve access to these sites. Where Joe Klein errs is in belittling the connection that religious Jews feel to these sites (he may believe that they are mythical, but they certainly don’t). He certainly wouldn’t disagree that as long as the West Bank is under Israeli control, Israel does have a responsibility to maintain historical sites there. The fact is, there are many meaningful Biblical sites for Jews in the West Bank. To his credit, Klein does acknowledge that Israel has a far better record of respecting and accepting other faiths’ religious sites than the Palestinians or other Arab countries.

    I am very dismayed, however, by the sentiment (and lack of knowledge) in many of the comments to this post. The back and forth between spob and afguy was entertaining, but not very helpful. Yes, the 1929 Hebron Pogrom was tragic, but irrelevant to the situation today. Not because it happened 80 years ago, as afguy suggests. Need I remind afguy that Israel captured the occupied territories 43 years ago? Does that mean we should forget that and move on? I am also appalled that afguy somehow knows that Arabs in Hebron hid Jews from harm in 1929, and yet is unaware of Jewish persecution by the Spanish Inquisition, or of the multitude of Israeli organizations and individuals promoting Palestinian rights and liberties. It seems his knowledge is limited to fit his preconceived narrative.

    Hear, hear, northpoleresid. It is refreshing to hear someone from a Muslim country show understanding for Israel, while recognizing that Israel’s actions can be strategically wrong, and not simply because it is “the evil Zionist entity”. I’m guessing you don’t comment very often, what with your reasonable, moderate point of view and all.

    Exiled, your comment is a wonderful example of someone who sees the world in black and white (and utterly incorrectly). There was no “Palestinian concession of 78%”, because there never was any independent Palestine to conceed. Israel holds the land, and therefore the cards up for negotiation. In Israel, the idea of an independent Palestinian state has gone from a marginal idea to carrying the support of the majority of the Israeli public, including Bibi (in principle, at least). If the Palestinians adhere to your “all or nothing” mentality, both sides can look forward to many more years of violence and suffering.

    There were certainly issues with the negotiations at Camp David between Barak and Arafat, but it’s pretty clear that Arafat rejected his chance to have an actual sovereign Palestinian state in order to chase some pathetic dream of winning one through Jihad and terror. Olmert went even farther than Barak in what he offered to Abbas, and was also turned down. Is Israel blameless for what has transpired in the conflict? Absolutely not! However, it has made many good faith efforts to get closer to resolving the conflict. Unfortunately, the cases of Israel withdrawing from all the territories of Southern Lebanon and Gaza, only to be met with continuing attacks from those areas, has caused the good will of Israelis to shrink significantly.

    Sasquatch08, you make some good points, but if you wish to be effective, you must make sure to be accurate. The 1967 Six Day War in which Israel captured all the territories was actually launched by Israel, as a preemptive strategic strike following troop build-ups by Egypt and Syria in apparent preparation to attack Israel. This is not to say that this was the wrong move on Israel’s part, but it is technically incorrect to say that the Arabs started the war that lost them the territory.

    And maverick2k9, when exactly did IDF snipers take out British nationals and UN aid workers? This is the sort of unabashed anti-Israel statement that makes it so difficult for moderate elements on either side to make progress. Far too many innocents on both sides are killed, and the extremists are only too happy to justify their own sides’ tactics. Rather than trying to one-up spob with your own example of a tragedy (which was, I might add, truly horrific), you should ask yourself which world you live in, where you point fingers at one side but ignore the transgressions of the other.

    Israel in one word: Special (for better or worse)
    The Israeli-Arab conflict in one word: Onion – the more layers you peel back, the more you discover, and it makes you want to cry.

  • michaelfury

    “the more layers you peel back, the more you discover, and it makes you want to cry”

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/

  • michaelfury

    “the opportunity to kill your enemy’s arms supplier doesn’t come along that often”

    True enough:

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/dropping-a-dime/

  • rdw56

    Dershowitz on the Mahmoud al-Mabhouh Killing

    02.24.2010 – 8:40 AM

    As Alan Dershowitz is wont to do, he takes a lawyerly look at whether the killing of Hamas military leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room was legally and morally justified. He assumes, for the sake of argument, of course, that Mossad “did make the hit.”

    On the legal side, he notes that there are certainly extrajudicial killings that are not unlawful. “Every soldier who kills an enemy combatant engages in an extrajudicial killing, as does every policeman who shoots a fleeing felon.” After some analysis, he concludes: “This was not an ordinary murder. It was carried out as a matter of state policy as part of an ongoing war. … Obviously it would have been better if he could have been captured and subjected to judicial justice. But it was impossible to capture him, especially when he was in Dubai.” Well, the “obviously” is debatable, but his conclusion is sound.

    Once Dershowitz considers the moral equation, the fun starts. He’s Dershowitz, after all, so he goes at it:

    The Goldstone Report ordered by the UN Human Rights Council suggests that Israel cannot lawfully fight Hamas rockets by wholesale air attacks. Richard Goldstone, in interviews, has suggested that Israel should protect itself from these unlawful attacks by more proportionate retail measures, such as commando raids and targeted killing of terrorists.

    Well, there could be no better example of a proportionate and focused attack on a combatant who was deeply involved in the rocket attacks on Israel, than the killing of Mabhouh. Not only was he the commander in charge of Hamas’ unlawful military actions, he was also personally responsible for the kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers several years earlier.

    **************************************************
    rdw- Joe laments the killing of a terrorists for it’s bad timing. Bad timing is only possible in the mind of a liberal. What are the chances Joe wrote a post about the bad timing of the killings this maggot ordered?

  • rdw56

    Only a liberal can pervert logic so to blame Sharon for the slaughter of so many innocents in the Infatada. There is no way you can blame Sharon when a maggot staps bombs onto theor bodies and walks onto a school bus to blow up little jewish girls. Only a sick culture can produce such barbarism and only a liberal would try to shift blame.

    Joe is bitter about the infatada and rightly so. It’s been 100% disaster for the Palestinians. Sharon was ushered in as PM and did a brillaint job crushing theterrorists on the West Bank, building the security fence and restoring the Israeli economy to it’s strongest health ever.

    The great irony here is Joe is chagrined because things have been so calm. They’ve been so calm because Sharon and Netanyahu have been doing the exact opposite of whatever Joe recommends.

    Joe as a senior columnist for Time magazine for these many years expected to be treated like Walter Cronkite by now. Instead Time has been shedding readers for a decade and he’s treated as a bufoon in the new media where the reach is so much greater.

    Joe gets the infatada cost him any shot are respected status and all polls show he’s been pissing in the wind. Joe knows whatever he’s write’s about Gaza it’s going to be utterly meaningless. Time is irrelevent. US public opinion is staunchly supportive of Israel.

  • Joe Klein

    Afguy–Unbelievable! You didn’t know the Spanish Inquisition was directed against Jews? For me, this is personal. A significant branch of my family–the Mendozas–were forced to leave Spain in 1492 when the lovely Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from the country. (There was a Mendoza family reunion in Madrid in 1992, which I missed; hoping to make the 600th reunion in 2092.)

  • fhmadvocat

    Israel in one word . . . . . .

    Goliath.

  • afguy

    Nope, I didn’t. Stu gave me an education on that. I went back and looked and think I was confusing the Spanish Inquisition with the Ecumenical version, which WAS more Christian on Christan.
    .
    I appreciate the education – it’s a LOT of the reason I participate in this blog.
    .
    I apologize to you too, Joe. I know how personal a LOT of the discussion and news from that part of the world is to you.

  • afguy

    It’s wrong to cast an entire nation of people in this fashion, regardless of what kind of atrocities the Likud party endorses.
    .
    My apologies on that too, Stu. You are right.

  • nathan7777

    There was no “Palestinian concession of 78%”, because there never was any independent Palestine to conceed.
    .
    Are you serious? This is equivalent to saying that Native Americans weren’t actually displaced from their land because there was never any independent Native American country to leave.
    .
    This is exactly the state of mind that justifies Israeli expansion into Palestinian terroritory. If there never was a Palestine, and the Palestinian people are just a collection of Arabs, then it’s perfectly ok to take land that originally belonged to Jews and now rightfully belongs to Israel.
    .
    Unbelievable.

  • afguy

    I am also appalled that afguy somehow knows that Arabs in Hebron hid Jews from harm in 1929, and yet is unaware of Jewish persecution by the Spanish Inquisition,…
    .
    greuven,
    .
    Let me explain why I knew something about the 1929 event but was in error about the Inquisition.
    .
    I am not Jewish, so that 1929 event is NOT part of my cultural history. What struck me was spob’s use of an event that happened 80+ years ago to rationalize something that happened recently. Something that old would HAVE to be horrific to be useful today as justification. So, when it was first brought up, having no knowledge of the event itself, I Googled it to learn.
    .
    But, NO, greuven, I was NOT suggesting that it be forgotten. Just that, as a moral rationale for a recent military action, it was a stretch.
    .
    My mistake was in thinking that the Inquisition was a simple as I had been taught. It was not – and for that I have apologized. However, a query about “1929 hebron pogrom” will NOT automatically reveal all you need to know about the Inquisition AND current Israeli peace initiatives toward the Arabs as well. I have been keeping up with the J-Street Project in its attempts to balance the influence of AIPAC here.
    .
    What I was comparing was the actions by individual Arabs in 1929 to protect Jewish families with the potential for similar, reciprocal activity by those in and around Gaza today. To wit: would the Jews in that area today be willing to defy the wishes of those around them to protect Palestinians at personal peril? Or are they as polarized as we are? If you believe that they would, I accept your answer.
    .
    My neighbors are Jewish here, believe it or not. My middle son plays with them every day. I respect the IDF and how they accomplish what they do. When I call them ruthless, it is because I know they have to be, not having a large enough populace to wage a long-term war with anyone. But, I also believe that they are ruthless at times when they don’t have to be. THAT’s the part I have problems with.
    .
    It seems his knowledge is limited to fit his preconceived narrative.
    .
    I take it then that you believe that my lack of knowledge is intentional, to support my preconceived notion that Israel = bad. I am going to assume that you are Jewish, sir, and that the Holocaust and events such as that are fresh and personal to you.
    .
    I have seen the term “preconceived” thrown about here until I have grown sick of it. Perhaps, while you are at it, you might look in the mirror and ask yourself if YOU have the “preconceived” narrative that anyone who does not know, understand and feel Jewish history as you do, is somehow biased against your viewpoint.
    .
    We’re not. We respect Israel as a country and just want to see some admission by its more ardent supporters that it, too, deserves criticism for it actions and not just blanket support. You have done that in your post, and I applaude you for it.
    .
    But you too make assumptions about people’s motives based on what you see.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Actually, there are many Israelis concerned with human rights, and the abuses of their government. There’s a more honest conversation about these things in the Israeli press than exists here.
    ~
    This is an excellent point, Stuart. While I am more than likely one of the most ardent critics of the Israeli government, its maniacal oppression of the Palestinians, arrogant and illegal annexation of land, and unrestrained manipulation of US policy making, I admit that the national discourse on the matter is substantially more honest in Israel. Haaretz, for example, is an excellent newspaper that is more than willing to call its government out when it violates basic tenets of international law and morality. B’Tselem, similarly, is a very active Israeli human rights group that has fought tirelessly to end the occupation. Unfortunately, these elements of Israeli society are clearly not that influential, as expansionist agendas have dominated Israeli governments since its inception.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Exiled, your comment is a wonderful example of someone who sees the world in black and white (and utterly incorrectly). There was no “Palestinian concession of 78%”, because there never was any independent Palestine to conceed. Israel holds the land, and therefore the cards up for negotiation. In Israel, the idea of an independent Palestinian state has gone from a marginal idea to carrying the support of the majority of the Israeli public, including Bibi (in principle, at least). If the Palestinians adhere to your “all or nothing” mentality, both sides can look forward to many more years of violence and suffering.
    ~
    Actually, it is AIPAC and Likud who see the world in black-and-white, while I simply apply reality. Israel, the moral beacon of liberty, awash in a sea of Arab agrgression, right? Not quite. Your argument equating tangible possession and actual ownership of land is ridiculous. So, by your rationale any occupying power has both a technical and moral legitimacy in regard to land because it physically maintains control over that land? That is a pure unfettered propaganda meant to soothe the impassioned flames of logical morality. In 1947, the Arabs physically maintained the overwhelming majority of the land in Palestine, yet the UN deemed it prudent and justifiable to partition that land for the creation of a Jewish state. Physical control of the land did not seem to give the Arabs any authority over those lands. Then, after partition, which left the Jewish populace with 55% of the British Mandate of Palestine, the remaining 45% of land under Arab control again did not, in the eyes of Israelis, imply ownership, as she proved in successive wars whereby she occupied an additional 23% of the total land. Physical control of the land only implies legitimacy when the Israelis control the land, when the Arabs control the land though, it can be annexed at will? Come now, your blatant inconsistency is showing. Spend a day in Gaza, or several weeks as I have, and you’ll be seeing the conflict through a slightly different prism.

  • http://israelisfortruth.wordpress.com adlersa

    Did I miss something? Were we on the verge of peace before this action occured? Bibi is certainly trying to keep his coalition going but let’s not get crazy Joe this isn’t a game changer or in anyway significant. It’s just another flare up that will soon calm down.

    The world always sees Israel as the obsticle to Peace, not just in the Middle East but the world. The fact is that the Palestinians are devided, who is Israel supposed to negotiate with? Fatah? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Al Aqsa Brigades?

    Lets get real Joe peace was not about to happen if only Bibi had not taken this action!

  • http://israelisfortruth.wordpress.com adlersa

    scapegoat

  • http://israelisfortruth.wordpress.com adlersa

    Bravo! Perhaps you can get a job at TIME since a balanced voice is certainly missing from most coverage.

    I also applaud you for recognizing that arguments devolve into a contest to see who is the biggest victim whenever this topic comes up.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Scapegoat? Try pariah.

  • rdw56

    There isn’t anything remotely game changing about this,. The 67 borders are not an issue. It will never go back to that. There are swaps to be negotiated and some lands are more valuable to one side versus the other .

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)
  • rdw56

    Support for Israel in U.S. at 63%, Near Record HighNear-record-low 30% optimistic about Arab-Israeli peaceby Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ — For the first time since 1991, more than 6 in 10 Americans — 63% — say their sympathies in the Middle East situation lie more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. Fifteen percent side more with the Palestinians, down slightly from recent years, while a combined 23% favor both sides, favor neither side, or have no opinion.

  • greuven

    “When I call them ruthless, it is because I know they have to be, not having a large enough populace to wage a long-term war with anyone. But, I also believe that they are ruthless at times when they don’t have to be. THAT’s the part I have problems with.”

    Afguy, I also have a problem with that. Though I would disagree that it stems from not having a large enough population. After all, no modern country would willingly offer its troops to be slaughtered in a long term war, however limited, when they feel they have a better option. Rather, Israeli “ruthlessness” is driven by the feeling (mistaken or not) that the only way to protect civilians, soldiers, or even the status quo is through overwhelming force. In other words, “the only thing the Arabs understand is violence”. It is, in my opinion, a wrong and counterproductive mentality, but it is an understandable one, given what has occurred since 1993.

    “I have seen the term “preconceived” thrown about here until I have grown sick of it. Perhaps, while you are at it, you might look in the mirror and ask yourself if YOU have the “preconceived” narrative that anyone who does not know, understand and feel Jewish history as you do, is somehow biased against your viewpoint.”

    We seem to have misunderstood each other. First of all, my apologies for making this assumption, and you deserve credit for educating and correcting yourself on the historical points. You must admit, though, that far too many people weighing in on this subject choose the facts (or fictions) which support their point of view, on either side, while ignoring all else. On Swampland, this largely leans toward an anti-Israel (as opposed to a pro-Palestinian) bias. Evidence of this can be shown by the responses to exiled’s “Israel in 1 word” game on this post, among many other comments. The fact that you can say that you “respect Israel as a country” puts you in the distinct minority of left-leaning commentors, most of whom seem to regard Israel as the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. We agree 100% that Israel supporters should be open to criticism of its policies, of which a great deal is justified. And I do try to “look in the mirror” and examine my own points of view objectively, as you suggest. I simply believe that much of the criticism of Israel on these sorts of forums is dishonest, consisting of Israel-bashing rather than legitimate criticism of policies.

    Speaking of Israel-bashing, Exiled_At_Home: Accusing AIPAC and Likud of seeing things in black and white is the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, I think the Likud is more moderate than you are. Bibi has at least voiced support for a two-state solution. From your comments, you seem to reject Israel’s right to exist altogether.

    To you and Nathan7777, I will repeat what I said earlier to Sasquatch08: If you wish to be taken seriously, make sure you get the facts right. There was never an independent Palestinian Arab state. The 1947 UN Partition PLAN was never carried out. It was accepted by the Jews, and rejected by the Arabs. To claim that the division of land following the 1948 war (launched by the Arabs) was unfair to the Arabs is the height of hypocrisy. Prior to 1948, there was the British Mandate in Palestine, which began in 1917, preceded by the Ottoman Empire, which conquered the land in the 16th century. Keep going back, and you’ll discover that the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river had been under foreign occupation for a very long time.

    There were both Jews and Arabs living in this land throughout this time, though the population was quite small for both until the mid-19th century. Just as most modern nations borders were established as the result of wars and expansions, so too Israel’s borders were established following the 1948 war (War of Independence to Israel, Nakba or Catastrophe to the Palestinians). If you believe that this land doesn’t legitimately belong to Israel, do you also believe that the US should give up claim to Alaska and Hawaii? Or any of the land conquered from the Native Americans, for that matter? The West Bank was held by Jordan, and the Gaza strip by Egypt, neither of whom felt particularly inclined to help the Arabs in those territories establish an independent state. In the meantime, the rest of the world, not including the Arab and Muslim countries, recognized Israel and its sovereignty over the territory within the borders established in the 1949 armistice agreement. And it is that fact, exiled, which gives Israel legitimacy within its borders.

    As for the territories occupied after 1967, well, Israel never annexed either the WB or Gaza, other than the area around Jerusalem, which had been artificially separated following the 1948 war. (And the Golan Heights, in an unfortunate move to appease the Israeli right opposed to the withdrawal from Sinai.) Israel was smart enough to recognize that any attempt to claim that land would be ignored by the world, but stupid enough to set up civilian settlements in those territories making it extremely difficult to withdraw in the future. But again, those territories had never been part of an independent Palestinian state. (In fact, the Arabs of Palestine didn’t even define themselves as Palestinians until the 1960′s. Before 1948, the term Palestinian generally referred to the Jews living in that territory. This does not mean that I dismiss the right of modern Palestinians to a country of their own, but is simply to point out the fallacy of referring to “occupied Palestine”.)

    Just so that we’re clear, I believe that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own, with borders based on the pre-1967 borders with adjustments to leave the largest settlement blocks within Israel, and an equivalent amount of land relinquished by Israel. And I believe that East Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine, with a division of Jerusalem that makes sense. (As another aside, the Arab neighborhood of Beit Tzafafa in southern Jerusalem was divided in half in 1948, meaning that families were separated by a fence for 19 years. I think we can all agree that it doesn’t make sense to return to this situation.) This solution would not only be the best thing for Palestinians, it would be the best outcome for Israel, as well.

    So I challenge any critics of Israel to tell me which part of this plan they disagree with. You can accuse me of lying, or pretend you didn’t read this, but I will tell you that the majority of Israelis would be willing to support a peace plan following these guidelines, as long as their security was guaranteed, and it gained them the recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations with the Arab and Muslim world. And, of course, included the solemn vow of all or the Palestinian leadership that this would be the end of all claims of Israel. (I do not include the right of return in these guidelines, but there are creative solutions floating around that include compensation for refugees and do not involve a plan to secretly alter the demographic makeup of Israel as a step towards Arab control over all the land.)

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Grueven~
    ~
    I think that for the most part we could agree on what should be done to fulfill a sense of fairness balanced with recognition of the reality of Israel’s existence. Where our perspectives diverge, however, is on the historical progression of the conflict. I won’t get into my personal experiences, but I can say that I have been personally exposed to the conflict, and have personal relationships with many on both sides of the conflict. I’ve seen the demagoguery and excess by both sides. However, what may seem to you as an excessive anti-Israel slant, on my part, is actually a reflection more of my desire to debunk the conventional narrative. I could expend energy writing about the ills of suicide bombings or the exploitation of Palestinians by Arab powers, but to what avail? This narrative is already a mainstay of American coverage of the conflict. What is not told, and quite frankly, what is suppressed, is any mention of Israeli wrongdoing, any challenge to the patently ridiculous notion of Israel as a strategic ally or a moral imperative. This shameless manipulation of the American public to paint a black-and-white picture of events has driven me to focus nearly all of my time to exposing Israeli corruption, perniciousness, and aggression. This is not to say that I view Palestinians, or Arab regimes, as innocent. But their involvement and complicity has been so widely documented in American media and academia, that I feel compelled to offer some semblance of balance to that caricature of events. I cannot simply let slide the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty, Victor Ostrovky’s revelations, the Sabra and Shattila massacres, Deir Yasan, Mossad tacitness in the ’83 Beirut bombing or assassination of CIA agent Bill Buckley. I could go on for quite some time with examples of Israeli espionage, war crimes, hypocrisy, and crimes against humanity, all of which thoroughly undermine the incessant, unquestioned, and unprecedented levels of support -economic, military, and diplomatic- that the US offers to Israel. Were the public discussion more frank and less agenda driven, I’d be more inclined to take an easier approach to Israel. However, so long as US aid is justified under fictitious rationales, and so long as honest criticism is dismissed as anti-Semitism by the demagogues of AIPAC and Likud, I have no option, lest I surrender my integrity, but to call Israeli on each and every one of its illicit policies.

  • greuven

    It may not be a game changer, but it is a boneheaded move. Things have been quiet in the West Bank for a while, and the PA has been doing its part to ensure they stay that way. Imagine if, rather than unilaterally claiming stewardship of these sites, Israel had approached the PA with an offer to jointly improve the sites. Would they have been turned down? Very likely. But would Israel have incurred the anger and threat of impending violence? No.

    And the 67 borders are an issue. There may eventually be land swaps, but for the moment, both sites are outside of Israel proper. The sooner Israel internalizes that it can’t do what it wants in the territories without repercussions, the better they’ll be off. Let’s face it: these sites will not be better or more accessible with a third intifada going on around them.

  • formerlyjames

    All of the history lessons here are interesting, but it doesn’t change the present status quo. The experience and personal horror of victimization does not transfer by genetic means. The descendants of the victims of the nazi horror have become the victimizers, the fascists in the game. Not an eyelash would bat at the recent assassination by the Israel operatives if not for the brutal, criminal assault on gaza. They have squandered, in W’s words, great “political capital” throughout the world. Schools, hospitals, innocent civilians gone up in smoke in a wake of wanton tragedy, and the descendants of the great zionist dream in the process. For me, as for Israel, in the words of Rhett, I don’t give a damn.

  • greuven

    Exiled, you may be convinced that you are maintaining your integrity, but your list of examples of Israeli “illicit policies” suggests a single-minded anti-Israel bent. Notice that your list includes two attacks carried out against Americans by Hezbollah, Israel’s avowed enemy, and the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, carried out by Lebanese Christians (granted, under shameful cover by the IDF). You are not providing “balance”, you are demonizing Israel. There is more than enough criticism of Israel in mainstream media coverage to go around, both when it is warranted and when it isn’t. I’m not quite sure what “suppression” of Israeli wrongdoing you think is going on, but I assure you that we do not share that perception.

    I will agree with you that far too much of the discussion is agenda driven, but your comments place you squarely in the camp of those with an agenda. Exactly what is it you hope to achieve by painting Israel as inherently evil and guilty of war crimes? How many posts do you write on the genocide in Darfur? The multiple human rights violations by China? Did you know that more civilians were killed in the period of 5 months last year in the battle between Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers than Palestinians (combatants and civilians combined) killed over the past 30 years? How many posts did you write about Sri Lanka’s “war crimes”?

    I despair the frequent usage of the term “antisemite” as a defense by advocates of Israel. In many cases, it is used unfairly to dismiss legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, and is therefore both counter-productive and cheapens the term. But I do believe that some extreme singling out of Israel and Israel-bashing does derive from a modern iteration of antisemitism. Judging by your determination to bring forward the multiple cases where Israel is supposedly guilty (including some that appear to be completely baseless), without acknowledging the context of the conflict, you run the risk of crossing that line.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Look, I think you seem like an honest individual, certainly willing to acknowledge Israeli wrongdoing when you are of the opinion that wrongdoing has occurred. It is through no fault of my own, however, that you do not recognize, or are not aware, of many of Israel’s illicit or egregious actions in the past. To whit, the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut and the kidnapping and assassination of CIA Bill Buckley in Lebanon. True, both acts were planned and carried out by Hezbollah. And for that I hold Hezbollah fully accountable. I do not mean to causally dismiss their responsibility for these attacks. However, let me enlighten you as to the role of the Israeli government in these acts. Mossad has a lengthy history of carrying out operations against American interests under the guise of Arab extremists, such as the Lavon Affair in Egypt. This we all know. However, Mossad also frequently withholds information from the United States to serve its own interests. In both the Beirut bombing and the assassination of Agent Buckley, Mossad was complict in their failure to act. There was a Mossad team outside the Marine barracks in ’83, given explicit orders to allow the attack to proceed as an attack against the US would help ensure US support against Hezbollah and other fundamentalist groups. In the case of Bill Buckley, after his kidnapping, Mossad assured the CIA that they were following leads and were close to retrieving Buckley. Internal Mossad memos, however, show that there were orders not to follow up on this matter, again to solidify US support. Both of these affairs are documented in the book Gideon’s Spies by Gordon Thomas. Thomas is quite supportive of Israel, and the book is relatively a non-judgmental account of Mossad exploits and successes. Thomas lauds Mossad’s intelligence and espionage prowess, rather than cast these events in a negative light. In other words, these are not fringe allegations made by some rabid opponent of Israel, rather glorified accounts by an awed student of espionage and the intelligence world, Gordon Thomas.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    And, for the record, I often compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Sinhalese-Tamil strife in Sri Lanka. I have taken the side of the dispossessed Tamils over the authoritarianism of the Sinhalese government. Not much inconsistency there, as I side with the Palestinians over the Israeli government.
    ~
    As for your reference to other ongoing humanitarian crises, this is a point that is often made by defenders of Israel. On its surface, it would appear a reasonable observation. However, the sheer length of the Israeli occupation without any international reprisal whatsoever warrants my attention. The crisis in Darfur, which is incidentally an ongoing Arab repression against black Africans -an admittance on my part that illustrates my non-committal to all all things Arab-, is certainly a travesty deserving of international action. However, a 60 year brutal occupation in the 20th and 21st century is simply unacceptable, hence my outrage at the status quo Israeli occupation.

  • greuven

    And thank you for confirming your true point of view. For you to claim that Israel’s occupation has been going on for 60 years underscores where you’re coming from. You consider Israel’s sheer existence an occupation. You can claim to have moderate views, but this view is anything but moderate. You deny legitimacy to a country that existed before something like 2/3′s of the countries in existence today.

    And even by your logic, what about China’s occupation of Tibet, which began in 1950? That’s been going on for longer than the mere 43 years of Israel’s actual occupation!

    And I would advise against buying into the facts provided by Gordon Thomas’ book, which has numerous disproved claims. If the Mossad were as powerful and omnipresent as he contends, would Israel really face all the problems it does? The only true story implicating Israel from your list was the Lavon affair in the 1950′s, which when it was exposed caused a political crisis in Israel leading to the resignation of Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister. Hardly the stuff of legend.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    1. It is not immoderate to see the creation of Israel, done so through partition of sovereign Arab lands, as an injustice. I understand the sentiments that the Jewish people deserve a state of their own, however those sentiments do not justify pilfering away the sovereignty and basic rights of an Arab populace that was entirely uninvolved with any of the affairs of Europe and was living in relative harmony with the substantially minute Jewish population of Palestine, pre-partition. If you fail to see that the partition itself was unjust and the cause of decades of violence, you simply are not applying rational thought.
    ~
    2. China occupies Tibet. Therefore I cannot be critical of Israeli occupation? I don’t follow.
    ~
    3. As for Gordon, you should probably expand on your assertion of him being discredited. However, even dismissing the Beirut bombing and the Bill Buckley assassination, we’re still left with these:
    -Lavon Affair
    -USS Liberty
    -Jonathon Pollard
    -black flag ops, such as falsely fingering Libya in the German nightclub bombing
    -Victor Ostrovky intel
    -Mossad (Dany Yatom) wiretapping of the Clinton WH through Israeli firm Amdoc
    -2001 US Army report warning of increasing Israeli black flag operations intended cast “guilt” on Islamic terrorists
    -Lawrence Franklin and AIPAC
    ~
    This is just a brief list of Israeli espionage in regard to America. War crimes you ask? Illegal blockade, illegal occupation, illegal arrests, arbitrary detentions, targeted assassinations, white phosphorous, annexation of land, etc. etc. etc.
    .
    Israel, while not necessary worse than other powers, is certainly not the righteous moral state warranting of such special status treatment by the United States. Read Mearsheimer and Walt. Or are they, too, discredited?

  • rdw56

    Here is just one example of the critlcal error Arafat made in ordering the Infatada then egregiously compounded by Osama. You didn’t just declare war on the USA and Israel you declared war on capitalism.
    *********************************************

    How Israel’s Biggest Drone Could Take Out Iranian Nukes

    This week the Israeli Air Force held a ceremony spotlighting the “operational acceptance” of its biggest unmanned aerial vehicle. Here, we explore how Israel could use this new vehicle to take out Iranian nukes. For an in-depth look at the way the U.S. Air Force is remaking its UAV fleet, check out the cover story of the March 2010 issue of Popular Mechanics, on stands now.

    This week the Israeli Air Force (IAF) held a ceremony spotlighting the “operational acceptance” of its biggest unmanned aerial vehicle, the 4.5-ton Heron TP, or “Eitan.” The far-flying UAV, with a wingspan almost as long as a 737 airliner, appeared on the runway with a comparatively diminutive F-15 alongside it. The IAF already rushed this UAV into action during the 2008–’09 war in Gaza, so the ceremony really served as a reminder to Iran that its drone fleets can reach the nation. But how will Israel use them?

  • rdw56

    No one is batting an eyelash. Joe and Doyle could appear nude at the WH to protest Gaza and still no one would cover it. The left wing media has never been as inept as it is now. There is simply no interest in what Israel does in Gaza because after 6,000 rocket attacks Israe is entitled to do whatever they want. You have an advanced, lawbased democracy versus a terror organization. Americans are not interested because the default position among the vast majority of Americans is to wipe out all terror organizations. They’re not remotely interested in negotiations. That would reward terrorism and thus generate more of it. This isn’t a remotely close call.

  • rdw56

    This is how bad it is for Joe and Doyle. CA Senate candidate Campbell has mixed with some pro-palestinian types and taken positions less supportive on Israel than most. It’s going to cost him the GOP nomination in liberal california. The MSM tried to protect him for a week knowing Gaza is toxic among Americans.

    Mainstream Media Discovers Tom Campbell’s Israel Issue – 02.25.2010 – 8:37 AM

    After Phil Klein and I have written about this for a week, the mainstream media, reporting on the Republican Senate primary in California, have finally discovered the controversy concerning Tom Campbell’s record and rhetoric on Israel. The Los Angeles Times has now weighed in:

    In a dispute that commingles foreign policy and a quest for political advantage, U.S.-Israel relations have taken an unexpectedly central role in the California race for Senate.

    Rivals in the race for the Republican nomination are questioning whether former Rep. Tom Campbell is sufficiently supportive of Israel. They base their criticisms on his voting record, statements about a Palestinian homeland and capital, and some of his past associates.

  • nitsanc

    Joe, I’ve been a big fan for a long time, but having read your recent articles about Israel I have to wonder about your objectivity. There is an inherent bias against Israel that automatically calls into question any motivations as being sinister, even within the title of this post or a recent article (“Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent decision to declare sites in the Arab cities of Hebron and Bethlehem Jewish historical landmarks seemed a provocation intended to cause the sort of mass violence that has destroyed the hopes of responsible Palestinians in the past”… has Palestinian violence ever required a very good justification… and does this really qualify?) The assassination of the Hamas leader, if it was carried out by Israel, is simply a matter of avoiding the import of weapons that would be and have been targeted against Israeli civilians. That is as far as that strategy goes. As for the historic sites, the restoration of Jewish sites does no more to prejudice the outcome than does any Palestinian building upon land that is still disputed. And unlike the Palestinians, the Jews are making no effort to erase Muslim connection to those sites or restrict Muslim access. It is a non-issue that should not provoke anyone who has made no sign of a return to the negotiating table. The idea that settlements are the one thing keeping the Palestinians away from negotiations is laughable. It’s simply a pretext, as was the fact that Netanyahu didn’t endorse a two-state solution. When he did get on that page (which the Palestinians have yet to do in return for a Jewish state), they came up with another reason to avoid talks, and now they have found a tenuous reason to return to violence, which you seem to imply is both justifiable by the Palestinians and intended by Netanyahu. Similarly, you blamed the second intifada on Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, which even Arafat admitted was not the real trigger as an intifada had been in the planning stages for some time (and again, doesn’t seem to be sufficient justification for the taking of innocent lives). Furthermore, you state, “Palestinians have pretty much ceased aggressive actions against the Israelis.” Israel was widely condemned for building the barrier in the West Bank and for imposing the siege and waging a war in Gaza. But let’s be clear. Until these efforts were made, violence was the Palestinian MO. Now, these actions that have been used to demonize Israel, have conversely been used to praise Palestinians as though they coincidentally turned away from terror willingly, at the exact same time that terror acts were made exponentially more difficult to carry out. This does not signify a change of philosophy from the past century so much as a change in capability. In the meantime, Palestinian textbooks, media and public places continue to vilify Israelis and Jews and praise murderous martyrs, which I believe is contrary to their road map obligations. Perhaps this is too much material for one article to cover, but I think that in looking back at your recent coverage, you’ll find that you’ve been quick to take sides while missing some important context.

blog comments powered by Disqus