One of the things I don’t understand about the debate over Israel and Hamas is what, exactly, people expect Palestinians to do. I constantly read that Palestinians need to never use violence, and that non-violence will do the trick. This may or may not be true, but it’s odd, because folks want Palestinians and Hamas to do something their own governments would never, ever, do.
Let’s put this in context, first. The truce was not broken by Hamas:
“The escalation towards war could, and should, have been avoided. It was the State of Israel which broke the truce, in the ‘ticking tunnel’ raid … two months ago,” the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote in a press release. “Since then, the army went on stoking the fires of escalation with calculated raids and killings, whenever the shooting of missiles on Israel decreased.”
So. Israel attacks Palestinians. Hamas responds by counter-attacking. If a nation bombed the US, would the US counter-attack?
Of course it would. The question is absurd.
Imagine America was under blockade, half it’s population were starving as a result, and its children were suffering from malnutrition. Let’s assume the US offered what Hamas did last week:
Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don’t take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security services Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on the 23rd] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election-fever, and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.
If the US offered peace in exchange for breaking a blockade that was starving its citizens and extending the cease fire to part of the country that wasn’t under ceasefire, and the forces starving the country refused, what would the US do?
I guarantee that if a similar situation were to occur to the US, the same commenters telling the Palestinians to turn the other cheek for moral reasons would think the US was justified in retaliating with all its might.
It really reminds me of nothing so much as people watching a bully kicking someone who’s down on the ground, saying "why does he keep fighting? He should know better than to resist."
There is a pragmatic argument for trying non-violence in Palestine (I’m not convinced it would work, because Israel hasn’t shown a lot of capacity for shame) but the moral argument, unless you are someone who believes that war and violence are never justified under any circumstances, is extraordinarily weak. Americans and other outside commenters want Palestinians to act in ways that their own governments would never act in comparable circumstances.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Assume this is rhetorical (sigh).
Thanks for the post. I am sorry to say that even Rachel did not address the horrific conditions under which the Palestinians are supposed to remain quiet, not respond, etc. I read on another site that they are gathering wild grasses from any patch of green in Gaza – and this grass makes up the only food source for a lot of people there now. Why are we not outraged? Why do we sit and let this happen?
If Israel is truly our friend (a highly doubtful one at best IMHO), we should be able to go to them and say stop this.
Oh wait. We really can’t because we act just like they do. Sorry.
Well, when you are massively the underdog, retaliatory violence almost never works. The only strategy that does work is restraint, as it puts the aggressor in a completely unsupportable position.
That is where your comparison fails. Yes the US would never put up with this kind of thing, but that is because the US has lots of military power. Without that power in an exactly similar position, we would likely have to make the choice of restraint.
If you can not win by power, then you have to embrace powerlessness and use shame. It is part of what helped Gandhi break the English rule in India.
Shame only works when the bigger side hasn’t utterly demonized the smaller.
Sadly, no. What enabled Gandhi to prevail was the presence of significant numbers of of much more violent revolutionary factions (much as the Black Panthers enabled the NCAA in this country). You are correct that force alone will not work for the weaker party in a situation like this, but it is a necessary ingredient for success. Without the threat of violence, the costs to the dominant party are negligible and easily ignored. Likewise nonviolent protesters like Gandhi or Martin Luther King are more easily demonized in the absence of more radical groups.
Kucinich Calls for Independent United Nations Inquiry on Gaza
To understand that would require empathy, i.e. to picture yourself in the other person’s place. And that’s something conservatives would never, ever do.
No, you can always get it back. That is the point of advising them to not retaliate. If Hamas did nothing, but stay there, shut down all their factions and let Israel overreact (well, more so) with out provocation then it would be crystal clear were the fault lay.
Sadly that is not going to happen. There are too many factions, that have too much access to means of retaliation and a culture that values vendetta, so it seems that even if they wanted to lay low, they would not be able to pull it off.
It is still their best hope for a resolution, but it not a very likely one.
thank you ,i did not knoww that
We’ll probably and regrettably see if your theory is true, considering that American troops are being put on American soil for the first time since the Civil War[with a brief Posse Comitatus Act revoked during Katrina]. Allegedly,this brigade is to quell civil unrest in America should rioting begin due to deteriorating economic conditions. Oh yes,you can believe the chickens will eventually come home to roost.
a beautiful mind,and soul
Which will do exactly what? I’m listening to Israeli Radio and the suffering of the Israeli people…why should they allow the UN to issue biased and faulty findings by a majority of hostile governments. Their only chance is to have the US veto it in the security council.
Well, looks like Obama’s laryngitis during the Gaza bloodshed at least shows that the transition to a new administration should be very smooth.
You do realize that troops have always been stationed on American soil. At place like Fort Knox and Fort Bragg and Fort Drum and all the other Forts and bases around the country.
Oh, and that the Posse Comitatus Act was actually a response against having federal troops enforcing the Reconstruction and making sure former slaves were protected in the rebellious states? And that enactment of the Posse Comitatus Act led to Jim Crow laws and helped the KKK to flourish?
That is kind of unfair, don’t you think? He really has no power as Pres Elect, and it is a really dangerous thing for any nation to be seen speaking with more than one voice.
It’s not just Americans who would never tolerate this. Israelis wouldn’t either. As I wrote yesterday, consider if Israel was an Arab state and those were Jews in Gaza. How would what is going on there be viewed then?
I actually study this somewhat professionally and this pattern generally holds for situations like this. The only real exceptions are those where violence alone actually works (by making the costs to the oppressser unsustainable) as in Indochina or in parts of Africa (Algeria for instance). In those latter cases, the disparities of power and the commitment of the colonizer were generally less than in the current situation.
The use of troops for law keeping is a grievance that goes back to the Revolutionary War. While troops can be stationed here, this is completely different from their exercising police functions on US soil.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to me a restatement of that Friedmanesque faux-lament that there’s no “Palestinian Ghandi” (maybe there is, but he’s tied to a chair with a wet burlap sack on his head in an Israeli secret prison). Easy for you to say.
In the first intifada the Palestinians symbolically threw rocks at the Israeli occupation forces. That didn’t work. What you neglect to understand here is that the Palestinians have used “shame” — they have shamed Isreal in the eyes of the rest of the world. It’s all for naught, though, when they don’t have any political or media power to project shame where it counts, the U.S. Look and listen to the propaganda here, the utterly cynical sterile euphemism for an Israeli killing spree.
Just because it’s what our government would do, doesn’t make it right — that being said, it does mean that we are in no position to judge.
With the cycle of violence being so out-of-control in Israel/Palestine, peace will never be achieved unless one side goes above-and-beyond in the pursuit of peace — that means refusing to retaliate even when retaliation seems justified.
Sadly, neither side seems able to do that for the sustained period of time needed for progress toward peace. I think there are well-meaning people on both sides, but there are enough people sowing discord to keep either side from staying on the path of peace.
Israel, as a stable, democratic(ish) government ought to be able to resist the provocateurs better than the Palestinians, but to me they seem the least likely to do it.
If Obama says anything Bushco would start claiming undermining and we would not hear the end of it. It would open the door for the rethugs to do their thing for the whole of Obamas admin. and the ability to call them out would be compromised.
499 hrs & 16 min
Anyone remember the Whiskey Rebellion? How about the Pullman Strike?
First off, you are putting meaning on my words that is not there. Is that when you have this level of power disparity there are very few examples of the underdog winning by arms. Vietnam is the one that pops to mind, but there were complicating factors on the US side that made us unwilling to use all our military might.
It is not that the Palestinians should not resist, it is just that resisting in the manner they are now is not working. The fact that Hamas is unwilling to recognize the right of Israel to exist is a complicating factor. If they were to give on that point, they would, to my mind, deflate a lot of the vilification of their actions.
However, I doubt that you and I will agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree, eh?
We cannot have peace out of the current paradigm. You cannot give what you do not have.
Einstein has some great quotes on peace. But it requires a paradigm shift. We first have to validate the utter and absolute pain and damage that comes from violence. We can’t do that, because we still use it and are in denial about it’s total cost to our society.
We have to be able to validate “the pain” for both the Palestinians and Israel. That is the starting point of truth. It is just too painful for this to continue. And it will only stop when the pain is finally allowed without the desire for revenge but for healing. So first you validate the pain. It’s real. On both sides. It’s valid on both sides. The anger is a way to distract from that pain. Revenge is a distraction for grief…an avoidance of that emotion.
Ugh. I want to run a peace center…so bad. My vision is to treat trauma survivors, and collect the most effective treatment available. Teaching skills and then doing trauma work, while collecting research on what really works.
My mission statement: The greatest contribution you can make to world peace is to heal your own trauma.
Who will fund me? Anybody?
Poor Obama. He just can’t say anything about being upset about all the deaths. It would be so unfair to suggest that he should do so. It would be find of course, if Raegan’s boys negotiated with the Iranians during Carter’s presidency. No problem there. But no way should Obama say that he is sickened by the bloodshed. That would be socially unacceptable.
foothillsmike @ 21: yes, that’s absolutely right.
Federal troops can be used for police functions in certain situations.
From my scandals list:
The real question here is why federal troops would be given a responsibility which could be better performed by National Guard units and with far less controversy.
I looked forward to Rachel Maddow last night, to do one of her in depth (TV style),if slightly imbalanced, pieces on Israeli attack on Gaza. I was sadly disappointed in her historical/commentary on the causation of the current problem. Her bent was clearly on Israels side, stating Hamas had initiated the attacks by launching rockets into Israel and indeed what could you expect, since the Arabs and Palestinians have tried to bury Israel since its inception. Looks like Dr. Maddows prejudice is showing. God if she can’t give a straight status, who in media will?
Reagan’s act was treason. IOKIYAR.
Because large sections of the National Guard have been destroyed through mis-use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Leaving BushCo and the Pentagon to allow for stationing of an active duty brigade back from the war zone to respond to civic emergencies or face a rebellion from any number of governors.
Hugh @ 27: Because the National Guard has been pillaged for Iraq duty. That’s not to say there are not other (un)intended consequences or intended unConstituitional machinations afoot. Probably mostly about the aversion to states’ powers over the National Guard, see Landrieu and Bush ’arguing’ over federalizing the Louisiana Guard. Bush ”lost” the letter she handed him personally … while NO drowned.
Or the Ludlow Massacre. Doesn’t anybody recall their history anymore?
hey, dakine: I owe you a drink? My first!
Because they are sandn*gg*rs and we sandn*gg*rs only understand force and must be introduced to it either directly by Americans or by the citizens of that white settler state that you people spend so much money on so that they can introduce us to force on America’s behalf.
Why do you ask?
Unbelievable: Gen. Honore from NO (retired) on CNN saying there is only one Commander in Chief at time and ”make not mistake … he will do whatever he has to do to PROTECT ISRAEL.”
Unbelievable.
A Pepsi or good coffee is fine.
This gets to a point I would like to make. The federal government should stop abusing the Guard and using it as fodder in Bush’s wars. I would like to see a return of the Guard to its traditional functions. The current policy represents an inversion of the roles of the Guard and federal troops.
It would seem that a comment of mine is disliked by your software.
Ok: exactly when does Israel’s interests diverge from the US’s??? Not yet???? When????
The people of the United States never did put up with oppression, even before we HAD a military, if you’ll recall.
We sure as hell wouldn’t put up with it now.
With or without!
Great comment, Arbusto.
Did you tell HER that?
She says every night we should write to her.
well, maybe we should!
If you say so. Though the two situations are hardly the same. The biggest difference being the proximity of the combatants.
Hugh @ 36: This has bothered me from day one ~ it’s really screwed up the balances, resources, and protections that we have. It mattered a lot. But BushCo only saw the National Guard as something to exploit. And people who signed up for the National Guard signed up for that and not for war. Let alone the rules that support National Guard participation do not begin to compensate these people for being sent to a war. It’s exploitation pure and simple. Made me so mad: that’s why I watched what happend with Landrieu so closely. Bush shit on the National Guard. SPIT.
I agree but if Bush hadn’t used the Guard and Reserves, the Active Duty types probably would have been in revolt back in ‘04 or ‘05 because of the back-breaking deployment schedules.
I see a comment of yours above now. Looks like it may have been edited by the Mods and released.
No, he would have had to institute a draft and he knew that would be the end of his beautiful little war.
Pretty much.
New Eli upstairs “Soylent Greenwashing?”
So it seems. My thanks to the moderators.
And yet Bush and Cheney who talked about the War on Terror as essentially as a war without end never pushed to increase the size of the military to support this war. If they had those troops would have been trained, equipped and available by now. As reader says, while this was being portrayed as the great struggle of our times, Bush and Cheney wanted to do it on the cheap (where people were involved).
Hugh @ #27——-Thanks for the inclusion of the Army Times articole about the brigade that is training in riot control. This was tthe article I had in mind when I posted. Seems to me either this site,or emptywheel did a thread, when the Army Times article was first posted a couple or so months back.
well, you are making an arguement that has no traction with hamas or israel.
Except Bush and Cheney’s “on the cheap” will turn out to be one of the most “penny-wise, pound foolish” actions, for US citizens, Iraq Citizens, world citizens, the economy, and just about any other conceivable measure there is.
Bush and Cheney steal everything.
Perhaps the Northern Ireland conflict has some lessons to offer. Hopefully one of them isn’t that it will take 300+ years for resolution. Favoring one side over the other and encouraging increased bloodshed is something that didn’t seem to work, however.
slightly OT Iranian students have stormed the UK embassy in Tehran in protest for Israel’s attacks.
498 hrs & 42 min
Hugh, a report from the U.S. Army War College on this subject was released 12/23/08 (obviously planned timing). I’ve mentioned this on a couple of threads already. Here’s the LINK: The last paragraph is a slammer!
http://www.newsmax.com/headlin…..64765.html
Palestinians in Gaza are sitting ducks. Israel is the aggressor. Last count there were 5 Israel fatalities from ground weaponry and approaching 400 Palestians from the air attacks. I have lost any good feelings for the state of Israel (just as I have lost all respect for my American Cheney/Bush govenment.) I know Israeli resistance to these war crimes exists…just as we resisted our government’s criminal actions. But none of the helplessness we feel because of our inability to change our governments compares to the terror raining down on the humans in Gaza now. Shame on the human race. May all the gods forgive us.
Oh, I knew that! Look this won’t every be resolved until there is enough people on both sides that are willing to say “I was wronged but I will put it aside for peace” and neither side is even close to being there yet.
It happened in Ireland, but it took forever. It is not like it is going to be any faster here. When there are enough people on both sides that don’t want the fight anymore it will end, but not a day sooner.
Sadly nothing we do or say here is going to make that day come any faster.
This pollyannaish nitpicking over what you think Hamas’s platform is is kind of symptomatic of the problem. When an occupier goes on a punitive expedition, killing hundreds of people and unashamedly destroying a people’s civilian infrastructure while unabashedly conflating the population with its political leadership (see quote below), that deserves condemnation, not false equivalences. Counting the bodies here is a pretty adequate arithmetic of blame.
Your ethnographic observation about the “culture of vendetta” with regards to the Palestinians is ironic considering the avowed principles of their occupier.
Golly you know calling me names is really going to make your case sooooo much stronger with me! You are a master rhetoric-tactician, obviously.
If you are interested in blame, blame. Just be sure that you understand that it does nothing to stop the human pain. I am 100% sure that you are doing it from the very best of motives, in the best human tradition. The problem is that peace will only come when there are enough on each side that will let go of their very real and clear grievances and demand peace.
oopsy: I’ve been mixing up Senator Landrieu with Governor Blanco in the fight over federalizing the LA National Guard. Sorry.
This is never-never land talk. This is where my empathy for Israeli citizens come in: with the regular prospect of terror, they have a different calculus of the costs and benefits of slow-motion expansion, and its unrealistic to expect them to all become peaceniks given their borders, and that threat. The conflict will end when the U.S. stops its unconditional support — nay, encouragement, of Israeli expansion. J-Street, however negligible a force they might be, understand where the political onus lies here. If the spigot were turned off the Israelis would very quickly make an advantageous peace. Until it is, they have no incentive to discontinue what they’re doing, as they have a military monopoly.
Elections coming up soon in Israel
As GW Clusterfuck would say: “Come on John- it’s just politics”
Thank you for the link. Maybe the report’s author should have considered how to deploy armed forces against our economic and political elites who are the instigators of our current woes instead of against ordinary Americans who suffer the consequences of their greed and stupidity.
I think Obama’s silence may be squandering a lot of goodwill like Bush did with the goodwill after 9-11.
The Israelis took his earlier comment about not putting up with someone attacking his house with rockets as his blessing for this, given his continued golfing. Perhaps if Obama also said he would likewise not put up with a neighbor building a house in his backyard, or blocking his driveway, he may have sent the message that he fully intended to be objective.
That statement does not accord with what I have been told by people familiar with the “peace process” in Ireland. Nor does it accord with briefings given both in Lebanon and Irak by among others Danny Morrison who was chief of staff of the IRA.
According to him what brought the “hard men” of both groups to the negotiating table was military stalemate.
Would that I could email Rachel. Those emails must fall into a vast electronic waste land, not to mention the quantity MSNBC receives daily.
First post.
I’ve been following the news on this from all sources, and the constant refrain from the Israeli government is that Hamas are positioning their bases of operations in civilian areas. Leaving aside the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip, I took sime to confirm the population density of Gaza: using the July 2007 figures the population of Gaza is 10,514 people per square mile. 3rd in the world behind Macau and Monaco. Any Hamas installation, whether military or civilian is by necessity in proximity to a “civilian” population. Nice if someone could bring this up next time they’re doing an MSM interview.
This is interesting. Do you have a link so I can see the exact Israeli quotes? I don’t think they took Obama’s words as a “blessing” — rather, they took it as a sign of weakness (it was) and want to show him who’s boss. They’re really fucking with him when they call him out like this.
I hope there are more posts.
Great point, one that should be obvious. It’s one of the most noxious talking points the Israelis and their advocates have: “But they hide behind civlilians!”
Opinion: n. what seems to one to be probably true; judgment; estimation; favorable estimation.
Opinionated: adj.. unduly attached to and assertive about one’s own opinions; stubborn.
A matter of opinion: a matter about which opinions differ.
Fact: n. a truth; truth; reality, or a real state of things, as distinguished from mere statement or belief; an assertion of fact; …
There have been all too many commentators on these threads who don’t seem to know their definitions. Couple this with education and knowledge that most provincial school graduated can look down upon. What a despicable spectacle some are making here.
If your comment can be made without contradicting either Robert Fisk’s work “The Great War for Civilization” or Norman G. Finkelstein’s work “Beyond Chutzpah”, your comments will be of value, for the rest, you have just removed all doubt.
The conditions the Palestinians are forced to live under are far worse than what the blacks had to live under in South Africa and look how the international community (with the US eventually playing a lead roll)reacted.
My thanks to Ian for his post. I’m sure he will take heat as an anti-semite.
Hugh, that link is to a right wing blog. They got onto my e-mail address. I blocked them soon as I realized they were so biased, then decided I’d better find out what they are up to. Since then, however, the same report has been online with different slants and emphases. (Rawstory has one).
As for the stupid elites that steered us into this mess, I’d settle for prosecution of Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and Cox for governmental piracy, which has become global piracy.
Sorry. I should have said that I suspect that Obama’s comment was taken by Israel as his blessing, (it was made before he was elected), given his lack of any futher comment during their current bombing operations. They previously did the same with Bush and basically declared their actions were just like Bush’s war on terror.
Welcome to the Lake, Shishinden.
Refreshing to see facts presented. ;-)
Thanks also for the warning. I’m familiar with Newsmax and its slants. They are big fans of John Bolton.
Ian..
Something happened when Olmert visited Bush at the end of November. He was there to ask Bush to explain the special relationship that Israel has with the US and to insure that it would continue under Obama. The Israelis didn’t seem to think that a letter would be binding on Obama. So, what was?
This article, I think, is important in regards to Obama’s silence.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1040967.html
You are correct in this, at least according to every scholarly analysis of the situation. It was the IRA military wing which made possible any political gains by Sinn Fein.
Thank you. I should make a correction to my earlier comment. Danny Morrison was spokesman and Martin McGuinness the Chief of Staff I transcribed the Morrison name by mistake from my notes.
You might like to note that McGuinness has been heavily involved in peace promotion in Irak.
Everyone loves Gandhi, but it worked for almost no one else. How’s those Tibetans fared under nonviolence?
Non-violence works when the people occupying you are capable of feeling shame, that doesn’t apply to enough israelis to matter.
As I pointed out earlier, it did not really work for Gandhi either. What worked was the presence of active militant revolutionary groups (IIRC Nehru was the leader of one such) engaged in violent opposition, who made Gandhi seem much more reasonable to the British. In turn they ultimately acknowledged and supported him as an alternative to violent conflict. He also provided them with an avenue for a negotiated settlement, which was less embarrassing than a military defeat.
You put up with a fair chunk of opression already. You have the most people in jail, you have people checking your ID on trains, you have no-fly lists which are based on nothing, etc… Most Americans don’t care that the 4th amendment is a dead letter and the 1st amendment under assault
I can’t see any real evidence that most Americans care about any of these things. I think there are a substantial number of Americans who want an American Putin.
Yes, both are helpful.
What I find amusing is the lack of acknowledgment that if Hamas were somehow destroyed, the people who replace them would be even more radical. This is nothing but a war crime, both on moral and pragmatic grounds, because it can’t achieve what they want.
Also, Israel has systematically assassinated moderates. The last of Hamas’s founders was killed after he started saying he might be willing to sign a one hundred year truce.
I don’t think that was coincidence.
Well, Obama can muster up the energy to speak out against the appointment of Roland Burris, which must be more outrageous to him than a few hundred deaths. Change who can believe in?
I’m not American. Though Canada is complicit enough.
The US military’s current configuration is designed so that the US cannot fight a long war without the Guard. That was deliberate, so that there can’t be a war just born by the professional military without semi-civilians also feeling the pain.
The lesson of Ireland, according to those who study it, is that the first step required for peace are combatants who will hold to signed truces. It is their opinion that Hamas is fit to negotiate with, and Israel is not. Israel is not ready for even the first step towards peace.
I know you are Canadian – it was poorly written for which my apologies.
No worries. Canada’s pretty complicit in the Israeli mess. And while we didn’t join the coalition in Iraq, we did supply some support under the table. Blood’s on my hands too.
I am capable of distinguishing between responsibility and culpability.
:-)
It is interesting that Hamas rockets are landing on Ashkelon. Ashkelon was originally an Arab town which was called Madjl. In 1953 all the Arabs were rounded up and trucked to what is now Gaza.
The zionists as I see it still believe they can win. Once they realise that any victory would be pyrrhic then they might start to deal in good faith.
In response to Hugh @ 65==============Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the “Homeland …Sep 24, 2008 … The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, … But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president …
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/ – Similar pages
Posse ComitatusThe Posse Comitatus Act – Prohibits search, seizure, or arrest powers to US military personnel. Amended in 1981 under Public Law 97-86 to permit increased …
http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/posse/posse.htm – 37k – Cached – Similar pages
[PDF] OVERVIEW OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACTFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
The origins of “posse comitatus” are to be found in domestic law. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “posse comitatus” as: …
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_re…..1.AppD.pdf – Similar pages
by D Appendix – All 8 versions
Democracy Now! | Is Posse Comitatus Dead? US Troops on US StreetsOct 7, 2008 … In a barely noticed development, a US Army unit is now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service …
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7…..it_will_be – 50k – Cached – Similar pages
Falk is the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory. He was denied entrance into Gaza earlier this month. This is from a great article by Chris Hedges here:
I can’t seem to get the link thingy to work…here’s the link for Chris Hedges’ article
http://www.truthdig.com/report…..to_murder/
Thanks very much for that link.
As Obama would say, “What the frig does that have to do with my old Senate seat or golf?”
Or we might attack some other random country which has oil.
How exactly is is that they “have too much access to means of retaliation”?
It seems someone wants them to attack Israel and they are willing.
Who supports their militancy? Does it come in from Egypt?
If Egypt allows this, then why are they now preventing Gazans from fleeing?
Brilliant as usual Hugh. How indeed would they HAVE TO RESPOND?
If someone attacks your people then you have no choice but to respond.
Problem is there are provocateurs who love a good war between other people.
Who is feeding this one with weapons and making good profits on it?
Will it really end? How do you know? Aren’t there Palestinians (and other Muslims) who vow to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth?
BTW, what ‘encouragement’ has America given for the settlements?
I wonder how well those settlers would do if West Bank Palestinians had better weaponry to use against them? Would they brave it out?
Killed by Israelis? Did they know he “might be willing to sign”? Would he actually have signed and stood by it? Would he have been killed by other Hamas members if he had signed?
There are a lot of uncertainties in all these statements, treaties, temporary cease fires and all the rest. Even the Israeli’s acceptance of occasional rocket attacks only starts to worry them when there are hundreds and they’re reaching further.
I think the reality is there’s still a need for WAR the great clarifier.
But, should you think I feel it’s ‘just’ or right for Israel to pound Gaza, I should add that West Bank settlers need to feel the sword also. Whose land is it?
Israel does not want peace. Israel wants the Arabs gone off of their land. Here is Moshe Feiglin, of the Likud Party, giving a speech on the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Gaza. The steps he gives to accomplish driving the Palestinians off of their land are simple. As he says in the video…encourage them to leave, occupy the land, Israel law, flourish the place with Jewish villages, and never sign a peace process.
He uses the example of how 60,000 Syrian Arabs were driven from the Golan Heights.
http://video.google.ca/videopl…..5452525532
The situation in Ireland was greatly complicated/compromised by the double agent Denis Donaldson. He worked for the British intelligence services for 20 years while rising to become a senior and trusted Sinn Fein figure. He was close to Gerry Adams (party president)and Martin McGuinness (chief negotiator).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_…..877680.stm