Too Busy to Blog ? Read Benvinisti

Meron Benvenisti is always interesting, and today in Haaretz he makes for good reading. I think he overstates his case -- only some Palestinian cities in the West Bank are better off than they were; the Gazans are still miserable; and this is part of the "divide-and-rule" strategy employed by the Zionists from time immemorial.

But, with no end for the mess in sight, at least the Palestinians should suffer less. And I hope that Netanyahu's government will be better than the last several governments.

Benvinisti's comparison of the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank with the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel is instructive. Over the last several decades, education and acculturation have enabled Palestinian Arabs to fight back against legal, practical, and foundational discrimination in the Israeli ethnocracy. The victories have been few and far between, but the gradual process has its slow and cumulative effect. Slavery, segregation, apartheid, all lasted well after they were known to be immoral. But in each case, things changed because the groundwork had been lain, and reasonable people saw that the status quo was unjust and intolerable -- and because the oppressed had managed to show, through education and acculturation, the absurdity of the oppression.

Don't expect Netanyahu to liberate the Palestinians or to withdraw from the territories, or to remove outposts. But if he is able -- in order to avoid a Palestinian state -- to better the lives of the Palestinians economically, then this may set into motion a chain reaction which -- like emancipation, integration, and the end of apartheid -- is not intended by those who initiate it.

Interesting only when they are violent

By Meron Benvenisti

The accepted dictum is that the situation in the occupied territories interests Israelis only when something violent takes place there and when the events fit with the standard narrative about the settlers, the roadblocks and the injustices of the occupation. The truth of this maxim is proven again in that change for the better in the security situation and the economy and the general atmosphere in the West Bank merits very little interest and negligible reporting.

So processes with far-reaching implications for the political reality and the arguments accompanying the establishment of the Netanyahu government do not receive the attention they deserve. There is no need for thorough research to grasp that the situation in the West Bank is different from what emerges in severe reports about backwardness, unemployment, and economic under-development there and the general feeling that the territories are dangerous and violent.

It is sufficient to stroll through Ramallah to feel the lively and relaxed atmosphere. The animated economic activity is evident. The improvement can be seen also in cities that were the focus of violence such as Nablus and Hebron. Journalists who visit the Jenin area report with amazement how calm and organized life is there, and how the polished Palestinian policemen are in control of the area that not long ago was the stronghold of armed men. Israeli Arabs have returned to shopping in the markets of Jenin and Tul Karm, despite the ban on this.

The data confirm the picture of economic recovery. During the past year, there was an increase of more than a third in commercial activity, and despite the signs of recession, the rise in the standard of living is continuing. True, the per capita Gross Domestic Product is still less than one-tenth of the Israeli GDP, and the prosperity is misleading since it is based on the flow of donations from abroad, which despite the attempt to direct them to productive channels, encourage wasteful consumption. But the aim of the donors is to provide political support for the Palestinian Authority and to fight Hamas by economic means.

They are apparently succeeding in this. Fact: The West Bank remained calm during the fighting in Gaza and was not dragged into reactions of protest, in fact even less so than among Israeli Arabs. Security officials are aware of this improvement and they are doing away with roadblocks, making the movement of traffic easier and even forgoing sections of the separation fence in the Jerusalem area.

In view of this improvement, it is perhaps possible that Benjamin Netanyahu is correct in claiming that we should concentrate on "economic peace" and that in view of the lack of a chance for a permanent solution, attempts must be made to continue the economic development in the territories.

This approach should not be rejected with contempt and presented as a foolish attempt to transform nationalist aspirations into promises of economic improvement. The opposite approach also, that of a "peace process" that has still not yielded fruit, can be seen as a way of justifying disregard for reality.

The left-wing camp sticks to its positions and prefers to ignore the economic improvement in the territories since it is forbidden to add a positive coloring to the cruel picture of occupation. The right-wing camp likewise ignores the improvement in the situation; because then "security considerations" will disappear as an excuse for acts of dispossession in the style of the separation fence.

Ignoring the situation is convenient for everyone, and therefore all are partner to the concept that the Arabs are interesting only when they are violent. Under cover of this lack of interest, the Israeli rule over the West Bank is continuing to deepen. It is commonly believed that the Palestinians will begin a third intifada but perhaps this stems from sticking to the concept that they understand nothing but force. Perhaps they have genuinely grown tired of the violence that led them to disaster and they are adopting the strategy of the Israeli Arabs, which forces the Israelis to relate to their non-violent struggle and to their community's accumulation of economic strength.

Oh, What a Night! Winners: Right and Extreme Left; Losers: Zionist “Left”

With 99% of the polling places in, the Israeli Knesset elections have gone very well, in this writer's opinion.

In fact, it is hard to see how it gets much better than this:

The Right did well, though not as well as had been predicted a week ago. While it is a bit early to congratulate Bibi, it looks like he will form the next coalition, and, with any luck, he will form a narrow right wing government with the religious parties and the ultra-right parties. He could have a bit more flexibility with Kadima as a junior partner – after all, Kadima really is the moderate wing of Likud. Kadima got more votes, but I don't see how Livni can make a coalition. So whatever happens, it looks like Bibi is on top. As one who endorsed him in November here, I can only say, "Woo hoo!"

The Arab parties will have one more seat than in the previous Knesset. Hadash increased its number of seats from 3 to 4 and gained more seats than Balad; Ra'm Ta'l also has 4. This may shift – when I wrote this paragraph five minutes ago, Ra'm Ta'l had 5, but lost a seat to Yisrael Beitinu.

It appears that Hadash took Jewish voters from Meretz, which received only 3 seats, less than Hadash's 4. In Jerusalem, which means really in West Jerusalem, Hadash had 1% and Meretz 3%.

[Added on Saturday, Feb. 15: Eyal Niv, of the indispensable "Truth from Eretz Yisrael" blog, figures that Hadash picked up around 10,000 new Jewish votes this time. Let's hope that figure grows. See here]

The Left camp – the so-called "Zionist Left" and "Center-Left" -- will go into Opposition. I am, quite frankly, happy that the electorate punished Meretz for its failures. It is time for "heshbon nefesh"; and Haim Oron, in my opinion, should be the first to reach personal conclusions and resign.

But the failure of the Zionist Left goes much deeper than that. I don't see how it can recover in the current circumstances. Which means that people who don't want to go the way of Kadima and to the Right will have to rethink some fundamental assumptions about Zionism and the State of Israel.

Like the assumption that says that the problems started with 1967 and not with 1948, or even earlier.

With a rightwing government, the case against Israel as a pariah state will be easier to make, and the international isolation of Israel can proceed apace. If the one result of the election is that the so-called "peace process" is put to pasture, then I say, "Dayyenu"!

Barenboim’s Statement in the Wake of the Gaza Campaign

When Richard Silverstein and I went to the New York Review of Books to publish, or publicize, our jointly-authored statement on Gaza, the editor replied that the NYRB was already publishing a statement by Daniel Barenboim. Well, with all due respect to Richard and me, I think Barenboim trumps Silverstein and Haber. And when I read the statement, I thought it worthwhile to reproduce it, especially since NYRB's online access is limited, although you can find it elsewhere.

If you compare his statement and ours, you will see that they are very different. Ours is first and foremost a cry of pain and shock as Jews, a "Not-in-Our-Name" sort of statement; his is a sober comment that does not dole out blame but looks to the future.

But the bottom line of both statements is not that different. He calls for a new initiative

which demands of all sides a common responsibility: to ensure equal rights and dignity to both peoples, and to ensure the right of each person to transcend the past and aspire to a future.

Ours says that

We affirm the rights of both Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination and self-defense, as we affirm the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This, friends, is indeed the central point. It is not a question of "one state, or two states, or no states, or blue states." Not a question of federation or union, and certainly not subordination or transfer. Not the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, or, for that matter, the right of the Palestinians to a state of their own. All these political frameworks are means to an end, but the end is as Barenboim or we say it: equal rights and dignity to both peoples, without any privileging of the other side.

Once the end is accepted, the question then – and only then – will be what is the best political framework to achieve this end. A two-state solution in which one side dominates and controls the other is no better than a one state solution in which one side dominates and controls the other.

Until people of good faith can agree on this bottom line, and get a significant segment of the both the Israeli or Palestinian peoples to buy in, then all the wearying talk of a peace process will be doomed.

There are preconditions to successful outcomes – and the principle underlying both our statements is one of the preconditions for this one.

 

 

Listen, Before It Is Too Late'

By Daniel Barenboim

To the Editors:

Your readers may be interested in the following statement by Daniel Barenboim and the list of those who have supported it.

Dina Haidar
Ilona Suschitzky
Emre Ülker
Paris, France

For the last forty years, history has proven that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict cannot be settled by force. Every effort, every possible means and resource of imagination and reflection should now be brought into play to find a new way forward. A new initiative which allays fear and suffering, acknowledges the injustice done, and leads to the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. An initiative which demands of all sides a common responsibility: to ensure equal rights and dignity to both peoples, and to ensure the right of each person to transcend the past and aspire to a future.

Daniel Barenboim

Adonis, Etel Adnan, Alaa el Aswany, Dia Azzawi, Agnès B., Ted Bafaloukos, Russell Banks, Tahar Ben Jelloun, John Berger, Berlin Philharmonic, Bernardo Bertolucci, François Bayle, Idil Biret, Christian Boltanski, Pierre Boulez, Jacques Bouveresse, Alfred Brendel, Peter Brook, Adam Brooks, Carole Bouquet, Daniel Buren, Ellen Burstyn, Huguette Caland, Jean-Claude Casadesus, Carmen Castillo, Patrice Chéreau, William Christie, Paulo Coelho, J.M. Coetzee, Roger Corman, Jean Daniel, Régis Debray, Robert Delpire, Jonathan Demme, Plácido Domingo, Umberto Eco, Elliott Erwitt, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Rupert Everett, Michel Faber, Carlo and Inge Feltrinelli, Ralph Fiennes, Filarmonica della Scala, Jodie Foster, Eytan Fox, Fab 5 Freddy, Bella Freud, Martine Franck, Mary Frank, Eduardo Galeano, Jean-Luc Godard, Richard Gere, Gamal Ghitany, Amos Gitai, Edouard Glissant, Jean-Paul Goude, Nadine Gordimer, Günter Grass, Jürgen Habermas, Michael Haneke, Donald Harrison, Milton Hatoum, Sheila Hicks, Bill Irwin, Steven Isserlis, Philippe Jaccottet, Elfriede Jelinek, Samih al-Kassem, Naomi Kawase, Ya¸sar Kemal, Rachid Khalidi, Edouard Al-Kharrat, Michel Khleifi, Gérard D. Khoury, Abbas Kiarostami, Stephen King, William Klein, Abdellatif Laâbi, Jacques Leibowitch, Jemia and J.M.G. Le Clézio, Stéphane Lissner, Radu Lupu, Yo-Yo Ma, Amin Maalouf, Claudio Magris, Issa Makhlouf, Florence Malraux, Henning Mankell, James McBride, John Maybury, Zubin Mehta, Waltraud Meier, Annette Messager, Duane Michaels, Anne-Marie Miéville, Marc Minkowski, Thomas Mitchell, Ariane Mnouchkine, Sarah Moon, Edgar Morin, Jacques Monory, Fernando Morais, Jeanne Moreau, Georges Moustaki, Oscar Niemeyer, Jean Nouvel, Kenzaburo Oe, Orhan Pamuk, Clare Peploe, Michel Piccoli, Maurizio Pollini, Christian de Portzamparc, Simon Rattle, Alain Resnais, Claudia Roden, Arundhati Roy, Moustapha Safouan, Walter Salles, Susan Sarandon, Fazil Say, Elif Şafak, George Semprun, Hanan Al-Shaykh, Pierre Soulages, Wole Soyinka, Ousmane Sow, Staatskapelle Berlin, Salah Stétié, Juliet Stevenson, Meryl Streep, Elia Suleiman, Peter Suschitzky, Tilda Swinton, Sam Szafran, Zeynep Tanbay, Uma Thurman, Desmond Tutu, Shirley and Charlie Watts, Abdo Wazen, Jacques Weber, Wim Wenders, Debra Winger, Daniel Wolff, Neil Young

Cordesman’s Bleak Assessment of the Gaza Operation

A reader referred me to yet another one of Anthony H. Cordesman's analyses on the Middle East. Cordesman may be familiar to some readers from his occasional appearances on ABC news on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, the reader referred me to a YNET article, which missed the main point of Cordesman's analysis. YNET was interested in Cordesman's claim, based almost entirely on IDF reports, that Israel's conduct of the war was legal – or at least as legal as the US' conduct of the war in Afghanistan.

But if you read Cordesman's analysis, "The War in Gaza: Tactical Gains, Strategic Defeat?" you will see that he saves his biggest criticism for Israel's political leaders. He leaves the general impression that a) Israel came out much worse that it realizes from the Gaza operation, and b) its long term prospects are grim, if it sticks to the current script. He writes:

This raises a question that every Israeli and all of Israel's supporters need to ask in the aftermath of the Gaza War. Has it in fact repeated the strategic failures made by Israel's top political leadership during the Israeli-Hezbollah War in 2006? Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal or at least one it can credibly achieve? Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel's actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process?

To be blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes. To paraphrase a comment about the British government's management of the British Army in World War I, lions seem to be led by donkeys. If Israel had a credible ceasefire plan that could really secure Gaza, it is not apparent. If Israel had a plan that could credibly destroy and replace Hamas, it is not apparent. If Israel had any plan to help the Gazans and move them back towards peace, it is not apparent. If Israel had any plan to use US or other friendly influence productively, it not apparent.

The rhetoric may be a bit Shakespearean, but it rings true: The leaders of Israels are indeed asses leading the IDF lions, asses whose bungling "seriously damages the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process." Folks, this is not Noam Chomsky speaking, but rather a man who used to be John McCain's national security advisor.

And if the above didn't plunge you into despair, here is how Cordesman ends his analysis:

In fact, there is little hope of a sudden return to a viable peace process – to the extent that territory for peace was ever anything other than settlements for terrorism. Moreover, the fighting in Gaza did lead a figure as senior as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to warn that Israel has to understand that the choice between war and peace will not always be open, and that the Arab peace initiative that is on the table today will not stay on the table. It also led the President of Syria, Bashar Assad, to say that such peace efforts were no longer relevant. One wonders, however, how long [the Gaza fighting] can really go on without exploding into far more violent conflicts or empowering non-state actors hostile to Israel and moderate Arab regimes. One wonders how much it will affect the medium and long-term stability of key states like Egypt and Jordan? One wonders how much it will sustain Iranian radicalism and aid the opportunism of a nuclear Iran? Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin once saw these risks as unsustainable. Regrettably, they may still be proved right.

The fighting is Gaza is not over, and Israel has nothing to offer the Palestinians but more of the same. What Cordesman is saying that this is not enough – and that failure to resolve the conflict will probably end in failure to manage the conflict.

 

 

 

Whom Should You Believe? The Gazans or the IDF?

Some of my readers say, "You are always quick to adopt the Palestinian position and to reject as untrue the IDF position. Why is that?" The answer is that, with some experience, one can usually determine when the IDF speaks the truth (they do that, actually) and when they are covering their tuchas.

For example, in today's must-read article in the Times about Gaza, we have the following story.

Many [Gazans] here believe that Israelis feel the same about them, and that they were treated with suspicion and contempt, as would-be fighters. That might help explain what happened, they say, when Omar Abu Halima and his two teenage cousins tried to take the burned body of his baby sister and two other living but badly burned girls to the hospital on that Sunday. [According to the Times, the burning was due to the white phosphorus. – JH]

The boys were taking the girls and six others on a tractor, when, according to several accounts from villagers, Israeli soldiers told them to stop. According to their accounts, they got down, put their hands up, and suddenly rounds were fired, killing two teenage boys: Matar Abu Halima, 18, and Muhamed Hekmet, 17.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said that soldiers had reported that the two were armed and firing. Villagers strongly deny that. The tractor that villagers say was carrying the group is riddled with 36 bullet holes.

The villagers were forced to abandon the bodies of the teenage boys and the baby, and when rescue workers arrived 11 days later, the baby's body had been eaten by dogs, her legs two white bones, captured in a gruesome image on a relative's cellphone. The badly burned girls and others on the tractor had fled to safety.

Now, I wasn't there, and I am not a judge or a panel investigating the incident. So why am I fairly confident that the two boys were shot without provocation, and that they were not armed and firing?

Several reasons: first, why would Hamas operatives be taking a tractor to town with dead and wounded girls? And if they were, why would they stop what they were doing and shoot? And then leave their baby sister to be eaten by dogs?

Second, if the IDF soldiers indeed shot the Gazan youths dead without provocation, would they have told that to their superiors. Wouldn't they have told their superiors that they were responding to gunfire, especially since there are documented cases of that?

Third, we already have cases in the past where the soldiers lie to their commanders, the IDF initially backs them up, and then is forced – generally due to video footage – to investigate and admit that the soldiers were lying.

Fourth, note that the spokesperson did not say that the two boys fired on the IDF soldiers, but rather that the soldiers had reported that the boys fired. That is giving the IDF wiggle-room for later investigations and implies to me that they don't necessarily accept the report.

Do these considerations prove that the boys are telling the truth? Of course not. Does this mean that the IDF soldiers kill Gazan for kicks? Certainly not.

But if you are asking me whom I consider to be more believable, in light of what I know about the players, then I am telling you – the Gazan boys. Too many cases have been collected by groups like "Breaking the Silence" and other international human rights groups to think otherwise.

Unless you are a moral chauvinist.

The Israeli Joke That Wasn’t Very Funny a Year Ago And Is Less Funny Now

Almost a year before the Gaza campaign, on Dec. 27, 2007, I wrote a post that began with an Israeli joke

Two Israeli Jews meet each other on the street:

-Oy, Shimon, this business in Sderot is awful. How come we can't stop those Kassam rockets?

-Nu, we are afraid of the Americans. Now here's what we should do. We should drop leaflets over Gaza saying that we will give them five days to stop the Kassams. We wait five days, and then if the Kassams don't stop, we bomb the hell out of them.

--Why wait five days? Why not bomb them now?

--Nu, there's no need to exaggerate.

And then I commented on the "joke"

I was reminded of this joke when I read one of the Letters to the Editor in Haaretz today, which seriously proposed "Shimon's" solution…I hope I don't exaggerate if I suggest that this sums up the moral reasoning of many Israelis.

I don't mean to say that most Israelis advocate "bombing the hell out of Gaza". Many would approve of less drastic measures, such as cutting off their electricity and fuel supply. But the reasoning goes like this: "We could, if we wanted to, flatten Gaza. The reason that we don't is that we are Jews, and therefore generous, and exceedingly moral, and while we would be justified in taking such drastic measures -- such is the world we live in -- that is not what Jews do."

That was a year ago. Now, Israelis and their supporters simply cannot understand what the world wants from them. If Israel really wanted to smash Gaza, it could have done so big time. The fact that "only" 1300 people died, many of them "terrorists" showed that the IDF stuck to its ethical code. OK, there were some infractions, but very few. And the civilian deaths are not their fault; it is because of Hamas.

I wrote then that the reason that most Israelis cannot understand why they are being criticized is that they are moral chauvinists, and that moral chauvinism (the belief that you are ethically superior to the other) blinds people to their own immorality. I also claimed, based on my knowledge of Jewish sources, that moral chauvinism is deeply rooted in Judaism, though I acknowledged that it is common in other civilizations and religions.

That was a year ago. The joke is even less funny now.

Because so many Israelis and their supporters are moral chauvinists, they create fantastical images of themselves, such as the "Most Moral Army in the World" fantasy. For example, ask most Israelis about the current Gaza operation and they will say, "We gave them Gaza; they launched rockets. We did not react until we could take it no longer." When you tell them that during over the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, during the period of "not reacting," Israel killed 1,275 Gazans – they will at first deny the number; then they will say that most of them were terrorists; and then they will say that it was Hamas's fault. Why? Because the belief in their superior morality is so deeply rooted in the Jewish psyche, both traditionally, and certainly after the Holocaust, that Israelis do not allow the facts of their immorality to confuse them.

Let me make something clear. I do not claim that the IDF, or the people who sent them, deliberately set out to massacre civilians as part of military policy. But I do believe that the IDF was figuratively and literally quick on the trigger, as it always has been in the West Bank and Gaza. I believe that they when they used white phosphorus in an urban area, they knew full well that it was possible, perhaps likely, that civilians would be burned. They decided to use it anyway because they simply didn't care about the civilians; they knew that they could always hide behind the claim that white phosphorus is not banned, and that regrettable accidents happen. Perhaps they decided to use it in some cases and not in others. But that does not mean that their reasoning in the "acceptable" cases was correct.

The Left vs. the New Left

Hadash released a great set of four election commercials today, which feature conversations between a supporter of Meretz and a supporter of Hadash, "The Left vs. the New Left." You can see the clips here.

My favorite is the one on the Gaza war, which you can watch here in Hebrew. The Leftie stutters throughout, recites slogans, is for the fighting but against the war, etc. At one point, the Leftie goes quiet ("we can't talk while the army is on an operation") and then receives permission -- from Amos Oz -- to speak again. By this time he is ready to move on to another subject

 

The Author of the the IDF’s Code of Ethics “Doesn’t Know” If It is Observed

Last summer, Reform Judaism Magazine published a puff piece on the IDF's Code of Ethics, with just the right number of quotes from B'Tselem to give it an air of fairness. The IDF veterans' group "Breaking the Silence" was not interviewed for the article, and the editor refused to publish any statement beyond a letter. Of course, the magazine gave the last word to one of the co-authors of the code, Prof. Asa Kasher of Tel-Aviv, who functions as the IDF's House Ethicist. Yes, there are violations of the code, he wrote; yes, they are significant, no, he has no idea how many.

Kasher, though, believes that, on the whole, the ethics code is working. "Our soldiers continually patrol Palestinian streets amid the local population, the magazines of their weapons full of bullets," he says. "If they were trigger-happy, there would be thousands of casualties daily."

That piece of reasoning shows how good a philosopher Kasher is. Maybe the fact that Israel soldiers are not trigger-happy has absolutely nothing to do with the Code of Ethics. Most well-trained armies, even without Codes of Ethics, don't have their soldiers walking around killing civilians.

But Kasher's claim not to know how many is startling and shocking. What's the point of a Code of Ethics if you cannot test whether it is working or not?

Kasher authored eleven principles of conduct in asymmetrical warfare situations, which ultimately can be reduced to one.

    1. Do what the IDF tells you, and you will be all right..

Kasher almost never criticizes the IDF for failing to live up to its codle. Rather he justifies the IDF's morality in all cases. When the IDF cautioned restraint last summer, Kasher said that this was legitimate, and got blasted by the right wing. And when the IDF threw much of the restraint to the winds in December, Kasher was right there defending it again.

It may be an interesting exercise to see how many of the eleven principles the IDF has violated recently.

1. Military action can only be taken against military targets.

   Broken on day one, when police cadets and their families were blown to smithereens. If that was legitimate, then certainly the suicide bombing of the IDF soldiers at Beit Leed was legitimate. (Neither was legitimate.)

2. The use of force must be proportional.

   Ha! Ha! Apparently, Ehud Olmert was given't this one, when he threatened in public not to be proportional.

3. Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.

   Is there any other? It is the settlers' weapon of choice.

4. Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.

   There are testimonies of Palestinian prisoners being shot.

5. Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.

   Let's hope this was observed.

6. Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.

   From a recent letter from a lawyer visiting Gaza: "In the course of that endeavor (which lasted about 2 hours) we visited homes that Israeli soldiers occupied during the attacks. Without exception the houses were trashed internally: furniture broken, windows smashed, clothes and appliances destroyed. A favorite tactic of the occupying force is to defecate in unusual places; cooking pots and pans seem to be preferred targets. Bottles of urine are left around to greet the returning owners, and often Hebrew graffiti and stars of David are on the walls. Almost all of the rooms are shot up, in some cases by tank shells but more commonly by gunfire and shrapnel. In several cases it was clear that the gunfire was from within and, because the house had been abandoned before the troops arrived, it appeared to be wholly gratuitous."

   This tallies somewhat with the article in the New York Times, that I cited two weeks ago here

7. Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to oneself and one's enemy.

   From the same letter: "Returning from Zeitoun we spoke with a human rights NGO and then went to the Quds hospital, where we interviewed ambulance drivers to follow up on reports that the Israelis prevented ambulances from reaching the wounded. We again broke into four groups to conduct the interviews of drivers regarding their experiences; we believe that the case has been made."

8. Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.

   There is testimony of "souvenirs" being taken.

9. Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.

   Yeah, especially after they have been bombed.

10. Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.

    See answer to no. 9.

11. Soldiers must report all violations of this code.

    LOL

In a long NY Times article a few weeks ago, Kasher said that the Israeli Army's ethical and legal standards were high and that he believed they were conscientiously taught to its military. But as for what happens on the ground, he said, "I have a general confidence in their attitudes and decency, but who knows?"

Who knows, indeed, Asa? What's the good is a code if you can't know?

Support American Jewish Ad Campaign Against Gaza War

February 2nd, 2009

Every day brings news of how fragile the Gaza ceasefire is.  An Israeli soldier was killed recently in an ambush. Militants launched a flurry of rockets into southern Israel today. Israel retaliates by firing rockets of its own at Gaza positions virtually daily. The drums of war are pounding once again inside Israel. Nothing has been learned from the last war.

All of which convinces Richard Silverstein (Tikun Olam blog) and me of the necessity of promoting our American Jewish statement of opposition to Israeli policy in Gaza, We Shall Not Be Party to Their Counsel.  We plan to take out ads in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz and The Forward to inform American Jews and Israelis that there is NO consensus supporting past, present or future mass killing in Gaza.

We need your support.  These two ads will cost approximately $2,000.  Richard and I have committed to contributing several hundred dollars between us.  But we cannot do this alone.  It must be a communal undertaking by Jews and non-Jews committed to peace in Gaza.  Please contribute as generously as you can via Paypal to support our campaign.

With your help we can let the Jewish world know that there are sane voices favoring a balanced, non-lethal Israeli policy in Gaza.  A gift of $100 or more will allow us to make our voices heard. If we do not reach our goal, gifts can be returned to the donor or forwarded to UNWRA's Gaza relief program.

To sign the statement, send us your name and affiliation if any. You may read the full statement and see a list of signatories.

Support the American Jewish statement against Gaza war

What Does Academic Freedom Have to Do with It?

Pninah Sharvit Baruch, the outgoing head of the section of the IDF legal department specializing in international law, is scheduled to teach at Tel-Aviv law school next year. When an article in Haaretz claimed that Sharvit Baruch used legal loopholes to authorize possible war crimes, e..g, the bombing of the Hamas police graduation, some members of the Tel-Aviv faculty protested her appointment. In particular, law professor Prof. Chaim Gans (whose book on Zionism is displayed on this blog) wrote the following letter to his Dean:

If the allegations in the [Haaretz] article are correct, then my view is that it would be inappropriate for our Faculty of Law to employ Pnina Baruch.

As the article demonstrates, Baruch's legal expertise is in the jurisprudence of legal tricks – a jurisprudence that seeks loopholes in the language of the law in order to evade the realization of its purpose.

In Sharvit-Baruch's case, these legal tricks were employed in the service of evading constraints the purpose of which is to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

In my opinion, a person who is mainly trained in this jurisprudence of tricks legitimizing massive killings of innocent civilians is not a suitable candidate for an academic position in our Faculty of Law. It violates the desirable values of legal academia. Much more importantly, it violates the desirable values of our society.

For these reasons, if Sharvit-Baruch does indeed join the staff of our law school at Tel Aviv University, it will be under my protest.

Gans's protest was reported in Haaretz, which called, in an editorial, for the appointment to be cancelled. In response, Hanokh Dagan, the Dean of the Law School, wrote:

Without commenting on the facts stated in the article, I am not convinced that the faculty of law must examine and appraise the legal, political and moral positions of its instructors as long as these are within the bounds of the law and the accepted limits of a democratic society. On the contrary, the faculty always makes an effort to expose its students to a variety of opinions and viewpoints, and encourages informed, academic discussion on controversial issues…the faculty higher-ups are not authorized and not fit to ascertain the factual questions described in the article ... As long as these questions have not been cleared up, as we know is being done at the present time, there is no room for drawing conclusions.

Of course, there is nothing in what Dagan writes that is incompatible with what Gans wrote, as Gans made clear in his subsequent statements. In fact, Gans immediately agreed with Dagan. Gans was expressing his own opinion that if the Haaretz was article was correct, it would be inappropriate for Baruch to be teaching international law at Tel-Aviv university. This was not because of Baruch's political views, or because of her actions per se, but because she espouses a legal philosophy which is, or should be, out of sync with the legal ethical principles underlying the law school. Gans did not say that his view was the only view, or that the case could not be made for hiring her despite flaws in her legal philosophy. But he certainly has the right to protest an appointment as a member of the law faculty.

All this would have been well and good, had not the heavies then weighed in. First, it was Ehud Olmert, who threatened to cut off funding to any institution "that discriminates against IDF officers because of their military service." Leave it to Olmert to bomb the wrong target. Who said anything about discriminating against IDF officers because of their military service?

Worse was an op-ed by Prof. Shlomo Avineri, a truly sad figure in his dotage, who introduced the quite irrelevant question of academic freedom. Avineri seems to have mixed up the argument against hiring Baruch with an argument for firing her from an academic position because of her opinions. The latter contravenes academic freedom, and is almost always advanced by the rightwing in Israel (see under Leibowitz, Zimmerman, Pappe, etc.) Were Baruch a member of the Tel-Aviv faculty, she would be protected by academic freedom as much as anybody else. The purpose of academic freedom is to allow teachers to advance unpopular ideas without fear of reprisal.

But what does academic freedom have to do with the present case? Baruch doesn't have any more the right to teach at Tel-Aviv university law school than you or I do. And nobody suggests that the only criterion of hiring should be her written scholarship. Whether her questionable legal methods as discussed in the article should disqualify her from a position is certainly a matter of debate among her professional peers (and not for the public at large.)

Avineri shouts "McCarthyism." Yet the only thing remotely resembling "McCarthyism" here is the statement of Olmert, which, if taken seriously, is a threat to cut off governing-funding. May I remind Prof. Avineri that McCarthy was a member of the U. S. Senate, and not a member of a law school faculty.

Prof. Gans, of course, was advocating an action based on a policy. But it is clear from his letter above that he knew that his policy had little hope of being accepted. So what he really was doing was protesting.

And when there is nothing else one can do but protest, that is the time when protest is most important.

Former General Counsel of UNRWA: Critics are Wrong About Terrorists Working for UNRWA

I plan to write a fuller post on the paper by James G. Lindsay, former General Counsel of UNRWA, which was published by the pro-Israeli think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. As befits the liberal Zionist orientation of that group, the paper attempts to stake out a middle ground between the shrill attackers of UNRWA (the usual suspects on the right) and its Palestinian and European defenders. This middle ground is identifiable with the enlightened Israeli position, i.e., critical of Israel but fundamentally accepting the Israel narrative. So, yes, UNRWRA is political and ideological, no, it is not a terrorist cover, yes, the organization has not taken enough steps to promote the liberal peace agenda, no, it does not publish hate-filled textbooks, etc.

Actually, for a report by somebody who clearly was an "insider," it breaks little ground and is based on little inside information. An enterprising journalist like David Makovsky, Lindsay's colleague at the think tank, could have written over 80% of the report, based on published sources. This is no expose of the inner workings of UNRWA.

So it is quite odd that the report is being misrepresented in the press and in the blogosphere as a harsh indictment of UNRWA. It is not. It clearly represents the view of somebody who does not accept the culture or climate of UNRWA, and UNRWA's general dismissal of the report, which Lindsay mentions, speaks to that point.

How is the report being misrepresented? Consider the question of "terrorists" on the UNRWA payroll. This is an old charge against UNRWA, and Lindsay's report is now being trumpeted as an insider's confirmation. Thus, in YNET

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees employs and provides benefits for terrorists and criminals, asserts a former legal adviser to UNRWA who left the organization in 2007. James G. Lindsay, now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as an attorney with the US Justice Department for two decades before leaving to work for UNRWA in 2000

Yet nowhere does Lindsay say anything remotely like this. He says that the UNRWA hires refugees, that the refugees support violence against Israel, and that, in his opinion, better steps should be taken to screen employees. But he rejects Israeli demands for screening, and, bottom line, he basically exonerates the organization:

As shown in the previous chapter, area staff are drawn from a Palestinian population that overwhelmingly supports violence against Israelis, so it would not be surprising if some staff members were involved in such attacks. Yet, of the nearly 5,000 area staff in West Bank and 10,000 in Gaza, few have been convicted of terrorism-related charges. Morever, the relatively few examples of staff involvement in anti-Israeli violence that critics often cite are, for the most part, not clearly convincing.

And in commenting on the Nahd Atallah case, "[Atallah's] use of the UNLP [for allegedly transporting militants] within Gaza..and of the UNRWA vehicle were never established...Despite request from UNRWA, the Israeli authorities did not provide the dates or times when Atallah allegedly misused an agency vehicle."

So, in fact, Lindsay refutes the critics of UNRWA on this point.

The problem with the report is that once again it stakes out a position in the "middle," which represents what I call the liberal Israeli narrative (perhaps I should now include Fatah within that.) I have written about getting stuck in the middle elsewhere. Thus Hamas is entirely demonized; there is no attempt to understand the group as anything but a terrorist organization. Once again, we go back to the ridiculous issue of the Palestinian textbooks, as if bombing civilians and keeping them in a prison were not textbook enough for Palestinian hatred. So, yes, the textbooks don't promote peace, no, they aren't as bad as the critics say they are, etc., etc., Love that middle!

The real purpose of the report is to deligitimize the political rights of the refugees and their supporters, to view the issue of the refugees a humanitarian one that should be solved by resettling them. The author clearly rejects calls for the return of the refugees because he accepts the liberal Israeli narrative. That is his prerogative.

But his appeal to "depoliticize" UNRWA is itself a political one, a partisan stance, just as political as those who want UNRWA to foster Palestinian nationalism. The report would have been less disappointing had it been less partisan, had it attempted to present both sides of the story without landing in the (liberal Zionist) middle that is the accepted discourse in such circles.

It has now been presented to the Obama administration. Let's hope the folks there take it with more than one grain of zahatar.

American Jews Oppose Israeli Policy in Gaza

"We Shall Not Be a Party to Their Counsel!"

As human beings, we are shocked and appalled at the mass destruction unleashed by the State of Israel against the people of Gaza in its military operation, following years of Israeli occupation, siege, and deprivation.

As Americans, we protest the carte blanche given Israel by the US government to pursue a war of "national honor," "restoring deterrence," "destroying Hamas," and "searing Israel's military might into the consciousness of the Gazans."

As progressives, we reject the same justifications for the carnage that we heard ad nauseam from the supporters of the Second Iraq War: the so-called "war on terror," the "clash of civilizations," the "need to re-establish deterrence" – all of which served to justify a misguided and unnecessary war, with disastrous consequences for America and Iraq.

But as Jews of different religious persuasions, from Orthodox to secular atheist, we are especially horrified that a state that purports to speak in our name wages a military campaign that has killed over 1,400 people, a large percentage of them civilians, children, and non-combatants, with little or no consideration for human rights or the laws of war.

While the moral and legal issue concerning Israel's right to respond militarily in these circumstance can be debated, there is near-universal agreement that its conduct of the military operation has been unjust and even criminal – with only the usual apologists for the Jewish state disagreeing.

As Jews, we stand united with another Israel, the patriarch Jacob, who cursed his sons Simeon and Levi for massacring the people of Shechem in revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah. Like Jacob, "we shall not be a party to the counsel of zealots. We shall not be counted in their assembly. (See Genesis 34. 49: 5-7).

As Jews, we stand united with the Jewish sages who rejected the zealotry of the Jewish "terrorists" at Masada, those who masked ethnic tribalism in the cloak of "self-defense" and "national honor."

As Jews, we listen not only when the sage Hillel says, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" but also when he says, "If I am only for myself, what am I?" Hillel's closing words also ring true in this hour of decision when a full resolution of conflict is demanded of both sides: "If not now, when?"

Finally, as American Jewish progressives, and as human beings, we condemn Hamas and Israel for violating the human rights of civilians on both sides, although we do not necessarily declare these violations to be morally or legally equivalent. We affirm the rights of both Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination and self-defense, as we affirm the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Sign the statement
Support the statement

Signers (affiliation for identification purposes only):

Rabbi Leonard Beerman Rabbi Brant Rosen Rabbi Rebecca Lillian Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak Tony Judt, NYU Howard Zinn, Boston Univ. Noam Chomsky, MIT Brian Leiter, Wilson Professor of Law, Univ. of Chicago Daniel Boyarin, UC Berkeley Irena Klepfisz, Barnard College Adam Rubin, PhD, HUC-JIR (Los Angeles) Mark Le Vine, UC Irvine Daniel Garber, Princeton, Philosophy dept. chair Ned Block, Silver Professor, NYU Gideon Rosen, Princeton Matthew Noah Smith, Yale Aryeh Cohen, PhD, American Jewish University Ilya Kliger, New York University Aaron Greenberg, Univ. of Chicago Paul Loeb Alice Rothschild Murray Polner, former editor, Present Tense Larry Yudelson Jerome Slater, SUNY Buffalo Joanne Yaron, World Meretz Chana Bloch, UC Berkeley Marilyn Hacker, CCNY Rita Karuna Cahn, UC San Francisco Nance Goldstein, University of Southern Maine Gordon Fellman, Brandeis Univ. Harry Mairson, Brandeis University David L. Green, University of Illinois Stephanie Sieburth, Duke Priscilla Wald, Duke E. James Lieberman, M.D., George Washington University School of Medicine Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland David Auerbach, Univ. of N. Carolina, Raleigh Joseph Levine, Univ. of Mass., Amherst Shari Stone-Mediatori, Ohio Wesleyan Univ. Ido Roll, Carnegie Mellon Univ. Philip Wadler, University of Edinburgh Assaf Oron, Univ. of Wash. Clare Solomon, Washington Univ. Judith Norman, Trinity Univ. Steven Bell, Berry College Charles Manekin, Univ. of Maryland Yale Strom, UC San Diego Ira Glunts, Morrisville State College Merle Bachman, Spalding University Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam Dan Fleshler, Realistic Dove Dan Sieradski, Orthodox Anarchist Adrienne Cooper Steven R. Shalom, William Paterson University Bram Hubbell, Friends Seminary Ilana Abramovitch, Ph.D. Kate Abramson David Adler Dina Afek Delmas and Sally Allen Tracy Allen Marshall Ansell Paul Ansell Harry Appelman Darwin Aronoff Jesse Bacon Sonia M. Baku Walter Ballin Adam Barolsky Kathy Barolsky Tsela Barr David Basior Elliott Battzedek Elizabeth Biele Peter Belmont Nicolas M. Benacerraf Lori Berlin Judith Berlowitz, Ph.D Murray & Marcia Bernstein Nancy Bernstein David Eugene Blank Alan L. Blitz Hedy Bookin-Weiner Elisa Bowyer Sallye Steiner Bowyer Dennis Brasky China Brotsky Ellen Brotsky Robert Browne Patricia Carmeli Rina Chomsky Liza DiPrima Cibula Drew Cohen G. Sherman Cole Mariani Didyk Pioter Drubetskoy Elana Dykewomon Bacia Edelman Carole Edelsky, PhD Steven R. Edelstein Dr. Amy Eisenberg, Center for World Indigenous Studies Lynne Eisenberg Liz Elkind David M. Ellis Ph.D Anita E. Feldman Andrew Felluss Micah Fenner Sarah Bendiner Fenner Eva Ferrero Raya Fidel George Figdor Daniel Fisher Terry Fletcher Dr. Chris Fox Stephen Saperstein Frug Racheli Gai Ellen Garvey Doris Gelbman Myles Gideon Jim Glionna Roberta Gold Mary Goldman Daniel Goldstein Julius Gordon Sarah Gordon Bruce Gould Jessica Greenbaum Kathy Grisham Sherrl Grosse Yanowitz Rogall Kay Halpern Tony and Hillary Hamburger Lawrence R. Hamilton Peter Handler Paul J Heckler Wendy Hartley Glen Hauer Katherine Herman Dr. Annette Herskovits Hanna J. Hoffman, PhD Jack Holtzman Rebecca Hughes Nomi Hurwitz Spencer Jarrett Rachel Kahn-Troster Barbara S. Kane, PhD, LCSW Ilene Kantrov Wendy Kaufmyn Aimée Kligman Susie Kneedler Judith Kolokoff Steve Kowit Rebecca S. Krantz, PhD Terry Krieger Seth Kulick Judith Laitman Sheldon H. Laskin Betsy Lawrence Mirna Lawrence David Leipziger Jack Leiss Howard Lenow Oded Adomi Leshem Yossi Levanoni Jeremy Levick John F. Levin Rebekah Levin Joan Levitt Mary-Lee Lutz Marsha C. Manekin Richard Manekin Gideon Manning Vered Meir Yitzhak Y Melamed Marji Mendelsohn Alan Meyers Gert Meyers Katya Miller Sherin Miller Susan Miller Daniel Millstone Sarah Anne Minkin Cary Moskovitz Rick Nagin Dorothy Naor Germana Nijim Sara Norman Joel Dansky Henry Norr Leonard Bruce Novick Diane O'Bannon Elijah Oberman Miller Oberman Abigail Okrent Benjamin Orbach Dr. Stephen Oren Tova Perlmutter Karen Platt Lynn Pollack Dr. Betty Potash Harriet Putterman Avi Rab Steve Raphael Joyce Ravitz Susan Ravitz Deb Reich Avram Rips Mara Rivera Lee Robinson Danny Rochman Jennifer Rose Dorah Rosen Ellen Rosner Sue Rouda Novelle Saarinen Lawrence Saltzman Meg Sandow Linda Siegel Sang Marlena Santoyo Karl Schaffer, PhD Cindy Shamban Wendy Scher Madeline Schleimer Eugene Schulman Kayla Schwarz Janet Settle Alexander Shalom Alexi Shalom Jessica Shalom Greenberg Lee Sharkey Nance Shatzkin Dr Peter Sheridan Brian S Sherman Meryl Siegal David Siegel Jessica Siegel Rich Siegel Earl Silbar Marc Silverstein Shayna Silverstein Esther P. Simon Miriam Simos (Starhawk) Jeffrey Sklansky Laura Sklarsky Jerome Slater Kathrin Smith Daniel Sniderman Louisa Rachel Solomon Talli Somekh Nicole Witte Solomon Dr. Wendy Elisheva Somerson Doug Sparling Tova Stabin Neta Stahl Aaron Stark Burton Steck Jane Stein Mark Stenzler Mae Stephen Lynne Strieb Danny Stone Robert Stone Shirley Stone Debbie Stone-Bruell Uri Strauss Leslie Sudock Yaakov Sullivan Michele Sumka Cecilie Surasky Lois Swartz Doug Tarnopol Amir & Roni Terkel David Tostenson Theodore Warmbrand Tom Weltsch Janis G. White Michael Winograd Robin Winogrond Rachel Farrell Wofsy Bruce Wolman, MD Ellen Zaltzberg Michael J. Zigmond

Vote Hadash -- Vote the Palestinian-Jewish Partnership

Before the 1992 elections for the Israeli Knesset I attended a "hug bayit" (parlour meeting) of religious Jews with Naomi Chazan, of the Meretz party. Just the idea that religious Zionist Jews would possibly vote for the "anti-religious" Meretz seemed astounding in those days. Each one us stared with surprise at the unexpected participants. "What is he doing here?" I said to my wife. "Who would have thought?" She replied.

After the election, the host of the evening came up to me and say, "You think you are such a hotshot for voting Meretz. So-and-so voted Hadash."

"So-and-so" was a distinguished Hebrew University professor of classical Jewish literature (I won't say more than that), a "3-minyan-a-day" Jew who had served in the army, and whose children attended rightwing national religous schools (Horev, and that is the last I am saying.) I went up to So-and-so, and I asked him -- the first Jew I personally knew who voted for Hadash -- why, how, he could have done it?

He said, "Two reasons. First, the Arab sector in this country is by far the most underprivileged, and in this country, political power gets translated into support for your sector. The gaps between the Jewish and Arab sectors are growing, and it is a scandal that stikes at the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Second, Tamar Gozansky is a brilliant parliamentarian who achieves much of her legislative agenda, which is socially progressive."

"But," I said, "the party is communist, and you are not a communist."

"I look at what the party does in parliament -- and it does very well, both supporting its sector, and reaching out to others for socially progressive legislation."

Ever since then I have supported Hadash for the same reasons. And now that Dov Khenin, the brilliant Tel-Aviv law professor (from 2004-2006; see comment section below), human rights activist, and enviromental advocate, is prominent in the list, supporting Hadash is a no-brainer for any progressive Jew.

Here are my additional reasons for supporting Hadash -- and for abandoning Meretz, at least until it gets its act together.

1. The Palestinian-Jewish partnership is the only hope for the peoples of the region. Magnes said it, and he was right. It is time for progressive Jews, including Zionists, to climb down the tribalist tree. We have a state, power, and achievements -- and there will always be enough tribalist Jews out there, trust me.

2. The status of Palestinian Israelis in society is even more a scandal. For sixty years they have been excluded from all Israeli governments, "left", "center", and "right" (i.e., center, right, and to the right of Ghengis Khan). They will still be excluded, but the more seats they have, the more their voices will be heard. (This means that Jews can and should vote for other Palestinian Israeli parties as well.)

3. Hadash has the most progressive agenda of any political party in Israel. Enough said about that.

4. The Jews in Hadash know their place. There is no chance that Jews will try to take over Hadash, because Jewish supporters of Hadash know that this is first and foremost and Arab party. There is no room for the "benign paternalism" of liberal Jews, as in the Sixties.

5. Meretz lacks energy; it should be renamed "Viagra". It exists as a club for some Tel-Aviv secularists and some kibbutznikim who became dinosaurs long ago. If more proof were needed, just witness its pussyfooting on the Gaza war (with some very important exceptions, who should be praised for coming out against the spirit of their aging party, e.g., Zahava Gal-On.)

6. Hadash and not Meretz realizes that Israel's problems began in 1948 (if not earlier) and not in 1967 -- with the founding of the "Ethno-democratic State of Israel" by Russian Jews. Hadash wants the State of Israel to become a Western-style democracy, and not another Putinocracy. That probably won't happen for a long time, given the fact that there are so many Russians in Israel. But Israel's decline in the West, at least among the Western democracies, is not too long off.

7. An electoral defeat for Meretz is what it needs to get its house in order, to let the old cattle out to pasture, and to join the 21st century.

Sure Hadash is a political party, and it is not perfect, by any mean. Sometimes it seems to me to be a little too moderate (Part of that is due to the personality of Mohammad Barakeh, its respected leader.) I will say nothing against anybody voting for other Arab political parties either, though the Balad-Hadash rivalry is strong.

But this is a golden opportunity for people sick of the situation to go for Hadash. Whatever government will be formed, Meretz won't be a part of it. So even the old argument that a vote for Hadash is a wasted vote doesn't fly.

If you can't bring yourself to vote for Hadash, then please vote for Bibi or Avigdor, or somebody on the right. I have been hoping for a rightwing landslide in the coming election. That will be pure gold for progressives.

The Silence of the Frummies (Orthodox Jews)

In the middle of the Gaza campaign, one of my children, whose political views don't entirely mesh with mine, asked me the following question:

"Abba, I understand the people who justify our going to war in Gaza. But why don't they at least express pain at the lost of so much innocent life – loss for which we are responsible?"

I have no answer to that question. Or, rather, all the answers that come to me (the Israeli spin on the background to the war, the rocket fire in the South, the demonization of Hamas, etc.) don't really do justice to the question.

I have lived through many wars in Israel, and, like all Israelis, I am very familiar with the yorim u-vokhim (shoot first, then shed tears over the victims later) phenomenon.

But I think that this is the first war where virtually no regret has been expressed over the loss of civilian life – and I don't mean just by the chauvinistic center, but even by the so-called "left". Except for the few righteous in Sodom, and the sane voices I have been publishing, there has been nothing. If it weren't for Gideon Levy, our generation would have been swept away a long time ago.

The silence of the Orthodox, particularly, has been deafening. One young rabbi dared to venture that in war there are certain rules that must be observed. He didn't say that the IDF wasn't observing those rules, only that there are rules.

Wow, you mean there are rules of war… now that's a radical concept. I think most orthodox Jews will agree with the terrorist settler Haggai Segal, who says that the rabbinic phrase, "If somebody gets up to kill you, kill him first" should be changed to "If somebody gets up to kill you, destroy him and everything around him first."

Orthodox rabbis, not to mention the rank-and-file of baal-habatim, lay people, are quick to blame the Palestinians for the death of babies in Gaza. "It's their fault." "Better them than us." Mention "proportionality" to an orthodox Jew, and you get stares – I mean, does any orthodox Jew believe that the life of an Arab is worth the same as that of a Jew? If you can find a statement by one, let me know. And while you are at it, if you are orthodox and you will believe that they are of equal worth, let me know.

All right, so I don't expect much from orthodox rabbis and the rank-and-file. I never looked at them for moral guidance of this sort.

But what about the so-called religious doves? What about that moribund of religious organizations, Oz ve-Shalom/Netivot Shalom? Or the hesitant, Ziyyonut Datit Realit, "Realistic Religious Zionism," which burst onto the scene with so much fanfare a few years ago.

The one person who would have had some moral clarity, albeit from a liberal religious Zionist perspective, is Avi Ravitsky. But Avi was hit by a bus two years ago and is no condition to speak.

That leaves another Avi, Avi Sagi, of Bar Ilan. Don't expect much from him, although he may yet surprise. Rabbi Melchior? In the midst of an election campaign, don't expect much from him, either. Tzvia Greenberg, the so-called haredi leftwinger of Meretz? Not when it comes to Palestinians. Menachem Forman, the settlement rabbi with the weird ideas about sharing the land? He is still talking about peace, not justice. Uriel Simon? Nada. Mikky Rosen? Unfortunately, dead. Yeshayahu Leibowitz? Long dead.

Shammai Leibowitz, Avrum Burg (Is he still frum?) B. Michael. OK, that's three. Menachem Klein, and a few members of the Yedidya shul. Some orthodox academics. Anybody else?

No, for moral enlightenment we have to look at the younger generation of human rights activists who are either orthodox, or datlashim (formerly orthodox). I won't name names; you know who you are.

So here's my appeal. If you know of some orthodox Jews who are speaking out, if not in condemnation of Israel, at least with deep sympathy with the suffering of the Gazans, let me know. When I get ten men and women (you see, I will go for a conservative minyan) I will breathe easier for my generation.

On Shabbat we read about God's hardening Pharoah's heart. We Jews are Pharoah now. And the Palestinians are the Hebrews.

Thank God for the (mostly non-orthodox?) rabbis who are coming up with a statement condemning Israel's actions in Gaza, which will be up again Sunday night. See it here.

 

A Sanctification of God’s Name in Washington, DC

In the Fall of 2007 I was thrown on the Obama bandwagon by a shul buddy of mine. I didn't know squat about Obama then. I had heard of "The Speech," but I hadn't actually heard it. And, although I wasn't wild about Hillary, she seemed the most realistic candidate to support. The truth is that I wasn't much interested in politics. Living in Israel had killed my faith in the political system.

My shul mate had invited me for Shabbat lunch, where I learned that he was working hard for the Obama campaign. In fact, he was one of Obama's principal bundlers. Why? Because he genuinely believed in Obama, and had been a great admirer since they were at Harvard Law school together. Mind you, my friend was a top Washington litigator, and making oodles of money that I couldn't even dream about. But he was also working very hard on behalf of Obama's campaign. If Obama won and he joined the administration, he would take an enormous salary cut.

So when this Washington corporate lawyer, who sounded almost gaga and moon-eyed talking about Barack, asked me whom I was supporting, and I told him, "Hillary," his polite response was, "Hey, she's good; if she gets the nomination, I will help her, too."

But then he turned to me and said, "So, what's your take on Israel?"

For the next twenty-five minutes, over dessert, I told him exactly what I thought. I don't usually do this, especially when I have been invited over somebody's house for a meal, and especially on Shabbat. That's why I write a pseudonymous blog. I don't like confrontation.

At the end of my speech, my host, a liberal Zionist, was somewhat in shock. He had never heard anybody that looked like me talk this way. He said, "Look, I don't agree with most of what you are saying, and I know that Obama doesn't. But I will tell you this. You are not a Hillary supporter. You are an Obama supporter."

Well, I figured that he knew these things better than I did, so I let him throw me on the bandwagon. Shortly afterwards I became a believer. Well, enough of a believer to contribute much more than I should have to the campaign (but who didn't?), to co-host a fundraiser, to blog about Obama, and to get up at 5 am on Election Day to help get out the vote.

Recently, my friend left his lucrative job as a litigator and joined the Obama administration. He was sworn in this week as the president's Deputy Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform. The first executive order that Obama signed last week, on lobbyists, was written by him.

You have no idea how proud I am that this portfolio has been given to my friend, a modern orthodox Jew, and a real mentsh.

Yasher koah, Norm. You renewed not only my belief in the political system, and in the importance of getting involved in it. What you are doing is a real kiddush ha-Shem, a sanctification of God's name.

Don’t Just Speak Out, Cry Out!

Now that the artillery has ceased firing, we are seeing a few Israelis speak out against the horrors of this so-called war, a war whose main goal was not to stop the rocket fire, which could have been done without a single death, but rather to wreak havoc on a defenseless civilian population. (That statement, of course, is not at all controversial, since even defenders of the war concede that the purpose of wreaking havoc was to weaken Hamas, and to show them that "the boss went crazy.")

Tom Segev, who wrote eloquently against the unnecessary and immoral war from the outset, has published a piece about the scandal of Israeli apathy. I hope his "History Lesson: The History of [Israeli] Self-Righteousness" is translated into English.

The history of Israeli self-righteousness is rich with condemnations and expressions of regret over injuring civilians. Israel's self-image is based on the assumption that the IDF is better than other armies. "We at least try not to injure civilians." That wasn't true even before the destruction and the death that the IDF sowed in Gaza in recent weeks. But this time it seems that many fewer Israelis than in the past feel that what happened there – should not have happened.

This operation stands out not only in its cruelty, but mainly because it did not succeed in drawing Israelis out of their apathy. This apathy is chiling and is no less shameful than the actions themselves.

Haaretz, in an editorial, has called for a governmental inquiry into war crimes. Even a wimpy Labor party liberal like philosopher Yirmiyahu Yovel has written a powerful accusation against Israel's conduct of the war. I don't agree with his claim that Israel's aim was just. But I certainly agree that it was deadly, and that the campaign was morally despicable

Of course, most of the Israelis I know are damn satisfied with the death and destruction. "Don't blame us for the death of all those babies. We only killed them – it wasn't, like, our fault, or anything. Hey, the Americans killed more people in Dresden and Hiroshima" (My God, I have heard normal people speak such obscene filth.)

Still, like Abraham, I am hoping that a few more righteous people in Sodom will emerge, and that even, mirabile dictu, a prominent religious Jew will speak out against the slaughter. (Hey, if you are orthodox, you have a certain faith in miracles.)

But a governmental inquiry into Israeli war crimes? Not by the Israeli government, please.

No, the civilized people of the world, Jew and Gentile, should cry out against the barbarism. Sign the petition Richard Silverstein and I have written here, at the very least. Or better yet, send a letter to your local newspaper, call a radio station.

Don't just speak out, cry out!

My God, I Was (Mostly) Right!

Less than a month ago, I wrote a post called, "To War! To War! Fredonia's Going to War!" Here is an excerpt of what I wrote then:

If you are looking for predictions, I would say that this will be less of a disaster for Israel than the Second Lebanon war, but will be a disaster none the less. The major goal of the war is to stop the rocket fire from Gaza. That won't happen without another cease-fire agreement. For there to be a cease-fire agreement, there has to be a motivation for Hamas to sign a cease-fire agreement. Israel is not providing it with the motivation now. Israel will neither destroy nor significantly weaken Hamas; it may set it back in terms of armaments, but Israel has little room to maneuver. The siege on Gaza has strenghthened Hamas, and if they hold out against Israel – and they will – they will be strengthened even more.

There is, however, another war goal that Israel can meet in the short run. That is to wreak havoc in Gaza, to kill a lot of Arabs, to show them who's boss, to avenge national honor, to "do something" when our settlements are under attack. That will make the Israelis feel better, and that is nothing to sneeze at. The difficulty is that if the rockets keep on coming – as they did in the case of the Second Lebanese War – then Israelis will feel increasingly frustrated. And they will take it out on Kadima in the next elections and hand the government to Netanyahu and the Likud party, which has been sinking in the polls. So this is the Kadima's government second attempt to commit political suicide; the first attempt was the Second Lebanese War. I am betting that this time they will be successful.

OK, I got the above mostly right. True, there is more of a positive feeling after this war than after the Second Lebanese war, but not among everybody, certainly not among the right. Has the war strengthened Hamas? Maybe not in Gaza, but certainly in the West Bank.

I still think that there is a good chance that Bibi and the right will get elected, and that will be a sure sign that people are dissatisfied with the ambiguous ending of the war.

What else did I write a month ago?

So, here's the forecast:

The offensive will go on for some time. Resistance, if there is any, will melt. We will not reoccupy all of Gaza, just enough to fulfill the "do something" criterion of success. At some point we will declare that we have accomplished the major goals of the offensive, and we will negotiate, through some third party, another cease fire. Mission accomplished, with lots of casualties to their side, and the rockets continuing to fall on our side.

Bulls-eye!

That's the best case scenario.

The worst case scenario for Israel is that Hamas fights better than anticipated. That will mean that Israel will get bogged down the way that powerful countries get bogged down in urban guerilla warfare. If the objectives are limited, and if the fighting is limited to parts of Gaza, then Israel's loss will be relatively minor. If things spread – and they will if civilian casualties are heavy – then we are back to the Lebanon fiasco. Hamas may be counting on it; as it is, the war serves the short-term interests of Hamas and the Israeli government.

I gave the "worst-case" scenario because I did not know well how Hamas would fight. The results, apparently, were mixed. But the important thing to note is that the rockets did not stop till after the cease-fire.

On the whole, I was right. And this is what is depressing.

For if I, with no real military expertise or training, could get it right, what about the military experts, and war-mongers, who got it wrong?

 

 

How "The Most Moral Army In the World" Urinates On the Floor of University Professors

It shouldn't surprise me to learn how the Israel Defence Force bombs children deliberately (see under "double effect" or "collateral damage"), or how Israeli soldiers wreck buildings and cars for the sheer kef (fun), or how soldiers routinely steal from the homes they occupy. In a military operation like Cast Iron, or Defensive Wall, this is the norm, not the exception -- this is what soldiers do. Further proof is given by the IDF denials. As I have pointed out here before, the IDF spokespeople often lie, and their lies have been documented by various organizations.

One such organization is "Breaking the Silence" (Shovrim Shtika), which does a wonderful job collecting soldier's testimonies, e.g., about the combat unit that trashed a Palestinian doctor's office, leaving a pile of human excrement in the middle of the office. Now is this official IDF policy? Of course not, it doesn't have to be. It is an extension of real policies known as "hafganat koah" (displaying power) or "hafganat nokhekut" (displaying presence) -- showing the Arabs who is boss.

When soldiers steal -- oops, sorry, take souvenirs -- when they are caught, and when somebody in the press makes a stink, or when a slightly humane commander reports them, they are punished. That happens in the few cases, and they are trumpeted as evidence of the way the IDF prosecutes offenders.

All this is common knowledge and, as I said, denied only by the apologists or the naive.

So when I read something like the following in today's New York Times

Others here who might seem like natural liaisons with Israel in future peace-building dealings were also enraged. Fakhr Abu Awwad, a chemistry professor at Islamic University, who earned a doctorate at the University of New Orleans, had his house taken over by Israeli commandos days ago after he and his family fled.

When he returned to the house on Monday, he found bullet holes in the walls, televisions, closets and clothing. His toilets had been shot up; his cigars, watch and wife’s jewelry pilfered; and his floor urinated on, he said.

“This is the most moral army in the world,” he said in fluent English, a sarcastic reference to how Israelis speak of their military, as he walked around the house pointing out the damage. Mr. Abu Awwad said he was affiliated with neither Hamas nor Fatah.

I said to myself, "Well, maybe this is improvement. Now IDF soldiers urinate on a doctor's floor, instead of defecating on it. "

Maybe they were aiming their urine at the toilet and inadvertantly it ended up on the floor -- collateral damage. After all, it is hard to believe that the most moral army in the world would intentionally shoot up a house, steal from it, and then piss on it.

Ah, what better way to ensure that no rockets will be fired at Israeli settlements?

From Despair to Hope -- in Ten Hours

In a few minutes I leave behind my Jerusalem home, and I board a plane for my DC home. The Jerusalem I leave behind is sullen and grey, defensive, and self-righteous. In three weeks the Israel Defence Forces wreaked more havoc, killed more civilians, including hundreds of children, and raised the century-old cycle of violence to a new height – or low. Israel won't mourn now, not when it is only Arab children we have killed. Our time to mourn will come in the not-too-distant future, God forbid.

Out of the depths I cry to you, O Lord. Out of the depths of pain -- for the blood of innocents on my, yes, my hands, since I am as implicated as any citizen in the madness. Out of the depths of pain for those who can feel no pain, no emotion, at the passing of children. And why not? Well, take your pick: a) it is us or them; b) they started it; c) they could have acted better; d) all or none of the above, and a thousand other asine and idiotic justifications that only selfish children and -- world-famous novelists like A.B. Yehoshua – are capable of coming up with.

Yes, there is despair, but there is also disgust, both self-disgust and disgust and those who are not disgusted. Were it not for the fringe, the righteous in Sodom – no, were it not also for my belief that the public façade of self-justification and self-righteousness masks a lot of discomfort, even with all the cliches that we repeat like mantras to soothe ourselves – then my despair would be even greater.

Two plane rides, a half of day of traveling, and I will be in Washington, DC, the City of Hope, watching the inauguration of Barack Obama. I will rejoice in the national celebration of one fatherland, and try to suppress the memories, and the images, of the other.

Will the "audacity of hope" spill over from Washington to Jerusalem?

My fellow-blogger, and eternal optimist, Gershom Gorenberg thinks that it will. In an op-ed in Haaretz today, Gorenberg rejects the doom-and-gloom forecast of Husein Agha and Rob Malley in the current New York Review of Books and prefers the upbeat tone of Martin Indyck's latest book, where it is claimed that what we need now is an intensive effort on the part of the new president. (What would-be peace-maker doesn't make that claim?) Surprisingly, and without any argument, Gorenberg says that Indyk is right and Malley wrong – and that the Gaza War proves Indyck right.

After the years of neglect under Bush, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has blown up again, on Obama's doorstep. Grim photos appear in the media. Relations between Israel and Turkey, both American allies, are crumbling. While careful not to conduct foreign relations before the inauguration, Obama promised last week that his team would become "immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process." At her confirmation hearing for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke of the "tragic humanitarian costs" borne by Gazans and of the incoming administration's "determination to seek a peace agreement."

But the last time the Israeli-Palestinian conflict blew up was after the American Administration made an intensive effort – some say it blew up partly because of that effort -- and two strong leaders (well, Arafat, anyway), were running Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The point of Agha and Malley's article was that no matter whether the American effort was intensive or half-hearted, whether the leaders were strong or weak, at the end of the day, the two0-state solution did not interest enough people on either side. (The Israelis are always in favor of the Palestinians having a "state," not a state.)

For Gorenberg, who wrote a great book on the beginning of the settlement enterprise on the West Bank, everything begins and ends with the 67 Occupation – as if one could only get Israel to evacuate settlements, and to withdraw to the 67 borders, all would be right with the world. That, of course, is the faith of the liberal Zionist. But on what is that faith grounded? Blessed are the peacemakers, and I include within that Indyk, Ross, Miller, and, yes, Kurtzer. But they are all failed peace-makers, and I don't think it is for lack of effort.

I am going to the City of Hope in a few minutes. The problems that Barack Obama face are extraordinary. But the economy will one day recover. The Iraq War will one day end. The war in Afghanistan will one day end.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I am afraid, will never end – not as long as Israel is Israel and Palestine is Palestine. It has been going on for a century. During that time the Soviet Union rose and fell, there were two World Wars, Europe began to adopt a federal model.

Yes, there were three years of hope, cut short by a Jewish assassin's bullet. But that hope may have been as false as the Middle East hopes of the new administration.

Things may get better at some distant time in the future. But not with the current constellation of power.

I sure hope my mood changes when I get to DC.

Join American Jews in Condemning Gaza War

Richard Silverstein and I, along with Verso Books, the publishers of A Time to Speak Out, have prepared the following statement from American Jews condemning the Gaza assault and Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. We hope that you will sign it and encourage others you know to do so as well. Roane Carey of The Nation has expressed some interest in publishing it there, if we succeed in getting a significant number of signatories. We hope you will help start a viral campaign by promoting this statement as widely as you can via e mail, websites and general word of mouth.

To sign, please send your full name, title (if you wish), & affiliation (if you wish) to this address. It is only for signatures and not for regular correspondence. For that, please e mail Richard directly. Of course, you can leave comments on this blog.

"We Shall Not Be a Party to Their Counsel!"

As human beings, we are shocked and appalled at the mass destruction unleashed by the State of Israel against the people of Gaza in its current military operation, following years of Israeli occupation, siege, and deprivation.

As Americans, we protest the carte blanche given Israel by the US government to pursue a war of "national honor," "restoring deterrence," "destroying Hamas," and "searing Israel's military might into the consciousness of the Gazans."

As progressives, we reject the same justifications for the carnage that we heard ad nauseum from the supporters of the Second Iraq War: the so-called "war on terror," the "clash of civilizations," the "need to re-establish deterrence" – all of which served to justify a misguided and unnecessary war, with disastrous consequences for America and Iraq.

But as Jews of different religious persuasions, from Orthodox to secular atheist, we are especially horrified that a state that purports to speak in our name wages a military campaign that has killed over 1,000 people, a large percentage of them civilians, children, and non-combatants, with little or no consideration for human rights or the laws of war.

While the moral and legal issue concerning Israel's right to respond militarily in these circumstance can be debated, there is near-universal agreement that its conduct of the military operation has been unjust and even criminal – with only the usual apologists for the Jewish state disagreeing.

As Jews, we stand united with another Israel, the patriarch Jacob, who cursed his sons Simeon and Levi for massacring the people of Shechem in revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah. Like Jacob, "we shall not be a party to the counsel of zealots. We shall not be counted in their assembly. (See Genesis 34. 49: 5-7).

As Jews, we stand united with the Jewish sages who rejected the zealotry of the Jewish "terrorists" at Masada, those who masked ethnic tribalism in the cloak of "self-defense" and "national honor."

As Jews, we listen not only when the sage Hillel says, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" but also when he says, "If I am only for myself, what am I?" Hillel's closing words also ring true in this hour of decision when a ceasefire is demanded of both sides: "If not now, when?"

Finally, as American Jewish progressives, and as human beings, we condemn Hamas and Israel for violating the human rights of civilians on both sides, although we do not necessarily declare these violations to be morally or legally equivalent. We affirm the rights of both Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination and self-defense, as we affirm the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Breaking News: Israel and the Bush Administration Agree: No Arms Smuggling to Gaza

After weeks of intense fighting in which over 1000 Palestinians have been killed, Israel and the US are close to an agreement that Hamas should not smuggle arms to Gaza

I kid you not. Today's Haaretz lead headline (in huge type): "Israel US close in on deal to halt arms smuggling into Gaza". Read it (and weep) here:

So let me get this straight. Hamas has not yet agreed to stop smuggling weapons. A lame duck administration, with less than a week to go, is now promising Israel that it will help to do…precisely what?

According to Haaretz, this is Israel's wish list for such a momentous agreement.

• A U.S. declaration calling on the international community to deal with the smuggling of arms from Iran to terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip.
• Intelligence cooperation between Israel and the U.S. for identifying the sources of weapons, with focus on the network linking Iran, the Persian Gulf and Sudan.
• An international maritime effort along the smuggling routes to find ships carrying weapons to the Gaza Strip, possibly with the involvement of NATO.
• An American and European commitment for the transfer of technologies to Egypt that will help it uncover tunnels.
• Plans for the economic development of Rafah, with particular emphasis on the Bedouin to undercut the financial motivation for building and operating tunnels.

Look, if such "achievements" help Israel to stop the war and accept an Egyptian cease-fire, fine with me. (See under Lebanon II)

Meanwhile, Haaretz's commentators Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff have an analysis that backs the Israeli narrative on the cease-fire: Hamas lost, Israel reestablished its deterrence. (See under Lebanon II)

And, apparently, an overwhelming amount of Israelis are happy with the war and the way it has been conducted. That is not such a bad thing. It is because they weren't happy with the way the Lebanese war was conducted that Olmert prepared for war in Gaza in the first place.

Moral of the story: to make most Israelis happy you have to pound the Palestinians, blow them to bits, and wreak heavy destruction.

Now, who wins and who loses?

I can't see anybody winning. Hamas will still be in power, and since Israel won't allow elections, they will remain in power. The border crossing will remain open (until Israel closes them) and that is about Hamas's only achievement in the war. Many Gazans are unhappy with Hamas, but are more unhappy with Israel. Since Israel has no alternative to Hamas rule in Gaza – Fatah won't come back in, and Israel sure won't take charge – Israel will just continue to make the lives of the Gazans miserable. And that means that the ranks of Hamas will swell, after a while.

Israel gets its pride back – at the price of its international image, and at a time when more and more people are identifying its policies with those of the Bush mindset.

So this is what we have come to? A Jewish state that buys short periods of respite through slaughtering civilians? Every two to three years we will have to go through the madness again?

Ah, Herzl's dream….

How Jeffrey Goldberg Plans to Give the West Bank to Hamas

Recently, I read in a prominent newspaper an op-ed that concluded as follows:

The only small chance for peace today is the same chance that existed before the Gaza invasion: Europe, the United States and, mainly the Arab states , must help the Likud's enemy, Labor, prepare Israel for a complete withdrawal from the West Bank, and then hope that the Israelis, vast numbers of whom are unsympathetic to the Likud, see a Palestinian state on the West Bank as an alternative to the squalid vision of Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman.

Although I agree with the sentiment, and although, frankly, I would welcome anybody to help Israel out of mess it has gotten itself into, the world declaring war on the Likud doesn't seem to be such a great idea. Knowing Israelis, they would resent such blatant interference in their internal affairs, especially if it is backed by sanctions. Liberal fantasies aside, it is counter-productive to appeal to external pressure. It didn't work in Iraq. And it hasn't worked in Iran. Any innocent knows that.

Not, apparently, Jeffrey ("Hey-I-am-American-Israeli-Who-Understands-What-It-Takes-To-Get-Rid-of-Hamas") Goldberg. The above quotation was taken, with obvious modifications, from his latest op-ed in the New York Times. Only he wrote, of course,

The only small chance for peace today is the same chance that existed before the Gaza invasion: The moderate Arab states, Europe, the United States and, mainly, Israel, must help Hamas's enemy, Fatah, prepare the West Bank for real freedom, and then hope that the people of Gaza, vast numbers of whom are unsympathetic to Hamas, see the West Bank as an alternative to the squalid vision of Hassan Nasrallah and Nizar Rayyan.

Since the squalid vision of Nasrallah and Riyyan is no different from the squalid vision of the Israeli right, especially the religious Jewish right – it certainly is no more racist or bigoted – and since, the religious right has not been ostracized from Israeli society, one wonders why Goldberg doesn't offer the same prescription to Israel? Well, the answer is obvious. The Israeli religious right, while calling (and shooting) the shots on the West Bank, still doesn't run Israel's government. Of course, if the Palestinians had a state as strong and secure as Israeli, neither would Hamas. One has to thank Israeli interference, a corrupt Fatah, and Hamas' network of social and charitable organizations, for Hamas' power today.

What Goldberg should have said is as follows: The countries of the world should recognize the result of the Palestinian elections. They should make Palestinian security and well-being no less a priority than Israel's security and well-being. They should not interfere in the Palestinians' internal affairs, but they certainly can make their preferences known, the same way that the US and Europe clearly favor a Labour government over a Likud government in every election.

Moreover, the Palestinian people should get their act together and present a united front in dealings with Israel and the world. A divided Palestinian people is bad for them, good for the Israeli rejectionists, and plays into the hands of their own extremists.

As for Hamas, I yield to no person in my disgust with its charter and its theology, which I take as seriously as I take the theology of the rightwing religious Zionists in Israel, Hamas' ideological counterparts among the Jews. I live among them and read what they write. A lot of it is damn scary.

But I also know that nothing in Goldberg's article – or in anything I have read about Hamas – suggests that they would not welcome a long-term truce with Israel, in which they could build their Shari'a state, waiting, of course, for Allah to strike down the Jewish pigs and apes, in the way that the religious right in Israel prepares for the building of the Third Temple, and the destruction of Amalek. I assure you that I can live with that, just as I can daven with people who pray for similar things to happen to the Palestinians. (And imagine how they will feel – and how they will act -- when the Palestinians have their own state in the heart of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem.)

Haaretz journalist Akiva Eldar, whose opinions on Hamas are a lot more reliable than Goldberg's, wrote recently about how the campaign against Gaza is handing the West Bank to Hamas. Goldberg apparently still believes that Israel, American, and Arab governments can bring about regime change and weaken Hamas. The idea wasn't convincing when Krauthammer was cheerleading the American invasion of Iraq. Why think it will work better in Palestine? At least America holds out the promise of withdrawing from Iraq totally.

And precisely what is the "real freedom" that Goldberg is willing to offer the Palestinians? A single state on the West Bank and Gaza, with a strong army – at least as strong as Jordan's – that can defend itself from the threat of Israeli aggression?

Or two quasi-states with a police force, a pretty flag, stamps, and casinos, whose economy is controlled by – you guessed it – Israel.

Now that sounds like a recipe for a Hamas take-over.