The other side of the story

Yes, that's not a commonly held view in the West, for sure.

I note that he says:

"Israel claims that Palestinians are the source of violence.

Let us be clear and unequivocal. The occupation of Palestine since the War of 1967 has been and remains the root of violence between Israelis and Palestinians."

Hmmm. Is he saying that the pre-'67 "occupation" of Palestine is not connected to the violence? Or is he saying that the entire Jewish presence in Israel itself is an occupation?

He says he's being "clear and unequivocal" but he isn't. He's fudging.

Myself, I'd say that competing Jewish and Palestinian nationalisms are the source of violence in the Mideast.

I think he's attempting to counter the argument that Israel is defending itself by pointing out that what Israel is defending is the military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Most of the media in the last couple of days that have presented editorials on this have gone to great lengths to justify Israel's actions because of the rocket attacks even if they go on to criticize Israel for the "proportionality" of its response. But those attacks are reported without the context of the occupation in general or of the year and a half old blockade in particular. If you look at those rocket attacks as resistance to occupation instead of gratuitous attacks on Israel, it changes the whole story. You may still want to criticize the tactics that the Palestinian resistance has adopted but how far do they get if they only resist in ways that are acceptable to the occupiers?

"If you look at those rocket attacks as resistance to occupation instead of gratuitous attacks on Israel, it changes the whole story. You may still want to criticize the tactics that the Palestinian resistance has adopted but how far do they get if they only resist in ways that are acceptable to the occupiers?"

The rocket attacks are on Israel proper, not the West Bank, which really is an "occupation".

As for "how far they get if they only resist in ways acceptable to the occupiers", I think the proper reply is that attacks on civilians are NEVER justified, even if a military advantage can be achieved by violation of this fundamental human rights norm.

Even if I am wrong, and human rights norms are mere guidelines to be violated when convenient, my own belief is that the rocket attacks are totally counterproductive.

What, really, do they amount to, other than providing Israel as excuse for this aggression? To me, the more Palestinains do large scale civil disobedience, the more chance they have of actually changing the militarized dynamic at which they have been losing consistently since 1948.

I agree that the rocket attacks are counter-productive. But I think it's important to look at them in context.

The rocket attacks are on Israel proper, not the West Bank, which really is an "occupation".

Gaza remains occupied territory. Israel dismantled the settlements and withdrew Israeli citizens but maintained control over the borders, the coast and air space. Israel has reserved the right to send in the IDF at any time and has done so for raids and targeted assassinations. The residents of Gaza were encouraged to participate in a democratic process and the moment they did so and voted for people the Israeli government disapproved of, Israel began punishing them for it*. That's what the blockade has been all about. As far as I'm concerned, that's occupation. And as far as I'm concerned, it remains the key issue as long as it continues.

I should add that I'm extremely pessimistic about the outcome and I think in the long run Israelis will wake up one day and realize that they don't have the Israel they wanted, they have themselves to blame as much as anyone else and it's too late to do anything about it.

* And that punishment was meted out with the blessing and complicity of the Canadian government.

"The residents of Gaza were encouraged to participate in a democratic process and the moment they did so and voted for people the Israeli government disapproved of, Israel began punishing them for it*. "

I'd phrase it to include WHAT they voted for, too.

" The residents of Gaza were encouraged to participate in a democratic process in the hopes they would vote for the more pro-peace party.

Unfortunately, they voted for a party which offered continual war, "until the Resurrection" , and surprise, that party continued its policies of targetting Israeli civilians, in the hope that Israel would discredit itself through aggression, as it is doing."

From Hamas' Charter:

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."

.....

Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission......

Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad.....

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Unfortunately, as long as Palestinians vote for confrontation, and as long as Israelis vote for the typical Likud and Labour politicians, who also promise confrontation, there will be no peace.

The residents of Gaza were encouraged to participate in a democratic process in the hopes they would vote for the more pro-peace party.

I'm not clear where that quote came from but it only illustrates my point. If the results of that democratic process were subject to the approval — "the hopes" — of anyone other than the people voting than that democratic process was a sham. I'm aware of what's in the Hamas charter. But it seems to me that the position of the Palestinian Authority towards the end of Fatah's mandate included an acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist. Has the Hamas government formally renounced that position? Did Israel (and the U.S. and Canada) allow even a short period for Hamas to make an adjustment to being in government? Or did the denunciations and the punishment begin immediately?

that party continued its policies of targetting Israeli civilians

And Israel continues its policy of occupation. We can do this all day. We can disapprove of the tactics but as long as the occupation continues those tactics can be characterized as resistance to it and not to Israel's existence. Quickest way to defuse that argument is to end the occupation.

jeff, have you just justified the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center because US citizens (supposedly) voted for the party of continuous war?

That would be deplorable, no? So is Israel's current mass muder in Gaza. Here we have an actual war crime on the level of Guernica, a human rights disaster. I'm not a fan of Hamas (or any religion-based movement) but Gazans voted for them because Fateh was hopelessly corrupt and compromised, and the left sidelined for a series of reasons.

Well, to me it is clear that the voters of Gaza are not being punished for exercising their right to vote, as Pogge suggested, but rather because they voted for a group that stands entirely for war.

I was actually thinking of 9-11 when I wrote the original comment. Because I don't think Al Quaeda committed ITS war crimes because the US civilians participated in elections. What goes around, comes around.

I do think mass bombing of civilians is a war crime, and have never said otherwise, but so is the practice of shooting rockets directly at civilian populations.

Guernica was no more terrible a war crime than many, many others, including 9-11.

the voters of Gaza are not being punished for exercising their right to vote, as Pogge suggested, but rather because they voted for a group that stands entirely for war.

In this context it seems like a distinction without a difference. Being told "You can vote for your own government as long you vote for those of whom we approve" isn't autonomy, it's occupation by a different means.

After two generations of occupation, Palestinians voted for the party that seemed most likely to stand up for them and I fail to see why anyone was surprised by that. But Hamas isn't just a party of war. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas has a history of supplying services to Palestinians including the construction of hospitals and schools.

A little quick research also yielded the fact that since that 2006 election Hamas has stated publicly that they will cease hostilities with Israel on a return to 1967 borders.

One additional thought:

Neither the US nor Gaza were attacked because they exercised the right to vote. "They hate us for our freedoms" is apologetics, whether for the US or for Hamas.

It would be nice, as Pogge suggests, if ending the occupation of the West Bank would bring peace. But Israelis have no reason, at present, to think that would be so. Rather, it would be a quid without a pro quo, if we take Hamas at its word.

Rather, it would be a quid without a pro quo, if we take Hamas at its word.

We may have cross-posted. I just noted that Hamas has stated they would cease hostilities on a return to 1967 borders.

But why is a pro quo necessary to end the occupation? It's illegal. Why should an end to Israeli law breaking be dependent on some standard of behaviour that's set for someone else? Why would the occupation only end when the people who live in the occupied territory stop resisting it? The presence of Palestinians in Palestine isn't a violation of international law. The presence of the IDF is. And it's international law administered by the same body that created the modern state of Israel in the first place.

Two thoughts.

First, I am sure the Germans considered the Maquis as terrorists.

Second, the German tactic of killing ten civilians for every German soldier killed by the Maquis has, thanks to modern technology, been multiplied by a factor of ten. Or one hundred.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

How you view these things depends on your stance, no? What's one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

1. "the point of view you won't see much of in the traditional media".

Why would that be? Who is in the way? The Elders?

Of course it's not actually true. It just so happens that yesterday Barghouthi was interviewed on Fox News (!) and on CNN to name but two "traditional media" organizations. He said exactly the same stuff.

2. The elected government of Gaza openly states that it wants to exterminate all Jews in the charter. It keeps shooting at Israel even during the so-called "ceasefire". Which is why it is necessary to control Gaza's borders... That is unless one wants Hamas to get more weapons so they can murder more Jews. In your view this amounts to occupation? Too bad.

3. Maquis did not target "Germans" just as Israel is not targeting Palestinians. Maquis fought Nazi and Vichi troops. Israel is fighting Hamas and going to quite some length to minimize civilian casualties. Remarkably successfully, the rate of civilian casualties so far is lower than in NATO action in Yugoslavia - although it is always too high...

Israel is not targeting Palestinians? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Meanwhile, jeffry house says "It would be nice, as Pogge suggests, if ending the occupation of the West Bank would bring peace. But Israelis have no reason, at present, to think that would be so. Rather, it would be a quid without a pro quo, if we take Hamas at its word."

Well, that may be. We can't know because Israel has never tried it. But the Palestinians have gone for considerable lengths of time on a number of occasions without attacking Israel, sometimes due to formal unilateral cease fires on the part of the major Palestinians resistance groups. And the result of those experiments has been unequivocal: Israel has no real reaction to cessation of hostilities by Palestinians. They continue and intensify economic strangulation, they keep on killing people, they keep on bulldozing homes, orchards and communities, they keep on building settlements and settler-only roads, they keep on building The Wall. Sometimes their response to cease-fires has been to engage in series of intensifying provocations until they get a response they can point to as justifying their next carefully planned move.

If I were a Palestinian I would have long ago stopped giving a shit whether I was supposedly supplying the Israelis with a pretext for their attacks. They'd do it anyway, pretext or none, and nobody in the world would do a goddamn thing about it anyway, so why should I care? What I'd care about would be my dead or dying relatives or friends, and I'd want to take someone down before I went down too. What else would I have to look forward to anyway? A lifetime half-starved with no dignity and no prospects?

The elected government of Gaza openly states that it wants to exterminate all Jews in the charter.

You're referring to a charter written 21 years ago. The elected government of Gaza, since the election, has stated that it would cease hostilities on a return to 1967 borders.

It keeps shooting at Israel even during the so-called "ceasefire".

Just as the blockade continued during the ceasefire.

Which is why it is necessary to control Gaza's borders

And yet the control of the borders predates the election of Hamas.

...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.

1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was written 26 years ago, but it is just as valid as it was in 1982.

You will notice that all that is ever offered by Hamas is truce for a period of time. That is because their long-term objective is to exterminate Jews. Temporary truce is nothing but means to prepare for extermination.

In any case the objective to exterminate Jews is reaffirmed by Hamas political, military and spiritual leaders on a regular basis (example).

2. There is no "blockade". Israel has been supplying Gaza with electricity, etc... at the very time the people of Gaza were shooting at Israeli kindergartens. I cannot think of another example like this...

Israel controls imports into Gaza. This was being relaxed following commencement of the ceasefire. However a few days after ceasefire started Hamas had a parade, their munitions exploded and killed Palestinians and then they broke the ceasefire (source). They can't help murdering Jews because this is their whole genocidal purpose of existance.

3. And yet the control of the borders predates the election of Hamas.

So do Qassams and suicide bombings. Do you really think that Israel actually wants to control Gaza's borders for the sake of it? This is purely a measure defend Israeli buses, nightclubs and nurseries. Is that too unreasonable for Israelis not to allow themselves to be murdered?

Ah, the mulberry bush.

I'll be back for discussion, but I just wanted to post the link to this excellent short article by Scott Horton in Harper's:

Hamas’s position in Gaza has been viewed as one of the more severe blemishes on Rice’s foreign policy record, and she and White House Middle East policy manager Elliott Abrams have reportedly been eager to accomplish changes before leaving office. With only three weeks remaining, there’s little time left. And the Israeli tactics employed in Gaza look suspiciously like an Elliott Abrams plan, complete with a test-run for the latest U.S. bunker-busting weaponry, deployed to “take out” those tunnels that Hamas has reportedly burrowed. Internal Israeli assessments of the failed 2006 proxy war against Hezbollah in Lebanon also suggested that the war had been planned and pushed through by the Bush Administration, with Elliott Abrams in the key planning position, over the opposition of senior Israeli military planners.

Elliott Abrams, one of the neocon undead.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was written 26 years ago, but it is just as valid as it was in 1982.

That's a specious comparison. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a legal document and was adopted by the government of Canada. The Hamas charter was a party document that has never been adopted by a government.

There is no "blockade".

If you're going to bullshit me, I'll just ban you and have done with it.

The article you link to was published prior to the election of Hamas. What ceasefire would a Hamas government have agreed to before Hamas formed a government? The ceasefire currently under discussion began in June, 2008.

Is that too unreasonable for Israelis not to allow themselves to be murdered?

Again, you can't discuss this without including the occupation as context. If you look upthread you'll see me acknowledge that rocket attacks on civilians aren't going to accomplish anything. But attempting to claim that those attacks are simply gratuitous attacks on Israelis (or on Jews which is the implication to be drawn from repeated references to the Hamas charter) overlooks 41 years of military occupation. You may want to overlook that but I'm not going to.

I just paid a visit to shlemazl's blog and found this:

May I therefore suggest that our "progressive" Pogge is either willingly or unknowingly engaged in spreading anti-Semitic lies along the likes of David Irving and Stormfront?

Quite correct, shlemazl. Nazi and Vichi troops, as you say.

I would quarrel, though, with your description of the Israeli army’s targeting and avoidance of civilian casualties as “remarkably successfully”. The NY Times this morning puts the Palestinian losses as this:

"More than 370 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli assault so far, Palestinian officials said. Among the dead were at least 62 women and children, according to the United Nations, and an unknown number of civilian men."

This, in return for four civilian Israelis dead. The occupiers retaliate to the tune of one hundred to one. Or if you want to count civilians only, at the rate of fifteen or twenty-five to one.

“Maquis fought Nazi and Vichi troops. Israel is fighting Hamas.”

Surely you are not comparing the Israeli army with the Maquis, are you? Who is the occupier, and who the occupied?

We have seen this kind of disproportionate response before, most recently in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Over 1000 Lebanese civilians died while the rest of the world – Canada (shamefully) included – stood by and let it happen.

Unacceptable.

Dammit, Pogge, I was just getting warmed up.

Literally.

:-)

Some Old Guy:

I know you're really teasing me but I'll reply anyway. When I see the accusations of anti-semitism surface I know we're truly going 'round the mulberry bush skdadl referred to. There will be no end to it because rational arguments are no longer in play. Instead every criticism of the policies of the government of Israel that has no logical rebuttal is attributed to hatred of Jews. It's a tactic intended to bully critics into silence and it just goes on and on and endlessly, relentlessly on.

Israel will never stop occupying the West Bank, because the West Bank has water. Every dirty war in the world is over resources.

http://www.btselem.org/english/water/2008070_acute_water_shortage_in_the_west_bank.asp

"...Discrimination in division of water sources

Israel holds complete control of the water sources shared by Israel and the Palestinians, primarily the Mountain Aquifer, and prohibits by army order any Palestinian drilling of wells without a permit. At the same time, Israel draws from the West Bank, primarily from the Jordan Valley, some 44 mcm, five million more than it supplies to the Palestinian Authority. Israel allocates to Palestinians only 20 percent of the water from the Mountain Aquifer, and prevents the PWA to develop additional water sources to enable greater water supply for Palestinians in the West Bank..."

I think one of the reasons the old left got buried was that they could not maintain an honest single standard; whatever the Soviet Union did was great; whatever the bad guys did was horrible, monstrous, and criminal.

In this case, the "left" won't seriously criticize Hamas. For example, ethnic cleansing is a war crime, and Hamas' Charter specifically announces an intention to commit this war crime.

Does that justify Israeli bombing of civilians? Far from it. "Collateral" damage is almost as bad as intentional targetting of civilians, because the planners know damn well it will occur when targetting militants hiding in cities.

But it DOES mean that we can't go around shouting "Just like Guernica!", because the people of Guernica weren't planning to attack Germany, and didn't announce their intention to make Germany a Basque Province.

The Israelis SHOULD get out of the West Bank. Israel SHOULD cease its bombing of Gaza, because too many civilians are dying. Hamas SHOULD give up its stated intention to make all of Palestine an Islamic state. And Hamas SHOULD stop dropping rockets into populated areas of Israel, because, again, too many civilians are dying.

We should be making all these points, and not taking sides, pretending that anything besides further war can come from endless fingerpointing.

In this case, the "left" won't seriously criticize Hamas.

I don't believe that's true. But I think people like me end up defending Hamas — or appearing to — because there are people who won't stand for any criticism of Israel. There's evidence in this thread of someone who puts all the blame on Hamas and none on Israel which sets up the confrontation.

The Israelis SHOULD get out of the West Bank. Israel SHOULD cease its bombing of Gaza, because too many civilians are dying. Hamas SHOULD give up its stated intention to make all of Palestine an Islamic state. And Hamas SHOULD stop dropping rockets into populated areas of Israel, because, again, too many civilians are dying.

I can agree with all of that. But I will also draw your attention to PLG's comment above. There have been periods when Palestinians have sworn off violent resistance and it made no difference. The expropriation of Palestinian land and the development of new settlements went on relentlessly. That, in turn, causes Palestinians to turn to the more militant groups like Hamas.

We should be making all these points--which we are. Most of those points got made in the course of just a short paragraph or two. But we should *still* be taking sides, rather than desperately trying to create false moral equivalency. No conflict there has ever been had a side with no element of wrong. If you take that as your standard for deciding whose side to be on, you would stand around indecisive forever. In South Africa, the ANC and some of its allies were by no means nonviolent, nor was their violence exclusively directed at the military. The good guys weren't perfect there. The Spanish left weren't perfect either. There are right wing jerkoffs to this day who claim it was all their fault.

So, Mr. House, you gonna throw up your hands in every case and say "Well, I guess there's a lot of guilt to go around"? That's idiotic. You look at the prime mover in the struggle, at which party if any has significantly more power, and at the preponderance of harm caused. So: Israel started it. Arguably by coming into existence at all, in a process of terror, displacement, dispossession and ethnic cleansing. Certainly by refusing to back off the land it took in 1967, and by utterly ignoring every provision in the Geneva conventions involving your duties in administering occupied land. Israel, overwhelmingly, has the power. And Israel has caused by far the preponderance of harm--the massive preponderance of deaths by violence is just the tip of the iceberg. How many cases of malnutrition have the Palestinians caused in Israelis? How many deaths for lack of medical attention? How many cases of deafness in children due to sonic booms? How many homeless Israelis have Palestinians caused? How many Israelis have been deprived of livelihood? How many Israelis have been arrested and tortured by Palestinians?

As a side note, as with many other cease fires and agreements, it was actually Israel that broke this one--in November.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/15/israelandthepalestinians
"Violence has returned to the Gaza Strip in the past 10 days. In two separate operations, Israeli forces have killed 10 Hamas gunmen. Hamas, and other militant groups, have responded with several days of rocket fire.
. . .
Israel kept its crossings into Gaza shut for the 10th consecutive day, meaning no food, humanitarian supplies or fuel were delivered."

'So, Mr. House, you gonna throw up your hands in every case and say "Well, I guess there's a lot of guilt to go around"? That's idiotic. You look at the prime mover in the struggle, at which party if any has significantly more power, and at the preponderance of harm caused. So: Israel started it. Arguably by coming into existence at all, in a process of terror, displacement, dispossession and ethnic cleansing.'

I used to hear this from Palestinian friends in the 1960s. 'Israel started it. Israel shouldn't exist.'

Actually, Israel's was created by European states unwilling to deal with the consequences the holocaust. This origin survives comparison with the creation of Canada, where natives were displaced and killed in large part due to economic rapaciousness. Even though Arab leaders were often Pro-Nazi, the average Palestinian has been the one victimized.

As with the existence of white populations, in South Africa or British Columbia, it is important to understand that implicitly demanding that they leave is just a recipe for continued war. 'They started it' won't cause any of them to leave, it will cause them to hold tight to their weapons.

One of the reasons the ANC eventually triumphed in South Africa was that their Charter, in contrast to the Hamas Charter, reassured
whites that they would be allowed to stay, and treated fairly. But of course the were a leftwing liberation group, which hated racism. Hamas is a far right religious fundamentalist group analogous to Gush Eunim; they think the land itself is promised by God to themselves.

In the final analysis, natives in Canada have a right to reparations for what happened to them; but I don't think GOD or anyone else gave them a permanent and indefeasible right to exclude others from the land. That's why I don't think of white Canadians as 'occupiers'.

With respect, Mr. House, your argument stinks. Maybe because it is full of red herrings.

You cannot win a war by reprisals. "Kill one of ours, we kill a hundred of yours?" Never mind the moral argument - experience has shown that this approach simply does not work. It must feel rewarding on a visceral level, mind you. Why else would they do it? Revenge is a powerful motivator.

But it is not a solution. Far from eradicating resistance by the disproportionate response, by the decimation of the Palestinian population, Israel is perpetuating the conflict. They are creating terrorists. They are sowing dragon's teeth, probably for political reasons.

Canada needs to stand up and strongly condemn the massacre that is being perpetrated. It's wrong. It's wrong on so many levels.

"Far from eradicating resistance by the disproportionate response, by the decimation of the Palestinian population, Israel is perpetuating the conflict. They are creating terrorists. They are sowing dragon's teeth, probably for political reasons."

And of course this is what Hamas was hoping for, which was why they had their fighters placed among the civilian population of Gaza.

So then there will be more "terrorists", and they will continue to target Israeli civilians, so the civilians will feel insecure and will vote for the most militarist choice possible.

And that, again, will be good for Hamas.

This is exactly the logic which requires us to demand peace, and not try to cherry pick facts to prove "who started it".

I have no problem if Canada condemns the bombing of Gaza as counterproductive and wrong. But I'd expect condemnation the next time a rocket hits a civilian target in Israel, too. You know, because it is counterproductive and wrong.

Mr. House, I agree. This shit has got to stop.

Let's hope 2009 brings peace. Faint hope, maybe, but let's hope.

Let's hope mothers can feed their children in the kitchen without fearing a rocket OR a bomb coming through the window.

Let's hope.

Let's hope for a Happy New Year, and a better world.

But I'd expect condemnation the next time a rocket hits a civilian target in Israel, too.

The reason I put the original post up in the form I did was because all I was seeing from the larger traditional media outlets was condemnation of Hamas' attacks as justification for Israel's retaliation without any of the context that might at least explain — not justify necessarily but explain — why Hamas is making those attacks and why they had increased since November when the latest truce began to unravel. Hamas gets condemned in the North American media a whole bunch. It's been happening daily since this latest outbreak of violence. Where is the accompanying condemnation of the collective punishment Israel has been meting out to the residents of Gaza? You won't find it.

By way of example, here's the new Liberal leader being fair and balanced:

The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally condemns the rocket attacks launched by Hamas against Israeli civilians and calls for an immediate end to these attacks. We affirm Israel's right to defend itself against such attacks, and also its right to exist in peace and security.

Here's the left in the form of the NDP who are supposedly one-sided:

We call on the Government of Canada to immediately call for an end to the aerial bombing of Gaza, the blockade of aid to civilians and the indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel. Indeed, the government must urge both sides to agree to end the current hostilities immediately, reinstate the ceasefire and return to the peace process.

Now have a Happy New Year. I'm opening a bottle of wine and I don't drink and debate.

Back to Barghouthi for a moment -- his biography, as well as that of his cousin Marwan (different story, though), is instructive, and supports the arguments PLG has made above about the cyncism of Israeli claims that they have no serious partner to negotiate with. Mustafa has always opposed aggressive action although he defends the right of self-defence, as all sane people do. And for his trouble, he has been endlessly harrassed by Israeli authorities. He is precisely the sort of serious leader they do not want to see. They much prefer Hamas, which they helped to create in the first place and which has become a perpetual excuse for behaviour profitable to them.

The extreme power imbalance does argue a difference in levels of cynical political behaviour. Hamas and the people of Gaza are fighting for sheer survival; they are trapped in a ghetto and facing destruction one way or another no matter what they do, so they have little time or motive for much beyond that.

The government of Israel, however, is a vastly wealthy and powerful corporate actor internationally. Many moral voices may be raised against what they do, but those aren't voices they care about, as they have made clear. This kind of conflict benefits them among the other international actors they do care about in many ways. It is propaganda; it's a sales tool; it's a warning and demonstration to regional opponents; and besides, they have an election coming, and everyone has to prove he's more macho than the next guy (and that includes the women).

It's either naive or cynical to say that this is a confrontation between two equal and opposing nationalisms. In no way that is worth thinking about is that true. We're watching a massacre, and we live in a nation whose leading political figures are cowards, or worse, on this turf.

Well, Mr. House gave a masterful display of evading my point. I suppose I'm impressed, in a way.
However, I suppose he has answered me in a way. The point he makes to my argument seems to strip down to yeah, Israel is the oppressor (although European states enabled the situation) and yeah, the Palestinians are right and so yeah, morally we ought to be on their side--but they're going to lose, so we should instead claim the sides are equivalent.

Mr. House, acknowledging the truth may not in itself make a difference to who is holding what weapons, but denying it certainly won't help.

I think my comment was lost in the queue, so I'll try without a link. Israel will never move out of the West Bank, because the West Bank has water which it uses, while limiting the Palestinians' access. Wars may have nationalistic window dressing, but they are really about resources; land, water minerals etc.

jeff, "...I don't think GOD or anyone else gave them a permanent and indefeasible right to exclude others from the land. That's why I don't think of white Canadians as 'occupiers'..."

The First Nations were usually willing to share the land until the Europeans moved in, built fences and told the First Nations to go away. This happened repeatedly, especially in the US where land settlement and vicious Indian wars went together. Much of Canada's settlement came later, and both sides wanted treaties so they could avoid the US style wars. But our government still screwed the First Nations over.

It was us Europeans who did not understand the meaning of "sharing."

I think my comment was lost in the queue

Your comment has now been published with the original link in place. It had been diverted to the junk heap because one of the services that are used as references for filtering out spam had listed "btselem.org" as a spammer. That strikes me as odd so I've whitelisted the domain, i.e. I've overridden the spam controls so future references to that domain will publish. Sorry about that.

Thanks, pogge.