tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post4313964056327818140..comments2023-10-26T06:29:39.824-07:00Comments on The Magnes Zionist: American Jews Oppose Israeli Policy in GazaJerry Haberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-66145161297540295112009-06-25T11:19:27.131-07:002009-06-25T11:19:27.131-07:00successfully implementing a two-state solution is ...successfully implementing a two-state solution is the key to solving all the other issues of the Middle East. ... It would be difficult to oppose a prime minister who is facing what is viewed in Israel as a true crisis of national security.Amanda Crowehttp://www.asiarooms.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-64696590529189056142009-02-03T12:52:00.000-08:002009-02-03T12:52:00.000-08:00http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issu...http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=20&x_article=1618<BR/><BR/>Care to discuss and refute the quotes and the charter here Jerry? MEMRI translates Arabic, so context is not lostJay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-65356213983069887122009-02-02T14:07:00.000-08:002009-02-02T14:07:00.000-08:00Peter, you are 100% correct about the inadequacy o...Peter, you are 100% correct about the inadequacy of the Two-State solution, but 100% wrong about how the Single State solution needs to be applied. no matter how you slice it and dice it, the concept of Jews and arabs living together in Israel as a binational state is the most naive and deadly option for all sides. <BR/><BR/>If you believe that the moslems have been the victims of Jewish aggression since the turn of the 19th century, well, like most arabs you'll want the Jews to be put in the most vulnerable position and empower the arabs. Obviously that is not an argument 99.9% of the Jews will agree with, so you may want to think realistically rather than as an advocate for arabs.Mad Zionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02368389951636950238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-50949439521606199422009-02-02T08:10:00.000-08:002009-02-02T08:10:00.000-08:00"First, you are making it look like rejecting..."First, you are making it look like rejecting two-state solution is the same as being anti-Semitic and wishing every Jew dead. This is absurd."<BR/><BR/>No. What I was trying to say is that the Palestinian public was not demanding an end to Hamas's violent tactics as part of voting them into power. It was not implicit as part of the elections that Hamas had to act more responsibly, and it's clear Hamas didn't interpret the election as requiring them to renounce violence or recognize Israel. Sorry if my post wasn't clear there. <BR/><BR/>"You claimed that Hamas ran its elections on a platform of killing every Jew in the Middle East, and that is why they were voted into power, or something to that effect. The sources of the blood libel(I googled it) was all the crackpot rightwing websites. (By the way, it turns out that nobody from Hamas EVER said that Hamas had as its aim "killing every Jew in the MIddle East" in Arabic. <BR/><BR/>I don't speak Arabic, but I can easily go to MEMRI at http://www.memri.org/ where they translate the Arabic for me. <BR/><BR/>"And so, Jonathan, you have failed the assignment."<BR/><BR/>You didn't even respond to the links I provided you.<BR/><BR/>"You especially failed because you did not deal with the counter-evidence I provided you with, the statement in the Hamas charter which guarantees freedom of worship for Jews and Christians in an Islamic state."<BR/><BR/>We just happen to view Hamas differently. Forgive me for being a bit more cynical and skeptical about Hamas claiming to be a humane movement while it fires thousands of rockets at Israeli citizens and throws Palestinian opponents off rooftops. Or shoots "collaborators," hijacks aid and refuses to provide it to anyone suspected of ties to Fatah. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304655613&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull I'm gonna judge Hamas on its actions in this case.<BR/><BR/>"That is irreconcilable with your interpretation of the hadith cited later on in the Charter, which is just another piece of classical rhetoric of the same sort as, oh I don't know, "All the people Israel's enemies will be destroyed one day."<BR/><BR/>So you expect us to take at face value Hamas's words about being a humane movement while it commits terrorism, but when looking at the violent part of its charter, we're supposed to just disregard it as rhetorical flourish? <BR/><BR/>As an aside, I admire and actually applaud the fact that you use a nom de guerre for a website to both protect your identity and allow you to be more unfettered in your commentary. However, threatening to ban me from your blog when I'm simply arguing (forcefully but respectfully) goes against every tenet and principle of academia. With that said, I can't tell if you're being serious about the ban threats, so if it's more of a joke than anything disregard this last paragraph.Jay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-78877077916803043692009-02-02T06:15:00.000-08:002009-02-02T06:15:00.000-08:00Thanks, Peter. You saved me the trouble.Jonathan, ...Thanks, Peter. You saved me the trouble.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan, the assignment was simple. I even basically told you what was not acceptable, and you ignored the hint. So let me make it easier.<BR/><BR/>You claimed that Hamas ran its elections on a platform of killing every Jew in the Middle East, and that is why they were voted into power, or something to that effect. The sources of the blood libel(I googled it) was all the crackpot rightwing websites. (By the way, it turns out that nobody from Hamas EVER said that Hamas had as its aim "killing every Jew in the MIddle East" in Arabic. It would be interesting how to see the phrase is associated on the websites with several different sources, including the Mufti of Jerusalem!)<BR/><BR/>So you went to the rightwing sites that love to wrench quotes out of context -- how good is your Arabic, Jonathan -- and interpret for you what people are really saying. <BR/><BR/>Oh, all this is so familiar...<BR/><BR/>So, when a Kahanist group says that the Arabs are Amalek, and that it is a mitzvah to wipe out Amalek, you can say -- wrongly -- that it was part of Kahane's platform to wipe out every Arab.<BR/><BR/>Your tactics are the tactics of anti-Semites everywhere, who haul quotes of the Talmud out of context to show how nefarious the Jews are. <BR/><BR/>Is it outrageous and pathetically stupid when the speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Ahmad Kahane (my joke), says that there will come a day when every American and Jew will die, and he prays to Allah for that day? Yes, it it those things, and people should condemn him for saying it. <BR/><BR/>But is that the same thing as having an ideology that calls for the systematic killing of Jews and Americans? <BR/><BR/>Only somebody who reasons like a classical anti-Semite will go there. Or somebody like Morton Klein, who is just plain stupid.<BR/><BR/>And so, Jonathan, you have failed the assignment. You especially failed because you did not deal with the counter-evidence I provided you with, the statement in the Hamas charter which guarantees freedom of worship for Jews and Christians in an Islamic state. That is irreconcilable with your interpretation of the hadith cited later on in the Charter, which is just another piece of classical rhetoric of the same sort as, oh I don't know, "All the people Israel's enemies will be destroyed one day."<BR/><BR/>But...doggone it, there is grade inflation in the world, and though you deserve an F, I cannot neglect the fact that you did try hard...<BR/><BR/>So I won't ban you from the blog, I only will ignore some of the sillier things you write.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Peter has the time for such narrishkeit.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-50300835661020628632009-02-01T10:48:00.000-08:002009-02-01T10:48:00.000-08:00And I probably don't have to tell you this because...And I probably don't have to tell you this because it's well known what appears in Palestinian media, but Hamas leaders have called for the "annihilation" of the Jews. <BR/><BR/>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-littman092602.asp<BR/><BR/>Here are some of the things Hamas was saying right around election time.<BR/><BR/>http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htmJay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-1860576848532146542009-02-01T10:43:00.000-08:002009-02-01T10:43:00.000-08:00"1) The murder of every Jew in the Middle East has..."1) The murder of every Jew in the Middle East has to be the goal of Hamas -- so, it has to be appear in an official Hamas statement."<BR/><BR/>It's already in this comments section, ironically enough. From Hamas's FOUNDING CHARTER:<BR/><BR/> "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."<BR/><BR/>"2) And, hence, it cannot be an appeal to Allah to kill every Jew -- that actually means that it is not the goal of Hamas to kill every Jew." <BR/><BR/>That has to be one of the strangest arguments I've ever seen. So if I call upon God to kill every Mexican but then don't do it myself, I'm not advocating for the death of every Mexican? <BR/><BR/>Anyway, in the past two weeks we've had Palestinian terrorists plant bombs along the border and fire more rocket and mortars, one of which hit a kindergarten yesterday. 1 Israeli has already been killed and a few wounded during the "cease fire" but I'm sure when Israel responds it'll all be their fault. Of course.Jay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-12058890071169977312009-01-31T21:51:00.000-08:002009-01-31T21:51:00.000-08:00JWhitewater, you said "You are under the (incorrec...JWhitewater, you said <I>"You are under the (incorrect) assumption that the Palestinian civilians voting for Hamas wanted Hamas to reduce the violence."</I> And why do you think that? Given a choice between a corrupt, inefficient Fatah (whom, I suspect, you don't consider any better than Hamas) and not corrupt, efficient Hamas, would you base your election choice primarily on their attitudes towards Israel? I doubt it. <BR/><I>"An-Najah University conducted a poll of Palestinian public opinion a few months ago and found that 53.4 percent persist in their rejection of a two-state solution. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/01/the-mother-of-a.php"</I><BR/>First, you are making it look like rejecting two-state solution is the same as being anti-Semitic and wishing every Jew dead. This is absurd. Second, many Palestinians, and not only Palestinians, came to the conclusion that two-state solution is no longer feasible and are ready to fight for equal rights in a bi-national state. And let's not forget who made the most to render the two-state solution impossible. And third, I have <A HREF="http://eyalniv.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/postwarpoll/" REL="nofollow">another poll for you</A>:<BR/><I> 59% Support the Egyptian initiative<BR/><BR/>67%: The rockets must stop 33% Supports the rockets<BR/><BR/>65% support signing peace agreement with Israel (in the WB 62%, in Gaza 70%)<BR/><BR/>59% think that Hamas should change its stance refusing to recognize Israel (66% in Gaza, 55% in the WB)<BR/><BR/>How to stop the conflict with Israel? 42% Peace negotiations, 25% armed struggle, 10% popular struggle [I guess this refers to civil rights struggle - PD] 23% all of the above"</I>Peter Drubetskoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463750011872829081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-4908458470307012532009-01-31T20:29:00.000-08:002009-01-31T20:29:00.000-08:00Jerry, your efforts to libel the Jews in Israel as...Jerry, your efforts to libel the Jews in Israel as terrorists worse than Hamas borders on heresy. You believe that Jewish forces rising up against rodef organizations actively murdering Jews is terrorism???? It's called a milchemet mitzvah, my brother.<BR/><BR/>Minim are not new to Judaism, of course. If you weren't already doing so, you may want to consider skipping that particular bracha in the Amida, Jerry.<BR/><BR/>If you feel that it is best for Jews to live in a multinational state without self-determination, well, that's an opinion and it's your right to express it. When you cross the line to condemning the Jews fighting against those who are pursuing to kill Jews, you have become something far more sinister.<BR/><BR/>My recommendation is to just stick with your utopian dreams, but stop the blood libels against your own people. Not unlike Naturei Karta, you're libel is only serving to strengthen the arguments of the anti-Semites.Mad Zionisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02368389951636950238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-34739591334409676882009-01-31T18:28:00.000-08:002009-01-31T18:28:00.000-08:00Oh, some help on your assignment:1) The murder of ...Oh, some help on your assignment:<BR/><BR/>1) The murder of every Jew in the Middle East has to be the goal of Hamas -- so, it has to be appear in an official Hamas statement.<BR/><BR/>2) And, hence, it cannot be an appeal to Allah to kill every Jew -- that actually means that it is not the goal of Hamas to kill every Jew. (Hashem yikom damo is different from Anahnu nikom damo)<BR/><BR/>3) It has to be part of Hamas's election propaganda before the elections in 2006, of course.<BR/><BR/>4) Finally, it has to be compatible with the following notorious statment of the Hamas charter:<BR/><BR/>"Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security"Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-7165283004706561532009-01-31T17:29:00.000-08:002009-01-31T17:29:00.000-08:00"You are under the (incorrect) assumption that the..."You are under the (incorrect) assumption that the Palestinian civilians voting for Hamas wanted Hamas to reduce the violence. Hamas made no secret of its charter or its goal to murder every Jew in the Middle East. "<BR/><BR/>Homework assignment. Please give me the source for the statement that the goal of Hamas is to murder every Jew in the Middle East. It should be easy, since you say that Hamas makes no secret of it.<BR/><BR/>Failure to comply with assignment means being banned from a blog for a month.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-87665030835410710692009-01-31T13:38:00.000-08:002009-01-31T13:38:00.000-08:00"That moment was a crucial one for Hamas because i..."That moment was a crucial one for Hamas because in joining the political process, it had to reduce its violence, primarily because the Palestinian street blamed it in part for the breakdown of Oslo. In fact, Oslo, in a sense, had coopted it, because if you wanted to be a player, you had to be in the PA."<BR/><BR/>You are under the (incorrect) assumption that the Palestinian civilians voting for Hamas wanted Hamas to reduce the violence. Hamas made no secret of its charter or its goal to murder every Jew in the Middle East. <BR/><BR/>An-Najah University conducted a poll of Palestinian public opinion a few months ago and found that 53.4 percent persist in their rejection of a two-state solution. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/01/the-mother-of-a.php<BR/><BR/>Yes the Palestinians voted out Fatah based on corruption, but they knew they were voting for anti-Semitic terrorists who have publicly stated that they will never recognize Israel. <BR/><BR/>"This was a golden opportunity for Israel to engage with Hamas -- especially after it did so well in the elections -- and to help it make a transition to an organization that was primarily a political party -- just as had been done with the PLO. (So many forget that in the space of a few years, Israel had radically changed its attitude toward the PLO.)"<BR/><BR/>This is a disingenuous description of the elections. Hamas and Fatah weren't running on similar platforms. Hamas ran on its charter, and it refused to renounce terrorism, it refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, and it refused to recognize treaties signed by the PA.<BR/><BR/>"Of course, there are difference between the secular PLO and the religious, hardline, Hamas. But after the elections, Haniyeh and others were willing and ready for this engagement, as they publicly stated."<BR/><BR/>Again, Hamas refused to recognize Israel, refused to renounce terror, and refused to recognize past agreements. That was not "unclenching the fist." <BR/><BR/>"Instead, Israel went ballistic -- not because of rocket fire, which it could easily have stopped through negotiation, but because of the Hamas charter, which it could not."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, we've seen how well negotiations have stopped rocket fire. Even during the "cease fire" there were dozens of rockets fired into Israel. Even if you want to blame Islamic Jihad or other groups instead of Hamas for not recognizing the ceasefire, it's still Hamas' responsibility to stop the rocket fire coming from the territory it governs. <BR/><BR/>"To use Obama's phrase, Hamas unclenched its fist (especially on suicide bombing) and Israel's response was to cut it off."<BR/><BR/>That's a wildly disingenuous description of 2005-2009.Jay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-84228681856561686772009-01-30T13:23:00.002-08:002009-01-30T13:23:00.002-08:00JWhitewater,I didn't understand your point about t...JWhitewater,<BR/><BR/>I didn't understand your point about the truce renewal, but let's just forget that whole bit.<BR/><BR/>However, you do point out that the war on Hamas predates the siege, and that a fair story would have to back to the beginning, when Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas as an alternative to the PLO.<BR/><BR/>If I have a chance -- I am very busy with my day job -- I will try to look hard at that history, especially the different faces of Hamas. <BR/><BR/>I focused on the Palestinian elections because that was a moment when Hamas had made a strategic decision to become a part of the Palestinian Authority whereas up until then, as I recall, it had sat out the whole Oslo dance to which it was not invited -- or rather, it had tried to crash it several times by blowing people up. <BR/><BR/>That moment was a crucial one for Hamas because in joining the political process, it had to reduce its violence, primarily because the Palestinian street blamed it in part for the breakdown of Oslo. In fact, Oslo, in a sense, had coopted it, because if you wanted to be a player, you had to be in the PA.<BR/><BR/>This was a golden opportunity for Israel to engage with Hamas -- especially after it did so well in the elections -- and to help it make a transition to an organization that was primarily a political party -- just as had been done with the PLO. (So many forget that in the space of a few years, Israel had radically changed its attitude toward the PLO.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, there are difference between the secular PLO and the religious, hardline, Hamas. But after the elections, Haniyeh and others were willing and ready for this engagement, as they publicly stated.<BR/><BR/>Instead, Israel went ballistic -- not because of rocket fire, which it could easily have stopped through negotiation, but because of the Hamas charter, which it could not. To use Obama's phrase, Hamas unclenched its fist (especially on suicide bombing) and Israel's response was to cut it off. <BR/><BR/>Worse, Israel imposed collective punishment on Gaza in retribution for the election -- even though all experts said that the election was basically a referendum not on Israel's existence but on Fatah's corruption. <BR/><BR/>The above cannot substitute for a day by day history -- but you will find, JLWhitewater, that your memory is more selective than mine on this one.<BR/><BR/>By the way, that history has indeed to include the Oslo period. To this day, people think that Hamas's suicide bombing were entirely motivated by an implacable and irrational hatred of Israel, Jews, and Fatah. Yet during the Oslo period, Israel conducted a war against Hamas, and Hamas's moves were often in response to moves against it.<BR/><BR/>I am not justifying those bombings, but it is important to understand that Hamas' military actions have not flowed merely from their ideology and their charter -- but rather from a specific context, both intra-Palestinian and with Israel.<BR/><BR/>Do I consider Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes, they have performed acts of terror, though much less than the state terror committed by Israel. I condemn both parties for their terror. As the prime minister of Turkey said correctly yesterday, it is about time that Pres. Obama rethinks the definition of terrorism, especially when it comes to the Middle East.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-86269147313445337652009-01-30T13:23:00.001-08:002009-01-30T13:23:00.001-08:00JWhitewater,I didn't understand your point about t...JWhitewater,<BR/><BR/>I didn't understand your point about the truce renewal, but let's just forget that whole bit.<BR/><BR/>However, you do point out that the war on Hamas predates the siege, and that a fair story would have to back to the beginning, when Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas as an alternative to the PLO.<BR/><BR/>If I have a chance -- I am very busy with my day job -- I will try to look hard at that history, especially the different faces of Hamas. <BR/><BR/>I focused on the Palestinian elections because that was a moment when Hamas had made a strategic decision to become a part of the Palestinian Authority whereas up until then, as I recall, it had sat out the whole Oslo dance to which it was not invited -- or rather, it had tried to crash it several times by blowing people up. <BR/><BR/>That moment was a crucial one for Hamas because in joining the political process, it had to reduce its violence, primarily because the Palestinian street blamed it in part for the breakdown of Oslo. In fact, Oslo, in a sense, had coopted it, because if you wanted to be a player, you had to be in the PA.<BR/><BR/>This was a golden opportunity for Israel to engage with Hamas -- especially after it did so well in the elections -- and to help it make a transition to an organization that was primarily a political party -- just as had been done with the PLO. (So many forget that in the space of a few years, Israel had radically changed its attitude toward the PLO.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, there are difference between the secular PLO and the religious, hardline, Hamas. But after the elections, Haniyeh and others were willing and ready for this engagement, as they publicly stated.<BR/><BR/>Instead, Israel went ballistic -- not because of rocket fire, which it could easily have stopped through negotiation, but because of the Hamas charter, which it could not. To use Obama's phrase, Hamas unclenched its fist (especially on suicide bombing) and Israel's response was to cut it off. <BR/><BR/>Worse, Israel imposed collective punishment on Gaza in retribution for the election -- even though all experts said that the election was basically a referendum not on Israel's existence but on Fatah's corruption. <BR/><BR/>The above cannot substitute for a day by day history -- but you will find, JLWhitewater, that your memory is more selective than mine on this one.<BR/><BR/>By the way, that history has indeed to include the Oslo period. To this day, people think that Hamas's suicide bombing were entirely motivated by an implacable and irrational hatred of Israel, Jews, and Fatah. Yet during the Oslo period, Israel conducted a war against Hamas, and Hamas's moves were often in response to moves against it.<BR/><BR/>I am not justifying those bombings, but it is important to understand that Hamas' military actions have not flowed merely from their ideology and their charter -- but rather from a specific context, both intra-Palestinian and with Israel.<BR/><BR/>Do I consider Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes, they have performed acts of terror, though much less than the state terror committed by Israel. I condemn both parties for their terror. As the prime minister of Turkey said correctly yesterday, it is about time that Pres. Obama rethinks the definition of terrorism, especially when it comes to the Middle East.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-74118714047576245762009-01-30T13:23:00.000-08:002009-01-30T13:23:00.000-08:00JWhitewater,I didn't understand your point about t...JWhitewater,<BR/><BR/>I didn't understand your point about the truce renewal, but let's just forget that whole bit.<BR/><BR/>However, you do point out that the war on Hamas predates the siege, and that a fair story would have to back to the beginning, when Israel encouraged the growth of Hamas as an alternative to the PLO.<BR/><BR/>If I have a chance -- I am very busy with my day job -- I will try to look hard at that history, especially the different faces of Hamas. <BR/><BR/>I focused on the Palestinian elections because that was a moment when Hamas had made a strategic decision to become a part of the Palestinian Authority whereas up until then, as I recall, it had sat out the whole Oslo dance to which it was not invited -- or rather, it had tried to crash it several times by blowing people up. <BR/><BR/>That moment was a crucial one for Hamas because in joining the political process, it had to reduce its violence, primarily because the Palestinian street blamed it in part for the breakdown of Oslo. In fact, Oslo, in a sense, had coopted it, because if you wanted to be a player, you had to be in the PA.<BR/><BR/>This was a golden opportunity for Israel to engage with Hamas -- especially after it did so well in the elections -- and to help it make a transition to an organization that was primarily a political party -- just as had been done with the PLO. (So many forget that in the space of a few years, Israel had radically changed its attitude toward the PLO.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, there are difference between the secular PLO and the religious, hardline, Hamas. But after the elections, Haniyeh and others were willing and ready for this engagement, as they publicly stated.<BR/><BR/>Instead, Israel went ballistic -- not because of rocket fire, which it could easily have stopped through negotiation, but because of the Hamas charter, which it could not. To use Obama's phrase, Hamas unclenched its fist (especially on suicide bombing) and Israel's response was to cut it off. <BR/><BR/>Worse, Israel imposed collective punishment on Gaza in retribution for the election -- even though all experts said that the election was basically a referendum not on Israel's existence but on Fatah's corruption. <BR/><BR/>The above cannot substitute for a day by day history -- but you will find, JLWhitewater, that your memory is more selective than mine on this one.<BR/><BR/>By the way, that history has indeed to include the Oslo period. To this day, people think that Hamas's suicide bombing were entirely motivated by an implacable and irrational hatred of Israel, Jews, and Fatah. Yet during the Oslo period, Israel conducted a war against Hamas, and Hamas's moves were often in response to moves against it.<BR/><BR/>I am not justifying those bombings, but it is important to understand that Hamas' military actions have not flowed merely from their ideology and their charter -- but rather from a specific context, both intra-Palestinian and with Israel.<BR/><BR/>Do I consider Hamas a terrorist organization? Yes, they have performed acts of terror, though much less than the state terror committed by Israel. I condemn both parties for their terror. As the prime minister of Turkey said correctly yesterday, it is about time that Pres. Obama rethinks the definition of terrorism, especially when it comes to the Middle East.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-56025265514544497952009-01-30T12:56:00.000-08:002009-01-30T12:56:00.000-08:00Brian, Thanks for the comment (which I inadvertant...Brian, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment (which I inadvertantly deleted.) <BR/><BR/>In raising questions about the legality of Israel's conduct the Gaza enterprise, I relied on two sources -- the Times advert that listed a few scholars of international law who branded it illegal, including Falk,Brownlie, and Bassiouni, and a post by David Luban (which he is, I believe reworking), on the Balkanization blog, who suggests that in terms of jus in bello (but not ad bellum), Israel's actions were illegal not only by the standards of international law but by its own legal standards.<BR/><BR/>Please let me know if there are relatively "neutral" experts in international law who shed light on the subject, either pro or con. If Israel's conduct of the war was legal, then why is it that only conservatives (mostly, Jewish neocons), are on its side?Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-88067545947188365502009-01-30T12:48:00.000-08:002009-01-30T12:48:00.000-08:00Brian Leiter left this comment, which I inadvertan...Brian Leiter left this comment, which I inadvertantly deleted -- and I cannot reinstate, I guess:<BR/><BR/>Jerry: I'm afraid that David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason who has never seen an Israeli crime he could not excuse, picked up on your fine letter of protest from my law school blog, and then wrote about it on the right-wing "Volokh Conspiracy" blog--this probably explains the onslaught of apologists. Professor Bernstein, as is his habit, decided to focus on just three words of the statement--the reference to "laws of war"--conveniently, and quite typically, omitting that the statement was primarily concerned to raise moral objections to the Israeli incursion. Israel is, of course, a serial violator of international law (rivalled among purportedly civilized nations perhaps only by the United States!), but even if its conduct in this instance were wholly within the norms of international law, this would have no bearing on the immorality of the slaughter. In any case, you have adduced suitable authority for the proposition that there are also violations of international legal norms here, but as a legal philosopher, let me say that I think that is far less important than the moral core of the statement you and Mr. Silverstein have crafted.<BR/><BR/>The comment by Yehuda above is ironic and related to the points made above: though the U.S. attack on Afghanistan was not illegal, it would be quite reasonable to think it was immoral. But the failure of international law to provide any meaningful moral constraints on the behavior of states is not news to any student of that subject.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-3365858999558620122009-01-30T10:53:00.000-08:002009-01-30T10:53:00.000-08:00So you intentionally use anti-Semitic phraseology ...So you intentionally use anti-Semitic phraseology to attack Jewish lawyers you don't like? This conversation is over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-52407309426457068872009-01-30T08:55:00.000-08:002009-01-30T08:55:00.000-08:00"Mad Zionist, my problem with the Nov 4 tunnel is ..."Mad Zionist, my problem with the Nov 4 tunnel is that I haven't seen one credible source claiming it was dug into Israel (and thus could be used to carry out a terror attack or kidnap soldiers). If you know about such, let us know."<BR/><BR/>http://backspin.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515b7869e2010535da4926970c-pi<BR/><BR/>The tunnel was being dug 240 meters from the Israeli border. That was the exact same tactic used to nab Shalit. <BR/><BR/>Can anyone honestly suggest Hamas was digging a tunnel that close to Israel's border for defensive purposes?Jay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-49297439296444698772009-01-30T08:46:00.000-08:002009-01-30T08:46:00.000-08:00"JWhitewater, both sides violated the other's sove..."JWhitewater, both sides violated the other's sovereignty, all right?<BR/><BR/>If Hamas wasn't firing rockets, there would no point in renewing a truce, right? I mean what sort of truce does Israel have with Switzerland."<BR/><BR/>I don't really understand what you're trying to say, although in response I'll counter that it's the equivalent of saying the Allies violated Germany's sovereignty during World War II after the Battle of Britain. I'm missing your point, so feel free to clarify for me again.Jay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-80957523552713009292009-01-30T08:42:00.000-08:002009-01-30T08:42:00.000-08:00"The fact remains that Israel stepped up its war w..."The fact remains that Israel stepped up its war with Hamas after the Palestinian elections."<BR/><BR/>Even ignoring the fact Hamas had been murdering Israeli citizens years before the Second Intifada, let's just look at the rocket fire timeline.<BR/><BR/>Qassam rocket and mortar fire from Gaza started in 2002.<BR/><BR/>Qassam rocket and mortar fire continued after Israel's pullout in 2005.<BR/><BR/>Qassam rocket and mortar fire continued during and after Hamas ousted Fatah. <BR/><BR/>Rocket and mortar fire has steadily continued ever since, including the use of Katyushas and other longer range rockets, and most recently including the use of white phosphorous warheads. <BR/><BR/>You act as though Hamas started its resistance when the Israelis began blockading Gaza. Neverminding the fact that it's farcical Israel is obligated to send aid shipments to its enemy during a time of perpetual war (especially when Hamas hijacks and redirects the aid), the simple fact is that Israel controls the amount of aid flowing in based on the amount of terrorist activity. None of this is secret and is easily accessible on government websites: when there's calm, aid flows freely. When there isn't, aid is restricted. Hardly a surprise.Jay Dubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958380640847641201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-80685120342986450412009-01-29T19:09:00.000-08:002009-01-29T19:09:00.000-08:00"Not to mention that it's completely unclear, in f..."Not to mention that it's completely unclear, in fact, how you deal with armed members of a "government" that is actually, under international law, a terrorist militia that is also serving government functions."<BR/><BR/>Unclear to whom? Under what international law? Do you make up this stuff?<BR/><BR/>Look, until you cite me webpages with international law experts supporting your views on the Gaza incursion, I am not continuing this conversation. It started with your challenging my claim. You have written a lot, yet you have not quoted a single international law authority who has defended Israel on Gaza. <BR/><BR/>So far I have over a dozen lawyers and law professors, many of them prominent, including Brownlie, Falk, and Bassiouni, who wrote the standard books. You haven't cited the opinions of any others of that calibre.<BR/><BR/>On second thought, and because I am in a charitable mood, I will give you one lawyer on your side, who happens to be an Israeli -- Pnina Sharvit Barukh. She has even been appointed to Tel Aviv's faculty of law. She will tell you that bombing the police graduation was perfectly legal.<BR/><BR/>She authorized it.<BR/><BR/>For the widespread support of Sharvit Barukh among the faculty of the law school, see <BR/><BR/>http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1059719.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1060066.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1058731.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>You are right, English is not my first language -- American is.<BR/><BR/>There are Jewish lawyers and there are Jew lawyers, and one can be both, e.g., Alan Dershowitz.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Talk to yourselfJerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-142438068901150042009-01-29T19:07:00.000-08:002009-01-29T19:07:00.000-08:00What would have been the reaction of most American...What would have been the reaction of most Americans (or most of the civilized world, for that matter) if someone had made the charge that the U.S. and its military forces were guilty of war crimes after Sept. 11, 2001, because, while bombing Al Qaeda and the Taliban government harboring them in Afghanistan, "excessive" numbers of civilians were ???????tragically but inadvertently killed — because the number killed exceeded the 3,000 people who died on 9/11?JRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16448860087300763280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-80280273639243116872009-01-29T16:45:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:45:00.000-08:00And by the way, I'm not responding to your provoca...And by the way, I'm not responding to your provocations about the wall because they are distractions from the issue at hand. You are promoting a letter claiming that Israel ignored, or virtually ignored, international law and human rights re Gaza. I'm still waiting for your evidence of that, besides citing a bunch of anti-Israel sources, before I'd weigh in on other controversies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-38721475097883573142009-01-29T16:43:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:43:00.000-08:00The Hamas police are both civil administrators and...The Hamas police are both civil administrators and also under the control of Hamas's military wing, as one of his commenters pointed out. Luban is apparently unaware of this, but since he said that "If" Israel was attacking pure civil administration, it would be violating the law, the if clause isn't satisfied. Not to mention that it's completely unclear, in fact, how you deal with armed members of a "government" that is actually, under international law, a terrorist militia that is also serving government functions.<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, you reject the views of "Jew neoconservative lawyers" and "Israelis," in favor of authorities from the rest of the world. But you are still relying on an argument from authority, implicitly admitting that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA from your own knowledge whether Israel is violating international law.<BR/><BR/>Here's the 64K question: if Jewish and Israeli lawyers and professors (half of all professors at leading U.S. law schools are Jewish) are excluded, because they are "biased," how about excluding any opinions from those who are ideological leftists, anti-Zionists, anti-Western, pro-Hamas, or otherwise hostile to Israel? Can you cite me a LEGAL analysis by any person who does not fit into one of these categories who says that Israel acted with "with little or no consideration for human rights or the laws of war."? How about someone who thinks Israel SHOULD HAVE gone into Gaza as policy matter, but broke international law once it did so? Take as long as you need to. <BR/><BR/>And how about the retired British colonel who remarked who remarked that there has been "no time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and the deaths of innocent people than the IDF." http://tinyurl.com/bpk9md<BR/>A secret Jew?<BR/><BR/>And a final question that you can't answer: what could Israel have done differently in Gaza that would lead you to have concluded that Israel did not violate international law? If the answer is "nothing," then, like I said, you are using "international law" as a rhetorical trope to promote a policy view that is extra-legal.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and by the way, just in case English is not your first language, only anti-Semites talk about "Jew lawyers," the proper English phrase is "Jewish lawyers."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com