« 'Sweeps Week' Reader Drive | Main | Photo Friday (Vol. LIV) ['hidden treasure' edition] »

Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Palestinians have spoken...

I had written another post this morning that was scheduled to be published after lunch... but in light of some local political developments, I think I'll put it aside for another day.

It seems that Fatah officials have officially acknowledged Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections which confirms rumors that have been circulating since early this morning of a Hamas majority win.

This Hamas victory fundamentally (yes, pun intended) invalidates three basic assumptions I've developed about the Palestinian 'street' over the two-and-a-half years we've been living here:

1.  I had come to believe that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians did not support armed conflict with Israel, terror attacks against Israelis or the goal of destroying Israel.

2.  I had believed the data I'd read indicating that the Palestinian population supported the secularization of their society and did not embrace the fundamentalist Islam position concerning Israel and non-Muslims.

3.  I had attributed support for, and the actual participation in, the terrorism/violence to a tiny sub-set of the Palestinian people.

I am devastated to have been proven so utterly and completely wrong about all three of these basic assumptions.

I know there will be many apologists who will come out in the coming hours and days to say that Hamas only won because of all their humanitarian projects in the refugee camps and because they are seen as 'Robin Hoods' of sorts among the populace.

I know there will be many that will say that a vote for Hamas was more an expression of the Palestinian's dissatisfaction with the corruption and ineptitude of the current Fatah-led PA than an overt endorsement of terrorism.

I'm sure there will even be those who say that it is at least a good sign that the Palestinians were able to participate in one of the basic rites of democracy, indicating an amazing step in the right direction that can never retraced.

But all I see is that Hamas, the group that has never wavered from its founding charter calling loudly for the complete destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian State in its place, has become the banner around which the majority of the Palestinian people have chosen to rally.

This wasn't some renegade Imam screaming in a mosque.

This wasn't some embattled politician making a hot-headed speech while fighting for his political (or actual) life.

This wasn't an ill-advised statement issued in the aftermath of an Israeli targeted killing of a 'militant'.

In a legally executed, internationally supervised democratic process, the majority of Palestinian adults calmly and thoughtfully committed themselves to pursuing a one-state solution built on the ashes of a defeated Israel.

There can no longer remain the fiction of the the Palestinian majority who silently wish for coexistence with The Jewish State... if only Israel will allow them to fulfill their dream of self-determination. What these election results declare loud and clear is that the Palestinians intend to make their national dream Israel's worst nightmare.

When pundits have extrapolated a national consensus from the actions of a few violent groups, I have always been among the calmer heads who have maintained that without a national referendum we have no way of knowing what the Palestinians really think.

This victory doesn't now mean that every Palestinian is a Hamas terrorist any more than a Likud victory meant that every Israeli was in favor of Ariel Sharon's vision for Israel's future.  In fact, we've all seen how people can vote for one thing and get quite another.  However voting for a particular leadership places an electorate in the position of accepting the future actions of those leaders.  That's democracy at work.

So when the majority of Palestinians tell me with their words and deeds that they have committed their future to Hamas' vision of Israel's destruction... then I have no choice but to take them at their word.

The world has been asking me to listen to the Palestinians and not to the terrorists.  Well, the Palestinians have spoken.

219_22

Posted by David Bogner on January 26, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e55051f3e58834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Palestinians have spoken...:

» Blogschau from Letters from Rungholt
Ich sehe, daß die meisten Blogger, die ich regelmäßig lese, mein Entsetzen teilen und die bittere Einsicht, daß das nun wirklich das deutliche Votum der Palästinenser war - keine Extremisten, keine Minderheit, keine Außenseiter. [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 2:44:29 PM

» In a Word from Somewhere on A1A...
Well thirty-two words exactly, at Treppenwitz: In a legally executed, internationally supervised democratic process, the majority of Palestinian adults calmly and thoughtfully committed themselves to pursuing a one-state solution built on the ashes of ... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 2:53:31 PM

» THE ROAD (MAP) TO HELL... from Blog d'Elisson
...is paved with good intentions. Democracy, we Westerners like to think, is an unalloyed Good Thing, and spreading it to the benighted corners of the Mideast where it does not exist – pretty much every place except Israel – is a positive developm... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 26, 2006 9:30:43 PM

» A Hamas Win is Good for Israel from Cross-Currents
No, this isnt crazy. As my brother-in-law already said: The Hamas win is bad news only to the PA thugocracy, and to misguided naifs that maintain the fantasy that any of the Palestinian leadership ever had goals other than the total destructi... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 27, 2006 5:13:48 AM

» More Election Fall-Out from An Unsealed Room
There are reports all over on the Hamas victory in the Palestinian election. In my humble opinion, the best accounts from an "insider" -- hands down -- are Laila's reports on her blog and her five-part series in the Guardian.... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 27, 2006 5:52:36 PM

» More Election Fall-Out from An Unsealed Room
There are reports all over on the Hamas victory in the Palestinian election. In my humble opinion, the best accounts from an "insider" -- hands down -- are Laila's reports on her blog and her five-part series in the Guardian.... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 27, 2006 5:56:39 PM

» Worth reading on the hamas victory from Soccer Dad
Ankle Biting Pundits are hopeful that In the long run, the election results of yesterday may be a necessary step in convincing the Palestinians that a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority sounded a lot better in theory than it will ever be... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 30, 2006 9:55:34 AM

Comments

So Yonah, what do you suggest we do with the arabs? Do we follow Kahane's vision or do we try to work through this mess?

Posted by: ilub | Jan 27, 2006 4:49:39 PM

David, truly a powerful post. It offers lots of food for thought. I hope Yehuda's fiction reference will not play out in the future. Perhaps this election is a blessing in disguise and the World leaders will be force to publicly acknowledge the truth.

Posted by: jaime | Jan 27, 2006 5:32:24 PM


Re Sharon:
"In Israel you can set up a commission to prove anything you want."

OK, I am going to bother with this since again, it's beside the point.


“ And again, this is not the point. The point is how Sharon is perceived outside of Israel by others.”

"*You* were talking about perception of Sharon by israeli voters."

No, I was talking about the perception of Sharon outside of Israel. And regardless, most Israeli voters would not deny that the guy has a violent past.

“No it isn't. The worse we say things are, the more leeway we can give ourselves to respond.”

"While I am not saying there are no people like that, I hope this is not something you are accusing of me or the author of the original post. Although my hope is very fragile at this point."

I'm accusing all of us of being like that. We should be like that when we're arguing with the gentiles about Israel's right to self-defense. We should get past that when we're arguing with each other about what's best for Israel.

“Because Sharon's image at the time he ran was as a hardline Likudnik out of step with most of the country.”

"Typical thinking of someone who likes to think that the majority is on his side, because the moral authority is always associated with the majority, and boy, is it nice to feel morally superior."

This has nothing to do with moral superiority. If Barak had brought an agreement home from Camp David, they would have reelected him. Asking why they didn't vote Shinui or Meretz is a red-herring here. Sharon was the most immediate alternative and certainly had security credentials, but his election had more to do with Barak than Sharon.

“"Yes. It is called the “final” solution."
Yeah, OK. Be a pessimist if you want. “

"Nice try. Dismiss it on the grounds it is just my emotions, not a well thought-out opinion."

It isn't a well-thought out opinion. It's a need-jerk reaction. I'm no big fan of the Palestinian people. But to talk of final solutions is out of place here.


“"There will be no consequences, and there will be no changing. Would you say the same if say... Taliban came to power in, say ... Afganistan? Wait. They did. And we got 9/11."

Hamas is not the Taliban. Stop with the propaganda. I am not the EU, and I don't need a simplistic media message about the dangers of fundamentalism. If they turn out to be the Taliban, I'll admit you're right, but I'd say they won't last long in government if they try.”

"Hamas is not Taliban?!"

No, they're not the Taliban.

"Propaganda?! Vast right wing conspiracy? Ok, I admit. They have different names. What other proof do I need to see to believe that killing infidels in Afganistan and literally selling the country to Al-Kaida has nothing to do with killing infidels in Israel and making public statements about it's imminent destruction."

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Hamas is Al-Qaida thesis. Not in this context. Good propaganda point, of course, but the reality is more complex. The Palestinians are not a colleciton of Islamic fundamentalists who are going to accept a Taliban-like crackdown on the social order, and I think Hamas probably understands that. Hamas does not have the firepower to be Al-Qaeda.

“The Palestinians aren't fools, which is why they kicked out, as Abbas said, the organization responsible for getting them on the map.

If they were fools, they would have voted for Fatah again. Hamas will have to compromise. Otherwise, the Palestinians will continue to see their land shrink, and they will, as they did here, blame the party in power. “

Wow. This one is so bad it is not even wrong. No comment.

“You refuse to believe that anything good came of the Disengagement and thus write off the idea that Israel gained political capital for it.”

"Please list the good things that came out of disengagement."

1. It will save hundreds, if not thousands of Israeli lives.

2. It will save billions of dollars.

3. It is proving to the world that though occupation may be ugly, it can also be the source of stability, and that maybe people ought to be a little more hesitant before they say that the occupation is the root of the conflict and that its end will solve everything.

4. It unified the Israeli public behind a strategy of unilateral disengagement and ended the stranglehold that 10 percent of the population was exerting on the other 90 percent.

5. It bought Israel significant political capital around the world.

6. It showed that Israel was not going to rely on the Palestinians getting their act together to make decisions, and proved to a skeptical international community that there was nothing wrong with this idea. This, by the way, was, in my view, was what Dov Weisglass meant by chloroforming the peace process, which was not about keeping land, but about killing a framework that required the Israelis to rely on the Palestinians to get things done.

" And explain where that capital is exactly. In which bank it is kept, and who is in charge of spending it. Because honestly, I didn't see any of it in circulation."

I would look at what Israeli leaders think about this issue, but just following European sources as I have for a long time, I see a difference both in the volume of anti-Israel coverage and the tone, as well as a rise in coverage that is more critical of the Palestinians.

“I'd just like to know when the last time was that any Western leader outside of the US demanded, as virtually all of the European ministers did today, that Hamas recognize Israel and renounce violence. “

"They demanded to stop the violence. WHO CARES?! Don't you know that public statements, appearances, formal visits etc have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with real politics?"

You have a point, though I believe that the shifts in tone are relevant.


"When was the last time anything they (or anyone else) demanded from Palestinians had any effect? Am I supposed to feel good that EU is now “loving” us, the jews? Am I supposed to feel accepted, the “in” crowd, now that the popular kid on the block is loving me again? Puh-lease!"

I understand the reluctance. I am no fan of the Europeans. But the changes are important. Any idea any European country had about boycotting Israeli goods is going to be that much more on the margins now, as will the academic boycott campaigns and so on, which need mainstream support to have any chance of success. It is the consolidation of the mainstream opinion that I am talking about here.

“The next four years or so will prove which one of us is right about Hamas and the Palestinian people.”

"No, they wont. I think Disengagement already had so many terrible results, that there is nothing to even argue about."

What would those be? Do you see Hamas's election as a byproduct of Disengagement? I would argue that though it's possible Hamas gained something from Disengagement, it is not what put them over the top here.

"It's facts now, not predictions. Yet, you don't see or don't know them. I seriously doubt you will change your opinion in the future, even if Hamas bombs New York. Well, maybe then. It's not Kfar-darom, after all."

That's a cheap shot. My opinion is that as a result of Hamas getting elected, the following will happen:

1. A considerable amount of international pressure will be taken off Israel's shoulders, leaving them to deal with Hamas as they see fit should there be any kind of terrorist attack.

2. The PA will continue to get money; after all, Abbas is still the President. But if Ismail Haniyeh tries destroy the democracy, the money will stop, unlike when Yasir Arafat tried to destroy the democracy. There will be no need for Salam Fayyad because there will be no foreign direct investment for him to manage. People bought Arafat's it's-not-me garbage because it was easy to argue on the surface that Fatah was not Hamas. They will not buy Haniyeh's garbage that Hamas is not Hamas. These are the international restraints.

3. The internal restraints will keep Hamas from using guerrilla warfare and acting like the Taliban are the secular Palestinian people and the Palestinian President, who is still the most powerful guy because of the system and because he controls most of the security forces. If Hamas starts closing down restaurants and making women wear the hijab, they will not hold their majority in Parliament. If they use violence or try to become the Fatah to Islamic Jihad's Hamas, it will bring massive Israeli reprisals that the world will be relatively silent about. This will try the Palestinian collective patience, strengthen Abbas and Fatah, and hurt Hamas at the polls.


Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 27, 2006 5:59:00 PM

Jordan,

"My point is that that particular part of their platform may not be the reason they won."

There is certainly some merit to what you are pointing out. In the voting booth- anywhere on earth- one must choose a person/party with many views, many the voter may not actually agree with, so the impression can be created that ALL of the views are being affirmed, when in reality maybe only a few are. True. And I might add I'm one of those voters whose views are split up between the parties or not represented at all, so I'm often in an awkward position when voting.

But, here's the problem. There are some views that automatically take someone out of the running for me. I don't care if I agree with them like no one I've ever seen run for office. If they hate Jews, forget it. If they hate blacks, forget it. If they support the destruction of Israel, forget it. Know what I mean?

These people are willing to elect someone/a party who holds views that are totally abhorrent, therefore I too will take them at their word. I don't think the Nazi Germany comparison is off the mark.

Yonah, your story about tape recording the sermons gave me goose bumps and made me afraid for my favorite people in the world- the Israeli people. It blows my mind. It reminds me of when the 'village idiot' in 'Night' escapes the Nazis and comes back to his town to tell people what will be happening and they ignore him at the cost of their lives- except you guys have recordings. How did the situation get resolved with the fence?

Posted by: Alice | Jan 27, 2006 5:59:39 PM

“This has nothing to do with moral superiority. If Barak had brought an agreement home from Camp David, they would have reelected him. Asking why they didn't vote Shinui or Meretz is a red-herring here. Sharon was the most immediate alternative and certainly had security credentials, but his election had more to do with Barak than Sharon.”

I don't know what you mean by “the most immediate alternative”. I don't see why I can't ask why they didn't voted Shinuy or Meretz. I know, the bigger parties have the clout to get the voters because they are the ones that are expected to nominate prime minister. So what? If I am unhappy with Likud, it doesn't mean that I will suddenly go voting for Avoda or Kadima, simply because it is the other only choice to vote for prime minister. They are all too nuts and corrupt. Apparently, the image of Sharon was not a problem.

““"Yes. It is called the “final” solution."
Yeah, OK. Be a pessimist if you want. “
"Nice try. Dismiss it on the grounds it is just my emotions, not a well thought-out opinion."
It isn't a well-thought out opinion. It's a need-jerk reaction. I'm no big fan of the Palestinian people. But to talk of final solutions is out of place here.”

Out of place? Absolute majority of palestinians just voted for Hamas, that would be glad to repeat the holocaust.

“"Hamas is not Taliban?!"
No, they're not the Taliban. “
Now I am convinced.

“I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Hamas is Al-Qaida thesis. Not in this context. “
I am not selling it either. It's a gift.

“Good propaganda point, of course, but the reality is more complex. The Palestinians are not a colleciton of Islamic fundamentalists who are going to accept a Taliban-like crackdown on the social order, and I think Hamas probably understands that.”

Is this the major reason why Hamas is not Al-Kaida? Sir, you are in post-elections denial.

“ Hamas does not have the firepower to be Al-Qaeda. “

Is this the major reason why they are not Al-Kaida? Can I call them “small Al-Kaida”? “regional Al-Kaida”? The “levant Al-Kaida”? Are they not Al-Kaida because they only kill jews, and not anyone, and only want to destroy Israel, and not the world?

“1. It will save hundreds, if not thousands of Israeli lives.”

“Will” is not a fact. It is wishful thinking. Give me some facts, it's been, what? Half a year?
And no. It won't.

“2. It will save billions of dollars.”

See above.

“3. It is proving to the world that though occupation may be ugly, it can also be the source of stability, and that maybe people ought to be a little more hesitant before they say that the occupation is the root of the conflict and that its end will solve everything. “

So, it is proving to the world that we shouldn't have disengaged? Maybe Israel should just commit suicide. Then we won – the world will immediately see it was a bad idea. Stick it to the Man.

“4. It unified the Israeli public behind a strategy of unilateral disengagement and ended the stranglehold that 10 percent of the population was exerting on the other 90 percent.”

You live in a dream. It has created the biggest split in israeli society since probably it's creation. And the stranglehold talk is just plain lie.

“5. It bought Israel significant political capital around the world.”

See my reply below.

“6. It showed that Israel was not going to rely on the Palestinians getting their act together to make decisions, and proved to a skeptical international community that there was nothing wrong with this idea. This, by the way, was, in my view, was what Dov Weisglass meant by chloroforming the peace process, which was not about keeping land, but about killing a framework that required the Israelis to rely on the Palestinians to get things done. “

Who cares about what it showed about the “act” of israel? You are so engaged in thinking about how this or that improved Israel's image in one way or another it is not even funny. It is, at best, A FACE LIFT! EU leaders hate us, because they are either ignorant, or corrupt, or antisemitic, or neck deep in corroborating with the enemy, or all of the above. Changing anything will destroy their political careers because it will show how wrong they been before. It will never happen until, and if, a completely new generation of leaders will emerge in EU.

“I would look at what Israeli leaders think about this issue, but just following European sources as I have for a long time, I see a difference both in the volume of anti-Israel coverage and the tone, as well as a rise in coverage that is more critical of the Palestinians. “

“more critical”. “less volume”. That's nice. At this pace, in 50 years they will still be changing the tone and getting more critical of the Palestinians. It's not much, but precious.

“But the changes are important. Any idea any European country had about boycotting Israeli goods is going to be that much more on the margins now, as will the academic boycott campaigns and so on, which need mainstream support to have any chance of success. It is the consolidation of the mainstream opinion that I am talking about here.”

Those are all insinuations and wishful thinking.

“What would those be? Do you see Hamas's election as a byproduct of Disengagement? I would argue that though it's possible Hamas gained something from Disengagement, it is not what put them over the top here.”

Some results of disengagement:
1.The border between Egypt and Gaza is wide open
2.Huge amount of ammunition, including rockets, came in through that border
3.Hamas is now in possession of much longer range rockets. Some already fell next to Ashkelon.
4.The rockets and ammunition will now move to Judea and Samaria.
5.Al-Kaida has entered Gaza. Fact, not prediction.
6.Gaza became a real terrorist state. It is a miniature, both in size and potential, of what will come in Judea and Samaria, now that the Hamas won the elections. We just need to disengage.
7.Thousands of jews were displaced from their homes, source of income, rightfully bought land.
8.It allowed Hamas to claim a victory and gave boost to their morals and recruitment potential. Which is all what matters. There are too many Muslims to kill them all. We need them to stop joining terrorist groups. Israel just encouraged them.

“"It's facts now, not predictions. Yet, you don't see or don't know them. I seriously doubt you will change your opinion in the future, even if Hamas bombs New York. Well, maybe then. It's not Kfar-darom, after all."
That's a cheap shot. “

I admit, I am not fancy. But it gets the point across nicely.

“1. A considerable amount of international pressure will be taken off Israel's shoulders, leaving them to deal with Hamas as they see fit should there be any kind of terrorist attack.”

Yes. As long as it is disengagement.

“2. The PA will continue to get money; after all, Abbas is still the President. But if Ismail Haniyeh tries destroy the democracy, the money will stop, unlike when Yasir Arafat tried to destroy the democracy. There will be no need for Salam Fayyad because there will be no foreign direct investment for him to manage. People bought Arafat's it's-not-me garbage because it was easy to argue on the surface that Fatah was not Hamas. They will not buy Haniyeh's garbage that Hamas is not Hamas. These are the international restraints.”

Yes, they will keep getting money. And taking over PA's security contingent. And when they get enough money (from EU and Israel) and people (from PA's security forces) and weapons (from wide-open Gaza), they will start a war. A real war. Given there are couple of hundred thousands of their supporters living in the capital of Israel, I would say they have a nice starting point.

“3. The internal restraints will keep Hamas from using guerrilla warfare and acting like the Taliban are the secular Palestinian people and the Palestinian President, who is still the most powerful guy because of the system and because he controls most of the security forces. If Hamas starts closing down restaurants and making women wear the hijab, they will not hold their majority in Parliament. If they use violence or try to become the Fatah to Islamic Jihad's Hamas, it will bring massive Israeli reprisals that the world will be relatively silent about. This will try the Palestinian collective patience, strengthen Abbas and Fatah, and hurt Hamas at the polls.”

Internal restraints?! Bwa ha ha ha!
Palestinian president most powerful guy? In PA, only the guns dictate the power. He has not military influence at all.
They will not hold the majority? When are the next elections again? Wait, I have dejavu. Didn't this already happened somewhere in europe circa 1933?
Massive reprisals? World will be silent? Hurt Hamas polls? Stop, you are cracking me up.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 27, 2006 8:52:25 PM

"Is this the major reason why Hamas is not Al-Kaida? Sir, you are in post-elections denial."

You fail to realize that history and power influence what an organization is. Al-Qaeda has money and weapons and is unaccountable to anyone. Hamas is checked by the international and internal constraints I mentioned, and I don't believe they wish to go around the world carrying out attacks, much as I would agree that at times, they have mimiced Al-Qaeda rhetoric.


"“1. It will save hundreds, if not thousands of Israeli lives.”

“Will” is not a fact. It is wishful thinking. Give me some facts, it's been, what? Half a year?
And no. It won't."

How many Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since withdrawal? How many injured? And to say that it will not save money - well, that's just being in denial.

"So, it is proving to the world that we shouldn't have disengaged?"

No, it's proving that the Israelis were not the main cause of Palestinian problems.


"You live in a dream. It has created the biggest split in israeli society since probably it's creation. And the stranglehold talk is just plain lie."

You're living with the Yesha Council. Israeli society is more politically unified than at any time in the last 25 years. The stranglehold talk is the accurate truth, and Sharon broke it, first by ignoring the Likud referendum, and then by throwing Likud out into the cold when they chose the minority 15% instead of the majority 70%.

The right-wing of the settlers have held the country hostage at least since Oslo began.

"Maybe Israel should just commit suicide. Then we won – the world will immediately see it was a bad idea. Stick it to the Man."


Yeah, I'm sure Israel will take its 200 nukes and commit suicide. That's great, let's not do anything for ourselves because of how it might be perceived by our enemies. Since our enemies are, by this logic, the most important factor in our thinking, let's continue to elect our leaders and make our policies based on what they might think. That's a great plan.

Or maybe we should continue to force the soldiers in positions where they are killing civilians and have them spend their time demolishing houses so they can come back, beat their wives, and make their children violent.

"Those are all insinuations and wishful thinking."

So is virtually everything you've written.

"Some results of disengagement:
1.The border between Egypt and Gaza is wide open
2.Huge amount of ammunition, including rockets, came in through that border


And the Palestinians are killing themselves with the weapons they smuggle in.

3.Hamas is now in possession of much longer range rockets. Some already fell next to Ashkelon.

And the IDF can still go in and attack them if it wants.

4.The rockets and ammunition will now move to Judea and Samaria.

What, they weren't there before?

5.Al-Kaida has entered Gaza. Fact, not prediction.

Based on what? Do you really think that having a few thousand soldiers there would have avoided that?

6.Gaza became a real terrorist state. It is a miniature, both in size and potential, of what will come in Judea and Samaria, now that the Hamas won the elections. We just need to disengage.

It is a terrorist state that is turning against itself, not us, and it was a terrorist state when we were there.

7.Thousands of jews were displaced from their homes, source of income, rightfully bought land.

Thousands of soldiers were displaced from their lives so they could live there. I guess land is worth more than life to you.

8.It allowed Hamas to claim a victory and gave boost to their morals and recruitment potential. Which is all what matters. There are too many Muslims to kill them all. We need them to stop joining terrorist groups. Israel just encouraged them."

Let's keep letting Hamas make our decisions for us. And by the way, if recruitment is so good, why are attacks way down?

"Yes, they will keep getting money. And taking over PA's security contingent."

We'll see. I don't think Fatah is going to give it up so easily.

"And when they get enough money (from EU and Israel) and people (from PA's security forces) and weapons (from wide-open Gaza), they will start a war. A real war."

I bet against this because it would be completely irrational and stupid. Assymetric warfare is the only thing that works for them because it offsets the power imbalance. Why on earth who they abandon it for a conventional weapons-based conflict? Israel would pound them mercilessly and with no worry of any repercussion. Do you really think the Palestinians want a "real war" against Israel?

Given there are couple of hundred thousands of their supporters living in the capital of Israel, I would say they have a nice starting point.

"Internal restraints?! Bwa ha ha ha!"

That's a real intelligent argument.

"Palestinian president most powerful guy? In PA, only the guns dictate the power. He has not military influence at all."

I agree, and you're forgetting that Fatah has plenty of guns.

"They will not hold the majority? When are the next elections again?"

Four years. That's why I said it will be four years before we know who's right.

"Wait, I have dejavu. Didn't this already happened somewhere in europe circa 1933?"

Another intelligent comeback from the every-enemy-is-Hitler crew.

"Massive reprisals? World will be silent? Hurt Hamas polls? Stop, you are cracking me up."

Now you're adding childishness to your ignorance. I guess you're willing to fight down to the last Israeli.


Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 27, 2006 10:45:38 PM

"Is this the major reason why Hamas is not Al-Kaida? Sir, you are in post-elections denial."

You fail to realize that history and power influence what an organization is. Al-Qaeda has money and weapons and is unaccountable to anyone. Hamas is checked by the international and internal constraints I mentioned, and I don't believe they wish to go around the world carrying out attacks, much as I would agree that at times, they have mimiced Al-Qaeda rhetoric.


"“1. It will save hundreds, if not thousands of Israeli lives.”

“Will” is not a fact. It is wishful thinking. Give me some facts, it's been, what? Half a year?
And no. It won't."

How many Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since withdrawal? How many injured? And to say that it will not save money - well, that's just being in denial.

"So, it is proving to the world that we shouldn't have disengaged?"

No, it's proving that the Israelis were not the main cause of Palestinian problems.


"You live in a dream. It has created the biggest split in israeli society since probably it's creation. And the stranglehold talk is just plain lie."

You're living with the Yesha Council. Israeli society is more politically unified than at any time in the last 25 years. The stranglehold talk is the accurate truth, and Sharon broke it, first by ignoring the Likud referendum, and then by throwing Likud out into the cold when they chose the minority 15% instead of the majority 70%.

The right-wing of the settlers have held the country hostage at least since Oslo began.

"Maybe Israel should just commit suicide. Then we won – the world will immediately see it was a bad idea. Stick it to the Man."


Yeah, I'm sure Israel will take its 200 nukes and commit suicide. That's great, let's not do anything for ourselves because of how it might be perceived by our enemies. Since our enemies are, by this logic, the most important factor in our thinking, let's continue to elect our leaders and make our policies based on what they might think. That's a great plan.

Or maybe we should continue to force the soldiers in positions where they are killing civilians and have them spend their time demolishing houses so they can come back, beat their wives, and make their children violent.

"Those are all insinuations and wishful thinking."

So is virtually everything you've written.

"Some results of disengagement:
1.The border between Egypt and Gaza is wide open
2.Huge amount of ammunition, including rockets, came in through that border


And the Palestinians are killing themselves with the weapons they smuggle in.

3.Hamas is now in possession of much longer range rockets. Some already fell next to Ashkelon.

And the IDF can still go in and attack them if it wants.

4.The rockets and ammunition will now move to Judea and Samaria.

What, they weren't there before?

5.Al-Kaida has entered Gaza. Fact, not prediction.

Based on what? Do you really think that having a few thousand soldiers there would have avoided that?

6.Gaza became a real terrorist state. It is a miniature, both in size and potential, of what will come in Judea and Samaria, now that the Hamas won the elections. We just need to disengage.

It is a terrorist state that is turning against itself, not us, and it was a terrorist state when we were there.

7.Thousands of jews were displaced from their homes, source of income, rightfully bought land.

Thousands of soldiers were displaced from their lives so they could live there. I guess land is worth more than life to you.

8.It allowed Hamas to claim a victory and gave boost to their morals and recruitment potential. Which is all what matters. There are too many Muslims to kill them all. We need them to stop joining terrorist groups. Israel just encouraged them."

Let's keep letting Hamas make our decisions for us. And by the way, if recruitment is so good, why are attacks way down?

"Yes, they will keep getting money. And taking over PA's security contingent."

We'll see. I don't think Fatah is going to give it up so easily.

"And when they get enough money (from EU and Israel) and people (from PA's security forces) and weapons (from wide-open Gaza), they will start a war. A real war."

I bet against this because it would be completely irrational and stupid. Assymetric warfare is the only thing that works for them because it offsets the power imbalance. Why on earth who they abandon it for a conventional weapons-based conflict? Israel would pound them mercilessly and with no worry of any repercussion. Do you really think the Palestinians want a "real war" against Israel?

Given there are couple of hundred thousands of their supporters living in the capital of Israel, I would say they have a nice starting point.

"Internal restraints?! Bwa ha ha ha!"

That's a real intelligent argument.

"Palestinian president most powerful guy? In PA, only the guns dictate the power. He has not military influence at all."

I agree, and you're forgetting that Fatah has plenty of guns.

"They will not hold the majority? When are the next elections again?"

Four years. That's why I said it will be four years before we know who's right.

"Wait, I have dejavu. Didn't this already happened somewhere in europe circa 1933?"

Another intelligent comeback from the every-enemy-is-Hitler crew.

"Massive reprisals? World will be silent? Hurt Hamas polls? Stop, you are cracking me up."

We'll see who's right.


Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 27, 2006 10:46:33 PM

“You fail to realize that history and power influence what an organization is. Al-Qaeda has money and weapons and is unaccountable to anyone. Hamas is checked by the international and internal constraints I mentioned, “

There are no constraints like that for Hamas!

“and I don't believe they wish to go around the world carrying out attacks, much as I would agree that at times, they have mimicked Al-Qaeda rhetoric.”

That's my point. You make a distinction based on the fact they are regional, not international killers. Unlike you, I don't see the difference.

“How many Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since withdrawal? How many injured? And to say that it will not save money - well, that's just being in denial.”

This is temporary, caused by Palestinian elections, not inability to carry out attacks. Now it will start in bigger force then before.

“"So, it is proving to the world that we shouldn't have disengaged?"
No, it's proving that the Israelis were not the main cause of Palestinian problems. “

Nice spin.

“"You live in a dream. It has created the biggest split in israeli society since probably it's creation. And the stranglehold talk is just plain lie."
You're living with the Yesha Council. Israeli society is more politically unified than at any time in the last 25 years. The stranglehold talk is the accurate truth, and Sharon broke it, first by ignoring the Likud referendum, and then by throwing Likud out into the cold when they chose the minority 15% instead of the majority 70%. “

I openly admit that today more Israelis support the disengagement. Doesn't makes it any more right. But it is not about who's side is bigger right now. It is about the size of split between the two sides. It is huge.

“The right-wing of the settlers have held the country hostage at least since Oslo began.”

You should cut back on liberal media a bit. A lot. This statement is pretty discasting.

“Yeah, I'm sure Israel will take its 200 nukes and commit suicide. That's great, let's not do anything for ourselves because of how it might be perceived by our enemies. Since our enemies are, by this logic, the most important factor in our thinking, let's continue to elect our leaders and make our policies based on what they might think. That's a great plan. “

You put words in my mouth. Try not to do that.

“Or maybe we should continue to force the soldiers in positions where they are killing civilians and have them spend their time demolishing houses so they can come back, beat their wives, and make their children violent. “

Are we talking about the same country?

“And the Palestinians are killing themselves with the weapons they smuggle in. “

Now lets relax and wait until there is only 1 left, at which point he will blow himself up trying to make explosives for a suicide mission.

“And the IDF can still go in and attack them if it wants. “

Then what the hell is it did we disengaged, if we still need to go back in? And why doesn't IDF go in, after all those rockets fired at Sderot etc?

“4.The rockets and ammunition will now move to Judea and Samaria.
What, they weren't there before?”

Don't spin. New quantity and quality is what I am talking about.

“5.Al-Kaida has entered Gaza. Fact, not prediction.
Based on what? Do you really think that having a few thousand soldiers there would have avoided that?”

Based on intelligence data. But I guess, if it wasn't on CNN, it does not exist... And yes, that's what I think. Israel used to control the Philadelphi corridor remember? No longer. We disengaged.

“It is a terrorist state that is turning against itself, not us, and it was a terrorist state when we were there. “

So, why didn't israel came in, you know, as part of global war on terror and all, and put an end to that terrorist state? Instead, the government chose to bury their collective head up their asses. Because if you ignore the trouble they will certainly sort themselves out.

“Thousands of soldiers were displaced from their lives so they could live there. I guess land is worth more than life to you. “

Soldiers can't be “displaced from lives”. They are soldiers, that's their job. To protect citizens. Of course the standoff was taking a life toll. They had to engage and put an end to Hamas.

“Let's keep letting Hamas make our decisions for us. And by the way, if recruitment is so good, why are attacks way down?”

Because that's when recruiting is best – when you regroup yourself, not in a middle of a fight. They are down because Hamas chose to stop for a while. Because of Palestinian elections, and because Israel gave them a break (disengagement, remember?) and thats a great chance to grow power. We will soon start paying for all that.

“I bet against this because it would be completely irrational and stupid. Assymetric warfare is the only thing that works for them because it offsets the power imbalance. Why on earth who they abandon it for a conventional weapons-based conflict? Israel would pound them mercilessly and with no worry of any repercussion. Do you really think the Palestinians want a "real war" against Israel?”

I will make my statement more precise. I didn't meant nessesery full-fledged war. Asymmetrical war is no less real war then the symmetric one.

“"Internal restraints?! Bwa ha ha ha!"
That's a real intelligent argument.”

It's not an argument. It's me, laugthing out loud. Some statements are just so wrong, I don't even want to correct them. It's like art. Beautiful in it's own, twisted way.

“"Palestinian president most powerful guy? In PA, only the guns dictate the power. He has not military influence at all."
I agree, and you're forgetting that Fatah has plenty of guns. “

Which he has no control over! Only Arafat did.

“"Wait, I have dejavu. Didn't this already happened somewhere in europe circa 1933?"
Another intelligent comeback from the every-enemy-is-Hitler crew.”

D'oh! There is a crew!

“"Massive reprisals? World will be silent? Hurt Hamas polls? Stop, you are cracking me up."
Now you're adding childishness to your ignorance. “

See, this is just another case of me being entertained, that's all. I refuse to correct your statement, on the grounds it being too funny.

“I guess you're willing to fight down to the last Israeli.”

You guess wrong. Only to the last terrorist.
See, there is the difference between us. I know we can win. You just hope not to loose.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 28, 2006 1:10:21 AM

"That's my point. You make a distinction based on the fact they are regional, not international killers. Unlike you, I don't see the difference."

The difference is that while Al-Qaeda, as a non-governmental entity with lots of resources, has no domestic political reason to reform, Hamas, a political party accountable to an electorate with limited resources, will.

“How many Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since withdrawal? How many injured? And to say that it will not save money - well, that's just being in denial.”

"This is temporary, caused by Palestinian elections, not inability to carry out attacks. Now it will start in bigger force then before."

What do Palestinian elections have to do with it? We'll see what happens.

“"So, it is proving to the world that we shouldn't have disengaged?"

"I openly admit that today more Israelis support the disengagement. Doesn't makes it any more right. But it is not about who's side is bigger right now. It is about the size of split between the two sides. It is huge."

It was huge before. And you know what, anyone living in Gaza should have known this was going to happen after years and years of negotiations which had only one thing in common, which was that if there was any territorial compromise, Gaza would be first. The schism is at least in part due to the failure of the government to find places for everyone, not necessarily because of the Disengagement itself. People are otherwise moving on.

“The right-wing of the settlers have held the country hostage at least since Oslo began.”

"You should cut back on liberal media a bit. A lot. This statement is pretty discasting."

It's not the liberal media who says this. Every mainstream Israeli newspaper, including the Jerusalem Post, has dealt with this issue. And I didn't say it was all of the settlers. I said it was right-wing of the settlers, people like Danielle Weiss, Moshe Feiglin, and David Wilder, people who celebrate the hilltop youth, the crazy fanatics that are the product of a generation of Kahanist-brand extremism driven by the idea that the land is above everything and that every Palestinian is evil. Look at what's going in Hebron. Even Yesha condemned it. These are the people responsible for the Likud referendum passing. They are a small, very committed minority, enough to broker power in Likud and thus have a say in the political system disproportionate to their numbers.

“Or maybe we should continue to force the soldiers in positions where they are killing civilians and have them spend their time demolishing houses so they can come back, beat their wives, and make their children violent. “

"Are we talking about the same country?"

Yeah, we are. I don't believe being pro-Israel means ignoring the country's problems at all times. The society is one of the most violent in the industrialized world and part of it is having the IDF do nothing but administer the territories, in some places like Hebron, to protect people who are not even thankful. I don't blame the IDF or the soldiers for this, but it can't go on forever.

“And the IDF can still go in and attack them if it wants. “


“4.The rockets and ammunition will now move to Judea and Samaria.
What, they weren't there before?”

"Don't spin. New quantity and quality is what I am talking about."

I'm not spinning, O'Reilly. I don't think Israel's leaving made a big difference in quality. The quantity I might agree with you, but I think it will be a bigger problem for Gaza than it will be for Israel.


“It is a terrorist state that is turning against itself, not us, and it was a terrorist state when we were there. “

"So, why didn't israel came in, you know, as part of global war on terror and all, and put an end to that terrorist state? Instead, the government chose to bury their collective head up their asses. Because if you ignore the trouble they will certainly sort themselves out."

Why should Israel do that? What, we should help the Palestinians now?

“Thousands of soldiers were displaced from their lives so they could live there. I guess land is worth more than life to you. “

"Soldiers can't be “displaced from lives”. They are soldiers, that's their job. To protect citizens. Of course the standoff was taking a life toll. They had to engage and put an end to Hamas."


How would you propose putting an end to Hamas?

“Let's keep letting Hamas make our decisions for us. And by the way, if recruitment is so good, why are attacks way down?”

"Because that's when recruiting is best – when you regroup yourself, not in a middle of a fight."

Huh? I think this reasoning is a little circular.

"They are down because Hamas chose to stop for a while. Because of Palestinian elections, and because Israel gave them a break (disengagement, remember?) and thats a great chance to grow power. We will soon start paying for all that."

We'll see. You can't explain months of quiet on Palestinian elections. And if Disengagement really encouraged Hamas, I think the response would be more attacks not less.

“I bet against this because it would be completely irrational and stupid. Assymetric warfare is the only thing that works for them because it offsets the power imbalance. Why on earth who they abandon it for a conventional weapons-based conflict? Israel would pound them mercilessly and with no worry of any repercussion. Do you really think the Palestinians want a "real war" against Israel?”

"I will make my statement more precise. I didn't meant nessesery full-fledged war. Asymmetrical war is no less real war then the symmetric one."

Agreed. I just don't think this is the direction they will go in.

“"Internal restraints?! Bwa ha ha ha!"
That's a real intelligent argument.”

"It's not an argument. It's me, laugthing out loud. Some statements are just so wrong, I don't even want to correct them. It's like art. Beautiful in it's own, twisted way."

I'm not wrong. There are internal restraints on Hamas, and they will have an effect.

“I guess you're willing to fight down to the last Israeli.”

You guess wrong. Only to the last terrorist.
See, there is the difference between us. I know we can win. You just hope not to loose.

Yeah, I'm a big defeatist. I guess there are more important things than a tiny strip of land we never wanted in the first place. No, the difference is that you define victory only in terms of how much land we hold on to and thus you see Disengagement as a big loss. I see it and its aftermath as a big victory.

Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 28, 2006 5:09:57 AM

“"That's my point. You make a distinction based on the fact they are regional, not international killers. Unlike you, I don't see the difference."
The difference is that while Al-Qaeda, as a non-governmental entity with lots of resources, has no domestic political reason to reform, Hamas, a political party accountable to an electorate with limited resources, will. “

Even if you appoint monkey to be a professor, it is not going to make any discoveries. You can't change the fundamental nature of things.

““How many Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since withdrawal? How many injured? And to say that it will not save money - well, that's just being in denial.”
"This is temporary, caused by Palestinian elections, not inability to carry out attacks. Now it will start in bigger force then before."
What do Palestinian elections have to do with it? We'll see what happens. “

Terror attacks by Hamas would have made it difficult for Sharon / Olmert to let Hamas participate in the elections. For the same reason Hamas will refrain from attacking until the elections in Israel. They need Olmert to win, and disengage some more.

““"So, it is proving to the world that we shouldn't have disengaged?"
"I openly admit that today more Israelis support the disengagement. Doesn't makes it any more right. But it is not about who's side is bigger right now. It is about the size of split between the two sides. It is huge."
It was huge before. And you know what, anyone living in Gaza should have known this was going to happen after years and years of negotiations which had only one thing in common, which was that if there was any territorial compromise, Gaza would be first. The schism is at least in part due to the failure of the government to find places for everyone, not necessarily because of the Disengagement itself. People are otherwise moving on.”

Sharon's government is to blame for not properly paying them for lost homes, land and source of income.

““The right-wing of the settlers have held the country hostage at least since Oslo began.”
"You should cut back on liberal media a bit. A lot. This statement is pretty discasting."
It's not the liberal media who says this. Every mainstream Israeli newspaper, including the Jerusalem Post, has dealt with this issue.”

Every mainstream Israeli newspaper, except the Jerusalem Post is liberal, with Haaretz so far left it is not the same country any more.

“ And I didn't say it was all of the settlers. I said it was right-wing of the settlers, people like Danielle Weiss, Moshe Feiglin, and David Wilder, people who celebrate the hilltop youth, the crazy fanatics that are the product of a generation of Kahanist-brand extremism driven by the idea that the land is above everything and that every Palestinian is evil. “

Every Palestinian is evil? Were did you read this? I guess if I say Kahana wasn't an extremist, I am going to loose you right there? But common. Moshe Feiglin? I guess character assassination has paid of.

“Look at what's going in Hebron. Even Yesha condemned it. These are the people responsible for the Likud referendum passing.”

Sure. It's all them, all 60%. Without their vote (which they are not entitled to, of course) no one in Likud would vote against disengagement.

“ They are a small, very committed minority, enough to broker power in Likud and thus have a say in the political system disproportionate to their numbers. “

Last time I checked being politically active wasn't called extremism.

“Yeah, we are. I don't believe being pro-Israel means ignoring the country's problems at all times. “

Wise.

“The society is one of the most violent in the industrialized world and part of it is having the IDF do nothing but administer the territories, in some places like Hebron, to protect people who are not even thankful. “

Huh?

“I don't blame the IDF or the soldiers for this, but it can't go on forever.”

No, it cant. And it wont. We need defensible borders. Defensible. With strategic depth, if you know the term. Which means very simple thing. Getting the arabs the hell out of there. If it is moral to transfer ourselves, there is nothing wrong with transferring them. Especially because they are to blame for the fact we can't just leave as neighbors.

“I'm not spinning, O'Reilly. I don't think Israel's leaving made a big difference in quality. The quantity I might agree with you, but I think it will be a bigger problem for Gaza than it will be for Israel. “

You can think all you want. I know the facts. Of course, the extremist media I am reading is probably lying.

““It is a terrorist state that is turning against itself, not us, and it was a terrorist state when we were there. “
"So, why didn't israel came in, you know, as part of global war on terror and all, and put an end to that terrorist state? Instead, the government chose to bury their collective head up their asses. Because if you ignore the trouble they will certainly sort themselves out."
Why should Israel do that? What, we should help the Palestinians now?”

What do you mean why? What the Palestinians have to do with this? Because they are killing us. Because they are terrorists. Because we need to eradicate all terrorist groups. Or maybe we don't?

“How would you propose putting an end to Hamas? “

By letting them participate in elections. No wait. I mean, by bombing them into the stone age, and then letting the Sayeret Matkal pick up the remains. What's the problem? International community? Or, possible loss of innocent life?

“"They are down because Hamas chose to stop for a while. Because of Palestinian elections, and because Israel gave them a break (disengagement, remember?) and thats a great chance to grow power. We will soon start paying for all that."
We'll see. You can't explain months of quiet on Palestinian elections. “

I just did.

“And if Disengagement really encouraged Hamas, I think the response would be more attacks not less. “

You haven't been listening.

““"Internal restraints?! Bwa ha ha ha!"
That's a real intelligent argument.”
"It's not an argument. It's me, laugthing out loud. Some statements are just so wrong, I don't even want to correct them. It's like art. Beautiful in it's own, twisted way."
I'm not wrong. There are internal restraints on Hamas, and they will have an effect.”

We will see.

““I guess you're willing to fight down to the last Israeli.”
You guess wrong. Only to the last terrorist.
See, there is the difference between us. I know we can win. You just hope not to loose.
Yeah, I'm a big defeatist. “

Yeah. Sorry man.

“I guess there are more important things than a tiny strip of land we never wanted in the first place. “

You mean the Israel or Gaza?

“No, the difference is that you define victory only in terms of how much land we hold on to and thus you see Disengagement as a big loss.”

No, I don't I define it in how defensible are our borders, and how dead are our enemies. I don't care much for shapes and sizes.

“ I see it and its aftermath as a big victory. “

Apperently.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 28, 2006 6:56:23 AM

Correction to last sentense:

No, I don't.
I define it in how defensible are our borders, and how dead are our enemies. I don't care much for shapes and sizes.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 28, 2006 7:02:11 AM

Whatever the reason the Palestinians voted them in, the fact remains that now an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group is at the helm. What a bitter pill to swallow. How very, very upsetting. :(

Posted by: Stacey | Jan 28, 2006 7:09:42 AM

Yonah --

War & negotiation don't have to be mutually exclusive and necessarily aren't. As Dr. Aumann showed with his recent speeches and Nobel victory, war might be a rational decision. I can't speak specifically in this case when it is appropriate nad when not besides emphasize that it is possible to -- carefully -- use military force and negotiation at the same time. And, of course, and this is the major flaw with the conflict here -- when it's clear that one side isn't living up to even its most basic committments -- you don't give them more.

Posted by: amechad | Jan 28, 2006 6:17:41 PM

Ilub - You asked "Do we follow Kahane's vision or try to work through this mess?"

I'm sure you didn't intend it, but the way you framed that question makes an assumption that Kahane did not wish to "work through this mess."

Based on what he wrote and said, Kahane's "vision" was the same as the Torah's and its downline (Mishna, Talmud, etc.). Israel is a geographical location that is divinely gifted to the Jews and those who live there are expected to live according to the Torah's rules. That means that Jews are expected to observe the 613 commandments with their detailed by-laws and that non-Jews are expected to observe the 7 Noahide laws (Establish courts of justice, no killing, no eating live meat, no idol worship, no stealing, no false testimony, no sexual immorality). Kahane, like any Orthodox Rabbi, was fine with non-Jews living in Israel, be it Arabs or anyone else, as long as they agreed to abide by this standard. If you wish to gain an understanding of his "vision" I advise you to read his books, same as you would if you wish to learn about anyone's philosophy, without just believing what you hear in the media. From what I read, Kahane wished to transfer the Arabs from Israel - which at the time (late 60's) was certainly an easier thing to do than today. I am in no position to comment about what he may have said regarding today's situation, so I cannot pretend to make an intelligent comment without being reprimanded one way or the other. Also, since for some odd reason just uttering the name "Kahane" seems to immediately send folks to the edge of their political leanings, I think Trep might prefer that we don't get into a heated debate on that topic in this forum on his dime, unless he gives the green light.

Alice - Thanks for asking - in fact we did play the tapes for the Court and along with other evidence we gathered regarding the danger to our security the Court seems to be prepared to rule that the fence will be moved, however slightly and not to where we wished but at least it is somewhat further. We hope to have their decision soon, as the land is already being cleared for the construction.

Lisoosh, we did not run to the media with these tapes - there are thousands of audio and video tapes of sermons by Muslim Imam's throughout the land that demonstrate their rabid hatred. They can be seen and heard at plenty of Websites. The media is in no position to play them because it knows that this will influence people to a position that runs contrary to their desire. Our personal objective was to show that this particular village was a threat to us as an individual town, and we hope that we proved it.

Posted by: yonah | Jan 28, 2006 6:40:56 PM

Running out to dinner with friends so I can't give this the response it needs right this second. Perhaps I'll frame a post on the topic tomorrow instead of responding here.

Very quickly, calling Sharon has a violent past to support your contention of his guilt over an Arab-on-Arab massacre that happened on his watch is just, well, dumb. Of course he has a violent past, he was an army general. His job was to dream up new and innovative ways to kill people in rather large numbers (while keeping his people from being killed). again, I couldn't get past such an obtuse comment.

As to a discussion of Kahane, I give a green light to a discussion of absolutely anything so long as it can be done with respect and intellectual honesty. The moment anyone feels that this is not happening they have my permission to say, "Hey, this isn't constructive or informative anymore and is making me feel uncomfortable... can we leave this particular topic aside".

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 28, 2006 7:12:53 PM

Yonah - actually I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of one of those websites with the sermons available for download.

Just to point out:
"Kahane, like any Orthodox Rabbi, was fine with non-Jews living in Israel, be it Arabs or anyone else, as long as they agreed to abide by this standard"
and
"Kahane wished to transfer the Arabs from Israel"
are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Lisoosh | Jan 28, 2006 7:59:45 PM

Yonah, I think you know that I am just being a thorn in your side and goofing on ya. Afterall, like you said, the way I framed my question is flawed since it's quite transparent that I already have an opinion and agenda behind it.

Nachon?

Oh my, look at the time, has five minutes gone by already?

Posted by: ilub | Jan 28, 2006 11:14:38 PM

Oh and btw, I had learned that in no way a Jew can be expected to observe and abide by all 613 laws, specifically if you are a woman.

Is this misinformation?

Posted by: ilub | Jan 28, 2006 11:19:33 PM

Lisoosh - 1) I'd be glad to, but I am not sure if posting links to videos is ok. If you really want to see the videos of sermons of hate and destruction towards Jews and need to use me as a resource please provide your email to Treppenwitz and he can pass it to me, I will be glad to send you plenty. However, you can easily find them using a search engine, and I'll guess that you've seen some already and would not be mocved to assume that they are the norm, not the exception. 2) The two comments are most certainly not mutually exclusive at all. Rabbi Kahane would certainly let an Arab live inside of Israel if that Arab abided by the guidelines set by the Torah for the conduct of non-Jews. There are many Noachide groups today who do just that - they seek out help from the Jewish community in defining those guidelines for them so that they can live by them as best as possible. It is simply unfortunate that the Arabs do not abide by them, so the idea that he advocated transfer was based on the reality on the ground, not on the theory of their potential to stay in Israel - you were confusing theory with fact. Should the facts change and a recognition and adherance to these laws takes place, they would be as welcome as anyone.

ilub - "Oh my, look at the time, has five minutes gone by already?" Sorry, I do not understand your point here.

I'm sure that you wouldn't just use media reports to base your opinion on anyone, especially someone deemed controversial, without at least investigating what they said and wrote. If you do have an opinion or an agenda on a person or a topic I have to assume that you have checked sources other than outlets who generate information for either paid advertising or votes.

As for the other remark, the "613" number applies to the nation as a whole. Individuals have different responsibilities. For example, dozens of these 613 laws are only relevant for a Kohain during the temple service. Many more are only for the Levites. Others may be specific for a King, or a married person, or a Nazir (male or female), or one of many other specific situations in the greater family of Jews as a whole. Thus it is technically impossible for any one person to keep all of the "613." Use of the number is just historic phraseology.

Posted by: yonah | Jan 29, 2006 12:40:39 AM

Actually no, I haven't looked for any on a search engine because I wouldn't know what I was listening to. What I want is one or two copies that I can have translated to my own satisfaction. While I am sure that sermons such as you describe exist and I have no idea or assumptions concerning numbers, reliable excerpts are hard to come by. I'm sure I could find the kind of sermons that are distributed in great numbers - like those Al Qaida tracts but something local would be preferable. David has my e-mail and I give him permission to pass it on to you.
As to the Noachide laws what you describe isn't a non-abidance, it's that the Arab community didn't go for permission and certification and to be honest, I don't blame them.

Posted by: Lisoosh | Jan 29, 2006 1:45:33 AM

Thanks for writing this post, David. I'm glad I don't have to!

I for one am not surprised by the outcome of the election, and although I am certainly no fan of Hamas, I don't see it necessarily as a bad development.

At least now the air is clear of all the doubletalk. We don't have the illusion that it's just a few radical terrorists who want to do away with Israel. The majority of Palestinians have spoken, and what they've said is they are perfectly happy to take the "road map" that ends in Israel's destruction.

Deal with THAT.

Posted by: psychotoddler | Jan 29, 2006 3:15:13 AM

Yonah,

Thank you for the explanation about the laws.

As for Kahane, I guess his 'vision' really isn't leaving too many possibilities for side by side coexistence if it's either except Torah laws or leave. I am not sure what the percentage of religous Jews are that live in Israel, but if the "vision" was to be actualized, it would seem that Israel would soon be less populated and not a popular destination spot for tourists and youth groups. For, in addition to all those Arabs who would have to leave because they are "unfortunately" choosing not to abide by the Noahide laws, there are even more secular Jews that also do not wish to be force to abide by nor live in a country that is strictly ruled by religious law.

And to bring this back to the original post, why would it be ok for Israel to be ruled by Torah laws, but if the Palestinian population embraces fundamentalist Islam for their society, it's a problem. They both think it's God's will. Is fundamental Islam synonymous with the destruction of Israel?

Posted by: ilub | Jan 29, 2006 8:04:28 AM

Lisoosh - I will send them over. As for the Arabs and the Noahide laws, there is no requirement to get permission or certification or anything of the sort. One follows those seven rules. Considering the fact that one of them is no stealing and the other is no lying under oath there's a congenital/cultural resistance to both in the Arab world and without a major personality overhaul it is not likely for these to be accepted (let alone the killing, the justice system, etc.)

ilub - You are mostly correct. Israel, in the eyes of a Torah-based observant person such as Rabbi Kahane, is not intended to be a tourist spot, an "international city" or a beach scene for teenagers. From that perspective it is the holiest place on the planet and under perfect circumstances is a land devoted to its people who would be devoted to serving their god and nothing else. So yes, non-Jews who do not wish to do their best to follow the Noahide system would be unable to stay. However, Jews are one nation, one family, and our responsibility to each other would dictate that there would be concerted efforts to keep the people intact and unified, through understanding, education, and the efforts to bring closer those who would prefer not to follow the standards set down by the Torah. There is certainly no precedent to expelling large groups of Jews who don't go by the religious rules. If anything, it is more a poor reflection on those who are observant and their failure to work together with those who are not. Hopefully this attitude, whether it is elitism or arrogance or lack of patience or just severe misunderstanding, will change on both sides.

Posted by: yonah | Jan 29, 2006 10:01:24 AM

- Sermons - thank you, if you could source them that would be appreciated.

Arabs - either you are saying that every single arab is a liar a thief and a murderer (or at least one of them) or that as a group they are condemnable because some of them may be (which a. condemns the entire human race, including Jews and b. makes you less tolerent than Moses, Joshua, Abraham and a host of other biblical pesonalities who actually DID talk to and have a direct line to G-D).

Posted by: Lisoosh | Jan 29, 2006 5:12:31 PM

Lisoosh - yup, I am way less tolerant than those biblical figures (though I have no idea how naming them is relevant here) and yup I am saying that in general those who have lived in this part of the world for hundreds and thousands of years view lying and cheating as a cultural norm. So much so that very often transactional exchanges begin with an understood suspicion. I dare anyone who has lived here a long time and understands the Arab world through life experience to deny it. Did I say that ALL of them lie and cheat ALL the time? No, of course not. It is a commonality in this world of haggling, like it or not. I suggest that you go ask a good friend who grew up in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Libya etc. and you'll hear it directly from them.

So yes, as a group I condemn this aspect of their lifestyle as one that runs directly contrary to a society that is built on truth and not spin.

Posted by: yonah | Jan 29, 2006 5:29:05 PM

Then I guess we've reached the end of the road as far as discussion is concerned. Condemning an aspect of a lifestyle is different from condemning a human being.
I think it shows a fundemental difference between us. No matter how holy the land, how special or how much it means to me, I will never put it before an innocent life.

Posted by: Lisoosh | Jan 29, 2006 6:09:20 PM

I think by this time we all realize that Sabra and Shatilla were massacres of Arabs on Arabs, and that Sharon masy have had some peripheral involvement, althogh not nearly as much as his accusers claim. That's why we can accept him: we do not believe he is a war criminal.
When people here bring it up, I always assume they mean the politcal meaning of sabra and Shatilla. ie the awareness that some of the world considers Sharon worse than he really is, but the willingness to vote for him despite that.
BTW, David Brooks, with whom I disagree most of the time, has a decent piece about Hamas in todays' NYT.

Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Jan 29, 2006 6:33:09 PM

Yonah, well I am glad to know that it isn't an all or nothing acceptance for us Jews. Afterall, if I am going to get stoned, I would rather it be through some fun partying.

As for the Arab mentality, I believe that the same kind of behavior can be found in Boro Park as easily as in the Middle East.

Posted by: ilub | Jan 29, 2006 7:00:01 PM

ilub - Good point! looks like we've gone from the well-known traditions of the Middle East (well-known to most folks anyway, not yet Lisoosh) to condemning the famous "triple parkers" of Brooklyn! Unfortunately no group is beyond its less-than-stellar examples.

So Lisoosh, you agree that it is true but prefer not to expose it in a negative light because you don't like condemning the actions of a race, or do you disagree with the idea completely?

Posted by: yonah | Jan 30, 2006 12:10:59 AM


"Even if you appoint monkey to be a professor, it is not going to make any discoveries. You can't change the fundamental nature of things."

And my argument is the fundamental nature of politics will constrain Hamas from doing the things people are scared of. Your argument seems to be more the Jabotinsky one about not trusting the Arabs. I guess you're like the general in Amos Oz's "In the Land of Israel."

"Terror attacks by Hamas would have made it difficult for Sharon / Olmert to let Hamas participate in the elections. For the same reason Hamas will refrain from attacking until the elections in Israel. They need Olmert to win, and disengage some more."

Again, we'll see. I'm not sure I see what one has to do with the other. If attacks get votes, why stop before elections?

"Sharon's government is to blame for not properly paying them for lost homes, land and source of income."

That's true and I agree, but that's not responsible for the riff and will be rectified sooner or later.

"Every mainstream Israeli newspaper, except the Jerusalem Post is liberal,"

It is center-right, unless you are a follower of Meir Kahane.

"with Haaretz so far left it is not the same country any more."

Haaretz is well within the mainstream on the left. It does give voice to several writers who are out of the mainstream, but the editorial staff is firmly in the mainstream of the left.

"Every Palestinian is evil? Were did you read this? I guess if I say Kahana wasn't an extremist, I am going to loose you right there? But common. Moshe Feiglin? I guess character assassination has paid of."

Yeah, you'll lose me. A man who called for throwing the Arabs out of the WEst Bank and Gaza and using violence to do so if necessary, yeah, that's an extremist, a Jewish Fascist. That's what Kahane was. Feiglin is his successor. My view of Feiglin has nothing to do with character assassination. It has to do with reading his columns in the Jewish Press, which he writes weekly. And I enough members of his audiences to understand that he is not just a non-violent protest organizer.

"Sure. It's all them, all 60%. Without their vote (which they are not entitled to, of course) no one in Likud would vote against disengagement."

They're entitled to it, of course. They're just not entitled to have Sharon follow them instead the rest of the country. I appreciate that it
not the most democratic thing to ignore the will of your party members, but there is no law of democracy that says that when you are Prime Minister of the whole country,
you are beholden to your party's own parochialism. Sharon did the honorable thing in the end, which was leaving the party.

"Last time I checked being politically active wasn't called extremism."

It's not. But when an interest group is making policy, is it always great for democracy?

"No, it cant. And it wont. We need defensible borders. Defensible. With strategic depth, if you know the term. Which means very simple thing. Getting the arabs the hell out of there. If it is moral to transfer ourselves, there is nothing wrong with transferring them. Especially because they are to blame for the fact we can't just leave as neighbors."

This is an interesting argument against Disengagement as justifying throwing the Arabs out. I don't think forcing Arabs out (besides being immoral) will get us defensible borders. And I don't think most of us could live with it and the violence it would entail.

"What do you mean why? What the Palestinians have to do with this? Because they are killing us. Because they are terrorists. Because we need to eradicate all terrorist groups. Or maybe we don't?"

Because they what? All of them?

“How would you propose putting an end to Hamas? “

"By letting them participate in elections. No wait. I mean, by bombing them into the stone age, and then letting the Sayeret Matkal pick up the remains. What's the problem? International community? Or, possible loss of innocent life?"

The assured loss of innocent life. Them is not Hamas. But hey, this has nothing to do with Hamas. I bet you've wanted to do this for a long time. Thank G-d, most Jews and Israelis disagree with you.

Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 30, 2006 4:56:32 AM

"Even if you appoint monkey to be a professor, it is not going to make any discoveries. You can't change the fundamental nature of things."
And my argument is the fundamental nature of politics will constrain Hamas from doing the things people are scared of. Your argument seems to be more the Jabotinsky one about not trusting the Arabs. I guess you're like the general in Amos Oz's "In the Land of Israel."

“Hamas” is not “politics” and “monkey” is not “science”. Fundamental nature of science cannot make monkey smarter, and politics cannot make Hamas less murderous. As to Jabotinsky, or the general, I don't know. I am just me, and I don't like when people try to stereotype me.

"Terror attacks by Hamas would have made it difficult for Sharon / Olmert to let Hamas participate in the elections. For the same reason Hamas will refrain from attacking until the elections in Israel. They need Olmert to win, and disengage some more."
Again, we'll see. I'm not sure I see what one has to do with the other. If attacks get votes, why stop before elections?

Attacks get palestinian votes, but would prevent Israel from letting them participate in the elections. So with Israeli elections, deaths will shift electorate to the right.

"Sharon's government is to blame for not properly paying them for lost homes, land and source of income."
That's true and I agree, but that's not responsible for the riff and will be rectified sooner or later.

No. The disengagement is.

"Every mainstream Israeli newspaper, except the Jerusalem Post is liberal,"
It is center-right, unless you are a follower of Meir Kahane.

I am sory, was this an insult or a compliment? It's center-right only if you are a follower of Yossi Beilin.

"with Haaretz so far left it is not the same country any more."
Haaretz is well within the mainstream on the left. It does give voice to several writers who are out of the mainstream, but the editorial staff is firmly in the mainstream of the left.

That's what I said. Only the mainstream in Israel is entirely left. As a consequence Haaretz is off the edge.

"Every Palestinian is evil? Were did you read this? I guess if I say Kahana wasn't an extremist, I am going to loose you right there? But common. Moshe Feiglin? I guess character assassination has paid of."
Yeah, you'll lose me. A man who called for throwing the Arabs out of the WEst Bank and Gaza and using violence to do so if necessary, yeah, that's an extremist, a Jewish Fascist.

Of course, throwing JEWS out of Gaza, using violence, is quite alright, isn't in?

That's what Kahane was. Feiglin is his successor. My view of Feiglin has nothing to do with character assassination. It has to do with reading his columns in the Jewish Press, which he writes weekly. And I enough members of his audiences to understand that he is not just a non-violent protest organizer.

If that's your opinion of him after reading his collumns, then I can't blaim it on misinformation. That's something much deeper. You need a doctor.

"Sure. It's all them, all 60%. Without their vote (which they are not entitled to, of course) no one in Likud would vote against disengagement."
They're entitled to it, of course. They're just not entitled to have Sharon follow them instead the rest of the country. I appreciate that it
not the most democratic thing to ignore the will of your party members, but there is no law of democracy that says that when you are Prime Minister of the whole country,
you are beholden to your party's own parochialism. Sharon did the honorable thing in the end, which was leaving the party.

If it wasn't for the party, he wouldn't be prime minister. You are forgetting he didn't got elected in separate elections, but appointed PM because his party took the most votes. He can't claim that he brought all those votes in. He didn't even talked about disengagement back then. It was Avoda's leader who wanted to implement it. People voting Likud voted against it.

"Last time I checked being politically active wasn't called extremism."
It's not. But when an interest group is making policy, is it always great for democracy?

That's what democracy is. Interest groups making policies. Unless you are 1 person. But then you are not a majority.

"No, it cant. And it wont. We need defensible borders. Defensible. With strategic depth, if you know the term. Which means very simple thing. Getting the arabs the hell out of there. If it is moral to transfer ourselves, there is nothing wrong with transferring them. Especially because they are to blame for the fact we can't just leave as neighbors."
This is an interesting argument against Disengagement as justifying throwing the Arabs out. I don't think forcing Arabs out (besides being immoral) will get us defensible borders. And I don't think most of us could live with it and the violence it would entail.

Yes. Violence. How scary. That would be something new.

"What do you mean why? What the Palestinians have to do with this? Because they are killing us. Because they are terrorists. Because we need to eradicate all terrorist groups. Or maybe we don't?"
Because they what? All of them?

Yes. Terrorists. All of them. All of terrorists. Are. Killing. Us.

“How would you propose putting an end to Hamas? “
"By letting them participate in elections. No wait. I mean, by bombing them into the stone age, and then letting the Sayeret Matkal pick up the remains. What's the problem? International community? Or, possible loss of innocent life?"
The assured loss of innocent life. Them is not Hamas. But hey, this has nothing to do with Hamas. I bet you've wanted to do this for a long time. Thank G-d, most Jews and Israelis disagree with you.

I guess that loss if jewish innocent life is of no concern to you. I am suggesting to end the conflict, to spend some innocent life to stop it for good. The “left” solution is a recepie for another thousand deaths.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 30, 2006 8:50:59 AM

Yonah - check previous posts for my credentials. I have more than enough experience in the Middle East - and as someone who is married into a family of Mizrachim, all of whom grew up in Arab countries I probably know more than you in some regards.

Are you talking about haggling? Which would condemn the human race and most of the Jews. Or are we talking about Kalum Fadi?
No, I don't agree with you. Arab culture from what I have seen is certainly prone to "flowery prose" and there is a general trend towards exaggeration and face saving, but general trend and "all of them are liars with evil intent" is a huge leap and one you are not qualified to make.
And I used a similar argument against a "pro-Palestinian" activist who wanted to claim that all Israelis were psychotic sociopaths with control issues based on her observations of one or two extremists and general take on "the situation". So yes, I do try to be fair.

Would you like me to go into a comparison of my observations of extremists on both sides?

Posted by: Lisoosh | Jan 30, 2006 3:26:36 PM

Lisoosh - why did you put quotations around the phrase "all of them are liars with evil intent" while referencing my previous posts. Since I never wrote that (far from it), I am just curious how that became a quote.

Posted by: yonah | Jan 30, 2006 4:02:31 PM

Thank you Lisoosh.

I was trying to bite my tongue but Yonah, you are treading in dangerous waters. There is nothing wrong with calling an ace and ace but the Jewish race also needs to look in the mirror and reflect back on how the world perceives us. Obviously you are a bright man, with lots of passion, but these generalizations are sorely lacking as Trep would put, intellectual honesty. Find me a culture or race that doesn’t have characteristics that are unbecoming and that have historical baggage. It’s the reason for wars, poverty, and perpetual fear and generations of prejudices. You don’t have to go very far to look in the US and see where that ignorance has led us. You, as a Jew and now an Israeli, should know what results from condemning a whole nation and throwing out such racists comments. I am sure there are many readers here that agree with you and may even be cheering that someone finally said it out loud. But, personally, I don’t think this is the right forum for that and I am surprise, David, that you haven’t said anything, even if you believe it too. Yonah, by all means do it privately, but for your children's sake, I hope you keep these opinions far away from them. To do so openly and loudly is quite dangerous and reckless.

Posted by: jaime | Jan 30, 2006 4:56:38 PM

My apologies to Treppenwitz if he found my comments inappropriate or dishonest. I am quite amazed by the defensiveness of those who, instead of meeting the point I made head on, choose to bring up faults and problems of Jews, or others, as if this was a class excersize of "compare and contrast the cultures." Did I ever deny that Jews and others have their own issues? No - of course not - I just pointed out a well-known cultural aspect of the Arabs. Seems the knee-jerk reaction for some is to turn it into a discussion of relativism.

Had I said "all Arabs cheat and lie," or "all Irish drink," "all Italians are in the mafia," etc. then yes, I deserve to be chided for such foolish comment. What I did say is on the record above - you can agree or disagree, but history bears witness to its veracity, despite Lisoosh's (say that 5 times fast) denial.

Posted by: yonah | Jan 30, 2006 5:58:03 PM

I didn't intend it to appear as a quote rather as a general idea of what you meant, sorry for the misunderstanding. You seemed to equate haggling with bearing false witness. I am not an expert on rabbinical discussions conderning false witness but I am more than willing to bet that it includes a negative intent. Haggling, while tiring is entered into with the full knowledge and expectation that both parties understand what is going on. The same with the face saving exaggeration that many Arabs (males) frequently engage in.
Am I being generous? Am I willing to go the extra mile and give people extra leeway because that fits into my world view? Yes. But don't tell me that you are an objective observer, especially in the case of the Arabs who occupy this local. As long as you have a vested interest in local Arabs NOT remaining in the area, I am obligated to take everything you say with a grain of salt. Take the statement by Ben David that they don't love us and don't WANT to coexist with us. In many cases he is right but I think even he would admit that HE doesn't really want to coexist with them either. So it is a little like the pot calling the kettle black and we see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.
I mentioned the biblical figures partly because there are so many narratives throughout torah of people arguing with G-d about saving an entire race due to the presence of a few righteous men. You might view them as weak. I view that as an example.
However I do disagree with Jaime on one point. I am glad that you have brought this up. I have had many conversations with people who feel as you do and it is very difficult to get them to be straightforward, probably due to the fact that they know they have an unpopular position. While I disagree with many of the things you say, I am more than happy to talk about them in an open fashion and actually beleive that it is healthy to air all opinions and to challenge ourselves. So thank you for your honesty.

Posted by: Lisoosh | Jan 30, 2006 7:09:47 PM

I also want to add another comment on this remark (on my suggetion that morality of transfer of jews implies morality of transfer of arabs):

"This is an interesting argument against Disengagement as justifying throwing the Arabs out."

This is very twisted logic. No. The argument against disengagement is not that it is bad for arabs because "it might imply something about what we can do to them", but that it is bad for jews because of what we ARE doing to them.

In general, I don't think there is something moraly wrong about transfer, just as there is nothing moraly wrong about, say, firing a bullet. It all depends on context. Nothing wrong about firing at someone trying to kill you. Plenty of wrong in many other cases. My argument against disengagement is not on ideological or moral grownds. It is, first and foremost, on grounds of national *and* international security. And that, is the biggest point. There can never be peace. There can only be security.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 30, 2006 8:01:26 PM

"In general, I don't think there is something moraly wrong about transfer, just as there is nothing moraly wrong about, say, firing a bullet."
It all depends on context. Nothing wrong about firing at someone trying to kill you.
Plenty of wrong in many other cases. My argument against disengagement is not on ideological or moral grownds. It is, first and foremost, on grounds of national *and* international security. And that, is the biggest point. There can never be peace. There can only be security."

A. Is every Palestinian trying to kill us? Are most unamenable to any peace agreement short of killing all of Jews and taking Israel back? And even if they were, do they have any way to effect this event?

B. The people in Hebron and other like them don't care about security. If they cared about security they wouldn't send their kids into town to make trouble, and they wouldn't throw stones at the soldiers. They want the land. Let's be honest about the arguments for transfer. They are ideological arguments about having as much land as possible, not about establishing maximum security. Of course, there is always the thinking that we could establish maximum security by simply bombing a few villages and pushing out the rest of the populace, but I'm not willing to agree to killing innocent people, and I don't think such a policy will bring either peace or security.


Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 30, 2006 8:13:44 PM

"Even if you appoint monkey to be a professor, it is not going to make any discoveries. You can't change the fundamental nature of things."
And my argument is the fundamental nature of politics will constrain Hamas from doing the things people are scared of. Your argument seems to be more the Jabotinsky one about not trusting the Arabs. I guess you're like the general in Amos Oz's "In the Land of Israel."

“Hamas” is not “politics” and “monkey” is not “science”. Fundamental nature of science cannot make monkey smarter, and politics cannot make Hamas less murderous. As to Jabotinsky, or the general, I don't know. I am just me, and I don't like when people try to stereotype me."

If you read the Amos Oz passage, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

That's what Kahane was. Feiglin is his successor. My view of Feiglin has nothing to do with character assassination. It has to do with reading his columns in the Jewish Press, which he writes weekly. And I enough members of his audiences to understand that he is not just a non-violent protest organizer.

"If that's your opinion of him after reading his collumns, then I can't blaim it on misinformation. That's something much deeper. You need a doctor."

Yeah, another stupid insult. I think, if you think Feiglin is just a non-violent protester, you're the one who needs his head examined.


"Sure. It's all them, all 60%. Without their vote (which they are not entitled to, of course) no one in Likud would vote against disengagement."
They're entitled to it, of course. They're just not entitled to have Sharon follow them instead the rest of the country. I appreciate that it
not the most democratic thing to ignore the will of your party members, but there is no law of democracy that says that when you are Prime Minister of the whole country,
you are beholden to your party's own parochialism. Sharon did the honorable thing in the end, which was leaving the party.

"If it wasn't for the party, he wouldn't be prime minister. You are forgetting he didn't got elected in separate elections, but appointed PM because his party took the most votes. He can't claim that he brought all those votes in."

This makes no difference to the voters. Likud's list confers no obligation on an official beholden to the people.

He didn't even talked about disengagement back then. It was Avoda's leader who wanted to implement it. People voting Likud voted against it."


"What do you mean why? What the Palestinians have to do with this? Because they are killing us. Because they are terrorists. Because we need to eradicate all terrorist groups. Or maybe we don't?"
Because they what? All of them?

"Yes. Terrorists. All of them. All of terrorists. Are. Killing. Us."

Yes, the one-word sentences are very rhetorically compelling, but it doesn't make anything you're saying more right. It just makes you look more angry. I'll leave the irrational rage to the Palestinians, thank you very much.


“How would you propose putting an end to Hamas? “
"By letting them participate in elections. No wait. I mean, by bombing them into the stone age, and then letting the Sayeret Matkal pick up the remains. What's the problem? International community? Or, possible loss of innocent life?"

The assured loss of innocent life. Them is not Hamas. But hey, this has nothing to do with Hamas. I bet you've wanted to do this for a long time. Thank G-d, most Jews and Israelis disagree with you.

"I guess that loss if jewish innocent life is of no concern to you."

Ah yes, the right-wing emotional garbage about how every one who not for maximalism does not care about innocent Jewish life. I've heard this before. Please spare me this kind of bullshit. I'm not here to trade bad faith insults.


"I am suggesting to end the conflict, to spend some innocent life to stop it for good."

And I'm arguing that this won't work, and is not worth it for us as a people.

"The “left” solution is a recepie for another thousand deaths."

The center, majority solution has cut terrorist attacks to next to nothing.

Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jan 30, 2006 8:31:08 PM

Lisoosh, I totally agree with you that although a position may not be popular it is healthy to openly talk about it, because this is how these myths and misconceptions are revealed and resolved.

Yonah, what you said it this...

"Rabbi Kahane would certainly let an Arab live inside of Israel if that Arab abided by the guidelines set by the Torah for the conduct of non-Jews....It is simply unfortunate that the Arabs do not abide by them, so the idea that he advocated transfer was based on the reality on the ground, not on the theory of their potential to stay in Israel - you were confusing theory with fact."
and...
""in general those who have lived in this part of the world for hundreds and thousands of years view lying and cheating as a cultural norm. Did I say that ALL of them lie and cheat ALL the time? No, of course not.
"So yes, as a group I condemn this aspect of their lifestyle as one that runs directly contrary to a society that is built on truth and not spin."

You are right Yonah, you didn't say that all arabs lie and cheat. You were merely pointing out a cultural norm. Fine. But where you were going with this and what you were defending is the problem. It’s when you implied that Kahane said the Arabs must go if they do not follow the Noahide laws and in your opinion, they are not doing that because of their inabilities based on their inherent cultural norms. So what is the reason why Jews are not following the Torah? Or other non Jews who aren't following the Noahide laws in Israel? You did write that you condemn this aspect of the arab lifestyle and that it runs directly contrary to a society that it built on truth. How can you say that their society isn’t built on truth but imply that a Jewish society is? By the mere fact that we have the Torah? C’mon. Whether it be the Koran or the Torah, both religions would say they are built on truth and moral values.

The point I am making is that when you make comments like those above, someone else could easily say that about any group of people. I am all for hearing out the Archie Bunkers, because truthfully, none of us are without our own prejudices. Which is by the way, also a cultural norm. I grew up in the South and as much as I hate to admit it, I was definitely imprinted with racial stereotypes.

Posted by: jaime | Jan 30, 2006 8:35:42 PM

Oops, I accidently hit send.

Why I mention this is that morally and intellectually I know I am wrong for some of those thoughts, but there are many people that would say that I am justified with those opinions based on statistics and culture. I may condemn a part of a lifestyle or culture that's associated with them as a group, but I would never go so far its the race as a whole that is the problem.

Posted by: jaime | Jan 30, 2006 9:38:50 PM

Do all of them want destruction of Israel? Of course not. Only about 60% of them vote for one terrorist organization, and 40% for another. But wait. I am sure there are normal people there, that do not deserve that kind of treatment. Neither from PA, nor from us. And if we let the terrorist state to rise from ashes, we will be in huge debt before them. We already are, after we ruined their lives by inviting a group of corrupt terrorists (is there a worse thing to be?) to rule them. I am talking about Fatah of course, and only then about Hamas.

Are most unamenable? Seems like Hamas voters * at least * would not mind if all jews were killed, even if one accepts the premise that the reason they voted Hamas is because they hate Fatah, and that they are like children who didn't know that no matter what is the economic promise voting for terrorists is just wrong. Voters of Fatah? Those seem to not mind both corruption and terror. Well, “but there was no one else to vote for” you might say. Maybe. But why? Why there was no party that said sane things, * and * promised no corruption? If there was no one to create it, who would vote for it? And if there was one, why didn't it get any votes?

Any way you turn it, the situation needs to be resolved. Israel is breeding a never before seen enclave of terror. One that will have land, international recognition and economical support, and worse of all, a huge pull of people. They will * continue * to brainwash children in schools, paying the “teachers” from some EU or UN or US or Israeli money. They will grow to be a real power. And no matter if there will be a peace agreement or not, they will open a war. Conventional, non-conventional, guerrilla, or open warfare, something will start. And * because * of many years (?) of peace and many more piles of money they will get, they will become a much much bigger problem. Let me remind you, that in islam there is no such thing as peace with infidels. There is only “hudna” which is a * temporary * peace accord that * has * to eventually be broken. Also, islam says that ALL land has to be under islamic rule, and the land that at least some period of time was, needs to be “liberated” before any other. That includes israel.

All this means that Israel cannot afford to rely on peace agreements alone. It needs peace agreements that are based on physically defendable borders and * perception * that Israel is undefeatable (preferably based on true fact). That border is Jordan. As simple as that. It gives strategic depth and natural barrier. Palestinians can easily, and in 90% of cases not just non-violently, but also happily, if they get economical incentives, move to Jordan. The terrorists will resist. And will be killed. That's all. As to what do Hebron's jews, and why, is irrelevant.

“This makes no difference to the voters. Likud's list confers no obligation on an official beholden to the people.”

This is a technicality.

“Yes, the one-word sentences are very rhetorically compelling, but it doesn't make anything you're saying more right. It just makes you look more angry. I'll leave the irrational rage to the Palestinians, thank you very much.”

“The assured loss of innocent life. Them is not Hamas. But hey, this has nothing to do with Hamas. I bet you've wanted to do this for a long time. Thank G-d, most Jews and Israelis disagree with you.”

I repeat. When I say “them” I mean “terrorists”, not the entire population. Do not put words in my mouth.

"I guess that loss if jewish innocent life is of no concern to you."
Ah yes, the right-wing emotional garbage about how every one who not for maximalism does not care about innocent Jewish life. I've heard this before. Please spare me this kind of bullshit. I'm not here to trade bad faith insults.

I am simply coming from what you wrote. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that's what it sounds like. Maybe you should reexamine what you wrote.

"I am suggesting to end the conflict, to spend some innocent life to stop it for good."
And I'm arguing that this won't work, and is not worth it for us as a people.

And that's were you are wrong.

"The “left” solution is a recepie for another thousand deaths."
The center, majority solution has cut terrorist attacks to next to nothing.

I already explained why I think it happened. Time will tell.
Also, simply because majority is in favor of some idea doesn't make it any more center. The reason why so many people vote for Kadima is that they are being intentionally misinformed. Like you, they have no real understanding of where things really stand, because they refuse to think critically. That's all.

PS.
If you have any facts, about Kahane or Feiglin being a terrorist, please put them right here.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 30, 2006 11:21:39 PM

I am going to add some stats here. You are claiming that disengagement brought less attacks. Statistics don't agree. In 2005:

1. 6 suicide bombers attacks. 4 of them *after* disengagement.

2, 130 rocket attacks before, and 179 attacks *after* disengagement.

The only rate that went down is of attacks on settlements in Gaza. There simply nothing left to attack.

Posted by: Yury | Jan 31, 2006 2:12:22 AM

A few clarifications:

Just because I haven't been directly involved in this thread doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed it immensely. I have.

Also, I didn't take Yonah to task because I not only agree with his basic statements about the cultural propensity of Arabs to be less than stringent about the truth, but I feel he was careful not to say 'every single Arab...'. An Arab student who lived on my floor at Hebrew University was the one who explained to me that the Jews will never win the propaganda war because we were hopelessly locked up by the truth where the Arabs felt no such limitations. He explained that it was culturally accepted to tell a lie if it was expedient or if it helped your cause. In fact one would be considered a bit of an idiot if he/she didn't lie to help his/her own case. He sited numerous examples of public officials and religious leaders who had claimed that the Jews had poisoned wells and blown up prominent Muslim holy places. Nobody seemed to mind when these things turned out not to be true, because "it was enough that they were true at the moment they were said". This confused the hell out of me and I tried to argue with him that these things had never been true. He went on to say, "That is why you will never win the war... because to us, those things were true right up until the moment they turned out not to be. Words are powerful things in our culture and they have the power to alter reality... if only for a little while. Sometimes a little while is all we need to win."

Lastly, I want to reiterate how proud I am of everyone involved for keeping things civil.

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jan 31, 2006 3:10:14 PM

Yonah...thanks for the video link to Your Morning CN8.
WOW, that was a real eye opener. Just so frightening. It's so hard to try to accept that it could be possibly be true. I guess we are all being fooled or just choosing to be deaf and blind.

Posted by: jaime | Feb 3, 2006 5:16:46 PM

«

Post a comment