The Waterbury Republican-American published the op-ed at the end of this post on February 2, 2009.
This Comment & Analysis includes "Comments" (quotes from the commentary) and follows each by an "Analysis."
This Comment & Analysis includes "Comments" (quotes from the commentary) and follows each by an "Analysis."
Comment:
"Alan Stein's Jan. 17 letter, "Rockets hurt Arabs more than Israelis," speaks of "Palestinian Arabs" as responsible for rocket fire into southern Israel and seems to conflate all Palestinian Arabs with Hamas. Fatah is also a Palestinian Arab party that governs the West Bank (2.5 million, more populous than Gaza), has accepted a two-state solution and recognizes Israel."
Analysis:
Hamas won the last parliamentary elections for the Palestinian Authority.
The Fatah Charter still contains the following goal: "Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." That is hardly an indication that Fatah "has accepted a two-state solution and recognizes Israel."
Hamas won the last parliamentary elections for the Palestinian Authority.
The Fatah Charter still contains the following goal: "Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." That is hardly an indication that Fatah "has accepted a two-state solution and recognizes Israel."
Comment:
"Hamas is a political party which, after a democratic election, governs only Gaza and forms its government."
Analysis:
This is misleading, making it appear Hamas took over the government of Gaza as a result of a democratic election.
After the election, Hamas eventually agreed to a unity government with Fatah, but then violently overthrew Fatah in Gaza in a bloody coup.
This is misleading, making it appear Hamas took over the government of Gaza as a result of a democratic election.
After the election, Hamas eventually agreed to a unity government with Fatah, but then violently overthrew Fatah in Gaza in a bloody coup.
Comment:
"The invasion of Gaza has cost more than 1,400 lives, injured more than 10,000, the majority civilians, including hundreds of women, children, aid workers and medics, and destroyed countless homes, stores, offices, schools and university buildings, and hit hospitals, shelters and U.N.-designated sanctuaries. This is not "collateral damage," in the sense of unexpected and unavoidable damage, but inevitable and predictable if a military decides to bomb cities and attack densely populated areas with remote-controlled bombs and tanks firing at buildings. The humanitarian cost of the invasion has been internationally condemned, and it does the cause of the Israeli people no good to minimize or ignore it, even if it is held to be necessary, as many do."
Analysis:
The figures given in the op-ed are suspect and parrot the numbers given by biased sources such as the Hamas controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza.
The Jerusalem Post at reports that Israeli Military Intelligence "has set up a team to produce a comprehensive list of Palestinian fatalities, including their names and affiliation." According to the article, "The IDF privately told Israeli reporters ... that only 150 of the 900 fatalities it has checked were civilians and that it was likely that the rest were Hamas combatants."
There were roughly another 200 casualties that had not been identified at that time. Those were mostly young men of an age that made it likely most were also combatants.
If one looks at the historical record rather than parroting anti-Israel propaganda, one realizes, as I heard historian Michael Oren recently point out, the LOW level of civilian casualties in Gaza is unprecedented in the history of urban warfare.
In contrast, in urban warfare, typically at least ten times as many civilians are killed as combatants. The low level of civilian casualties in Gaza is even more amazing given the strategy of Hamas and other terror groups of attacking from civilian areas and hiding behind civilians.
Additionally, Hamas used homes, schools, mosques and hospitals to store arms, shelter terrorists and launch attacks.
The figures given in the op-ed are suspect and parrot the numbers given by biased sources such as the Hamas controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza.
The Jerusalem Post at
There were roughly another 200 casualties that had not been identified at that time. Those were mostly young men of an age that made it likely most were also combatants.
If one looks at the historical record rather than parroting anti-Israel propaganda, one realizes, as I heard historian Michael Oren recently point out, the LOW level of civilian casualties in Gaza is unprecedented in the history of urban warfare.
In contrast, in urban warfare, typically at least ten times as many civilians are killed as combatants. The low level of civilian casualties in Gaza is even more amazing given the strategy of Hamas and other terror groups of attacking from civilian areas and hiding behind civilians.
Additionally, Hamas used homes, schools, mosques and hospitals to store arms, shelter terrorists and launch attacks.
Comment:
"The rocket fire from Hamas is wrong, and indeed stupid from its point of view. Its effects are, comparatively, trivial; a maximum of 10 deaths over several years, none after the first day of the invasion. The rocket fire is to be condemned, but it is widely disproportionate to the scope of the death and destruction in Gaza."
Analysis:
Trivial is in the mind of the beholder. One would not consider it trivial if thousands of rockets had hit Waterbury from nearby Middlebury over a period of several years and caused "only" ten deaths.
Far from being disproportionate, Israel's response to the rocket fire has thus far been insufficient, as proven by the fact that the rocket fire continues to this day, including a Grad rocket hitting Ashkelon this morning.
Trivial is in the mind of the beholder. One would not consider it trivial if thousands of rockets had hit Waterbury from nearby Middlebury over a period of several years and caused "only" ten deaths.
Far from being disproportionate, Israel's response to the rocket fire has thus far been insufficient, as proven by the fact that the rocket fire continues to this day, including a Grad rocket hitting Ashkelon this morning.
Comment:
"Reasonable people differ on the assignment of moral blame for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The international community and the United Nations overwhelmingly hold the Israeli government at least in part responsible, but the debate is not a productive one; all sides agree war is undesirable and the recent cease fire has been widely welcomed."
Analysis:
Article Fifteen of the Hamas Charter begins: "The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters."
Article 17 of the Fatah Charter reads: "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine."
These are hardly consistent with the assertion "all sides agree war is undesirable."
Article Fifteen of the Hamas Charter begins: "The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters."
Article 17 of the Fatah Charter reads: "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine."
These are hardly consistent with the assertion "all sides agree war is undesirable."
Comment:
"Arguing Israel's very existence is at stake in the invasion, and that Hamas must "recognize" Israel before true negotiations can begin, is counterproductive. Israel's existence is not threatened by the pitiable rocket fire from an impoverished and isolated Hamas leadership in Gaza, whatever its rhetoric. Israel is the dominant military power in the Middle East. Let Hamas bluster as it may, Israel's existence is no longer at stake.
"The invasion has not weakened the support of Hamas among the residents of Gaza nor created an alternate entity with which the government of Israel might negotiate. It needs to recognize the reality of Hamas' governmental role, and deal directly with it."
Analysis:
One obviously needs to deal with Hamas, but what is there to negotiate with a terrorist entity whose raison d'etre is your destruction?
One obviously needs to deal with Hamas, but what is there to negotiate with a terrorist entity whose raison d'etre is your destruction?
Comment:
"From the point of view of the Israeli people, a permanent settlement is devoutly to be desired. That must include cessation of rocket fire and agreement on a two-state solution, with peaceful governments on both sides of the border."
Analysis:
Quite true, other than implying a border exists; the location of a border between Israel and whatever entity or entities emerge in the disputed territories must be determined by negotiations.
Quite true, other than implying a border exists; the location of a border between Israel and whatever entity or entities emerge in the disputed territories must be determined by negotiations.
Comment:
"From the point of view of the Palestinian people, a permanent settlement is devoutly to be desired as well.
Analysis:
It should be desired, but the charters of both Hamas and the supposedly more moderate Fatah continue to envision permanent settlements without Israel.
It should be desired, but the charters of both Hamas and the supposedly more moderate Fatah continue to envision permanent settlements without Israel.
Comment:
"That must include an ending of the blockade of Gaza and agreement on a two-state solution, with peaceful governments on both sides of the border and some sharing of Jerusalem. It must deal with settlements in the West bank that preclude Palestinian sovereignty."
Analysis:
There already is some sharing of Jerusalem; the Palestinian Arabs already control Judaism's most holy site, the Temple Mount.
Unless one has no respect for the ability of the Palestinian Arabs to adhere to civilized standards of behavior, there is no more reason for the presence of a relative handful of Jews in the currently disputed territories to preclude Palestinian Arab sovereignty than the presence of more than a million Arabs has prevented Israeli sovereignty.
There already is some sharing of Jerusalem; the Palestinian Arabs already control Judaism's most holy site, the Temple Mount.
Unless one has no respect for the ability of the Palestinian Arabs to adhere to civilized standards of behavior, there is no more reason for the presence of a relative handful of Jews in the currently disputed territories to preclude Palestinian Arab sovereignty than the presence of more than a million Arabs has prevented Israeli sovereignty.
Comment:
"Most participants in the current discussions agree it is in the interests of both peoples to live together in peace."
Analysis:
Unfortunately, Hamas isn't among those participants who so agree.
Unfortunately, Hamas isn't among those participants who so agree.
Comment:
"Many on both sides agree and are working together toward that goal. If the Israeli government would prefer a different partner for the discussions than the elected Hamas government of Gaza, its present actions only intensify Hamas' support. It needs to show there is an alternative to violence that moves forward toward peace; its past actions have not shown peaceful negotiations as a priority. The peace supporters on both sides have little to show for their efforts."
Analysis:
The Israeli government has made peaceful negotiations a priority for six decades, but those efforts haven't been very successful.
At the start of the Oslo Experiment, it transferred control over the lives of about 95 percent of the Arabs in the disputed territories to the Palestinian Authority, only to be rewarded with a massive wave of terrorism including bus bombings.
In 2000, it offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state, only to be rewardeds with another terror offensive, this time featuring suicide bombings in pizza parlors, shopping malls and discotheques.
In 2005, it completely left Gaza, only to be rewarded with thousands of Kassam and Grad rockets launched at Sderot, Ashkelon and now Beersheva and Ashdod.
The Israeli government has made peaceful negotiations a priority for six decades, but those efforts haven't been very successful.
At the start of the Oslo Experiment, it transferred control over the lives of about 95 percent of the Arabs in the disputed territories to the Palestinian Authority, only to be rewarded with a massive wave of terrorism including bus bombings.
In 2000, it offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state, only to be rewardeds with another terror offensive, this time featuring suicide bombings in pizza parlors, shopping malls and discotheques.
In 2005, it completely left Gaza, only to be rewarded with thousands of Kassam and Grad rockets launched at Sderot, Ashkelon and now Beersheva and Ashdod.
Comment:
"The best contribution the U.S. government can make is to put its enormous weight, and now prestige, behind those efforts. Knee-jerk support of the government of Israel, particularly before an election there, is the wrong way to go. A more realistic approach by all sides and more clarity on long-range goals would help."
Analysis:
Realism dictates a recognition that peace is impossible as long as Hamas, in anything resembling its present form, enjoys any signicant support among the Palestinian Arabs.
Realism also dictates a recognition that peace is impossible as long as the supposedly "moderate" Fatah clings to the same absolutist demands it was making at the start of the Oslo Experiment.
Realism dictates a recognition that peace is impossible as long as Hamas, in anything resembling its present form, enjoys any signicant support among the Palestinian Arabs.
Realism also dictates a recognition that peace is impossible as long as the supposedly "moderate" Fatah clings to the same absolutist demands it was making at the start of the Oslo Experiment.
The Text: Israelis vs. Palestinians: The Fundamentals
By Peter Marcuse
The widespread discussion on the Gaza conflict and the roles of Israel and Hamas might be helped by clarifying just who the writers are concerned about. There is a difference between Hamas and the people who live in the Gaza Strip, and between Hamas and "Palestinian Arabs." And there is a difference between "Israel," the government of Israel, the people of Israel and the particular political leaders who now determine the policies of the government of Israel.
The Jan. 14 letter by Judith and Peter Haddad, "Goals of Israelis, Palestinians need not be incompatible," focuses on what is happening to the 1.7 million people who live in the Gaza Strip. Alan Stein's Jan. 17 letter, "Rockets hurt Arabs more than Israelis," speaks of "Palestinian Arabs" as responsible for rocket fire into southern Israel and seems to conflate all Palestinian Arabs with Hamas. Fatah is also a Palestinian Arab party that governs the West Bank (2.5 million, more populous than Gaza), has accepted a two-state solution and recognizes Israel.
Hamas is a political party which, after a democratic election, governs only Gaza and forms its government.
If we keep those distinctions clear, the following can be recognized by everyone as facts:
The invasion of Gaza has cost more than 1,400 lives, injured more than 10,000, the majority civilians, including hundreds of women, children, aid workers and medics, and destroyed countless homes, stores, offices, schools and university buildings, and hit hospitals, shelters and U.N.-designated sanctuaries. This is not "collateral damage," in the sense of unexpected and unavoidable damage, but inevitable and predictable if a military decides to bomb cities and attack densely populated areas with remote-controlled bombs and tanks firing at buildings. The humanitarian cost of the invasion has been internationally condemned, and it does the cause of the Israeli people no good to minimize or ignore it, even if it is held to be necessary, as many do.
The rocket fire from Hamas is wrong, and indeed stupid from its point of view. Its effects are, comparatively, trivial; a maximum of 10 deaths over several years, none after the first day of the invasion. The rocket fire is to be condemned, but it is widely disproportionate to the scope of the death and destruction in Gaza.
Reasonable people differ on the assignment of moral blame for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The international community and the United Nations overwhelmingly hold the Israeli government at least in part responsible, but the debate is not a productive one; all sides agree war is undesirable and the recent cease fire has been widely welcomed.
Arguing Israel's very existence is at stake in the invasion, and that Hamas must "recognize" Israel before true negotiations can begin, is counterproductive. Israel's existence is not threatened by the pitiable rocket fire from an impoverished and isolated Hamas leadership in Gaza, whatever its rhetoric. Israel is the dominant military power in the Middle East. Let Hamas bluster as it may, Israel's existence is no longer at stake.
The invasion has not weakened the support of Hamas among the residents of Gaza nor created an alternate entity with which the government of Israel might negotiate. It needs to recognize the reality of Hamas' governmental role, and deal directly with it.
From the point of view of the Israeli people, a permanent settlement is devoutly to be desired. That must include cessation of rocket fire and agreement on a two-state solution, with peaceful governments on both sides of the border.
From the point of view of the Palestinian people, a permanent settlement is devoutly to be desired as well. That must include an ending of the blockade of Gaza and agreement on a two-state solution, with peaceful governments on both sides of the border and some sharing of Jerusalem. It must deal with settlements in the West bank that preclude Palestinian sovereignty.
Most participants in the current discussions agree it is in the interests of both peoples to live together in peace. Many on both sides agree and are working together toward that goal. If the Israeli government would prefer a different partner for the discussions than the elected Hamas government of Gaza, its present actions only intensify Hamas' support. It needs to show there is an alternative to violence that moves forward toward peace; its past actions have not shown peaceful negotiations as a priority. The peace supporters on both sides have little to show for their efforts.
The best contribution the U.S. government can make is to put its enormous weight, and now prestige, behind those efforts. Knee-jerk support of the government of Israel, particularly before an election there, is the wrong way to go. A more realistic approach by all sides and more clarity on long-range goals would help.
The best contribution the U.S. government can make is to put its enormous weight, and now prestige, behind those efforts. Knee-jerk support of the government of Israel, particularly before an election there, is the wrong way to go. A more realistic approach by all sides and more clarity on long-range goals would help.
Peter Marcuse of Waterbury, once a majority leader of the Board of Aldermen, teaches urban planning at Columbia University. He has visited cities in Israel, the West Bank and Egypt.
No comments:
Post a Comment