I understand it as well. But I think the actions are wrong, criminally wrong, and very much counter-productive. And of course I'd say the same thing about Palestinians lobbing rockets into Israel. What Israelis need to understand is that terrorist attacks are very different from threats of conventional warfare. You can't intimidate a people into not committing terrorist acts.
But there in lies my point...I've never seen a mixed reaction against Hamas by Muslims...usually it's silence...but for the first time, Hamas is taking criticism. I disagree wholeheartedly with you position though on this making Israel safer - i think the strong reaction really surprised Hamas. It really will make them think twice about pushing the violence over a certain line. With Arab nations now putting pressure on Hamas, and even common Muslims and Arabs seeing faults in Hamas (even though their anger is still focused on Israel)...Israel's show of strength was the exact right move. It acted from a provacation - not from a point of "pre-emption". The world may not think it's fair and that they went too far - look at how fast Hamas wanted to put the cease fire back into effect. A day after Israel called a unilateral ceasefire - Hamas followed. That my friend is progress. Let's see now how anxious Hamas will be to kill Israelis. Time will tell.
Don't apologize! At least you responded to my post, which is nice of you, considering that the person I was responding to didn't bother. This is a complex issue that is obviously still debated to this day, by a lot more people than the denizens in D&D (those who bother ). What you posted was part of the discussion going on behind the scenes, as was what I mentioned. By the way... where did you read that a 3rd atomic bomb was available at the time? I've seen nothing that supports that, and I've looked. Here's just one quote that clearly states only two were available, from GlobalSecurity.org. Plus some interesting reading... By August 1945, U.S. Navy submarines and aerial mining by the Army Air Forces (AAF) severely restricted Japanese shipping. The AAF controlled the skies over Japan and the AAF's B-29 bombing attacks crippled its war industry. A plan for the invasion of Japan had been drawn up; Operation Olympic was scheduled for November 1945. Estimates of Allied casualties ranged from 250,000 to a million with much greater losses to the Japanese. To repel invaders, Japan had a veteran army of some two million ready, an army that had already shown its ferocity and fanaticism in combat. Some 8,000 military aircraft were available that could be used for devastating Kamikaze (suicide) attacks on U.S. ships. The draft had been extended to include men from age 15 to 60 and women from 17 to 45, adding millions of civilians ready to defend their homeland to the death, with sharpened sticks if necessary. Experience throughout the Pacific war had shown that Japanese combat casualties had run from five to 20 times those suffered by the Allies, particularly in the battles of the Philippines and Okinawa. Whatever the predicted Allied losses, the potential Japanese military and civilian casualties would have been staggering. Whether Japan would have surrendered prior to invasion without the use of the atomic bombs is a question that can never be answered. Using the history and projections available to him, President Truman made the grave decision to use the atomic bomb in an effort to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a costly invasion. The directive releasing the atomic bomb for use was sent to General Carl Spaatz, commander of the Strategic Air Force in the Pacific. The directive had been approved by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, and presumably by President Truman. It listed the targets to be attacked and included Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others; and it referred to the possible use of more than one bomb. Hiroshima was an industrial area with a number of military installations. Nagasaki was a major port with shipbuilding and marine repair facilities. In general, the participants in the decision to use multiple bombs considered that such employment would enhance the psychological effect on the Japanese government and would be conducive to ending the war without the need for an invasion, a paramount objective. The world entered a new era when on August 6, 1945 the crew of the B-29 Enola Gay released an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The yield was 12.5 KT. The devastation caused by the bomb brought no response to the demand for unconditional surrender, and conventional bombing raids continued. On August 9th, with Sweeney at the controls, B-29 Bockscar took off before dawn from the island of Tinian with a second atomic bomb aboard (only two bombs were available). The primary target was the city of Kokura, but clouds obscured it. With fuel running low due to a fuel transfer problem, Sweeney proceeded to the secondary target, Nagasaki, a leading industrial center. The yield was 22 KT. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/combat.htm Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. I've been very busy, which is a bummer. Of course, this is a bit of a tangent in this thread!
The Egyptian government is not friendly with Hamas, and censure from them is certainly not unprecedented. Same with the Saudis. I think Hamas will gain popular support amongst Palestinians and Arabs in general, not lose it.
I'm not just talking about the gov't...in Egypt there has been widespread criticism of Hamas by Eygptian people. You never had such criticism directed before Hamas...there's a new tack here....I think Hamas has lost support, not gained it overall. People are tired of the situation there and want to move forward, not backwards. So yes, while it generates anger toward Israel, you haven't seen the massive type of rioting and demonstrations to the degree in the past. There's definitely a bit of "Hamas as a trouble-making little brother" going on in the Arab street. Yes they defend little brother, but they are also tired of him. Look how quickly Hamas agreed to the ceasefire - that alone is a success.
Egyptian media is state-run. If the Egyptian government takes a particular position, then there will certainly be a segment of the Egyptian population that agrees with them. Far more relevant is what Palestinians think. What I've read about the Arab street indicates that Hamas has improved its standing after this episode. And I think amongst Palestinians, support for Hamas has probably increased substantially. I haven't seen any in-depth study on it or anything, but that's what it seems like from what I've read. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/world/middleeast/10cairo.html?fta=y [rquoter] Egyptians Seethe Over Gaza, and Their Leaders Feel Heat By MICHAEL SLACKMAN CAIRO — Inside Al Azhar Mosque, a 1,000-year-old center of religious learning, the preacher was railing on Friday against Jews. Outside were rows of riot police officers backed by water cannons and dozens of plainclothes officers, there to prevent worshipers from charging into the street to protest against the war in Gaza. “Muslim brothers,” said the government-appointed preacher, Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef, “God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them. They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth. They are the most evil on Earth.” As the war in Gaza burned through its 14th day, Arab governments have felt their legitimacy challenged with an uncommon virulence. With each passing day, and each Palestinian death, the popularity of Hamas and other radical movements has ratcheted higher on the Arab street, while the standing of Arab leaders has suffered. Nowhere in the Arab world is the gap between the street and the government so wide as here in Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel and has refused to allow free passage of goods and people through its border with Gaza, a decision that has been attacked by Islamic and Arab leaders and proved deeply troubling to many Egyptians. And so the government of President Hosni Mubarak appeared to lean back on its standard formula for preserving authority at Friday Prayer, relying on its security forces to keep calm on the street and government religious institutions like Al Azhar to try to appease public sentiment, in this case by lashing out at the Jews in response to Gaza. ... [/rquoter]
The author supports a 1-state solution, because he think that there are no practical ways of implementing a 2-state solution in which Israel's security concerns are met and the Palestinian state is viable and fully sovereign. I just wanted to clarify that, because I'm sure many would look at that title and assume he wants all the Jews to be driven into the sea or something. Abunimah's perspective on the conflict is very much from a Palestinian's perspective, but he makes well reasoned arguments. Israel may not be consciously trying to "massacre" Palestinians in Gaza, or at least in their brains they would use such terms, but that's basically what this amounts to. Use overwhelming force not only to weaken Hamas's "military" capabilities, but to destroy the morale of Gazans through brutal collective punishment. You don't use that level of disproportionate force unless you desire such a psychological effect. That, to me, is the very definition of terrorism.
How is that so different than "shock and awe" and "the surge" in Iraq? From where I sit the "little" Satan isn't so different from the "big" one other than maybe being better at holding on to the high esteem in opinion polls of the electorate.
"Shock and awe" entails terrorism, in my opinion. I think one has to be really creative in their definition of terrorism for it not to qualify.
Thanks for the summary. I really like his comparisons with apartheid South Africa as well. I left it as is for a couple of reasons: One - I was hoping the provocative title would get people to click on it. Two - I couldn't copy and paste the article as a post without everything being jumbled up for some reason. I think Abunimah is probably the best spokesman for the Palestinian cause in the English language (I saw him speak at UT once), which is probably why you don't see him on tv. The media in this country doesn't want somebody on tv that can articulate the Palestinian perspective eloquently. They would rather have all these people who speak broken English etc.. to further make the Palestinians look bad.
Norman Finkelstein on the Gaza Seige <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FIr4lEIqTkM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FIr4lEIqTkM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Well he certainly doesn't pull any punches. His debate with Alan Dershowitz on Democracy Now! a while back was hilarious. Dershowitz, I think, was probably chiefly responsible for wrecking his professional career in academia.
Israelis question the success of the war in Gaza: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5567396.ece [rquoter] A day after the last of their country's soldiers pulled out of the Gaza, Israelis are increasingly asking themselves just what they were fighting for. The offensive enjoyed massive popular support while under way, but with the guns silent, scathing criticism is emerging from both the Left and the Right about the lack of any clear achievement, other than a huge Palestinian death toll and the damage to Israel’s international reputation. ... [/rquoter]
Olmert’s Boast of ‘Shaming’ Rice Provokes Diplomatic Furor ‘The Mistake Was To Talk About It In Public,’ One Critic Says http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/ By Nathan Guttman - Thu. Jan 15, 2009 Washington — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert didn’t do anything wrong — but he should have kept his mouth shut. That was the reaction of several Jewish leaders to Olmert’s public boast January 11. He said he left Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “shamed” by getting President Bush to block her at the last moment from voting for a Gaza cease-fire resolution that she herself had hammered out over several days with Arab and European diplomats at the United Nations. Olmert bragged of having pulled Bush off a stage during a speech when he called on the phone and demanded the president’s intervention. Administration officials, however, have sharply challenged Olmert’s account. “I have no problem with what Olmert did,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “I think the mistake was to talk about it in public. “This is what friendships are about. He was not interfering in political issues. You have a relationship, and if you don’t like what is being done, then you go to the boss and tell him.” Douglas Bloomfield, a former chief lobbyist for the Washington-based pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, dismissed the episode as “a spitting match between two lame ducks.” “This reinforces the perception that the Israeli prime minister and Israeli leaders have easy access to the leaders of the U.S.,” Bloomfield said. “It is a fact that the Israeli prime minister can get the president on the phone. Not every prime minister in the world can do that. It is no secret that Israel tried to influence the U.S. regarding U.N. votes. It reinforces what the rivals of Israel say about the enormous clout Israel has in Washington, and I see nothing wrong with that.” But Bloomfield added, “It is a mistake to talk about it.” Rice, according to press reports, worked hard with Arab and European diplomats to come up with a Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza that all could support. She finally gave her approval to a draft calling for an “immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.” But the January 8 vote was delayed just before it was to take place, as Rice was called away to the phone. When she returned, she abstained on behalf of the United States — contrary, other diplomats said, to her earlier commitment. The measure, Resolution 1860, was adopted 14-0, with only America in abstention. In public remarks afterward, Rice stressed that her government nevertheless strongly supported the resolution. “We decided that this resolution, the text of which we support, the goals of which we support and the objectives that we fully support, should indeed be allowed to go forward. I believe in doing so, the council has provided a roadmap for a sustainable, durable peace in Gaza,” Rice said after the January 8 vote, explaining America’s decision to abstain. Olmert’s call to Bush aside, there were hints of internal wrangling within America’s administration over the resolution. In a January 11 CNN interview, Vice President Dick Cheney voiced disbelief in the U.N.’s ability to end the fighting in Gaza. “I think we’ve learned, from watching over the years, that there’s a big difference between what happens at the United Nations in their debates and the facts on the ground in major crises around the world,” Cheney said. Israel and Jewish groups, including Aipac, the ADL and the American Jewish Committee, opposed the draft’s language, which they saw as one-sided. They also felt that the draft stood in contrast to Israel’s demand not to give it equal standing with Hamas in the resolution. During a January 5 conference call with Jewish activists, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, gave special priority to blocking the international body from taking a stand on the Gaza issue. “We need to work hard to ensure the Security Council doesn’t pass a resolution,” Hoenlein said. It was in Ashkelon, in southern Israel, that Olmert gave a speech in which he said that on hearing of the draft that Rice had developed with her U.N. colleagues, he immediately called Bush, just minutes before the U.N. vote. He was told that Bush was giving a speech in Philadelphia and could not talk. “I said, I don’t care; I have to talk to him,” Olmert told the crowd, which included reporters and TV cameras. Bush, according to Olmert, was called off the podium and immediately agreed to look into the issue. “He gave an order to the secretary of state, and she did not vote in favor of it — a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed, and abstained on a resolution she arranged,” Olmert told the crowd. A furious White House and State Department condemned Olmert’s account as inaccurate, and the State Department called it “totally, completely untrue.” Rice termed it “a fiction.” In a January 13 press briefing, spokesman Sean McCormack said Rice had decided a day before the vote that she would not veto the resolution. McCormack also stated that Rice made the choice to abstain after she consulted with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and with Bush. The decision by Rice not to outright veto the January 8 Security Council resolution, as the United States has the power to do under Security Council rules, triggered angry and unusual criticism from Jewish groups that have praised Bush during most of his eight-year White House tenure. Aipac issued a statement January 6 condemning the U.N. resolution and criticizing the Bush administration for not using its veto power and instead “succumbing to pressure exerted by Arab states.” The ADL expressed disappointment with the administration in a written statement: “We expected the Administration to abide by its longstanding commitment to fighting global terrorism and the scourge of anti-Semitism, and Israel’s role on the front lines of that fight.” The tough words from Israel and Jewish groups toward the outgoing administration will make little difference for Bush and Rice, who leave office January 20. But they will serve as a message to the incoming administration led by President-elect Barack Obama and his choice for secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “This is a battle that needed to be taken,” Foxman said. “We don’t win all our battles, but we can’t simply accept that the Security Council is what the Security Council is.”
^ I think that's a standard, politically correct response. There will be all sorts of preconditions thrown in as well, mostly predicated on weakening Hamas. For instance, despite lofty rhetoric on helping the suffering of Gazans even the reconstruction efforts are being politicized now. Effectively, Hamas (despite being the rightful, elected representative of the Palestinian people) can't have anything to do with it. Israel and US, probably the EU as well, are willing to hold up desperately needed aid to Gaza to freeze out Hamas from the process. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0123/p12s01-wome.html
It is hard to know why Obama would choose to get immediately involved with the Palestinian-Israel mess. It is hard to imagine that he can do much. It seems weird for him to waste his political capital on this. Israel is not ready to negotiate except to demand virtually unconditional surrender of all the best land on the West Bank. The Palestinians despite the latest slaughter are probably not ready to sign off on that.
