The Conflict Between Israel And Gaza
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-19/conflict-between-israel-and-gaza
Israel is amassing troops and armored trucks on the border of Gaza as the escalation of fighting there enters its sixth day. Israel's cabinet authorized placing thousands of reservists on call, heightening concerns that Israel might invade the Hamas-run Palestinian enclave and possibly spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Egypt and Turkey are sympathetic to Hamas and are among the nations pushing for a ceasefire. President Barack Obama said the U.S. fully supports Israel's right to defend itself. But Palestinian leaders called Israel's actions unjustified even though Israel has been the target of hundreds of rocket attacks in the past year. Diane and her guests discuss the conflict between Israel and Gaza.
Guests
Michael Oren
Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
Aaron David Miller
vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, and former U.S. Middle East adviser in Republican and Democratic administrations.
Shibley Telhami
Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of the forthcoming book, "The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace 1989-2011."
David Makovsky
senior fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and co-author with Dennis Ross of "Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East."
Nadia Bilbassy
senior U.S. correspondent for MBC TV -- Middle East Broadcast Center.
James Kitfield
senior correspondent for National Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
PART TWO
Sixth, Hamas claims to be acting on behalf of the Palestinian people, and the cause of Palestinian statehood. They are simply one in a long line of murderers who have chosen terrorism as their “weapon of choice” (because they realize they can’t destroy Israel militarily). So, yes, when it comes to weighing the “morality” of Israel versus Hamas, it is appropriate to look at all the tactics employed in the name of the cause they champion, regardless of when or precisely who did them. (And you were the one who wanted a review of the people "killed by Palestinians over a period of Years.”.)
Seventh, while I criticized the Israeli government in a number of my Comments (here and in other places, by the way), as well as expressing opposition to some of its policies (the settlements), I notice you haven’t offered any criticism of Hamas, only excuses, rationalizations, and justifications.
Pathetic.
P.S. - And despite the fact that you don’t even know what I look like, you seem to be entertaining homoerotic fantasies about me. Sorry, but you’re not my type.
Tom Schaber on November 19, 2012 @ 11:03 am wrote: “I am an atheist and I find their position on their right to the land as ludicrous, inane, stupid, unbelievable and sheer nonsense.”
One small correction. The Israeli government has never claimed a religious “right” to the land. Israel’s legal right to exist comes from the same U.N. resolutions that give Palestine a legal right to exist. In 1948, the Palestinians and Arabs refused to recognize that, and chose to pursue a path of war and terror to achieve their ends. Anyone today who denies Israel’s right to exist (thus ignoring these legal facts) is also denying the right of Palestine to exist. (Just as anyone who ignores that history of war and terror is demonstrating incredible bias.)
Now, there are some Israelis (mainly the ultra-orthodox) who claim a religious right to the land. All I can say is that I disagree with that claim as much as you do.
Dev Devta November 19, 2012 @ 11:14 am wrote: “Tom, I do not question your intent but you really need to research this a bit more.”
I haven’t wasted time responding to all the allegations of Israeli “crimes” because I know nothing I say will convince the Anti-Semites (sorry, “Anti-Zionists”) among us. Ditto for the charge of “you started it”. But I will point out a few problems with your other “facts”.
One, yes, there is no way “the Israeli air raids and shellings” are precise (and neither are Hamas’s rockets by the way), but you conveniently ignore the fact that Hamas deliberately fires rockets from civilian areas knowing the retaliation can’t be that precise. You are thus excusing, and even endorsing, their cynical strategy - and you dare make speeches about “morality”?
Two, the blockade has hardly been “total”, neither has it been in place for “40 plus years”. And deny it as much as you want, the fact is supplies do get through. Some with the assistance of the Israeli government, and some by smuggling. (Or do you suppose Hamas gets its rockets from the Israeli Army?)
Which, of course, raises a critical point all you people with “tender feelings” for the plight of the Gazans keep ignoring. Why can’t Hamas “smuggle” in food and building supplies? Can’t it get the material to build Gaza into someplace livable? Why has it allowed the Gazans to fester? Could it be for the same reason Egypt did the same thing when it controlled Gaza?
Politics!
The sad truth is: the Gazans are pawns, used by both Hamas and the Likud for their political purposes. And your one-sided view of things enables that to continue!
speakingtruthto... on November 19, 2012 @ 11:44 am wrote: “Just stop the killing please. No one needs to die.”
Great idea. Just tell Hamas, et. al., to stop attacking Israel and Israelis. That would be a great start.
speakingtruthto... on November 19, 2012 @ 12:40 pm wrote: “Ads in the DC Metro read: In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel Defeat Jihad.”
Considering that on another NPR website I have condemned those ads (and been attacked for doing so), I don’t think I need to respond at great length. I’ll just point out that citing a lunatic ad campaign as a response to the issue of Hamas’ deliberate murderous tactics (both to Israelis and its own people) is the height of irrelevancy.
If you were so concerned for “poor, helpless, civilians”, and for peace, why do you consistently ignore (or worse, try to defend) those tactics?
Your hypocrisy is showing.
sathi on November 19, 2012 @ 12:42 pm wrote: “Most of the positive feelings for Israel are due to the sympathy one feels for the Jewish people and their experiences during the holocaust. Jews, undoubtedly are among the most talented, prosperous, hard working people I have known. However, . . . .”
Your patronizing remarks are no more welcome to this Jew than the support of those fundamentalist Christians you cite. And for the same reason.
Why must Israel’s right to exist, free from terror and rocket attacks, depend on your “sympathy”, or their theology?
As for noting “the plight of the Palestinians”, I guess you’ve ignored all the U.S. humanitarian aid that’s been given to them over the years. (For which today’s Republi-Cons never miss a chance to criticize the President, forgetting that Republican Presidents did the same.)
And what exactly would a “nuanced” approach consist of? Telling Israel it must do nothing while its people are attacked and killed?
I note that many of the Hamas apologists here keep referring to the assassination of one of its leaders. A targeted attack aimed at just one man (and a legitimate military target). But what’s Hamas’ response? To target civilians.
If Israel truly behaved the way the Palestinians (and their supporters) have behaved for decades, she’d have long ago planted bombs in Mecca to kill the pilgrims there, or hijacked/blown up the planes carrying them to Mecca. She would have sent death squads throughout the world to kill not terrorists, but any Arabs, Muslims, and/or Palestinians they could find. And they’d make sure that any Olympic athletes from those countries would never see their homes again.
Funny, how I hear not one word (“nuanced” or otherwise) condemning such actions by or on behalf of the “defenseless” Palestinians.
(Or any suggestion that their “plight” might be connected to that history of violence.)
- Ahmed Jabril was a terrorist who perpetuated war and death on Israel and many others... Like Osama Bin Laden, he got what he wrought.
- Hamas has regularly and continuously launched rocket attacks (with rockets made in Iran), into Israel from the porches of family residences in Gaza.
- When Israel launches counter strikes into Gaza, the families who live in the homes that launch the rockets are killed. Hamas is using them as human shields. What do they expect will happen?
- When families are killed, Hamas makes videos and shows the world the horror of what happened in an effort to garner sympathy and support.
Result: The "peace" or "cease fire" agreements that Hamas "offers" will NOT stand as long as they insist on allowing imbedded terrorists to launch attacks on Israel from within Gaza. The attacks will continue regardless of the agreements. If Palestinians want peace they must purge the terrorists from their midst and make real efforts at peace....not just pretend.
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Ferdnam November 19, 2012 @ 10:18 am wrote: “The view in Europe is that the Israeli actions are essentially pre-electoral tactics by the Likud government.”
Despite the obvious bias displayed by you (and the European press), I actually agree with you on this one, a bit.
In many ways Hamas (and the Palestinians in general) are playing into Netanyahu’s and Likud’s hands...
...So by all means, be part of the one-sided cheering section which proclaims Hamas and/or the Palestinians can do no wrong, and that Israel can do no good. "
I do not proclaim that Hamas can do no wrong... As to the obvious bias, I do not know what I wrote that would suggest bias...
I have tried, for many years, to understand why the European perspective on the Palestine/Israel conflict differs from that in the US. The reported history of Palestine over the last 2000 years is not different if one consults European and US sources (Dept of Defense and CIA, for instance).
The problem starts when one brings up the topic of terrorism. The issue of past and current zionist terrorism is largely ignored here. It is not in Europe. The issue of Palestinian terrorism is mentioned here and there.
I believe that to resolve an issue, one needs to come to a point where the truth has been revealed. The truth, as I see it at this moment, is that although there are no innocent parties in this tragedy, there is one side that imposes a restrictive survival mode on the other by imprisoning its population in a ghetto of sorts.
There is no bias there. Just the recognition that both parties must see the truth, acknowledge it before they can sit down and negotiate "in good faith."
And yes, I do not think that the Israeli governments have negotiated in good faith (which does not suggest that I believe that the Palestinians negotiated in good faith either).
It is a complicated problem that won't get resolved if we simply accuse each other of bias.
I am a listener who also wishes for less bias. I expect less bias from NPR than from other news media, and to not have the Palestinian side represented for this topic is very disappointing. This issue involves one of the, if not the, most disgraceful stance by the U.S. towards genocide and illegal and inhumane practices by Israel. I hope that an international shift and outcry will lead to action and confrontation of the U.S. providing arms towards this massacre and that we will no longer be allowed to act as if the people in Gaza have no rights or even exist.
To climatewiz1, writing on November 20, 2012 @ 12:51 pm :
If you're expecting me to disagree with, you're going to be very disappointed.
;-)
And you managed to get the point across succinctly! (Unlike yours truly.)
Well done.
Ferdnam on November 20, 2012 @ 10:56 am wrote: “I do not proclaim that Hamas can do no wrong... As to the obvious bias, I do not know what I wrote that would suggest bias...”
Well let’s see, your original Comment (which I was responding to) mentioned only the view that Israel’s actions are political in nature (“essentially pre-electoral”), while making no statement about the equally political nature of Hamas’ tactics.
You question U.S. support of Israel. (Which implies there’s something wrong with it.)
You assert the European perspective is more “balanced” (presumably because of its disagreement with U.S. support, and its focus on Israeli politics).
And most importantly you expressed no criticism of Hamas.
Your reference to “zionist terrorism” does nothing to change my opinion. But perhaps you can give me some examples. Just remember, legitimate acts of self-defense (like the retaliation for the rocket attacks from Gaza) don’t count. Neither do attacks on legitimate military targets (such as the killing of those behind the Munich Massacre). Nor will I accept the usual “horror stories” about the West Bank settlements. I’ve already stated (far too often to count) that I oppose those.
No, I want examples of “zionist terrorism” that match the one’s I’ve cited far too often as well: murder of Olympic athletes, hijacking of planes, shootings at wedding banquets, throwing wheel-chair bound old men into the sea.
And no raising what happened back in 1948. I agree both Israel and her enemies behaved badly (to put it mildly), but that was War.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“The truth, as I see it at this moment, is that although there are no innocent parties in this tragedy, there is one side that imposes a restrictive survival mode on the other by imprisoning its population in a ghetto of sorts.”
A statement that only provides further proof of bias. What you carefully avoid mentioning is why a “ghetto of sorts” even exists. You talk of history? Please remember that this ghetto (I presume you refer to Gaza) existed long before 1967, when it was controlled by the Egyptians, who did nothing to improve the lot of those “trapped there”. (I believe free movement into Egypt wasn’t allowed.) And you also ignore the history of violence from Gaza directed at Israel - which is a major reason for that “ghetto”.
I’m glad you finally admit the Palestinians have some faults, though I had to “screw it out of you”. But the fact that you admit the truth (sort of) after “cross-examination” doesn’t lend credence to your claim to be pursuing truth. You sound more like a kid caught with cookie crumbs on his mouth and clothes, expressing wonder how they got there!
Ulli on November 20, 2012 @ 10:34 pm wrote: “I expect less bias from NPR . . . .”
This from a writer who has not expressed one word about the most disgraceful actions of Hamas, with its illegal and inhumane practices against Israel (and the Gazans, whom it deliberately places in the cross-fire). Not to mention the Hamas Charter, which calls for the genocide of Israel.
Sorry, but I can’t hear you over your own bias, and blatant hypocrisy!
@ Etaoin Shrdlu...
Your two posts (November 21, 1:15 AM) are cases of pure rhetoric at the expense of honest debate... You can twist my words and those of others as much as you like, it won't enable you to make the evidence of ongoing ethnic cleansing go away. It started way before 1948... And, what you (and others) call the war of 1948 was simply the continuation of a campaign of ethnic cleansing that started with the arrival of the first zionist settlers in Palestine after the first world war...
The bias is only and entirely yours...
Luckily, there are some members of the Hebraic community (my friends in Rome, for instance) who see the problem for what it is, an unenlightened policy which threatens the safety of Jewish people all over the world, not only in Israel.
Before 1947, the debate in Europe was about the "question juive." The solution was for guilt-ridden European governments to solve that Jewish question by allowing an innocent population "elsewhere" (in Palestine) to be dispossessed by newcomers. Pass the problem on to someone else and let us wash our hands of this...
Now, this being said, it is incontrovertible that there are crimes (past and present) that were and still are committed by both sides...
And, we need a two states solution (which goes against Hamas' position). But the Israeli government has done nothing to help bring about a two state solution... Quite the contrary... The Israeli government is not innocent.
Ferdnam on November 21, 2012 @ 9:53 am wrote: “Your two posts (November 21, 1:15 AM) are cases of pure rhetoric at the expense of honest debate. . . . The Israeli government is not innocent.”
I’m always amused when ideologues falsely accuse me of the very thing they are guilty of. Your entire opus (as demonstrated by that last sentence) consists of nothing but “empty rhetoric”. Let’s look at the facts, beginning with that last part.
Where, sir, have I asserted that the Israeli government is “innocent”? I’m not going to bother repeating all the places I’ve found fault with its government (you can find a re-cap in my Comment of November 20, 2012 - 1:07 am, Part Three of a response to jordan88). If you can find any suggestion of “innocence” in what I have written (there, or anywhere in my Comments on this episode of the Diane Rehm Show) I’d be fascinated to see it.
As for evidence of “ongoing ethnic cleansing”: I love how you people throw around words like that, or “war crimes”, or “genocide” with no regard to the facts, or what those terms mean. (You remind me of Republic-Cons who call Obama a "Socialist!", even though he's far from being one.) Last I checked no one has been “cleansed” from Gaza, nor from the West Bank.
In the former their condition is miserable (in part due to their own fault, in part due to the cynicism of their “Arab brothers”, and, yes, in part due to policies of the Likud), but they’ve hardly been “cleansed”. In fact, their continued presence there is what allows them to fire those rockets! If they had been “cleansed” there would be no Hamas in that area at all!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
The West Bank? No “ethnic cleansing” there. Yes, people are having their homes and/or property taken to make way for settlements, and that is deplorable. (Again, what part of my statement that I oppose those settlements was too subtle for you?) But, to be “ethnically cleansed” they have to be sent elsewhere, out of the West Bank entirely. I haven’t noticed Israel doing that.
Of course, you give the show away with your reference to 1948 (and before). Obviously, to you the entire State of Israel is illegitimate, and the whole thing constitutes “occupied territory”. Like Hamas’ Charter, you really want that country destroyed. (Funny, you never mention that Charter, and barely refer to what it says.)
But why start with settlers after the First World War? What about the settlers from the 1st Century A.D. until then? Wasn’t their arrival part of a process of “ethnic cleansing”? What about settlers arriving even earlier? Shouldn’t everyone now present leave, and the land be returned to the Amalekites, the Canaanites, the Philistines?
And, of course, you ignore the fact that Jewish settlers in that area arrived even before World War I, when the area was part of the Ottoman Empire (and there was no “Palestine”, except as a geographical designation, like Appalachia). Hey, maybe we should give everything back to the Turks!
Sorry, but the only legal basis for claiming there even should be a Palestinian State is the same one that proclaims there should be an Israel. Your blatant attempts to ignore or deny that awkward fact simply leaves you with a pile of empty rhetoric and (like the Palestinians have always done) reliance on “might makes right”. The problem is: they don’t have the might, so they whine instead, and “enlightened” people like you fall for it. (And what a mockery of that word you are.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
I’m reminded of Churchill’s remarks about the Huns: they’re either at your throat or at your feet!
But, once again, thanks for finally admitting what I’ve been saying all along: both have “guilt” on their hands. But, of course, (as I’ve already observed) I had to “screw it out of you”. And even then, you’re heavy on condemning Israel, yet you barely allude to Palestinian crimes in passing. And you call me biased!
Finally, we have your attempt to engage in “moral equivalency”, admitting Hamas doesn’t want a two state solution, but then saying the Likud government (which at least officially accepts the concept) has done nothing to help bring it about. The two positions are not equivalent. More bias on your part!
But here are three short replies:
1) I’ve already condemned Netanyahu and Likud for that very thing. Remember I said they’re not really interested in having a “partner for peace”. What the hell do you imagine I meant by that?
2) I agree the current Likud government has done little enough. (I avoid saying “nothing” only because I don’t want some Likud supporter mentioning a minor action it may have taken, and then accuse me of “bias” from the other side.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
3) But past Israeli governments, including even some Likud ones, have taken such steps. In particular, the Labor government after the Six Day War. Israel didn’t want to hold on to those lands it had gained. Had the Arab governments which had formerly possessed them (Egypt and Jordan) made peace with Israel then, the lands would have been returned to them ("land for peace"), and Gaza and the West Bank would have been their problem. But they didn’t. Neither did they make any attempt to form a Palestinian State there during the 20 years they owned those lands. How do all of these facts fit in with your “ethnic cleansing” theory? They don’t!
If you would spend even half the amount of time and effort you’ve expended slandering and maligning Israel to hurl even a trace of condemnation at Hamas for its policies and actions, I might find your pretense of being “unbiased” believable. As it is, I can’t hear you over your own bias, and blatant hypocrisy!
@ Etaoin Shrdlu...
You are hopelessly militant... Your main argument is always that the "other" is biased and hypocritical... This makes "honest debate" impossible...
This being said, at the risk of having my head handed to me by you, although the question of the existence of the state of Israel is now settled (reverting to the state of affairs before 1948 is not a reasonable option), the boundaries of the state of Israel are very much in question.
As to the UN decision of 1948, I urge you to read it carefully. I also urge you to read the essence of the debates at the UN then. The majority of the inhabitants of the then Palestine were denied a voice... They represented 70% of the population and their preferences were not honored.
You wish to rewrite history. This is unfortunate...
I am done on this topic...
Best regards!
Ferdnam on November 22, 2012 @ 10:27 am wrote: “You are hopelessly militant... Your main argument is always that the 'other' is biased and hypocritical...”
Looking in the mirror again, are we?
I notice that for all your “pious protestations”, you still fail to address or grasp my key point (which is remarkably simple): You, and all the other supposedly “unbiased” people posting here spend 99.999% of your time and energy condemning Israel, and barely mention (even in passing) the actions of Hamas (et. al.). In your particular case, it required some heavy “cross-examination” on my part to get you even to consider the possibility that it might not exactly be an “innocent lamb”.
Sorry, but I’d say the one-sided presentation you made is the very essence of bias. (Had I, in similar mode, heaped nothing but praise on the Israeli government for its actions and policies, expressed no disagreement or criticism of same, and simply expressed nothing but contempt for the Gazans and West Bank Palestinians, would that not have been biased of me? Of course it would. Well, the same goes for you and the others.)
Yes, “the question of the existence of the State of Israel” (which shouldn’t be a “question” at all) is now settled. Not according to Hamas, of course, who’s Charter still calls for Israel’s destruction. And not for many on “your side” who keep raising issues about Israel’s physical creation (harping on pre-1948 activity, while ignoring the actions of the Arabs and Palestinians “pre-1948”). It’s “settled” because, despite repeated attempts by her enemies, it’s abundantly clear Israel can’t be “wiped off the map”, without the rest of the Middle East joining her in oblivion. That’s a form of “peace” (known as “MAD” - Mutual Assured Destruction), but I’d prefer a real peace based on law.
TO BE CONTINUED.
PART TWO
As for “reading carefully” the “UN decision of 1948”*, why don’t you come out and say expressly what you’re hinting at. I can hardly reply to something you haven’t bothered to say. But let me add that the “majority of the inhabitants” of what would be Israel were also denied a voice. Neither side were members of that body.
*(I assume you mean the cease-fire, since the Partition Plan was in 1947, and Israel became a member of the UN in 1949. The only thing that happened in 1948 was the declaration of Israel’s existence by its government, followed by the First Arab-Israeli War. By hey, what’s a little historical “error” among “friends”?)
And, kindly get this into your head, there was no “Palestine” at that time! At most, it was a geographical designation, like Appalachia in the U.S. It had never been a “nation” (sovereign or otherwise). For centuries it was part of the Ottoman Empire, then the British Mandate, and finally (by U.N. resolution and thereby International Law), it was to become two states: Israel and Palestine. Israel accepted this, the Arabs did not. (And, even when they controlled Gaza and the West Bank, neither Egypt nor Jordan did anything to create a Palestine. Another fact you keep ignoring.)
So, for all your pretense, we end up right where we began. In truth, you deny the legitimacy of Israel! Fine, then we ignore law, and might makes right. Hamas chooses the might of terrorism, deliberately targeting civilians, while deliberately putting its own population in harm's way. Tactics you have yet to specifically protest, much less condemn. By that standard, since Hamas can do whatever it wishes in pursuit of the Palestinian cause, Israel should be able to do whatever it wishes in pursuit of its people’s cause.
TO BE CONTINUED.
PART THREE
The difference between us, sir? I deny that “might makes right” for either side, and desire both to behave legally and morally. You only demand that of Israel - again, the essence of bias!
Simply put if you fire a weapon of any kind at my wife or child, I will respond in the most expedient way to end you. And anyone with a family would do the same thing. If you are willing to attack a sovereign nation then all deaths that result from your attack and their retaliation are on you. If the Palestinians wish to have a 2 nation solution then realize you are hopelessly out gunned and use politics and guile not guns and missiles. If a terrorist attacked the US and caused around 5000 deaths we would rain hell upon the nations involved till the death tolls of their citizenry reach to the hundred thousands.