A word of praise for The Economist's coverage of the fighting in Gaza in the current issue. It is the magazine at its brilliant best: editorial opinion that is wise, well-informed and dispassionate, supported with excellent reporting. After reading masses of tendentious axe-grinding blather in the previous few days, how welcome this was. I would feel the same way even if I disagreed with the magazine's line, but it doubtless helps that I think it is right.
Taking Hamas down a peg is one thing. But even in the event of Israel "winning" in Gaza, a hundred years of war suggest that the Palestinians cannot be silenced by brute force. Hamas will survive, and with it that strain in Arab thinking which says that a Jewish state does not belong in the Middle East. To counter that view, Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land--the West Bank, not just Gaza--where the promised Palestinian state must stand. Unless it starts doing that convincingly, at a minimum by freezing new settlement, it is Palestine's zealots who will flourish and its peacemakers who will fall back into silence. All of Israel's friends, including Barack Obama, should be telling it this.
The article wasn't bad, but the conclusions are all wrong. If the Gaza withdrawal in 2005 has taught Israel anything it is that this conflict is not over land. It's over the so called 'right of return' for Palestinians, still being vaunted by Abu Mazen, the 'moderate' - and which is a euphemism for the Arab/ Muslim wish to turn Israel into the 22nd Arab state. but the Economist does not get it.
Actually, Israel cannot continue to exist if it maintains its Zionist ideology.
Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is the cornerstone of the Zionist ideology. Readers who doubt this should note the number of civilians already massacred in Gaza - around 1,000 people.
The Palestine Review
http://palestinereview.com
"Readers who doubt this should note the number of civilians already massacred in Gaza - around 1,000 people."
The problem with all the accusations of ethnic cleansing (or, more hysterically, genocide) against Israel is that there are more Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean now than ever before. If Israel's goal has been ethnic cleansing or genocide, one would think that Palestinians wouldn't be multiplying like bunnies.
Bataween is of course correct. The settlements are not and never have been the issue; if land and borders were all that mattered, the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs would have negotiated some deal by now. Probably Israel would have given a few Arab villages on the Israeli side of the Green Line to the Palestinian Arabs in exchange for the Jewish suburbs now surrounding Jerusalem (even though the residents of those Arab villages apparently would prefer to stay in Israel, which is a first world country, rather than be handed over to a third world hellhole), and that would be it.
Smith - Israel would be delighted to have a Arab state on the west bank and in gaza (whether it's ruled by Palestinian Arabs, Jordan or Egypt is immaterial), but only if there is peace between Israel and the Arabs. And by peace, I do not mean a "hudna," a cold truce where the Arabs rearm for the next fight. I mean a real peace, like the peace between the US and Canada, with trade, investment, tourism, etc. Perhaps you could point me to the statements by the leaders of Hamas where they say that is their goal? Or perhaps you (or Mr. Crook) could provide some evidence that ending the Israeli military occupation of the west bank would not result in thousands of rockets being launched from there onto Tel Aviv, etc.?
What is the great wisdom of this editorial? It calls for the same solution that "moderates" always call for: Israel should give up control of territory in exchange for promises of good behavior from Palestinians who (if Clive Crook reads his colleague Jeffrey GOldberg) at least many of whom only want to destroy Israel. That is not courage that is self destructive. When does the West demand of Palestinians that they must change, they must make the hard decisions to change their culture and their dreams the way the West so callously demands of Israel?
I hate the ignorance that goes into people calling Gaza genocide or ethnic cleansing. If Israel wanting to kill civilians, there would be a whole lot more Palestinians dead.
Hamas does not care about the average Palestinian. Why are there no bunkers for civilians? Somehow the population starves, yet there are still rockets and mortars to launch at Israel.
Consider this scenario: I give you a thousand dollars, and you can buy either weapons or food. If you spend all 1000 dollars on weapons, of course there is no money for food. Even worse, whenever aid trucks come in this only validifies Hamas's misallocation of capital.
If Hamas cared about Palestinians as much as Israel does, Gaza would not be in the same situation that it is now.
Yes this is so smart and original and insightful that everyones been saying the same thing for the past 20 years...give up land, give up land, give up land...I guess giving up of Gaza has disappeared from the media's memory.