“Long live Hitler!”

Certainly there are nuts on either side of this debate, but it does the Jewish people a grave disservice to automatically equate protesting the military invasion of Gaza with anti-Semitism. This invasion was planned and executed by Israeli politicans in advance of their upcoming elections, not American Jews. Many Jews in the United States oppose what has happened in Gaza recently. It can be argued, after all, that Israel threw the first punch in the latest round of violence by breaking a four month ceasefire (and period of relative calm) with its incursion into Gaza on November 4 (coincidentally – or not – the same day Barack Obama was elected president). That incursion resulted in the deaths of six members of Hamas, and subsequently, renewed missile firing into Gaza. The argument of “self-defense” used by Israel to justify the war is therefore debatable. One doesn’t need to be an anti-Semite to criticize the use of white phosphorous weapons in highly populated areas, the bombing of United Nations headquarters, schools and convoys in the region, or to question the futility of a strategy that asserts that it is possible to crush a guerrilla movement like Hamas through brute military force against a largely civilian population.

By the same token, then, if I oppose something by Obama, I must be inline with the Klan? Umm, no.Or perhaps if I opposed something by McCain, I was an ageist.Or if I opposed something by Hillary Clinton, I was a sexist.There is anti-Semitism out there. There is also legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions. Please make distinctions, especially when you’re posting old news that is similar to what a Boston Globe columnist wrote about a relatively long time ago in the conflict.

Michael: Gee, which am I going to rely on? My many years of reading Friedman closely? Or a Wikipedia entry about him? Hmmm…. Like many liberals — John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for instance — Friedman made the mistake of trusting the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Still, Friedman’s overall analysis was smart and correct.Like any government, Israel’s makes its share of mistakes. The biggest mistake it made in the current conflict is that it undertook an action that probably won’t work, and may make things worse if it strengthens support for Hamas and weakens Fatah.But the starting point must always be kept in mind: Hamas seeks to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and is supported in that goal by much of the Arab world, and a shockingly large share of the non-Arab world besides. Given that, it’s no wonder Israel overreacts.

I would like to hear some constructive, alternative ideas of how Israel might deal with Hamas and its position that Israel be destroyed, from the commenters here who are critical of what Israel is doing.

Dan,On Friedman: I am not arguing that Wikipedia is the source for which to base one’s opinion on Friedman. I am saying the article will provide an overview of how woeful his commentary was. It is true that Hamas still calls for the destruction of Israel, which is contemptible. Still, they did indicate that they would be willing to adhere to the June 67 borders — a break from their militant stance — which puts them much closer to the Resolution 242 border supported by every country in the world, except Israel, the United States and a couple of small Islands, like Micronesia. (The vote by the UN General Assembly is 150-3 or so every year, and includes the U.S’s partners in the Quartet, like the E.U, voting with the rest of the world on the one side, ISrael and the US on the other.Further, just because Hamas does not recognize Israel does mean it is ethical — or more pressingly legal — to unload all of these high-tech weapons on an area so small. Civilians and children who do not support rocket attacks are being killed, and they needn’t be. Why is the bottom line not one of the following: 1)Israel is one of three countries that won’t accept the June 67 borders, which even Hamas has said it would accept. Sources: USA Today — http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htmASIA TIMES http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/if20ak04.htmlCNN — http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/04/mideast/index.htmlor 2) Israel refused to allow medical necessities and food into Gaza — even before the current offensive — effectively punishing the entire region for the actions of Hamas, also an unambiguous violation of international law. 3.) Israel has killed far more Palestinians than vice versa.Any of these could also be reasonably argued as the “bottom line” — the truth is this is too complex to have just one bottom line, and perceptions vary too much. You normally don’t oversimplify to such a degree, in my view. The bottom line for Palestinians is that they ave no freedom of movement, no sovereignty, etc …; the bottom line for Israeli’s is different. As it is for Americans and others … But to act as if the Israeli claim that this carnage is entirely the fault of Hamas is a little too unblinking, if you ask me. And the Times coverage rarely mentions things like Res. 242; June 67 borders, international consensus, the killing of militants in Dec., or Israel’s violations of international law. These belong in the discussion, as does the stinging reality of Hamas’ anti-Semitism, as showed in their charter.

Michael Corcoran,Doesn’t UN Resolution 242 also call for acknowledgment of [Israel’s] right to exist?

Michael: Hamas has not said it would accept Israel within the 1967 borders. It has said it would accept a Palestinian state within those borders, without recognizing Israel, in return for a 10-year truce. See this Haaretz story.Hamas’ leadership has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, and has said it would wait for as many years as necessary. So Hamas is simply looking for a better deal than it’s got now, along with a 10-year window in which to arm itself to the teeth. Please.As for who broke the truce, take a look at this story from the New York Times, published Dec. 25, two days before Israel launched its campaign against Hamas. Here’s the lede:Palestinian militants from Gaza increased the range and intensity of their rocket fire against Israel on Wednesday as the Israeli security cabinet considered options that included broader military action or efforts to renew a truce that recently expired.Fish, I now realize you’ve been joking all along about Caroline Kennedy.

Let’s be clear. Do you endorse Zomblog?Your invocation of Hitler is inaccurate and inflammatory but you probably knew that. The first person to invoke Hitler in a political discussion than does not involve Hitler is a douche bag. The Zomblog post has nothing to do with Hitler. Zomblog is not arguing Jews are captive in mass-murderous work camps, Zomblog is arguing that Jews are subject to irrational hatred – that they are victims of hateful, irrational others. He argues this in the context of worldwide protest against Israel’s military incursion in Gaza. But how do racist (an assumption he makes about the protesters) protests justify war in Gaza? I don’t see it and he doesn’t spell it out. Zomblog understands the protests to be expressions of anti-Semitism. Why not expressions of anti-war? There was a pro-Palestinian protest in Boston that was not violent. Should we assume non-violent protesters are also not anti-Semitic? If I went to a protest opposing the war because I opposed the use of US military aid to kill civilians, that does not make me anti-Semitic, it makes me against the use of US military aid to kill civilians.The Zomblog thesis is as follows:On January 10, the war between Israel and Hamas became a global conflict. No longer confined to the Gaza Strip, the fighting spread to cities around the world: what were billed as “anti-war” demonstrations from Los Angeles to Copenhagen and beyond were in fact overtly pro-Hamas demonstrations, and on Saturday, January 10 there was a unprecedented eruption of violence and extremism in dozens of European and American cities, surpassing anything seen at anti-war rallies in recent years:That’s funny because when I look in the paper and Zomblog documentation, I see pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian PROTESTS not “global conflict” or armed combat. (ZOMBLOG uses hyperbole.) I see a lot of people pissed off about Israel’s war in Gaza and a lot of people pissed off about Hamas’ rocket launches on civilians in Israel. I see protest on both sides but racism? You can be against or for Israel’s war in Gaza and not hate Israel. It is not so f*cking hard to imagine. Even most of your commenters are not coming along for the ride with you on this one. Do you think it’s because they are racist or stupid? I see many well-reasoned responses that reject the Zomblog argument and responses that cite facts you’d be well served to consider; the planned nature of this war; which side broke the ceasefire; the death toll on civilians (2/3 of 1100). Also consider whether these facts and not racism is what’s fueling the protests.

O’Reilly: “Inaccurate”? You know very well I’m quoting from some of the protesters. Get a grip.

Israel and the Palestinians have valid grievances. Hamas does not.

Robin, Israeli soldiers had crossed the border into Gaza in a mission of destruction in clear violation of the ceasefire. It should be noted that because of the two year seige of Gaza by Israel, tunnels have been used for the “smuggling” of food, medicine, and livestock. The first casualty of any war is the truth. I would take words by either side with a grain of salt. Actions speak louder than words when it comes to war. That said, in my opinion, the greatest hope for peace in the region is with the Israelis themselves, a small but vocal minority of whom have been much clearer, more insightful and more constructive in their criticism of the Israeli government than either American journalists or Arab terrorists have ever been. To provide a recent example, the widely held belief that nothing came of the 2000 Camp David peace talks because Israel had no “partner in peace” with the Palestinians has been revealed to be a myth – not by Hamas, not by Amy Goodman – but byIsraeli journalist Akiva Eldar, based on research conducted by Ephraim Lavie, former head of Israel MI’s Palestinian research unit: All of the suffering in Gaza — indeed, all of the suffering endured by Palestinians under Israeli occupation for the last eight years — could have been avoided if Israel negotiated a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat when it had the chance, in 2001.What chance? The official Israeli position is that there was no chance, “no partner for peace.” That’s what Israeli leaders heard from their Military Intelligence (MI) service in 2000 after the failure of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David. Arafat scuttled those talks, MI told the leaders, because he was planning to set off a new round of violence, a second intifada.Now former top officials of MI say the whole story, painting Arafat as a terrorist out to destroy Israel, was an intentional fiction. That’s the most explosive finding in an investigative report just published in Israel’s top newspaper, Ha’aretz, by one of its finest journalists, Akiva Eldar.Read more here.

“Israel and the Palestinians have valid grievances. Hamas does not.”Hamas’ launching of rockets is an act of war. Nonetheless, as the democratically elected government of Gaza, they do represent the grievances of the Palestinian people. And Israel has the right to defend itself (from Hamas launched rockets.)At the same time, I’m quite sure you would not endorse a policy by the IDF to target Palestinians civilians as punishment for electing Hamas and to create a deterrent for Palestinians to do so again in the next election. Read Tom Friedman on this point.

Dan, I have to laugh at your defense of Tom Friedman “Friedman made the mistake of trusting the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Still, Friedman’s overall analysis was smart and correct.” By coincidence yesterday I watched Dr Strangelove. As George C Scott put it “I don’t think it’s fair to condemn the entire program because of one slip-up.”

Seriously, when does this stop being a war over religion and start being a regional conflict? Because if it’s the latter, we can simply wash our hands of it and say, may the stronger country win. These are two sovereign nations fighting over rocks and soil. Let Israel annihilate Gaza and be done with it already.

Michael Corcoran, The Israeli people overwhelming endorse (80%) the land for peace deal (with ’67 boarders.) It is the right wing right Likud party they elected that does not. This war in Gaza is likely to cause Israeli’s to vote for the conservatives again which does not bode well for a change in Israeli foreign policy: Netenyahu.The same is true in Gaza. They will elect a strong of defense party IE Hamas not Fatah even as punishing the Palestinian civilians for their original choice of Hamas was one of Isreal’s objectives (according to Tom Friedman.)

Robin Edgar said… I think that you are over generalizing here Dan. The fact that White Supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other anti-Semites participate in protests against Israel’s incursion into Gaza in no way means that these anti-war protests are purely and simply anti-Semetic or even anti-Israeli.Tim said… Certainly there are nuts on either side of this debate, but it does the Jewish people a grave disservice to automatically equate protesting the military invasion of Gaza with anti-Semitism….One doesn’t need to be an anti-Semite to criticize the use of white phosphorous weapons in highly populated areas, the bombing of United Nations headquarters, schools and convoys in the region, or to question the futility of a strategy that asserts that it is possible to crush a guerrilla movement like Hamas through brute military force against a largely civilian population.MeTheSheeple said… By the same token, then, if I oppose something by Obama, I must be inline with the Klan? Umm, noMichael Corcoran said… Dan, Not to answer for Tim, but did you see Max Blumenthal’s video with pro-Israel protesters? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo Certainly many nuts there. Also, I find it interesting that you so quickly condemn Fis and Goodman — without even making an argument — yet praise Bronner and Friedman. Dan Kennedy said… But the starting point must always be kept in mind: Hamas seeks to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and is supported in that goal by much of the Arab world, and a shockingly large share of the non-Arab world besides. Given that, it’s no wonder Israel overreacts.O’Reilly said… by “starting point” you must mean that Hamas has not only the intention but the means to “to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” And by “overreacts” you must mean killing 750 civilians as collateral damage while pursuing the rocket launchers and rockets. Yet, no such capability by Hamas has been demonstrated to exist. (Kind of like the US and Iraq WMD thing.) Seriously, how can you claim Hamas is an existential threat to Israel when it’s best shot has been lobbing rockets out of Gaza into Sderot? . I don’t defend Hamas; it must be held accountable for its actions. But for Israel or Dan Kennedy to justify Israel’s actions based on the canard that Hamas is an existential threat to Israel is, well, fallacy. Based on your argument, could Israel assassinate all Hamas politicians in Gaza, even those not engaged in the rocket attacks? How many civilians as collateral damage would be justified? Ho w many schools a mosques destroyed? Right kno there are 1100 Palestinians dead, 2/3 are civilians, 1/3 are children. O-FISH-L said… O’Reilly, you … falsely label me a racist, homophobe and anti-Semite… you defend HamasO’Reilly said… no I don’t defend Hamas. I say hold them accountable for shooting rockets at Israeli civilians.

There is no doubt Hamas has allies that identify Israel as their enemy and no doubt Hamas gets funding from Iran. Having enemies and having enemies that pose an existential threat are two different things. I don’t see evidence of the latter. Even the Iranian president’s proclamation about wiping Israel off the map, when you look into it, is not what it appears. Palestinians have suicide vests and kill 10 or 20 people. Hamas has rockets than destroy houses. Their strikes are retribution and protest – protest of policies these people are subject to, the merit of which you should judge for yourself. I do not endorse Hamas. I do not endorse Israel’s apartheid policies, Israel’s building settlements on Palestinian land, blockading Gaza, bombing Gaza or Israel’s targeting civilians (if there is merit to that assertion: see Tom Friedman.) I don’t think the US should take sides. It undermines our ability to serve as a fair and impartial moderator in peace negotiation. My position is the same as American born, Concord Academy graduate, Queen Noor of Jordon: “There needs to be a new approach by the US that is more balanced that holds both sides accountable for their actions.” You can watch her on a segment of Morning Joe here.

“Legitimate” is an interesting choice of words because it cuts to the heart of the issue. Hamas was elected by Palestinians in Gaza and the election was certified by outside observers. In response the US and western countries endorsed the withholding of International aid to the people of Gaza. Israel believes that Hamas will not be a partner in peace, but Israel felt the same way about the prior Palestinian authority too.I don’t think we get to chose a preferred government with which to negotiate peace but that is what Israel has tried to do. Kill off the elected government, Hamas in Gaza; punish Palestinians for having elected Hamas, and hopefully negotiate with Fatah after the next election. The problem with the strategy is that Palestinians, after being hammered with the most powerful military weapons on earth (US supplied) are far more likely to elect hard liners than moderates. You only have to look as far as our own 2004 elections to see that coming. You are intolerant of Hamas’ charter and justifiably so. How about the Zionist state of Israel’s requirement to be a citizen. Is that justifiable?

O’Reilly,Jews have been looking to live in safety and security for generations. Living among non-Jews has not worked out so well historically, hence a “Jewish state.” In other words, modern-day Israel is very much a response to things like World War II, the pogroms of Eastern Europe earlier, the difficulties of Sephardic Jews in countries like Iraq, Ethiopia, etc. If Israel were to become a non-Jewish state, Jews there would be again at the mercy of non-Jews, and the historical record makes that look threatening. When I was in Florence many years ago I was asked in amazement by a fellow hotel guest, wasn’t I afraid to wear an obviously Jewish necklace? I think the answer must have been that as an American I hadn’t grown up with that level of fear, despite my father’s having come to this country as a German Jewish refugee in 1939. So I think it may be difficult for us here to “get” what goes on elsewhere in the world.

If you are asking me, Tim, how to create a safe living place for Jews through only peaceful means, I honestly don’t know how that’s done in the context of our world.

O’Reilly,Of course the history of mistreatment of Jews goes back beyond our last century — it goes way, way back, back through the middle ages, ancient times. The modern diaspora is only that — modern.I think Jews sometimes think that previous generations of Jews were too trusting of non-Jews and that they paid for this misplaced trust with their lives. So there’s an element of a need for self-sufficiency here, I think, based on historical experience. I don’t disagree that the dynamic is dysfunctional and not preferable, but it isn’t clear to me how one convinces both sides of that simultaneously and permanently.

Dan,you never responded to the Guardian article and the Israeli intelligence report which indicated the ceasefire was broken in Early Nov. by Israel. Is the article and the intelligence report wrong, in your view?

“Perhaps a cease-fire is truly broken only when the big, bad Israelis finally decide they’ve had enough?”Your sarcasm doesn’t add anything constructive to the debate. It also reveals your attitude that Israel’s actions are unfairly criticized. With the question of fair or unfair criticism of Israeli policies in mind: Explain how the collateral damage – about 750 of the 1100 dead Palestinians were civilians – is not reasonably criticized, especially if it’s true that civilians were targeted by Israel (per Friedman.)

Michael: I sent you to a search page full of links to news stories of Hamas rocket attacks against Israel that took place during the non-cease-fire. You could have read any of them. Do you think they didn’t take place?Given that the rocket attacks took place throughout the non-cease-fire, why should I care what any agency says to the contrary? Even an Israeli agency?

Michael: Perhaps we should wrap this up. I have not gotten past the Hamas = terrorist aspect of the story because Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on Israel’s destruction. I doubt there’s anything more to say.

Dan I do wish you would respond to the point in the Times’ article about how Israel, and Hamas did not live up to the ceasefire. Hamas commits terrorism — which I condemn, and it is bad. Israel does not have to drop bombs, intentionally, on civillians.I condemn that as well. It is a shame because children in hospitals and schools have been killed with weapons both of our tax dollars paid for.But you do not have to respond if you feel Israel is so justified in thier actions at it does not warrant discussion beyond platitudes.

MTP: I am deliberately ignoring that. The cease-fire was aimed at getting Hamas to stop firing rockets. Hamas kept firing rockets. That is the end of any necessary inquiry.

No, I was suggesting there’s a significant quantitative difference between 3 and 300, which may speak to something.As I understand it, Hamas was supposed to stop the rocket firings, and they were something like what, 95% successful for those months compared to the others? That counts for nothing?And I never did suggest Hamas should be praised because its aim is bad. Likewise, Hamas did say if people don’t want it to have bad aim, they’ll take some smart bombs. They’re “working” with what they have, which is repulsive on many levels.I don’t see many knights in shining armor. And if you think it’s worthwhile to ignore such a large percentage in reduction of rockets, perhaps you want to look at the alleged bad guy: civilian kill ratio by Israel.I see little room for praise in any quarter.

…. I admire your work going back years and enjoy your blog. But I stand by my critique that your analysis here is woefully oversimplified.As I said, who broke the ceasefire is not obvious. Different sources said different things. I have condemned both the rocket attacks and the attack on civilians by Israeli — and have recognized the arguments on both sides. You have not gotten past “Hamas= terrorist” end of story.If it’s not the Irish in him, (Unblinkingly = stubborn) what is it then?Expect an announcement Wednesday that George Mitchell will be appointed by the state Dept and the Pres. to act on behalf of the US as diplomatic envoy to Gaza and Israel.

Compare the rhetoric: Above the law because the mission demands it. “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”George Bush, September 20, 2001When Bush claims unconstitutional powers and uses “signing statements” to negate U.S. law whenever he feels the rule of law is in the way of his leadership, he is remarkably similar to Hitler who told the Reichstag on Feb. 20, 1938: “A man who feels it his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of his people is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or to a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the people.”