Soccer Dad

In this story, I was apalled by the following assertion:

"Arab leaders have been whispering in Obama's ear since his first day in office that Iran is undermining Arab regimes by exploiting the Palestinian issue via Hezbollah and Hamas to inflame the Arab street. This is a silly argument. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist servant groups are ideologically and religiously motivated, they are not driven by Palestinian or other grievances."

If you are looking for a silly argument, the above qoute gives one of the silliest I've heard. While I agree that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Islamic Republic of Iran, are founded upon ideology and religious doctrine, they exist in the real world. They are not independent entities, but rather groups of people. People are individuals who have their own dreams, motivations, grievances, and so on. The mode of thinking which ignores the human component of organizations is the basis of all intolerance and bigotry. Israel, however, uses this way of thinking, as do these groups, in order to push ther racist, intolerant agendas. The idea that there is a singular entity called "Hamas" which has one set of views and is utterly unified in its opposition to peace, reason, and just cohabitation of Israel and an independent Palestinian state. Especially in terms of Hamas, you surely must have noticed that there is a Gazan Hamas and and Syrian Hamas. The Gazan Hamas is focused on the defense of the Palestinian people from their oppressive overlords; the Syrian Hamas is much more hard-line and a puppet of Iran. As we saw recently in the Gaza Massacre, the Syrian Hamas leadership has very little capacity to force its commanders on the ground in Gaza to carry out its will. This leads me to believe that the two CAN be separated if Hamas is given a chance to be a real governing party. My point here is that, while the organizations are ideologically-driven and religious in nature, they are made of people and are thus subject to the same pressures and rules as other organizations. Why do individuals join these groups? Abstract ideals are great for discussion and debate, but they pale in comparison to grievances and personal experience in motivating people toward extreme actions. Having relatives who are being imprisoned indefinitely, living next to the giant "security wall" in the West Bank, having your home destroyed by Israeli bulldozers, being repeatedly victimized by theives and bandits who find sanctuary from Palestinian Police by fleeing to the "security zones" outside the walled settlements where the Palestinian Police are barred from entering without Israeli permission and the Israeli Police ignore because it doesn't involve settlers, having your family members killed by Israeli Security Forces, being denied rebuilding materials by your oppressors, and other personal suffering is far more effective at recruiting people than ideology. This means that, in reality, most actual militants probably don't have much love for Iran and don't necessarily agree with the hard-line extremist Hamas charter. Often, their ties to a militant group may be as simple as a high unemployment rate, children to feed, and a job offer.

I steadfastly maintain my assertion that Fatah is viewed as corrupt and ineffective. Hamas wins votes because they pledge armed resistance against the oppressive Israeli occupation and that appeals to Palestinians who are weary of peace talks with Israel which don't go anywhere because the Israelis refuse to return key portions of the land which they are illegally occupying, like East Jerusalem. Much as the Israeli voters recently chose hard-line parties because of being disillusioned with the failure to make progress toward peace, the Palestinians have been doing the same. The difference is that the Palestinians are living in terrible conditions and are ruled by the corrupt Fatah leadership, which is supported by Israel and the West, so they got there quicker because of more desperation.

The point is as Caroline Glick pointed out in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, there is nothing Israel can do to please the US. If Israel is going to be condemned anyway, there is no need for Israel to take a hostile Washington' views into account and Israel can pursue its own national interests as it sees fit. A Statesman's personality can be important but the bedrock principles of a country's foreign policy are immutable. We can only hope and pray that Bibi understands that agreeing to the so-called two state solution would only put off the real conflict with Obama and his advisers to a later date. It would solve nothing and it would be dangerous for Israel to accept a linkage between the Palestinian question and Iran. Will Bibi stand his ground? We will find out the answer to that question on every one's mind tomorrow.

So, construcivecritic (when are you going to correct your spelling?)--let me get this straight.

First you write:

"While I agree that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Islamic Republic of Iran, are founded upon ideology and religious doctrine, they exist in the real world. They are not independent entities, but rather groups of people. People are individuals who have their own dreams, motivations, grievances, and so on. The mode of thinking which ignores the human component of organizations is the basis of all intolerance and bigotry."

And then the very next thing you write is:

"Israel, however, uses this way of thinking, as do these groups, in order to push ther racist, intolerant agendas"

Right: let's not prejudge the terrorists because they have "dreams, motivations, grievances, and so on"--but Israelis are racists!

Got it.

Daled, that IS the double standard against Israel. Israel is held to high expectations and the Arabs are excused from them because not much is expected from them. Why would any one expect that given the civilizational level the Arabs are at now, that Israel could reach any agreements with them and any assurance they would last? Both America and Europe seem to believe that every one in the world is just like them. The Middle East is a far different - and very dangerous place - as Israelis can testify from experience. The so called two state solution is not then an exercise in realist foreign policy but a flight into naive utopianism, the belief in the triumph of hope over experience. Only there is no one in the Middle East who is prepared to accept Israel's existence no matter what concessions the country would make towards peace.

NormanF,

Along those lines, Israel is the one consistently pushed into making concessions, because it is the only side that will. The goal is peace--and quiet, whatever quick fix it takes to keep the Arab world quiet. Why else push for creating a brand new state that has absolutely nothing going for it, least of all history.

If you paid attention, you'd notice that I said not just Israel, but also Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. You quoted me as saying:

"Israel, however, uses this way of thinking, as do these groups, in order to push ther racist, intolerant agendas"

I said Israel... AS DO THESE GROUPS...

Both Israel and the groups, from the view of the organization, are racist and intolerant. The people who make up both sides, however, are not NECESSARILY in line with the racist, intolerant views which are the stated policy of those groups. From the Israeli side, I believe there is a mandatory military service in Israel. The point I frequently try to make is that there is a disconnect in understanding when many move from viewing Israelis to Palestinians. In the same way that the average soldier in the IDF may not subscribe to the intolerant and repressive policies of the Israeli government, the average Hamas member may not subscribe to the view that Israel must be utterly destroyed. One of the moments that really shaped my antagonistic feeling toward Israel was watching the news at the opening of Operation Cast Lead and seeing the footage from the airstrike on the graduation ceremony of 200 police cadets. If Hamas had launched a Quassam at a graduation ceremony for 200 Israeli police cadets, the Israeli apologists would be bemoaning the horrible attack on civilians who honorably chose to dedicate their life to serve and protect the public. That moment, I lost about 80% of the good will I previously had toward the Israeli government. I lost about 80% of what was left when the IDF declared a cease-fire without actually sending soldiers into the cities because it was painfully obvious that their concern wasn't a civilian bloodbath - they'd already created one of those - but the concern that they might lose a few soldiers. I felt like I saw Israel the way that the rest of the world must see Israel and America - so brave when bombing countries that don't have an airforce, flying high over the canopy of protection afforded by the enemies' meager air defenses, but utter cowards when there was a chance of their own soldiers getting harmed. I can't explain and you'd probably never understand anyway, just how absurdly abhorrent I find the eager willingness to murder innocent civilians and destroy their homes in order to avoid putting soldiers in harm's way who know the risks of their profession. Everyone is worried about Nuclear Weapons, but they really aren't very threatening because no one, at least no self-serving politician, is going to commit national suicide. The real horror is that of aerial bombardment of civilian populations. The ability to fly over an area, flip a switch, push a button, and kill hundreds of your fellow human beings, often civilians who have no connection to the enemy, without having to see the carnage and know what YOU did and who YOU callously murdered in your smug, self-righteous arrogance - that is evil. No suicide bomber could ever compare to the evil of an air force pilot: A suicide bomber has to see those he will kill and he only does it once, but an air force pilot can kill hundreds and celebrate because he didn't have to look the mother in her eyes before he blew her husband and six children into small pieces.

No, I stick by what I wrote.

You wrote, in reference to terrorists:

"they exist in the real world. They are not independent entities, but rather groups of people. People are individuals who have their own dreams, motivations, grievances, and so on. The mode of thinking which ignores the human component of organizations is the basis of all intolerance and bigotry. Israel, however, uses this way of thinking, as do these groups, in order to push ther racist, intolerant agendas."

The fact that you do not clearly apply "dreams, motivations, grievances, and so on" to Israel and then emphasize the difference with the word 'however' draws a distinction.

If you want to say, that was not your intent--fine. But the implication is in your words.

"In the same way that the average soldier in the IDF may not subscribe to the intolerant and repressive policies of the Israeli government, the average Hamas member may not subscribe to the view that Israel must be utterly destroyed"

You'll need to list those policies.

"One of the moments that really shaped my antagonistic feeling toward Israel was watching the news at the opening of Operation Cast Lead and seeing the footage from the airstrike on the graduation ceremony of 200 police cadets. If Hamas had launched a Quassam at a graduation ceremony for 200 Israeli police cadets, the Israeli apologists would be bemoaning the horrible attack on civilians who honorably chose to dedicate their life to serve and protect the public."

Hamas police cadets. Right.

"I lost about 80% of what was left when the IDF declared a cease-fire without actually sending soldiers into the cities because it was painfully obvious that their concern wasn't a civilian bloodbath - they'd already created one of those - but the concern that they might lose a few soldiers."

So you're angry at Israel, which cares about the lives of its people--but not at Hamas that did not build bunkers for its own people (unlike the ones in Sderot), since respect for life is not known as being high on the Hamas priority list.

The last time Israel cared about you thought and acted accordingly, they lost far more men then necessary sending soldiers house to house in Jenin.

No thanks. Keep you respect. Give to those fine Hamas terrorists bravely firing rockets into Israel.

For that matter, you seem to be claiming that Israel never sent any Israeli soldiers into Gaza--are you honestly claiming that???

"I can't explain and you'd probably never understand anyway, just how absurdly abhorrent I find the eager willingness to murder innocent civilians and destroy their homes in order to avoid putting soldiers in harm's way who know the risks of their profession."

Of course, you buy into the Palestinian version and ignore Israeli documentation (and when has any army taken upon itself to do this) detailing who was killed and how many were actual terrorists.

You wax poetic on this point, but ignore the statistics that contradict the picture you paint.

Neither Israel nor militants were the reference of the dreams..... statement, people were. People. Living, breathing human beings who cannot help where they were born and what options they have to make do with (Of course, there is karma, but I will leave my personal religious beliefs out of the argument because you probably don't share them, which makes it an invalid argument to use them).

Soldiers were sent into Gaza, but avoided deep penetration beyond the outskirts of major cities - unless there was inaccurate reporting. I doubt it would be possible to face off against Hamas' elite soldiers in an urban environment without more than 13 Israeli casualties, of which I believe 4 or 6 were friendly-fire. I'm not saying there was no penetration, evidenced by the IDF's refusal to allow medical teams to evacuate wounded civilians trapped in their homes, just that it wasn't in the more dense urban areas where Hamas would've been os something approaching equal footing.

Those repressive policies you wanted listed? Let's find out, do you support:
1. Denying the Gazans the desperately needed supplies required for rebuilding the infrastructure and ensuring civilians shelter, clean drinking water, proper sewer systems, heat, medical facilities, etc.
2. Bulldozing the homes of families with no connection to Hamas, simply because it's convenient
3. Using white phosphorous in crowded areas packed with civilians
4. Using thousand pound bombs to target a Hamas leader who lives in a large apartment complex, knowing his neighbors who have done nothing wrong will lose their own homes and possibly their lives
5. Attacking police, fire fighters, and other public servants simply because they are part of a territory controlled by Hamas
6. Breaking up the occupied territories with barriers and checkpoints so anyone who has a job may or may not be able to get to it depending on how the Israelis feel on a particular day
7. Firing tear gas canisters at rather than into crowds
8. Closing checkpoints whenever it suits the Israeli gov't and using crossings to punish civilians for the actions of their leaders

That's as far as I feel like going, but I could easily stretch it out much farther, getting into more detailed mundane aspects of humiliation and oppression in daily life.

I didn't say I am not also critical of Hamas, but I do take into consideration that Israel and Egypt control their borders. After Hamas took control of Gaza, I'm not sure how difficult it might have been to build such bunkers. I also take into consideration that Hamas is the resistance and Israel is the occupier. Historically, the occupied population gets a little more slack because they don't really have a conventional warfare option and their only recourse is guerrilla strikes. And please don't tell me that Gaza is no longer occupied when it is under seige and bombarded from the air. Under the conditions imposed by Israel, Hamas could not possibly run a normal government. They aren't even allowed to control their own port.

And, finally, regarding the list of who died and which were militants (militants are not equal to terrorists), I don't trust the Israeli gov't to do such an investigation because they simply have too much to gain and lose depending on the results. If the U.N. did an independent study, I would accept the results, but I give the same credibility to the Israeli results as I do to the Palestinian ones. Accepting those numbers would be like taking the U.S. or the Taliban at their word about how many civilians were killed by a U.S. airstrike. I just don't trust data like that when the researcher has so much riding on it. It would be like taking the Zionists at their word when they asserted so many jews were killed in the holocaust in the course of presenting their case for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East - I'm just not that gullible to accept such without independent verification. It's not like I would suspect an outright lie, but I would be astounded if the results weren't padded with missing persons and those who died from disease or hard labor. In this particular case, I'm not familiar with the nature of the involved militant groups, so I have no way of discriminating between true militants, political factions connected to them, and Jihadist Boy Scout groups.

I thought of a good example:

The current Pope was once a member of Hitler's Youth Groups. Under the criteria for determining who was a militant and who was a civilian, would that fact alone prevent the pope from being listed as a civilian in a comparable analysis to distinguish between Nazis and civilians? Does the analysis take into account time passed since confirmed membership? I know that there was a lawsuit in Florida because thousands of people were illegaly removed from the list of registered voters because their legal name was either identical or similar to the name of a convicted felon who is not allowed to vote. Is it possible that the victim could be misidentified due to a similarity in name in a culture in which about ten names make up most of the population's names. Finally, I would imagine that there might be an incentive for militant groups to artificially inflate their membership rolls to make them appear more powerful: Were the lists of militant membership independently verified or did the Israeli army just take the militants' word for it? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the Israeli military has no incentive to ensure that victims are correctly identified. It is in their best interest for as many as possible to be found to have militant ties. Why would they spend money and manpower to eliminate false-positive ids? That's why I don't trust it.

I don't suppose this punk has expressed outrage over the thousands who have been killed in Sri Lanka's own war against terrorism. This is what's so malicious and fraudulent about malcontents like "constructive critic". Out of all of the conflicts in the world, they only choose to focus attention and condemnation on Israel even as the Israeli military has a strict moral code where they go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties and the ratio of civilian casualties is the least of any army, while other countries just wantonly kill civilians. He doesn't care about the so-called palestinians, nor does anyone involved in the palestinian cause. It is all about hatred for Jews and Israel.

This is why I have such contempt for vile creatures like him. Their motives are so transparent.

Actually Laura, I have and do. As I've told people many times, if you want a faithful, responsible, loving girlfriend, why are you looking in bars: Would you look for casual sex at at church? The stories here are inevitably about Israel and it pops up daily on Yahoo News in the blogs section at the end of other stories. If you want to see me write about something else, you will have to look somewhere else.

By the way, any military which uses airstrikes is not doing everything they can to prevent civilian casualties. Sorry to ruin your day, but "evil Muslims," as you call them still count as civilians, bigot.

P.S. - How does that fee, to be refuted with accusations of intolerance instead of facts and logic? I have a great deal of respect for Daled Amos because we seem to have much different views and beliefs, but he doesn't resort to name-calling: Instead, he gives me quality links and reasonable information, even if I don't always agree with the methodology or trust the source. It works much better than calling people jew-haters and woman-haters, and explaining how the evil Muslim monsters just can't live in peace because they are a degenerate, inferior species which should be cleansed from the planet.

1. Denying the Gazans the desperately needed supplies required for rebuilding the infrastructure and ensuring civilians shelter, clean drinking water, proper sewer systems, heat, medical facilities, etc.

Check out Looks Like Gaza Has Both Guns AND Butter--which applied both before and during the operation.

And check out this video too while you're at it.

2. Bulldozing the homes of families with no connection to Hamas, simply because it's convenient

Please provide equally convenient link.

3. Using white phosphorous in crowded areas packed with civilians

Link?

4. Using thousand pound bombs to target a Hamas leader who lives in a large apartment complex, knowing his neighbors who have done nothing wrong will lose their own homes and possibly their lives

Is there a reason you neglect to mention the warning Israel gave?

5. Attacking police, fire fighters, and other public servants simply because they are part of a territory controlled by Hamas

How about a link so we can see the context?

6. Breaking up the occupied territories with barriers and checkpoints so anyone who has a job may or may not be able to get to it depending on how the Israelis feel on a particular day

Does it really bother you that so many fewer Israelis are being blown up by suicide bombers now?

7. Firing tear gas canisters at rather than into crowds

Link?

8. Closing checkpoints whenever it suits the Israeli gov't and using crossings to punish civilians for the actions of their leaders

Link?

Granted you cannot prove the the claims you make about what the Israeli government is thinking at the time, but at least provide some kind of substantiation.