As someone who knows Benny Morris personally I need also to say that I find despicable and slanderous Big C's proposal that Morris changed his historical understanding about any pre-1948 plan to expell Palestinians (no, there was none) because of political pressure and a desire to fit in.

Does Big C know Morris? No--not anymore than he knew the Druze officer who was killed and whom he also savagely slandered. If Big C thinks Morris' work 10 years ago was valuable and scholarly, why would Big C not think his work ten years on was valuable and scholarly--except that Big C no longer likes where Morris ended up after additional research? And because Big C no longer likes where Morris ended up after additional research, he slanders him and calls him intellectualy corrupt.

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 12:

A Fatah official in Ramallah on Sunday launched a scathing attack on Hamas and described its leaders as "criminals."

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on condition of anonymity, the Fatah official denounced Hamas as a "black and bloody militia" that was responsible for the "catastrophe" in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas--not Israel. Oh, well, Big C: this is just another one of those "Jews working for the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto", isn't it? No doubt this PA official is biased, but should we discount his opinion entirely? It's certainly ONE way to deal with information that might make you question your position, Big C--and no doubt you will use it.

I wrote: "a nasty Jews-as-Nazis comparison that the left has come to love."

Big C replies: No. A Zionist ideology compared to Nazi ideology. Oh, it's ZIONISTS as Nazis, put into debate via a snide phrase in German. Case closed.

Big C, I did reply to your "they want to kill or expell all Arabs", by pointing out the significant percentage of Israeis who are Arabs. You evidently missed that. I also pointed out the heroic Druze soldier--and your reply to this was to turn this soldier into a Jew working fo the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. There we have the Zionists-as-Nazis trope again, plus the slander of the dead. Pretty foul on your part. Did you know Lutfi Nasereldeen? He was a career army officer (Oh--and how is that possible in "Apartheid" Israel, Big C.?)

As for Camp David and Taba, you are now more rejectionist than Arafat, Big C. At least we know where you stand. You prefer war to peace, and then complain about the results.

The "ceasefire" of June-December was broken when Hamas tried to send a squad to kidnap another Israeli soldier. This was a counter-terror tunnel operation in early November. I guess that's your "death squad". In any case, Hamas had already fired 500 rockets into Israel between June and November, 2008, so if you are looking for someone breaking the "truce", Big C, there it is. Oh, Oh--facts, facts, facts!

My point about the Arab conquests is that this is the way of the world in that part of the world. Only Israelis are expected to give back their conquests; the Arabs and Muslims certainly don't intend to give back theirs; on the contrary, they have "naturalized" them. That the Israelis gave back Gaza was a step for peace which was opposed by many people in Israel. The result: Gaza was turned into a launching platform for thousands of missiles of increasing size, range and lethality, putting a million Israelis at risk. That is not Israel's fault. That is Hamas' fault.

If you think the Israelis don't want a peaceful and prosperous Gaza, as opposed to a violent Talibanized Gaza--what's your evidence? MY evidence is the economic boomlet on the West Bank since 2006.

Your reply about schools? When I said that terrorism was a cultural choice of Palestinians, and that you don't find the descendants of expelled penniless Jews blowing up schools in Tunis, you replied they were blowing up schools in Gaza. Take a look at the IDF videos of the terrorists using those schools to shoot rockets from, Big C. But if you think Israelis enjoy blowing up schools per se, there's nothing I can do for you. The IDF just showed today a video with a school rigged by HAMAS to explode (perhaps to create another telegenic incident). That's the purpose of human shields, which you perhaps remember you DENIED as merely Israeli propaganda (that was Tuesday at 20:32--nice move!)--a position you have perhaps modified when I showed Hamas officials boasting of it!

Addendum: the only mosques being hit by "Jews" are those which are being used to shoot missles and store weapons. That's why there are secondary explosions coming from those mosques. The info on these mosques is being supplied to Israel, correctly, by someone.

Now, Big C--this is DIFFERENT from intentionally blowing up a bus filled with schoolchildren in, say, Tunis by "enraged" descendants of Jewish refugees from the 1950s . And it is DIFFERENT from the al-Qaeda plan to blow up the Milan Cathedral (2002). And it is different from al-Q actually blowing up the Golden Mosque in iraq in 2005 (which was a purely religious site). Can you, uh, see the difference or not?

Big C, you simply don't understand Benny Morris' position on any pre-1948 plan to throw out the Palestinians. His current position, in his new book, is that lots of Palestinians fled the war, and some were expelled, the latter was an atrocity, but it was also an exigency of the war started by the Palestinians and Arabs, not a pre-existing plan. Please read: "1948".

Gaza is certainly not an example of "Ein Volk, ein Land"--a nasty Jews-as-Nazis comparison that the left has come to love. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and had to force its own people to leave. The response was the turning of Gaza into a launching pad for rockets of increasing range, accuracy and lethality--6,000 of them. One million Israelis are no in range. No country would stand for this.

To the victor belongs the spoils is a bad idea? Fine--I agree. But that is also the real world. And in any case, tell your theory to the Muslims, who conquered the entire Middle East in a century, including Jerusalem (not without blood) and now believe it is *natural* for them to have it. In fact, Allah gave it to them to rule because they worship Him correctly and it is intolerable for there to be anyone else there who is independent.

As for the intention of the Zionists to drive out or kill all Arabs-- Really? Then tell me, Big C: what percentage of israel is Arab?. And what percentage of the PA and Gaza is Christian--compared to 20 years ago? And when you've looked up those facts, what conclusion should you draw about intentions? You project onto the Israelis what the Palestinian Muslims are doing. It's perverse. The first Israeli casualties in the Gaza fighting was a Druze Muslim-Arab Israeli soldier.

I don't believe Israel has any territorial ambitions against its neighbors: they may well have had that once, but I think that--in the real world (something you object to, Big C)--they've learned their lesson. Proof? Look at the offer made by israel at Camp David and Taba, which Clinton blamed Arafat (and Arafat blamed himself) for rejecting! Would Arafat have blamed himself if what was being offered was"bantustans"? (This is simply another nasty propaganda crack from Big C, equating Israel with South Africa.) My conclusion from Big C's rhetoric is that he doesn't think Israel has any right to exist at all, and this enables him to label himself a humanitarian and feel good about himself though he knows little about the facts.

The children of Gaza live in a war zone, courtesy of Hamas. So do the kids in Sderot and southern Israel, for the past eight years, also courtesy of Hamas. No one drove the Palestinians into the hands of Hamas--except Hamas-PA infighting. Was Israel responsible for that infighting, Big C, or might it just be that the Palestinians ought to take some responsibililty for something? And Gaza wasn't "under siege" in 2005 or into 2006. And Egypt, not Israel alone, is involved in non-recognition of Hamas' coup of June 2007.

There can be no doubt that if Hamas stopped shooting rockets, then Israel would be only too happy to see Gaza prosper, because that would be a way of getting Palestinians to abandon Hamas with its genocidal and global-messianic message. Do you doubt it, Big C?

The political goal of the current fighting, in my view, is in fact to weaken Hamas greatly and to simultaneously strengthen the PA so that Israel has someone to talk to. it may not work, but that is the simple and goal--as opposed to Big C's paranoid and baroque interpretation.

Quite a distortion from Bandara.

Up until 1948, EVERY piece of land that came into Jewish hands was land that was SOLD by its Arab owners to Jews, and at inflated prices. Some of the sellers included the leading families in Palestinian Arab society. No land was "siezed", and no Arabs were "driven from their lands".

The war of 1948 changed that. But the war of 1948 was initiated by Palestinians and Arabs, after Israel was established by a UN vote. The war wasn't started by the Israelis. The Arab goal was genocidal, but the Palestinians and Arabs lost that war. There are consequences to losing, as the Arabs learned and--I think one may believe--the israelis well understood both in 1948 and later. One consequence of defet was that Arab lands were seized NOW (only now) by the victorious Israelis.

As for Deir Yassin, I suggest that Bandara read Benny Morris' article on this: "The Historiography of Deir Yassin", Journal of Israeli History 2005; then we could talk. The figures cited by Bandara are out of date and exaggerated (about triple the actual death-toll); Morris used both Israeli and Palestinian sources to show this. There were bad atrocities committed (by the Stern Gang and Irgun, not by the Haganah), but there were no rapes. (On the contrary--believe it not, some scholars argue that the ABSENCE of rapes of Palestinians by the Israeli armed forces is a sign of...wait for it...racism.)

Bandara might also want to look up the Mt. Scopus Massacre, which occurred a couple of days later: 70 Jewish doctors and patients burned to death by Palestinians as the British stood by. My point: it was an ugly war.

The defeated Palestinians turned to terrorism against civilians from the first, from the 1950s. This was not some decision made after decades of patience. You can read about the terrifying anti-semitism already being promulgated in Gaza in the 1950s when one reads Nonie Darwish, whose father, an Egyptian colonel, organized the first terrorism campaigns in the 1950s. Terrorism against civilians remained the preferred Palestinian response for the next 50 years. It hasn't worked. They keep doing it. This is a matter of leadership (see below).

BTW, up until 1967 Gaza was officially part of Egypt and the West Bank was officially part of Jordan; you can see it on all pre-1967 maps; both areas had been "conquered" in 1948 (by Egypt and Jordan respectively); no one protested. Why not?

The 1967 war was a direct result of threats to Israel's existence. The Israelis made a dreadful mistake afterward, out of hubris, in attempting settlements on the West Bank, and as far as I am concerned, those settlements should be removed.

But every time the Israelis have actually withdrawn from an area as a gesture towards peace--Gaza is the most recent case--the area has been turned into a launching platform for attacks on Israeli civilians. There are consequences to this, too.

The Israelis believed in trading land for peace; this was Israeli policy both by the government and by the populace for a long time; they traded away the land and got no peace. The consequences are the result of the Palestinians' actions.

The Palestinians have suffered a trauma; but it was a trauma that happened to many groups during the chaotic ten years after WWII as the British Empire (among others) collapsed For instance, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands in the period 1948-1960, which is 100,000 more victims than Palestinians in 1948. Every single one of them arrived in the U.S., Britain or Israel penniless. Some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, but this is not an issue at the UN. Yet you don't see Jews blowing up schools in Tunis. 300,000 Greeks were expelled from Egypt in the mid-1950s in a classic case of ethnic and religious cleansing of peaceful citizens by the Nassir government) the refugees arrived in Greece penniless, some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, but this is not an issue at the UN, but you don't see Greeks blowing up busses in Alexandria.

The Palestinian resort to violence is therefore a cultural choice. Again, they have to live with the consequences.

The Palestinians are where they are because they backed Germany and the Ottomans in WWI, the Nazis in WWII, the USSR in the Cold War, Saddam Hussein in 1990-1991 (which led to the expulsion of 300,000 Palestinians from Kuwait, but no one talks about that), and Saddam Hussein in 2003, and global-jihad kill-all-Jews Hamas now. It is a very sorry record of leadership. Leadership is of course a central issue: Namely, when the Palestinians themselves have taken their own destiny upon their own shoulders without 'help' from their obdurate and short-sighted leadership, there will be a chance for peace.

But the preference for resort to intentional violence against civilians (with its genocidal message) rather than negotiation is a major problem. In my view, the phenomenon comes (1) the exploitation of the Palestinian issue by corrupt Arab governments, keeping the pot boiling and encouraging Palestinian terrorism and (2) something much deeper, a cultural issue: To feel shame, to be beaten, and especially by Jews, who used to be helpless dhimmis, cuts very deep. Somehow that shame must be wiped out, and the only answer has been--has ALWAYS been--violence against Jewish civilians.

But most of the issue between Israel and the Palestinians is a nationalist clash. Clashes of nationalism can be resolved by negotiation, though it is difficult.

But this is different from Hamas, for whole Israel is a *theological* threat. The existence of israel is a stain on Allah, on the honor of Allah, who promised rule over the Middle East (actually, over the entire world) to Muslims because they worship Him directly. In Hamas' view, every minute that Israel exists is an insult to Allah. There can be no negotiation or argument with the celestial. Read the Hamas Charter.

Mr. B won't agree with a lot of what I say. But his version of Israeli history is grossly distorted and he better understand that there are competent people who see things quite differently. This, in a normal world, would suggest discussion. In Gaza, it means Grad rockets hitting Beersheva--and Israeli response.

The origins of this terrible conflict start way back in 1897 when Theodor Herzl and other Zionists, sick and tired of the pogroms and anti-Semitism of Europe, formally declared at their inaugurate congress to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Twenty years later the Balfour Declaration to Lord Rothschild, patron of the Zionists, gave the green light for Jews to settle on what was then British colonial territory. The document made explicit that non-Jewish people not be disadvantaged in any way but Herzl later stated that he wanted Palestine to “be as Jewish and England is English” and that “Jewish frontiers will be as great as Jewish energy for getting Palestine”. Herzl later said that the Jewish state “must be built up slowly, gradually and systematically... through intermediary stages” protected by powerful allies.

In the following years to 1939 violent confrontations at Jaffa, Jerusalem, Hebron and many other places led to increasing violence and desperation from both Jews (who seized more land) and Arabs (who tried to hold onto their properties). The Zionists were educated, with European sophistication while the Arabs were still largely nomadic. The Arabs responded with violence while the Jews used violence and diplomacy to gain British acquiescence. By the 1930’s massive Jewish immigration had driven thousands of Arab families from their homes and created mass unemployment. A new approach to Arab resistance called Jihad was born, highlighting the desperation that now existed in the Arab psyche.

The end of the war saw massive immigration to Palestine as a direct result of the Holocaust and the ensuing sympathies of the world to the horrors committed by the Nazis. At the same time a massacre at Deir Yassin by the Urgan and Stern militias left 254 people dead (many women and girls had also been raped). This led hundreds of thousands of villagers to flee their homes and although Zionist organisations condemned the massacre, they still sponsored further attacks against villagers.

In 1948 the state of Israel was established and in 1956, 1967 and 1973, Israel expended its territory significantly. The United States had by this time replaced Britain as Israel’s powerful ally. In 2004 Ariel Sharon succeeded in convincing President Bush to recognise Israeli sovereignty of the West Bank in return for removal of Jewish settlements in Gaza.

Source: The Gun and the Olive Branch by David Hirst.

The history of Israel has been, and continues to be, one of conquest and expansion. The current conflict in Gaza over Qassam rockets is an example of the endless action and reaction that has plagued Israelis and Palestinians for over a century.

Margaret, if I have misconstrued your position, I apologize.

You defended Hamas' shooting 6000 rockets into pre-1967 Israel on the grounds that Hamas has a right to resist "occupation." But Gaza isn't occupied, and the PA runs the West Bank. So, what "occupation" did you mean when you defended shooting 6000 rockets at civilians in pre-1967 Israel? I concluded that by "occupation" you meant (as many people now do) pre-1967 Israel, and hence that the end of "occupation" meant the end of Israel as an independent state. It was logical. But if I am wrong, then I apologize, and ask you to please explain your posiiton.

By the way, Hamas isn't interested in Palestine per se. HAMAS is an acronym in for "Islamic Resistance Movement"-- the name "Palestine" doesn't occur, and it is the only significant party among the Palestinians where that is so. That is because the goal of Hamas isn't Palestine but global and messianic, the establishment of a proper Islamic empire from Indonesia to Spain. To Hamas ideologues such as the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin the ideological leader of Hamas, love of Palestine as a nation is in fact a form of "sherk"--that is to say, false worship or idolatry. Hamas sees Palestinian *nationalists* such as Abu Mazen as traitors to Islam. In Hamas, hatred of Israel for being a Jewish state in the Muslim world is not nationalist but theological--Israel and its existence (and its success) is a violation of the honor of Allah who decreed that Muslims should be in control in the Middle East. That is why Israel must be wiped out.

Did you know any of this?

Now--if my other arguments which I have posted are so weak, as you claim, please refute them.

Ethan II thank you for your lengthy reply to my comment.
What a pity your writing is flawed by the gross assumptions you have made about my views. For example, I have never thought, said or written that Israel
should not exist. For you to claim otherwise is in the realms of fantasy. If your argument was strong you would not need to make personal attacks on fellow bloggers.

I tried posting before, so if this is a repeat, I apologize. But if it isn't a repeat, this is a reply to Margaret C:

1. You write as if the Palestinians were patient for 60 years until this was the final straw and they started shooting rockets. The fact is that terrorism against Israeli civilians, backed by the most vicious sort of anti-semitic teaching, was the Palestinian preferred act starting in the 1950s. I urge you to read Nonie Darwish on this--she is the daughter of the Egyptian colonel who developed the first Palestinian terror squads, when Egypt ruled Gaza in the 1950s.

Terrorism against Israeli civilians--with its meta-message of genocide--was the preferred mode of Palestinian action in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s (remember the attack on the Israeli Olympic team at Munich), the 1980s, the 1990s, and in the Second Intifada. I listed in a previous posting below all those people who suffered similar or greater traumas than the Palestinians, in similar or greater numbers than the Palestinians, but yet have not resorted to genocidal terrorism. The resort to genocidal terrorism is not something FORCED, then, upon the Palestinians, nor is it some sort of "natural reaction" to what has happened to them (mostly via their own bad decisions). No, genocidal terrorism is their CULTURAL CHOICE.

Hence, Hamas has shot 6,000 rockets into civilian areas in pre-1967 Israel. As Adel Imam, the leading film star in the Arab world, said on Monday--"Did they expect the Israelis to respond with roses?"

Pre-1967 Israel...Before 1967, Gaza was officially part of Egypt, and the West Bank was officially part of Jordan. Take a look at any pre-1967 map. NO ONE objected to the "occupation" then, Margaret C. How come, if Palestine independence was such a sacred cause? As a famous Palestinian poet said, We are unlucky to have you [Jews] as our enemy because you are militarily powerful but we are lucky to have you as our enemy because whenever YOU are involved the issue is always YOU.

The Palestinians were offered a compromise two-state solution in 2000/2001 at Camp David and Taba. Clinton blames Arafat for the failure here (and Arafat not only made no counter-offer, but his only "contribution" to the negotiation was his denial of the existence of the Second (Jewish) Temple, the one destroyed by Rome in 70 A.D.). In 2002 Arafat HIMSELF said he'd made a grave mistake in refusing the compromise of 2000/2001.

But I think Margaret C doesn't want Israel to exist at all, and that is the implied foundation of her comment. In that sense, she sides directly with the Hamas death-cult religious fanatics, who glory in and explicitly boast of placing innocent civilians to protect their terrorists as those terrorists target Israeli civilians. And yet she portrays herself as a humanitarian.

These continuing attacks on Israel from those who claim to favour civilised values are based on a perverse inversion of reality. When theocratic devotees of a Jihadist death cult launch murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, the fashionable approach is to ‘understand’ these criminal actions.

Margaret C writes as if 6000 rockets from Gaza all aimed intentionally at Israeli civilians was the result of a final straw that somehow broke the Palestinians' enormous and long-standing patience.

The Palestinians began raids from Gaza in the 1950s; from the first they targetted civilians only; the message was from the first genocidal. Palestinian terrorism in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s always targeted Israeli civilians. Terrorism against civilians--with the message of genocide--was the Palestinians' instrument of FIRST choice from the beginning. As the Egyptian film star Abdel Imam said on Monday, "Did they expect the Israelis to respond with roses?"

In 2000 the Palestinians were offered the Camp David and Taba agreements which would have given them a state. The deal involved many Israeli concessions. Clinton says the fault at the Camp David and Taba negotiations was that of Arafat. He never even made a counter-offer and his only contribution was to deny the existence of the Second Temple (the one destroyed in 70 A.D.). ARAFAT said in an interview in 2002 that he was wrong not to have taken the deal.

Up until 1967, Gaza was part of Egypt--take a look at a pre-1967 map. Up until 1967 the West Bank was officially part of Jordan. Take a look at a pre-1967 map. NO ONE objected. It's only when Israel gets involved (in 1967 responding to an existential threat to its existence) that people such as Margaret C get outraged. I wonder why. As one Palestinian poet said, "If this was being done to us by anyone other than Jews, no one would care. We are unlucky to have Jews as enemies, because they are militarily powerful. We are lucky to have Jews as enemies, because in any situation in which they are involved, THEY become the topic."

I think the implied message of Margaret C is that because Israel was born, like every state, in some condition of original sin, it does not deserve (like every other state) to continue to exist.

The Palestinians suffered a trauma in 1948, but it was not a trauma that was unusual in that period.
I've listed on this blog the many other peoples who suffered similar or even worse traumas. They did not resort to terrorism. Terrorism is not a natural response to such traumas, it is a CULTURAL CHOICE. The Palestinians then have to live with the consequences of that cultural choice.

Jewish land in 1948 was land bought by willing Arab sellers at high prices. Then the Jewish population was attacked in a genocidally-aimed war. The Palestinians (aided by the several Arab states) lost the war. When one loses a war, there are consequences consequences--especially wars you start. The consequences for Palestinians was that many fled, and some were expelled. Now they portrary themselves as unique victims when they are not. They are to some extent victims, but not unique. The israelis are also victims, and especially because the problem has ALWAYS been Palestinian unwillingness to compromise. I suspect Margaret C doesn't want to compromise either.

The continuing attacks on Israel from those who claim to favour civilised values are based on a perverse inversion of reality. When theocratic devotees of a Jihadist death cult launch murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, involving thousands of rockets aimed at civilians, the fashionable approach is to ‘understand’ these criminal actions.

The PA blamed Hamas for starting this crisis, and so did the foreign minister of Egypt.

P.S. Sderot, the town usually attacked, is populated, Margaret C, by REFUGEES--Jewish refugees expelled from Morroco, where many had lived since the time of Rome.

Prof Ethan appears to believe that a nation of people should stand aside politely while their homes, livelihoods and land are stolen from them. Palestinian children as young as eight are held in Israeli gaols and Palestinians face daily humiliations and control of their movements at Israeli checkpoints. These crimes against the Palestinian people have been occurring for 60 years. How long are people expected to suffer silently before they resist?

1. Big C, what is your EVIDENCE, other than post-hoc Hamas propaganda, that the Hamas coup in Gaza in June 2007 was actually a counter-coup? That was not the view of the EU, nor of Russia.

2. If you think that the PA is *merely* an American stooge we have little to talk about. Was Abbas being an American stooge in his speech to the UN on Tuesday?

3. The leaders of the Warsaw Ghetto didn't seize power in a coup d'etat in which they threw their opponents off of high buildings once they'd captured them.

From the Associated Press, Dec. 27:

"Late on Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons."

Let's see--contacting large numbers of enemy noncombatant logistical support-groups in advance to warn them of approaching danger. How about that for inhumanity, eh?

1. The UN vociferously denied that the HEADMASTER of one of its schools in Gaza was a major Islamic Jihad operative. When he was killed in May 2008, it turned out he was a major Islamic Jihad operative and more than that, a master rocket-builder for IJ. The UN was...embarrased. The headmaster, Awad al-Qiq, was buried in an IJ flag and a placard extolling his deeds as an IJ militant was put up at the entrance to the school--until a reporter from Reuters saw it. The UN was...embarrassed, and had the placard taken down. So, no, I don't believe the UN. It has every reason to lie. The Israelis named the Hamas operatives who were killed in the strike on the school. Did they make those names up?
Residents from Gaza phoned the Associated Press from Gaza and said they'd seen Hamas operatives working weapons in the streets by the school. Were these Israeli agents?
On Britain's Channel 4, a reporter had the nerve to ask a UN representative if the UN actually controlled those schools, or if Hamas did. He got an evasive answer.

2. There was a truce. Hamas broke it. If Hamas hadn't liked the terms of the truce (the alleged "state of siege", etc.), they could have continued fighting. What some people write isn't a denial that Hamas broke the existing "period of calm", it's a defense of it. And if the answer that follows is "war is war", as some have said here, then accept the consequences: those people have no business complaining about Israeli actions when Hamas' war is to attack civilians while hiding behind civilians. On this particular issue, folks should read Human Rights Watch Nov. 2006 statement:

"Palestinian armed groups must not endanger Palestinian civilians by encouraging them to gather in and around suspected militants’ homes targeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Human Rights Watch said today.
Calling civilians to a location that the opposing side has identified for attack is at worst human shielding, at best failing to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians from the effects of attack. Both are violations of international humanitarian law."

3. Hamas seized Gaza in a bloody coup in June 2007. The PA has declared the Hamas govt there illegal--not because of the elections but because of the coup. Sounds reasonable to me. Is the PA now another "stooge" of the U.S A U.S. "stooge" like Egypt (allegedly) is?

4. BigC should read Benny Morris' recent book, called 1948, not his older work. I'm not saying I'm smarter, Big C. I'm saying I have more information on what Benny Morris' position is on the specific question of whether there was a "pre-1948 plan" to expell the Palestinian Arabs. That's what I specifically challenged you about.

5. The residents of the Warsaw Ghetto did not have dozens of rockets with ranges of 25 miles, and thousands of other rockets, they did not receiveand it is ridiculous and disgraceful to think that they would have shot them at civilians at any time. They were not backed by a foreign government and did not receive billions of dollars of aid (Gaza has the second largest per capital UN aid program on the planet). I think the inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto had a rather different idea of "martyrdom" than some bloggers here.

The crisis in the Gaza Strip was waiting to explode. Hamas, right or wrong, was elected by the Palestinian population to replace Fatah, who became too complacent perhaps in their view. From the start, Israel and the United States kept and maintained a water tight economic stranglehold on the population there. Israel may claim that it was not occupying Gaza after 2005, but the sad truth is that the Gaza Strip is an open air prison, surrounded by land, sea by the Israelis and the airspace is constantly buzzing by the Israeli Air Force.
A seige is a state of war, even if no bullets or bombs are exchanged between protagonists. If you close any population's economic lifeline, they will rise up, as has happened during past centuries if anyone wants to study history. What's happening in Gaza is not different from the conditions that happened in the Warsaw Ghetto, except that the people at the receiving end are Arabs and not Caucasian Jews. What Israel is up against is much stronger than religion, and that my friends is called "Human Nature & Psychology".
Israel will have to reconcile itself to the presence of the Palestinians, and open it's arms to them and offer full rights and citizenship. Either reconcile to the presence of the Arabs there, or fire up the furnace at Auschwitz for their complete and final solution.
Israel has two options if the Palestinians demand equal rights in a one state solution:

1. Give them equal rights and citizenship, and then the Zionist dream of Israel is dead with the passage of time.

2. Declare not to accept full citizenship for Palestian Arabs, and then be declared an apartheid state by the rest of the world.

Painful and hard choices indeed!

As for Professor Gowlland-Debbas, the poor people forced to live in that Ghetto in Warsaw would have launched homemade rockets in desperation at the Germans if they knew how to make them. Desperate humans do desperate and inexplicable things. Keep religion out of any argument, religions cloud rather than clears issues anywhere.
I find it hard to believe that no one in Washington has realized till now that the two biggest policy headaches for US foreign policy planners is Israel and Pakistan, perhaps the only two countries established on the basis of religion alone. Religion, by nature is never democratic, and can never be a stabilizing factor in governance.
The only way forwards for Israel and Pakistan is to completely divorce their respective religions from the state.
The 2 state solution for the Arab Israel conflict must be declared dead, and all efforts focused on a One State solution, based on the French or United States Constitutions, unless the Israelis turn around and ridiculously claim that both those constitutions are Anti Jew documents. If Arabs, non Arabs and Jews can live peacefully in France and the United States, I see no reason for that happening in Israel/Palestine in one state, free of religion.
For now, Israel must lift the siege on Gaza and the West Bank, and have Egypt and Jordan force Hamas to stop their desperate rocket attacks.
There is a solution to this man made problem, but will everyone be willing to swallow the bitter pill and kick religion from the business of government? Thats the big question of mine that till now is not getting any answers.

JFox,

When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks intentionally from within civilian Palestinian areas, intentionally using civilians as human shields as they intentionally fire on Israeli civilians, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire.

Hamas has fired 6,000 rockets into pre-1967 Israel, while using the civilian population of Gaza as human shields: they gleefully GLORY in the tactic--I urge you to watch the video of Fathi Ahmad Hammad to which I have earlier referred:

March 15, 2008 - Fathi Ahmad Hammad, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council proudly claims that Palestinians deliberately use women and children as human shields.
This is the transcript of his remarks (but it is worth watching the clip just to hear the hatred in his voice: you can find it be googling Fathi Hammad + human shields):

"[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Hammad is a leader of the al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, and in 2006 was elected to the Palestinian Parliament as a Hamas representative. He is also director of Al-Aqsa TV, which aired his comments on February 29, 2008.

This is not casuistry or sophistry. It is the choice which Hamas leaves those at whom it has fired 6,000 rockets.

As Adel Imam, the Egyptian actor who is the Arab world's most popular actor, said on Monday--if you fire thousands of rockets at the Israelis, you can hardly expect them to respond with flowers.

Hamas deploys rockets targetted on Israeli civilians from inside schools and hospitals, something which can only lead to unnecessary civilian deaths which happen to play well with the world media.

The Israelis tried for six years to stop this rocketing via diplomatic means. Hamas refused. JFox's answer to the 6,000 rockets is apparently "vociferous condemnation". That hasn't worked, has it?

There is not the slightest reason to believe that if Hamas desisted from and abandoned these attacks, Israel would immediately stop its own military response, nor would the Israelis do anything other than encourage Gaza to flourish. (It would be in Israel's interest--as one can see with the economic success of the West Bank in the past two years.) But Hamas does not want Gaza to flourish because that might very well lead to the Palestinian people abandoning Hamas and its current devotion to the total destruction of Israel. Hamas therefore immiserates its own people and deliberately provokes Israel in a manner that give the Israelis no alternative but a military response.

This article is spot on. But the difficulty of delivering the message to those who need to understand it could hardly be more clearly expressed than in the sad efforts of some of the discussion contributors  to justify Israel's actions. Bombing and shelling civilians - which is what the IDF is doing -  is a crime under international law; and it is also a crime under any version of morality available to modern civilization. To argue that Hamas has been doing the same to Israel does not make the Israeli response - a wholly disproportionate one in my view - any more legal. Nor is it in the least legitimate to ignore the repeated violations of law and of basic human rights perpetrated by Israel on the Palestinians over many years. It is true that Palestinian terrorists have inflicted terrible outrages on Israeli citizens and that these acts deserve equal, vociferous condemnation. The appropriate response, however, cannot include inflicting massive "collateral damage"  - the repellent "not my fault gov'" excuse for killing the innocent and the helpless. When London, Belfast, Manchester and Londonerry suffered years of IRA bombings, the UK government's response was not - and couldn't be - to shell IRA strongholds in Ireland. In fact the one major incident of aggression against civilians by the UK army has, understandably,  never been forgotten. I hear the protest already: "Oh but that's a completely different situation...". Well, no actually, it isn't. Bombing civilians is terrorism; and no amount of casuistry and special pleading can turn it into something else. What we are witnessing in Gaza is  an army pitted against a people. Even if - as Israel and the US insist - Hamas is purely a terrorist organization, that is not a reason for a state to behave like one as well. 

Bspan.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

span.jajahWrapper { font-size:1em; color:#B11196; text-decoration:underline; } a.jajahLink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } span.jajahInLink:hover { background-color:#B11196; }

Todge, I was not claiming special genius because I know Benny Morris personally. That would be illogical, as you say.

I *was* claiming, however, that I know Benny Morris' scholarly position on the question of the alleged "pre-1948 plan of expulsion of Palestinians" far better than Big C does.

And this is not only becaise I've talked to Morris about this issue personally, and heard him speak about it in March 2008. It's also that in support of "Morris'" position on this issue, Big C cited an older book by Morris, whereas I cite his newest book and research (published in 2008, and well-reviewed).

I hope I've made my point clearer now.

There are two basic fallacies involved in this argument.
One is the false analogy between the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Palestinians. The second is the fallacy of appeal to an authority.

The intention of the Germans was entirely different from the Israelis. Nowhere is there is an Israeli attempt to find a "final solution" involving genocide. Given the power Israel has, it seems likely they would have proceeded along these lines if that were their plan. That there is conflict does not entail that the situation is the same, although to tar the two situations with the same brush makes for emotive propaganda and worse still prevents rational debate.

Simply because the author associated with a number of eminent professors does not confer especial genius or insight upon that author. That this author is prone to such fallacious reasoning confirms this.

More sensible would be to examine the situation from a less partisan point of view if possible.

1. Big C, it is not the case that there are no open spaces in Gaza, as if it were one big city--there are plenty of open spaces, and that's exactly where the Israeli armor went first (as everyone knows). Hamas *chooses* to fight from among civilians.

2. As for "human shields" being propaganda, well, Big C, it's HAMAS propaganda, as here, for instance:

March 15, 2008 - Fathi Ahmad Hammad, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council proudly claims that Palestinians deliberately use women and children as human shields.

This is the transcript of his remarks (but it is worth watching the clip just to hear the hatred in his voice: you can find it be googling Fathi Mohammed + human shields):

[The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Hammad is a leader of the Izzedeen al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, and in 2006 was elected to the Palestinian Parliament as a Hamas representative. He is also director of Al-Aqsa TV, which aired his comments on February 29, 2008.

It helps to have *facts*, Big C.

3. For instance, the "UN School": I heard on the radio (WTOP here in Washington DC) that Palestinian witnesses said that Hamas indeed was using the school to mortar the Israelis, just like the Israelis claimed, and members of the Hamas rocket cell were killed in the attack. Booby-trapped boms set in the school by Hamas set off secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians. (I assume you won't believe this, Big C.)

4. As for Benny Morris, I know him personally, and you are distorting his position. In his latest book 1948, based on new research, his position is that there was no pre-existing plan to remove the Palestinians; it happened during the war as the dangers became apparent (and most of those who left--not all by any means, but most--fled impelled by Arab propaganda, not Israeli force.)

5. There can be no doubt that in the current disruption of what was called "the period of calm", Hamas was at fault. Abu Mazen said this. The Egyption Foreign Minister said this: "We begged them not to shoot rockets."

6. Sderot, the town that is the usual target, has a population made up mostly of Jewish refugees from Morocco.

7. Since the Israelis withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005 as a gesture of peace, what "occupation" are you talking about, Big C, that would lead Hamas to fire 6,000 rockets into pre-1967 Israel? You haven't answered that question.

This is Prof Ethan, responding (while I get registered here):

1. None of the many groups of people I discussed who have accepted their trauma and have moved on are living as "untermenschen." That's just a slander from Big C.

But as a Palestinian said to me, along the same lines as Big C's "those other people are not as noble as the Palestinians." All right--then, like I said, terrorism is a cultural choice and not the usual one. (I'm amazed that Big C would evidently prefer to see Germans, Jews, Greeks and Hindus blowing up hundreds of civilians in Danzig, Tunis, Cairo,Trebizond and Karachi, thereby earning his *respect*.). Hamas and its Palestinian supporters, however, having *made* that cultural choice, have to live with the consequences--as the Arab world's most prominent movie star, the Egyptian actor Adel Imam, said on Monday.

2. The difference between these other ethnic groups and the Nakhba, by the way, is that none of these other people (except perhaps the Germans) attacked their neighbors before they were displaced (unlike the Palestinians, who *initiated* a war in 1948, and *lost* it despite lots of outside help, and lots fled and some were expelled). Nevertheless, the folks I'm talking about were ethnically cleansed anyway. It's a major difference between them and the Palestinians--as is these people's response to the trauma they endured. Too bad Big C doesn't respect that response, and prefers violence to peace-making and compromise.

3. Nor is the use of civilians as human shields in Gaza a response to Israeli "occupation", as Big C throws in, since the Israelis left Gaza on its own for the past three years, not a single Israeli was there. Nor is the shooting of 6,000 missles into pre-1967 Israel a response to occupation--unless of course Big C believes that all of Israel is "occupied territory". Is that your position, Big C?

NO--because terrorism by the Palestinians, and the targetting of civilians, and the use of civilians as human shields--all of this is a cultural choice.

It is not a "natural" reaction to a trauma. Examples:

12 million Germans were expelled from eastern Europe, where they had lived for hundreds of years, in 1945; 1 million died; 1 million were raped; they spent years as penniless refugees in displaced-persons camps; and by law they can't go back to (e.g.) Poland or Czech Republic. But you don't see Germans blowing up busses in Danzig.

7 million Hindus were expelled from what became Pakistan in 1947; 1 million of them died. They arrived in India as penniless refugees. But you don't see Hindus blowing up restaurants in Karachi.

850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands, where they had lived for hundreds or even thusands of years, between 1948 and 1960: this is 100,000 MORE people than were displaced and traumatized in the Nakhba, and some Muslilm is enjoying these people's property as we speak. (Somehow, this is never an issue for the UN.) These people arrived in Israel, or Britain, or the U.S. as penniless refugees. But you don't see their descendants blowing up university dining halls in Tunis.

300,000 Greeks were expelled from Egypt, where they had lived for hundreds (or thousands) of years, in 1955: a classic case of ethnic and religious cleansing. But you don't see Greeks blowing up nightclubs in Cairo.

50,000 more Greeks were expelled in the same period from northern Turkey--another classic example of ethnic and religious cleansing. But you don't see them blowing up supermarkets in Trebizond.

Like I said, this kind of violence is a cultural choice. The choice was made by the Palestinians. They were offered a deal in 2000 and they refused it. President Clinton blames Arafat in his memoirs, and Arafat admitted he made a mistake in an interview with Geraldo Rivera in 2002. The Palestinians have to live with the consequences of political mistakes and vicious tactics. They refused a diplomatic solution, and they CHOSE to target civilians, and to fight from among civilians using them as human shields. As the world's most prominent Arab film star, Adel Imam said two days ago, did they expect the Israelis to respond with roses? The deaths of civilians are upon their heads.

This is article is SPOT ON. I have also been reflecting on the Nazi genocide against the Jewish people and how it is that the nation born from that horror can turn around and perpetrate the same crime against the Palestinians in Gaza - except you did it much more elegantly with that description of the Jewish Ghetto. In response to Gary's comment, UN reform is no doubt part of the solution, but if the US stopped funding and supplying Israel's military arsenal, and instead responded appropriately and mutillaterally to these massive breaches of international law, and took seriously the duty to protect, this massacre could be brought to an end very quickly.

Professor Gowlland-Debbas:

1, I don't remember the Warsaw Ghetto shooting 6,000 rockets out into Warsaw, all aimed at civilians (including kindergartens), or the Warsaw Ghetto being heavily armed by a foreign power, or receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid.

2. As for "indiscriminate killing of civilians" (according to Professor G-D), the Associated Press reported the situation as of Monday according to the UN as follows:

U.N. humanitarian chief John Holmes told reporters in New York on Monday that U.N. officials believe at least 500 people have been killed in the fighting and that as many as 25 percent are civilians.

"As many as..." That means, Professor G-D, that AT LEAST 75% of those killed, according to the UN, are Hamas soldiers.

This, after 7 days of air-bombardment and 3 days of ground fighting.

3. Here is what the political philosopher Michael Walzer wrote about what we are witnessing:

When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks intentionally from within civilian Palestinian areas, intentionally using civilians as human shields as they intentionally fire on Israeli civilians, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire.

Period.

The only real solution to the problem you describe is a drastic overhaul of the UN such that democracy is driving force.  Something like this...

http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

I'm open if anyone has a better idea.

gary