The Anglican Bishops of Winchester, Exeter and Bath and Wells have lent their support to a campaign to punish Israel for its military offensive against Hamas in Gaza. On Jan 5 the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Rt Rev Michael Langrish and the Rt Rev Peter Price joined over 200 public figures in calling upon Prime Minister Gordon Brown to block plans to lower trade barriers between the EU and Israel for being in what they claim is the Jewish state’s breach of international law.
The Jan 5 petition published in the Guardian newspaper comes amidst growing unease from Anglican leaders over the battle for Gaza. Church leaders have criticized Israel’s “disproportionate” response of invading Gaza to put an end to rocket attacks launched by the extremist group Hamas.
*Sigh*
There you have it: The voice of TEC and tolerance is in favor of an unbalanced political stance that may naively lead to the final solution.
Yes, I agree with those Bishops – doesn’t anyone have a final solution?
Crap.
AP+
You don’t win wars using proportionate force, you win wars using disproportionate force. Proportionate force only results in stalemate.
Disestablish quickly and get those loons out of the house of Lords. What, pray tell, did England do under German bombardments?? Is there any need for a carbon offset for this stuff??
And the bombing of Dresden was a disproportionate response for the Nazi’s V2 rockets?
How soon we forget history.
The Bishops of Winchester, Exeter and Bath would jolly well strike back if there were rockets being rained on their locales. What a bunch of simple, blind hypocrites.
A number of comments have been removed. We understand that emotions are running high but we ask commenters to raise the level on this thread, failing which it will be closed
“Church leaders have criticized Israel’s “disproportionate†response of invading Gaza to put an end to rocket attacks launched by the extremist group Hamas.”
9/11 was plotted and organized in Afghanistan and we invaded said country as a response, and the UK was party to that invasion (still is). So what do the good bishops propose for the UK and US?
There is very little leeway to raise the level on this thread, because the statement by the Anglican bishops as cited is so incredibly stupid (note I say the statement is stupid, not the bishops) that in all honesty, there is nothing to respond to except to note despair and disgust with their statement, and to suggest that the Anglican bishops concentrate more on the problems in their own church and leave diplomacy and decisions on war to those better equipped to deal with them. I truly wish these bishops had something worthwhile to say – I think the world needs to hear Christian response to war and terrorism – but the constant drone against Israel becomes innervating. I don’t remember them speaking out over the past several months as Hamas in Gaza lobbed bombs into Israel. If they did, I would love to know about it, but somehow, I don’t think anyone is going to be able to direct me to a statement from them about that. Sorry, but cynicism abounds.
Well, I’ll start by quoting the last two paragraphs of the article:
[blockquote]Church supporters of Israel however called the unilateral ceasefire demand naïve. Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East said that while many church leaders were calling for a ceasefire, “we challenge them to acknowledge not only the human suffering, but the political realities in the region.†“In November 2001, Hamas, which openly declares its commitment to the destruction of the State of Israel, began a terror campaign launching rockets from Gaza into civilian targets within Israel,” stated the Rev Bruce Chilton, Professor of Religion at Bard College in New York.
“It was Hamas that chose not to extend the existing ceasefire on Dec 18, resuming hundreds of attacks on the civilian population in Southern Israel. It is Hamas that chooses, with the Israeli army sitting right outside Gaza, to continue to target civilian areas in towns behind the army,†he said.[/blockquote]
I’d add to that some consideration of Hamas’ strategy. The higher the death count of Palestinians and the higher the proportion of civilians, the greater the sympathy for Hamas. So, Hamas has engaged in a deliberate campaign to maximize Palestinian civilian deaths. They use their own people as human shields, launching attacks on Israel from civilian neighborhoods, even schools, and daring Israel to strike back.
In the recent UN school case, it appears that Hamas fighters had stored explosives in the school that would ignite in a battle. And there has been one survivor who says he was being held there against his will by Hamas fighters.
The issue of proportionality goes out the window when one side is deliberately increasing the deaths of its own civilians.
This is really a frightening time for Israel. I have serious questions about the future of US policy concerning this small, precarious nation. The level of anti-Israel and pro-Palestine rhetoric is distressing. It seems unfair to me and a poor reading of history.
Let me be clear before I start my comment that I think Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza are both at some fault here. Neither side comes out smelling like a rose here.
That having been said, there is a lot of talk by world leaders, religious and political, about Israel using “disproportionate force.” While there might be some merit in that argument, no one seems to be laying any benchmarks or parameters about what is or would be appropriate proportional force.
If Hamas was indeed firing 50 mortars into Israel per day, as the article at one point claims, would 50 missiles or random mortars into Gaza be proportional and somehow more moral? To me, if we are, as some of the religious leaders are suggesting, about peace and love as Jesus teaches, what would possibly be seen then as a proportional response by Israel that is appropriate?
To me, that logic is self defeating. Calling for sanctions based upon disproportional violence seems to be a very bizarre argument. They seem to be trying to make a dovish argument based upon hawkish principles, and it can’t stand one way or the other.
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3651783,00.html
Perhaps the bishops will have words for thievery, use of human shields, and deliberate use of public institutions as points from which to launch attacks so as to maximize casualties in an effort to fool persons such as themselves?
The concept of proportionality has significance in international law.
But what is a “proportionate” under the circumstances? Hamas (which runs a tight ship) has long allowed rocket attacks attacks against Israel, and those attacks have grown increasingly more frequent. Tit-for-tat, rocket-for-rocket retaliation would not resolve the problem.
This may be superfluous, but just to highlight the “disproportionate” argument as well as the comparative silence on the Palestinian side:
While the cease-fire was in place, and generally honored by Israel, and Hamas was firing rockets at Israeli civilians… wasn’t that a “disproportionate” action on the part of the Palestinians??? So disproportionate that it can’t even be calculated, as you can’t divide anything by zero. So the bishops in this case run the risk of appearing to be politically biased by advocating against one side but not the other.
Thank God these men are just CofE Bishops and not in any position where they could actually hurt anyone or cause any damage. I also thank God that they are probably getting more notice here on this blog than anywhere else in society.
As a retired military officer, war is brutal, chaotic, and sometimes innocent lives are lost. For religious leaders to interfere in this episode is lunacy. Israel is conducting a military operation to remove a threat, given the terrain and the tactics used by Hamas, that are continually ignored by the media, UN, and CofE Bishops, civilians are going to be harmed. That is the tragic reality. A disproportionate response will be for Israel to do to Gaza what the Romans did to Carthage. I am not advocating such a response, however, Israel is fighting a proxy war that I fear we (the US and Europe) will eventually end up fighting. Hamas et.al. must be defeated.
I suppose with Bishops like these the capital of the Uk would be Edinburgh, not London. One of my favorite WWII photos is of an Anglican Priest in the British Home Guard circa 1940 – he is drilling with a Lee-Enfield the Time Life caption reads “bowed but not broken”.
Statements by religious leaders do influence people. When the mullahs preach jihad, lots of young Muslims listen. When the Church of England bishops speak people are influenced for good or bad. Christ’s enemies have often enlisted the words of bishops to use as ammunition against the Church.
There seems to be some doubt as to the exact quote and proper attribution but there is a saying that involves ‘the road to hell’ and the either ‘the bones of priests’ and/or ‘the skulls of bishops’. Perhaps there is some relevance to pronouncements by senior clerics; perhaps not. In any case the innocent continue to suffer as Diogenes wanders for answers in Gaza.
One difference, though, Alice, is that young muslims have been indoctrinated purposely (alias brainwashed or conditioned in medrassas) to listen to and obey the mullahs whereas the young people in the Church of England are not and are probably hooked up to some electronic device and scarcely aware of what their bishops have to say.
As bishops in Christ’s church, however, they have increased responsibility to Him for their words, actions and thinking.
This comment from Stand Firm is appropriate for this thread and too good not to post:
“England once faced the same dilemna. The Germans were launching V1 and V2 rockets willy-Nilly against England and were particularly trying to hit the large civilian population of London. What was the reaction of the English and their American allies? Well, they wiped Dresden, Germany off the map for one thing among many others. Eventually, the Allies won an unconditional surrender of the Germans.
If Katherine Jefforts Schori had made similar statements in that era, they would have tried her for treason and thrown her in a dark, cold jail cell (if not worse).” from ‘athan-asi-us’
[i] They wiped Dresden, Germany off the map [/i] —GA/FL [#18]
What did that accomplish?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I know of no case in which the Allies jailed anyone for criticizing the bombing of Dresden. The Associated Press carried an article by one of its war correspondents calling the bombing an act of terror. Some newspapers editorialized against it.
Six weeks later Churchill himself wrote that “the moment has come when the question of [i]bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts[/i], should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. . . . The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing.”
FWIW the George Bell, Bishop of Chichester did criticize the bombing of German cities during WW2. Indeed the wisdom of the area bombing of German cities was debated within the RAF and even by Churchill during the latter stages of the war.
The conduct of the war was, in fact, debated publically in both Houses of Parliament during the war.
I wonder if our discussion might benefit from using the resources of the just war tradition within Christian theology?
Here for example, in the initial draft of a telegram to the RAF Church expresses concerns over area bombing and in particular the bombing of Dresden:
Should say Churchill (not Church)!
Dresden doesn’t seem to be on the point here, since the Israelis are not in fact razing Gaza. Civilian casualties, insofar as who is a civilian can be determined, are increased by Hamas actions in placing military hardware and ammunition stores in civilian areas, such as the school, and in deliberately using the population as shields or targets. Islamists such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda have no honor.
I’m not sure what punishment would do. Best to continue supporting the Gazan and Palestinian Christians who are suffering.
The Palestinians are living under utter misery. There’s nobody (not even that many Arabs) who loves Hamas, but the fact is that civilians are suffering, many are starving, and they shouldn’t have to. And in the long run, it just makes Hamas stronger. The religion of violence in either party doesn’t bring peace.
I admit that I see Hamas more like the KKK than, say, Libya. The best way to put it down is to make it irrelevant. Or bring it into a political party, like the way the Jabotinsky or Irgun (or Sinn Fein) was. But as long as people believe in the myth that the other side ONLY understands force, there will be misery. And Hamas never had the firepower that Israel had. Further, they were probably the worst shots in the mideast. Which was a good thing, because there weren’t many Israeli casualties. But who mourns for the Palestinian children? Or do we just shout in righteousness over their dead babies?
But on the other hand the Israelis have unlimited American arms and ammunition to blow up whoever they want. What kind of honor is that?
I mourn for the Palestinian children, JW #24. How do you propose to make Hamas “irrelevant” other than by defeating it? Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the removal of Jews. Critics say that the policy of placing settlements in Gaza and the West Bank is the cause of the trouble. So, Israel completely withdrew from Gaza, including dragging some settlers out by force. The rocket attacks continued, and the indoctrination of the children into a culture of hate has accelerated.
Egypt has indeed dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood by allowing it to participate in politics (its people must run as “independents”). But this is backed up by government police and military power, which keeps a very tight rein on the Brotherhood, periodically throwing activists in prison and forbidding public demonstrations and too vehement criticism of the government. Is this what you propose? Direct Israeli rule of Gaza and police power enforcement? Until a “Palestinian” government with a serious commitment to a two-state polity and the guts to control the terrorists arises, I see no solution. The ball is in the Palestinian court and has been for several years.
These English bishops were only recently released from prison, where they were held in solitary confinement, and had no access to computers or writing implements. Otherwise, they surely would have criticized the incessant rocket attacks from Gaza against Israeli noncombatants that gave rise to Israel’s retaliatory military measures.
Wow, I agree with John Wilkins.
Look, Israel has a well-equipped military and sophisticated defense. Hamas does not and uses the despicable tactic of hiding what weapons they have in schools, neighborhoods, and mosques and using civilians as shields. BOTH are engaging in tactics to force international opinion and BOTH sides are taking mostly civilian casualties.
Israel needs to focus on intelligence and infiltration to take out Hamas extremists and break the radicals’ backs, not inflict more violence on the Palestinian people at large. They ignore the fact that the Palestinian people are suffering and Hamas is the primary organization for providing medical care, food, and other aid to the Palestinian people. The Israeli policies and checkpoints make it difficult for the Palestinians to earn a living and survive, which turns the people to Hamas. This breeds more terrorism.
It’s a cycle without end unless the power player — Israel — takes steps to change it by ending the indiscriminate bombing and focusing on a more intelligent and less costly elimination of radicals. And by allowing the Palestinians the ability to work and provide for their families and imagine a hopeful future. Without hope, all they can do is fight even while knowing they will be crushed.
But Israel knows this, they’re far from stupid. Perhaps they WANT to eliminate the Palestinians? We should be very concerned about the rapidly dwindling numbers of Palestinian Christians. They’re leaving the Holy Land in droves because they can’t afford to remain due to social policies there. Israel is NOT the blameless, tolerant state it claims to be.
“Indiscriminate bombing?” Where do you get that? And all of your other solutions, teatime #28, have been tried before. Shooting only at missile-launch targets, targeted removal of terrorist leaders, restraint, withdrawal — all have been tried. If the authorities in Gaza would take steps to stop the firing of rockets into Israel this all would end. They don’t want to stop, and they don’t want this to end. They think Israel won’t have the guts to see this through, based on the Israeli back-down against Hezbollah a couple of years ago. We’ll see. Meanwhile, Palestinian people are used as pawns by their own leaders as they have been for years.
That is ridiculous, teatime. The Israelis are well aware of public opinion and do their best to minimize civilian causalities whereas Hamas tries to maximize them (and Hezbollah before). The bombing is far from indiscriminate but rather is using the latest technology to precisely target where the missiles are artillery is based. Hamas fires artillery from a school or a “mosque” and Israel 30 seconds later fires back. Don’t blame Israel for the casualties.
As a former military officer, I have to agree with #13. However, I would take this further. Israel is foolishly NOT doing enough. This will not sound like a Christian response, but it is true. As long as Israel allows “humanitarian” aid to get through, lives are being wasted by not bringing this to an end. Hamas is just a puppet for Iran and will not stop until being brought totally to their knees. Not allowing any aid of any kind will bring them to their knees quicker, taking fewer lives in the process. The press and the Church didn’t argue about “proportional” responses during WWII. That was the last war that was fought to win. This thing between Israel and Hamas will accomplish nothing until Israel deceides they have had enough and declares an unconditional war so they achieve an unconditional surrender. The bishops should consider how it is to live with uncontrolled rocket attacks on a civilian population. That is what London experienced during WWII, and it is what Israel suffers today. The weapons are not meant to totally destroy, but are terror weapons desinged to bring an enemy down by terrorizing the civilian population until they give up.
#28, your theory fails because you have it backwards. Iran is the “power player” and they are the ones propping up Hamas to wage a proxy war for them. If Israel uses this so theoretical “proportional response”, Iran continues to build Hamas or anyone else who would attack Israel. Unless you have experienced this type of war, you will not understand. Who are the civilians? Who are the Hamas soldiers? What is a military target? What is civilian “colateral damage”? Israel is fighting a shadow force against them. You can not distinguish military from civilian. Why? Because Hamas is using any tactic they can to gain sympathy while continuing to attack Israel. You cannot negotiate with a fanatic of any type. Hamas and other terror groups in the middle east are all anti Israel fanatics. Notice I did not say religious fanatics. Hamas could care less about Islams religious teachings. They were raised to hate Israel and have been indoctrinated by the Mullahs to do just what they are doing, trying to eliminate Israel through any means necessary. Political will not work so they try terror weapons.
Canon Andrew White on the BBC Radio 4 ‘Sunday’ Program gave a clear view that Israelis are suffering under bombardment from Hamas rockets and that Palestinian civilians are suffering from the attacks mounted by Israeli forces in the last week. We have seen pictures of the suffering, notwithstanding the Israeli press embargo: the wounded and dead children, the grieving parents, the houses and apartments destroyed, the hospitals full and running out of medicines and consequently people dying and in agony.
Both Israeli and Palestinian people are suffering and perhaps in our humanity as Christians we should not harden our hearts to the suffering of one side or the other but encourage both sides to step down from the current path. And much prayer for peace is needed.
If the Muslim world is so concerned about the plight about the Palestinians, then how come the border Gaza shares with EGYPT is not open? Last I heard, the Egyptian military opened fire on refugees attempting to flee via that route. Why no condemnation of Egypt from the Anglican Clerics (good band name, by the way!).
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
#34 libraryjim,
If the facts don’t fit the narrative, ignore the facts!
#34, Egypt has not opened the border in part because of an implicit agreement with the Israelis. That’s the border where the weapons can come through. You forget that Egypt is also on the American payroll and has a peace agreement with Israel.
Hamas has said that if there were a referendum on a two state solution that the Palestinians supported, they would back that. On the other hand, Israel has never quite given up the dream of ethnically cleansing the West Bank and Gaza, I believe. Nor have they responded to the Arab Peace Initiative.
#36, in even greater part because the Egyptian government views Gazans as hard-core radicals and troublemakers. They have enough trouble with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt without letting Gazans in.
[blockquote]#34, Egypt has not opened the border in part because of an implicit agreement with the Israelis. That’s the border where the weapons can come through. [/blockquote]
It always seems that Gaza has plenty of money for weapons, never quite enough for food, medicine, repair parts, etc. I think that makes clear the agenda of the guys running the show there.
Last January when Hamas blew open the Egyptian barrier, Gaza residents spent $25 million in the Egyptian border town in one week, and they commented on how poor the Egyptians were, which they are in that area. Of the $25 million, at least $1.5 million was counterfeit, thus ripping off the poor Egyptians to boot.
#38, that’s right. Unfortunately, war just strengthens them because they are seen as the only game in town.
Katherine: Egyptians view Hamas as hardcore radicals. That’s true. But not all Gazans think the same. Most of them voted for Hamas because 1) Israel wasn’t negotiating with either Fateh and Hamas and 2) Hamas at the time was less corrupt internally. They voted for Hamas mainly because Hamas operated most of the social service agencies and promised a clean government. Israel wasn’t giving Fatah anything to begin with. It was a rational choice given that negotiations were going poorly.
The only thing that probably defines all Gazans is that they are desperate, poor and starving. It’s hard to imagine what we’d do in a similar situation.
#40, you are probably correct in why Gazans voted for Hamas. But Hamas has repaid them with false coin. It was a bad choice, and Gazans are paying in blood, which is what Hamas wants. It’s tragic.
[blockquote]#38, that’s right. Unfortunately, war just strengthens them because they are seen as the only game in town. [/blockquote]
I think it’s the “in town” aspect that Israel is working on at the moment.
I don’t see any reason why Israel should countenance an eliminationinst, exterminationist criminal band which has acquired the capabilities to act on its intentions on its border.
There is no hope for peace without the destruction of Hamas, a vile, antisemitic Islamofascist death cult funded by Iran.
They might be ‘the worst shots in the Middle East’, but you don’t need a good aim with a Grad missile armed with poison gas or nuclear weapons.
Look, from my point of view, all my enemies are terrorists because I’m terrorized by them. Love your friends, hate your enemies. that’s human nature.
It seems that most of the arguments rely on the concept that Hamas is a lot like Satan. It is, by its nature, evil and one does not engage with evil in any sense.
I understand such a view, but I don’t think its one that leads to a permanent peace.
There are other historical examples. There have been lots of terrorist bands throughout history. Hamas is not the first one.
Hamas thrives on bitterness, rage, resentment and anger. As long as there are those feelings, “terrorists” will thrive.
The best way to eliminate Hamas is to give Palestinians a reason to believe there are better alternatives. Most Palestinians think Israel wants to eliminate them anyways. Why not go down swinging?
This is not my view, of course.
John or anyone – can you point to a successful handling of terrorism that was peaceful? I’m serious and not sarcastic. The instances that come to my mind from the past didn’t have happy endings. Early terrorists in Russia led, ultimately, to the revolution. Has there been, in the past, such organized and well funded terrorism? What stopped it? If there is a way to stop it peacefully, I am all in favor of it – but history doesn’t make me at all sanguine and I certainly think that a nation has a right to defend itself from people determined to exterminate it. If there are people who oppose Hamas but are caught up in this – my heart breaks for them.
The best way to eliminate Hamas is to give Palestinians a reason to believe there are better alternatives.
You do see that that certainly goes both ways? Especially since Hamas and other have proclaimed their intent to destroy Israel? I don’t recall Israel making the reverse proclamation? What better alternatives would make this stop?
The Palestinians rejected Clinton’s peace plan which was favorable to the Palestinians. Israel is not ethnically cleansing Gaza or indiscrimiately boming Gaza. This action in no way even remotely resembles Dresden. Gazans voted for Hammas because they favor a military solution. The Arab world uses the TV medium better than anyone for propaganda points – plenty of useful idiots to help them there.
Hammas uses schools, beaches, apartments from which to launch attacks – I assume that Israeli motar/artillary units have radar equipment in order to launch counter battery fire at the launch point of Hammas’ motars and rockets – which is why Hammas fires from schools and areas populated by civillians. The Israelis thus have two bad choices – grin and bear it or fire back knowing that Hammas will score propaganda points
Sherri,2, you are right. Over the last ten years a score of Israelis have been killed near Gaza. Granted, I have never heard that Israel would grant the Palestinians a right to a state. They also believe that the Palestinians should be pushed into the sea (or Jordan, at least).
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html
No, John Wilkins, you are way, way behind on information. Israel has been making territorial concessions for years now, and the idea of a united Israel encompassing all of the West Bank is a dream long gone. At this point, given the continuing attacks on Jews, it looks like Israel will be what ever is within that security fence, and “Palestine” whatever is outside it. In 1998 (’99?) both sides were within a hair of a permanent solution which gave Palestinians 95% of what they wanted plus recognition as a state. The old thug Arafat wouldn’t sign it, and there went Bill Clinton’s Peace Prize and the lives of many more Israelis and Palestinians.
You shouldn’t be getting information from Robert Fisk. He’s hardly an objective observer.
[url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123549]See here[/url] for the status of the negotiations, JW. Israel is, naturally, negotiating with the West Bank authorities as they are relatively more rational than the Hamas people. The sticking points are, as usual, the exact outlines of the Israeli and Palestinian borders and the “right of return.” That last one will bring the whole deal down if Abbas continues to insist on it. The descendants of the original refugees are to be allowed to flood Israel, but I note that the descendants of the Jewish refugees pushed out of all of the Arab countries are not to be compensated at all. If the Palestinians would accept monetary compensation and make refugees citizens of the new Palestinian state this could readily be settled.
Katherine, if you can find me the actual text of an offer to Arafat, I’m open to it. I’d believe you if they weren’t still building settlements.
If you are going to bash Fisk, you might also provide evidence. He is one of the few reporters that actually speaks Arabic and has lived in the region. He is, in my view, one of the few reliable reporters because – unlike most observers – interviews Arabs as well.
John, I suggest you do some googling. It was extensively reported at the time. The comment about 95% of what they wanted comes from Dennis Ross, who was personally involved, and has been reappointed to the Obama team.
There are reams of reports from people who speak Arabic and disagree with Fisk. The Arab governments are not supporting Hamas today because they recognize this as a proxy battle with Iran. Read some right-wing sources as well as your left-wingers for a more balanced view. Got to run; must get ready for Friday morning church in Cairo.
Start by reading the link I posted.
And why is it that Jewish villages (settlements) are to be forbidden in Palestine, but the descendants of the Arab refugees are to be allowed into Israel? “Apartheid” works both ways. You don’t see the inappropriateness of a Jew-free West Bank?
Katherine, that was based on leaks. My point: there was no formal offer or document. Arafat was offered some verbal promises, but nothing in the details. There was little reason for him to trust Israel, given that the settlements were still built.
The problem of Israeli settlers is interesting, but I think that if Israeli settlers wanted to live under Palestinian rule, they might – but they’d have to share their water. They’d have to live submitting the Palestinian rule. And the problem is that they believe they should be living in Greater Israel.
I also think that the press is, generally on the side of the governments and militaries. Fisk reports from the side of the people. But who is fluent in Arabic? And where, exactly, is he wrong? He’s remarkably unbiased and evenhanded in his treatement of ARab regimes (he doesn’t seem to like any of them), but he doesn’t idealize Israel.
Ah, “the people.” It all depends, doesn’t it, on which “people” one talks to. Fisk is wrong in that he is reflexively anti-Western and pro-militant. It is a mystery to me to contemplate so many Western left-wingers who routinely overlook the very oppressive and regressive tendencies in radical Islam, which is what Hamas et al. represent.
Neither do I idolize Israel. The point is that Jews living in the West Bank, if “Palestine” ever materializes as a nation, would have to indeed live under Palestinian administration. And Arabs living in Israel have to live under Israeli/Jewish administration. My husband has an employee here in Egypt who has relatives living in Israel. He reports that they are financially comfortable, can vote, can criticize the government, and are completely free to practice their Muslim religion without interference (this man just completed the Hajj, so he is a religious Muslim). In several respects, and this man made the point, they are more free than their relatives in Egypt.
And why are the walls, the checkpoints, and all of the difficulties associated with them, necessary? Because radicals in Palestine consider it a religious duty to murder Jews, and the authorities failed to make serious effort to stop this activity. And why is Israel currently fighting Hamas in Gaza? Because Hamas made no serious efforts to stop the rocket attacks; indeed, Hamas funds them and encourages them. If Hamas does not want Israel in Gaza, ALL it has to do is stop the attacks.
As to written proposals, that’s a flimsy excuse. They were at the negotiating table and the agreement was ready. On the flip side, Hamas’ charter, which is readily available online (see the links at [url=http://themcj.com/?p=1909]this post[/url] on Chris Johnson’s site), says clearly in writing and in graphics that Hamas does not accept the existence of the state of Israel in any form, with any borders, 1967 or otherwise, and considers it all Palestine, no matter what they tell Robert Fisk.
Basically, you believe Fisk and his radical sources, and you don’t believe Israelis. You have even stated, several times, that you think the Egyptian government is under some kind of Jewish control with reference to this matter. This is nonsense. And time and again Israeli reports and investigations have turned out to be accurate, and Palestinian charges and reports have turned out to be either exaggerated or deliberately falsified. This doesn’t mean that Israelis are always right and Palestinians always wrong, but it does raise questions. I look for confirmation before believing Hamas statements and reports.
Katherine: do we read the same Robert Fisk?
After reading Fisk’s book the Great War of Civilization, where he has names, quotes, and documents, he has some justification for his views. He’s not pro-Islamic (I think he is, personally, an atheist and culturally he’s a Christian). He’s anti-Hamas and anti-Fundamentalist overall. He’s anti-Saudi government, but notes how the Americans slighted and were completely ignorant of Saudi culture. He demonstrates how Saddam brutalized his own citizens and how the Americans misled the Iraqis.
Katherine, do all Palestinians consider it their religious duty to murder settlers? I find that hard to believe. I think it is more likely that Palestinians think that settlers have stolen Palestinian land. And that might make some Palestinians pretty angry. But if you can find me a text where Israeli Settlers think Palestinians have a right to Judah and Samaria, I’ll be taught. For them, the land is theirs. It’s not even stealing. I think this might make Palestinians resentful.
Nobody here supports Hamas. Saying that Israel bombed Palestinian children does not mean I’ve decided to support Hamas. It does not mean I believe all Arabs. It does mean that in war, there are no clean hands.
JW, I think we’ve reached the end of this discussion. I tried to find materials on Robert Fisk; his name, in non-leftist circles, is synonymous with grossly biased reporting. See [url=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/19033_The_Lies_and_Distortions_of_Robert_Fisk]this excerpt[/url] of a review of his book by Efraim Karsh, a well-known and well-credentialed academic in the history of the Middle East. The entire review is only available to subscribers, and I don’t subscribe, which is why I give you this excerpt. It gives you the flavor of the criticism.
If you want reporting by people in the area and with access to real Arab people, presumably you also read Michael Totten and Michael Yon, the latter having done the best reporting bar none from Iraq and Afghanistan?