The Op-Ed From Hell

There's so much I could say about the Washington Post's decision to run this column by Hamas's Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar. But I find its grossness too obvious and, beyond this short overview, I think I'll just leave it to readers to think for themselves.

Under the pretext of praising Carter's willingness to meet with Hamas, al-Zahar took the opportunity to give us the regular Hamas line on Israel. Here's the most outrageous snippet: "Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world's largest open-air prison, can do no less."

Wow.

Because, you know, Israel deports thousands of Gazans off to extermination camps where they're systematically slaughtered.

To their credit, the WaPost's Editorial board ran this Editorial on the other side of the fold criticizing al-Zahar's piece and even Carter's meeting with Hamas.

Considering the WaPost's innumerable Editorial mess-ups--like the great Charlotte Allen bit a while ago--I was at first more angry at them then at al-Zahar's verbal diarrhea.

After a while to think it over, however, I've decided that it's a good thing that the world can see a concentrated and focused expression of the Hamas line. I have no doubt that those who see for themselves what Hamas stands for will side even more strongly with the view that the Palestinian's chance at getting their own state and finding peace with Israel is only dampened by the noxious influence of such despicable snakes.

Israel Thoughts agin...Follow Follow Follow-Up

This is the latest on Israel.


Two important things to comment on:

(1) Practically, it is no coincidence that in less than 2 years after Israel pulled out its troops from Gaza a hostile government has been set-up. This would seem to prove its aggressive occupational policies are the most effective as for as keeping its citizens safe from Palestinian terrorists. This is no different than Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights--where, besides last summer's flare of violence, Israel's northern border has been more secure.

(2) Philosophically, we see yet another point for strength, aggressiveness, and non-peace. Hamas has taken over the government (something that is ideally meant to be fought over only ideologically) with nothing but sheer power. Likewise, Israel is not protected by anything except a like power.

A new reality may be fast approaching. It is one in which the West Bank (where Israel still has troops) remains mostly occupied and Gaza (now the Hamas-State) becomes a rogue state on Israel's border. Israel is screwed policy-wise. It has to do some serious locking down if it wants to secure the West Bank from a similar Hamas coup, and yet any strong action on Israel's part would do nothing except galvanize Anti-Israeli sentiment in the territories--at least theoretically contributing to Hamas's power.

Wow.

Israel Thoughts, again...follow follow-up

This is the newest NyTimes article on the debacle in Gaza. For those who might not think their violent takeover is a big deal consider this:

Hamas states in its constitution that one of its goals is to remove Israel of the planet and Jews along with it.

Also, Hamas is an out and out terrorist organization that has taken credit for numerous bombings and attacks in Israel over the years. Although many say that it is a civilian organization, this must be taken with a grain of salt: it is actually an organization not far from the likes of that controlled by Pablo Escabar. So while there is a side of legitimacy (Hamas was, after all, elected in an election in the territories and has been in charge of numerous civilian operations like hospitals, etc.) there is also a dangerous, covert, and fundamentalist side to it that scares the living crap out of me.

Hamas is not willing to recognize, let alone live peacably alongside, Israel (because Jews are inherently the enemy) and is thus unwilling to cooperate in peace talks. Any hopes for a two-state solution are pretty much in the past tense at this point.

It is hard to imagine the Palestinian territories controlled completely by Hamas ever not engaging in some kind of war with Israel. It would not matter who fired the first shot--the two are fundamentally opposed to each other: it is in each's essence to destroy the other.

Someone needs to explain to me how Hamas's violent (and, it looks like, complete) political and military takeover of the territories is a good thing. It is bad for a two-state, placating solution; it is bad for the Palestinians whose political rights have been usurped (what if the democrats killed republican leaders, bombed their offices, and established complete power? surely there would be no republican voter feeling safe in his\her opinion); it is bad for the Israelis, who are forced to either act and be aggressive or not act and risk the appearance of weakness; and, of course, it is bad for the whole world's wish for peace.

Here's to a miracle awakening on the part of Hamas's leadership...may they see that political control needs not be used for monomaniacal thoughts of violence and domination but for a united front towards independence and peace.

Israel Thoughts, again...

so i'm sitting here reading the nytimes and i see an article about factional fighting in gaza. apparently a fatah political leader was shot 40 times execution style by some hamas militants. my usual reaction to this storyline is something like, "how can they have their own state or gain any kind of political legitimacy when the two political parties, instead of fighting in the polls, actually shoot and kill each other." but this time it was different: this time i read the article 4 seconds after sending an email to a family friend asking whether i can stay at his sister's place in jerusalem, where i plan to do some research. and now i see the story was written in jerusalem.

it sets off a completely new line of thinking helping to explain the incongruity in my mostly liberal approach to politics when it comes to israel. how can i possibly think of (let alone look forward to) doing research in a city with as much violence in its environs as jerusalem? well, because i feel safe there. and that's the point. i realize that the often inappropriate actions of israel are made in order for that country to remain livable. i realize the wall, for example, has helped make israel safer and it makes me hesitant to blast it outright--even as i walk around berlin and witness firsthand the omnipotent damage a wall can cause.

of course, it would be absolutely absent of me if i didn't acknowledge how selfish this thought is, if i didn't recognize the opposing argument that israel shouldn't be livable for people like me, that it may never have been "mine" to begin with.

but that would blow this into the impossibly settled debate that dominates the whole issue. i don't care to get into any of that now. instead, i realize how unique a case israel is. it has fought for its borders numerous times in the 60 years of its existence and therefore has found plenty of reason to justify its most controversial and violent actions. it has done this while remaining a hotbed of innovation and culture and a state where a middle class thrives.

i realize that i don't feel afraid of going to israel because of its history of protecting itself. is the fact that i support the violent oneupsmanship a terrible realization?

or just the facts of life?

"Lebanese" Refugee Camps

I am interested by a couple things regarding the recent violence in Lebanese Palestinian refugee camps:

(1) Where are all the Palestinian-American protests against the Lebanese government? Many of the same factors--like that Palestinians are under attack, like that Fatah is involved--that are in Gaza and the West Bank can be seen in Lebanon but I have yet to see cries of injustice leveled against the Lebanese. What's with the inconsistency on the part of Palestinian advocates? As far as I can tell the Lebanese government attacked the camps with little provocation and many lives have been lost, yet there has been less outcry than when the Israeli Army conducts any operation in one of the territories.

(2) Why are they called "Lebanese" Refugee Camps and not "Palestinian" ones? What if Gaza and the West Bank were called "Israeli" Refugee Camps?

I'm not trying to hint at any kind of media conspiracy, I'm trying to highlight some intriguing non-parallels between what appears to be two similar ongoing confrontations between Palestinian refugees and their host country's government/military.

Israel-Palestinian Conflict Comment

Here's the question:

Insofar as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a media war, meaning that the success of either side lays in their depiction in the media--whichever side is seen in a better light (usually whichever side is being MORE victimized at any particular time) is the "winning" side for that time--why would Israel decide that THIS of all times (while Hamas and Fatah are killing their own people in their own streets, making them look greedy, selfish, and barbarously violent) is a good time to go into the West Bank on some huge operation?

Belated Comments Jimmy Carter's Book

It seems to me that Carter's book was 2006's version of the debate around Spielberg's Munich in 2005--a hot topic that every member of the Jewish community felt strong enough about to form some opinion.

So naturally I have an opinion. But it holds little weight because I haven't read the book.

In any case, this is what I think: from reading about those former members of Carter's inner circle, it would seem that Carter has either lost his mind or spontaneously decided to place himself on the Palestinians' side. Because of Carter's commitment to peace around the globe, and the importance of his reputation as a non-governmental
negotiator, however, it doesn't make sense that he would take such a stand.

The thing is, it would be foolish to base an opinion solely around these dissenters, who are Jewish and Zionist. They provide just as half-hearted an objectivity as Carter's book did through all its
antics.

The only logical conclusion I can draw, then, is that Carter consciously chose to write an inflammatory book in hope that he could slap Israel and the Jewish diaspora in the face, waking them up and jump-starting the peace process.

Obviously, he and/or his PR team underestimated the Jews' would-be reaction to such a call out. Personally, I find using the word Apartheid as inappropriate, offensive, and historically manipulative as when throwing around Hitler's name and Holocaust buzzwords just for their power. Unfortunately, because the media has grouped Israel's occupation of the territories with the Iraq War, it has suddenly become perfectly popular to compare Israel to so many horrible historical or current examples, even though every situation is unique and carries with it years of complex sequences that should eliminate any quick judgments.

In so far as Carter's goal was presumably a shot at peace (albeit a sort of shot in the dark), it should be admired. But on the other hand, such an approach seems immature to me and completely unfitting for a supposedly neutral--and important--world figure.

The Real Isreali-Palestinian Conflict is Stupid, and Here

One of the first things I asked a Palestinian-American friend of mine recently, when I found out about her ethnic background, was how devout a Muslim she was. “That’s weird,” she said, “that’s always the first thing everyone asks me when they find out I’m Arab.”

I asked her if that bothered her. “Not really. It’s just that all of a sudden my Muslim identity has become very public,” she said.

Ok, Ok. I asked a stereotypically loaded question, maybe akin to asking Josh, “How many pairs of chopsticks do you have?” But was it really that bad? Was I falling into line with mainstream narrow minded America and judging this girl, my classmate and friend, simply by her brown skin and religion? No way.

At least, I don’t see it that way. I see it as a product of today’s socio-global culture (if it wasn’t a term before, it is now). The fact of the matter is that the War on Terror and Globalization have teamed up to make Islam and the Arab world an interest on the top of every Westerner’s mind. And truthfully, it’s based on precedent and common reason.

Consider the fascination with Eastern European languages during the Cold War: it makes sense that we should be curious about our supposed dialectical antithesis.

In other words, my question wasn’t shallow or demeaning. It was important and educational. The sheer rubbing of perspectives, as we sat and chatted, was conducive to developing both of our broader mindsets and views on the world.

Now, we gracefully evaded emotional issues on Palestine and Israel, but we were able to talk about the way those issues are displayed around the country. I mentioned how, at Stanford University, the campus has recently burst into near-riotous squabbling about the conflict. Students are writing grosser and more groundless, passionate messages in the newspaper and in letters to the editor everyday.

How virulent both sides are, to frame the situation and inevitably lose sight of practical purpose! How similar both sides are, in their emotionally driven arguments and fallacy-ridden propaganda machines! How irrational both sides are, to promulgate peace behind pamphlets of insidious generalizations and groundless jeremiads!

My friend and I sat on the porch of JJ, though it was dark and below 30 degrees. We were both cold, both tired. It was late.

What else is there to say?