Minimize

Welcome!

Chris Powell – The Palestinian principle: The worst defeat is peace.

Big Al
September 2, 2014

Chris is an old friend from Gata and the Managing Editor of The Journal Inquirer located in North-central Connecticut. He wrote this editorial which was published in The Journal Inquirer in late July.

 

“Among nations only Israel is expected to provide food, water, electricity, and medicine to its enemy in wartime, an enemy that long has been sworn to Israel’s destruction and has been attacking the country for years.

This has been the story of Gaza since the Hamas movement took power there, and Israel has complied with such ridiculous expectations. Since Israel has been the great enabler of Gaza under Hamas, the Gaza problem has been Israel’s own fault.

Now that Israel has started to fight back, maybe the problem will be solved, though of course not without great human and material loss and not without hypocritical regret from the rest of the world — regret not for the human and material loss but for Israel’s solving its problem, a problem no other nation would tolerate for an instant.

Unlike the United States lately, Israel at last may have realized that the only way to wage war is to win. This alarms Israel’s adversaries and others, who denounce Israel’s lack of “proportionality” in the war with Gaza. But “proportionality” is the formula for losing war or for perpetual war without result — which, as a policy urged on Israel, seems to be the idea.

For the United States, World War II began with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which destroyed much of the U.S. Pacific fleet and killed 2,403 Americans, mostly military personnel. The war ended not merely because of the destruction by the United States of the Japanese fleet and the infliction of 2,403 Japanese military casualties but because of the leveling of industrial Japan, the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and a million Japanese civilians — and even then Japan’s military regime nearly decided to fight on.

Because of its “occupation” and “blockade,” Israel is accused of provoking war with Gaza. Yet in 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza and opened its borders, freedom Gaza used to arm itself for renewing war. And Israel’s blockade of Gaza has been ineffective. In addition to the food, water, electricity, and medicine Israel allowed in, Gaza also obtained thousands of rockets and many tons of cement used to build tunnels for weapons storage and raids into Israel.

When Palestinians speak of overthrowing their “occupation,” they don’t mean just Gaza and the territory to the east of Israel that belonged to Jordan prior to Jordan’s joining other Arab nations in their attack on Israel in 1967. No, by “occupation” Palestinians include Israel proper — and not just Israel proper but any ground on which a Jew stands in the Middle East.

Other peoples have accepted partition to make room and provide security for themselves and others. The borders of much of the Middle East and Europe as well as India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are the result of ethnic partitions. But to Palestinians and most Arabs there can be no partition in their part of the world that assigns even a few square miles to Jews. Totalitarian theocracy has driven Jews out of the Arab world, and even before the current war in Gaza opinion polls found most Palestinians in favor of driving all Jews into the sea.

While it may strike some outsiders as hateful and unnecessary, this Palestinian objective is utterly principled, and many Palestinians are making enormous sacrifices for it. Indeed, having turned even its schools into rocket depots, Gaza gladly sacrifices its own children to this objective. All of Gaza is as much of a military target as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

Peace terms would be simple and have been available for decades — concede legitimacy to a Jewish state and provide guarantees against renewed war. But for most Palestinians peace is the worst defeat imaginable. Since they cannot imagine it, they may need, as imperial Japan did, to experience a defeat worse than peace.”

—–

Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer.

Discussion
14 Comments
    Sep 03, 2014 03:43 AM

    With which part..?
    TBH until recently I was inclined to think that if the Israelis dealt evenhandedly with the Palestinians, and negotiated a reasonable deal on land, resources etc, there might be a peaceful solution. But during this latest phase – shocked by a Hamas official’s repetition of a mediaeval blood libel* – I actually looked up some of Hamas & PLO foundational documents.

    eg Hamas Charter, Art 11:
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
    “The Islamic Resistance Movement [ie Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [legal structure similar to a trust] consecrated for future *Moslem* generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”
    So no Jews in Israel (& by extension the middle east, since they’ve been ethnically cleansed from the region).
    Art 7 clarifies:
    ” …the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, …, has said:

    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

    & we get there by (real) genocide against Jews.

    The PLO 10 Point Plan is a paragon of moderation by comparison:
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Political_Programme_of_the_12th_Palestine_National_Council
    “is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the *whole* of the soil of their homeland”

    So just get rid of them, doesn’t matter how or where they go.

    Lest you think the Hamas position has moderated since 1988, from 2012:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0DiQRO_49M#t=36

    I’m sure the Israelis have been intransigent in negotiations sometimes, but frankly the stated Palestinian positions leave little to negotiate about.

    * 50 secs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDe1h3hJ6c
    See also Hamdan’s failure to repudiate these comments on US TV:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf1QPSgj6Wc

    Sep 03, 2014 03:45 AM

    Version with links ‘in moderation’:
    With which part..?
    TBH until recently I was inclined to think that if the Israelis dealt evenhandedly with the Palestinians, and negotiated a reasonable deal on land, resources etc, there might be a peaceful solution. But during this latest phase – shocked by a Hamas official’s repetition of a mediaeval blood libel* – I actually looked up some of Hamas & PLO foundational documents.
    eg Hamas Charter, Art 11:
    HAMAS CHARTER (avalon.law.yale.edu)
    “The Islamic Resistance Movement [ie Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [legal structure similar to a trust] consecrated for future *Moslem* generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”
    So no Jews in Israel (& by extension the middle east, since they’ve been ethnically cleansed from the region).
    Art 7 clarifies:
    ” …the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, …, has said:
    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

    & we get there by (real) genocide against Jews.
    The PLO 10 Point Plan is a paragon of moderation by comparison:
    WIKISOURCE Political_Programme_of_the_12th_Palestine_National_Council
    “is impossible for a permanent and just peace to be established in the area unless our Palestinian people recover all their national rights and, first and foremost, their rights to return and to self-determination on the *whole* of the soil of their homeland”
    So just get rid of them, doesn’t matter how or where they go.
    Lest you think the Hamas position has moderated since 1988, from 2012:
    YOUTUBE _0DiQRO_49M#t=36
    I’m sure the Israelis have been intransigent in negotiations sometimes, but frankly the stated Palestinian positions leave little to negotiate about.
    * 50 secs: YOUTUBE nlDe1h3hJ6c
    See also Hamdan’s failure to repudiate these comments on US TV:
    YOUTUBE wf1QPSgj6Wc

    Sep 03, 2014 03:51 AM

    Thanks xlurkr I always appreciate your ability to offer perspective to the other side, I’m daily reviewing my take on Islamic intolerance, and some would argue that the Palestinians have brought things on themselves by voting for Hamas. For those of us who will never know the story in its entirety it is a case of perceptions doing a PR job for whichever positions one espouses. A

      Sep 03, 2014 03:10 AM

      There’s some debate about how relevant those charters are; see wikipedia:hamas:goals for a summary. (Note that the 1967 borders are basically indefensible. US presidents have had independent advice to that effect since the late 1960s; there’s a recently declassified report to that effect – google “Joint Chiefs of Staff report on Israel 1967 borders”.)

    Sep 03, 2014 03:55 AM

    PS xlurkr I still cannot believe that your average moderate Muslim applies every verse of the Koran literally, anymore than do Christians with some of our more blood-curdling Biblical texts. I guess when considering the former I’d prefer to be thought of as gullible than suffering, as many now do here in Britain and elsewhere from all-out Islamaphobia.

      Sep 03, 2014 03:21 AM

      But does the Bible declare someone who doesn’t obey it 100% apostate, punishable by death?

      Perhaps moderate Muslims might be better described as non-practicing Muslim who appreciate their cultural heritage? IDK…

      (This observation paraphrases David Gaubatz, author of ‘Muslim Mafia’. The book is based on ~1200 documents surreptitiously obtained from CAIR offices – CAIR effectively endorsed them as genuine by sueing for their return – so I think it paints an accurate picture of the Islamist end of the spectrum at least.)

    Sep 03, 2014 03:09 AM

    Hamas are not moderate Muslims and with a majority lead Palestine:
    Art 7 clarifies:
    ” …the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, …, has said:
    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

    Sep 03, 2014 03:22 AM

    Covenant of the Hamas
    On the Destruction of Israel:
    ‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam willobliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.
    The Call to Jihad:
    ‘The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation,
    it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Article 15)

    Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:
    ‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except byJihad.
    Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but awaste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)
    ‘The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the
    circle of struggle against World Zionism… Islamic groups all over
    the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped
    for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.'(Article 32)
    http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

    Sep 03, 2014 03:58 AM

    Thanks Matt but what of the Zionists’ unwavering ambitions to re-claim the West Bank (Judea) and Gaza (Samaria), quite apart from her desire to extend a greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates?

    Sep 03, 2014 03:31 AM

    Israel took all of Sinai,which they gave back.
    Israel has taken Sinai land 3 X upon being attacked and gave it back each time.
    Israel took all of Gaza when attacked,which they gave back.
    Israel has captured large tracts of Lebanon – and withdrawn each time.
    Israel has given back tracts of land to Syria,which they withdrew from after attack.
    Israel fought EGYPT in 73 and gave back most of the Gaza Strip.
    Israel gave land to Jordan they acquired after being attacked.
    Rabin and Barack offered up all of Golan and 95% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza in ‘land for peace’ agreements.
    So much for the ‘Greater Israel’ theory.

    Sep 03, 2014 03:04 AM

    I think Samaria is the northern ‘lobe’ of the West Bank; Gaza is Gaza.

    As for the “Yinon Plan”, as the article you linked to mentions the author was “an Israeli journalist …formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel”. So – in comparison to a charter which has stood unchanged for 26 years, and which an organisation’s senior official has recently endorse (eg by saying it ‘cannot be changed’) – it’s basically a denkschrift with little (/no) official status.

    I don’t doubt that some right wing Israeli politicians think that way, but even the recently announced annexation* attracted withering criticism from within the cabinet (Pulling quotes since my links get me placed in moderation pergatory: “Finance Minister Yair Lapid said Tuesday the land seizure in the Gush Etzion region was taken without cabinet approval, and “causes damage” to Israel.” “This is a wrong decision that weakens Israel and harms security,” Livni said.)

    Given this reaction to a (4sq km) annexation, I’d be surprised if a majority (or even a plurality) of Israeli politicians would be in favour of destabilising the entire Middle East.

    *Of land bought and developed by Jews in the 1920s, and farmed until most of its occupants were massacred by the Arab Legion in 1948 (after 5 months of hostilities preceding Israel’s declaration of independence). This seems to me quite important historical context, but doesn’t seem to have been mentioned in any of the reporting, though only a google away.