While publishing a response to it on HP would seem to be the logical step to follow, I also understand that it would further anger the blog’s “constituency,” which was already enraged by my being allowed to publish a post in the first place, and does not appear to enjoy dissent very much. I don’t expect HP’s editors to commit blogospherical suicide for the sake of balance. Therefore, I’m responding to Brett here on my blog.

“As for Britain, its influence with Israel is quite minimal.” Well, this is not true at all. Britain is one of Israel’s strongest allies, it has significant trade with Israel, and sells Israel weaponry.

“However, as part of the EU, it does have in theory some significant leverage over Hamas, as it is the prime contributor to the UNRWA budget, and is set to pay through the nose for Gaza’s reconstruction.” Again, wrong. The EU is boycotting Hamas in case you didn’t notice, and funding the UNRWA is not equal to funding Hamas.

Your body count point is also wrong – unless you can attribute every single suicide bombing and other attack to Hamas, which whilst it might suit your argument, is not true.

“But I find ridiculous the notion that allowing a islamist statelet in Gaza, funded by someone else’s money, to flourish and arm itself, would be conductive to peace.” You don’t have to allow them to arm themselves. You do have to allow them to develop a sovereign state. But I wonder whether you think killing 1300 people, hundreds of whom were children is conducive to peace? But now I’m being emotive, and we are supposed not to be emotive when having intellectual discussions about these things.

talk about perverse incentives…

well, frankly the reason that you probably don’t tell others what to do, is that you don’t know it, and even if you did, couldn’t articulate a coherent argument

but again, your historical and political illiteracy shows, there are plenty of Catholics in Ireland that would tell the Nationalists in the Six Counties that blowing up shoppers in the street does NOT advance a united Ireland one jot

TheIrie, you write:

“Pointing out how your enemy should behave is not terribly difficult is it?”

again Irish Protestants are not the enemy of the Catholics, only in the head of the most sectarian killers (Red Hand Commando types), idiots and those completely unfamiliar with Ireland

if you ever pick up a book try read Sean O’Casey, the premier playwrite, who’s religion was Protestant or the famous Wolfe Tone, still yet Charles Parnell, and if you like poetry then Yeats will do, who could forget playboy of the western world by Synge, another “Protestant”, etc

so TheIrie, instead of mangling Irish history as you do other parts of the world, please pick up a book, read, think, discuss.

Throw away your binary view of the world and not least LEARN that the conflict in the Six Counties is not a religious one, thus religious labels should be avoided, tis a bit more complex than that.

as for the Hamas Charter, which clearly you haven’t even read, only a knave or an apologist for anti-Jewish racism could suggest that it isn’t a problem with a straight face, Hamas’s Charter is dripping with genocidal racism

and still you haven’t touch on Hamas’s “achievements” ? making better rockets? what an omission?

As for my side, or the side either of us have “some degree of influence over”, Hamas (or the IDF) to my knowledge is not attacking or threatening to attack Brazil, which has in any case zero influence in the ME. As for Britain, its influence with Israel is quite minimal. However, as part of the EU, it does have in theory some significant leverage over Hamas, as it is the prime contributor to the UNRWA budget, and is set to pay through the nose for Gaza’s reconstruction. I would say, in fact, that Hamas is aware of this fact, which partially explains why it is sounding more quasi-conciliatory now, after being so radicalized by the last war, than it had been in years.

Some of Hamas’ leaders have talked about a long term truce after they get the WB and Gaza, and after refugees return to a country which existence they rule-out ever recognizing, but can’t at the moment destroy. They’ve also talked, far more often, of victory over the Jews and of turning Gaza into a cemetery for the Zionists. The IDF decided to call their bluff on that instead. Go figure.

Hamas’ democratic credentials and supposed good faith have been discussed at length here in HP, and I won’t rehash the argument yet again. But I find ridiculous the notion that allowing a islamist statelet in Gaza, funded by someone else’s money, to flourish and arm itself, would be conductive to peace. After being allowed to do the same in the West Bank, Hamas kind of suggests it might promise, a long-term truce will come into being. Why won’t Israel call that bluff?

About atrocities, even if you descend to the inane level of doing body counting as a proxy for moral judgment, suicide bombing inside Israel still has probably killed more civilians than the Gaza war, but I guess the numbers ought to be close. One or two more iterations of this, however, and the situation will change. Which is why avoiding such wars ought to be paramount. I don’t think making concessions to Hamas and letting it rearm would have prevented this war, or will prevent the next. You would likely have rockets falling in Tel Aviv (and perhaps a more proportionate death toll), and a harsher Israeli response. Note, however, that there would not have been a war had the Israeli not left Gaza. This last point is important, because the Israeli government has oscillated between wanting to appropriate all land in the occupied territories and pretend to talk peace, and appropriating just a bit and wanting to talk peace. I don’t like this any more than you do, but note that after the Sinai, Israel has never lost anything significant by holding on to land, and has always attacked when relinquishing it.

Now, regarding Hamas, if you consider the period since they were democratically elected, they have wanted to negotiate with Israel, they have respected ceasefires far more seriously than Israel has, and senior members have talked about a two-state solution. This leaves Israel with a clear choice. Either they can call Hamas’ bluff – hold them to their statements and negotiate with them. See how it goes, and have the moral high ground. Alternatively, they can repeat the mantra they’ve repeated for 40 years, which you just repeated: in your words “While an alternative Palestinian program does not emerge” there cannot be a Palestinian state. Perhaps you can tell me when, since 1967, this hasn’t been Israeli policy? It used to be the Fatah charter that was the problem. Now its Hamas. Israel will always find a reason to snub the current Palestinian leadership. Currently this rejection in the form of a massive slaughter, with Israel having commited more attrocities in the last month than Hamas has in it’s entire history.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2006/08/04/how-should-the-palestinians-have-fought/

” I don’t pretend this is an easy question. Any list is bound to be simplistic; certainly none of the things I suggest would be easy. But, considering that the accomplishments of the Palestinian national movement these past 60 years have been non-existent, if not negative, they were at least worth a try.

First, historically a Palestinian state could have been created if
a) The 1947 partition plan had been accepted, or even if the principle of partition had been accepted.
b) A Palestinian state could have been created at any time between 48 and 67.

This is history now, a history HP threads have dissected in nanoscopic details multiple times.

Under the present context of being under occupation, Palestinians, or their leaders, might try to:

1) Have a realistic, non genocidal goal. Wiping Israel off the map is neither. Establishing an independent state in the occupied territories is. Work exclusively towards the goal. Ignore revenge, getting even, paying back or pointless venting of anger. Focus on the goal.

2) Act together. Having multiple groups with fractal splintering, often fighting each other, dissipates energy, and makes negotiating with the nominal head of the movement kind of pointless. Having a democratic, or at least consultive, decision-making process helps in this regard.

3) Be credible. When you say you will do or refraing from doing something, follow through. See 1.

4) Act state-like even before you become a country. Begin building solid national institutions, competent and non-corrupt, from the begining. Strive to make such institutions a viable alternative to the occupation.

5) Stop terrorism.. Please don’t make me explain why.

6) Understand the occupiers. Not as a racist cartoon, but as a bunch of fallible human beings. Most of which have probably more profitable things to da than make your life miserable. Forge alliances with those without any vested interest in the occupation, to undercut its support in the home front.

7) Keep talking. Put forward tangible proposals, and create a national consensus behind them. Follow the letter of any agreement you do sign, and then demand the other side do the same. Acknowledge the other side also has legitimate core demands, and learn how to diferentiate them from tactical negotiating positions. In the whole process, the more trusted you are the more concessions you are likely to get.

8) Resist occupation. Collectively, unceasingly. And non-violently. Ignore provocation and distractions, and keep focused on the goal. One of the least noticed side effects of suicide bombings is that they excuse the non-suicidal majority from doing anything against occupation.

Really, if the Palestinian violence and genocidal rhetoric were to stop, the conflict would be quite straightforward for most people, including Israelis: A people under occupation whose land is slowly taken away. Statehood would still be a long walk, but at least the Palestinians would be moving in the right direction.”

still holds true today

you’ve been banging on about this for 2+ years, and in that time the ONE achievement that Hamas has accomplished is to improve the range of their rockets from 8 to 25 miles.

you might be naive enough to believe the utterances of selected Hamas leaders, fortunately, the rest of us are NOT :_)

in politics, you judge their actions, not their slightly conciliatory soundings

bruno said it all, you might do well to listen to him.

As for whether ‘Israel’ wants a two state solution, I’m not sure if it makes more sense to talk about what Israel wants than to talk about what Palestine wants. But my support of a 2SS is not predicated on Israelis as one just waiting for the rockets to stop to gladly hand a state to the Palestinians. A proper ‘program’ with that goal in mind would seek to decrease the benefits Israel accrues for continuing the occupation, while at the same time increasing the prospective benefits of ending it. Unfortunately, what Hamas and its enablers and fellow travellers have done is the exact opposite.

___________________
* Compared to which a handful of interviews that kind of sound indirectly near concialiatory, with exactly zero deeds to match the rethoric, seems like small potatoes.