Tag Archives: Hamas

To End War and Poverty in the Middle East

09 Friday Aug 2024

Posted by in Middle East, Terrorism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The timing of this post might be awkward given the escalation of threats by Iran and its client militia groups toward Israel. But I’m posting it anyway because this blog is a way for me to get things off my chest. Read on…

In the West there is fairly broad agreement that the Palestinian people should have a sovereign state of their own. There is much less agreement over the geographic boundaries of such a state and the sequence of events that must take place in order for it to be established. Among Palestinians there is some support for a two-state solution, but it is far from a majority.

The UN Partition Plan

The following map might be helpful in what follows. It shows the proposed boundaries of an Israeli state and an Arab state under the Partition Plan adopted by UN Resolution in 1947. The Resolution called for replacing a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the region requiring the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Likewise, the Arab state was intended to accommodate Palestinian nationalists. Together the two states were expected to comprise an economic union.

What is striking is the discontinuity of the lands assigned to each state, and this surely contributed to almost immediate border challenges. More on that below.

The Gaza Strip is the region along the shore of the Mediterranean on the lower left, which was designated as Palestinian. The Golan Heights is the Israeli region on the upper right. The West Bank is the Palestinian region in the middle. Jerusalem and its vicinity was designated as an international zone to be administered by the UN.

Border Battles

Today, the geography of a prospective Palestinian state would certainly include the Gaza Strip. There doesn’t seem to be any great dispute there, but the West Bank is another story. In this context, it’s important to remember some key details about the history of this region since 1947. David Post writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that the Palestinian state was obliterated by other Arab states in 1948:

“The State of Palestine was strangled in its infancy, not by the Israelis, who accepted the U.N. partition plan, but by the neighboring Arab States—Egypt, Syria, and Jordan—who did not. The day after the British pulled their forces out, the Arab armies marched in, and the first Arab-Israeli War began.“

The hostilities were formally ended with the signing of three different Armistices in 1949:

“The boundaries fixed in those agreements gave to each of the four countries involved more-or-less the territory that their armies had managed to control as of the date that ceasefires had been declared. The West Bank became part of Jordan; Gaza became part of Egypt; the Golan Heights became part of Syria. Israel got—or kept—the rest. The Palestinians, who had no army of their own, got nothing.“

Here are the boundaries under the 1949 Armistices:

The three Arab states, which refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist, attacked again in 1967. In a matter of six days and on three fronts, the Israelis drove them back and took Gaza, the West Bank, and retook the Golan Heights. Post asks:

“Why is it that only starting then, now that Israel was in control of these areas, did the world rouse itself to Palestinian grievances, and demand that ‘Palestinian lands’ be given back to the Palestinians?“

It’s worth noting that these conflicts led to the displacement of a great many Palestinians, but Israel did not provoke the attacks.

Indigenous Populations

Enemies of Israel, including those in the West, go so far as to say the Israelis are not entitled to a homeland in the Levant. Even worse, they chant “from the river to the sea”, often ignorant that it is a thinly veiled call for genocide. But Jews have as great a claim to a homeland in the Levant as the Palestinians. Jacob Sullum wrote of this truth last October, in the wake of the Hamas butchery on October 7, 2023. Israeli Jews are characterized by enemies as “colonizers”. This, as Sullum says:

“… is a ‘simplistic morality tale’, that pits white European oppressors against ‘indigenous’ people, eliding Israel’s demographic roots and the ancient Jewish connection to the land. “

Sullum goes on to discuss research on the genetic origins of modern Jewish populations. For example, one paper found that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews, who account for almost a third of Jews in Israel, likely descended from a “diverse population in the Middle East.” And Sullum points out that Mizrahim Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin represent almost 45% of Israeli Jews. Furthermore, another study found that Jews and Arabs in the Middle East both share high percentages of Y chromosomes with a single gene pool, which suggests a common origin. Therefore, both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have legitimate claims to a homeland in the Levant.

Israel and Gaza

Contrary to claims by Hamas supporters, there was no occupation of Gaza by Israel at the time of the October 7th massacre. Israel’s prior occupation of Gaza ended almost 20 years ago, in 2005. However, Israel has restricted the movement of goods in and out of the Gaza Strip since the 1990s. Israel and Egypt tightened the blockade on Gaza in 2007 after Hamas took control there, though it was eased in steps from 2010 – 2013. Given the uncompromising belligerence of Hamas and its proclivity for diverting resources to support aggression against Israel, it’s fair to say the blockade is, and has been, a legitimate instrument of defense, as long as Gaza is “governed” by Hamas.

Last year, less than a week after the October 7th massacre and hostage taking, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) began ground operations in Gaza in an effort to root out Hamas fighters, destroy their war-making infrastructure, and rescue hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Of course, that fight goes on.

Hamas has fought against Israel’s retaliatory action in ways that have propaganda value, especially given the naïveté of much of the Western press. Its fighters are often embedded among civilians within residential areas and facilities like schools and hospitals. The use of human shields is a war crime for which Hamas bears full responsibility, and Hamas has made it clear that their aim is to kill Israelis, civilian and military alike. Hamas has made a practice of exaggerating Palestinian death counts, a distortion that has been more obvious to statisticians than journalists.

The Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip will be tough to end without a complete surrender by Hamas and release of the hastages. Even then, the current IDF occupation is unlikely to end until efforts are well underway to flesh out the details of a new Palestinian government, if not statehood.

The West Bank

Perhaps even more thorny for an eventual two-state solution is that Israel occupies the West Bank and has established settlements that Palestinians strongly oppose. Jordan might also have designs on retaking West Bank territory, which would once again leave Palestinians as the odd people out. Israel took the land in its own defense during the Six-Day War in 1967 and kept it as a security buffer:

“… Israel insisted that it should not, and would not, simply return to the pre-war situation — the dangerous combination of precarious armistice lines and aggressive neighbors that had prevailed for 19 years. …

The idea that Israeli security depended on continued control over parts of the West Bank was held not only by Israeli officials, but also by the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. … Referring to the West Bank, they argued that Israel required a new boundary that would ‘widen the narrow portion of Israel’ and help protect Tel Aviv.“

Israel splits aspects of governance with the Palestinian Authority in parts of the West Bank, but most of the security apparatus is run by Israel.

The continued West Bank occupation is as fraught with controversy as ever. Today there is bitter resentment over new Israeli settlements and the construction of the “Separation Wall” just inside the western border of the West Bank. The situation is made all the more intractable by Hamas’ presence there amid ongoing attacks against Israeli interests.

Withdrawing from the West Bank would create a huge vulnerability for Israel, so one can hardly expect it to cede control of the entire territory. Yet it is hard to imagine an economically viable Palestinian state confined to the Gaza Strip. In fact, some feel that more than the West Bank should be in play for creating a contiguous corridor to Gaza, which would help promote a new Palestinian state’s economic viability.

Iran

Obviously Hamas is not the only threat to Israel’s security. To the north in Lebanon, Hezbollah is a well-armed adversary. And like Hamas, it receives considerable support from Iran. It’s difficult to imagine that Iran could maintain this support, not to mention its nuclear ambitions, without the flow of oil revenue made possible by U.S. acquiescence. Reaching a peaceful resolution to the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors will be very difficult without somehow neutralizing the Iranian threat. Regime change there would be key to this effort.

What Must Happen

The obstacles to establishing a peaceful, two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis are so steep that the prospect seems almost unimaginable. A complete defeat of both Hamas and Hezbollah would be critical, and the Palestinian Authority or any other successor regime must be counted on to negotiate in good faith and with the legitimate support of the Palestinian people. Likewise, Israel must be willing to negotiate meaningful concessions, at least in terms of its occupied territories in the West Bank.

For a successful resolution, the role of other Arab states can’t be emphasized enough. These states should apply pressure to Israel’s neighbors like Syria and Jordan to rein-in their own territorial ambitions. In a positive sign, there is now growing pressure on Iran from other Arab states to end its belligerence.

A reconstituted Abraham Accords framework could strengthen diplomatic and economic ties across the region, promoting cross-investment, trade, and cultural exchange. The framework should include a mechanism to encourage aid from the Arab states and Israel to help Palestinians build a new, peaceful, and prosperous state.

Finally, a peaceful two-state solution hinges on continued U.S. support for Israel and a new Palestinian homeland. Unfortunately, in recent years we’ve witnessed a drift toward anti-Zionism (and even anti-Semitism) among Democrats. This sort of foolishness on the far Left knows no bounds. If the anti-Zionist position comes to be accepted by the mainstream of the party, it could severely compromise Israel’s leverage in negotiations.

Summary

A resolution that would ultimately bring peace to the Middle East seems remote in the midst of the current hostilities. It would require a dramatic softening of views among nearly all parties to solve the impasse over nation-state homelands for both Jews and Palestinians. In no particular order, the following are all necessary:

  • Israel’s neighboring states must not covet territory originally intended for the Palestinians, or for that matter the state of Israel.
  • Iran must butt out one way or another (in the language of high diplomacy), which would do much to neutralize militant factions like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • Other Arab states must come to the table along with the Israelis to negotiate economic and political accords, including aid to the Palestinian people.
  • The U.S. must resist internal calls from the Left to withdraw support for Israel.
  • More immediately, Israel must do its best to root out and defeat Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • The Palestinian people must decide they want peace and a prosperous civilization.
  • Israel must show a willingness to negotiate concessions to Palestinians in the West Bank, and to aid in the rebuilding of Gaza.

Taken together that’s a very tall order! The U.S. can and should do its part to support Israel and the Palestinian people, penalize Iran, and help to bring all parties to the negotiating table. A refashioning of the Abraham Accords could contribute to peace in the region, including a stable, prosperous, and well-governed Palestinian homeland.

AntiSemitic Left Tests Limits of Free Speech

30 Tuesday Apr 2024

Posted by in anti-Semitism, Free Speech

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The current protests on college campuses across the nation bring into focus differing opinions on the limits of free speech and assembly. Particular questions seem to defy resolution. Nevertheless, there is some misunderstanding regarding the settled breadth of the First Amendment.

The protestors have acted as if they have constitutional carte blanche to gather anywhere to say anything in opposition to Israel and its war against Hamas terrorists; a subset thinks this encompasses “occupation” of any space for any duration; a still smaller subset believes this includes a right to condemn Jews, all Jews.

I strongly doubt, however, that many of the protestors truly believe their constitutional protections extend to intimidation and bullying of Jewish students attempting to go about their business on campus (scroll to a few of the articles here), destruction of property, or the use of “fighting words”, or physical attacks on Jews or other “oppressors”.

It’s well known that the Constitution does not protect “fighting words”, including threats. Furthermore, Eugene Volokh explains that there is no constitutional right to “occupy” a college campus, either public or private.

Of course, private schools are not legally bound to respect free speech or assembly rights. They can regulate activity on their private campuses in any way they see fit. Some explicitly abide the same rights as public universities, which seems reasonable for any institution dedicated to the free spirit of inquiry.

Volokh, however, cites Supreme Court precedents in which a majority held that government can prohibit camping in certain parks, for example, and that public colleges and universities can impose restrictions on campus activities:

“There is no First Amendment right to camp out in any university, public or private. Indeed, there is no First Amendment right to camp out even in public parks (see Clark v. CCNV (1984)), and the government’s power to limit the use of property used for a public university is even greater than its power as to parks (Widmar v. Vincent (1981)):

“‘A university differs in significant respects for public forums such as streets or parks or even municipal theaters. A university’s mission is education, and decisions of this Court have never denied a university’s authority to impose reasonable regulations compatible with that mission upon the use of its campus and facilities. We have not held, for example, that a campus must make all of its facilities equally available to students and nonstudents alike, or that a university must grant free access to all of its grounds or buildings.’

“Likewise, if UC Berkeley had held a law student party in the law school building rather than at Dean Chemerinsky’s house, it could have stopped students from using the party as an occasion to orate to the audience (especially with their own sound amplification devices, which the student brought to Chemerinsky’s house). See Spears v. Arizona Bd. of Regents (D. Ariz. 2019)(upholding public university’s right to stop people from speaking with sound amplification at an on-campus book fair).“

Volokh also notes, however, that public universities cannot restrict mere “offensive” expression, which would include certain antisemitic statements or even swastikas (for example), as long as the expression falls short of “fighting words” or explicit threats. Do calls for the “extermination of Jews” qualify as fighting words? That deserves a resounding yes. It’s clearly hate speech, and it’s exactly the sort of expression that might be deemed so offensive to counterprotestors (for example) as to constitute an immediate threat to public order.

Does the meaning of “fighting words” include such chants as “From the river to the sea…”? Some say that depends on the speaker, but that can’t provide a sound basis of distinction. It is clearly associated with calls to eliminate the state of Israel. Some believe it also implies the genocide of Jews in Israel, and Jews can’t be blamed for finding it threatening. Okay, how about “Intifada”? I doubt all of the students involved in the current protests understand the genocidal implications of these words. The agitators understand them well enough.

This is a grey area in our understanding of the First Amendment. The “River to the Sea” chant, and Intifada, seem like fighting words to me, but they might not qualify as direct threats to anyone on campus. By comparison, the swastika is “just” a party emblem, whatever policies it stands for, and apparently the Court did not deem it a direct threat to anyone in Skokie, Illinois. The legal distinctions here feel inadequate. Still, we say the “mere” expression of offensive ideas or symbols is protected speech, provided that it does not directly threaten harm to any party.

Many libertarians, with whom I usually agree, urge tolerance of the protests and encampments, including at least cautious tolerance of the protests. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has strenuously objected to the actions of police in Austin, Texas in dispersing demonstrators at the University of Texas. Alex Tabarrak has reposted a tweet or two apparently critical of the government’s response to protestors in Texas and at Emory University in Atlanta, though it should be noted that the economics professor who was taken down and handcuffed on video had actually hit a police officer. Michael Munger, in a variation of his “worst enemy test” of government power, says that giving campus authorities “the power to crush us, at their discretion” is probably a bad idea. But they have that power if they choose to exercise it, for better or worse. (By “us”, I don’t think Munger intended to take sides).

I’m highly skeptical of the motives and incentives of some of the “occupiers” of campus spaces, not to mention their status as students. More importantly, there is ample evidence that “fighting words” and threats against Jews have been used by many of the protesters. This violates the codes of conduct at many schools, and should not only be censured, but any student identified as guilty of this sort of hate speech should be expelled, not merely suspended. There should be severe consequences for professors choosing to participate in these protests as well.

This behavior should have long-term consequences, and that is happening at some schools. I saw the following quote from P.J. O’Rourke on Instapundit, which seems appropriate here:

“There’s only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

The kids are wearing masks for a reason, and it ain’t Covid! Now, the protestors’ demands include “amnesty” for their participation in the protests. That shouldn’t play well if you’re provably guilty of calling for the extermination of a race of people. But here’s the thing: certain institutions like Columbia University have allowed the aberrant behavior to go on with little challenge, showing that the real limits to free speech and assembly are whatever acquiescent campus administrators are willing to put up with.

Removing these encampments is more than justified on constitutional grounds at any school, public or private. The arrest of some of the more intransigent elements among the protesters may be well justified. Insulting hate speech is one thing, but eliminationist hate speech constitutes fighting words and should not be tolerated. Of course, forcibly removing the encampments is risky in terms of public safety because some of the protestors will physically challenge the police. Comparatively innocent (though naive) students might get caught up in a conflict with law enforcement, but ignorance is no defense. They should not be there. Those risks must be taken to end the “hate encampments”, which are a direct threat to the rights of others wishing only to go about their business.

Riding the DEI Weimar Curve: What’s Next on the Pogrom?

24 Friday Nov 2023

Posted by in anti-Semitism, DEI, fascism, Liberty

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Germany’s inter-war descent into genocidal barbarism is perhaps the most horrifying episode of modern times. Seemingly normal, “nice people” in Germany were persuaded to go along with the murderous pogroms of the anti-Semitic National Socialists, giving truth to the “banality of evil”, as the famous expression goes. Of course, there were plenty of true believers, and multitudes bowed to the Nazis under fierce coercion, but many others went along just to “fit in”.

What could life have felt like in Weimar Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s as the fascists accumulated power? Were normal people afraid? Well before Adolf Hitler’s rise to power he was known for his hatred of Jews, but German political leaders who enabled his ascent did not take his extreme prejudice as seriously as they should have, or they thought they could at least keep him and his followers in check. Surely there were people who foresaw the approaching cataclysm for what it would be.

Current expressions of anti-Semitism might give us a sense of what life was like during the decline and fall of the Weimar Republic. Just ask Jewish students at NYU and Cornell if they’ve sensed a whiff of it in the wake of Hamas’ slaughter of civilians in southern Israel on October 7th. The harassment these students have endured was motivated in part by claims that Israeli retaliation is morally inferior to the barbarities committed by Hamas, which is preposterous.

Of course, unlike late Weimar Germany, when Jews were blamed for economic (and other) problems, the Jew hatred we’re witnessing in the U.S. today has little to do with the immediate state of the economy. Conditions now are nothing like what prevailed in Germany as the Great Depression took hold, despite current inflationary stresses on real household incomes.

And yet some hold Jews in contempt for their relative economic success, a fact that is bound up with the frequency with which Jews are placed at the center of economic conspiracy theories. One would think Jews to be the ultimate “white oppressors”. But it seems that much of the current wave of anti-Semitism comes from fairly elite quarters, ensconced within major institutions where its sympathizers are insulated from day-to-day economic pressures.

And that brings us to a frightening aspect of the current malaise: how heavily institutionalized the hatred for certain groups or “classes” has already become. This owes to the blame directed toward whites, men, Jews, and Asians presumed to have been endowed with an inside track on success at the expense of others. Success of any kind, in the narrative of “critical” social justice, is “oppressive”, as if success is a zero-sum game.

Here is Philip Carl Salzman on this point:

“The ‘social justice’ political analysis is founded on the Marxist conviction that society is divided into two classes: oppressors and victims. The corresponding ‘social justice’ ethic is that victims must be raised up and celebrated and that oppressors must be suppressed and eliminated.”

This thinking has been integrated into the policies, practices and rhetoric taught in schools at all levels, corporations and nonprofits, social and traditional media, and government (including intelligence agencies and the military). This level of integration gives diversity, equity, and inclusivity (DEI) policies coercive force on behalf of so-called “protected groups”, in the parlance of anti-discrimination law. When those practices are enforced by government in various ways, the private gains extracted from “unprotected” groups amount to fascism.

Bari Weiss wrote an article in Tablet last week entitled “End DEI” in which she describes her bemused reaction as a student in the early 2000s to nascent DEI rhetoric. (Also see her recent speech to the Federalist Society here.) It’s more obvious today, but even then she recognized the hate inherent in DEI doctrine. She crystallizes the dangers she saw in DEI ideology:

“What I saw was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob.

“People were to be given authority in this new order not in recognition of their gifts, hard work, accomplishments, or contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their group had suffered, as defined by radical ideologues. According to them, as Jamie Kirchick concisely put it in these pages: ‘Muslim > gay, Black > female, and everybody > the Jews.’”

Weiss says Jewish leaders told her, at that time, not to be hysterical, that these perverse ideas would ultimately pass like any fad. That sounds so eerily familiar. Instead, we’ve witnessed a widespread ideological takeover.

“If underrepresentation is the inevitable outcome of systemic bias, then overrepresentation—and Jews are 2% of the American population—suggests not talent or hard work, but unearned privilege. This conspiratorial conclusion is not that far removed from the hateful portrait of a small group of Jews divvying up the ill-gotten spoils of an exploited world.

“It isn’t only Jews who suffer from the suggestion that merit and excellence are dirty words. It is strivers of every race, ethnicity, and class. That is why Asian American success, for example, is suspicious. The percentages are off. The scores are too high. From whom did you steal all that success?”

The whole DEI enterprise is corrupt and unethical. It denies the meritorious in favor of those having certain superficial characteristics like the “right” skin color. That is evil and economically demented besides. It also breeds hatred that often flows both ways between classes of people, creating an incendiary environment. That we’re talking about systemic, legalized discrimination against any group is disturbing enough, but when small minorities are “othered” in this way, the potential for violent action against them is magnified. But this is just where the DEI mindset leads its proponents and beneficiaries.

Our slide into this monstrous “social justice” regime mirrors the insanity and anger that was fomented against certain “out groups” when the Nazi’s accumulated power in the latter years of the Weimar Republic. Too many today have succumbed to this zero-sum psychology, young and old alike. Fortunately, they are beginning to face some fierce resistance, but those who extol the supposed righteousness of the class struggle via DEI won’t easily give up. Our institutions are infested with their kind.

As long as influential people preach the virtues of DEI and social justice, the danger of a headlong plunge into genocidal madness is possible. And the sad truth is that normal human beings are subject to social manipulation of the most evil kind. David Foster at Ricochet: quotes an address given by C.S. Lewis in which he emphasizes this point. His words are haunting:

“Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.”

Elsewhere in Lewis’ address, he says:

“And the prophecy I make is this. To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink, or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still—just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naïf or a prig—the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which ‘we’ — and at the word ‘we’ you try not to blush for mere pleasure—something ‘we’ always do.

“And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man’s face—that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face—turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.”

Faux Peaceniks Celebrate Hamas Barbarism

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

PEACE-NEGOTIATIONS-HAMAS-ROCKET-ISRAEL-CAI-012706

It’s ironic that so many on the Left, who claim to be anti-war and humanitarian, have aligned themselves with Hamas against Israel in the current conflict. Exactly who wants to support an authoritarian, brutally intolerant, aggressively militaristic, misogynistic “government” that practices terror, sacrificing the welfare of its civilians by dedicating resources to unrelenting attacks on a neighboring state, in the process using its own civilians as human shields? Just who are their vocal supporters? And those who denigrate the Israeli effort to defend themselves? They are naive peacenik wanna-bes and, of course, a large contingent of anti-Semites, some of whom pose as peace lovers.

An intellectually honest peace lover will recognize that there is nothing inconsistent about loving peace and making a concerted effort to destroy an aggressive, attacking force. A good government must protect its people.

There were some interesting notes on the Hamas-Israeli conflict from David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy over the weekend. His major points were: the conditions of Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposed cease fire were ridiculous and conflicted with Kerry’s earlier assurances; the casualty figures being reported by the media are coming from sources controlled by Hamas; the “humanitarian” deliveries of concrete to Gaza were diverted to the construction of tunnels for military use.

Here is an illuminating post covering human rights in Gaza under Hamas, from Freedom House. A key quote from the final paragraph.

Under Hamas, personal status law is derived almost entirely from Sharia, which puts women at a stark disadvantage in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and domestic abuse. Rape, domestic abuse, and “honor killings,” in which relatives murder women for perceived sexual or moral transgressions, are common, and these crimes often go unpunished.

Can we call this civilization? Barbarism is more accurate. Warning: 14 Ways Hamas Weaponizes Palestinian Women, Children and Animals Against Israel contains some shocking photos and videos. First, it quotes the first Hamas Charter of 1988, defining the Hamas Mission Against Israel and Jews: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.” The charter goes on to quote The Prophet, Allah: “The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” The link documents what can only be described as crimes against humanity by Hamas: using children to commit stone attacks, sending women and children on suicide missions, using civilians, women and children as human shields, weaponizing: animals, homes, schools, hospitals, ambulances and mosques.

We can persist in hoping that some middle ground can be found between the Israelis and the Palestinian people, but that is unlikely to happen with Hamas in charge of the Gaza Strip. In Lift the Siege On Gaza, the Israeli author makes an eloquent case that Israel must work toward opening the border with Gaza, but he recognizes that Hamas stands as a major obstacle to real peace.

Devilish Sympathy For Hamas

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

hamas-cartoon Anti-Zionist rhetoric is becoming increasingly shrill as Israel attempts to defend itself against an ongoing barrage of missiles fired by Hamas from residential areas in Gaza. Some of the claims being made about Israel’s maneuvers are implausible and even bizarre, especially given the unpopularity of Hamas among Palestinians, their history of uncooperative dealings, and their recent refusal to accept cease-fire terms brokered by Egypt. “Understanding What Hamas Wants” is a good assessment of the situation and, on a complete reading, provides a balanced viewpoint, offering criticisms of actions of both sides in the conflict. The piece does not question Israeli’s right of self-determination or to defend themselves. An example:

An alternative to this current horrible reality presented itself in 2005, when the Israeli government—after years of foolish and destructive colonization—expelled thousands of Jewish settlers from Gaza and then withdrew its army. The Palestinian leadership could have taken the opportunity created by the Israeli withdrawal to build the nucleus of a state. Instead, Gaza was converted into a rocket-manufacturing and -launching facility. But here’s a bit of good news: The people of Gaza, who suffer from Hamas rule, appear to be tired of it.

It’s unfortunate that so much anti-Zionist rhetoric relies on the genocide lie, as described at the link by Jonah Goldberg. In another good piece, Charles Krauthammer covers the ethics of the actions taken by Hamas and Israel. Yet the propagandized version of events repeated by anti-Zionist parrots ignores the obvious. And they keep repeating the words of certain Israeli hawks as if they are representative of an actual defensive strategy.