The Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum renamed the peace process “a war process”:
Further negotiations will make sense only when Hamas’s leaders — currently emboldened by a combination of popular indignation and Iranian support — finally arrive at the same conclusion as their secular counterparts, and a new generation of Israelis is persuaded to believe them. Until then, there is no point in bemoaning the passivity of the Bush administration, the silence of Barack Obama, the powerlessness of Arab leaders or the weakness of Europe, as so many, predictably, have begun to do.
Lessons for Obama
There’s a silver lining to the current conflict, writes Jackson Diehl, the Washington Post’s deputy editorial page editor:
The war against Hamas is proving – once again – that the Middle East’s extremist movements cannot be eliminated by military means. If the incoming Obama administration absorbs that lesson, it will have a better chance of neutralizing Iranian-backed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and of eventually brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement… Though Israel must defend its citizens against rockets and suicide bombings, the only means of defeating Hamas are political.
Humorous(-ish)
Rosa Brooks aimed for humor-in-a-somber-situation in a column that delineates “how to be stupid…Hamas style” (refuse to recognize Israel)…“Israeli style” (complain about unfair media coverage, but don’t let any Israeli or foreign journalists into Gaza)…and “Bush style” (let the new guy handle it).
- 1
- 2
Here's another way to look at what's been happening in Gaza
We have a battle of competing narratives going on.. So far the rocket narrative, the intolerable situation Israel found itself in, has been the dominant story.
Looking closely, it is a very self centered narrative. It never wonders why the rockets are flying, let alone whether the response is in any way commensurate. It's always an us, us, us, story.
Here's a more even handed narrative. I welcome crtiiques as to why my story does not hold true.
Firstly, from June this year, Hamas kept it's part of the cease fire bargain, the rockets stopped. Israel on the other hand, in the eyes of Hamas and those of all Gazans did no keep its side of the bargain, which was to lift the blockade if not in whole, in large part.
Israel not only did not lift the blockade, it in some ways made daily life in Gaza worse during the truce. When the truce ended Israel still could have headed off renewed rocketing, the rockets being Hamas' only real bargaining chip, by even at that late stage doing something about the blockade.
UN Chief, Ban K-moon had personally begged Israel to do so on Nov. 19th.
Thus there was no need to launch the attack of Dec 27, or not without trying many other avenues first. Why did Israel ignrore all preaceful alternatives and kill 200 people in three minutes of aistrikes?
In my narrative, the massive kill has nothing to do with rockets, but rather with the fact that Israel realized that lifting the blockade would inevitably strengthened Hamas, in that Hamas would be seen by Gazans as having much improved their lives.
Moreover It would have strengthened Hamas as a responsible Govt. entity wheres as the rocket narrative calls for Hamas to be always seen as terrorist and beyond the pale.
A stronger Hamas was and is an unthinkable outcome for Israell , even it meant no rockets and a calmer Gaza in return. Even if it meant a whole new chance in the Middle East. .
Why? because a re legitimized Hamas would have naturally demanded its seat at the negotiating table and begun, with urgency, driving a very hard bargain.
This is what Israel cannot let happen. This is always the end game and why everything Israel does is diversionary. They have no real peace plans, they plan to give up nothing of any value.
Hanging onto land and water, no matter what the cost, is what it's all about. Nothing but delay and obfuscation must happen.
Sharon's top adviser, Dov Weisglass, let the cat out of the bag. "The Palestinians will become Finns before they get any more." he said This was just after Gaza was evacuated..
Proof that this narrative hangs together? If it was not so,. Israel blessed , with a co operative peace partner these last two years, would have given that partner great progress towards a two state solution.
This would have achieved all at once, progress towards a two state solution and the sidelining of the hated Hamas. it would also have allowed the much beloved (by Israel) President G.W. Bush, to go out with some recaptured glory, even assuring the election of McCain.
That Israel did the opposite, humiliated Abbas with more settlements , more checkpoints, more controls on Gaza, clearly reveals the true Israeli agenda and the credibility of my narrative.
I've laid out some of this in a youtube piece.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_4zgk1umiSo&feature=email.
Mike Rubbo
Posted by mike rubbo on Sat 10 Jan 2009 at 05:32 AM
I should have added to my piece on narrative, a question. Why have US journalists so obediently accepted the Israeli narrative to the exclusion of all others? Mike Rubbo
Posted by Mike Rubbo on Sat 10 Jan 2009 at 05:41 AM
The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby said that we should call it what it is—anti-Semitism: Jane Kim, is that your opinion, or his? If it is yours you must also agree with the following: If someone makes an anti-American comment they are anti-Christian. If someone makes an anti-Tibetan comment they are anti-Bhuddism. If someone makes an anti-India comment they are both anit-Hindu and Muslim.
If this goes on for much longer (and it will) this is how it wil get played out, though.
I agree with Mike Robbo's posts above, especially about the one-sided point of view that is getting fed to the public by the media.Dig a little deeper, Jane Kim.
Posted by beatrice on Sat 10 Jan 2009 at 10:18 PM
So "The New York Times’s Nicholas Kristof took the middle ground". This shows the inherent bias to the Israeli side. Under international law, the Occupied are legally allowed to resist an Occupier. In this case, most casualties are Palestinian civilians whereas it is they that "target" civilians and Israelis "target terrorists". To be fair to both sides surely both sides should equally be called "terrorists" if they target civilians. We know from thousands of IDF accounts that this is what is more usually the case. If Israel is allowed to "do something" after being shelled then should not the Palestinians be able to "do something" as it is they that had their homees and land ethnically cleansed? So Kristoff as the "middle ground" is a bit much.
Posted by Kryten on Sun 11 Jan 2009 at 12:45 AM
@beatrice: Thanks for your comment, and I take your point, except that I wasn't agreeing with Jacoby. The above is a roundup of what columnists and opinion writers were saying last week, not an analysis. And as I think my wording makes clear, it's his opinion, not mine.
Posted by Jane Kim on Sun 11 Jan 2009 at 07:40 PM