Thursday, August 17, 2006

No, Hamas ISN'T Ready To Deal

I just don't know what it is with some people, news organizations, institutions, etc. They seem to think that a new document or a few mouthed words will actually change 58 years of Israeli history virtually overnight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/opinion/17atran.html

Says research scientist Scott Atran in the above linked NYT op-ed:

"Recent discussions I’ve had with Hamas leaders and their supporters around the globe indicate that Israel might just find a reasonable and influential bargaining partner."

Right. Sure. Now pull the other one, its got bells on. Can you please name these mysterious Hamas leaders and their supporters, and how exactly have they indicated a willingess to drop their call for the destruction of Israel?

Scott goes on to say, "Many Israelis consider the rescue of a soldier a “sacred value,” worth almost any cost, including military action leading to other Israeli soldiers dying. But the Israeli offensive also had a larger strategic goal: to destroy whatever potential the Hamas government had to prevent Israel from unilaterally redrawing its boundaries to include some West Bank settlements. Doing so was something that Israel had intended as soon as it could convince the United States that with Hamas having defeated Fatah at the polls, there was no legitimate Palestinian partner to negotiate with. "

1. Thanks for putting "sacred value" in quotes, thereby condescending our value for human life. Furthermore, it shows how much you understand Jewish mentality by implying that Jews/Israeli's don't understand the theme of "Saving Private Ryan." To the Jewish people, every life is sacred. Yes, war is confusing, and Israeli soldiers died protecting their homeland. It might behoove you to remember they died because their fellow soldiers were attacked in the first place. And to do nothing, to save soldiers lives out of cowardice, might be something you personally are okay with, but the people of Israel were not.

2. You say, "But the Israeli offensive also had a larger strategic goal: to destroy whatever potential the Hamas government had to prevent Israel from unilaterally redrawing its boundaries to include some West Bank settlements."

You're an idiot, an absolute vapid nutjob. If any outside goal was maintained in the last offensive, it was to recreate Israel's deterrent policty, i.e. you rocket us, we'll destroy your infrastructure. Any current offensive against Hamas is meant to protect Israel from those terrorists to whom life means nothing. I'd rather consider life 'sacred' than not, thank you very much.

Finally, you said, "Mr. Haniya’s government had just agreed to a historic compromise with Fatah and its leader, President Mahmoud Abbas, forming a national coalition that implicitly accepts the coexistence alongside Israel."

Mr. Atran, your entire op-ed article is chock full of inconsistencies, sophmoric opinions, and pure lies. You might as well be a Hezbollah supporter. The 'historic compromise' you site does not actually mean what you think it means. You are referring to the prisoners document, which CAMERA has a lot to say about:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=34&x_article=1132

"The Prisoners’ Document does not explicitly call for recognition of Israel; and it presses for the "right of return," widely understood as a way to destroy the Jewish state via demographic means. "

Futhermore:

"Indeed, a Hamas spokesman emphasized after the text of the Prisoners’ Document was released that his organization espouses principles similar to those described in the "phased plan": The Hamas Movement's position is a clear one: We refuse to recognize the Israeli occupation, but we do not object to any gradual solutions that do not stem from recognition of the Israeli occupation's state. If we are speaking in the context of a transient and gradual solution, then yes, we do not object to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without that leading to the recognition of the occupation's legitimacy. (Sami Abu Zuhri, May 11, 2006, translated by BBC Monitoring Middle East)"

I am no longer suprised by the anti-objective stance the NYT takes in regards to Israel and its position in the middle east. Any student of history, who has managed to pick up an actual book on the subject, is well aware of the fact that Israel has been under attack from its inception. Israel has fought 9 wars, all of which are part of the same overlying struggle - a fight for Israel's very existence.

And personally, I no longer distinguish between anti-zionists and anti-semitists. They simply have too much in common. I have hope though. My liberal Jewish friend was recently persuaded that his long held opinions aren't necessarily based in reality, after reading some documentation I passed along. If only other people would open their eyes too, we'd have more people debating the facts on the ground, instead of seeing these opeds that have no basis in reality.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home