The Telegraph shames itself in this editorial by saying Israel “may” be to blame for Hamas’ Jew-hatred.
The events this week in Gaza, with what passed for the authority there being overwhelmed by forces supporting an Islamic state, create a new, dangerous situation not merely in the Middle East but also for the world. Israel has long shared borders with potentially hostile forces, but never, until now, have they included Islamic fundamentalism. We have written before of the “franchising” nature of al-Qaeda’s spread of influence. Its agenda and that of Hamas – now in charge in Gaza – are horribly similar. Hatred not merely of the state of Israel, but of the very existence of Jews themselves, informs the new masters of this Palestinian territory. It may well be true that part of this wound has been inflicted by Israel itself, because of policy failures since 1967 and especially since the rule of Ariel Sharon. However, such apportioning of blame now becomes a secondary consideration.
And yet, the Telegraph editors make sure to apportion that blame in the first paragraph of their editorial. Blaming the Jews for incurring Jew-hatred.How very—British of them.
And then the editors get the vapors at the thought of a Hamas-IDF battle.
The rest of the world, many of whose states have themselves shown varying degrees of hostility to Israel over the years, now have to face what should be a straightforward choice. It is one between darkness and light. Israel, for all its faults, is a democracy. It stands at risk of aggression from various enemies, but now faces one on its very borders that is hell-bent, by its own admission, on Israel’s destruction. The short work Hamas has made of Fatah in Gaza bodes ill, even were it to be pitted against the strength of Israel’s forces. The memories of last August’s war against Hizbollah are still fresh.
Please. The IDF would have made even shorter work of Fatah, and would not have resorted to the barbarity of throwing people off buildings or outright murdering women. Fatah is not an army. The Telegraph appears to be fighting the last war, while the IDF has spent the past year analyzing what went wrong and moving to fix it.
Here’s the only part of the editorial worth reading:
But, equally, America, Europe and preferably the United Nations Security Council must do all in their power to assert Israel’s right to resist any Hamas aggression. This is no longer an abstract consideration, but one on which could hinge the survival of a nation, and the prevention of a conflagration throughout the whole region.
I will withhold judgment until I see what the Telegraph prints when that inevitable war breaks out.
So what then?
The Israelis crush Hamas (which they would) and then reoccupy Gaza? How do you reoccupy a place with a population density of 10,000 per square mile? And what prevents Hamas from reforming four years later when a new batch of teenaged men comes of age? And how does that mitigate the periodic violence that does not depend upon a functioning centralized control structure?
I like characterizing the forces on Israel’s borders as “potentially hostile.” True enough, in the same sense that water is potentially wet.
You know, I came from a town in NJ that had a population density of 6,000 people per square mile. I am unimpressed with bogus statistics such as population density.
Mexico City is far more populous than Gaza, and yet, there are no suicide bombers heading into the U.S. from south of the border—even though the southwestern United States was once Mexican territory.
In fact, Hoboken, NJ, is three times as densely populated as Gaza. So, on population density, what exactly is your point?
And again, you are commenting on things I have not said. I did not advocate the reoccupation of Gaza. Kindly ask me to defend statements that I have made, not statements from inside your head, as I am not a mind reader.
Really getting tired of this crap, Eli. REALLY tired of it.
No sane person wants Gaza taken over. Occupation is not an accurate term for the settlements formerly set up by Israelis (who then employed Gazans at profitable work) and then despoiled by Hamas and their playmates.
So it is the fault of Jews that the bastard children of Arafat (who have since looted his nonancestral home in Gaza City) that the tribal warfare that has been going on for years is going on.
Makes since to me.
sorry…”sense” not [sic] “since”
Meryl,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I’m not challenging what you said. My point was just an: okay, what now? Not a challenge. Just trying to expand out the conversation. I don’t disagree with anything you said.
As for population, I don’t understand your response. I’m not arguing that density leads to suicide bombing or hatred or whatever. Just that it is HARD to fight street by street in dense places.
Eli says:
I’m not arguing that density leads to suicide bombing or hatred or whatever. Just that it is HARD to fight street by street in dense places.
I get the sense that the next round in Gaza against Hamas will not be like Jenin, where the IDF put its men at great risk as a matter of policy. Maybe it won’t be carpet-bombing, either, but there is an address and an enemy at that address, and this is a war of their making. Make of it what you will, but I hope that the Israeli government will decide, finally, to take of the gloves and destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Because that’s what it always takes to really win.
“It may well be true that part of this wound has been inflicted by Israel itself, because of policy failures since 1967 and especially since the rule of Ariel Sharon.”
I _think_ what the editors are saying is that if Israel had handled the occupation better and if Sharon had handled the intifada better, then Hamas would not have come to power. But the sentence is rather obtuse.
Indeed Israel has had policy failures, but the assumption underlying this assertion–and the Telegraph isn’t the only one making it–is that Israel should have had prescient, effective, and unerringly productive diplomacy and if not, it bears much responsibility for the violence and savagery.
But what particular policies could Israel have engaged in post-1967 that would have led down some completely different road? In what way was Israel the determining factor?
Aftr the Six-day War Israel offerred to return to the Arab states all the conquered territory except East Jerusalem. The Arab response was the three No’s: No peace, no recognition, no negotiation. This remained the Arab position for a decade, and remains the policy of most Arab countries to this day. There is some negotiation now, in the spirit of the Treaty of Hudabiyya. What was Israel supposed to do, give the Arabs back the land without any peace treaty? Then the Israelis could sit behind the Auschwitz Borders until the next time the Arabs decided to make a try at genocide? Puleeeze.
As for Sharon, everybody criticizes him for being a hard-ass. When he was one year old the Arabs massacred the Jewish population of Hebron. While he was a teenager the Nazis murdered nearly the entire Jewish population of Europe, and would have murdered the Jews of Palestine if they had got hold of them. In his twenties five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel to destroy it and kill all the Jews. He was badly wounded in that war. Througour his adult lifetime he had to fight implacable enemies determined to destroy his country and kill its Jewish inhabitants. If Sharon was a hard-ass, he had reason to be.
The same thing goes for Israel as a whole. Israel has tried withdrawal twice and gotten nothing but murder for its pains. The Arabs carry on with their genocidal war no matter what policies Israel adopts. There is nothing Israel can do to end this war; the initiative is entirely up to the Arabs. It will end only when the Arabs and Muslims sicken of it.
Eli, of course you’re not challenging what I said, because I never said any such thing that you commented on. I have never advocated the reoccupation of Gaza, and was on the fence about disengagement. But you’ve managed to hijack this comment thread from the topic I posted about, to the topic you “expanded.”
I will say that it is to laugh to think that the IDF will be routed like Fatah. The Telegraph editorial is absurd. There is simply no comparison.
Hamas, Hezbullah, and Syria are all going to be fighting the last war. The IDF has spent the past year learning from the mistakes of the Second Lebanon War. They will not come down the roads that are already booby-trapped with tank-killing bombs beneath the surface, and tunnels for Hamasniks to run in and out of. They won’t go into the snipers’ nests. They will take a completely unexpected approach if they decide to invade Gaza. Their targets will be Hamas military targets, and they will not be drawn into house-to-house fighting.
The IDF is a thinking army. Fatah is a collection of thugs. Hamas is a collection of thugs with some military training, and no real military leaders. The IDF, if they have truly learned the lessons of Lebanon, will go in, take care of business, and go out, leaving smoking craters where Hamas intelligence and military centers used to be.
And you can pretty much guarantee that no one will be thrown off a building by Israeli soldiers. Nor will they execute teenaged girls.
Those are just my thoughts, gleaned only from what is available to the public to read. If I can figure these things out, I’m guessing the people in the IDF whose job it is to do this have vastly superior plans.