Why only Hamas can save a ‘Jewish state’ (if it wants to)

My own view on the Hamas question, which has now been interestingly raised in the US by Henry Siegman’s Group of Ten, is actually that only Hamas can deliver a durable two-state outcome in Israel/Palestine– if it should choose to. And therefore that if Jewish Israelis and their supporters around the world want to save the idea of Israel as “a Jewish state”, then only Hamas can do that for them.
If Hamas chooses to do that, which is of course another question…
This conclusion is something I’ve arrived at increasingly over the past two months. Basically, a lot of it has to do with the near-total implosion of Fateh as a coherent political force, whose results I witnessed while I was in Palestine and neighboring countries on my latest trip.
Anyway, I’ll be talking a lot more about this during the two events I’m speaking at in DC next week… (Details are here. Pre-registration is required for both.)

42 thoughts on “Why only Hamas can save a ‘Jewish state’ (if it wants to)”

  1. You seem to be implying that Hamas might see an advantage in waiting. A single state could not be a Jewish state without taking its apartheid-like aspects to even greater degrees than it does now, which clearly would not be acceptable to the world at large. So if Hamas has a choice between a two-state solution or a one-state solution that, if it truly were democratic, would inevitably become dominated by Palestinians due to their greater numbers… why would they not choose the latter? It would be a longer and bloodier path to take, but the ultimate result would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

  2. ” only Hamas can deliver a durable two-state outcome in Israel/Palestine-”
    Well of course !!!!!
    This is because its entire strategy since Oslo has been to STOP the two-state outcome by fatally undermining the PA, taking over the PLO and destroying the Israeli peace movement. Its tactics to achieve its goals have been to use military action and rejectionism of Oslo, to empower the Israeli right, which it did in 1996, 2001 and just a few weeks ago.
    So far its doing prety good, don’t you think? Dividing Palestine, for instance? That one action alone destroys any chance of two states?

  3. And as you yourself point out, Hamas has achieved the “near total implosion of Fateh as a coherent political force”.You have to hand it to them.

  4. Please tell, in detail, how can Hamas can save Israel?
    Best I can tell, Hamas can’t end this conflict just as the PLO couldn’t. Israel holds the vast majority of the cards, use them to continue the conquest regardless of what Palestinians do.

  5. Please tell, in detail, how can Hamas can save Israel?
    Best I can tell, Hamas can’t end this conflict just as the PLO couldn’t. Israel holds the vast majority of the cards, use them to continue the conquest regardless of what Palestinians do.

  6. Saving a descent of the world into complete barbarism, (which is by no means impossible and a fate to be guarded against), Israel can only continue to exist by entering sincerely into peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
    What Gaza showed was that the revisionist zionists have shot their bolt: there really is nothing further that they can do.
    Israel is now dominated, politically, by fascist politicians. The most striking aspect of fascism is that it consists of ruthless tactical practice and a complete absence of strategic imagination. That is why the last resort of fascists is always to kill their opponents. Just as it is their first resort.
    Essentially the perspective offered by Israel’s current leadership is to keep on killing Palestinians until they have gone away and forgotten where they came from. (There are variations on this theme but they are minor and generally little more than parodies of decency.)
    Fateh was the carefully fattened goose bred to lay the golden egg of a peace deal heavily skewed in favour of Israel. But the Israeli right could not forebear from plucking at the goose, bullying it, laughing at it. As a result it can no longer lay its golden egg.
    If Israel wants peace it will have to talk to Hamas (its policy of killing it off member by member having failed). It will have to recognise that its settlement policy has been an expensive failure, that Jerusalem is not going to be ethnically cleansed, that Palestinian refugees do have the right of return and that, whatever political arrangements emerge, discrimination against Palestinians cannot be continued.
    If Israel does not achieve a peace agreement, (saving always the possibility of a fascist world order dedicated to injustice and inequality), it will not survive. Nor, if it continues on its present pasth, will it be missed.
    And that, I suspect, is what President Ahmedijehad has been attempting to tell the world.

  7. Essentially the perspective offered by Israel’s current leadership is to keep on killing Palestinians until they have gone away and forgotten where they came from.
    “The old will die and the young will forget.” David ben Gurion, 1948
    Didn’t quite work out that way, of course, so they are still working on it 61 years later.

  8. Excuse me people. I see a lot of people saying that Israel has been undermining the peace process. Have you ever seen what Fatah and Hamas broadcast on TV to their people about Israel. It is standard antisemitism and Protocols of the Elders of Zion mumbo jumbo. They are undermining it by teaching the kids for generations what the Europeans used to teach about the Jews.

  9. Certainly there is truth in the argument that time and demographics are on the side of Hamas. Nonetheless, I believe that even the most hardline Hamas adherents want to see some improvement in their own lifetimes and real peace and opportunity for their children. For this reason they would pragmatically accept a genuine two state solution. But Israel must be willing and Israel has shown no intention of allowing a real Palestinian state. Based on actions, not endless negotiations, Israel intends to have all of the land and none of the people – at least in a political sense. Israel envisions a virtual state of Palestine which preclude Palestinians from ever having real political power over their lives and property. Why Abbas has gone along with this charade is the real question.

  10. Jack,
    Israel’s reluctance is not, so that we are clear here, without reason. It has the reasons, among others, that the Israelis do not believe that groups like Hamas will ever make peace with Israel.
    For example, Hamas is, if we go by its covenant and what its leaders have said repeatedly, opposed to peace with Jews and Israel on principle. Moreover, many of the leaders have said they believe, on religious grounds, that Jews are an eternally damned people of inherently and irredeemably perfidious character who kill all religious prophets and even attempted to kill the Muslim Prophet. Further, some of their leaders have claimed that Jews even supposedly altered their own Torah to remove evidence of Jewish prophecy pointing to Mohammad being a prophet – all of which are views expressed in traditional Hadiths, by the way. And, some leaders have said they believe that Israel is a sin in the eyes of their God. So, there is good room to be skeptical of Hamas making any real peace.
    Somehow, the noted, probably deeply held religious prejudices that have become part of Hamas style Islamist politics help make peace very difficult.
    Further, when Israel has ceded land since the rise of the Islamist movements, such cession has soon thereafter brought bloodshed. Bloodshed, after all, is what occurred after Israel withdrew from Lebanon. It is also what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza. Islamists wrote that the cession of such lands was a sign that the Israelis are weak. So, being generous with land in the Islamist era has not thus far been such a good thing from the point of view of Israelis who might value their own lives.
    Bottom line, if the Palestinian Arabs really do want peace with the Israelis, Palestinian Arabs might consider that their tactics tend to convince the Israelis that there is no likelihood of a peace.

  11. Jack:
    Israel envisions a virtual state of Palestine which preclude Palestinians from ever having real political power over their lives and property.
    A real Palestinian state full of Palestinians who believe, I’d argue rightly but in any case, that the creation of Israel as a Jewish state was an injustice that should be corrected would be able to, and would, end Israel’s status as a Jewish state.
    Zionists aren’t being irrationally evil here. As long as Palestinians cannot be convinced, in their own hearts, of the justice of the Zionist cause and the events that led to Israel’s creation, a sovereign Palestinian state would lead to the end of any Jewish state.
    This is a fact that advocates of two-states have been kind of wishing away since the beginning of the modern Zionist movement. Somehow now this fact has become clear enough that it is possible to snap some people out of the delusion that two states are possible.
    Once the delusion ends, it becomes time to discuss what a single post-Zionist state should look like, and how individual rights and interests, Jewish and non-Jewish, can be protected without a Jewish state.
    Why Abbas has gone along with this charade is the real question.
    The general answer is that Israel has become very good at puppet-management over its lifetime, not only in Palestine, but in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I also suspect that Islam’s fatalism, or something else about that religion, may make Israel’s region easier than other places for unpopular puppet rulers to maintain power.
    The specific answer is that, as Condi Rice said, pro-Israel Palestinians must either choose to stand together (with Israel) or hang alone. Dahlan and/or Fayyad would ensure that Abbas and those he cares about die miserably if Abbas was to go against US/Israeli instructions.
    Also Abbas’ term ended last year. He is only nominally in power because the US and Israel want him there. He has no legitimacy as a Palestinian leader – except for the US and Israel keeping him in power against Palestinian law, it doesn’t even matter what opinions he holds or what his motivations are.

  12. It’s a pity I can’t cross the world to hear Helena’s theory on why Hamas, now being in reach of its Covenant promise to bury the two states FOREVER, might want to change its mind?
    Or did she learn on her recent trip that Hamas is turning Christian and embracing forgiveness and pacifism? Have the Quakers been busy over there doing missionary work?

  13. Jack,
    You say that Hamas is “pragmatic”. What evidence do you prove that it is? None. To show you that it is not pragmatic, I’ll refer you to the Hamas Charter. Here are some excerpts:
    “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
    Just google the charter. It’s not hard. To Show you that Israel is pragmatic, all you have to do is look at the Gaza withdrawal and Israel handing over civil, and security responsibilities to the PA. It allowed the US to train Palestinian forces under command of the PA. They are trained by US General Dayton.
    Unfortunately, Western media ignored Arafat and his cronies and did not hold them accountable to the money the West was giving them. Because of this Western journalistic failure, the Palestinians were being screwed by their own leaders. Has anyone asked for an audit of Palestinian leaders? Seriously, I don’t know. It’s in American and European authority because that money is coming from their taxpayers – including me.
    What have the Palestinian leaders been doing to prepare their people for peace? They’ve been producing and broadcasting childrens’ shows and conspiracy theory documentaries of classic antisemitic definition. People like to call Israel racist. But what is racist is having such low standards for the Palestinians, like they can’t do any better. “Oh, you can’t blame their leaders from hoarding all the money, they are refugees” for example.
    Just compare Ben-Gurion’s declaration of independence in May 1948, a time of war when many Arab armies were gearing up to attack. Here is an excerpt:
    ” it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions;”
    Compare Israel’s declaration of independence to the declarations and constitutions of all the Arab countries. And who is called racist? Israel. And don’t give me bull about Israel calling itself “democratic” and hence it should have a higher standard. Israel’s immigrations laws, which were called racist, are just like those of enlightened Japan, Germany, and countless other European countries. Israel gives citizenship to those that openly denounce it.

  14. Michael W. and N. Friedman:
    There is anti-Semitism among Palestinians, but any argument that but for that anti-Semitism, Palestinians would have accepted Israel or Zionism is bizarre.
    People with strong emotional investments in the idea that there should be a Jewish state don’t understand how outlandish that argument is. It is just batsh!t crazy.
    There is anti-Arab bigotry among Zionists. I don’t search for it and point it out arguing that were it not for that bigotry Jews would accept an Arab majority and allow the refugees back.
    I don’t even argue often, as I really could, that there is bigotry inherent in the idea that an inhabited territory that was 90% non-Jewish when Zionism began as a modern political movement could make a suitable Jewish homeland. Meaning that the very predictable native opposition to their territory becoming someone else’s homeland was to be ignored.
    Yes there is anti-Jewish bigotry. I wish I could express to you how ridiculous it sounds to those who do not share your emotional attachment to Israel that you argue that this anti-Jewish bigotry is a primary motivation either of opponents of Zionism in the region or in the West.
    If every anti-Semitic thought could be erased from the minds of everyone on Earth, there would still be substantial opposition to Zionism. Enough that without puppet regimes in the neighbors and some structure that serves the same purpose as the occupation, Israel as a Jewish state would not be viable.
    I’m not defending or arguing the non-existence of bigotry against Jews. But your focus on that seems like a child-like narcissism – an inability to understand that disagreement with your viewpoint is possible without hatred of your people.

  15. Arnold,
    Perhaps if you stepped back from your theory whereby everything is judged by an anti-colonial theology, you might peek a little bit deeper into why Jews and their friends believe that Israel is a just cause – a just cause in the world that actually exists, not in a Utopian fantasy where all people are considered equal.
    My bet: if you understood the situation faced by actual Jews – examining history at least enough to note that, in fact, grotesque prejudices and truly irrational hatred against Jews is an endemic feature, if we go by any honest history, of both Arab and European society through the ages to the present day -, you might not be quite so caviler in your view that the issue is one that can be understood or resolved by means of any anti-colonial analysis.
    Moreover, you might also consider that migrants escaping persecution are not properly called colonialists, unless one wants to employ terminology in an intellectually lazy fashion and change the meaning of the word colonialists.

  16. bb
    If Hamas turned christian you guys wouldn’t last a week. You should be grateful that your adversaries are humane Muslims.
    I’d like a moratorium on anyone quoting tired old passages from the Quran or Hadiths. I also find a benign looking line “Islam’s fatalism” objectionable. How do you know Islam is fatalistic? You are just quoting all the BS written by no nothing Westerners. If not then I object to my catty anti-judaic posts being censored. I can quote more garbage from Torah and Talmud that will make your head spin.

  17. Arnold,
    Regarding your last post, I do not argue that, absent Antisemitism, there would have been no objection by Arabs in Palestine to the creation of Israel. What I argue is that, but for such prejudice, there would more likely have been a settlement long ago. And, further, I argue that hatred of Jews, endemic in both Christian and Muslim society, makes it all the harder to resolve the dispute because most Christians and Muslims are unable to think clearly when it comes to Jews.
    Further, you treat Antisemitism as if it were merely racism. That is a misconception. Ther eis racial Antisemitism but, over the course of history, that has been the exception. Only the Nazis held racist views in their hatred of Jews. Antisemitism is its own phenomena.
    In any event, if we go by what Islamists say, many claim that they want to eliminate Jews from the Earth. And, there is no settlement with people who not only have a dispute over who rules but, instead, want you dead.

  18. N.:
    I’ve made my point. I could respond further but I think a reasonable persuadable reader could anticipate how I’d respond to your last comment fairly accurately.
    I didn’t mean offense. I could have left that fatalism part out. Maybe I should have. The Arab world is a politically backward region and I’m embarrassed by, as one minor example, the Saudi leadership structure. I probably shouldn’t even hint that religion may be part of the explanation for this backwardness until I’ve given the situation more and better thought.
    The world superpower, because of Israel, has an incentive to keeping backwards political structures in that region that it does not have elsewhere. Maybe that’s explanation enough.
    For now, I retract that statement and apologize.

  19. @Arnold,
    If America, “because of Israel, has an incentive to keeping backwards political structures in that region”, why did it insist that the Palestinians hold elections, or even invade Iraq and develop a democracy, or have its President make a speech in front of Arab leaders telling them that it is for the better to give their people more rights?
    Why did they not put a Saudi shill and friend of the monarch be America’s top intelligence analyst? Don’t bother giving me the reason you think because I know what you’ll say.

  20. Arnold,
    While your approach to discussion is hit and run, you might, just to humor us, read what Michael W. wrote very, very carefully. He has shown your argument to be – and I am saying this in as politically correct manner as possible – factually challenged. Or, in ordinary English, what you write has been shown by him to be contrary to fact.
    As for what I have written, you have yet to address, other than to state you disagree, the argument I make – here and elsewhere -, which is that the existence of an opposition does not wholly define that opposition’s character. Which is to say, the specific character of Arab opposition to Israel’s existence was, as a factual matter, driven by Antisemitic propaganda and endemic Jew hatred by Arabs – written by Islamists living in Germany – that made settlement in the 1940’s all but impossible.
    You should consult Professor Jeffrey Herf’s scholarship and, once it is issued in the near future, his new book that will detail the content of the propaganda and its uses by, for example, the Arab national movement in Palestine.
    Again, I think you seriously misconceive the issues driving the Arab side in the dispute.

  21. Muezzin:
    I was referring to Helena’s wing of Christianity -the pacifists. Intriguing to speculate she was in palestine as part of the fifth column?

  22. To all Hasbarists – please give me one example of actions by Israel that could lead to peace and a two state solution. Not just words. Oslo was a joke. Has Israel ever stopped building “settlements” in violation of all international law? Don’t give me Gaza. That was Sharon’s attempt to avoid indictment. And creating an open air prison is not a positive action. Every cease fire and approach to peace has been ended by IDF killings. Never has Israel taken action – as opposed to mere words – to end the violence, because the continuing violence is what keeps the elite in power and keeps the average Israelis from realizing they are being used.

  23. Jack,
    How about Netanyahu’s concessions regarding Hebron, a city that is of great importance to Judaism?

  24. To Jackarista and all the other Pallywood Promoters – I might just turn your questions around. I might also point out that, following Oslo, Israel turned over all the major towns and cities to complete Palestinian control and a majority of rural regions to Palestinian civil control under joint security patrols.
    It was Hamas who, following Oslo, initiated a series of suicide bombings in 1994-96, apparently to try and destroy the agreement to create an environment more conducive to their aims and political goals.

  25. I have been to Hebron. I have seen the total destruction of the old business district by Israel. I have seen the ugly teenage troops harassing the Palestinians. I have seen the apartheid checkpoints and pass checking with old people waiting i long lines in the hot sun. I have seen the outrageous , threatening conduct of the crazed settlers and their support from IDF troops. Hebron is totally occupied land in the most brutal fashion. Try another one N.

  26. Jack,
    Your “facts” – even if they were entirely correct – do not make it untrue that Netanyahu made major concessions related to Hebron.
    As for your “facts,” the matter is not simple. It was a city with a Jewish presence since ancient times until Jews were ethnically cleansed in the 1920’s. It is a city that is sacred to Jews. The very name of the city ought to be a clue for you. It is, in fact, a city over which Jews have as good a moral claim as Arabs to live in – yet Netanyahu ceded it to be part of a future Palestinian Arab state.
    Yes, there has been violence in the city. And, yes, the Israelis have done their share of bad things there. But, your version of it negates any conception that Jews have a legitimate claim related to the city.

  27. N- you are still evading the point – but then that is what you were trained to do, isn’t it?. Israel may have “said” it was turning over Hebron, but the actual “facts on the ground” show that to be a complete lie. A perfect example of Israel saying one thing while doing just the opposite. (Just like “the most moral army in the world” lie). Hebron is an Israeli occupied city with the IDF and “settler” thugs running it.

  28. Jack,
    Well, there are a lot of liars. And, both sides have their share.
    Remember the liar Arafat – as Prince Bandar branded him, when he lied regarding President Clinton’s December 2000 settlement proposal – who shook Rabin’s hands at the White House and then shortly thereafter, without batting an eye, told an audience outside of the US that Oslo should be understood not as step towards peace but, instead, in the context of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.
    Remember all the promises by the PA to stop inciting hatred of Jews. The PA never implemented those promises. In fact, one sees vile propaganda designed to foment hatred, as if there were no interest at all on the Arab side, apart from appeasing Western audiences when they speak in English or French, to resolve the dispute.
    In any event, the issue for Hebron is which country the town would ultimately be part of so, in fact, Netanyahu’s concession was a very important one – and one particularly difficult for any Israeli. As for violence that may have occurred in Hebron, the reason for Israel’s actions is all those Palestinian Arabs who would, were life not made inconvenient, massacre Israelis. As far as I am concerned, if Arabs want to massacre people, they have no reasonable expectation that the Israelis will make it easy to accomplish.

  29. N – congratulations;you have maintained your obfuscation for which you were trained. You still refuse to address the issue you raised of Hebron as an example of Israeli action. Your handlers would be proud of the way you avoid real discussion and try to deflect the argument. When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When the facts are against you pound on the law. When they are both against you, pound on the table.

  30. congratulations;you have maintained your obfuscation for which you were trained.
    Jack, do you really suppose that N. Friedman is a paid agent of the Zionist Conspiracy (with “handlers” , special training etc, maybe some cool spy equipment?)
    “The name is Friedman, N. Friedman!”
    Too funny!

  31. The Palestinians already have three nations – Jordan, PA, and Gaza. That they have made of sewer of the latter two (PA, GAZA) is their own fault. That they have not made a sewer of the first (Jordan) is to the credit not of the Palestinians, but of the Hashemites.

  32. The Palestinians already have three nations – Jordan, PA, and Gaza. That they have made of sewer of the latter two (PA, GAZA) is their own fault.
    Do you ask yourself to compare “Jewish state” how many scattered nations they have around the world?
    Millions collected by bribes to get them settled in new settlement on occupied land of Palestinians.
    Why people so blind and lairs they keep write without keep their mouth shut.

  33. Salah,
    Repeating the big lies don’t make them true.
    If you are a brave thinker, read Dave Hunt’s “Judgment Day” and Joel Rosenberg’s “Epicenter” and then come back and do a self-critique on this spew.
    While you’re at it, visit JihadWatch and Gates of Vienna websites for history (special note to you: historical, years ago, meant FACTUAL).
    I still can’t figure out how you’re supposed to negotiate with a group with a charter that calls for your eradication. Where’s any room for compromise. It’s pretty hard to be a little bit dead.

  34. These sort of comment very clear of a losers, Blind, Deaf and hatful minds.
    No surprises here YOU such a downy person with mind “spew “ lies very clear from your “Zionists” biased references sites so sick and hatful sites..

  35. Read the historical facts telling you ” BIG LAIER” by your follow ilk:

    “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

    David Ben-Gurion

  36. Salah,
    The following quote was from Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel.
    “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” Golda Meir

  37. Oh, JR, excuse me while I vomit in response to that consummate piece of hypocrisy by Mrs. Meir. No-one ever “forced” Israel to kill Arabs. Period. Israel has killed Arabs because it chose to– from 1948, through to the present day. There is ALWAYS an alternative to violence, but the government of Israel has very seldom spent much time pursuing it.
    Most recently, there were 100 alternatives the Olmert could have chosen except to launch that sick assault against Gaza’s people…. but it chose not to.

  38. Helena,
    Would you have taken the path of war and violence to stop Hitler?
    Would you have take the path of war and violence to stop the Hebron massacre and expulsion of Jews in 1929? And the large scale attempt of a similar feat by the Arabs in 1948?
    You direct all responsibilities at Israel. No one “forced” the Arabs to kill dozens of Jews in Hebron in 1929 and expel the rest, but they chose to do so anyway, if you get my drift.
    Arabs always whine about being expelled (or how they had to flee) and their property seized from Israel in 1948. Consider that an even greater number of Jews were expelled and forced to flee from Arab/Persian countries never to get their property/land back, and this started before 1948. After this exchange of populations, if you can call it that, the number of Arabs in Israel has multiplied, while the number of Jews in Muslim countries has almost reached 0%.
    When my mother’s side of the family fled Tunisia in 1961 with only a few suite cases, the moved to France and followed the path to citizenship. How is it that Palestinian Arabs are still in refugee camps in Arab countries? It’s because the Arab countries want to keep them that way and use them as pawns against Israel. Darfurians will stop being refugees in less than a generation. They will pursue a place where they can live. How come the Palestinians are 3rd and 4th generation refugees? It is because they pursued a place where they can wage war. And how come the Jewish Israelis, half of whom came from Muslim countries, who fought the same war as the Palestinians but on the flip side, aren’t considered refugees?
    How about the Palestinians get the land and property the Jews lost from the Muslim countries of their former residence and they stop with their fatal and ideological war for “Palestine”? The Muslim countries should give them citizenship, especially to those Palestinians that have been living there for multiple generations. Since your focus is about the Palestinians, perhaps as a journalist you should write about the Arab governments’ refusal to give Palestinians citizenship and rights, like the right to vote and work in their chosen profession.

  39. Helena,
    You write: “No-one ever “forced” Israel to kill Arabs. Period. Israel has killed Arabs because it chose to– from 1948, through to the present day.”
    Well, the Israelis could have allowed themselves to be slaughtered by Arab armies. Is that really what you think would be a moral response, Helena? And, of course, Arab armies attacked in 1948 and 1973. I gather you condemn the Israelis for killing in those wars also – even in self-defense.
    My view: pacifism, to be taken seriously, has to be even handed. You are not even handed, as the quoted and other comments reveal.
    A principled, as opposed to a hypocritical, pacifism has to view all parties who fight as always wrong. How, then, can you possibly advocate for Palestinian Arabs? They, after all, have never had to resort to violence. They could have accepted the 1948 partition. They could have accepted the 2000 – 2001 plans. Yet, they have resorted to violence – and, as you would say if you were not so one sided in all of this, no one forces Palestinian Arabs to kill.

Comments are closed.