Gaza myths and facts: what American Jewish leaders won't tell you

This is a thinking person's article from Haaretz.. Don't bother to read it if you are a hater or too partisan to reason.

Gaza myths and facts: what American Jewish leaders won't tell you

Myth: Gaza is free. Fact: it has been under Israeli occupation since 1967 to this very day.


By Peter Beinart

Published 13:44 30.07.14


If you’ve been anywhere near the American Jewish community over the past few weeks, you’ve heard the following morality tale: Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, hoping the newly independent country would become the Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, Hamas seized power, ransacked greenhouses, threw its opponents off rooftops and began launching thousands of rockets at Israel.

American Jewish leaders use this narrative to justify their skepticism of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. But in crucial ways, it’s wrong. And without understanding why it’s wrong, you can’t understand why this war is wrong too.

Let’s take the claims in turn.

Israel Left Gaza

It’s true that in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israel’s more than 8,000 settlers from Gaza. (At America’s urging, he also dismantled four small settlements in the West Bank). But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. As the Israeli human rights group Gisha has detailed, even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (In conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland).

“Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government — has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.

To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state. By 2004, when Sharon announced the Gaza withdrawal, the Road Map for Peace that he had signed with Mahmoud Abbas was going nowhere. Into the void came two international proposals for a two state solution. The first was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, in which every member of the Arab League offered to recognize Israel if it returned to the 1967 lines and found a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. The second was the 2003 Geneva Initiative, in which former Israeli and Palestinian negotiators publicly agreed upon the details of a two state plan. As the political scientists Jonathan Rynhold and Dov Waxman have detailed, Sharon feared the United States would get behind one or both plans, and pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state near the 1967 lines. “Only an Israeli initiative,” Sharon argued, “will keep us from being dragged into dangerous initiatives like the Geneva and Saudi initiatives.”

Sharon saw several advantages to withdrawing settlers from Gaza. First, it would save money, since in Gaza Israel was deploying a disproportionately high number of soldiers to protect a relatively small number of settlers. Second, by (supposedly) ridding Israel of its responsibility for millions of Palestinians, the withdrawal would leave Israel and the West Bank with a larger Jewish majority. Third, the withdrawal would prevent the administration of George W. Bush from embracing the Saudi or Geneva plans, and pushing hard—as Bill Clinton had done—for a Palestinian state. Sharon’s chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, put it bluntly: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

It’s no surprise, therefore, that the Gaza withdrawal did not meet minimal Palestinian demands. Not even the most moderate Palestinian leader would have accepted a long-term arrangement in which Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza while maintaining control of the Strip’s borders and deepening Israeli control of the West Bank. (Even in the 2005, the year Sharon withdrew from Gaza, the overall settler population rose, in part because some Gazan settlers relocated to the West Bank).

In fact, Sharon’s advisors did not expect withdrawing Gaza’s settlers to satisfy the Palestinians. Nor did not they expect it to end Palestinian terrorism. Ehud Olmert, a key figure in the disengagement plan (and someone who himself later embraced Palestinian statehood), acknowledged that “terror will continue” after the removal of Gaza’s settlers. The key word is “continue.” Contrary to the American Jewish narrative, militants in Gaza didn’t start launching rockets at Israel after the settlers left. They began a half-decade earlier, at the start of the second intifada. The Gaza disengagement did not stop this rocket fire. But it did not cause it either.

Hamas Seized Power

I can already hear the objections. Even if withdrawing settlers from Gaza didn’t give the Palestinians a state, it might have made Israelis more willing to support one in the future - if only Hamas had not seized power and turned Gaza into a citadel of terror.

But Hamas didn’t seize power. It won an election. In January 2006, four months after the last settlers left, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem chose representatives to the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. (The previous year, they had separately elected Abbas to be the Palestinian Authority’s President). Hamas won a plurality of the vote - forty-five percent - but because of the PA’s voting system, and Fatah’s idiotic decision to run more than one candidate in several districts, Hamas garnered 58 percent of the seats in parliament.

To the extent American Jewish leaders acknowledge that Hamas won an election (as opposed to taking power by force), they usually chalk its victory up to Palestinian enthusiasm for the organization’s 1988 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction (The president of the New York board of rabbis said recently that anyone who voted for Hamas should be considered a combatant, not a civilian). But that’s almost certainly not the reason Hamas won. For starters, Hamas didn’t make Israel’s destruction a major theme of its election campaign. In its 2006 campaign manifesto, the group actually fudged the question by saying only that it wanted an “independent state whose capital is Jerusalem” plus fulfillment of the right of return.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that by 2006 Hamas had embraced the two state solution. Only that Hamas recognized that running against the two state solution was not the best way to win Palestinian votes. The polling bears this out. According to exit polls conducted by the prominent Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, 75 percent of Palestinian voters—and a remarkable 60 percent of Hamas voters—said they supported a Palestinian unity government dedicated to achieving a two state solution.

So why did Hamas win? Because, according to Shikaki, only fifteen percent of voters called the peace process their most important issue. A full two-thirds cited either corruption or law and order. It’s vital to remember that 2006 was the first Palestinian election in more than ten years. During the previous decade, Palestinians had grown increasingly frustrated by Fatah’s unaccountable, lawless and incompetent rule. According to exit polls, 85 percent of voters called Fatah corrupt. Hamas, by contrast, because it had never wielded power and because its charitable arm effectively delivered social services, enjoyed a reputation for competence and honesty.

Hamas won, in other words, for the same reason voters all across the world boot out parties that have grown unresponsive and self-interested after years in power. That’s not just Shikaki’s judgment. It’s also Bill Clinton’s. As Clinton explained in 2009, “a lot of Palestinians were upset that they [Fatah] were not delivering the services. They didn’t think it [Fatah] was an entirely honest operation and a lot of people were going to vote for Hamas not because they wanted terrorist tactics…but because they thought they might get better service, better government…They [also] won because Fatah carelessly and foolishly ran both its slates in too many parliamentary seats.”

continued

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.608008?v=9D3E8191C0D2AFBE8F367C467342F6EB

 

Margot2 - Is hamas a terror orginazation ??
Yes or No ?
And please !!!!!! Only yes or No.

 

Did you bother to read the article in its entirety?

 

It's not really a yes or no question is it? You are offering a false dilemma, a logical fallacy.

 

Hamas was founded in 1987 with the support of the Israelis.. Sabeel tried to prevent it without success. So if you want to understand Hamas try learning something about it and the conditions in Gaza.

You might start with the destruction of water assets in the Jordan Basin since 1967.

 

He doesn't care about reality, he has his talking-points at the ready.

 

LOLOL.. No kidding.

 

The no-go area has just been doubled in width, along the whole length of Gaza. The entire "Buffer-Zone" now takes up 40% of the land area.

 

Sweet Jesus.. This slaughter and land grab could go on another 50 years.

 

Prove that Hamas' creation was supported by the Israelis. there is no hard evidence to support this statement.
It is an offshoot of the MB.

good article tho.

 

Time magazine did an article on it years ago.. and any number of Israelis have testified to their funding and support of Hamas on CPAN over the years..

The Israelis wanted them as a foil against Arafat and the PLO... anything to avoid a peace deal.

 

Give me evidence. Time is hardly a definitive source for such an accusation. If you make the accusation you must be able to substantiate it. Not offer up vague references. who are these Israelis,? how much funding? what kinds of support?

I have long heard this totally unsubstantiated accusation and its supposed rationale, but NOBODY has offered any evidence to support it.

IMHO, I can't imagine Israel supporting an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood under any circumstance.

 

How about this:
http://washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

 

Or this:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/sb12327557295011847

Teh Google is too hard.

 

unnamed sources? Not a shred of evidence as yet presented except for unsubstantiated hearsay.

the fact that Israel as the occupier allowed yassin and hamas to operate is not indicative of any support.
the fact that Israel allowed the creation of a university is not indicative of support.

Now, apart from american news reports, do you actually have any hard evidence? that is what I am looking for.

 

Look for the testimony of Israeli officials on You Tube.

Of course they regret having supported the development of Hamas now, but in 1987 the only ones trying to stop it were Sabeel..

 

In short: there will never be evidence which will convince you. Handwave this away next.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

 

The expanded Buffer Zone.



Now you see why all these homes are being demolished.

 

Really? The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Time magazine all collaborated in a conspiracy to misinform the world? Dude, you may as well claim the Illuminati are the true gov't of Gaza.

 

Seems that dispite asking for this evidence a few times, you still can't produce it.

 

Seriously? again, no evidence merely supposition and interpretation.
Where are the documents outlining this supposed Israeli strategy? Who was involved in it and what have they "admitted"?

I keep asking for evidence and all I seem to be getting is opinions published of questionable bias.

just as a fer instance.

Apparently top secret Mossad operations which one must assume any plan to establish and support a group that was CLEARLY violently anti-semitic and anti-zionist would be, are common knowlege except there is no evidence to support this claim. NONE.

The article states "Netanyahu quite unexpectedly released Yassin" was in an exchange for two captured Mossad agents. But the author leaves that out to suggest there was some kind of tacit support or use for Yassin to counter Arafat.

What was the Mossad operation called? Who ran it? How much money was provided?

Since when does allowing the establishment of an educational institution in this case the first post secondary institution in Gaza, Islamic University, founded in 1978 a good 11 years before the founding of Hamas and at least 15 years before any other institution translate into supporting Hamas.

Now, is there any evidence or am I just going to get more opinions and biased interpretations?

 

No, I am stating in none of those stories have they produced any evidence. Its all "unnamed sources", and unsubstantiated accusations. If you read the articles, it becomes quickly apparent that nobody has actually produced any hard evidence to support such a claim.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I refuse to accept that the Israelis weren't fully cognizant of what Hamas would stand for, since it was an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact that Qtb was executed two months after the 67 war was not lost on the Israelis. They were fully versed on the Islamist position on Israel and zionism. I also don't think that they were stupid enough to think that the could create and control a "counterbalance" to Arafat when it was plain that the "counterbalance" was even more unbalanced than the secular Arafat and Fatah.

Once again, where is the hard evidence to support this salacious accusation?

 

I will try to find more evidence for you... Israel created Hamas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27esxkQtfTc

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123275572295011847

Moshav Tekuma, Israel

Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.

"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas.

Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.

 

Don't bother if you insist on presenting comments and opinions in the absence of hard evidence.
Ron Paul is hardly in a position to possess such evidence.