In the same vein and equally inane was Nathan Thrall's contributor op-ed entitled "Hurting Moderates, Helping Militants" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05Thrall.html?ref=opinion) in Wednesday's New York Times, in which Thrall, who we are told is "a Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group", would have us believe that if Israel doesn't negotiate with Hamas, something worse could come along:
"There [in the Gaza Strip], several years of isolation have led not to the weakening of Hamas but to the strengthening of even more uncompromising enemies of the Jewish state.
. . . .
On Monday, Hamas self-defeatingly sought to bolster its flagging Islamist credentials by mourning the death of Osama bin Laden and praising him as an Arab holy warrior — just days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ominously warned that 'Israel would not recognize any government in the world that included members from Al Qaeda.'
In reality, the likelihood of such a government is slight, but if Israel continues to oppose Palestinian reconciliation, Mr. Netanyahu’s nightmare may become less of a fantasy.
Repeating the mistakes of the past will only strengthen Hamas’s Salafi jihadi challengers, who proliferated the last time Palestinians were penalized for their votes and could one day pose an even greater threat to Israel."
Indeed, five years of isolation have not dislodged Hamas. On the other hand, there have been almost no suicide bombings in Israel since Hamas has been isolated. Nathan chooses to ignore, for example, how "moderates" from Hamas perpetrated the Park Hotel Passover massacre, which killed 30 Israeli civilians exactly nine years ago, and wounded another 140.
Whereas it may be easy for Nathan, who holds an M.A. in political science from Columbia University and lives in New York, to ignore the Park Hotel massacre and paint Hamas as "moderate", I, on the other hand, have three children and live some 10 miles away from the Park Hotel. No, I don't have a degree in political science from Columbia that permits me to determine that Hamas is moderate. Quite the contrary, my experience combating terror is non-academic, including, inter alia, some 30 years in the regular army and the reserves, witnessing from up close the "moderation" of Hamas.
True, the Park Hotel massacre happened nine years ago, but the firing by Hamas of a Kornet anti-tank missile at a yellow Israeli school bus occurred only one month ago, as did a barrage of 120 mortar shells, rockets and missiles fired by Hamas at civilian targets in southern Israel over a single weekend.
Needless to say, Nathan fails to observe that the Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews (you can't get more moderate than that, right, Nathan?) and rejects a negotiated solution to the conflict with Israel. Thus, the organization's ongoing refusal to renounce violence as the means to its ultimate end, the destruction of Israel, should come as no surprise (see, most recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/middleeast/06palestinians.html?_r=1).
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated in December:
"We said it five years ago and we say it now ... we will never, we will never, we will never recognize Israel."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/14/us-palestinians-hamas-idUSTRE6BD2XW20101214
In short, thanks for the thought provoking "analysis", Nathan; however, this is one instance where I take Ismail Haniyeh at his word.
"In reality, the likelihood of such a government is slight, but if Israel continues to oppose Palestinian reconciliation, Mr. Netanyahu’s nightmare may become less of a fantasy"
ReplyDeleteHe believes that if we resist terrorists, it makes them stronger and angrier. But if we relax and just let them do to us whatever they want, perhaps, they will not kill us completely.
I feel like if it is necessary to make some human sacrifices to pacify terrorists, I would sacrifice this Columbia graduate, Nathan Thrall. Based on his writing, he will be the perfect and willing victim.
It is simply a matter of selective hearing.
ReplyDeleteThe NY Times and Jimmy Carter and, unfortunately, many of the Jewish Left choose to hear only what they want to hear.
They think that they can will a different religion, a different culture, a different mindset to think like them. So they don't want to listen to what Hamas is saying, when it talks to its own people - which is when it counts.
Carter, Thrall, et al think in terms of physiognomic reciprocity: I smile and so you will smile. I turn the other cheek and you etc.
But with Hamas, as with Hizballah and Iran, if you turn the other cheek they cut off your head. Remember what the Palestinians used to call Ehud Barak? When he was zig-zag negotiating (with himself, mainly) the Palestinian street would laugh and murmur - "Another squeeze of the lemon".
They could have had a state back then. They chose to regard what he proposed as an interim stage. And that was not Hamas. As Jeffrey, you accurately reminded us:
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated in December:
"We said it five years ago and we say it now ... we will never, we will never, we will never recognize Israel."