Shalom All,
What is victory? I keep hearing that victory is "stopping the rocket fire." Well..if that is victory then victory is unattainable. It takes a handful of people to smuggle in a rocket and launch it. No, that cannot be victory.
In my mind victory is the point at which Palestinians themselves go after the people launching the rockets and use deadly force if necessary to stop their own from violating the peace. Nothing short of that is victory.
What it is going to take to get there is both extreme suffering to the point that not only do Gazans believe that it CAN get worse than it is, but that it DEFINITELY WILL get worse, if they do not stop rockets from leaving their territory. On top of that must be a reasonable belief that when those rockets do stop, things will get a whole lot better than they are now.
One cannot win a battle against another's honor and pride. One can win a battle if one uses reason against reason. It needs to be made abundantly clear that victory for the Palestinian people lies in stopping the rocket fire, making peace with Israel, and establishing prosperity and freedom for themselves at peace alongside it. I do not believe that Hamas is capable of accomplishing that vision, but I do believe that to be the vision that must be shared, the vision that must be created.
Those who call for an immediate cessation of violence do not understand that they are at the same time calling for the surrender of the Palestinian people to a future of hatred and suffering, a future devoid of the hope of freedom and prosperity, a future that can only be accomplished for them with the removal of Hamas and the implementation of peace. They call for the cessation of the process to overthrow tyranny and hatred and the process of instilling real hope in the hearts and minds of the people. In their zeal to avoid bloodshed, they avoid any hope of bringing Shalom and Salaam to the peoples at war.
The words said by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 ring eerily true:
"There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-David
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Civilian Casualty Figures
Shalom All,
NPR says that Palestinian doctors in Gaza say that the death toll is at least 350 and that at least 80 of those are civilians. These numbers are certainly troubling, but they are also grossly inaccurate. Many organizations are arguing that ALL women are civilians including those that actively support Hamas forces, that anyone not wearing a uniform or not actively engaged in a firefight at the time of their killing is a civilian, which then excludes the vast majority of militants, and that "children" include anyone under seventeen (see any UN report on casualties). The pictures of children much younger than 17 actively engaged in attacks should render that conception moot. Clearly 14, 15, and 16 year old children are involved and not innocent by-standers. "Children" should ONLY include those that Hamas would prevent from engaging in the conflict, which would be children much younger than 17 years of age. Only official police members would be wearing uniforms and therefore the vast majority of militants could qualify as "civilians" if the one conducting the tally either did not know that they were legitimate military targets or wanted to portray them as civilians in order to increase the civilian death total.
That said, considering that Hamas embeds itself in residential areas, there are certainly going to be REAL civilian casualties, many of which will have nothing to do with Israeli strikes as was the case with the two children killed when a Hamas rocket misfired and fell on their home.
Even among the Police forces, one must assume that there are those who were in their ranks not to assist Hamas, but in order to provide for their families and to have a fulfilling job. Hamas' use of the police forces to enforce their own rule then turned "police" into "soldiers."
Since this is urban guerilla warfare, virtually any male who can hold a gun becomes a possible combantant. Depending upon how casualties are determined, one can have a very high or a very low civilian death total. In order to sway public opinion against Israel, Hamas and all Palestinians reporting from Gaza, must be assumed to be inflating the total and giving unreliable information. Only a disaffected third party could be trusted to rely accurate information and then only if they fully understand that the man without a uniform lying before them may certainly be a civilian, but may also be a militant. The major news organizations employ Palestinians to gather and relay information. Hence, virtually no report will be without the possibility of significant bias, especially not reports coming from Gaza based hospital spokespeople as quoted by NPR.
-David
NPR says that Palestinian doctors in Gaza say that the death toll is at least 350 and that at least 80 of those are civilians. These numbers are certainly troubling, but they are also grossly inaccurate. Many organizations are arguing that ALL women are civilians including those that actively support Hamas forces, that anyone not wearing a uniform or not actively engaged in a firefight at the time of their killing is a civilian, which then excludes the vast majority of militants, and that "children" include anyone under seventeen (see any UN report on casualties). The pictures of children much younger than 17 actively engaged in attacks should render that conception moot. Clearly 14, 15, and 16 year old children are involved and not innocent by-standers. "Children" should ONLY include those that Hamas would prevent from engaging in the conflict, which would be children much younger than 17 years of age. Only official police members would be wearing uniforms and therefore the vast majority of militants could qualify as "civilians" if the one conducting the tally either did not know that they were legitimate military targets or wanted to portray them as civilians in order to increase the civilian death total.
That said, considering that Hamas embeds itself in residential areas, there are certainly going to be REAL civilian casualties, many of which will have nothing to do with Israeli strikes as was the case with the two children killed when a Hamas rocket misfired and fell on their home.
Even among the Police forces, one must assume that there are those who were in their ranks not to assist Hamas, but in order to provide for their families and to have a fulfilling job. Hamas' use of the police forces to enforce their own rule then turned "police" into "soldiers."
Since this is urban guerilla warfare, virtually any male who can hold a gun becomes a possible combantant. Depending upon how casualties are determined, one can have a very high or a very low civilian death total. In order to sway public opinion against Israel, Hamas and all Palestinians reporting from Gaza, must be assumed to be inflating the total and giving unreliable information. Only a disaffected third party could be trusted to rely accurate information and then only if they fully understand that the man without a uniform lying before them may certainly be a civilian, but may also be a militant. The major news organizations employ Palestinians to gather and relay information. Hence, virtually no report will be without the possibility of significant bias, especially not reports coming from Gaza based hospital spokespeople as quoted by NPR.
-David
The Need to Confront and Not to Appease
Shalom All,
Many of us will encounter those charging Israel will worsen the situation between the Palestinians and Israel by attacking Hamas. They will demand an immediate halt and condemn Israel for its use of "violence against civilians." Please look at the previous article on this blog for comments on the use of violence and civilian casualties specifically.
I look at it this way : Hamas is , functionally , a tumor on the peace process. It is growing in size and strength and has done extreme damage to both sides of the process. Attempts have been made to reduce its size and ability to do harm through various forms of therapy: political isolation, economic isolation, closing of borders... None have worked and the tumor threatens to kill both sides of the process, causing extreme pain to both. It seems to me that surgery is the option that makes the most sense, especially if the patient would certainly die anyway without it. Is there surgery without pain? Not when surgery is done on the battlefield. There is no easy way for this to be done.
The argument that Israel's use of force will only increase the hatred is simply misguided and naive. Why? That is like saying that a bully who has been beating you for months and whom you finally get up the courage to hit won't like you after you hit him. Except in this case , the bully has been trying to KILL you. Please let me know who among the Arab and Muslim world calling for "Death to Israel" and "Death to the Zionists" were friends of Israel prior to these strikes?
The response below was sent to someone who was arguing that Israel needs to cease the violence immediately and negotiate.
-David
Shalom,
First, Hamas is willing to fight to the death to accomplish their goals which means that negotiation is impossible since they will never compromise.
Second, Hamas has vowed never to make peace with Israel, but only to occasionally agree to cease - fires, during which they increase their arms capabilities, bringing in new and more deadly rockets from Iran, such as the Grad rockets they fired during this event. Israel has said that it knew the locations of other longer - range rockets and targeted those locations during the initial phase of the attack, which is why there has not been more use of them.
Third, the Arab world is being bullied and threatened by their own militants. Several Arab governments have blamed Hamas for these events which , considering their anti-Israel stance is tantamount to jumping for joy. They cannot possibly come out in favor of Israel because militants would wreak havoc in their nations.
Peace and Justice cannot come by allowing an anti-peace military dictatorship to threaten violence and use violence rather than negotiate. They cannot come from exploitation of those desiring peace in which every overture is meant with an handshake in which one side pulls the other in and stabs them. They cannot come through insisting on concessions that will destroy your negotiating partner and they cannot originate from a position of "We'll only talk peace when we're on the losing end," unless the other side is more than willing to help them reach that place.
Violence between Israel and Gaza has increased multi-fold since Israel withdrew from Gaza, you can offer your reasons for that, but the reality is that violence has increased. Life for Palestinians in Gaza has dramatically worsened since Oslo in 1993. Clearly the current Palestinian leadership cannot lead, neither Hamas nor Fatah. Israel is far less secure than it was pre-1993 with the exception of the invaluable security wall.
From what I can tell right now, the interim step toward a functioning Palestinian state, if there ever is to be one, is for Gaza to return to the control of Egypt and for the West Bank, excluding part that will remain under Israeli control to return to Jordanian control. That would end any question of humanitarian issues and allow the reality on the ground, namely parties hostile to peace with Israel at any cost, to be addressed. I believe that , were Palestinians willing to have a nation-state in the West Bank alone with secure borders for Israel, that peace could be possible soon.
I believe that the problematic borders of Gaza and the West Bank are their Eastern and Western borders, but with those in reverse of their normal conception. Gaza's Western border needs to be open into Egypt, not its Eastern border into Israel. On Egypt's refusal to open its border with Gaza please see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647299,00.html .
The Eastern border of the West Bank needs to be open into Jordan, not its Western border into Israel, at least not more than it currently is. This will bring humanitarian aid and freedom, while providing security for Israel. The one thing that it would not do is allow Israel to be blamed for the failings of either territory, nor would it put pressure on the existence of Israel.
I believe that the peace movement's continuing blame of Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian people is not remotely accurate, nor helpful, and that placing responsibility upon the Palestinians for refusing to agree to any reasonable peace, something that includes Fatah, needs to become a much greater part of the aims of peace groups. Telling Israel to give in and make peace with murderous extremists simply because Israel has morals and ethics that prevent it from utterly destroying them, rather than demanding that the murderous extremists stop being murderous extremists first, is wrong-headed.
If you saw someone standing at your door holding weapons and threatening to kill you, your wife, your daughter, and demanded to be let in, how would you respond? If others said, "You need to let that person in?" Would you react differently? If that person started throwing bombs into your house, what would you do? Eventually you have to either call for help from the police (in this case the police = UN and the UN would help the prospective intruder in his efforts to harm you) or you can yourself strike out at the one threatening you. If they have a knife and you have a gun, the solution is very simple. Israel can act no differently.
-David
Many of us will encounter those charging Israel will worsen the situation between the Palestinians and Israel by attacking Hamas. They will demand an immediate halt and condemn Israel for its use of "violence against civilians." Please look at the previous article on this blog for comments on the use of violence and civilian casualties specifically.
I look at it this way : Hamas is , functionally , a tumor on the peace process. It is growing in size and strength and has done extreme damage to both sides of the process. Attempts have been made to reduce its size and ability to do harm through various forms of therapy: political isolation, economic isolation, closing of borders... None have worked and the tumor threatens to kill both sides of the process, causing extreme pain to both. It seems to me that surgery is the option that makes the most sense, especially if the patient would certainly die anyway without it. Is there surgery without pain? Not when surgery is done on the battlefield. There is no easy way for this to be done.
The argument that Israel's use of force will only increase the hatred is simply misguided and naive. Why? That is like saying that a bully who has been beating you for months and whom you finally get up the courage to hit won't like you after you hit him. Except in this case , the bully has been trying to KILL you. Please let me know who among the Arab and Muslim world calling for "Death to Israel" and "Death to the Zionists" were friends of Israel prior to these strikes?
The response below was sent to someone who was arguing that Israel needs to cease the violence immediately and negotiate.
-David
Shalom,
First, Hamas is willing to fight to the death to accomplish their goals which means that negotiation is impossible since they will never compromise.
Second, Hamas has vowed never to make peace with Israel, but only to occasionally agree to cease - fires, during which they increase their arms capabilities, bringing in new and more deadly rockets from Iran, such as the Grad rockets they fired during this event. Israel has said that it knew the locations of other longer - range rockets and targeted those locations during the initial phase of the attack, which is why there has not been more use of them.
Third, the Arab world is being bullied and threatened by their own militants. Several Arab governments have blamed Hamas for these events which , considering their anti-Israel stance is tantamount to jumping for joy. They cannot possibly come out in favor of Israel because militants would wreak havoc in their nations.
Peace and Justice cannot come by allowing an anti-peace military dictatorship to threaten violence and use violence rather than negotiate. They cannot come from exploitation of those desiring peace in which every overture is meant with an handshake in which one side pulls the other in and stabs them. They cannot come through insisting on concessions that will destroy your negotiating partner and they cannot originate from a position of "We'll only talk peace when we're on the losing end," unless the other side is more than willing to help them reach that place.
Violence between Israel and Gaza has increased multi-fold since Israel withdrew from Gaza, you can offer your reasons for that, but the reality is that violence has increased. Life for Palestinians in Gaza has dramatically worsened since Oslo in 1993. Clearly the current Palestinian leadership cannot lead, neither Hamas nor Fatah. Israel is far less secure than it was pre-1993 with the exception of the invaluable security wall.
From what I can tell right now, the interim step toward a functioning Palestinian state, if there ever is to be one, is for Gaza to return to the control of Egypt and for the West Bank, excluding part that will remain under Israeli control to return to Jordanian control. That would end any question of humanitarian issues and allow the reality on the ground, namely parties hostile to peace with Israel at any cost, to be addressed. I believe that , were Palestinians willing to have a nation-state in the West Bank alone with secure borders for Israel, that peace could be possible soon.
I believe that the problematic borders of Gaza and the West Bank are their Eastern and Western borders, but with those in reverse of their normal conception. Gaza's Western border needs to be open into Egypt, not its Eastern border into Israel. On Egypt's refusal to open its border with Gaza please see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647299,00.html .
The Eastern border of the West Bank needs to be open into Jordan, not its Western border into Israel, at least not more than it currently is. This will bring humanitarian aid and freedom, while providing security for Israel. The one thing that it would not do is allow Israel to be blamed for the failings of either territory, nor would it put pressure on the existence of Israel.
I believe that the peace movement's continuing blame of Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian people is not remotely accurate, nor helpful, and that placing responsibility upon the Palestinians for refusing to agree to any reasonable peace, something that includes Fatah, needs to become a much greater part of the aims of peace groups. Telling Israel to give in and make peace with murderous extremists simply because Israel has morals and ethics that prevent it from utterly destroying them, rather than demanding that the murderous extremists stop being murderous extremists first, is wrong-headed.
If you saw someone standing at your door holding weapons and threatening to kill you, your wife, your daughter, and demanded to be let in, how would you respond? If others said, "You need to let that person in?" Would you react differently? If that person started throwing bombs into your house, what would you do? Eventually you have to either call for help from the police (in this case the police = UN and the UN would help the prospective intruder in his efforts to harm you) or you can yourself strike out at the one threatening you. If they have a knife and you have a gun, the solution is very simple. Israel can act no differently.
-David
War in Gaza
Shalom All,
Shalom means an absence of the threat of violence. It is not simply an absence of violence. Shalom is a sense of well-being. Constant barrages of rocket and mortar fire eliminate a sense of shalom.
There are numerous ways to analyze the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Certainly, it is not a conflict of military equals. It is not a conflict among ethical equals either. One side tries, not always succeeding, to target only military, militant, and governmental targets. The other side deliberately tries to target civilians, women and children all the better. It is not a conflict in which both sides wish to live peaceably with one another. One side wishes peace and receives ongoing attacks. The other side wishes the destruction and removal of the other, calling for an ongoing struggle to eliminate their enemy rather than attempt to make a lasting peace.
Governments will condemn Israel's strikes on Gaza and on Hamas installations.
The international community will say, "There are civilian deaths!" The response to that contention is very simple, "There will be civilian deaths." Hamas and Islamic Jihad attack Israel from within densely populated areas and therefore Israel must attack them within densely populated areas. When militants routinely launch attacks while accompanied by children both to teach them how to conduct attacks and to present Israel with an ethical dilemma, what choice does Israel have? What is the dilemma? Militants give Israel the choice of allowing its civilians be attacked indiscriminately or to retaliate against the militants using civilians, including children, as shields.
The very concept that wars may be fought without civilian casualties is illogical. The only way that peace will come to Israel or the Palestinians is for one side to inflict so much harm on the other that one side will surrender. That level of harm cannot possibly solely consist of attacks on soldiers. Soldiers expect to be attacked and to die in wars. Wars come to an end when civilians realize that ongoing conflict will result in their being harmed more and that hope for them lies in stopping the conflict. Only then will peace come. Hence, to an extent, avoiding involving civilians in a conflict can and usually will prolong the conflict indefinitely.
The concept of proportionality in war is likewise illogical. A man holding a gun, who is being attacked by someone wielding a knife, should not drop the gun and grab a knife. He should shoot his attacker. Eventually a man holding a gun who is being attacked by people throwing rocks will either need to withdraw and let the rock throwers win or he will need to shoot the rock throwers until they withdraw. Israel has developed technologies to handle rock throwers and Molotov cocktail throwers without killing them, it has no such technologies to handle rocket and mortar fire that target its civilians. Its only response to such attacks is to use deadly force and to use deadly force that could potentially affect people who are nearby. Civilians who aid and abet as well as civilians who simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time become part and parcel of legitimate military targets. Using human shields, attacking from within civilian populations, is a war crime, NOT attacking those who are attacking from among human shields. The deaths of the civilians are the responsibility of those originating attacks from or hiding within their midst. Those who defend Hamas' ability to attack from among civilians and who condemn Israel's attempts to attack them are in fact aiding Hamas in its commission of war crimes and encouraging others to commit the same war crimes in the future, knowing them to be effective against moral and ethical opponents.
The only reason that Israel is blamed repeatedly for civilian deaths is because blaming those who purposefully use human shields in the hope of creating civilian casualties is not politically correct. This is especially true when those very same people are accused of using terrorism against the West in which they deliberately target our civilians. We might be accused of piling on were we to insinuate, much less point out, that neither do they care about their own civilians and simply use their deaths as propaganda tools, posting the pictures of bloodied children whose families and whose government deliberately put them into harm's way, or at least allowed them to enter it, as a way to garner sympathy for their cause and to evoke hatred of Israel. The dead, after all, become shahids, holy martyrs. One can find no few television shows, sermons by pro-Hamas imams, and speeches by Hamas leaders advocating for Shehada, martyrdom, even of children, as the pinnacle of demonstrating faith. Children's shows are Hamas television have repeatedly proclaimed this theme.
It is a sick and twisted philosophy that is in gross violation of what I understand Islam to teach and certainly of the Islam practiced by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. Yet, the only condemnation heard from the Muslim community is directed at Israel. Where are the condemnations of Hamas as anti-Muslim? Where are the condemnations of Hamas as being in direct violation of the Qura'an? Is the hatred of Israel and the Jews so strong as to compel well meaning people to ignore the truth? Can Jews and Muslims get along? Absolutely! Can true Muslims and those who would encourage children to seek martyrdom rather than a peaceful life coexist? I do not believe so.
Israel seeks peace and has offered peace. Hamas seeks war and has offered war. Yes, it has thrown in an occasional cease-fire, but only to make it easier to rearm and wage war later.
Hamas' hope is the destruction of peace and the destruction of the Jewish state with the ultimate aim of creating a Palestinian state upon all of Gaza, the West Bank, and the land that is now Israel. Hamas has stated this goal over and over again. It is written in the Hamas charter and is uttered whenever its leadership speaks about the possibility of long term peace and the recognition of Israel. There will be no peace, there will be no recognition. Yet, these sick and twisted individuals will be defended in the press by people who mean well, people who believe that no father or mother could possibly wish to endanger their children, much less to encourage them to seek danger, despite the articles and television programs proclaiming exactly that philosophy, and therefore such civilian casualties as undoubtedly will occur must be caused by irresponsibility or even ill intent on Israel's part.
This, known to be false by Hamas' leaders, becomes the rallying cry to the Western world. "They are killing us," they yell, neglecting to point out that it is exactly that which was their hope in promoting violence against Israel, creating a culture of violence against Israel, Jews, and the West, and through continually provoking Israel through rockets, mortars, and cross border attacks. Their goal in all of this, as it has been for many years now, was to create the very level of conflict that faces Israel and the Palestinians today.
Israel warned Hamas. America warned Hamas. Even Egypt warned Hamas to stop firing rockets and mortars into Israel. Hamas turned up its nose and threw shoes in the face of its friends.
During a massive Hamas rally in Gaza City to mark twenty-one years since its founding a little more than a week ago, a Hamas member dressed as kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit was led to the stage by Hamas militants. The activist, who was dressed in an IDF uniform, pleaded for his life in Hebrew and begged the Israeli government to do its utmost to return him home. "Shalom to my father and mother, I miss my father, I miss my mother," the "soldier" declared as hundreds of thousands of Hamas supporters shouted, "We will never recognize Israel."
Translated into plain English my friends, that means "We will never desire peace with Israel."
-David
Shalom means an absence of the threat of violence. It is not simply an absence of violence. Shalom is a sense of well-being. Constant barrages of rocket and mortar fire eliminate a sense of shalom.
There are numerous ways to analyze the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Certainly, it is not a conflict of military equals. It is not a conflict among ethical equals either. One side tries, not always succeeding, to target only military, militant, and governmental targets. The other side deliberately tries to target civilians, women and children all the better. It is not a conflict in which both sides wish to live peaceably with one another. One side wishes peace and receives ongoing attacks. The other side wishes the destruction and removal of the other, calling for an ongoing struggle to eliminate their enemy rather than attempt to make a lasting peace.
Governments will condemn Israel's strikes on Gaza and on Hamas installations.
The international community will say, "There are civilian deaths!" The response to that contention is very simple, "There will be civilian deaths." Hamas and Islamic Jihad attack Israel from within densely populated areas and therefore Israel must attack them within densely populated areas. When militants routinely launch attacks while accompanied by children both to teach them how to conduct attacks and to present Israel with an ethical dilemma, what choice does Israel have? What is the dilemma? Militants give Israel the choice of allowing its civilians be attacked indiscriminately or to retaliate against the militants using civilians, including children, as shields.
The very concept that wars may be fought without civilian casualties is illogical. The only way that peace will come to Israel or the Palestinians is for one side to inflict so much harm on the other that one side will surrender. That level of harm cannot possibly solely consist of attacks on soldiers. Soldiers expect to be attacked and to die in wars. Wars come to an end when civilians realize that ongoing conflict will result in their being harmed more and that hope for them lies in stopping the conflict. Only then will peace come. Hence, to an extent, avoiding involving civilians in a conflict can and usually will prolong the conflict indefinitely.
The concept of proportionality in war is likewise illogical. A man holding a gun, who is being attacked by someone wielding a knife, should not drop the gun and grab a knife. He should shoot his attacker. Eventually a man holding a gun who is being attacked by people throwing rocks will either need to withdraw and let the rock throwers win or he will need to shoot the rock throwers until they withdraw. Israel has developed technologies to handle rock throwers and Molotov cocktail throwers without killing them, it has no such technologies to handle rocket and mortar fire that target its civilians. Its only response to such attacks is to use deadly force and to use deadly force that could potentially affect people who are nearby. Civilians who aid and abet as well as civilians who simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time become part and parcel of legitimate military targets. Using human shields, attacking from within civilian populations, is a war crime, NOT attacking those who are attacking from among human shields. The deaths of the civilians are the responsibility of those originating attacks from or hiding within their midst. Those who defend Hamas' ability to attack from among civilians and who condemn Israel's attempts to attack them are in fact aiding Hamas in its commission of war crimes and encouraging others to commit the same war crimes in the future, knowing them to be effective against moral and ethical opponents.
The only reason that Israel is blamed repeatedly for civilian deaths is because blaming those who purposefully use human shields in the hope of creating civilian casualties is not politically correct. This is especially true when those very same people are accused of using terrorism against the West in which they deliberately target our civilians. We might be accused of piling on were we to insinuate, much less point out, that neither do they care about their own civilians and simply use their deaths as propaganda tools, posting the pictures of bloodied children whose families and whose government deliberately put them into harm's way, or at least allowed them to enter it, as a way to garner sympathy for their cause and to evoke hatred of Israel. The dead, after all, become shahids, holy martyrs. One can find no few television shows, sermons by pro-Hamas imams, and speeches by Hamas leaders advocating for Shehada, martyrdom, even of children, as the pinnacle of demonstrating faith. Children's shows are Hamas television have repeatedly proclaimed this theme.
It is a sick and twisted philosophy that is in gross violation of what I understand Islam to teach and certainly of the Islam practiced by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. Yet, the only condemnation heard from the Muslim community is directed at Israel. Where are the condemnations of Hamas as anti-Muslim? Where are the condemnations of Hamas as being in direct violation of the Qura'an? Is the hatred of Israel and the Jews so strong as to compel well meaning people to ignore the truth? Can Jews and Muslims get along? Absolutely! Can true Muslims and those who would encourage children to seek martyrdom rather than a peaceful life coexist? I do not believe so.
Israel seeks peace and has offered peace. Hamas seeks war and has offered war. Yes, it has thrown in an occasional cease-fire, but only to make it easier to rearm and wage war later.
Hamas' hope is the destruction of peace and the destruction of the Jewish state with the ultimate aim of creating a Palestinian state upon all of Gaza, the West Bank, and the land that is now Israel. Hamas has stated this goal over and over again. It is written in the Hamas charter and is uttered whenever its leadership speaks about the possibility of long term peace and the recognition of Israel. There will be no peace, there will be no recognition. Yet, these sick and twisted individuals will be defended in the press by people who mean well, people who believe that no father or mother could possibly wish to endanger their children, much less to encourage them to seek danger, despite the articles and television programs proclaiming exactly that philosophy, and therefore such civilian casualties as undoubtedly will occur must be caused by irresponsibility or even ill intent on Israel's part.
This, known to be false by Hamas' leaders, becomes the rallying cry to the Western world. "They are killing us," they yell, neglecting to point out that it is exactly that which was their hope in promoting violence against Israel, creating a culture of violence against Israel, Jews, and the West, and through continually provoking Israel through rockets, mortars, and cross border attacks. Their goal in all of this, as it has been for many years now, was to create the very level of conflict that faces Israel and the Palestinians today.
Israel warned Hamas. America warned Hamas. Even Egypt warned Hamas to stop firing rockets and mortars into Israel. Hamas turned up its nose and threw shoes in the face of its friends.
During a massive Hamas rally in Gaza City to mark twenty-one years since its founding a little more than a week ago, a Hamas member dressed as kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit was led to the stage by Hamas militants. The activist, who was dressed in an IDF uniform, pleaded for his life in Hebrew and begged the Israeli government to do its utmost to return him home. "Shalom to my father and mother, I miss my father, I miss my mother," the "soldier" declared as hundreds of thousands of Hamas supporters shouted, "We will never recognize Israel."
Translated into plain English my friends, that means "We will never desire peace with Israel."
-David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
