Understanding the Hamas War on Israel

9 Comments / 9 Comments

1. @peloni

   Thanks.

   I think this is the moment of truth – it is impossible to deny at this point that the two-state solution is merely a device to dismantle Israel and, in the meanwhile, to keep the fires of the Arab-Israeli conflict burning.

   Here is Israel’s history in maps – I think the “world community” has something in mind for Israel (under the guise of the two-state solution) which corresponds to the Peel Commission’s map from 1937:

   http://www.jewishwikipedia.info/israelmaps.html

   Asking Israel to create another Arab state on its territory is like (for example (granted, it is not the best example)) asking Pakistan to create another Indian state on its territory for the Hindus who happened to remain in Pakistan and assuring the right of return for all the Hindu refugees.

   1

2. @Reader
   Very well stated.

3. @Sebastien

   This is why I lost interest in Daniel Pipe’s writings some time ago.

   I totally agree.

4. “Palestinians” already have their state – it is called Jordan.

   This is what Israel should keep repeating until everyone gets it.

   The 1st part of the two-state solution happened in 1921.

   2

5. “Daniel: And I have a minority position which holds that yes, a two-state solution is possible, but only after the Palestinians have been defeated. That is to say, the end of rejectionism, the dream fantasy ambition of destroying Israel. When that happy day comes, yes, I can see it, but that’s a long way off. So, no, two-state solution is an absurdity at present. You cannot have that be a solution when one side wants to murder and destroy the other side. Only when the Palestinians have come to terms with Israel, have accepted Israel, and I do believe that’s possible, can a two-state solution take place and be implemented. And so, I don’t close the door to it. I just say it’s a very distant prospect.”

   I suspected as much. This is why I lost interest in Daniel Pipe’s writings some time ago. He believes Israel must strive for victory but can’t define it except as a psychological state of acceptance by Israel’s enemies. Too vague. Unless it reflects the reality on the ground, that will never happen. Winnable wars have clearly defined criteria for what conditions will constitute end of hostilities. And leaving the door open to the two state solution is simply unacceptable, and moreover, provides the basis for the existing double standard against Jews since Oslo. He is simply enunciating the failed position of every government of the last 30 years! What is he adding to the debate? It’s just more hot air.

6. Michael S,

   Thank you very much for your response. I have followed the MEF over the years, but you are filling in some details regarding Daniel Pipes with which I was not familiar.

   I agree with you that Islam defines “reformers” as Infidels and precludes anything but submission to the word of Allah.

   I don’t think the majority of Muslims are interested in reform of the religion because of the way reform is defined by their religion. However, I do know of a fair number of Muslims born into the religion who have left the religion to become secular. Aayan Hirsi Ali, Khaled Abu Toameh- an Israeli journalist (If I have his name spelled incorrectly I apologize) and others, actually use their God given talents to explain to the world what you just underlined about Islam.

   So while it does happen that Muslims can leave the religion, it does not appear to happen frequently specifically for the reasons you mentioned.

   I appreciate your pointing out to me Daniel Pipes’ view on Muslims.

   I recall after 9/11 in the United States and everywhere around the world, George Bush and other leaders repeatedly stated that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Does anyone here know how that piece of fiction came about? I wonder what Israelis thought about that line at the time.

7. Hamas and PLO represent the inability of Capitalism (The Capitalist System) to solve the issue of creating the Jewish Homeland) and is a continuation of the outstanding failure of the British to carry this out in what it was entrusted with in the Mandate.

   It is a Fascist movement taking on Fascist forms with a conscious social strategy appealing to the left for support. This rhetoric is typical of Fascism and the EU is involved in this particular aspect.

   It is also Nazi in that it is deeply Antisemitism orientated

   It is therefore strange that the over an hour long Webinar of Middle East Forum did not once allude to Fascism, or the Holocaust, to events of the Holocaust, to Haj Amin El Husseini, or to the present day significant Stepan Bandera historical figure

   Its roots lie in the Holocaust and is in this inseparable from the Holocaust.

8. Hi, EvRe

   Over the years, I have found Daniel Pipes to be truly a gentleman and a scholar. He is unquestionably pro-Israel, and believes that Israel’s wars with its near neighbors will not end until the Arabs unequivocally acknowledge defeat. I agree with this viewpoint.

   On the other hand, Daniel has held out hope that Muslims can “reform”, as Jews and Christians have over the past few centuries, and become, essentially, more secular. I have never believed this, because

   1. Qur’an is diametrically opposed to the Biblical religions, counting killing of non-Muslims as a virtue. Any deviation from this results in being laberled as a Kafir and getting killed yourself, and

   2. Although agnostic secularism has come in and out of vogue in places around the world, it has never remained dominant for very long anywhere. Until Muslims reject Qur’an and accept the Bible as their valid scriptural basis, they will, as a society, be enemies of Judaism and Christianity. Daniel, as far as I have seen, has not accepted this yet.

   As far as Egypt goes, President Sisi, though a semi-practicing Muslim, has been truly tolerant of non-Muslims. Egyptian Christians wholeheartedly trust him — unlike his predecessor, Morsi, who was a “fundamentalist”, like HAMAS. Turkey’s Erdogan does lip service to tolerance, but is supported by fundamentalists. The Turkish government hates Daniel Pipes, and I believe the feeling is mutual.

9. I listened to this webinar and the content was very helpful in furthering my understanding. I remembered part of the way into watching the video that Daniel Pipes and the MEF have been calling for Israel to fight to defeat Hamas for some years now. Participants in the webinar explained the security establishment’s views on Hamas, especially that Hamas made the PLO less of a threat to Israel by dividing the Palestinians, but that the strategic position of deterrence re: Hamas is no longer acceptable.

   The other thing that was interesting is that I have been following polls done on the Palestinian people re: their attitudes and thought that year after year, the polls come back saying about 75% of the people agree that Israel should be obliterated. But what I didn’t realize until today, is that those polls reflect the Palestinians in the West Bank. The Palestinians in Gaza are more opposed to Hamas and their leadership so it cannot be assumed that they are all tied to Hamas or that they are all terrorists.

   To assume they are all peace activists is also unrealistic. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

   Also Daniel Pipes while very much arguing for defeat of Hamas he does not argue for razing Gaza to the ground. He says Israel must not seek mass civilian casualties, but defeat of Hamas is possible if done carefully. That said, due to the conditions on the ground in Gaza, any ground force is likely to cause some civilian deaths, as no army in the world could go in there and win a victory without some harm to civilians.

   Also Pipes was somewhat skeptical of continued support from the international community once Israel goes in to re-take Gaza.

   Jonathan Spyer reported that all of Hamas’ military support comes from Iran, while they get other support from Qatar and Turkey, it is Iran that provides all of their military support.