This situation is utter nonsense.

What sovereign nation would put up with it's citizens terrorized with daily shelling?

How many more Israelis will be killed and maimed before the government decides to act?

I can only wish that an Israeli govt. existed that would act upon Robert's ideas.

You have to hand it to those butchers, their strategy is working.

And the terrorists have been pretty successful too.

Great post!

Love #8

Where's #6?

Lance:

Israel is being led by appeasers and fools who are playing rightg into the hands of the jihadists.

PD:

The jihadists have a strategy and tactics which they follow. Israel and the Europeans are led by appeasers and cowards.

Guess who wins?

Guess who dies?

One must truely understand the Israeli political/economic mindset to fully appreciate why Israel has capitulated to arab terror.

First off Olmert is a radical liberal, has been for decades.
His wife, daughter,son's are all left wingers who have either been involved in radical left demonstrations or refuse to serve in the IDF.

Secondly, the economic situation in Israel is directly related to the political situation.
Peace or so called peace(non-war) is awarded by the EU with economic gain.
When Israel takes a hard line stance(Bibi's administration) the EU quickly begins to economically distance itself from Israel.

What do you thnk Peres was referring to when he said "a new Middle east", he was talking about economic gain for Israel.
The Israel industialists (power brokers) are only interested in EU contacts and monetary gain, they dont really care about Sderot or Ashkelon. This is why all of the big industrialists in Israel are left wingers.

When Israel attempts to defend itself against arab terror within days there are EU sanctions against us- whether it be boycotting Israeli goods or other sanctions.

Make no mistake economics plays a huge role in Israeli politics.

John:

Thanks so much:

Somehow #6 got dropped, but I've reinstated it.

Gregg:

Thanks for the info.

Can you give us examples of economic sanctions that have been placed on Israel by the EU as political punishment? We ask because we're absolutely in the dark.

Robert:
I did a quick google search(first pass search on 'EU sanctions,Israel') and found this link.

I don't have to prove my point about economics and peace in Israel, its a well known fact that Israel finds itself in a very precarious predicament with the EU trade.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1930513.stm

I'm sure I could find many other examples(I'm at work) maybe later.
Thanks

Here's another link:
http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0190.htm

Eventhough many of these sanctions do not actually materialize they are a constant threat to Israeli economics. And thus coerce political decision making.

I personnaly am willing to suffer economically to put an end to the arab threat but unfortunately the top industrialists are not!!
And neither is the PM.

Hello, Robert. I'd like to add to your list of failures of the Olmert government. 1) They have done almost nothing to help THEIR citizenry that THEY forced from Gaza. 2) They have cut services and support needed to sustain the poverty-stricken citizens of their country. 3) They have withdrawn benefits and support that they used to provide to non-government run schools.
The uselessness of the Olmert government reminds me of the scene in "Payback", where, when Gibson's nemeses doesn't have a light for Gibson's unlit cigarette, Gibson says to him, "So what are you good for?" and shoots him in the head. (Great scene, BTW)

" ... In fact, some would call this madness, or more accurately: national suicide.

But this is precisely what the current Israeli government is doing in regard to the terrorist state of Gaza. ..."

every day that the Olmert gov. continues to destory Israel, is too depressing to contemplate,

and that there is still not a 'no-confidence' motion in the gov. is mind-boggling

here is some distracting amusing video relief,
about al-qaida, from the Onion
(whom i ordinarily think of as too leftist for my taste) :

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_new_iraqi_law
(videos 8 and 11 are also interesting)

here is the non-leftist Israeli equivalent of the Onion:

http://israelisatirelab.blogspot.com/2008/02/palestinians-violently-protest-non.html

(btw,
the conservative equivalent of the Onion,
is 'the people's cube'
(but i've been having some trouble getting to it lately)

Why do Israelis let people like Robert Avrech do such damage to their countries image. I mean, he's not even Israeli. If the IDF were to "flatten Gaza" as Robert suggests in point 10, the terrorists wont retaliate against his home in Hollywood. Ever here of, being more Israeli than the Israelis themselves. Well thats Rob. Believe me folks, I have studied conflict all over the world and have seen this many times, this guy is not helping Israel.

Ted,

It is really easy to say that someone has a bad idea. The hard part is proving that your idea is better.

So what do you suggest? Give up land. That already happened and the attacks continued. Or maybe your someone who says that Israel didn't really give up land, they just sort of did and because of that the attacks are ok.

Honestly, I want to know, what is your plan?

Jack

I dont have all the answers, But where I come from I do my part. I always argue in universities or wherever Im debating that Israel is a democracy that should be supported by the international community. Its not just any democracy, its a brilliant democracy. The true test of any countries democratic principles is when it comes under threat. most countries that would have faced a fraction of the danger Israel faces would have caved in and abandoned its democratic principles long ago.
What I resent is outsiders like Robert who will never have to live with the consequences of the radical policies they advocate. I have disagreed with many right wing Israelis on different issues. But I respect them. They live on the front line, their kids are in the IDF. By the way I equally resent and always confront the looney leftist who act more palestinian than the Palestinians themselves. I put Robert in the same bracket as such people.

Ted, Robert has very close relatives in Israel, in the West Bank, on the front lines. He has close family at risk. That alone gives him the right to hold an opinion and frees him of your argument. Not that I think his right to his opinion is contingent upon that, but even according to your viewpoint, he's in the clear.

Actually, almost everyone I know has close relatives living in Israel, so we all share in the risk, and thus, even by your lights, may express our opinion, strong as it may be.

" ... What I resent is outsiders like Robert who will never have to live with the consequences of the radical policies they advocate. I have disagreed with many right wing Israelis on different issues. But I respect them. They live on the front line, their kids are in the IDF ... "

Ted,
what you do not grasp,
is that many of us, who, for whatever reason, cannot economically survive in Israel [not just 'do without' western luxuries, but literally 'survive' and provide for our families,
and so, although we do not merit to live in Israel,
we STILL experience a great deal of pain when our fellow Jews are murdered in Israel, by terrorists who could have been, and still can be, EASILY stopped,
if only the IDF would be allowed a free hand to defend its citizens.

my mother and sister live in Israel,
my sister's husband and children are in the IDF,
my close friends and relatives are armed settlers in Chevron, Yitzhar, and other west bank areas

most of us on this blog have some family in Israel,
and know how acutely they are affected by the policies of the Israeli government

"... If the IDF were to "flatten Gaza" as Robert suggests in point 10, the terrorists wont retaliate against his home..."

they won't retaliate at all,
against anyone's home,
because they won't exist anymore
(and Yes,
the IDF should deal effectively with the terrorists wherever they are and want to strike Israel,
not just the terrorists in gaza)

how would YOU react,
if someone said that YOU do damage to Israel,
because of your dovish views,
and pointed out that you had no right to express them because:
"If the terrorists are allowed to keep killing people on Sderot, how will that affect TED?!
His home isn't in Sderot!"

so,
let's try to deal with the issues,
and not personally attack the posters,

do You have some Better Plan that will stop the murders of innocent people in Sderot by terrorists from gaza?

do you think that appeasement,
(which has NEVER worked at any time in history,
and just sends the terrorists a clear signal of weakness or confusion)
will SAVE lives and prevent injuries in Sderot or other terrorist targets,

we are ready to listen,

we ask only,
that you listen too,
when it is logically demonstrated to you
that your approach will not stop the suffering of the innocent, and would only (G-D FORBID) add to it ...

exdemexlib

You make some good points. I admit that my "approach will not stop the suffering of the innocent" in Sderot. But neither will yours. Flattening Gaza will not stop the terrorist threat. It may stop the rockets being launched but we all know they would regroup and attack again using some other method. Do you really think "they wont retaliate at all".

You are correct, I would not react well if someone said my doveish views harm Israel. But far worse has been said about me on this blog, so I agree, no personal attacks.
However I stand by the theme of my previous remarks. A serious obstacle to peace in the Middle East over the decades has been that both Israel and Palestines respective supporters are often more extreme than they are themselves. The list includes evangelical Christians,European leftists, Saudi Sheiks, Iranian Mullahs among others. I know many Israelis, conservative and left wing, but I have never met any as hawkish as the author of this blog, and I think thats a problem.

Ted:
I can't wait to read Roberts response to your comments.
It's gonna be fun!!!!

Ted:

I have no idea whether you are Jewish or not, but please allow me to use a Jewish historical analogy to clarify something:

It appears to me that you are saying that the actual people "on the ground" are often not as hawkish as those on the sidelines, like some Jews in America who happen to be more hawkish on Israel, (and perhaps you could say the same about Irish Americans who have supported the IRA).

Firstly, I think there are a great deal of Israelis who think the same way as Robert. Many of them may not speak out as freely because, frankly, it might be more personally dangerous for them to do so. But secondly, those under distress do not always rule the day so to speak even as we endeavor to give them their due.

Here's the Jewish historical example I alluded to earlier: We have two different versions of the Talmud in Jewish law, the Babylonian Talmud which was compiled in the diaspora and the Jerusalem Talmud which was compiled by the small Jewish community that remained in the land of Israel after the Roman period.

Guess which version of the Talmud has authority whenever the two versions conflict on a matter of Jewish law? The answer is the Babylonian Talmud, because everyone knows the Jerusalem Talmud was often compiled under duress and the community in the diaspora was eventually able to consider each issue with more clarity and time.

This is not to say that the Jews in America are of "sounder mind", etc. But it does mean that being on the front lines can sometimes cloud your judgment just as much as not being on the front lines can insulate you too much.

Another point I'd make is that I'm absolutely incredulous that you have never met anyone with as hawkish views as Robert on Israel. That comment reminds me of the famous quote in the New York Times on the eve of the 1972 election when an Upper West Sider said she was sure Nixon was going to lose because SHE didn't know ANYBODY who was voting for him. Of course Nixon went on to collect the greatest electoral victory ever, (he even won NY).

I think if you stepped into any Orthodox Synagogue in America you would quickly meet someone with similar, if not more hawkish views.

an Upper West Sider said she was sure Nixon was going to lose because SHE didn't know ANYBODY who was voting for him.

Pauline Kael, wasn't it? And so apropos for this site.

Jake
Allow me to clarify. Im not saying that "the actual people "on the ground" are often not as hawkish as those on the sidelines". I am saying that the people on the ground have far more of a right to be hawkish than those on the sidelines, all things considered. Those on the sidelines dont have to live with the every day consequences if their hawkish stances backfire.

Your Irish example is perfect. Have you any idea how infuriating it used to be (and I know because im Irish) when in the midst of excruciating negotiations Irish Americans in New York and Boston would come out and say that any compromise is a sell out. The loyalist paramilitaries were never going to come after them.

Jake im not Jewish but I enjoyed the analogy.

What can I say, I have many Israeli friends, I blog a lot and have been to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Maybe I keep meeting the wrong people or went into the wrong bars and synagogues when I was over there but I can honestly say no, I never met anybody as hawkish as Robert appears to be.

Ted:

First of all, I admire your candor and your adherence to the rules of this blog in always staying civil... not everyone does.

Full disclosure: I was never a "peace now" peacenik by any stretch, but at the time I applauded Oslo, applauded to pull outs of the West Bank and I even supported the pull out from Gaza for a time.

But a turning point came for me in 2000, when the second Intifada began. This is when it finally hit me: Israel's war with the Palestinians is just that, a war. Not a "conflict," not a "dispute." And as anyone who studies history and wars knows, the ONLY humane thing to do in a war is to fight it all-out, prolonging the war with half-measures causes death. Just ask any World War I historian; piecemeal warfare equals death.

The IRA analogy may be appropriate as I mentioned, but is also weird because it was a case of Americans supporting a terror group, something I find reprehensible in every way.

In my ignorant eyes, the peace deal between the UK and the IRA seems to be half-decent, but is that your assessment as well?

Ted,

you wrote:

" ... A serious obstacle to peace in the Middle East over the decades has been that both Israel and Palestines respective supporters are often more extreme than they are themselves ...

... I have never met any as hawkish as the author of this blog, and I think thats a problem "

i would suggest that you visit any of the settlements, and ask for their viewpoints,

Chevron is a good place to start,
as it is the most well known,
has had a strong Jewish population from the 1800's until the (completely unprovoked, totally racist)
Arab pogrom in 1929

they can point out to you the Jewish gravestones used by the Arabs as latrines

Compared to some of the Israeli supporters of Rav Kahane whom i know,
Robert is quite a 'moderate' ...

be that as it may,
the points are:

[1] there ARE many hawks in Israel, more so than on this blog, or in the diaspora in general,
and easy for you to meet if you wish to do so

[2] the Islamic Jihadist mentality is one of cold blooded supremacy, and they have repeatedly made clear that their goals are to wiped out all of Israel

[3] the ONLY reason they have not yet done so,
is that they are militarily unable to,
NOT because they have reached some sort of humanistic respectful co-existance dialogue
(we ALL wish that that were true, and possible,
but there is more than abundant history and Jewish blood spilt, that clearly demonstrate that it is not so)

[4] there can be no retaliation,
if the IDF strikes pre-emptively at any terrorist
threat,
as long as it doesn't take half-measures,
and spare any terrorists

this may seem extreme,
but it is a logical strategic solution

(please note,
the actions are proposed against TERRRORISTS,
not civilians,

but if civilians wish to SUPPORT terrorists by acting as their shields,
then they have made their choice,

and are still being shown incomparably more mercy than any Arab attacking Israel would show to Jews)

for a government to allow its citizens to be attacked, wounded, and murdered,
just so that it can appear "liberal",

is along the lines,
of parents allowing their child to be abused by other children,
so that the parents can ingratiate themselves with the abusers' parents ...

completely unacceptable,
and of incomparable harm to the child,

again,

what are your suggestions
as to how to best protect Sderot,
and other areas of Israel within striking range by gaza terrorists?

Sorry Ted, I don't see what's so hawkish about cutting off power and fuel to Gaza. I don't see how you can possibly defend a demand that Israel supply a state with which it is at war. It's foolish.

As for bombing Gaza, tell me, what precisely is wrong with bombing the cities of a state with which you are at war? A state, moreover, whose war is specifically directed at Israel's civilians.

Jake
I am very interested in your description of the situation as a war (that has to be one or lost) and not a conflict or dispue that can be resolved with negotiation. I see reasons to agree. I believe that sometimes when two enemies are at loggerheads and there really is no way out you just have to let them at it and see what happens.

(I cant help mentioning an event I witnessed recently. I witnessed a fight outside a pub last weekend. Both guys were drunk and there was no reasoning with them. I tried several times to seperate the two but failed. Eventually the fight ended when one guy knocked the stuffing out of the other.)

I fear though that this will not work with Israel. Israel has too many enemies. This theory is only valid if total military victory is achievable. I dont believe that it is.

The peace deal between catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland is I believe decent. While there are few similarities in the middle east the overall lesson should be that peace was achieved despite the fact that it appeared as intractable as any war anywhere in the world.

Exdemexlib
Again I dont know how to protect the people of Sderot. I just fear that flattening gaza will make it worse for all.
I enjoyed the discussion folks. Have to go. will respond tomorrow.

I just fear that flattening gaza will make it worse for all.

Really? Why? Let's think about this. As far as Sderot is concerned, flattening Gaza can only be an improvement. Dead terrorists and terrorists without a roof over their heads and running for their lives will not have time to build and fire Kassams.

As for the rest of Israel, how will it be bad for them? Do you worry that Hamas will retaliate in some new and fearsome way? Believe me, if they had any such capability, they would have employed it already. They are not holding back anything. Whatever they can do, they are already doing. So what's the problem.

As far as the Palestinians go, yes, it will be bad for them. Which is sort of the idea.

Ted,

Appeasing terrorists never works. Ever. Not even once in the past, and if history is any reliable guide, nor will it work in the future.

There is only once solution and that is to hit back so hard and so completely that the problem is eliminated.

Any other solution just results in more prolonged death.

Isreal is at war while it pretends not to be. Either Isreal will wake up and ensure their future survival, or Isreal will be destroyed by their own inaction. It's that simple.