Ron Rosenbaum says don’t compare them with Hamas.
[Update a while later]
The reaction among the left to Gaza seems passing strange to me, given that so-called liberals tend to elevate intentions over actual results when evaluating policies.
Raising the minimum wage increases lower-class unemployment? Who cares, our hearts were in the right place in wanting them to have a living wage.
Raising capital gains taxes reduces government revenue? That’s all right, it’s what’s necessary for “fairness.”
Welfare creates dependency on the government? Hey, we’re just trying to help the poor. Who are you to criticize us, you cold-hearted right wingers?
Disarming people leaves them defenseless? You gun nuts are just trying to stop us from trying to reduce needless slaughter with guns.
Green policies are helping bankrupt California? How can you complain about us when we’re trying to save the planet?
But somehow, all this gets turned on its head when it comes to their analysis of the Middle East. What are the Israeli intentions? To live in peace, without a threat to their lives and nation, and to minimize casualties, on both sides, in any war waged against them.
What are Hamas’ intentions? Their intentions (and not secret ones, but stated openly and proudly, as Ron Rosenbaum points out) are the most evil imaginable (other than the extinction of the human race itself). Their explicit goal is the extinction of all Jews in creation. They are prevented from achieving this goal only by their lack of military weapons with which to do so. If their capabilities matched their intentions, Israel would be no more, as would Jewry (and other infidels, eventually) everywhere.
But somehow, their vile intentions, which should be condemned, by the traditional values of these “liberals,” become irrelevant to the discussion. No matter that their intentions (to create as many casualties on both sides as possible) are often partially achieved — they are completely ignored. The focus is not on intentions at all, of either party, but only on outcomes. And since, by Hamas’ design, the vast number of casualties occur in Gaza, by Israeli weapons, and despite the life and treasure they expend to minimize them, the Israelis are viewed as the problem, and their intentions be damned.
It is a “liberal” Bizarro world.
[Update a few minutes later]
Some thoughts from Caroline Glick:
Q: Is the media here in the U.S. or internationally remotely fair?
A: When the media are only interested in what is going on when Israel defends itself, the answer is no, they aren’t fair. They don’t pay any attention when hundreds of thousands of Israelis are relegated to bomb shelters for weeks and months on end. They don’t care that Israeli children can’t go to school or day care because Hamas is targeting schools and day-care centers. They only cover the story when Israel finally decides to put an end to this crazy situation where our children are growing up underground. And this is appalling.
From CNN’s coverage of events here, for instance, you could easily come away from the news thinking that Israel is attacking Gaza for no reason. The European media, and much of the U.S. media dismiss the significance of Hamas’s missile, rocket, and mortar campaign against Israel by noting that these projectiles are relatively primitive and have no guidance systems. But this misses and indeed distorts the entire point. Hamas doesn’t need advanced weapons. Its goal is not to attack specific military targets. Its goal is to attack Israeli society as a whole and terrorize our citizens. That’s what makes it such an outlaw.
In fact, this random bombing of civilian targets is the very definition of war crimes. Due to their random nature, every projectile launched against Israel by Hamas is a separate war crime. And that’s the real story. But again, outside of publications like National Review and the like, the Western media have ignored this basic truth and worse, they have turned the criminal nature of Hamas’s campaign into a justification for it.
…Q: A lot of critics say that Israel is just going too far in its attacks. What do you make of the charge?
A: The interesting aspect of this claim is what it tells us about the success of anti-Israel propaganda. For instance, Richard Falk, the Jewish anti-Semite who the U.N.’s Human Rights Council appointed to act as its rapporteur against Israel began accusing Israel of committing war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza the moment Israel began its campaign. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch systematically fabricate international “law” backed by “eyewitness” reports from Hamas supporters in order to accuse Israel of breaking it every single time it takes any steps to defend itself, no matter how restrained.
Israel has done nothing in its campaign against Hamas that could be considered going “too far.” It has done nothing in its campaign that could be considered “disproportionate.” It has targeted military targets and terror operatives.
The fact of the matter is that Israel is held to standards that are discriminatory while its enemy — an illegal, openly genocidal terrorist organization — is defended and shielded from attack by the media, by self-proclaimed human-rights activists and by hostile foreign leaders like British Foreign Minister David Miliband and Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan.
It’s what they do. Read the whole thing.
Something I found interesting was that when the Israelis go after Hamas it’s called a “war” and of course it’s an obvious good that there should be a stop to the “fighting” as soon as possible.
Now imagine instead we have, say, a colony of gun-nuts holed up in a compound in Northern Mexico, and they’re shooting across the border randomly and occasionally hitting people. If the government decides to go in and stop them, it would be called some kind of police action. And, would anyone in his right mind suggest putting a stop or freeze on a police action halfway through, before the wackos have been killed, arrested, or at least disarmed?
No, that would be obviously stupid. Now, what Israel is doing is certainly much more similar to a police action than a war. They’re going after a nest of crazies who lob rockets across the border. Even if you want to call it suppressing guerrillas, it’s still a police action. In that case, proposing “cease-fires” and “truces” before the police have finished their action — letting the criminals get away — is plain nuts.
I think it’s for this reason the news media are very careful to always describe what Israel is doing as a “war,” as if there exists another sovereign nation with whom they have differences, and they’re duking it out on the battlefied instead of holding “talks.” It’s really a pretty ingenious use of Orwellian newspeak.
I disagree, Carl. This “nest of crazies” is the elected government of the people of Gaza, regardless of how otherwise dysfunctional it is. It is war, and one that they have brought upon themselves.
I don’t see it, Rand. You might as well argue that because the gun nut crazies pick their leader by a show of hands that they have an “elected government” and are a “nation.”
Gaza is essentially one giant refugee camp. I don’t see that it qualifies as a nation, and I therefore don’t see that Hamas qualifies as a government.
I’m not sure what your point is. What difference does it make whether it’s “war” or a “police action” (which is what Korea was called as well…). As you say, you can’t stop until you’ve defeated the people trying to kill you.
It’s more important to feel good than to do good.
Compromise is morally impure.
Ach, Rand, you’re talking logically. But that’s not what governs, for the most part. Emotionally, the action of the police is viewed very different from a war between technical equals. In the case of a police action, stopping before you’ve rounded up the criminals is obvious madness. In the case of a war, the instinct is that the “fair” result is, or is close to, the status quo ante, so a “cease fire” makes all kinds of sense.
The point is, by carefully portraying it as a war between nominal equals, the media strongly bias the viewer in favor of the status quo ante, of “ceasefires” and “truces” and “peace processes.” If it were (correctly) portrayed as policing, this would make no sense. If the LAPD gets in a shootout with gang members holed up in warehouse, no one suggests a “cease fire” or “talks” halfway through.
The fact that Korea was called a police action by some only reinforces my point, I think. The people who did so were well aware of the emotional overtones of “war” and believed it would hobble their effort.
I realize that what you call it doesn’t make any logical difference — but we’re not talking about logic here. People are not, generally, logical.
The people in Gaza elected Hamas officials to run their little terrorist incubator and brought all the misery they suffer on themselves. The point is, most of the western press blames Israel for every problem in Gaza and almost never mentions the Hamas as a terrorist organization that couldn’t govern a Boy Scout camp. Gaza could be a functioning country right now…if it weren’t for Hamas.
Anti-colonialism trumps everything. In the prevailing narrative the Israelis are the Western colonizers, the Palestinians the non-Western colonized. Consequently, whatever the Israelis do is wrong, whatever the Palestinians do right.
In any case, we have learned that “disproportionate” is a synonym for “effective,” i.e. a disproportionate Israeli action is one that’s working. A proportionate action is one that doesn’t.
I think the weapons themselves, as well as the enforcers involved, make a difference. The legal status matters too, but I’m not going to get into that.
Weapons: wars involve tanks and jets, police actions involve service revolvers, and, at most, SWAT teams. Carl, you live in LA? The LAPD is famous taking it up a notch. People, including journalists, who live in hamlets where the police are less likely to be using helicopters than in LA might be more inclined than you to see this as significant.
People: wars involve armies, police actions involve police. Police usually have different rules of engagement (I’m not even sure that “rules of engagement” is even used in reference to police.) The police uphold the law and protect people and property and once those standards are met, they catch the bad guys. Armies get into trouble when they are required to act that way. By military standards, the IDF might be acting with restraint, but by police standards, they’re out of control maniacs.
The Korean War was called a police action because of the politics and symbolism involving the UN, right? And the term was heavily criticized, because everyone knew that when the US army uses its tanks and bombers and such, it is a war.
There is also the legal status of Gaza, but the above justification doesn’t address that. I actually think this post misses most of the important issues, but hell, I’ll just hit “submit”.
I don’t understand how so many otherwise clear thinkers apparently don’t understand the true nature of the Left.
Or perhaps they just pretend not to as a way of offering up backhanded criticism? I thik it’s time to abandon that tactic and be crystal clear. The Left is as much the enemy of America, Israel, the West, and civilization itself as the Muhammadans are. They are allies and cooperate to acheive the same goals of deconstruction.
There are very, very few “liberals” left. They are leftists, and they are the enemy.
I meant US military, not Army, when I referred to bombers and jets. No offense to the newly created US Air Force of the Korean war days intended.
Not hard to understand at all. Israel is pro-western and pro-American; these values are loathed by those on the left. Have you ever heard anyone on the left criticize any person, institution or state that is basically anti-American?
Dave, I wonder what you mean by “on the left”. Nearly every member of the US Democratic party elected to the national level is quite happy to criticize Hamas, Al Queda, Iran’s leadership, Kim Jong-il, Chavez, Castro, and any number of other anti-American countries, institutions, and people.
PS In correcting myself about the US Air Force, I probably insulted the US Navy’s aviation role in the Korean war. Insulting the Navy is much worse than insulting the Nazis.
Nearly every member of the US Democratic party elected to the national level is quite happy to criticize Hamas, Al Queda, Iran’s leadership, Kim Jong-il, Chavez, Castro, and any number of other anti-American countries, institutions, and people.
There’s “criticize” and there’s “criticize.” Will they call Hamas war criminals? Will they demand that they stop committing war crimes? Will they continue to push for the ridiculous notion of a “two-state solution” with them?
Rand, I’m sure they call Hamas war criminals and demand that they stop being such. No time to go hunting for links, but I’d start by looking at what Hilary has said, although, heck, whose opinion is more important – the secretary of state or the white house chief of staff, who has much more access to the president and who has just happened to have fought for the State of Israel in all but name? To the other commenters, I’d ask whether they think Rahm is “on the left”.
But what do you mean by “push for the ridiculous notion of a “two-state solution” with them?” Are you saying that people want a three state solution — Israel, Hamas-run Gaza, and Fatah-run West Bank? I don’t recall anyone elected suggesting that Hamas be given a state.
More interestingly but off-topic, so feel (extra) free to ignore me: I’d be interested in whether you would be against a two state solution, with Fatah but not Hamas running both the West Bank and Gaza. (Also: Hamas could, in time, transform itself, so what I’m really asking is whether you have any problem with a two state solution in which the Palestinians’ govt recognizes Israel’s right to live in peace, and acts on this recognition.
I can’t think of any Democrats from whom I’ve heard those sorts of words, other than Joe Lieberman. If you can find some examples, I’m willing to be persuaded.
Are you saying that people want a three state solution — Israel, Hamas-run Gaza, and Fatah-run West Bank?
No, I’m saying that people continue to insist that we negotiate with people whose primary goal is the destruction of Israel. This applies to both Hamas and Fatah, though the latter is more circumspect about it, and willing to take a longer term view.
…Hamas could, in time, transform itself…
How does a group whose very purpose of existence is the death of Israel and the Jews “reform itself,” Bob?
This is exactly the type of naivety that I’m talking about.
what I’m really asking is whether you have any problem with a two state solution in which the Palestinians’ govt recognizes Israel’s right to live in peace, and acts on this recognition.
I have no problem with a two-state solution. My problem is with people who think that it’s a realistic possibility in the near term, given the nature of the conflict and the goals of the two sides. Israel wants a two-state solution. The “Palestinian” “leadership” wants a one-state solution, in which neither Israel, or its Jewish inhabitants, exist.
I’ve been thinking much the same as Carl: If a large group of La Raza folks or a drug cartel was elected to govern Matamuros (sp?) and they started lobbing rockets into Brownsville demanding that we give it back to them, what would we do?
I think it’s fairly clear that the leaders of Matamuros would quickly be removed with a great deal of not-so collateral damage to their followers – in this case the majority of the citizenry.
Protecting one’s territorial integrity is rather the point of having a military in the first place.
Rand, the Chinese communist party has transformed itself several times. Organizations like Hamas are susceptible to purges and “cleansings”. Also, a more gradual transformation is possible, simply because many people in an organization will value power and greed over ideology. This is usually bad, but in the case of Hamas, if corrupt power-hungry greedy leaders were on top, it might lead to an improvement. Anyway, I can imagine a transformed Hamas that got back to their roots of providing daycare instead of blowing them up.
Anyway, I can imagine a transformed Hamas that got back to their roots of providing daycare instead of blowing them up.
I will give you credit for having an extremely vivid, albeit completely unrealistic imagination. The Hamas you describe would not be Hamas. The Chinese communist party never defined itself in terms of killing all non-Chinese on the planet.
It sometimes forgotten that Hamas became popular on the Gaza strip by providing health care and daycare. Really.
Also the Chinese communist party never contemplated encouraging party members to become entrepreneurs. Times change.
It sometimes forgotten that Hamas became popular on the Gaza strip by providing health care and daycare. Really.
They haven’t done it since they won the “election.” And took power. It was purely tactical.
I can’t believe that you continue to defend Hamas.
Really.
I should add that the “daycare” that Hamas provided was hours of instruction about how Jews are pigs and apes, and must be annihilated from the earth, and teaching young children how to strap on bombs and wield weapons. Maybe that’s what the “Palestinians” wanted, but it’s not a very good defense of them.
What?! Hey now. I’m certainly not defending Hamas. I’m an optimist about the middle east and about humans in general, but the nicest thing I’ll say about Hamas is that they are, in fact, human beings, even if they are the worst sort.
It is a fact that Hamas actually did provide services to a service-deprived Gaza Strip while Fatah spiraled into a whirlpool of corruption. I’m not going deny and certainly won’t defend the images we’ve all seen of children with bombs and guns strapped to their bodies. But Hamas did provide health care. That’s not a defense of Hamas, just a reason for optimism on my part which you are certainly entitled not to share.
I’ve stated on this blog many times that my sympathy is completely with Israel, and with Western values. I just think that western values can and eventually will be expressed in Gaza and the West bank, in Iraq, and throughout the middle east and the world. Call me a neo-con if you must, but I think Fukuyama was right.
It is a fact that Hamas actually did provide services to a service-deprived Gaza Strip while Fatah spiraled into a whirlpool of corruption.
It is also a fact that the only reason that they did so was because an election was coming up, and once the election was over, and they decided that there will be no more elections, they ceased to do so. So who gives a flying F?
I just think that western values can and eventually will be expressed in Gaza and the West bank, in Iraq, and throughout the middle east and the world.
I think so, too. Unfortunately, the only way it will happen is to completely obliterate Hamas (and probably, ultimately, Fatah as well), because it cannot be reformed, any more than the Nazis could. As I said, to think otherwise is to be hopelessly naive.
Oh, and I agree that the care services provided by Hamas were completely cynical and manipulative. It would be great if Hamas disappeared but if they don’t, it would be great if they went back to being interested in winning power by providing services to Palestinians instead of trying to deny services to Israelis.
The Nazis disappeared but Germans didn’t. Germans changed. This summer I stayed at the house of someone whose father was a Nazi who helped ransack France. After the war, he worked in Luxembourg, helping to establish the European Court of Justice. In other words, he became one of the good guys. His son, growing up in Luxembourg, was discriminated against because he was German, and thus he could identify with my story of being discriminated against because I am Jewish. Someone imagining my story in 1944 would seem hopelessly naive.
Well, it would be great if we all got a pony, too, Bob. But it’s not going to happen.
We’re not talking about Germans. We’re talking about Nazis (worse than Nazis, actually, which is the original subject of this post). And you’re being obtuse.
“…if corrupt power-hungry greedy leaders were on top, it might lead to an improvement.”
You mean a guy like Yassir Arafat? Or Robert Mugabe? or any one of a number of tinpots whole rule the poorest countries in the world (funny how that goes together) with their iron fists and networks of corruption?
Perhaps instead of trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, a different strategy should be employed. How about a one-state solution, where the West Bank and Gaza become part of Israel and its citizens either become Israeli or emigrate? Then actions against terrorist organizations in those areas really do become police business.
You know, the Domino theory that led to the Korean War also can apply in the Middle East. Iraq is one domino, Afghanistan another, the West Bank and Gaza can be more dominos… instead of the communist domino effect feared forty or fifty years ago, it would be a democratic domino effect. It’s worth a shot.
Ed, I meant it semi-ironically. Arafat in the 1990s was awful, but an improvement over Hamas. (Arafat in the 1970s was an evil terrorist with no redeeming behaviors whatsoever.)
The one state solution that you envision sounds good to American ears, but it isn’t favored by either side. A one state democracy could have a constitution which says “Israel is the homeland for the Jews and is there for their protection AND Israel is the homeland for the Palestinians and is there for their protection as well AND Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy with liberty and justice for all, etc, etc” and it would sound very nice, but on the Palestinian side, there is a desire to claim land that Israelis won’t give up, and perhaps a current lack of desire for liberty for everyone among too many, while on the Israeli side, there is a fear that demographics will overwhelm the constitution. In a one state solution, Jews will soon be the minority. Jewish Israelis are dedicated to the idea of a democracy with a Jewish majority. The Jews prefer democracy and freedom for everyone, but want to hedge their bets demographically. With a Jewish majority, laws discriminating against the Jews won’t be passed. In a democracy where Jews are in the minority, things could theoretically go south, and that possibility is all too likely if the newly enfranchised majority has no tradition of free and democratic government.
Look at it this way: Czechoslovakians chose to separate into two countries. If a one state solution couldn’t work in peaceful post-communist Czechoslovakia, it probably shouldn’t be attempted any time soon in Israel & Palestine.
Still, there is room for optimism. Almost 20% of Israelis are Arabs, and nearly all of them are quite happy to be living in Israel rather than in the rest of the middle east. One group of Arabs, the Druze, fight with the Israeli Defense Force and identify strongly as Israelis who just happen to be Arab. Other Arabs are Arab-first, but are nonetheless elected members of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) and they actively advocate for their fellow Arabs via democratic and parliamentary means.
I think your democratic dominos might best work out by having a separate independent democratic Palestine, as well as a democratic Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, etc. Eventually, the democratic nations of the middle east might form a trade pact like the European Community which could slowly evolve in to a European Union-like loose confederation/superstate. As the traditions of democracy become ingrained, it will be more natural for Israel to join this group, and just as national borders have become less important in the core of the EU, it might be the same in the middle east. Czechs and Slovaks happily live together within the EU, and perhaps Israelis and Palestinians can also happily live together in a similar fashion.
Bob, Arafat never stopped being a terrorist. He just stopped doing the killing himself.
I meant that he became a terrorist with some redeeming behaviors.
I meant that he became a terrorist with some redeeming behaviors.
I must have missed those. He was a duplicitous child-molesting terrorist, committed to destroying Israel to the end of his days, “with redeeming behaviors.” Could you elaborate? He didn’t molest every child? What?
In the 1990s, Arafat renounced violence and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. He engaged in negotiations with Israel, negotiations which legitimized the basis of an agreement and a final end to the hostilities. The two sides were finally discussing which plots of land would be Israeli and which would be Palestinian. The discussion got down to whether the Palestinians would get 94% of the land they sought, or just a bit more. The concept that they wouldn’t get 100% was understood by both sides. Thanks to Arafat, the Palestinians were finally getting down to the gritty details of a peace agreement, and I’m quite sure that the final agreement will be very close to what was negotiated in the 1990s. Regarding Bill’s point, most of Arafat’s bad behavior during that period was directed against Palestinians – it wasn’t until 2001 that the violence against Israelis really picked up again.
Anyway, look at it this way: Israel could have captured or killed Arafat, and chose not to. They subjected him to house arrest in the 2000s, but he had a very free reign in the 1990s, and Israel calculated that to be in their best interest. They have never had any such sentiment toward Hamas, which supports my basic point: Arafat was better than Hamas, and if Hamas started acting like Arafat in the 1990s, it would be an improvement welcomed by Israel. In fact, the current military action in Gaza seems intended to convince Hamas of exactly this point.
I just finished Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism, and his thesis is that the Left, based on totally secular rationality, or the purely economic man of Marx, cannot admit of a pathological mass movement like jihad or Hamas without their world falling apart. They truly believe the totalitarian impulse died with Stalin. So, if humans are rational creatures, surely Hamas is only responding to political grievances of such magnitude that they provoke this mad “protest.” Therefore, it’s Israel’s fault.
They truly believe the totalitarian impulse died with Stalin.
What do you mean “Stalin”? It died with that man of the “right” (who was really a man of the left, until he turned on Stalin…) Hitler.
True. The NYT still hasn’t quite decided if Stalin was a bad guy!
PJ, are you just kidding around about the NYT? If you’re serious, what are you thinking of? Any particular NYT editorials in mind? I’m genuinely curious.
Broadly kidding–although I don’t know if they have ever repudiated this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
He was probably referring to the decades it took to finally renounce Duranty’s Pulitzer (if they did — I could be mistaken, but I thought they finally fessed up a (very) few years ago).
Bob, Try everything Walter Duranty wrote and the Times never repudiated, nor gave back his Pulitzer.
So when Arafat had 90% of what he wanted on the table and walked awy to start the Infatada he was what, just being a good negotiator or he realized if he took the deal he wouldn’t be able to blame Israel for all of the problems he was causing?
He robbed his own people. He murdered his own people and he lied like rug to his own people. Redeeming never enters the picture.
Thanks, I hadn’t heard about Duranty (or at least really noticed it).
Even if the prize wasn’t revoked, the NYT sounds quite capaple of healthy self-criticism in the link PJ provided (at the bottom of the article) but I acknowledge that this is all I’ve read so far, and apparently there is more to the story. Thanks again.
—
Bill, you’re right, Arafat was stupid and evil. My point, which was a little opaque, is that Arafat’s behavior in the 90s, to the extent that he acted like a corrupt tyrant, would be a big improvement over Hamas. That’s pretty faint praise.
Thanks, I hadn’t heard about Duranty (or at least really noticed it).
Yes, Bob, there’s a lot you haven’t heard about. That’s why you remain a Democrat. 😉
The solution is bulldozers. One city block around the source of ANY terrorist action. If this means Gaza is flattened and refuges stream into neighboring countries, then those countries can either take responsibility or find bulldozers heading their way. Enough is enough and Israel needs to become deaf to the criticism and continue until no one is willing to disturb the peace.
Critics be damned.
Ken, which countries would the refugees go to? Have you ever wondered why there are refugees? I mean, why didn’t they just resettle in the rest of the Arab world? The answer is that no country will allow them to settle there. There are various reasons why, including a) Arab countries can be make political hay out of the suffering of refugees, and b) there is a fear of admitting more militants.
Bob, so murder while corrupt is worse than murder while ideologically pure?
Arab countries won’t take the refugees because they want them to overrun Israel and murder jews too, they just don’t make it a mission statement like Hamas and Iran. These same countries thought they would kill them all in ’48 and ’67.
Ken, which countries would the refugees go to? Have you ever wondered why there are refugees? I mean, why didn’t they just resettle in the rest of the Arab world? The answer is that no country will allow them to settle there.
And whose fault it that, Bob? Surely not Israel’s.
That’s an interesting question. To the first approximation, the Arab countries bear the blame, and I thought I was making that clear when I said that the Arab countries were making political hay out of the refugees’ plight.
But the complete answer is more complicated than that. I was a staunch avid black-and-white defender of Israel until I read Tom Segev’s 1949. I’m still a defender of Israel, but I take a more cautious approach. Tom Segev is a now-prominent Israeli historian, and the best thing about his book is that he used only (or at least overwhelmingly) Israeli sources from the national archives in Israel. He builds his case that Israel does in fact have culpability for the refugees’ plight by quoting Israeli founding fathers, like Ben-Gurion himself, and Ben-Gurion’s colleagues. I’d have to leaf back through the book to find the most potent quotes (or perhaps there is webpage with a summary) but it was quite shocking. What we would now call “Ethnic Cleansing” did take place, although that’s oversimplifying what really happened. Some of Israel’s founding fathers were horrified by what was happening, and, surprisingly, they did make comparisons to the Nazis when describing what was going on, and some of them were in the position to make such comparisons because they had personal experience with the Nazis. Often, there were factions involved, as well as rouge elements — like all human stories, it gets complicated the more you look. One of the frustrating things about your writings on this blog, Rand, for me, is that you achieve moral clarity by making simplifying assumptions, which is fine as far as it goes, but if you, like Segev, dig deeper, you can find a more complex truth. Segev is an Israeli patriot, and his conclusions don’t damn Israel at all, but they do uncover some wrongs that Israel’s founding fathers were well aware of, and that we should be aware of as well. I can’t accurately summarize Segev’s findings here, but Segev does point to some real culpability. The book made a big splash in Israel (if I understand correctly) and you might really find it interesting. I think I can safely say that you won’t dismiss it as leftist BS – it just isn’t written like that as it relies on in-context quotes from important Israelis. And just to wrap it up, it should go without saying that if Israelis did some bad things in the early years, it doesn’t necessarily have any impact on what is going on now, nor does it make Israel somehow just as culpable as its Arab neighbors, or anything like that.