You recently wrote in The Huffington Post that you plan to join the flotilla headed for Gaza next month.
You stated that the goal is to "break the blockade of Gaza," and support the "right of self-determination" for the Palestinians there.
You asserted that "everyone on the boat is committed to nonviolence," referring self-importantly to the participants as "well-known American peace activists."
Allow me a few questions.
Oddly missing from your entire article was one word - Hamas. Why?
Could it be that you're unaware that Hamas rules Gaza? Or is the omission because you don't think it's pertinent to the discussion? Or is it that you are aware, but think it might cloud the sunny picture you're trying to paint, so best to skip it?
Obviously, as someone who touts his Middle East credentials, you know of Hamas, so let me understand how you deal with it, since it's impossible to separate the situation in Gaza today from Hamas rule since 2007.
You proclaim your commitment to nonviolence.
How do you square that with Hamas's record of violence, including its bloody seizure of power from the Palestinian Authority four years ago?
Have you taken a public position on the firing of literally thousands of missiles and mortars by Hamas at Israeli towns and villages, with the aim of murder and mayhem?
Did I miss your condolences when an Israeli school bus was recently hit by Hamas fire and a 16-year-old boy was killed?
And I couldn't find a word from you about the plight of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas and held incommunicado for the past nearly five years. Did I somehow overlook it?
By the way, have you read the Hamas Charter?
How do you process the following statement in that screed: "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."?
Is that not raw, unadulterated anti-Semitism?
And do you subscribe to the rejection in the charter of all "infidels" who will "corrupt" the "true believers" of Islam?
Or how about this excerpt: "Renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of Islam."? Doesn't that mean Israel has no right to exist, whatever its final borders might be?
Indeed, do you believe Israel has a right to exist and the Jewish people have the right to self-determination? You defend it for the Palestinians, but, to be clear, is that meant to be in a state alongside Israel or in one that replaces Israel?
Your confrères in the flotilla from such groups as the Free Gaza Movement openly reject Israel's legitimacy. Do you agree with them, or have you rejected their position?
Should you by chance reach Gaza, will you embrace the Hamas leaders who will be waiting for you on the shore? Will you call them your brothers in peace and nonviolence?
Israel has made clear that it has only one reason for enforcing a blockade - to prevent weapons-smuggling by a ruling group that publicly calls for Israel's destruction.
By seeking to break that blockade, you're aware, aren't you, that the result would be an influx of more offensive weapons from Iran and elsewhere, as we've seen in the past?
Does that concern you, or do you believe it's all Zionist propaganda and the goal of Hamas is nothing more than to import greater quantities of marshmallows for Kumbaya campfires?
Here's what else I don't get.
You conveniently place all the blame for Gaza's current situation on Israel's shoulders. It's as if Israel never left in 2005, uprooting every last soldier and settler, while making clear that Jerusalem had no territorial interest in Gaza and giving local residents their first chance in history to govern themselves.
Don't you infantilize Gaza by refusing to hold Hamas and those who voted for it responsible for what's happening? Are there no consequences for their decision to bring to power a group that both the United States and the European Union have declared a terrorist organization?
Isn't it in Israel's interests - assuming you allow for Israel to exist and have national interests - to see a peaceful, prosperous Gaza emerge on its border rather than a failed mini-state that serves as a magnet for missile-firing, religiously-inspired zealots?
And finally, if your heart is bursting with compassion for the region's downtrodden, why are you so transparently selective? Why does Gaza alone make the cut?
While in the vicinity, why not direct the flotilla to pay a port call in Egypt and declare your solidarity with the Coptic Christian community, which is being targeted with waves of violence, resulting in fatalities and burned churches?
And then why not hop across the eastern Mediterranean to the Syrian coast and unfurl banners declaring support for those peacefully protesting President Assad's despotic rule?
Why not visit the families of the nearly one thousand people reported gunned down in recent weeks by Syrian forces and express your condolences?
And why not try to see the thousands arrested and languishing in Syrian prisons, while demanding that they be given basic rights and access by groups like your own?
Otherwise, questions are inevitably raised about your motivation and intent.
After all, doesn't it speak volumes if the only flotilla you deem worth joining is headed for Gaza, where the publicly declared goal of the regime in power is "to fight the Jews and kill them" and "obliterate" Israel?
For more information, visit ajc.org.
http://www.truth-out.org/no-hamas-exception-human-rights-reply-american-jewish-committee/1306076478
I highly recommend that everyone read it.
"The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."? …… "Renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of Islam."? Doesn't that mean Israel has no right to exist, whatever its final borders might be?
Indeed, do you believe Israel has a right to exist and the Jewish people have the right to self-determination? You defend it for the Palestinians, but, to be clear, is that meant to be in a state alongside Israel or in one that replaces Israel?
Your confrères in the flotilla from such groups as the Free Gaza Movement openly reject Israel's legitimacy. .”(David Harris)
Israel has the right to defend itself. No flotilla - No negotiations with Hamas or any entity associated with Hamas. - No 1967 Borders – Period!
You want to answers to all you questions then i suggest you make an appointment with avi schlaim. He is also based in oxford and is a professor.
Not only will Naiman not be able to answer these questions, he is going crazy on the managment of the Hoffpost for allowing this article
Oh, we did?
(And sent the same diplomatic official to work with the Israelis and Palestinians but he just quit?)
Never mind!
Yes, never mind that Hamas has repeatedly agree to recognize Israel in a peace deal on the '67 borders... never mind that Israel covertly created Hamas years ago to undermine the PLO... keep focusing on the same old tired distractions so they can do their job: distract you from the fact that Israel keeps illegally taking land and dispossessing civilians who have been living under a military occupation for longer than most people on this message board have been alive...
Just keep believing the myths that keep Israel growing in land and diminishing in credibility.
Even if one of them claimed they would recognize Israel at some point in time he claimed a full right of return would be a must making that state they recognize and Arab ruled Palestine 2 soon to be annexed to Palestine 1.
The big lie: Hamas was elected--in a election we supervised. Then the Palestinian Authority sought to overthrow that election and Hamas resisted.
Fact.
Citing Hamas "bloody seizure of power" is like calling saying someone who fought off a mugger "used violence for their own financial betterment."
But hey... points for total shamelessness.
Harris does an excellent job at pointing out the typical Israel detractor, typical hypocritical non sense that is expected from your *side*. Instead of attacking Harris, why don't you respond to the topic actually, try to use that thing between your ears to figure out why naiman conveniently forgot to mention hamas in his article.
Enjoy reading about Likud's position on settlements and Palestinian state
No. The position expressed in the 1988 Likud platform (NOT "constitution") may be absurd today. The Hamas Covenant is not "absurd" -- it is criminal. It openly calls to the destruction of a sovereign state, incites to mass murder of its Jewish citizens and to opression of all non-Muslim inhabitants.
I challenge you to find in the Likud platform or ANY official Israeli document a passage that even remotely compares with the following quotation which "adorns" the Hamas Covenant:
QUOTE
The Prophet, [...] said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
UNQUOTE
Your attempt to equivalate Hamas's CRIMINAL incitement with Likud's OBJECTIONABLE policies are nothing but moral nihilism.
In addition to the blatant lack of ethical compass, there is also a measure of intellectual dishonesty in your post: while you cite Likud's 1988 platform, you "forget" to mention that Netanyahu (Likud's leader) has officially DEPARTED from that platform, by publicly declaring that a final peace agreement will include a Palestinian Arab independent state alongside Israel.
What I was pointing out was that there were extremist positions on both sides. I am not comparing them, as Hamas' is obviously the more objectionable, but simply pointing out what had been omitted by the author.
And believe me Netanyahu only proclaimed his support for a two-state solution after having been dragged kicking and screaming. He has no intention of honouring it, as shown by his continued support for building Jewish settlements on this future "Palestinian Arab independent state", and his ludicrous demand that this "independent state" have no armed forces to defend it from the IDF.
Here is a "peace activist" hugging the Hamas prime minister in Gaza:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/middleeast/16gaza.html
Couldn't have said it better. If anyone concerned about Gaza has to first prove his/her concern about Syria and Egypt, why shouldn't someone concerned about Israel first be required to prove his/her concern about Congo and North Korea?
As Mr Harris himself says, "Otherwise, questions are inevitably raised about your motivation and intent."