Israel in Gaza: Three Wrong Arguments

Two days ago, a resolution of support for Israel jointly sponsored by Sen.Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was adopted in the Senate by unanimous consent. The resolution includes an uncritical recitation of some classic elements of the basic AIPAC-fueled neo-Zionist pro-Israel narrative that has dominated American national political discourse since the 1980s. The "Whereas" section includes:

"Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel . . . Hamas has refused to comply with the requirements of the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) . . . in June 2006, Hamas crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today . . . Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars since Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005 . . ."

The Reid/McConnell resolution is a perfect articulation of one voice in the American debate over Israel's actions in Gaza. The unanimous support the resolution received demonstrates just how difficult it is to break into the scripted narratives that dominate at the level of elite political discourse; it is amazing that in a country that polls show to be deeply divided over Israel's actions, two days after 10,000 Israelis protested against their own government's actions in Tel Aviv, and after everything that has happened in the last eight years, nonetheless there is not a single voice in the U.S. Senate being raised to question the official story being peddled the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies. It's enough to make one think that Walt and Mearsheimer might have been on to something (if only they hadn't said it so badly.) Meanwhile, Obama has remained mute, while the Bush administration has taken its usual line of supporting anything the Israeli government chooses to do, including the exercise of America's veto power in the UN Security Council - one last finger in the world's eye before leaving office.

The unanimity in the branches of the U.S. government may be a source of encouragement to the Olmert government in these last ten days before a new administration. Today (Saturaday, Jan. 10) IAF planes dropped leaflets warning Gazans of a "new phase in the war on terror" and warning that Israel will "escalate" its ground operations; among other things, this is a clear indication that Israel does not particularly feel the much-ballyhooed international "pressure" for a cease-fire. But the unanimity in the U.S. government is not borne out in public discussions, where the debates are furious and loud. Those debates are also frequently pointless. Pointless because one thing that anyone following those debates will have noticed is that most of the time the various sides do not bother to refute one another's claims. Quite often the explanation is simple: the other sides' arguments are so obviously, patently wrongheaded that they must not be meant sincerely, and therefore do not warrant any response. That observation probably makes the following exercise futile, but here I go anyway. Here are three claims that are central to the pro-invasion narrative that is encompassed in the Senate resolution, and just a few of the objections that should be raised whenever these arguments are heard.

Claim 1:
Israel disengaged from Gaza and removed its settlements. In response, the people of Gaza elected a Hamas government and since then rockets have been continually launched into Israel. By the same token, when Israel left Lebanon, Hezbollah moved in. This proves that Israel had no choice but to attempt to destroy or substantially weaken Hamas on the ground in Gaza, and demonstrates the futility of trading land for peace.

Response:
The assertion that Israel has ended its occupation is extremely debatable; among others, it is debated by Human Rights Watch. Israel controls Gaza's northern and eastern border crossings, its access to the sea, and its airspace. Israel has shut down Gaza's port and destroyed its airport, ended its fishing industry, and controls the flow of electricity and oil, food and medicine, and even money into the territory. With the cooperation of Egypt, Israel continues to control who enters and exits Gaza; since the election of Hamas Israel has used that power to place Gaza under a state of siege resulting in dire humanitarian conditions in an already impoverished territory that has struggled for decades under the burden of absorbing huge numbers of refugees from Israel. Even prior to the siege, the Israeli Air Force demonstrated its continued ownership of the skies over Gaza by sending jets to produce sonic booms over Gazan cities, a gesture apparently with no purpose other than to harass the local population (also used in Southern Lebanon following Israel's "withdrawal"), a gentle reminder to people on the ground that they sleep at night only if Israel chooses to let them do so. People say that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza as though Gaza had been left autonomous and independent and free from Israeli control and interference; nothing could be further from the truth.

Moreover, to describe a "withdrawal from Gaza" is to artificially divide the Palestinian territories. The withdrawal of the settlements from inside Gaza was accompanied by massive acceleration of settlement construction in the West Bank; most observers have concluded that Sharon's motivation was precisely to free up resources for that purpose. Israel has been absolutely relentless in the expansion of those settlements, along with everything that goes with them; the checkpoints, "whites only" roads, the military incursion in 2002, and the separation wall.

From the Palestinian perspective, the statement that Israel withdrew from Gaza and was not rewarded with peace is almost incomprehensibly dishonest; Palestinians and Arabs in other countries I have spoken with assume that people making that argument are speaking with utter self-awareness of the cynicism of their argument. If you stick a knife in my chest and another one in my foot, then you pull out the one from my foot but drive the one in my chest even deeper, do not expect me not to kick you with my foot that is still bleeding from the wounds you have inflicted. Peace between Israel and Palestine may indeed come through a series of steps, but the framework of understanding cannot be one that separates Gaza from the West Bank, as though being allowed free access to Khan Younis somehow makes up for being cut off from Jerusalem.

Claim 2:
Israel has been subject to constant rocket attacks. What would you (addressed to an American) do if rockets were falling on your city? And what about Gilad Shalit, who has not even been allowed to be seen by visitors? What would you do if this had happened to America?

Response:
A fair point, to be sure; rocket attacks are an act of war, and Israel has a right to defend itself. The problem is that Israel's blockade of Gaza is also an act of war, and Palestinians have the same right of self-defense. To focus only on the rockets coming into Israel is like describing the Battle of Britain as "British planes attacking German planes"; it's not technically inaccurate, but as a description it is incomplete to the point of complete distortion. When we are asked "what would you do if rockets from Canada were landing in Minnesota" we should also ask "what would you do if a foreign power - or two foreign powers, acting in cooperation -- had cut off all access to your country and was slowly starving your population in order to compel you to get rid of your elected government?"

Ending the siege has been Hamas' main and constant demand. When the truce began on June 19th Israel permitted increased importation of food, but still only to about 20% of normal levels. The UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Robert Falk, has reported levels of hunger inside Gaza that rival those of the poorest sub-Saharan nations and has called the Israeli siege a "crime against humanity." In November, Israel launched two military attacks that effectively ended the truce and led to the resumption of rocket attacks; nonetheless in December Hamas offered to extend the truce if Israel would only lift the siege. Israel was not interested; thereafter Hamas increased the intensity of the attacks, culminating in a barrage the week of Christmas that prompted the initiation of Operation Cast Lead (although, as I have pointed out in an earlier post, that operation had been planned for months).

The point of the siege all along was to inflict misery on Gaza in order to turn them against their government, an act of collective punishment designed to turn Gazans against their government. In 2006 Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, was quoted in The Guardian explaining the plan: "the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet." The technical name for a strategy of imposing fear and misery on a people until they turn against their government is "terrorism"; to repeat myself, Palestinians have the same right of self-defense as Israelis. Nor is the blockade Israel's only act of aggression in Gaza. Throughout the period since the supposed withdrawal, Israel has launched thousands of artillery and rocket attacks into Gaza, along with periodic military operations. In the four years prior to Operation Cast Lead, those attacks resulted in 1,339 deaths among Gaza's people. How would we Americans react to those figures, or their proportional equivalents?

But it is probably the appeal to the case of Gilad Shalit that rings the most hollow, and sounds most completely cynical to Palestinians. According to B'Tselem, Israel currently holds more than 8,200 Palestinian prisoners, many of them arrested and held without charge, others tried in military courts on the basis of secret evidence that the "defense" is not allowed to see in "trials" that may last five minutes. According to Defense of Children International, in 2007 alone, Israel imprisoned some 700 children, in violation of international law. And Israel frequently denies visiting privileges to its prisoners.

Ten years ago Ehud Barak, the most decorated soldier in Israel's history, famously observed that if he had been born a Palestinian he would have been a terrorist. That was long before the siege of Gaza; for a Gaza resident who has lived through the past year, taking up arms against Israel and supporting violent resistance is not only entirely understandable, it appears positively reasonable. Would Americans really overthrow our own government -- even a government we might initially have opposed -- to end a siege or the threat of attack by a more powerful enemy? Is that how Americans, and Israelis, have responded in the past?

Claim 3:
Hamas is a radical organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel and whose leaders have made various inflammatory statements in the past indicating a complete unwillingness to recognize Israel's legitimate rights. Any "truce" agreement is merely an excuse to prepare for future conflict, and should be ignored. Hamas cannot be dealt with because its radical ideology precludes rational bargaining or recognition of mutual self-interest; consequently, Hamas must be destroyed. Any steps that work toward the destruction of Hamas are thus defensive acts by Israel, and any offers by Hamas should be disregarded on the theory that by definition they cannot be sincere.

Response:
There is an element of perfect circularity to this argument - we do not talk to Hamas because we assume that Hamas is incapable of talking, which we know to be true because we have never talked with them - but of course the real question is what to make of the characterization of Hamas in the first place.

Hamas was formed at the outset of the First Intifadah in direct response to Israeli occupation, just as Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel's invasion and subsequent occupation of Southern Lebanon. From the outset, Hamas offered itself as an alternative to Fatah as a movement that was right there on the ground (unlike Fatah, whose leadership was safely ensconced in Tunis at the time), as a movement that would provide social services (schools, health care, aid to the poor), was free of the massive corruption that marked Fatah operations . That's why the people of Gaza elected Hamas to office, to nearly everyone's shock, when offered the chance to hold reasonably free elections.

Today, Hamas is a complex movement that contains both radical ideologues and more moderate figures in positions of leadership and relies on Iran for its support, but it is also a political party that maintains its popular support by effective governance. That alone demonstrates a capacity for pragmatism, but beyond that the fact is that Hamas' leadership offered Israel a long-term truce in 2004 in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. Hamas subsequently confirmed that they would accept any peace agreement for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, provided that it was ratified by a popular referendum. In both instances, Israel was not interested, as Israel was not interested in securing a cessation of rocket attacks in return for lifting its blockade, nor in the 2002 Saudi plan offering recognition by the 22 Arab governments of the Arab League - which endorsed the plan in 2007 -- in return for withdrawal to the same 1967 borders.

Israel, in other words, has no interest in a return to the 1967 borders: both at Annapolis and elsewhere, Israel has made it clear that it intends to keep large chunks of the West Bank that contain the settlement blocs around Ariel, the line of settlements stretching out to Maale Adumim and beyond, and especially the ring of settlements that cut Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank. In other words, the invasion of Gaza is one more illustration of the fact that Israel prefers to preserve its expansionist ambitions rather than seek peace at both the tactical and the strategic levels. No truce that might curtail or end the rocket fire if it requires lifting the siege that Israel believes will eventually bring the Palestinians in Gaza to their knees begging to be allowed to accept a leadership of Israel's choosing. And no peace deals of the kind that were once reached with Egypt and Jordan if the price is giving up Greater and exclusive ownership of Jerusalem.

But the intransigence of Israel's three no's - no negotiation with Hamas, no recognition of Hamas, no peace with Hamas -- is never part of the conversation. Hamas is criticized in the Reid/McConnell resolution for its failure to accept the Quartet Roadmap terms for negotiations in 2003. That criticism is somewhere between ironic and hypocritical given that Israel has never defined the borders within which it is supposed to be recognized, has never offered to forego its own violence, and especially given that the Sharon government declared its own list of 14 points of reservation the Quartet proposal's terms at the time they were first announced.

Ultimately, though, "radicalism" of Hamas -- whether in itself or as compared to the equivalent "radicalism" of Israel's positions -- is beside point. The real point is that the correct question is not whether Hamas' leadership hates Israel and seeks its destruction. The real question is whether Hamas' leadership would be able to secure popular Palestinian support for such a program, just as the real question in the broader War on Terror was never why Al Qaeda hates America, it was always why Al Qaeda's hatred of America sold as well as it did in so many places. The Israeli siege of Gaza has ensured that violence will remain the only plausible apparent option, a conviction that can only be made stronger by the more than 700 dead, thousands wounded and the effective destruction of the civilian infrastructure. Israel's actions strengthen the most radical elements within Hamas by making their claims plausible: that Israel will never permit a free and independent Palestinian state, will never permit Palestinians to live in peace, cannot be trusted to keep any promise or to deviate from the most extreme positions articulated by its past and present leaders . . . in other words, precisely the brush that supporters use to tar Hamas.

And Hamas is not the end of the devolutionary line. Israel supported Hamas to weaken the control of the secular Fatah; today as Israel seeks to weaken Hamas a group called Palestinian Islamic Jihad is emerging. Israel's unwillingness to deal with Hamas is based partly on its ties to Iran; Israel's actions are making it increasingly impossible for moderate Arab states and the Palestinian Authority to join in denouncing Hamas -- as was the case in the first days of the air operation -- with the result that Iran's position vis a vis the Arab League is strengthened, at least temporarily. The satisfaction in being proven correct is grim comfort in the case of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Claim 4:
Doing nothing was not an option, and you can't come up with anything better.

Actually, it's not at all difficult to come up with "something better" than the pointless and ultimately self-defeating infliction of death, destruction, and human misery on a captive population. But that is the subject for another post.

We are in the final, bloody days of the most disastrous U.S. administration of the modern era. The failures of this administration began right at the beginning when President Bush announced a U.S. policy of disengagement from the Israel-Palestine conflict. There is a new president coming in, with a new administration and a new Congress. Reports suggest that elements in the Obama administration are open to talking with Hamas. The Bush administration's policy of disengagement followed by enablement has been no favor to Israel or the Palestinians; let us hope, for all our sakes, that the new administration can initiate a new, more thoughtful discussion.

Comments

[Adnanagram]

An excellent article putting most of the arguments that are usually never heard. Sad that the Israeli side is immune to any sensible logical arguments. They fail to see that by claiming to be "exceptional" and more "pure" than anyone else it is quite likely that someone will eventually call their bluff. We are now wise to the fact that they have used (as Gerald Kaufman MP said) the guilt of the European Gentiles over and over again as a cover for their own murderous excesses. See also Norman Finkelstein's "the Holocaust Industry". The ultimate defeat for the Israelis in Gaza is that this currency is now starting to deflate even quicker then the global economy. Many of us who used to be friends of Israel and who were respectful of its history are now not just ashamed of being associated with it but actively suspicious of its motives towards its subjects in the (still) occupied territories. We now realise that it is not Hamas that is the major stumbling block to peace - they have offered numerous ceasefires if their right to control Gaza as the elected govenment with open borders is respected.
No actually it is the Israeli state itself that does not want real peace (no matter that it spends so much time pretending the opposite). Israel will never give up its major illegal settlements in the West Bank and thus is ultimately the real enemy of peace in the Middle East .

[jeanrenoir]

Obama has shown us the way to the promised land of justice in American national politics. for ourselves, for the Palestinians, and for American Jews and Israelis of good will. AIPAC's ONLY power is, after all, MONEY. Jewish voters are a tiny minority; Jewish political power is all about money. Neocon, AIPAC Democratic Jews were the diehard supporters of Hillary (using "women" as a smokescreen), because they were terrified about the implications for AIPAC and Israel if Obama's Net fundraising from small donors could (as it did) defeat the power of big money Jews to determine the President of the United States. What we need now is a grassroots, Net movement to take back the Congress from AIPAC control just as we have taken back the White House with our contributions to Obama. We need a Move On specifically and exclusively devoted to defeating AIPAC in every Congressional district and Senatorial race in the country. Such a movement would be neither anti-semitic nor anti-Israel. Like the victory of Obama itself, the movement would simply be pro-HUMAN, empowering a politics of even-handed justice for all in the world, just as Obama's election symbolized that ideal within America. If Israel is stupid enough to bomb Iran, thus giving Joe the Plumber $10 gas and a real Depression, the anti-AIPAC Move On will easily be able to create a huge coalition of liberals and pupulists to crush the infamous thing that AIPAC has become.

[ron ray]

here's the problem with this theory: Israel has offered land, peace and true self determination if Palestinians simply stop the attacks.

The palestinians declined.

If the Hamas attack stopped, Israel would end the war and relaz things like blockades. the reverse, unfortunately, is not true.

[lydia]

A well written article well researched, no need for any self respecting jew or anyone with a memory longer than a couple of weeks, to deny that Israel treatment of the Palestinians is as repugnant as that of the Nazis. The author could go write volumes and still not mention many other atrocities committed against the Paletinians.
Gaza had its own power station but in another "Larry Silverstein" insurance shenanigans the IOF bombed the power plant that cost some $150mil to build, the American taxpayers guaranteed the investment and the IOF bombed it! Thus the Gazans are again dependent on Israel for their electricity and for the pleasure the Palestinians must pay a tidy sum, the highest electricity tarrif in the World.
.

[DirkNYC]

Did you read Schweber's piece?

[Selbourne]

Right mnded states and individuals make decisions based not just on perceived intentions of others, but on capablity. So I don"t think i would agree to invade Mexico and kill thousands of Mexicans because Calderon said the United States had no right to exist. On the other hand if Putin made such a statement Obama would have to keep his finger on the Nuclear Trigger.
This argument about what Hamas charter says is rediculous. Their leadership has clearly stated willingness to accept any settlement approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum.

[ron ray]

and what if Mexico launched missiles every day at your kids? would you then support an invasion to stop it?

[DirkNYC]

I think you need to read the piece. What if we controlled Mexico's borders, their gas, electric, water and food supplies? What if we controlled their economy? What if we made subjected them to check points in their own country and controlled their movement? BTW, I have been to Israel and the West Bank, I have seen the oppression with my own eyes.

[aemathisphd]

You're quite correct in stating that blockade is an act of war. It was Israel's casus belli in the 1967 War, for one thing, i.e., the closing of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt to any shipping to and from Israel, thus essentially creating a siege.

I don't defend the blockade primarily because it did not allow any humanitarian aid through. But at the same time, the blockade that Israel imposed on Gaza was largely a result of the fact that, given the fact that Hamas had violently kicked the PLO out of the Strip, and given that Hamas had repeatedly committed suicide attacks against Israel, and given that Hamas had been launching rockets into southern Israel for years (albeit not at the current rate), Israel's response was appropriate, although disproportionate. (Here, remember, I am speaking about the blockade. Provided it is to prevent the influx of weapons, it's a totally appropriate response. When it is done to punish the civilians, then it isn't.)

But I don't disagree with Israel controlling Gaza's northern and eastern borders. Those are, after all, its borders WITH ISRAEL. So come on: Every country employs border guards. And Israel is under no obligation to allow Palestinians to cross the border willy-nilly.

On the issue of negotiating with Gaza, I would ask whether Manson should have been allowed to "negotiate" with Sharon Tate. Should he?

[alexa07]

Thank you for courageously coming forward to speak out against the Congressional resolution which outrageously gives most generous moral support to the perpetrators of the onslaught upon Gaza. I have posted already my family's reactions:
(1) refusing to donate additional monies to the Democratic Party;
(2) withdrawing from both political parties (I am a lifelong Republican who voted for Obama). We are in the process of becoming proud INDEPENDENTS, convincing our adult children & a number of friends to do so also.

We further have attended a local & very large demonstration in support of the Palestinians. We also are ending a subscription to our local newspaper because of an article favoring Israel which was supposed to be covering the protest. I have been a lifelong reader of this newspaper as were my late parents & the generation of my grandmother. My dad read this paper on the last day of his life, but I won't have it in the house any more.

We have begun to investigate how our public & private pension funds underwrite Israel. We find the actions of our society benchmarks­-Congress, our various print media like the New York Times, Washington Post & locals like our community newspaper, other media outlets to be vigorously defending the indefensible--the atrocities are being perpetrated upon the Palestinians by the Israelis with our official approval. Not for us!

[sonofeire]

The author repeats the usual Hamas claims of wanting to negotiate a "long-term" truce . . . naturally, with a return to the "pre 1967" borders. If Palestinian militants, prior to the 1967 war, were not willing to accept Israel in its "pre 1967" borders THEN, does he really believe that the even more fanatically Islamic Hamas will PERMANENTLY accept those pre 1967 borders NOW?
The enemies of the state of Israel are, unquestionably, demanding an impossible level of moral "purity" from Israelis that they would never demand from Arabs and Muslims. Those who claim that the founding of Israel was "morally illegitimate" . . . because of the crimes committed against SOME Palestinian Arabs by SOME Zionists, like those in the Irgun and Stern organizations, and some in the Palmach . . . could just as easily, and foolishly, claim that the U.S.A. does not have a right to exist because our ancestors killed a lot of Indians. Americans are not going back to the lands of their ancestors, and the Jews of Israel are not about to forsake the land that belonged to THEIR ancestors. Why isn't anyone mentioning the moral crimes committed by 7th century Arabs when THEY conquered the Levant by FORCE? The number of Palestinians killed by Israel PALES in comparison to the number of Arabs and Muslims slaughtered by OTHER Arabs and/or Muslims . . . in Sudan, Algeria, Somalia, Chad, Indonesia, etc. Why aren't Muslims the world over demonstarting against the crimes of

[ajax2]

"The point of the siege all along was to inflict misery on Gaza in order to turn them against their government, an act of collective punishment designed to turn Gazans against their government."

This is the point that commentators on both sides willingly ignore. The siege is to inflict pain on civilians. The outcry about civilian casualties is disingenuous, a kabuki dance.

[WorkingClass]

The United States senate does not represent the people of the United States. It represents an oligarchy that profits from war. Its not a red state blue state thing. The vote was unanimous.

[BLUEBIRD1234]

"The issue in Mid-East between Israel and Palestine seems to be continuing not because of difference between the two, but because of outsiders interest. Today the deaths are caused by those who pretends to be sympathizers of one or another of these two, but at heart of heart has political motivated agenda to let the problem to continue to eternity. An unfortunate ugly face of political Leaders of the world".

[ou sooner football]

finally, I can breath, thank you for the article, I thought this country lost its mind, Oh I was worried....
Thank you Howard Schweber

[YR]

Thank you. Honest assessments are so lacking from news media sources in the US. Our foreign policy is atrocious.

[Jezreel]

Thank you; Howard Schweber for your very thoughtful and detail oriented article on this issue.

There are many factors influencing the conflict and military occupation of the Palestinian people. One very important factor I think deserves more attention is the role of the American media in reporting on this ever deepening and further reaching issue. By acquiescing to political pressures from within and outside the elite political structures of our government and its own corporate interests, the American media, in my view, is as much to blame for stymieing informed discourse on this issue as Israel and America's official Middle East policies.

Another factor is the role of the Arab League and its failure to effectively advocate for Palestinians. Not discounting the reality of the existence of millions of Palestinian refugees within their borders, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan have all failed the Palestinian people, particularly in the months and years leading to the current conflict. Also, America's occupation of Iraq (which has also been labeled; a "war") has effectively eliminated one possible advocate for the People of Palestine.

In the midst of this ongoing catastrophe, one would be remiss to overlook the role of the US government and Israel and its allies in the region in fomenting discontent among Palestinian leaders. In most cases they have created circumstances wherein civil disobedience between opposing factions of Palestinians becomes unavoidable.

I hope you will consider writing subsequent articles on these and other issues related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[chaos4700]

"Another factor is the role of the Arab League and its failure to effectively advocate for Palestinians"

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

I'm not blaming you for that statement, just pointing out that it's another example of the US media's distortion on the issue influencing public opinion. The Arab countries are advocating for the Palestinians -- the fact that they are doing it without guns and bombs is not something they are given adequate credit for.

[MBW001]

Dear World,

Sorry I upset you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sft_HLZiLOU

[chaos4700]

Yeah. None of that justifies what Israel is doing in Gaza, thank you very much.

[MBW001]

God have mercy on your soul!

[Okay]

I'm convinced.

[Chilly TX1]

Wow very powerfull and true.

[MBW001]

Lest we forget the lessons of history concerning intentions of those who seek to dominate the world and impose their will (or the will of Allah per the Hamas Charter):

The following is the wording of the statement that Neville Chamberlain waved when he stepped off the plane after the conference in Berlin had ended on 30 September, 1938.

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Chamberlain read this statement to a cheering crowd in front of 10 Downing St. and said;

"My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."

[chaos4700]

Okay. So appeasing Israel's aggression into Gaza and the West Bank is something we shouldn't be humoring. I can agree to that.

[MBW001]

Lead your biases, don't be led by them. My context of discourse is the parallel between the Nazi intentions as set out in "Mein Kampf" and Hamas' intentions as set out in their charter.

First one thinks and/or feels then one acts. Try it yourself, it's a tried and tested methodology!

[doriath22]

The much maligned Neville Chamberlain never lived long enough to tell his story, which was instead told by his bitter lifelong political rival, one Winston Churchill. The '38 Munich (not Berlin) conference to which you refer headed off the outbreak in hostilities for a year buying the RAF desperately needed time to get the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters into production. Had war broken out in '38 (which Hitler very much desired) the RAF would have been flying biplanes in the Battle of Britain. Neville Chamberlain had no illusions about the sort of people he was dealing with. Hamas doesn't rate comparison with the Nazis, or any other sort of "fascists" even on their worst day