This link comes courtesy of AIPAC, a group we're all quite familar with.  And unhappily so.

Anyway, this little tidbit is from an icon entitled "Israel, Hamas, and The PA."

I especially noted the little sidebar "Hamas By The Numbers,"  wherein we are treated to the grisly toll of fatalities caused by Hamas terror attacks since 1989, including the stat that 27 Americans have been killed in Hamas terror attacks since 1993.

But nowhere do we see any reminder that it was the deliberate decision of the Israeli gov't in the midddle to late 1980s to turn a blind eye to the growth of Hamas in a hope [now, no doubt deeply regretted] that Hamas would grow at the expendse of the secular/nationalist PLO.  Well, they did, and Israeli political leaders ought to be reminded at every conceivable opportunity of that bit of wisdom re being careful what you wish for -- as you'll get it.

But another point -- since Israel "contributed" to the growth of Hams, does that then make Israel  "complicit" in the murder of those 27 Americans? And what about all the Israelis killed in those Hamas attacks?  Are they collateral damage?  Does the Coventry example in WWII apply? Or is it just a terrible and tragic working out of the law of unintended consequences?

How do they manage to spin this so successfully for so long?

Take A Look :

HAMAS BY THE NUMBERS  
Since 1989, Hamas has carried out more than 100 major terrorist attacks, killing more than 500.

84% of Israelis killed in these attacks have been civilians

27 Americans have been killed in Hamas attacks since 1993

22 were killed in Hamas’ 2001 bombing of the “Dolphinarium” discotheque in Tel Aviv

I mean, apart from being a part of the environment?

Let's ask a couple of rhetorical questions just to establish what we believe:

Assume for the sake of discussion that Jeff Dahmer did in fact murder a bunch of people.  Who else is liable for those crimes?  His parents?  His neighbors? The cops?  His grocers?  His plumber?  His landlord?   What's the theory of liability here?

Because I'm not buying the catholic idea of universal guilt.  It's interesting, but it's just not useful.   No, the way I'm going is the traditional common law, that for purposes of liability, when a person commits a crime, it's generally not foreseeable, and other perties' liability (apart from conspirators, etc) is severed.

Sure and "crime" is not so clear in the international context, but you know what?  The civilized world is pretty much agreed on basic crimes, including the requirement for specific intent.  And don't you suspect a lot of what we're talking about here are primal territorial conflicts that aren't going to go away?

"Hamas supporters have been prominent among those who have challenged the Palestinian National Authority led by Yasser Arafat, and its leaders have been subjected to mass arrests."

Not support as in providing funds and weapons and moral support, but Israel tried to play a cute but basic game of divide-and-rule [fuguring that support for Hamas would come at the expense of the secular/nationalist PLO] with the Pallys, and sorta turned a semi-blind eye to Hamas in it's earliest years in the ilegallly occupied territories.  Now that this has blown up in Israel's face, it's back to the old tried-and-true "terrorist" thing.  Well, why not? -- it works every time in the only place it ever needs to work -- here in the friendly confines of the US.

The really mean and vindictive part of me wants to cop a massive schadenfreude fix re this, but the situation looks too grim to allow me to enjoy it properly.

OK, if Israel "assisted" the growth of Hamas via a policy of deliberate inattention or benign neglect  or whatever we might like to call it, we can argue that, I guess, they are an accessory before the fact, or an enabler if you like psychobabble terminology [I don't, but I need amusement].  Yes, it's not the strongest argument in the world, and the relative infrequency with which it's encounterd makes it an even harder sell.  But there it is -- Israel's simple, and I daresay predictable, miscalculation led to the growth of Hamas, a group Israel freely and frequently denounces as terrorist.  But I imagine Hamas was not a terrorist organization when Israel was banking on it to serve as a counterweight to Fatah/PLO?  Once again, our embattled buddies in the Holy Land get it both ways as they talk out of both sides of their mouth.  As Riem would say, real slippery eels.  And why am I not surprised?

For Riem, this is just like Coventry -- as Churchill "allowed" the Germans to bomb Coventry so as not to betray the fact that some German military codes had been compromised, so did Israel gamble on Hamas, and lose.   But per the usual Israeli mindset, they want their bets returned, a new deck schuffled, a new dealer assigned, and a third party guarantee to cover any and all Israeli losses incured while gambling. And no doubt this was the doing of the Israeli "high command" whoses decisions Riem seems to accept with such breathless worship when the USS Liberty is concerned. Israeli deaths, American deaths, Pally deaths, etc...just another day at the Israeli foreign policy factory.  What's the chance for at least a temporary plant closure?

Your Natanhayuuite buddies should have asked you for your advice Riem -- in your imortal words of a few weeks back, in war, sh*t happens.

Not sure relevance re the Catholic guilt thing [apart from MY existence as a guilt-ridden but proudly lapsed RC]-- but you've used it before and one day it will make sense to me.

Yes, no exact analogue to "crime" in int'l politics.  But perhaps manifestly bad decisions might be the equivalent of "negligance"?  Perhaps the idea in some states that the "negligent" party is the party which had the last clear change to avoid the event which led to damage?

But we both know, we're not talking law, we're talking politics.  It's a nice debater's ploy, but I'm not buying.

Quotes are not necessarily proof, but here's a little something for you to nosh on re the less than forthrightness of your heroes in The Holy Land :

"Paradoxically, the formation of HAMAS was encouraged by the Israeli government, which saw the new group as a religious competitor to the generally secular Palestinian nationalist groups. "

No, Riem old buddy, it's the product of the duplicity and double-dealing of so many Israeli administrations. Just like the USS Liberty in 1967.  You know, your beloved Israeli "high command" at work?

Its really beyond mere territorial conflict, goes back literally to Biblical times and the schism between the sons of Abraham/Ibrahim; Isaac and Ishmael, progenitors of the Jewish and Arabic peoples.
At heart, this is the world's second oldest sibling rivalry. Drawn along genealogical, territorial and religiously dogmatic lines.

The one thing everyone, especially the Xiaoming's of the world seem to completely or intentionally neglect, is the simple fact of the matter than ever since the 1949 creation of the State of Israel, the Israeli's have been virtually begging for peaceful coexistence, while the Arabs have tried time and time again to destroy them. Then when they do attack Israel, Israel conquors land during war. The only time in HISTORY conquored territory has been willingly returned has been Israel returning conquored land to their Arab enemy neighbors. What the Xiaomings call Occupied Territory, is CONQUORED LAND. And yet it always seems to be the fault of Israel, and by association, the Jew. Me personally, I think its about time Israel took out Hezbollah... Which is exactly what they are in the process of doing... takng out Hezbollah infrastructure in South Lebanon, where they operate with total autonomy as the not so secret arm of Syria and Iran.
Hezbollah decided to jump on the Hamas bandwagon. They miscalculated. As has Hamas.
Say what you will about Israel's response.
What do you think will happen if the Israeli's capitulate and give in to the Arab terrorits demands? That's right, it will only encourage further and more dangerous abductions, and the inevitable escalation to annihilation of an Israeli city and subsequently an Arab city by nuclear detonation.
Or do you really think the Arabs, who use their own children as cannon fodder to further their political aims, would think twice about dropping a nuke on Jewish heads that could only serve to destroy even more of their own people than of the Israeli's? That's what people like Xiaoming support.
And regarding Hamas... Xiao, you are really exceeding acceptable levels of CHUTZPAH in your relentless obsession with AIPAC as Satan On Earth.
Yes Hamas is a duly elected representative government of "Pally-stink". A duly elected government that proclaims as part of their charter the destruction of Israel. Israel was drawn into a state of war by default the moment HAM-ASS took control of the "government" of Pallystink. (My goodness, I'm starting to sound like a right-wing nutjob...I'd better shut up and go ride my trike).
But in any event... the harsh truth remains as Golda Meir put it so long ago:
Until the Arabs learn to love their own children more than they hate Jewish children, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

-- Modified on 7/18/2006 9:50:32 PM

(1)  Territorial conflicts are often the underpinnings of tribal/racial/religious/us-vs-them conflicts.  Take away the issue of resource allocation, it's funny how often these things go away.  What I meant to get across was the primal nature of the conflicts may not be curable in any practical way.

(2)  In the mid-east, it's not just jews vs arabs.   It's also arabs vs persians, and the arabs split into innumerable tribes, all vs each other; with one particular recent division being the urban vs rural arabs.   So just when you think you have a lid on the pot, it boils over again.  Perhaps the thing to do would be release some pressure, ie, let them kill enough of each other that they get tired of it.

It could be that the Arabs are just welcoming/initiating the Israelis into the area:  ie, tribal raiding is a way of life, and the Jews are simply the most obvious tribe and the newbies - sort of a cross between the welcome wagon and frat hazing (that's with a tongue deep in cheek, lurkers).  Desert population control, as it were.

(3) Yes, I do think that a modern history of the region can be isolated to 20th century developments.  Does it change any conclusion?  Probably not.

(4) The IDF is not going to kill every terrorist, any more than we're going to kill every insurgent or dink.  It's because the military operations work in different spheres - US & IDF are oriented to conventional warfare, while the various terrorists are classic guerrillas.    On an international basis, you have to get to a political settlement, OR kill every last one of them.   Neither seems likely.   Segregation (ie waterproof boundaries) and/or living with a certain level of violence may be the best you can hope for, BUT the Arab countries are in the developing stages, and breeding faster than they can find jobs, so it should be expected that there will always be some economic pressure to violence, and always some Koran waving idiot to rationalize it.   (How terrorists may be approached domestically, where cultural differences are narrower, is another issue - at some point, it may be approached as a police operation.  There just isn't a lot of history of success with this, notably excepting the British in Malaya, Cyprus and NI.)

(5) I think every American should have misgivings about being involved in wars that have no end or resolution.   Our involvement was relatively (RELATIVELY) limited until the rocket scientist in the White House sent in the Marines (including some of my friends).   Sort of finding the nearest kill zone, standing up & thumping your chest.  Good thing for SOMEBODY ELSE to do.   I don't see how staying there is going to change any result - I mean, apart from keeping VA docs busy.

(6) I do not envy the Israelis their problems, but I'm not anxious to make their problems into ours, either, and I think there are built-in conflicts of interest.  The question seems to be how much we can stay away.  Until Dubya jumped into Iraq, I'd say we had a chance of managing our exposure.  Now, I'm not sure what chance there is, even if we were all converted to pure bio-diesel tomorrow.

(7) It could be that the underlying problem is growing pains of Arab politics, ie, some of them are growing out of the 19th century, and others of them are growing out of the fucking stone age.   Of course there are going to be problems if a modern civilization is suddenly teleported into their midst; and why should we be involved?   Well, we have to manage our need for oil vs our need for different types and levels of stability; ie enough stability to get the oil out of the ground, and also the stability of some sort of democracy, understanding that the democracy includes the right of Neanderthals to remain Neanderthals if they desire (except that it somehow seems that there's always conflict between adjacent cultures that are too different from each other - ).

(8) I dunno what to do.  Getting rid of the Republicans would seem like a good start for now.  At least we'd have the opportunity to think about our choices, instead of riccocheting around like a stockholder who's realized that the directors are gutting his share value.

I don't know what you mean by "playing cute".  

So let's go to wikipedia, as something that's a reasonable consensus:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Before_1987_-_Palestinian_Islamic_activities_prior_to_the_creation_of_Hamas
and we see that Israel did in fact support and finance Hamas at a time that it was a fucking social organization, and specifically because they thought it was sensible to provide a counterweight and alternative to Fatah, which was violent.

That these Hamas fellows would later turn violent is not something I suspect that would justify not taking a chance on supporting the peaceniks as an alternative to the more violent Fatah.

If you want to challenge the wikipedia interpretation, I suggest it's up to you to provide specific and confirmable allegations.

Now, to say that a particular group is or is not responsible is eventually a value judgment; but it's really totally pointless if your process always leads to the same result.   Here, I don't think we have any evidence that Israel's support for Hamas could have been faulted.

Yes, we're all always responsible in the sense that we're part of the same environmental system, and no man is an island, and all that.  However, that is philosophy (and fucking depressing one at that) not a useful policy guide.   To argue that financial support of a group in hopes they will provide a peaceful alternative to another violent group is unreasonable, well, that argument defines any policymaker into failure.

So this is the Catholic thing, that we're all equally guilty, and that's cool from a philosopho-religious POV (I guess) but of course as a policy guide, it's totally useless and nonsensical.  I prefer analogizing to legal concepts because (a) they're more directional, and (b) they're something that a lot of people have agreed on, and (c) hence more useful.  I hate beating the same dead horse perpetually.  Policy has to go somewhere; philosophy doesn't.

So I don't see how Israel could be faulted for support to Hamas while it was a peaceful (and perhaps the only peaceful) organization in town.


If you want to raise other issues, go ahead.   I don't have any particular axe to grind here.  I don't think US interest is Israeli interest, nor vice versa, nor do I think anybody should expect that.  There is no general identity of interest between the USA and ANY country, or even any of its component states; it's entirely a matter of managing those issues where there is a common interest, however transient it may be.  Nor can anybody be faulted for having a particularly good lobby, as long as they're not breaking the law.  I regard it as my problem to decide what I'm going to believe.

Yes, I think there's a hell of a lot of underhanded shit going on between the US & Israel, and also many other states.  The Liberty is a particularly aggravating incident, even if it was 39 odd years ago.  

But you will also note that we've had damnably aggravating incidents with many other nations, and lived to get over it.   Eg, our WW1 allies the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor only 23 years later, and yet have become our allies, suppliers and customers, what, maybe 10 years after that?   And we won't even talk about the perfidious British.

Personally, I would be strongly tempted to turn our backs on any groups that insist on fighting, and let them solve their own problems.  But there are also a couple of other issues involved, and one is of course our problem with oil security leading us to support the oil states, many of whom of course intensely dislike the hook-nosed newcomers (oops, I guess they're ALL hook-nosed) enough to try (unsuccessfully) to whack them out.  And another is the issue of us liking to limit generalized violence, and also asking ourselves exactly how much we are willing to stand aside while a group gets exterminated - of course, the problem here is deciding who is getting exterminated.   As much as the Arabs would like, they seem to have a damned hard time exterminating the Jews - and their perennial policy of sending kids to blow up other kids doesn't make them look so much like victims - I can certainly sympathize with sending tanks and attack aircraft in hopes of blowing up the fuckers behind that particular idea, even knowing that their innocent realtives and bystanders may also get whacked - at least you're AIMING for a guilty fucker, unlike the guilty fucker himself.  I mean, what do you have to do to justify self-defense?   You can argue the wisdom of the policy, as the Jews certainly do; but if you're not on the hot-seat yourself, I think you need to defer to the ones paying the price.  Yes, I know too well that all these peace accords are fucking financed by the biggest saps of all time, the US taxpayers; but if they're so fucking dumb as to let George W. Bush get even close to political office, I suppose they have it coming.

Yes, I have other reservations about Israel, but I suspect that we have a little more in common with them than we do with Hamas; and if we're determined to dance, we should at least pick a partner who can hold a conversation with us.  

It's possible the entire goddamned problem has gotten so out of control that the cheapest solution would be to fucking cut loose the Holy Land and fucking tow it to Cuba, and fucking tow Cuba back to the fucking hole in Palestine, and let Fidel deal with Hamas, but somehow I don't think that's gonna happen -


BTW, you shouldn't be confusing me w/ riem, if you are.

that site does not disagree with the wikipedia analysis that Israel was supporting a then-peaceful Hamas as an alternative.  In fact, the site notes that Hamas was known for years for peaceful social work.

The inference is that the Israelis should NOT have supported any Arab group they regard as more peaceful, because you know, they might change their minds.

If you want to argue duplicity, I think you need a  better example.  And then you might want to consider what sorts of duplicity we should expect in international relations, and what sort of standards we have adhered to, and held others to.

But seriously, if you take your nose out of the AIPAC website you'll notice that PM provides an "Ignore List" option which will allow you to block me.  But I think you'dd rather just complain.

Gee Doc, conquerors returning conquered territories?  Didn't the US leave postwar Germany, and postwar Japan [ultimately leaving them both in better shape than they were at the time of the US "conquest"]  and decolonize The Philippines, and give Cuba independence within a few years of wresting it from Spain?

I just don't agree with your take that the Israelis are magnanimous in victory, but if you wish to that's OK with me. It's as if I stole Jerry Steinfeld's car collection, return 10 of the autos, and then demanded to be applauded for my honesty.  I'm not buying it.

No, AIPAC is not Satan On Earth, but I do think of them as a massive impedimenmt  to this country as we try to deal with that part of the world.  I mean, really, never before have so few bamboozled so many for so long.  And with such negative conequences.

But gotta give the devil it' due -- these guys could sell refrigerators to Eskimos.  And leave the Eskimos begging for more.

BTW, it's of little practical consequence, but I believe the UN Charter forbids the permanent retention of land conquered in warfare.  Not that that's such a great argument, but the Israelis and their supporters do swear by the original decision by the UN to partition the old British Mandate of Palestine, I thought I might bring it to your attention.  And Rhetorical Question Time :  why is THAT perhaps the only UN action Israel and it's supporters ever seem to have a good word about?  Just asking, of course.  And only rhetorically, of course.

quarterback wearing pitchblack sunglasses 100% impervious to a ray of light? Talking about duplicity as if international relations have always been guided by pure altruism...Go figure!
Me rather think he's excessively obsessed with his hatred to israel and all its supporters.As a former officer in the IDF I find it amusing that he's chiding me for having great respect for the israeli high command.Of course, I've the highest respect b/c its the only army where even a high ranking officer(eg a brigade commander) is willing to risk his life to save a single private soldier even in the heat of battle! Makes me wonder if and where this armchair critic served in the US armed forces.....

Well, Hamas is the Gaza branch of the Moslem Brotherhood, which for decades has been denounced on-and-off as a guess what type of organization.

And don't forget, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which can be editted by it's users.  Think about it -  that's like getting all of one's political analysis from this Board.  Me, I'd like to rely on some additional sources.

No, my point is that as is their wont, the Israelis are arguing from both sides of their mouth -- their little divide-and-rule gambit came a cropper, so now Hamas is a terrorist group.  So by implication now the Fatah/PLO guys are the good guys -- or just the less objectionable guys?  And no doubt this will be subject to change as the exegncies of the moment demand.

Stay tuned for the latest Israeli developments.  One thing for sure -- as an American, they'll probably not be good for you.

Well,ther's duplicity and there's duplicity.  I don't think the Israelis are necesaarily duplicitous.  The are more along the lines of uber-arrogant.  You know, they pee on your head, tell you it's raining, and take mortal ofense if you dare beg to differ. No thanks.

A frmer officer in the IDF.  

Well, that expalins your indifference to the loss of American life re the USS Liberty.

Your biting the hand that feeds you act is tiresome however.

Oh please, have you ever heard of chesty Puller and guys like hat.  talk about nerve -- it's only for real if an Israeli has done it?

rationalizing Israel's attack on the US Liberty or shooting Pally kids in the back during the Intifada or assisting Lebanese Phalangists commit a massacre at Pally refugee camps.

Is that your experience FieldMarshall Riem?  I hope not.  I don't know if my respect for you can fall any lower than it's current level, but you're guy a guy, so...  And you have the gall to live in this country?  

Hope to gain some more insights into the IDF High Command via your posts.

if you had any military experience at all(even as a kitchen orderly with a broom)you would have a better comprehension of why the "Liberty"-a CIA spy ship was hit!

(1) Wikipedia allows you to edit, too.  Or, if you don't like the source, provide another.  If you were there, say so.

(2) So you disagree that Hamas was ever peaceful.  See above.

(3) Your last 3 paragraphs are conclusory, ie, they do not provide facts that could be examined, only your interpretation of unspecified facts.

IOW, not so helpful.   Not responsive to my questions.

In other posts in this and other threads Riem has stated that it was necessary to maintain Israel's element of surprise.  IDF aircraft flying to attack Egypt were in danger of being spotted by the USS Liberty, so the Israelis attacked the ship to prevent premature dsclosure of Israel's military actions.

But it's an absolutely absurd idea.  Does he really contend that the US was going to pass theis info along to the Egyptians? Or to the Syrians?  Or to the Jordanians? Or to any of the other countries on Israel's hit list during the Six Day War?

What disturbs the world out of me is that Riem presents this as an academic exercise in analysis, when clearly he seems to be overjoyed with this event, if not in fact the outcome. He's written that he's a one-time IDF officer.  The fact that he's also a  US citizen and proudly defends this action on the part of Israel is really just the most unabashed and example of  colossal gall and a number of other less pleasant terms I can conceive.  And to add insult to injury, he lives in the US!

Absolutely amazing.  

Two books about the National Security Agency by James Bamford  --  The Puzzle Palace [1982] and Body of Secrets [2001?]  -- discuss the USS Liberty in great detail.  Worth a look if you're interested.  And, as far as it goes,  Riem's analysis is correct on the technical point of achieving surprise.

There is one interesting thing that I hope haunts Riem and his ilk to his last days  -- these events were also monitored and recorded by overhead satellites covering the area as well  -- so somewhere in the vast maw of the NSA there's lots of extremely interesting data about operational methods of the IDF, their various radio signals and electronic traffic during those days, and very best of all, supposedly,  verbatim recordings of all the Israeli cabinet deliberations leading up to and during the Six Day War.  God/Allah/Jahweh, if there's one thing I'd like to see before I depart this world is the total release of all that info.

and that's the reason I asked him, not you.

Pardon the foam, but he's never gonna tell you.  All he's good for is running down my posts [and nothing wrong with that] and never directly engaging me.

As he expalined a few months ago, he doesn't want to give me the opportunity to spread my poison [a paraphrase].

So, be prepared to practice the virtue of patience  --  indefinitely.