Why Israel Must Vanquish Hamas As Per The NY Times

The New York Times in an article on Friday, July 25, 2014, titled, "Spectators to War, West Bank Residents Hail the Hamas Fight Against Israel" clearly demonstrates why Israel must unequivocally vanquish Hamas.  This may not have been the intention of the NY Times, when it ran this article.  But, that, nevertheless, is what Isabel Kirshner's article  makes crystal clear.

The article was written in the  "Al Amari Refugee Camp."  So, what is it with these "refugee" camps that they should be found operating not for years, but for generations.  Jews, expelled from Arab nations in equal or greater numbers, found support and sustenance among their fellow Jews.  The treatment of Palestinian "refugees" can only be explained by Arab desire to lock Palestinians into an  eternal struggle against Israel, regardless to how such camps beggared their  fellow Arabs. But, let's get on to the article.

Cited is a Maher al-Naden, a street cleaner, who describes himself as "just one of the people."   He claims to belong to no political faction.  This man has become so angry with Israel that he's decided to stop drinking Tapuzina, an Israeli orange flavored soft drink.  He is quoted as saying, "I give my children to Hamas."

Hamas, in the words of the article, "is being hailed in the West Bank as the champion of armed resistance.  And, that Abbas is being "excoriated for having failed to achieve a Palestinian state after 20 years of intermittent Israeli-Palestinian talks."

Mr. Muhammad Abu Leila, a grocery store proprietor, is reported as saying that the people do not wait for Mr. Abbas's permission to demonstrate.  That while there may be various factions among the Palestinians, there is no division (as regards Israel).

Jafar al-Najajirah, a 26-year old engineer is quoted as saying, "Even among ordinary people like myself, the camp of resistance now has the upper hand."

Really?  And, why would he say that?  Could it be that the assault (referred to as "resistance") by Hamas with it's thousands or rockets on major Israeli cities, and by means of its many tunnels into Israel, has given Hamas an upper hand?  Is it that having driven Israeli citizens into bomb shelters several times a day has given Hamas an upper hand?  Is it because, with their rockets, Hamas succeeded in cowing foreign airlines into suspending flights to Israel, even if only for a period of days?  Is it because they see Europeans, by and large, protecting the back of Hamas in its assault on Israel in a conflict where they believe Hamas has the upper hand?   To all of the above, I would say, yes -- definitely, yes.

Supporters of Fatah might not much care for Hamas, and vise versa, but all would like to see Israel destroyed.  If that's true why wasn't there the same kind of "resistance" to Israel from the West Bank that there was in Gaza?  I would argue that it was because they didn't have the means to launch that kind of offensive.  But for the "man in the street," Hamas is believed to have gained the upper hand in its offensive against Israel.  The West Bank Palestinians want to join in this campaign to destroy Israel.  West Bank streets have long been renamed for terrorists.  West Bank children have been taught in Palestinian schools that Israel is a vile and ruthless enemy deserving to be put to death.  Speeches by Fatah leaders (in Arabic) and by Muslim imams say much the same thing.  People subjected to such propaganda over their life time would delight in seeing Hamas gain the upper hand and seeing them destroy Israel.

Although the West Bank Palestinians haven't had the means to do what Hamas has done, in their  minds they see the possibility of that changing.  Will Hamas succeed?  Only Israel can keep that from even coming close to happening.  And, as per usual, they've got to do it pretty much by themselves.  Most Americans understand Israel's position.  But, regrettably, the administration of Pres. Obama seems not to.

The only way to build a proper relationship with the Palestinians is to demonstrate that their concept of "resistance" is one built on anti-Israel propaganda.  How does one convince Palestinians that the many noncombatant Palestinian casualties are the result of them having been used by Hamas as  human shields?  What can you say to a people who mourn not for the scores of children who died digging underground tunnels and storage facilities for keeping Hamas rockets and other weapons safe from Israeli fighter planes?  I don't have the answer to any of those questions.  But, what the NY Times article does show me is that Hamas must derive absolutely no benefit whatsoever from its attack on Israel.  Palestinians must be shown that so called "resistance" will only bring the people of Gaza more death and destruction.

Re Hamas/Israel: Hey, Kerry, Here's The Deal

Truces, schmuses, if the parties want peace, here's the deal:

1.  Hamas revises its charter deleting passages that call for Israel's destruction.  Gaza's borders are not in dispute.  It must accept them.

2.  Hamas forswears the use of the word "resistance," their code word for engaging in hostilities against Israel.

3.  Israel eliminates the sea blockade around Gaza and permits Gaza controlled egress and ingress for purposes of traveling to other countries or visiting Israel.

4. Israel will assist Gazans to revive their economy and infrastructure through technical assistance in any area where Israel has expertise.

5. Hamas must end hostilities and demilitarize.  That means no more rockets, no more tunnels, no more subterranean bunkers, and no more military ordinance of any sort.


The benefits that would derive from such a deal would be substantial.

a. Gaza may well have gas or oil off its shores under the Mediterranean.  If so, this would be a fine source of revenue.

b. Israel had developed a thriving flower export business.  When Sharon ordered Israelis out of Gaza, the Israelis did not destroy their hot houses.  The left them in good order for the use of the Gazans.  It was the Gazans who destroyed them.  (But, what purpose does it serve to digress?)

c. Israel has considerable expertise in desalinization, and the recycling of grey water.

d. If the energy and enterprise the Gazans showed for building tunnels could be diverted to peaceful and productive ends, there is no telling how much progress they might make in bettering their lives.

This deal depends on verification.  At present, there exists no trust.

i. Inspection at Gazas borders must include Israeli inspectors.
ii.  Israelis must be permitted to also inspect what's happening within Gaza.  Clearly, this must be done in a nonintrusive way.

Why this absence of trust?  A people who have lived many years under a charter that calls on them to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel will, no doubt, find it wrenching to suddenly be told that the Israelis are their friends.

However, Israeli can point to deeds within its country.  In the Israeli universities, there is an affirmative admittance policy that mandates that so many seats be set aside for Muslims, so many for Druze, so many for Ethiopians, etc.  The seats are set aside in proportion to their numbers in the population.  Israel can also point to various ethnic individuals of high rank in the courts, in other arms of the government and in executive positions in hospitals.  This contrasts sharply with Islamic attitudes towards gays, women and other segments of their society.

So what's holding up this deal?  Hamas hates Jews.  Hamas wants the land which Israel occupies.
For Hamas, Gaza simply isn't large enough.  How do you change that mind set?  How do you nullify the hatred of Jews drilled into the minds of their children by years and years of brainwashing?

What are your thoughts, Secretary of State, John Kerry?

NY Times: Just Sit Back And Enjoy Its Nonsensical Reporting

The NY Times, Wed, July 16, ran the following piece on Page A6, "Gazans, Wanting Deep Change, Are Ambivalent on Egypt's Truce Plan."

Enjoy these exhibits of reporting by the NY Times:

" . . . . when Israel resumed airstrikes after a six-hour pause on Tuesday . . . ."  No mention of why airstrikes were resumed.  Could it be that Hamas took the initiative in resuming hostilities by firing more of its rockets?  For the NY Times, that's not relevant.

"Every time, they have a cease-fire, but then everything comes back: the siege, the closures," (a Gazan grandmother) is quoted as saying.  "Then they bomb again."

Who wants to press a kindly old grandmother for answers that everyone, other than this grandmother, seems aware of.  Namely, the resumption of rocket fire by Hamas.  The siege, the closures are instituted by the Israelis to keep Gaza free of the rockets supplied by Iran or other parties friendly to Hamas.

If the NY Times wants to replicate the Jay-Walk style of interviewing when  it speaks to people hostile to Israel, that's their business.  But, is this the best way of catering to the interests of their elite readers?

"Short, but devastating wars deepen the misery," reports the writer, Anne Barnard.  Okay, but who exactly is it that begins these wars?

"(Hamas) demands that Israel release prisoners, and, along with Egypt, lift border restrictions that have gutted a weak economy," reports the writer.

Terrorist organizations, which is what Hamas is, order suicide bombings of Israeli citizens.  When Israel manages to catch the perpetrators, it imprisons them.  The sentences are based on the culpability of the terrorist.  (Did the terrorist plant the bomb, or did he simply drive the bomber to where the bomb was to be set off.)  Why in the world should Israel release these criminals?

The restrictions on Gazans are unquestionably onerous.  But why are the restrictions put in place in the first place?  Maybe the Egyptians aren't happy to have Hamas offer aid and comfort to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Maybe the Israelis are puzzled as to why Hamas would expect Israel to act any differently towards them when the the Hamas constitution calls for its citizens to wipe out Israel and Israelis.  Do you think?

"Who would want to be bombed ?" asks a Gazan doctor.  Well, what about Hamas.  Hamas knows that they can't vanquish Israel militarily.  So, why fire rockets at the Israelis?  Is it possible that they would hope that the UN and their European supporters would issue edicts that would hobble Israel's efforts to protect itself?  Then too, it brings Hamas leaders bushels of money from sympathetic donors.  As it once enriched Arafat, and then Abbas, it now enriches the Hamas leadership.  This as their citizens suffer.  

"We have a right to defend ourselves against occupation," one Gazan is quoted as saying.

Really?  What occupation?  Ending the Israeli blockade is the simplest thing in the world.   Just end the Hamas campaign to destroy Israel.  Work cooperatively with the Israelis for the betterment of both peoples.  But, that's not really possible, is it?  Not while the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and Israelis.

If the NY Times wishes to act as propaganda sheet for terrorist organizations, not a million letters to the editor will change anything.  So, just sit back and enjoy the show.