How not to save Gaza's innocents

It bears repeating: Hamas murdered 1,000 Israeli civilians in cold blood, often in gruesome ways; scores were raped; hundreds kidnapped; 200,000 displaced, millions forced to spend their days and nights in bomb shelters.  A whole month has now passed since the inhuman 7 October massacre.  The world spent most of that time talking not about the slaughter of Israelis, but about Palestinians killed by Israelis.  So much does the world care about innocent victims (meaning of course Palestinians killed by Israelis), that lots of people are already clamouring for a ceasefire.

Of course, there was a ceasefire before 7 October – one that Hamas violated without even the pretence of a provocation.  Those calling for a ceasefire claim that they want to stop the killing of innocents in Gaza.  That this would also allow Hamas to murder more innocents in Israel (as they promised to do) – is no concern of theirs.  The Jews can take care of their own – and they’re not that innocent, anyway.  The good people of the world must take care of Palestinians – who are always innocent!

We do not know how many genuine innocents have actually lost their lives in Gaza.  The only available casualty numbers are those released by Gaza's health ministry, which is staffed and controlled by Hamas.  Only fanatics, idiots and those fatally naïve believe such ‘reports’; and most of the mainstream media, of course.  Jews shedding innocent blood (callously, if not deliberately) is something plenty of people have no problem believing, however fishy the source of information.

But, while Hamas has already been caught inflating casualty numbers, we must assume that some of those killed in Gaza are indeed innocent civilians – because innocent civilians are always killed in wars; however inadvertently and however much civilised armies strive to avoid it.

And it’s not just those killed or maimed.  War takes a terrible toll also on those innocents that survive it: they undergo all kinds of hardship – from fear to physical deprivation, from malnutrition to lack of medical care.

The question is, then: how can that toll on innocents be minimised?  Most pundits – and even lots of Western politicians – appear to suffer from a curious case of 'blinkeritis': whenever they look for solutions, they only see Israel.  Israel is the only key to peacemaking; and certainly to the deliverance of innocents in Gaza.  Get Israel to stop fighting Hamas (which is what they really mean by ‘ceasefire’); or get them to fight in a way that does not harm civilians (how to do that – nobody explains); or at least get them to stop for long ‘humanitarian pauses’ (no matter that they’d allow Hamas terrorists to rest, re-arm and re-supply – i.e. would end up costing more Israeli lives).

Even US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has been afflicted with blinkeritis: he travelled all the way to Israel to teach the country’s leaders that

"Israel has the right – indeed, the obligation – to defend itself and to ensure that this never happens again."

This was no doubt an eye-opener for the members of the Israeli government and of the Israeli army.  Mr. Blinken did not mention Israel’s right – indeed, the obligation – to bury her dead.  That, apparently, is obvious.

Lip service was, however, soon followed by lecture: Blinken explained to the Israelis that

"how Israel does this [i.e., defend itself] matters."

He urged them to

"take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians."

No doubt, Israeli generals have a lot to learn from Mr. Blinken.  After all, the US (and UK) quite frequently took “every possible precaution”.  For instance in 2016-2017, when bombing ISIS out of Mosul: it was only thanks to taking “every possible precaution” that a mere 10,000 civilians were killed. (WARNING: Zionist irony!)

Though, in fairness, Mr. Blinken was not Secretary of State at the time.  No, he was only Deputy Secretary of State.  And his boss Joe Biden was not President of the United States – just Vice President.

Western politicians seem to find it much easier to preach to Israel, than to remonstrate with Arab dictators.

The Israelis must have listened with a lot of interest to Mr. Blinken’s valuable lesson, because they do try to do things.  For instance, they told Gaza’s civilians to move to the Strip’s southern half – while the IDF deals with Hamas in the north.  That is a brilliant idea (no doubt Mr. Biden thought of it himself), but it suffers from some small flaws.  Such as the fact that Hamas is present in the south, as well as the north and that it likes to launch rockets from there, as well; which inevitably means that – occasionally at least, Israel strikes the south, too.  Israelis, as we know, have this inexplicable aversion to rockets pummelling their towns and cities.

But, once they travel from north to south, why would Gazans stop at the border and not cross over into Egypt?  After all, that’s what civilians tend to do in times of war: they flee from the bombs, the rockets and the hardship – and do not stop until they’re out of the harm’s way.  Which wouldn’t normally mean south Gaza, for the reasons mentioned above.

During Syria’s civil war, some 7 million people fled the country – mostly to neighbouring Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.  From there, many found their way to other, more hospitable shores.  As did many Ukrainians who fled the ravages of war in their country and were offered asylum in the West.

In fact, one would be hard put to remember a war in which civilians didn’t cross borders in search of refuge.  Except, that is, the wars between Israel and Gaza.

Since 7 October, Egypt has closed its border with Gaza (including the Rafah crossing) to civilians seeking refuge.

A superficial observer would say that Gazans cannot cross into Egypt because Egypt won’t allow them: since 7 October, that country’s border with Gaza has been closed tighter than a gnat’s chuff.  But a more profound analyst should wonder why is it that the West – the same West that preaches to Israel and gushes torrents of ‘humanitarian concern’ for Gaza’s civilians – does not pressure Egypt into opening its border to provide a safe haven for those innocents?

It's not that the West lacks leverage: the US alone props up Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s Egypt to the tune of $1.3 billion a year in military aid – despite that dictatorial regime’s awful record of human rights violations.  There are also hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid, both from the US and from the European Union.  But Western ‘leaders’ are just too cowardly to mess up with Arab dictators; much easier to preach to Jews on how to behave humanely.

It is hard to assess the exact value of the Western aid to Egypt, because that aid takes many forms. But we do know that it's massive.

So there is no pressure on Sisi to open that border.  The Egyptian authorities started – as Arab governments always do – by blaming Israel.  They claimed that Israel bombed ‘in the vicinity of’ the Gazan side of the crossing, making it ‘unsafe’.  Yet it proved safe enough to send humanitarian aid (hundreds of lorries of it) through it into Gaza; just not safe enough to allow people out.  And then it magically became suitable also for the latter purpose – as long as those getting out of Gaza had foreign passports!

When these excuses failed to persuade even the BBC, Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry stated that allowing Gaza’s innocents into the Sinai Peninsula would be unfair to Egypt:

"It's not a matter of transferring the responsibility to Egypt – it is a matter of maintaining the safety and well-being of Gazans on their own territory."

But how exactly does one do that, while also waging a war against a terror organisation intent on denying Israelis safety and well-being on their own territory?  Mr. Shoukry did not feel he had to provide an answer to that question – and the BBC felt no urge to ask it.

Nor did the BBC ask what “responsibility” was Egypt so concerned about; after all, Palestinians – alone among all the world’s many refugees – are endowed with their own dedicated UN aid agency and the West (much more than the Arab ‘brethren’) underwrites that aid, in Gaza and elsewhere, to the tune of $1.75 billion a year.  Given that the cost of living in Egypt is quite low (the minimum monthly wage is below $100), a fraction of that huge amount would feed many a Gazan refugee.

Mr. Shukri’s boss, Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, took an even more adamant stance.  Asked why Egypt won’t open the Rafah crossing and allow civilians from Gaza to take refuge, he forcefully stated:

"We are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory."

Again, no journalist asked exactly how admitting refugees suddenly becomes an encroachment upon Egyptian territory; and why a country that vociferously clamours to end the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is willing so flippantly to sacrifice “millions of [presumably Palestinian] lives”.

And then we heard from President Sisi, the man (and it’s always a man, never a woman!) who actually makes decisions in Egypt.  He said, in no uncertain terms, that there's a limit to how much Egypt cares about Palestinian lives (that, as we all know, is Israel’s job!):

"Of course we sympathize. But be careful, while we sympathize, we must always be using our minds in order to reach peace and safety in a manner that doesn’t cost us much…"

 Arab dictators are rarely asked difficult questions – a journalist brave enough to do that may never get another interview and might never be allowed to enter the country.  So, as Sisi slammed Egypt’s gates shut in the face of putative Gazan refugees, only naives expected the Western media – concerned as it is about Gazans’ safety and welfare – to harshly criticise that callous act.

On the contrary: Western media outlets fell over each other to ‘explain’ Egypt’s position.  The BBC did so on 17 October; so did its Canadian counterpart, the CBC.  Just a couple of days later, CNN toed the line as well, with an article entitled “The last remaining exit for Gazans is through Egypt. Here’s why Cairo is reluctant to open it”.  Too busy bashing Israel for all her cardinal sins, The Guardian got onto the topic only on 2 November.  Time Magazine, the VOA, NPR… they all carried articles on this subject.  And they all sounded strangely sympathetic to Sisi’s decision.  ‘Strangely,’ because the same journalists declare – at least five times a day, and in sound bytes that get shriller and shriller – their deep distress at the loss of innocent lives in Gaza.

Incidentally, the same media outlets also tend to argue that Western countries are legally bound to take in any and all refugees that reach their territory – and keep them for however long it takes; usually forever.

So, if Germany (population 83 million) must take 2.2 million refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, with the German taxpayer footing that bill, why isn’t that same  ‘international law’ applicable to Egypt (population 110 million) vis-à-vis Gazan refugees, their Arab brethren?  Especially since the ‘international community’ (read: mostly the West) would in any case pay for it?

Almost a quarter of Canada’s population of 38 million is made up of immigrants born outside the country.  Still, the CBC tends to harshly criticise the country’s government, whenever it seems reluctant (or just too slow) to admit more.

Yet when it comes to Egypt, the outlet is much more ‘forgiving’:

"Egypt already hosts 300,000 UN-registered refugees from dozens of countries and has seen an additional 317,000 arrive since conflict broke out in its southern neighbour Sudan earlier this year, so the government may have concerns about hosting a large number of newly displaced people from Gaza for an ‘indefinite’ period of time…"

Except that Egypt does very little “hosting” for those hundreds of thousands of refugees.  They are cared for by international organisations and charities, which spend a lot of (mostly) Western money in Egypt.  A lot, though – granted – much less per capita than they spend on Palestinian refugees…

Still, that concern is shared by academics (but only when it comes to Egypt and Palestinian refugees).  Prof. Constanza Musu from Ottawa University, for instance, is quoted by CBC worrying about the immense difficulty of taking in refugees:

"You need to set up camps and those camps have to be provided with water, with sanitation and with health care, food and, eventually, children have to go to school."

That may be true.  But it is also true that there’s a lot of money already budgeted for providing Gazans “with water, with sanitation and with health care, food and [with education]”.  And I have a nagging suspicion that even camps that are not quite up to Prof. Musu’s standards would be a lot better than staying in Gaza right now.

The Herculean task that Prof. Musu seems to allude to has been performed a few times before.  Turkey, for instance, took in many millions of Syrian refugees – almost 4 million are still in the country.  Even the impoverished (practically bankrupt) Lebanon hosts no less than 1.5 million refugees from neighbouring Syria; and Lebanon’s entire population numbers just 5.6 million!

Prof. Musu also sympathises with Egypt’s security concerns.  The CBC reminds us about Hamas:

“The Egyptian government considers it a a [sic!] terrorist organization and it's also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt.

Many Palestinians don't have proper travel documents, Musu says, making it difficult to verify identities and prevent Hamas fighters from hiding among fleeing civilians and then operating out of the Sinai Peninsula, where Egypt has fought other Islamist groups, including ISIS, for years."

But it’s OK to call for a ceasefire, which would leave the same terrorist organisation in power in Gaza??

As for Gazan refugees not having “proper travel documents”: is that really unusual, Prof. Musu?  Speaking about Syrian asylum seekers, the Norwegian Refugee Council says:

"70% of refugees lack basic identity documents."

Syria, as we remember, is one of the countries where ISIS operated.  Yet I doubt very much that Prof. Musu would be so accommodating, if Norway (or, for that matter, Canada) were to refuse Syrians asylum because ISIS "fighters" might be "hiding among fleeing civilians"!

In fact, while Gazans may not always have “proper travel documents”, those that present a high security risk are well-known to Israel’s intelligence services.  And those services would no doubt cooperate: even more than Egypt, Israel wouldn’t want Hamas operatives to escape her just retribution by becoming ‘refugees’.

But the reasons Egypt won’t open its gates to refugees from Gaza are not financial, nor are they security concerns; they are political.  The journalists know that – some of them even reported it, though once again with generous doses of ‘understanding’.

Sisi said it himself, in no uncertain terms, as reported by the CNN:

"There is a danger . . . a danger so big because it means an end to this [Palestinian] cause… It is important that [Gaza’s] people remain standing and on their land."

Jordan’s King Abdullah spoke in a similar vein.

In other words, Arab leaders – who perpetuated the refugee problem when they by-and-large refused to naturalise Palestinian Arabs in the host countries (even those born in those countries for 3-4 generations) – are now apprehensive that that problem may be solved not at Israel’s expense.  Hence, they brazenly declare their determination to fight for 'the Palestinian cause' to the last Palestinian (see “millions of lives”).  Gaza’s children are not just used as human shields by Hamas; they are also mere pawns in a ruthless political game.

Unlike Syrians, Afghanis, Libyans or Ukrainians, Palestinians must not be allowed to escape; they must not be offered asylum – lest that should harm 'the Palestinian cause'. Read: the godsend distraction that – for a century now – has channeled Arab frustrations away from the thrones of absolute kings and from the lavish armchairs of no-less-absolute presidents.  A 'cause' that increasingly allows people in the West to wear their antisemitism as a badge of honour, rather than a stigma of shame.

The only place where the Arab leaders (and many 'pro-Palestinian' Westerners) would have the Arab Palestinians displaced is… Jewish Israel.  Of course, they know it ain’t going to happen: if nothing else (and there’s a lot else!) there’s little chance that Gazans would accept bread and water in the Jewish state; and – at this time more than ever before – any contact between these two populations would end up in friction and bloodshed, however ‘humanitarian’ the intentions.

Egypt remains the only country that can immediately save Gaza’s innocents, simply by letting them enter the sparsely populated Sinai.  But Egypt refuses to.

This should come as no surprise, of course.  If dictators truly cared about people’s lives and welfare, they wouldn’t oppress their own populations.

Israeli leaders, of course, value the peace with Egypt – cold as it may be.  They cannot openly criticise Sisi.

But that Western politicians make no effort to pressure – or even bribe – the Egyptian dictator; that Western journalists, academics and charity workers justify his inhumane position, rather than exposing it; that they demand the impossible from Israel, while not even frowning at Egypt; all this shows is the abysmal, disgusting hypocrisy that these people wallow in.  One day, history will judge them and condemn them as frauds lacking in empathy, in ethics and in character.  For now, Israel should firmly close her ears to such ‘critics’ bereft of moral compass.  Two-faced sinners make poor virtue preachers.

Gaza, Daniel and The Hatchet Job

According to Hamas officials, on Monday 14 May 2018 Israel Defence Forces have killed 62 Palestinians – all of them during peaceful protests at the border with Gaza Strip.

Most Western media outlets attributed the flare-up (either expressly or implicitly) to that pair of right-wing extremists: Trump and Netanyahu.  Who, we are led to believe, had engineered that dastardly act of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  For instance, under the inspired title ‘What happened in Gaza on Tuesday [sic!’], the BBC writes:

“Monday also marked the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem, a move that has incensed Palestinians.”

It is not clear to me whether the distinguished BBC journalists are affected by superficiality, by amnesia or by sheer stupidity. Leaving aside the fact that ‘The Great March of Return’ has been going on for weeks, those of us who are not BBC journalists may wonder why is it that the Palestinians in Gaza were so much more “incensed” than those in the West Bank?  And – if we are to impute the 62 fatalities to Trump’s arsonism, then are we also to blame the circa 2,000 Palestinian deaths of the 2014 conflagration to… Obama’s pacifism?

It wasn’t just the media; Israel’s brave Western European allies queued up to deliver kicks in the Jewish state’s shin.  The severity of those “diplomatic” rebukes varied – but in my view the record of silliness was broken by Theresa May: the British Prime Minister chose to chastise Israel while standing alongside President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.  The Turkish dictator has a less-than-brilliant record of dealing with popular protests: during the 2013 demonstrations in Istanbul, 22 unarmed Turks were killed under his enlightened leadership.  More recently (January-March 2018), Erdoğan has ordered the Turkish army to ‘exercise legitimate defence of the country’s borders by… first bombing and ultimately conquering the Afrin province in Syria; at the cost, one should add, of between 290 and 500 Syrian civilians (since they were mostly Syrian Kurds, rather than Palestinians, people didn’t seem to count so precisely).

Breaking the world record of chutzpah

Meanwhile, a Hamas official has admitted (it is, after all, a matter of pride and Iranian subsidies for them) that 50 out of the 62 ‘peaceful protesters’ were members of his ‘illustrious’ organisation; we are still waiting for Islamic Jihad and the other, smaller ‘factions’ in Gaza to claim their own share of ‘martyrs’.

Naïves may argue that quite a few journalists, diplomats and politicians owe Israel some very humble apologies; but I’m not holding my breath…

What annoyed me more was the reaction of some Diaspora Jews.  And I’m not talking about the usual suspects like J-Street, New Israel Fund and Yachad UK; I’ve long written them off, along with their ‘pro-Israel’ pretences.  No, I am talking about the likes of Daniel Sugarman, a staff reporter with Jewish Chronicle. Daniel unequivocally declares himself a Zionist – and I believe him. (I also thank the Almighty that not all Zionists are as timid as good ol’ Dan; otherwise the State of Israel would probably encompass three tables in Golders Green’s Delisserie Restaurant. The ones closest to the toilets, I think).

On Tuesday morning, the IDF troops perched on the berm facing Gaza were grabbing their rifles; Mr. Sugarman also reached for the tool of his trade: no, not the pen – the hatchet!

Israel, declared Daniel off the pages of the venerable Jewish newspaper, “should be ashamed today”.

True, he adds

“the protests have been violent. Non-violent protestors do not throw rocks and Molotov cocktails. They do not launch flaming kites aimed at Israel with swastikas painted on them. The Hamas Prime Minister, Yahya Sinwar, described the stated aim of the attempts to breach the border as follows: ‘We will take down the border and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.’”

But Daniel’s problem is not so much with Palestinian violence; or, indeed, with Palestinian violence masquerading as ‘peaceful protest’.  No, his problem is Israel’s counter-violence.  As he so poetically puts it:

“… the response from Israel has been death. Death and mutilation. A cloud of tear gas and a hail of bullets. Over fifty Palestinians were killed at the border yesterday, and well over a thousand wounded. Today, those numbers will likely be surpassed.”

Err… no, they were not.  In fact, Tuesday was a relatively calm day.  And so was Wednesday.

But while Daniel might not be very good at predicting the future, he seems to be knowledgeable about the past.  And understanding, too:

“I know that Hamas has orchestrated these attempts to breach the barrier. I know that Hamas has offered stipends to the families of those killed or wounded in these protests, in the same way that it gives stipends to the families of those who have died while carrying out terror attacks against Israelis. I understand why Israel cannot allow these protestors to cross the border.”

All those facts don’t matter much, though.  Because

“But every bullet Israel fires, every life Israel takes, makes this situation worse. There are ways to disperse crowds which do not include live fire. But the IDF has made an active choice to fire live rounds and kill scores of people.”

Now, I am rather familiar with “ways to disperse crowds”, from my days as an IDF soldier in the time of the intifada.  And if you don’t want to rely on my memory (admittedly, it isn’t that good anymore!), Wikipedia lists them as

“tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and electric tasers”.

On Monday, IDF has used copious amounts of tear gas, including in rather innovative ways – for instance sprayed from drones.

Thousands of non-lethal (but also not very effective) rubber bullets have been fired.

To the best of my knowledge, just the two other means (pepper spray and tasers) have not been used – and only because they only work at very short distance and are certainly not effective against large numbers of  'protesters'.

My understanding is that tear gas and rubber bullets were used, however – and used massively; and that live fire was employed because non-lethal means failed to stop attempts to breach the border.  But… “There are ways to disperse crowds which do not include live fire.” If Daniel Sugarman has discovered such “ways”, I urge him to call as soon as possible Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot, IDF’s Chief of Staff.  I’ll be happy to give you his mobile number, Daniel – he is very eager to learn those mysterious “ways”.  You might also want to offer your services as a consultant to all the police forces in the free world.  Trust me, they will pay top sterling for your “ways”.  But before all that, would you mind just updating that obsolete Wikipedia page – to avoid deceiving people like me?

In truth, it may seem that Daniel has achieved a humongous journalistic scoop.  After all, did he not reveal that

“IDF has made an active choice to fire live rounds and kill scores of people.” ?

I’d be so very grateful, however, if he could indicate the source of that riveting scoop.  (My friend Gadi Eizenkot knows nothing about such IDF decision – I checked).  I mean, I hope Daniel has a source – and a credible one at that.  Because otherwise, what he did was to libel a whole lot of people, by declaring them – off the pages of the Jewish Chronicle – war criminals.

Unfortunately, this does seem to be a case of libel.  Because, in his next sentence, Mr. Sugarman appears to call upon a rather unreliable witness: his own ‘logic’:

“You cannot tell me that Israel, a land of technological miracles which have to be seen to be truly believed, is incapable of coming up with a way of incapacitating protestors that does not include gunning dozens of them down.”

Oh, that sublime mixture of arrogance and ignorance – should we invent a new term for it?  How about ‘arrgnorance’??  Don’t you just looove it when a shallow schmuck says “you cannot tell me”?

Well, I can and I shall tell him a thing or two.  True, for a tiny country with lots of things on its collective plate, Israel has achieved some very impressive technological successes.  But they were not achieved by snapping fingers – not even the fingers that Sugarman stuck at it.

Daniel may have watched too much StarTrek; the amazing crew of the ‘Starship Enterprise’ had, I seem to remember, phasers that could be set on ‘stun’.

But in the real world…  It took more than a decade to find a (great, though still not perfect) solution to the threat of rockets launched from Gaza; more than 3 years passed before Israeli scientists devised a way to detect terror tunnels.

Attempting to breach the border fence with thousands of ‘protesters’ is a new Hamas tactic; we can only hope that Israeli wunderkids will soon devise (no doubt at the behest of Daniel Sugarman and using his generous donations) “a way of incapacitating protestors that does not include gunning dozens of them down”.  Though that might have to wait until the knowledge contained in those 100,000 pages of Iranian nuclear experiments is read and absorbed.

“You cannot tell me”…  Oh, but I can!  When they occur, Daniel my boy, “technological miracles” are an achievement to be admired – but not a duty to be demanded.  In bashing Israel for not coming up with miracles-on-order, you have just joined a long and very ignoble queue of individuals and organisations who hold the Jewish state to a different standard from that applied to everybody else.

You have entitled your piece, Daniel

“I love Israel – that’s why I’m criticising it today”

This reminds me of an abuser who, when confronted by the police officer, declared – hand on his heart and sanctimonious look in his eyes: ‘I love my wife; I only beat her when she does not live up to my expectations – so she can improve’.

I can and shall tell you, Daniel, that love should not hurt.

As a Jew and an “ardent Zionist”, Daniel Sugarman, you have no doubt often felt pride at Israel’s unusual achievements.  But one Tuesday morning you woke up embarrassed: the world was once again kicking the Quintessential Jew in the shin and it seemed to you, Daniel, that Israel’s behaviour reflected poorly on your good self.  And for that reason, on that Tuesday morning, you performed a hatchet job on my country, on the army I served in; on our children in khaki drill.  You called us all murderers.  But hey – I’m sure you felt like a good, moral, superior human being once you wrote that article.  And that’s what’s important after all, ‘innit?

Well done, Daniel, you’re the man!  May you grow up and become a mensch.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE

Good news!  The man has become a mensch.  I published the blog above on Wednesday evening, in response to Daniel Sugarman’s Tuesday article.  But – lo and behold – on Thursday Daniel wrote an apology – published on the Jewish Chronicle, the same newspaper that printed his initial article.  It is worth reading it in its entirety, but here are some salient parts:

“But the criticism I paid more attention to was from people who pointed out that it was absurd to deal in hypotheticals. I’d said that surely there must be a way the protestors could be stopped without shooting live ammunition at them – that Israel, with its incredible technological capabilities, must be capable of developing a way. That was a cry of anguish, but it was not an argument. If no such technology currently exists, then it was absurd of me to blame the IDF for not magically willing it into existence. The traditional crowd stopping technology would not have worked effectively. Rubber bullets are only short range. The same with water cannons. And with tens of thousands of people rushing the border, this would have been extremely unlikely to work effectively. The border would have been broken through. And then, without much of a doubt, a lot of people in Israel would have died.  That was, after all, Hamas’s stated aim.
But what really affected me the most was yesterday, when a Hamas operative went on television and claimed that, of the 62 people killed in the last two days, fifty were Hamas operatives. Islamic Jihad claimed three more, meaning that over 80 percent of the people who were killed while trying to breach the border were members of terrorist organisations whose direct aim is to bring death and suffering into Israel.
And I opened my eyes and saw what I had done.

[…]

I said that Israel should be ashamed of its actions. But today I am the one ashamed.”

We all make mistakes.  But we are not all equipped with hearts and balls big enough to admit those mistakes.

I forgive you, Daniel Sugarman.  And I respect you.  Shalom, brother!

Chilcot, Israel and the Kiss of Judas

احذر عدوك مرة وصديقك ألف مرة فإن انقلب الصديق فهو أعلم بالمضرة

Beware of an enemy once and of a friend a thousand times, because a duplicitous friend will hurt you more. (An Arabic proverb)

I admit: I expected the Chilcot inquiry to be just another sop.  If nothing else, the inordinate length of time it took seemed to bode no great desire to reveal unpleasant truths.  So, had I been asked a couple of weeks ago, I would have expressed low expectations from that inquiry; and I would have been wrong.

Sir John Chilcot, Chair of the Inquiry

True, like the biblical Jacob, we had to wait seven years for this bride; it cost us more than £10 million.  In taxes, not in sheep, goats or camels.

But at least the bride is lovely and wise.  Sir John Chilcot and his team have done good, serious work.  That’s not to say that their report should be seen as The Ultimate Truth – far from it.  Inevitably, the assessments, judgments and conclusions are all subjective, coloured by the authors’ own experience, beliefs and ideological inclinations.  But a huge body of evidence has been uncovered; and the analysis (while far from infallible) is also quite useful.

The Chilcot Inquiry findings will no doubt fascinate people for years and maybe decades to come.  As usual, the honest historian in search of truth and understanding will be followed by the ‘revisionist’ seeking to justify preconceived ideas for the sake of publicity, royalties and tenure.

Even before that, an army of journalists and politicians will exploit the report – without reading it, of course – to further their own interests and careers.  The most unscrupulous ones have in fact already  started to do just that – before the ink has had a chance to dry on Sir Chilcot’s signature.

But there is one aspect revealed by the inquiry which has so far completely escaped attention; which has not even been touched by the journo-political Commentariat.  And yet, reference to that aspect was obvious even in John Chilcot’s public statement, which accompanied the release of the report on 6 July 2016.  Says Sir John:

“On 28 July, Mr Blair wrote to President Bush with an assurance that he would be with him ‘whatever’ – but, if the US wanted a coalition for military action, changes would be needed in three key areas.”

The Commentariat herd has focused its entire attention on Blair’s promise to support Bush “whatever”.  But it’s worth taking in the entirety of John Chilcot’s statement.

What was that “coalition for military action” that Blair was so keen to organise?  And why was he that keen?  A look at the written records gives us the answer: Blair wanted to cover his proverbial bottom, in case the sh** hit the fan (as it eventually did).  On 28 July 2002, Blair wrote in his message to US President Bush:

“The US could do it alone, with UK support.  [but]  If we win quickly, everyone will be our friend.  If we don’t and they haven’t been bound beforehand, recriminations will start fast.”

Blair’s message details the potential dangers:

“The danger is, as ever with these things, unintended consequences.  Suppose it got militarily tricky.  Suppose Iraq suffered unexpected civilian casualties.  Suppose the Arab street finally erupted, eg in {CENSORED}.  Suppose Saddam felt sufficiently politically strong, if militarily weak in conventional terms, to let off WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction].  Suppose that, without any coalition, the Iraqis feel ambivalent about being invaded and real Iraqis, not Saddam’s special guard, decide to offer resistance.  Suppose, at least, that any difficulties, without a coalition, are magnified and seized upon by a hostile international opinion.”

Throughout his message, Blair advocates a political and military coalition as an antidote against those “any difficulties”.  And not just any old coalition, but one that would include Arab countries; just like in Bush Senior’s First Gulf War.

On the face of it, this made sense.  After all, many an Arab dictator feared and loathed Saddam Hussein; his military might and (especially) popularity on the Arab street threatened their royal thrones and gilded presidential armchairs.  But Arab tyrants are good negotiators; their power and very survival depends on astutely playing other people’s ambitions and fears, hopes and worries.  Accustomed to play by the rules, Western politicians are no match for such predatory instincts.  Tony Blair was easily persuaded that the West needed to pay a price for the Arabs’ militarily ineffective but politically convenient cooperation.  What price?  Well, the Arab autocrats needed to throw their hapless subjects a bone; and in the world of tyrants, where power is admired as the supreme value, that means being able to declare a victory.  Not just against a fellow Arab dictator, but against the habitual scapegoat – Israel.  So the Arab dictators persuaded Blair that the West needed to pay for their cooperation and that the currency needed to be Israel’s security.  As usual, the entire thing was to be disguised under the euphemism ‘progress in MEPP’ – the Middle East Peace Process.  In Blair’s own words:

“The Arabs may support but are far less likely to do so, if MEPP is where it is now.  When I met {CENSORED} and said we would do Iraq, he said: ‘fine – just do it with total force’.  But when we started later to talk about MEPP, he said he was far more optimistic about it.  ‘Why?’, I asked.  ‘Because obviously, with Iraq coming up, the US will put it in a quite different place, he said.  When I said, we couldn’t guarantee that, he looked genuinely shocked.  Then Iraq would be a very different proposition, he said.”

For anyone familiar with Middle Eastern negotiation euphemisms, a deal had been offered: the West would be allowed to “do Iraq” if the Arab dictators could, to at least some extent, ‘do Israel’.  If we needed proof that ‘MEPP’ was all about imposing a "movement" that was "contrary to Israeli worries", we get that from another Blair-to Bush message, dated 11 October 2001:

“This is the huge undercurrent in this situation.  It is the context in the Arab world.  The trouble is it’s damn difficult, though your comments on a Palestinian state and {CENSORED}  […]  It will be very tough, but we need a big, new initiative.  I wonder if we could do as follows: pull out every stop to halt terrorist activity on the Palestinian side or at least have Arafat so clearly trying, that it’s obvious to all; then use this break in the weather, to launch a new talks process, effectively accepting at the outset that the outcome will be 2 states living side by side.  {CENSORED} involvement and it’s your call but, for what it’s worth, I have believed for 2 years now that the US just can’t take the strain of this alone; and that contrary to Israeli worries, the {CENSORED} into a reasonable deal.  After all, it’s the {CENSORED}.
If we showed movement here, the Arab moderates would regain the upper hand quickly.”

We do not know who “the Arab moderates” were in 2001.  Did they include Egypt’s President Mubarak?  The absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan?  Perhaps Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, the (then) newly enthroned President-for-Life of Syria?

But what is clear is that Tony Blair was in search of a "reasonable deal".  Only problem was – in his mind it needed to be reasonable from the point of view of the USA/UK interests in Iraq; and that meant disregarding "Israeli worries" to keep the "Arab moderates" happy.

Now, let us remind ourselves what was going on at the time – in 2001-2002, when Tony Blair was so nonchalantly advocating the brushing aside of those annoying “Israeli worries”.

The Camp David Summit (Bill Clinton, Arafat, Ehud Barak) had ended in July 2000, with no agreement.  In January 2001, Arafat was finally forced to put in writing the Palestinian official response, rejecting out of hand the so-called Clinton Parameters which had offered Palestinians a state in 100% of Gaza Strip and 95-97% of West Bank, plus 1-3% of swap land from pre-1967 Israel.

Arafat also refused to budge during the Taba negotiations, despite the offer being reiterated, detailed and expanded.

Even while the negotiations at Taba were going on, a campaign of terror against Israelis was unfolding.  It cost the lives of 207 Israelis in 2001 and 457 in 2002.  There were 40 suicide bombings in 2001 and 47 (i.e. roughly one every week on average) in 2002.

Memorial for the victims of the Dolphinarium suicide bombing. 21 Israeli youngsters (the majority teenage girls) were killed in June 2001 by a 22-year-old Palestinian terrorist. 

As his message to Bush proves, Tony Blair was well aware of the situation and of the basis for “Israeli worries”; he did not believe that Arafat was “clearly trying” to “halt terrorist activity on the Palestinian side”.  In fact, in yet another message to Bush (in December 2001), he was stating, in reference to the wave of Palestinian terrorism:

“The issue is not whether [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon takes tough action.  He is bound to and so would any of us in this situation.”

Needless to say, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime.  So, was Tony Blair truly naïve enough to believe that this conflict (rather than, for instance, the lack of freedom and democracy) was “the context in the Arab world”?  Doubtful; he was just cynically willing to pay for Arab benevolence with Israeli blood and tears.

Nor was Blair’s attitude new and unheard of.  The cooperation of Arab dictators in the First Gulf War (among them Mubarak of Egypt and Assad Senior, father of the current Syrian president and a prodigious murderer in his own right) had been ‘rewarded’ with the Madrid Conference, in which Israel was forced to ‘negotiate’ (read: face in a public or semi-public showdown) simultaneously with Syria, Lebanon and a joint PLO-Jordanian delegation, under the watchful co-sponsorship of United States and the Soviet Union.

These days, Blair’s 2001-2002 cynical manoeuvre has become a typical Western (or at least European) approach.  Why else would the European Union still refer to the (stubborn, but low intensity) conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as ‘the conflict in the Middle East’?  Isn’t the conflict between Sunni and Shi’a Islam an infinitely more suitable candidate to that title?  Shouldn’t the EU seek to initiate (let alone progress) a Middle East Peace Process for that conflict, which is many centuries old, has resulted in millions of casualties, involves a huge swath of territory including at a minimum Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and is a colossal threat to world peace?

Like Tony Blair in 2001-2002, current European politicians are keen to buy Arab dictators’ connivance at Israel’s expense.  In addition, they hope to ‘sweeten’ the bad taste left by their efforts to keep Muslim refugees out of Europe and to ‘endear’ themselves to their own already large and restive Muslim minority.

The problem with that tactic – besides, that is, its stench of advanced moral rot – is that it won’t work.  Despite what crypto-racist Europeans may think, brown Muslims are not stupid.  Sure, moved by a mistaken sense of Islamic solidarity and/or by anti-Semitic prejudice, some of them may raise their lips in praise for Europe’s cynical policies towards the Jewish state.  But, even when yelled at the top of the voice, such praise only comes from the lips.  In their hearts, many Muslims (both in the Middle East and in Europe) will be thinking: ‘if they do that to Israelis, whom they call their friends, how will they ultimately treat us?’

Don’t slam Islam; but don’t tolerate intolerance, either!

Paris is in shock again and with it the entire civilised world.  Although, truth be told, this has not come as a surprise.  Nor have the reactions of Western politicians and journalists.  On one hand, we hear again the predictable but oh-so-idiotic claim that acts perpetrated in the name of Allah and Muhammad ‘have nothing to do with Islam’; on the other hand, we are treated to the bigoted implication that believing in Allah and Muhammad counts as ‘fifth column’ membership.  Both approaches are cowardly populist; both are terribly wrong; worse – both are pathetically unhelpful.

No, we can’t start accusing or suspecting everyone who embraces Islam as his/her religion; or even as his/her main identity.  But neither should we stick our heads in the ground, close our eyes to reality and plug our ears with politically-correct cotton wool, denying that a certain strand of Islam has everything to do with terrorism.

There will never be a shortage of imbeciles eager to find excuses and to ‘explain away’ terrorism.  Yes, the West has made war in Iraq and Afghanistan; but then, Russia is making war in Ukraine – and yet Ukrainians don't blow themselves up in Moscow’s stadiums or in Sankt Petersburg’s concert halls.  Yes, Western colonialists have left a lousy legacy in the Middle East; but they did worse, much worse elsewhere.  Indians don’t try to blow up the Wembley Stadium.  Armenians don’t murder patrons in Istanbul’s restaurants and Israeli Jews don’t fly airplanes into Frankfurt’s office buildings.

There’ll also be bigots who will point to passages from the Qur’an and claim that there’s something inherently violent in Islam.  But I can equally quote passages from the Torah and from the New Testament that would seem to incite to violence.  What about the injunction to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven”?  And didn’t Jesus say “I came not to send peace, but the sword”?  Oh, and I can find for you Qur’anic verses praising peace – just like one finds in every scripture.

No, Islam is not a religion of peace; nor is it a religion of war.  Religions aren’t ‘of’ anything; people are.  There is no denying that acts of terrorism are currently more likely to be committed in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Shintoism.  If a suicide bomber detonates himself tomorrow, it is more likely that he’ll be called Muhammad, rather than Paul, Moshe or Jitendra.  That is a fact.  Most Muslims are not radicals; it's just that there are more radicals among Muslims.

But why?  Islam is not fundamentally different from Christianity or Judaism.  It is just younger, much younger.  It appeared on the grand scene of history about 14 centuries ago.  Christianity is considerably older – more than 2000 years; Judaism is ancient.  Age is of consequence: religions (like all human endeavours) have a life of their own.  Just like human beings.  Youngsters are more impetuous; more impulsive; less patient and less tolerant.  Thankfully, they mellow as they grow old.  So do religions.  Want to understand radical Islam?  Violent Jihad?  Think 14th century Christianity, with its crusades and Inquisition.

In 14th century Europe, religion pervaded every aspect of human life; so it does these days in most parts of the Middle East.  14th century Europeans may have called themselves ‘French’, ‘German’ or ‘English’; but their primary identity was ‘Christians’.  Just as these days hundreds of millions of people will tell you that they define themselves first and foremost as ‘Muslims’.

Jihadis are nothing more – and nothing less, and nothing else – than the ‘modern’, Muslim version of medieval Crusaders.  They may be armed with assault rifles and grenades, rather than swords and maces; but they are just as blood-thirsty; just as self-righteous; just as ready to achieve martyrdom and earn their ticket to heaven.  Are you still wondering why they behead people?

OK, you’ll say; that may well be so, but how does this help?  Will we have to endure centuries of Jihad?  Well, not necessarily.  Things have changed somewhat from the real 14th century.

Think about it: why did so many people (not just kings and knights, but simple peasants and tradesmen) leave behind their homesteads, their families, their lives – to make war on the infidels?  To kill, maim, pillage and rape?  No, Popes did not use Twitter to stir up trouble – not in those times.  They used preachers.  That has not changed: it is still the preachers of hate that brainwash people into becoming butchers.

Wanna deal with Jihadi terrorism?  You can try to track all the tens of thousands that have already been radicalised – and the millions that will be; or you can go after a few thousand hate preachers. Those preachers may not practice violence themselves; but they kill, maim, pillage and rape – however indirectly.  Jail them if you can; kill them if you have to; or just prevent their odious message from reaching its target.  That means tighter border controls.  It means closing websites, monitoring social media, controlling school activities, raiding mosques, banning radical madrassahs.  If that implies changing our laws, so they protect the tolerant, rather than tolerating the bigot – then so be it; if it means making law enforcement more intrusive, then that’s a price we’ll have to pay, for our safety and that of our children.  Make no mistake: it’s the price we’ll have to pay to maintain rule of law; to avoid rule of the mob.  There will have to be limits to freedom: your freedom must end where you want to take away mine.

That won’t stop tomorrow’s terrorist attack; it won’t provide an instant solution.  But, in time, it will choke the flow of hatred.

The Torah says “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, so that you and your offspring will live”.  I’m sure the Qur’an won’t disagree.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to ‘Comprehensible Terrorism’

Much (and much junk!) has already been written about the most recent wave of terrorism that shook Israel.  While random Israeli Jews were being stabbed and shot in the street, much of the Western media was busy, as usual, trying to put a ‘pro-Palestinian’ spin on the ‘story’.  This tendency manifested itself, among other things, in a keen effort to discover ‘reasons’ for terrorism.  That in itself may not be a bad idea; but for so many of today’s lazy, talent-less and politically regimented ‘journalists’, the term ‘discover’ does not mean ‘investigate’, but rather ‘speculate’.  To Israeli ears, such attempts to present ‘reasons’ sound very much like finding justifications for terrorism.

Stephen Sackur

That’s what Yair Lapid – a former Finance Minister who now leads one of Israel’s opposition parties – told BBC presenter Stephen Sackur, who was interviewing him for a programme entitled HARDTalk.  Sackur had said:

“The Palestinians are quite clear, as Mahmoud Abbas has said, ‘we are living’, he says, ‘under unbearable conditions’.  And when that is the case, you get the kind of desperation, particularly among nihilistic young people, who see no future, that results in violence on your streets.”

After Lapid accused him of justifying terrorism, Sackur countered:

“You use the word ‘justification’; I never used that word.  I’m trying to place what is happening in a context, trying to maybe explain it, not justify it.”

Sounds logical, doesn’t it?  He wasn’t justifying terrorism; just placing it in context, ‘explaining’ it.  Nothing wrong with that, surely?  Well, two things are very wrong with that, actually.

Firstly, such valiant attempts to use European logic in order to ‘explain’ Middle Eastern terrorism are only ever made when Israelis are its victims.  Mr. Sackur would not use a similar ‘logic’ to ‘explain’ 9/11, or 7/7.  When Muslim terrorists killed a random British soldier outside his barracks, no one at BBC ‘explained’ the act as “desperation, particularly among nihilistic young people, who see no future…”

Secondly, even assuming that ‘context’ and ‘explanations’ are necessary, why is it that, when Israel is involved (and only when Israel is involved) a particular ‘context’ is chosen, a particular ‘explanation’ is embraced as self-evident, with no attempt to actually investigate the reasons?  Where does such ‘explanation’ come from?  Mr. Sackur tells us in so many words: it comes from Mahmoud Abbas.  But is Abbas a credible source?  “The Palestinians are quite clear”, says Sackur.  Really, are they??  Who speaks for “The Palestinians”?  Abbas has become president 10 years ago, ‘winning’ stitched-up elections; there were no presidential elections since then.  The latest parliamentary elections (2006) were won by Hamas – Abbas’s arch-rivals.  Mahmoud Abbas speaks for the Palestinians just as Bashar Assad speaks for the Syrians.

Name: Jeremy Bowen; Occupation: anti-Israel militant masquerading as BBC's Middle East Editor 

Yet Sackur is not the only Western journalist adopting such irrational ‘reasoning’.  He is not even the only one at BBC.  Beeb’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen is also fond of ‘context’ and ‘explanations’ – when it comes to terrorism directed against Israel:

“Violence does not come out of the blue. It has a context. Once again, the problem is the unresolved conflict between Palestinians and Jews. It is at the heart of all the violence that shakes this city.

A big part of the conflict is the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, that has lasted for nearly 50 years. It is impossible to ignore the effects of an occupation that is always coercive and can be brutal.

In successive Palestinian generations, it has created hopelessness and hatred. In some cases, that bursts out into murderous anger. Jerusalem this week is crackling with tension and hate, directed by both sides at each other.”

Again, if violence always has ‘a context’, then perhaps Mr Bowen should explain what was the ‘context’ of 9/11 and 7/7?  What ‘unresolved conflict’, what ‘coercive and brutal occupation’ caused that burst of ‘murderous anger’?  And, if that’s the ‘logic’ that he chooses to apply, shouldn’t the despicable murder of Drummer Lee Rigby be ‘explained’ as a consequence of the ‘coercive and brutal occupation’ of Iraq and Afghanistan – Muslim lands situated thousands of miles from British shores?

Karl Vick of Time Magazine: the face of Western comprehension 

It seems to me, however, that the award for The Most Stupid Comment in Years belongs by rights to Time Magazine’s Karl Vick.  After blaming the terrorist attacks on Israeli-induced Palestinian hopelessness, including of course an obligatory quote from Mahmoud Abbas, Vick calls Israel and ‘the Palestinian territories’

“the one part of the Middle East where the source of strife is comprehensible to Westerners: the aspiration–on the part of both sides–for a national home.”

The Middle East, of course, has no lack of conflicts: it’s Muslims against Christians, Muslims against Yazidis, Sunnis against Shi’a, Alawis against Sunnis, Kurds against Arabs, Turks against Kurds, Persians against Arabs, etc. etc.  All that, Mr. Vick confesses, is incomprehensible to the Western brain; the one conflict that is different is that between Arabs and Jews.  Why?  ‘Coz when it comes to Jews, Arabs only want a national home.

Given Karl Vick’s admirable comprehension of that 100-years-old conflict, I thought I’d ask him a simple question; one that none of the oh-so-knowledgeable Western journalists has yet asked: where are the Christians?

No, I don’t mean the hundreds of thousands of Christians that have been persecuted out of the Middle East; we know where they are.  What I mean is: why aren’t there any Christians among the terrorists?

Christians account for circa 2.5% of West Bank’s Arab population (they were 4% only a few years ago and circa 10% in 1948 – as they still are among Arab Israelis).  Yet none of the terrorists involved in the recent wave of attacks was a Christian.  And if you think that the number of those attackers is too small for reliable statistics, here is another fact: since 1993, circa 200 Arab Palestinians have blown themselves up in attempts to kill Jews; yet none of them was a Christian.

It’s not that Christians are uninvolved in the ‘Palestinian national struggle’.  They pay their dues.  God (or Allah) help them if they don’t!  Under the loving ‘guidance’ of their Muslim ‘brothers’, Christian ‘spiritual leaders’ (whose flock is increasingly fleeing that same tight ‘guidance’) lambast Israel at every possible opportunity, including appeals to foreign coreligionists to boycott the Jewish state out of existence.  Yet no Palestinian Christian has been involved – for decades now – in a serious terrorist attack against Jews.

This is understandable if, as Israelis assert, such acts of terrorism are the result of religious extremism, just as they are in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and many other places.  But if, as Messrs. Sackur, Bowen, Vick and numerous other Western 'useful idiots' seem to believe, Palestinian terrorism is an expression of ‘desperation’ and frustrated ‘national aspirations’, then let them explain what makes Palestinian Christians less ‘desperate’; or why are Christians (who, historically, have been the flag-bearers of Arab nationalism) less keen to express their longing for a ‘national home’ – by stabbing, shooting or blowing up a few Jews.

Oh, he's just a bit frustrated...  It's because of the occupation... and the settlements...

It is Islamist fanaticism that begets stabbings, beheadings, suicide bombings and plane crashing all over the globe – from New York to London, from Madrid to Bali, from Moscow to Kunming, from Baghdad to Damascus and in many, many other places.  Not in Jerusalem, though – in that place terrorists are not Muslim extremists, but nice people who want a ‘national home’ and just got… well, a bit impatient waiting for it.  Welcome to Vick’s Planet!

Imagine... Gaza

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one…
               (John Lennon)

I’d like to think I’m a sober pragmatist – I rarely indulge in flights of fancy.  Yet sometimes one has to pause, disconnect for just a few brief moments from the grim reality and imagine what could have been…  Call it a learning exercise.

Almost exactly 10 years ago, an Israeli government (one that much of the world viewed as ‘right-wing’ and ‘hawkish’) implemented the country’s ‘disengagement’ from the Gaza Strip.  That euphemism was used to describe a complete withdrawal: every single Israeli soldier was pulled out of the Strip; every ‘Jewish settler’ was evicted (occasionally by force); every ‘illegal Israeli settlement’ in the Strip was evacuated – even the dead Jews were dug up and moved to the Israeli side of ‘the 1967 border’.  As a token of further intentions, four ‘settlements’ in the West Bank were also dismantled.

It could have been, it should have been a momentous change: for the first time ever, Palestinian Arabs gained not just complete control over territory – but also freedom of movement: the Agreement on Movement and Access (concluded in November 2005 between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the European Union) opened the Rafah Crossing, allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel freely between Gaza and Egypt, with only European – not Israeli! – supervision.  The Agreement also opened the Karni Crossing between Israel and Gaza to non-military exports and imports; it provided a ‘safe passage’ allowing Palestinian Arabs to travel between the West Bank and Gaza, crossing Israeli territory; it authorised the construction of a seaport in Gaza and initiated negotiations towards the building of an airport in the Strip.

Just a few months later – uniquely in the entire Arab World – Palestinian Arabs voted in free elections.  Amazingly given the bitterness of the conflict, Israel cooperated – enabling even residents of East Jerusalem to vote in the Palestinian elections.

It was exactly what the ‘international community’ had been asking Israel to do: concede ‘land for peace’; courageously assume risks by allowing ‘the enemy’ freedom of operation; take a bold step towards ‘the two-state solution’.

The rest is, of course, history: as is often the case in the Middle East, concessions were interpreted as signs of weakness, rather than desire for peace; they were met with harsher demands, rather than generous gestures in return; they emboldened additional extremism, rather than empowering the moderates.  To the great surprise of hapless Western supporters of ‘the Palestinian People’s right to self-determination’, the electorate in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusatook the power away from the ‘nationalist’ Fatah and handed it to Islamist Hamas – the local branch of the pan-Islamic organisation Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas’s first ‘act of government’ was to repudiate the Agreement on Movement and Access, kick out the European supervisors and use its control of the border to smuggle in weaponry.  It used that weaponry to wrestle complete power from the rival Fatah and to subject Israeli towns and villages to a bombardment with mortar shells and ever-more-sophisticated rockets.  With Gaza Strip officially ‘enemy territory’, Israel declared a military blockade, a war tactic which interdicts the movement of people and all but essential goods.

Brainwashed Westerners usually describe Gaza Strip as ‘tiny and overcrowded’.  It is actually larger than European Union member state Malta; it is somewhat smaller but definitely less crowded than Singapore and Hong Kong…  But that is where any similarities end.

No, this is not Gaza City...  It's 'overcrowded' Singapore.

Ten years after the ‘disengagement’, Gaza remains yet another sore point in the Middle East.  Although movement restrictions for people and goods have been relaxed somewhat, they are still in place, driven by war and fear, rather than peace and hope.  There may be an affluent middle class in Gaza – but there is also huge unemployment; one may find markets abundant in products, but also lots of abject poverty…

Under the rule of Hamas and with the 'kind collaboration' of a few other terrorist organisation, the territory produces a more-or-less constant ‘drizzle’ of missiles which hit Israeli territory, disrupting, threatening and occasionally destroying life; whenever the ‘drizzle’ turns into a ‘rain’, Israel has to resort to military operations which – despite unprecedented precautions – cause death and injury also among innocents.  To most Israelis, ‘land for peace’ is these days a bitter joke; the belief in ‘two states for two peoples’ has made room to a fierce ‘us or them’ determination.

A by-now routine tweet from the Police Commissioner: another murder attempt
disguised as 'resistance' to 'occupiers in absentia'.

But it did not have to be like this.  Imagine…  Imagine an alternative history in which the ‘liberated’ Gazans cease to attack Israel, choosing instead to focus on developing their now un-occupied, ‘settler-free’ territory.  There is no denying their diligence and skill: imagine that the efforts put into digging hundreds of miles of smuggling and terror tunnels were used instead to build hundreds of miles of roads, of water conduits, of sewage pipelines.  Imagine that all that wealth of intelligence, creativity, passion and determination were placed in the service of happiness and life, rather than hatred and death.

Imagine that, instead of trading fire with Israel, Gaza traded goods: how many Israeli entrepreneurs would have leaped  to take advantage of that new opportunity?  Imagine scores of ships docking in Gaza Harbour and dozens of airplanes taking off from the newly-built Gaza International Airport.  Imagine European kids traveling to Gaza to get a tan on its golden beaches, rather than fraternise with terrorists.

And imagine Israel alongside this peaceful, stable, prosperous Gaza: who – other than perhaps a handful of fanatics – would not trade land to extend such permanent bliss to the West Bank?  How many Jewish mothers would choose to cling to a few more square miles of land, rather than ensuring peace, quiet and happiness for their children?

Imagine Gaza, in an alternative 2015: a positive model for the entire Middle East, rather than an epitome of violence and misery.

Imagine…  Yes, imagine.  Perhaps that is what’s lacking in the Middle East: a bit of imagination.