Point / Counterpoint: Everybody's wrong (except Turkey)!

Counterpoint to:

 Looking past Gaza
"The short-sighted refusal to talk to the Hamas Islamists encouraged Israel to continue and intensify its blockade, provoked Hamas's subsequent increasingly violent response, victimised the population of Gaza, and has made it much harder to stop the fighting once it started."

Simon Tisdall
The Guardian (London)
December 7, 2008

Anyone who has been following the international press over the past two weeks is undoubtedly familiar with the downpour of news reports, opinion pieces, op-eds, editorials, and other commentaries on the war in Gaza that have been virtually dominating much of the world media. While this is certainly not unexpected in the Arab and Islamic press, it is a surprising phenomenon in the European media where it far surpassed the 2006 Lebanon war.

There have been some excellent analyses and opinion pieces both pro- and anti-Israel. Yes, Israel's opponents have on occasion challenged us skillfully, which in turn led to some excellent responses from pro-Israel columnists (one such particularly powerful response appeared in the London Times).

But there were also commentaries, even some from respected authors, that left much to be desired. Such is the opinion-piece from The Guardian's Simon Tisdall. I chose to respond to Mr. Tisdall in the second person.

Dear Simon,

I have really tried to sort out your article, (it was not easy), and I am summarizing what I understood. Please let me know if I have misunderstood you.

Apart from the fact that you don’t seem to like Israel, you also don’t like the "discredited" Condoleezza Rice, the "sulky and myopic" George Bush (I guess that one is understandable otherwise you'd be very lonely at The Guardian), the "self-serving and useless" Tony Blair, the EU, the "floundering" Czechs who now occupy the EU presidency, and Obama. 

You dislike Condy, Bush. Blair, the EU, and the Czechs, I assume, because they have all been rather understanding of Israel, and Obama, you explain, because he has refused to get involved in the Gaza conflict despite the fact that during the past two years he has spoken out against Bush's policies many times (apparently you see no difference between a presidential candidate and the president elect). And now, you are warning us, some people in the Middle East (it sounds like you might mean Hamas and their supporters) and in Europe who previously liked Obama, don't like him anymore (would it be because it looks as if he too might support Israel?).

You seem to like Sarkozy, although you have labeled him "hyperactive with a tendency to hog the limelight", you love Turkey (who earlier this week strongly condemned Israel but forgot to mention Hamas) "who has played an important role as an intermediary" (wasn't that Egypt?) and you are now rooting for Turkey to be accepted into the EU, - they'd make "a great addition", and, oh yes, you also like the idea of applying pressure ("leaning") on Israel "the way it has never been done before" since Bush took office, and apparently you don't think it necessary to "lean" on anyone else.

You expect Syria "to get tough with Hamas" (don't hold your breath on that one, Simon), Fatah and Hamas to reconciliate thus "marginalizing Iran" (wow!!! that's going to be a truly great accomplishment), and you expect that "Hamas will put its weapons beyond use" (and here again, Simon, you really don't want to hold your breath).

You believe that the US and the EU must reverse their definition of Hamas as a terror organization - you don't say so specifically, but that would be necessary if you expect the US and the EU to speak directly to Hamas's leaders (and this would happen without Hamas rejecting their charter of terror, and without them accepting the three provisions set by the Quartet). Your reasoning is that the position of the EU and the US towards Hamas "encouraged Israel's blockade" and "provoked Hamas's violence" and somehow "made it harder to stop the fighting in Gaza."

You believe that as a result of the Gaza war "the Gaza fundamentals were not changed" (are you sure?), and that Israel's siege of Gaza must end (without any mention of how Hamas's arms smuggling will be stopped, so obviously Israel's main civilian centers will come under fire again later this year from even longer range rockets, after which war will break out in Gaza again.)

Finally, you are worried about the danger that Obama will "come blundering in" on inauguration day on Jan 20, "upsetting Sarkozy's delicately balanced apple carts". (So, once again those Americans seem to have elected a nincompoop.)

To be honest, Simon, I really don't think that I need to say anything more. It looks like you've really got this whole Gaza mess sorted out for us. Where were you up to now?