A suicide bomber has struck on a Tel Aviv promenade. Toll so far… 24 wounded, some dead. This is the first test of the tentative ceasefire. It will be interesting to see what Abbas does. How does he react to the psychotic slaughterers who are behind this?
Debka is reporting 3 dead with 30 injured, 15 seriously. This was indeed a bloody attack. They also a report a “string” of Palestinian suicide attacks aborted.
It will also be interesting to see how the Europeans deal with this — they who condemn the Israelis for building a security fence but themselves built the camps.
UPDATE: Haaretz has raised the number of wounded to 38 with the death toll as yet unspecified. Islamic Jihad has claimed credit.
MORE: Interestingly, Al Bawaba gives a straight forward report without reference to the usual rehtoric defending the “Palestinian cause.”
MEANWHILE: According to Haaretz, Al Aqsa is blaming Hezbollah. If that prove true, that means more trouble for the Syrians. The WaPo, of course, using reactionary rhetoric, still calls these groups “militants,” not fascists or theocratic fascists, which they are. (Oops, that’s Reuters report–no surprise at the language. My bad.)
islamic Jihad claimed responsibility according to Haaretz News
Roger:
Abbas has to do something. A simple condemnation is not enough. He has to arrest someone and try them. If he doesn’t want the IDF to come in and clean house then he has to. Arrafat would make empty statements about the violence but did nothing. Israel must give him a little time but simply stating that he is against violence is not enough.
When will the Israelis begin to revolt against the liberalism that is killing Israel’s soul? The leftists have taken Israel over. Result: more suicide bombings while Israel coughs up more land. Enough already! Both the Arabs and Muslims should be driven out of that country and the Jews should drive those Arabs out of Haram El-Sharif so the Temple can be put in its rightful hands. Enough!
Disgusting.
Abbas will do the same thing he did to win the election, talk out of both sides of his mouth. One side will publicly condemn the violence, with other Nations saying he is the grace which will bring peace the the ME. The other side of his mouth is shouting “Death to Israel, I support the Terrorists” to the internals of Palistine, or he would be deader than Arafat.
Bush will denounce the attack.
Europe doesn’t give a shit.
Kofi and the Useless N will threaten with sanctions.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and the other “Usual Suspects” will pat each other on the back.
I am awaiting Sharon’s answer, in the form of Tanks, missiles, and the usual flattening of a house or two.
This is like a bad Sitcom from the 60′s being played over and over on Nick at Nite, and your too lazy to turn the channel.. train wreck syndrome. And the whole World has it.
Don’t you see? The entire pupose of this is to test Abbas. He is the next Sadat. These are extremist who KNOW that Abbas will respond which will give support and reason to Kill Abbas. SEE?
I think this may have been done to damage Abbas and let him know who is running the show. Meanwhile the Israleis are ready to send Sharon packing if he does not respond. He took a huge historic risk by saying he would withdraw those settlements. And look where it got him.
It is amazing how a few people can really screw things up.
This will not get the Pals anywhere. The most they can hope for is that the Israelis don’t send in the tanks. They can’t really hurt Israel. I think the Israelis should finish the wall and withdraw only where they need to in order to defend their position. Isolate the Pals. Let them kill each other. They are almost as good at that as they are at killing Jews.
The Palestinians have been kicked out of or marginalized where ever they go. If they screw this up, there is no where else for them to go.
Their fellow terrorists may burn flags for them, but they don’t want them.
E.P.:
I see what you mean. Arafat’s legacy lives on. But someone has to break the hold these terrorists have on the leaders of the region or this will just go on and on.
What a mess! The Palestinians are probably incapable of policing themselves, and who knows the motives of the various players.
If Israel starts taking big hits again, I think it should start permanently annexing Palestinian territory, at about 1 square mile per innocent death.
Maybe then the Palis would discover the trouble they are in.
But I doubt it. They are too much the cats paws of others – Assad and the Ayatollahs, Saudi Arabia and Libya.
It will also be interesting to see how the Europeans deal with this — they who condemn the Israelis for building a security fence but themselves built the camps.
Such an undisciplined statement, and a cheap one.
As a Jewish person whose relatives died in the camps, I think its cheap and offensive that the Holocaust is used to rhetorically defend the secuity fence in this manner. It does not strike me as grown up way to debate. The argument used – “oh the Euros built the camps, so a security fence is okay” – is simply childish, and degrades the issue of the Holcaust by lending it to cheap debating tactics.
Its very historically sloppy too. For starters, it was not “Europeans” generally who did this – it was a minority of fascist Germans. And of course the Germans did not invent concentration camps – that dubious honour goes to the Brits – and they were not built for Jews in that case.
Roger Simons remark is sloppy and offensive.
Of course the other meaning of the comment is to suggest European hypocrisy regarding criticism of the fence (because of the Holocaust.)
Well that’s just daft. Its been over 60 years since the Holocaust, and as I said a minority of fascist Germans were directly to blame. The notion that Europe today is hypocritical in criticising the fence because of the Holocaust is ridiculous. Things move on.
Sloppy and offensive, perhaps, HArry. Yes, I’m angry. But the Holocaust has a great deal to do with European attitudes toward Israel and I am far from the first to point that out. Many have indicated… and I agree… that what underlies the hugely biased attitude of Europeans toward Israel is a not-so-secret wish to exonerate themselves for the Holocuast. I don’t have time or inclination to go into this argument here… I have before… but Ron Rosenbaum is one of the people who has written about this phenomenon frequently. You could look it up if you’re interested.
Roger
Europeans wish to exonerate themselves from the Holocaust? There you go again. Europeans? The majority of Europeans were not to blame for the Holocaust.
The developing model of a meaningful integrated political and economic entity – Europe today – is a relatively new one (post war) through the rise of European integration and the EU.
Your talk of “Europeans” reflects those developments. The increased use of the term “European” generally reflects those developments.
But before those post war developments (which are incomplete anyway) Europe was periodically carved up by empires. There was no meaningful Europe wide political and economic unity in the modern sense. Europe existed, yes, but only as a geographical construct.
So you notion is rather confused because the Holocaust occured well before modern integration, and specific groups were to blame, not Europeans generally (your modern use of the term.)
Not only is your use of the Holocaust to defend present day Israeli govt policy rather dubious, but your whole argument is over simplified and revolves around a rather unsustainable generalisation.
With all due respect, Harry – you’re dead wrong. Europe has been a virulent cesspool of anti-semitism since long before the Holocaust. And one does not need to be an uncritical admirer of Israeli policy to recognize the over-the-top hatred of Israel – comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, cartoons depicting Sharon eating babies and on and on ad nauseam – as thinly veiled anti-semitism. Roger was not sloppy, and he was offensive only to those who wish to whitewash the palpable anti-Jewish bigotry that still infests much of Europe.
Harry,
Not a student of European (can I use that word here or is it too sloppy?) history, I was relieved to read your post and learn I am not alone. Your idea that the idea and actualization of Europe as an integrated and meaningful political and economic entity is somehow “post-war,” shows not only contempt for history, but a bravado in displaying your ignorance that is amusing, if not sad. What was the battle of Jena and what was it that Hegel said about it? What was it that all those European (can I use that word?) politicians and thinkers were talking about on and on throughout the nineteenth century. It is my understanding that Kojeve’s little seminar in France, at which university I forget, occurred pre-war. But if the nineteenth century is still too close to the later part of the twentieth century, we could go back to the 18th and the 17th…. I am not a student of European history, don’t pretend to be, this is where we differ.
But I do appreciate your recommendation that we take language and our thinking seriously and do our best not to be sloppy. I am new to this site and reading Roger’s posts, given their abundance and wide range, I am amazed at the fine product he cranks out. I for one would not want future generations to judge my depth by reading this post, hastily cranked out as well, and let me assure you Harry, you should wish the same, but Roger beats us both by a country mile. Very impressive. But expected. He is a writer. And you and I are two fellas who haven’t a clue about European history. Which brings me to my second point. I think it would profit us both more, as we are participating in Roger’s directed discussion, if we better understood the nature of the conversation taking place. I for one think you have a lot to teach me Harry, but your tone and sloppiness suggests you aren’t taking your responsibility seriously enough. Sad.
Harry, you write as if the Nazi’s just, poof, appeared out of nothing one day, killed millions of Jews and, poof, now they are gone. Again, back to the history you and I have not properly studied. I am sure your relatives, rest their dear souls, had a deeper understanding of European anti-semitism than you, and I am sure they would understand Roger’s statement at a visceral level at first, if I have a wall the cattle cars can’t roll through it, and at a more profound level given time for greater reflection, time sadly not allowed them. Time you have, but sadly not used.
And just one more word about words. “Concentration camps.” You use this same word for two very different things. Or does the having or not having ovens make a difference? Harry, you certainly aren’t one to call Jenin a “holocaust” are you?
Gary
Absolutely there is still anti-semitism. But Roger Simon’s generalisations, and his tactic of using the Holocaust to defend aspects of Israeli govt is still woeful.
Of course you get extremes, like Sharon being compared to Hitler (actually Jews on the Israeli right do that too.)
As for the cartoons – I have not seen too many of Sharon eating babies in European papers, I don’t think its rife.
Anti-semitism is an issue, yes, as are many forms of prejudice. I would say prejudice against blacks or Asians is more of an issue than anti-semitism in the UK at least – although that’s not top say anti-semitism is not an issue.
Look, Roger Simon’s statement is clearly unbalanced. He does not even mention the many Europeans who fought tooth and nail against fascism. Whilst you may think anti-semitism is rife in Europe, I would suggest you actually visited the place some day. You might get a more balanced picture, and discover the reality of Europeans that have struggled and still struggle against anti-semitism and other forms of prejudice. Its really not as simplistic as Roger portrays it to be.
It’s just about having a wider perspective.
Yama-arashi
I am talking about viable European institutions and economic and political inregration. The European Parliament, tax harmonisation, the European Central Bank, the Commission, Presidency and a plethora of other bodies, institutions and mechanisms of the EU, all of which were instituted post war.
Of course there was discussion before that, and of course there were Europeans before that. But it was mainly a geographical construct. Today its on the road to being more of an integrated economic and political body.
You post is centred round the construction of a rather obvious straw man, a transparent tactic. Try harder next time. You might want to debate with me rather than the straw man.
Yama-arashi
Concentration camps? For God’s sake man. The Brits pioneered them in South Africa under Kitchener and the Nazis built on the theme. Hitler was quite a fan of the British Empire.
(In terms of an officially designated “concentration camp” the Brits pioneered it, although forms existed earlier.)
Harry,
You miss the point(s). And the straw men are of your making. A very transparent tactic: to make bundles and bundles of straw men and yell “straw man.” I likely won’t try ever again. I’ve learned my lesson. No, that isn’t fair. I will try again. But not if I am the only one trying. Another time Harry, I hope. Maybe instead of talking past the other, we’ll do better at listening and learning, and writing with those aims being the primary concern. It is Saturday night in Kyoto and I am off to play. We’ll raise one to Harry. Good night. Don’t forget to tuck in all your straw men. And no smoking in bed.
“But before those post war developments (which are incomplete anyway) Europe was periodically carved up by empires. There was no meaningful Europe wide political and economic unity in the modern sense. Europe existed, yes, but only as a geographical construct.”
This suggests, Harry, that you are not only uncertain about your Jewishness in relation to your Europeanness, but that you are also uncomfortable with your Englishness (I recall you saying you were English.) You talk of Europe being divided into empires, but there has been a nation and self-conscious nationalism in England for at least a thousand years, a nation that did not see itself as being part of any empire for most of its history (which is why the Americans had to have their revolution: the English wanted to keep their national parliament to themselves, separate from any larger imperial government). Other European nations came later, but in any case they are certainly to be distinguished from empires in the pre-war period.
If you look into your history further, you will see that the tension between nation and empire is integral to European history. And what is the model for this tension? why the Bible of course.
The original model for the nation and nationalism is the Bible’s account of Jewish history. The model for an extra-national European identity is the New Testament, inasmuch as the church identified its project with the Gospels’ universalizing of the religion first identified with God’s chosen nation. To speak of Europe as being only a geographical construct before the war is nonsense. The idea of Europe as a community and historical project is rooted in Christianity.
Which takes us to the question of whether Jews in Europe have been better off when the spirit of nationalism or empire is ascendant. Given that many, if not most, of the Jews murdered by the rather nationalistic (though also Aryan, not simply German) Nazis had previously enjoyed some (relatively new) freedoms in the Austro-Hungarian empire, as exemplified by the prewar central European Jewish culture, it has become a commonplace to associate the post-war European project with righting the wrongs of nationalism exemplified by the Nazis and their nationalist assistants throughout Europe. However, now that antisemitism is on the rise in “Europe”, it becomes apparent that Jewishness can be a problem for Europeans whether they are in a relatively national or extra-national mode (they are never simply or entirely one or the other), as indeed so much of their history would suggest.
Anyway, in defending the majority of Europeans as not being responsible for the Nazi crimes, you need to come to terms with the fact that no European (or American) nation welcomed many Jewish refugees from the Nazis, and that they all have traditions of antisemitism. You also have to look at the help the Nazis got in rounding up Jews, for example from the French.
More profoundly, you need to account for the course the war took. It is very difficult to account for some of Hitler’s peculiar (especially Eastern front) strategies if one does not see that his project was not simply to win the war, but to use the war as a basis for killing Jews. (how else could he have gotten the Germans to participate in his genocide if not under the pretext of wartime necessity?) Many human and national resources were directed to or consumed by the genocide, instead of being focussed on the war effort.
So why is it, if you look for example at Churchill’s war memoirs, that you find little or no sense that this was a war against the Jewish people? or a war to save the Nazis’ victims? Why is it that the allies did not bomb the machinery of the genocide once they had knowledge of it? Here you will have to consider all Europeans’ blindness to, or lack of concern for, the antisemitic motivations that were integral to what was going on.
Truepeers
Interesting post.
I am not uncomfortable with my Jewishness. My Englishness? Not uncomfortable as such, but a slight ambivalence perhaps.
I can’t really comment on all your post because I do not have time, forgive me.
So why is it, if you look for example at Churchill’s war memoirs, that you find little or no sense that this was a war against the Jewish people? or a war to save the Nazis’ victims? Why is it that the allies did not bomb the machinery of the genocide once they had knowledge of it? Here you will have to consider all Europeans’ blindness to, or lack of concern for, the antisemitic motivations that were integral to what was going on.
Its an interesting question. My own view is that it was primarily about resources and territory, power etc, like many wars. That’s a reality for all nations, and the disregard of the Jews on the Allied side was a function of that dynamic, not necessarily of anti-semitism alone – but it would have been in the mix, of course.
Sorry I can’t respond more, you raise some interesting points, but I gotta rush.
Also, you gotta remember a lot of the appeasing of the Nazis pre-war was not only about anti-semitism. Sometimes not at all, in fact. Some of it was simply because of a desire not to go to war again. Which is understandable, especially if you don’t know the full realities of what Hitler was cooking up.
Hindsight is always 20:20, remember?
“Well that’s just daft. Its been over 60 years since the Holocaust, and as I said a minority of fascist Germans were directly to blame. The notion that Europe today is hypocritical in criticising the fence because of the Holocaust is ridiculous.”
Oh, “directly” to blame — nicely sliced. I guess the accessories to the Holocaust in many German-occupied countries weren’t “directly” to blame. Someone had to point out the Jews, buddy, they didn’t all have a brand on their forehead.
JB
It’s a bit of a mistake to assume that everyone collaborated like that. Some did. Some didn’t. Some resisted. Some just bided their time. You can’t blame everyone for not resisting.
And of course the Germans were quite capable, in many instances, of spotting Jews themselves and knew the Jewish areas etc.
But, yes, granted there were collaborators. But its a bit of a leap from that to say Europe built the camps. Its simply not true. The Nazis built the camps and the Nazis instigated the Holocaust.
No, we cannot and must not deny wider anti-semitism. But to leap from a recognition of wider anti-semitism to simply saying (without any qualification) Europe built the camps (as Simon did) is wrong.
Harry,
Do Tell. What is it about Europe that has wooed you so? Perhaps Roger’s original comment was unexact, but surely that is no reason to pick up verbal arms to protect the increasingly anti-American Western Europe. If you have traveled there in recent times, you would surely agree. To put it in poker terms, your reaction to Roger’s comment is a “tell.” And frankly, many are growing quite tired of those (yes even fellow Jews) who are anxious to defend the anti-American and anti-Israel states, while quite willing to perform an ongoing anal exam of both American and Israeli policies.
Roger, love your site.
If Islamic Jihad is claiming responsibility, why is Abbas arresting Hezbollah members? Is he using this as an excuse to go after Hezbollah?
It’s almost like he’s saying that the PA and our security forces (made up of Al Aqsa Martyrs, Hamas and Islamic Jihad members) has a monopoly on anti-Israeli terrorism and we won’t have outsiders messing around on our turf.
“why is Abbas arresting Hezbollah members?”
Maybe he is trying to cover his ass?
Something that is interesting is how, in this relatively “closed” area, Hezbollah can be active and the various gangs and groups not be aware of, or closing their eyes to, this activity?
So far we know that all the groups have worked in tandem to their overall benefit, under Arafat’s watchful eye.
If Dahlan is getting rid of left-over pro-Araftian opposition (Arafat’s cousin’s boys) in Gaza how come the PA has let things slide in the West bank where the bomber came from?
Well, I find it significant that the EU refuses to recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist group, when that group’s aims include removing every single Jew from the middle east.
I also find it significant that the UN (with its large European contingent) has only recently condemned anti-Semitism.
I do believe that Europe has its share of people who are disgusted by anti-semitism, but those people do not seem well-represented in their governments and institutions.
For what it’s worth, having just watched Israel’s channel 10 discussing the bombing the consensus was that it was Islamic Jihad and not Hezbollah.
The reasoning is that those responsible want to damage Abbas’ situation.
And this from Haaretz
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/545147.html
“In a videotape made prior to the attack, the bomber, Abdullah Badran, a resident of the West Bank town of Deir al Ghusun, declared that the bombing was intended to do harm to the Palestinian Authority, which on February 8 declared a cease-fire with Israel.”
There apparently been pressure from the US to go easy on Abbas.
Israel should have never agreed not to continue chasing down the terrorists. This absurdity is similar to police agreeing not to go after bank robbers and muggers. The moderate Palestinians probably can do little to curtail the activities of their more radical brethren. Only Israel can eliminate these monsters.
“The bomber’s family announced by loudspeaker that Mr. Badran had carried out a “martyrdom operation.” But the mood was subdued and without celebration, as has often been the case with such attacks, Reuters reported.” NYT
I hope this is true.
What’s even more absurd is Abbas incorporating Hamas, Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad into the official PA security forces and then pretending that he’s disarmed these groups. All he’s done is taken a bunch of terrorists and legitimized them by giving them badges.
Add in the fact that Israel may actually withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor, meaning the PA will (more)easily be able to transport weapons into Gaza, and I think you have all the makings of a disaster. I don’t see how this whole thing will not end badly.