October 2000/Cast Lead All Over Again?

It started with the heinous murders of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas-affiliated terrorists and the equally heinous suspected revenge killing of a Palestinian teenager by Israeli extremists. Now it seems to be escalating into a combination of the October 2000 Israeli-Arab riots which took place at the beginning of the Second Intifadah and the December 2008-January 2009 Cast Lead Operation in Gaza, Israel's response to Palestinian missile strikes inside Israel.

Let's start with Gaza. Israel has been very restrained, responding to the barrage of rockets on border communities with a proportional response - attacking missile launchers and a bunch of symbolic, yet empty, buildings. Rockets haven't stopped, though. Today, rockets were fired on Be'er-Sheva, 40 kilometers from Gaza, the largest city attacked so far this round. This is undoubtedly an escalation. I believe it would be hypocritical of anyone in the world to criticize Israel for going on a large scale operation (one which I hope will not be necessary, but might be if attacks continue on Sunday) after giving Hamas the opportunity to stop the missiles it and other groups have launched.

Now, to the other front of this round of the conflict. Palestinians have rioted in East Jerusalem and inside the green line, while barely anything has happened in the West Bank. Anger over the murder of Muhammad Abu Khdeir is understandable, especially in East Jerusalem, where he lived and died. However, violent riots, including the destruction of property and attacking civilians, are beyond the pale. Within Israel, Palestinian citizens of the state have blocked roads, pulled Jews out of their cars and burned the vehicles and laid siege to the village of Mei Ami. This is unacceptable. 

The Palestinians of Israel cannot join their brethren, the Palestinians of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in their war against the state. This will not be tolerated. The police's harsh response in October 2000 resulted in the fact that the rest of the Second Intifadah did not include Palestinian citizens of Israel. Unfortunately, 14 Palestinian rioters (13 citizens, one non-citizen) were killed, as was one Jewish citizen who was killed by rocks thrown at his car. This time around, better riot dispersal equipment should be used so there will not be civilian casualties (Arab or Jewish) while still quickly crushing this insurrection. 

Pillar of Cloud

Nothing like a new war between Hamas and Israel to wake me from my blumber (blogging slumber).

Like a majority of people, I want the violence between Hamas and Israel to end. However, a ceasefire now won't necessarily achieve that goal. I don't know what will. If the current operation ends with a return to the previous status quo, where Israeli towns near Gaza would regularly be attacked without Israel doing anything about it, we might as well reach a so-called ceasefire immediately, so at least less people will be at risk in the short run.

However, if the operation can cripple Hamas and other terrorist organizations badly enough that their ability to fire at Israel is greatly reduced, and if Hamas's ability to import weapons is also crippled, the operation should continue until those goals are met. After that, a ceasefire should be reached, and every single violation of it - every shelling of a kibbutz on the border, every Qassam on Sderot, etc. - should result in significant response by Israel, and not just shooting back at the specific squad responsible. However, together with that stick, Israel should offer a carrot of restricting the blockade on Gaza to weaponry and things that are likely to be used to manufacture weapons, letting everything else in.

Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009 was a failure because it ended with a return to the situation that existed before. We should not let Operation Pillar of Defense (or as it is called in Hebrew, Operation Pillar of Cloud) end the same way.

Badly Timed Assassination

I was very impressed by Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the latest round of Gaza-Israel violence. I thought his restraint was admirable, and believed it was smart and responsible of him to reach a ceasefire.

Then the IDF went and assissinated a high ranking member of Islamic Jihad last night. Let me be clear - I mourn no dead terrorist and I don't oppose targeted assassinations. I do, however, oppose the timing of this one. Israel is no less obligated to adhere to the ceasefire than the Gazans. We should not fire into Gaza unless there is imminent danger, such as a squad about to launch rockets or trying to enter Israel.

The IDF says that the dead terrorist was planning attacks on Israel through Sinai. From what I understood, he was not on his way to one, he was just one of the planners of future attacks. Does killing one person really make the operations he was involved in much less likely to be executed? Now there will be more rockets on Israel with no good reason, and the Palestinians can say "Israel started it" without lying. Was it worth it?

The best way to deal with Palestinian terrorism from Sinai is to work with the Egyptians and to complete the border fence between the two countries. That would make Israel much safer than any individual assassination.

Ceasfire Tonight

It has been reported that a ceasefire agreement between Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian factions in Gaza has been reached, and will take effect sometime tonight. Good. Israel carried out a measured and limited response today to the Palestinian rockets fired at us during the 24-hour period when the IDF's cannons didn't shoot into Gaza. If the terrorists stop shooting tonight, we won't need to shoot back.

Let's hope for peace and quiet in southern Israel!

Cancellations at Eilat Festival: BDS or Fear?

Pianists Eddie Palmieri and Jason Moran, as well as New Orleans band Tuba Skinny, have cancelled their participation in the Red Sea International Jazz Festival in Eilat, Israel. Of course, Electronic Intifada and Philip Weiss immediately jumped up and said the boycott campaign is working. They claim that, at least in Tuba Skinny's case, their withdrawal from the Red Sea festival is a response to the BDS movement's requests/demands that the band not perform in Israel.


Really?


Had they announced this decision before August 18, I would have sadly agreed that they caved in to the pressures of BDS. But they decided not to come after the terrorst attacks which killed eight Israelis just a few miles north of Eilat, where Tuba Skinny and the others were scheduled to perform. 


It seems much more likely that the cultural terrorism of BDS had nothing to do with this decision. These musicians were scared away by the physical terrorism of the Popular Resistance Committees. It might also be the case that they're afraid the rockets now blowing up in Ashdod and Be'er-Sheva will reach Eilat, or that the whole country will go to war. I can understand them. I wouldn't volunteer to go into a war zone. That's a far cry from endorsement of the boycott or rebuke of Israel.

Update: Mondoweiss commenter eljay linked to Tuba Skinny band member Erika Lewis's announcement on their Facebook page, which I believe confirms that their decision had nothing to do with BDS. Judge for yourselves:

"In light of the violence in Eilat and the surrounding region, Tuba SKinny will not be performing at The Red Sea Jazz Festival. We are sorry to miss all of you who might be there, and we hope to be able to return at a more peaceful time."

A Time For Forceful Reaction

Israel has not fired on Gaza since last evening. For almost a full day (24 hours), IDF rockets have not retaliated against terrorism, despite the fact that dozens of rockets have fallen in Israeli cities and towns since the last time we fired back. Even before this one-sided ceasefire, Israel's reaction was very limited.

We are acting wisely. Hamas does not want another round of violence, despite briefly taking claim for firing rockets at Ofakim yesterday. Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees, however, want to keep fighting. Israel should give Hamas a few more hours to force the other terrorist groups to stop firing. However, Israel can't wait forever.

If, in a few hours, Israel will still be bombarded from Gaza, the IDF will have to react forcefully. Those who fire at us should be the targets, not Hamas, unless they too join the rocket launching business once again. We have the ability to bomb them relentlessly, with minimal civilian casualties, and maximum dead terrorists and maximum destruction of their ammo.

Israel-haters and bleeding hearts will automatically cry out "disproportionate response". We will have all these hours without Israeli reaction as proof that the violence is the terrorists' fault. What do they expect? That we sit quietly for days and days while we're being bombarded? That's what we've foolishly done with Sderot. We should not do it with Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be'er-Sheva.

What Palestinian State?

The new round of violence between Israel and terrorist organizations in Gaza reminds us how crazy it would be to declare a Palestinian state next month. Mahmoud Abbas wants to declare both the West Bank and Gaza as sovereign Palestine, but his government does not control the latter at all, and only partially controls the former. Such a declaration would be futile.

Gaza, in a way, is not under anyone's complete control. Hamas may rule over it, but the organization seems unable or unwilling to clamp down on the splinter groups that somehow manage to be even less reasonable than Ismail Haniyeh's band of terrorists.

If Palestinians insist that both the West Bank and Gaza must become part of the State of Palestine simultaneously, then Palestinian independence will have to wait until Gaza is no longer ruled by terrorists unwilling to recognize Israel. That might take a few decades, if not eternity. A "West Bank now, Gaza can join later" approach seems much more realistic. Unfortunately, the Palestinians themselves reject the idea, claiming that Israel is trying to put a wedge between the two parts of the Palestinian people (ignoring the fact that it is the Hamas and Fatah who are responsible for the split).

With this kind of behavior, the Palestinians can kiss their dream of independence goodbye, at least for the foreseeable future.

Palestinian Terror Returns

Just one day before yesterday's lethal string of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians north of Eilat, I declared that this is the Summer of Socio-Economic issues. The Restoring Courage rally wouldn't get much coverage, I claimed, because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had been relegated to the sidelines. Well, Jihadists have made sure that war and violence would not be forgotten.

Following the terrorist attacks, and the Qassam and Grad rockets launched against Israelis, the IDF struck back at targets in Gaza. The retaliations have been measured, so far. We need to respond without overkill. The other day, the news reported that we now have very precise rockets with minimal or no collateral damage. Good. Kill those who fire at us and those who send them out. Don't kill innocents.

The Egyptian army better take effective control of the Sinai Peninsula soon. Otherwise, their so-called "democratization" will just result in the Middle East being in deeper shit than before.

The Greco-Zionist Conspiracy

Greece is not allowing the ships of the so-called Freedom Flotilla II to leave its ports for Gaza. It has even dragged the American ship "The Audacity of Hope" back to shore after it attempted to leave without authorization. We owe the Greeks a debt of gratitude - better that they have to deal with this crap than we do.

There have been reports that Netanyahu has promised Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou to bring in Israeli investments into Greece to help it overcome its financial crisis, in exchange for stopping the flotilla. The anti-Israel blogosphere is filling with rage. They see it as a corrupt deal. I think it is totally acceptable international politics. It is mutually benefitial, with Greece getting a boost to its economy and Israel having a few less Gaza-bound boats to worry about.

Neither is the deal hurting anyone. It isn't hurting the Palestinians in Gaza, since the flotilla wouldn't reach the Strip, anyway. Even if it did, it wouldn't really help Gazans in any way. They don't really need more aid, nor do they need a bunch of letters from sympathetic Americans. They may need media attention, and the flotilla has gotten plenty of that even without reaching Gaza or being boarded by Israeli commandos.

The only people who might get somewhat hurt by Greece's decision not to let them through are the participants of the flotilla themselves. Their loss is financial, as each day that passes they have to spend more money on hotels and meals than they expected. Who knows - maybe this whole thing is a conspiracy to infuse much needed money into the Greek tourism industry, coming directly from the pockets of flotilla members?

The activists aren't even hurt by the fact that they can't reach Gaza itself. I mean, who the hell wants to get into Gaza. Israel and Greece are saving them a trip to a shithole (although Greece itself is kind of a shitty place, too, because of the financial crisis). Are they being deprived of the action and heroism of fighting Israeli soldiers boarding them? No, they can fight Greek authorities instead, if a struggle is what they're looking for.

As "The Audacity of Hope" fades into "The Audacity of Nope", let me thank, once again, the Greek government, on behalf of myself and most of my fellow Israelis. Yassou!

Journalists Just Doing Their Jobs

Israel's Government Press Office has warned journalists that joining the flotilla to Gaza, a.k.a Freedom Flotilla II, is an illegal act, even for members of the press. Anybody on board would be deported, barred from entering Israel for the next ten years, and their equipment would be confiscated.

This is an idiotic policy. By joining the flotilla, the journalists are just doing their job - covering news as it happens. They aren't there to try to break the blockade, just to report about the activists who are. The more respectable news outlets are on the boats, the better. Had there been serious journalists on the Mavi Marmara last year, the world would have probably seen more images of the armed IHH activists.

Israel should not deport journalists. It certainly shouldn't confiscate their gear. We should respect the freedom of the press, including the foreign press.

Update: The government has rescinded the Press Office's warning. Journalists will not be deported and barred from Israel for ten years, and neither will their gear be confiscated. Good. I'm glad the government has come to its senses. It is just too bad that it didn't do the right thing from the get-go. The warning should never have been issued in the first place.

The Second Gaza Flotilla

Pro-Palestinian solidarity activists from around the world are preparing for the adventure of a lifetime. The so-called Freedom Flotilla II will set sail for the Gaza Strip this week. Fortunately, the most extreme faction of the first flotilla, the Turkish IHH, has decided not to participate and will not send the Mavi Marmara for a replay, probably because of pressure from the Turkish government. So now, those who are left on the different boats are mostly well-meaning people who don't fully understand that they're trying to enter a territory controlled by a terrorist organization (and who in their right mind would try to do that?), and that they are playing into the hands of said terrorist organization, Hamas, rather than helping the Palestinian civilians of Gaza in any way, shape or form.

As for Israel, I'd rather it decided to inspect the boats for weapons and then let them continue on their way. That doesn't seem to be the policy. The second best approach would be to drag the boats to Ashdod without boarding them at sea. That would definitely minimize the chances of violence erupting.

The Future of the Blockade

In today's Haaretz, Shlomo Avineri says Israel should be happy that Egypt opened up the Rafah crossing, and he thinks this should mean the end of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. We'd no longer have any responsibilty toward Gaza, since we would no longer control all its borders, its airspace and its waters. We will close our border with the Strip, but passage of people and goods in and out of the territory via the Egypt-Gaza border, the sea and air would be unhindered. Israel's relations with Gaza would be like its relations with Lebanon: nobody passes the Israeli-Lebanese border, but Lebanon isn't under blockade.

This would not be a threat to Israel, he says. Weapons and terrorists have been streaming in through the tunnels anyway, so the situation would not be any worse. He even thinks it would be better politically. Any new Free Gaza Flotillas won't be able to complain about a blockade that has been lifted, and if they just reach Gaza without a problem, they would barely get any attention.

Avineri's claims are worth considering. He has some very good points, but I still have a few concerns about this scenario. First of all, while it is true that weapons flow into Gaza right now, I fear that without the blockade, the volume of arms smuggling would increase, and larger, more sophisticated weapons which can't be brought in through tunnels would now become available to the Hamas.

Second of all, if we don't control Gaza's airspace, we might be opening the door to 9/11 style terrorism. Major Israeli cities are very close to Gaza, and planes can enter Israel and crash into buildings before fighter jets could be launched to intercept them. Airplanes would be much more lethal than the Gazans' current arsenal of rockets.

Unless security experts tell me my fears are unfounded, I'd rather we alleviate the blockade by allowing the free flow into Gaza of people and goods, under our inspection at our own border checkpoints and out at sea (in other words, board flotillas, inspect them and then allow them to reach Gaza as long as there are no weapons on board). Yes, we'll still look like the bad guys, but I'd rather live with bad PR than die with a public opinion triumph.

UN Recognition and Hamas

Other than the issue of refugees, which I addressed in my previous post, I have another major problem with the idea of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian State at the United Nations. Mahmoud Abbas totally ignores the issue of Hamas control of Gaza in his NY Times op-ed.

Fatah and Hamas have recently reached a tentative agreement to share power. However, there is no guarantee it will ever be implemented, nor is it clear who would recognize or be willing to deal with a Palestinian government which includes Hamas. Hamas's militiamen would retake Gaza the second Fatah did something they didn't like, or if they lost an election, which they would immediately claim was rigged.

Who knows, maybe reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah before the September vote at the UN is good for Israel. I hope less countries would be willing to create a new independent state with terrorists in its government.

Goldstone Retracts Part of His Own Report

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, South African Judge Richard Goldstone says the commission he headed came to the wrong conclusion regarding the intentionality of Israel's attacks on Gazan civilians during Operation Cast Lead two years ago. Based on information he now has, including from IDF internal investigations, he now says there was no policy of targeting civilians. Civilian deaths were mostly unintentional, perhaps with a few exceptions, where a commander on the ground was to blame.

Goldstone claims that had Israel cooperated with his commission, its conclusions would have been starkly different. That might be true, and if it is, it means any report the commission would have produced, with or without Israeli cooperation, would have been problematic. If they base their conclusions mainly on the two sides' official accounts, and don't do much independent investigating of their own, the report isn't worth much. It would have been much cheaper for the UN to post the official accounts on-line, side by side, and let the general public decide. But the public doesn't have the tools to find out which claims are true and which are false, you say? Well, apparently, the Goldstone Commission didn't either!

Cast Lead 2

Will the recent violence on the Gaza border escalate even further than it has? Perhaps. Islamic Jihad has had the audacity to fire rockets not only on towns in the close vicinity of Gaza, but also on Ashkelon, Ashdod and Be'er-Sheva. When that happens, I tend to think it is time to teach the terrorists a lesson, so that these major cities will not become areas where rocket fire is routine.

The question is whether or not the "routinization" of Grad rockets falling on Be'er Sheva and Ashdod can be avoided in another way. It might be. We should try to have a cease fire, giving Hamas the responsibily of enforcing it in Gaza. If that doesn't work, and after three or four days rockets are still falling on the Israeli side of the border, bomb the shit out of them.

Zochrot at Gaza-Sderot

A controversial 4-day  conference took place last week at Sapir College in Sderot, the often bombarded town near the border with Gaza. The theme was "moving from crisis to sustainability", from war to peace, which is a general concept most people would agree on. The question is how to reach it. That's where the controversy starts. Right wing groups tried to call off the conference, and tried to persuade different people to boycott it, criticizing the fact that groups they see as anti-Israel, such as Zochrot, UNRWA and Doctors for Human Rights, were participating. The mayor of Sderot was the only official who boycotted the conference.

Perhaps the most controversial participant was Zochrot, whose representatives spoke about implementing the right of return. Unfortunately, I could not attend, but I've heard from people who attended their panel. There's a saying in Hebrew - "they convinced the convinced". In other words, people didn't change their minds after hearing them.

The people of Zochrot did not answer the difficult questions about ethnic strife and avoided the question of how many people would return by claiming that is a racist question. Apparently, anything but the full right of return would not be enough, with any agreement capping the number of returnees being a joke. Also, they contradicted themselves. They said the return of refugees would not require Israelis to leave their homes, but who owns houses that existed before 1948 would have to be worked out.

The panel wasn't one-sided, though. The panel chair said she wasn't sure about the right of return, and another lecturer, who spoke about effective dialogue, said that she is threatened by all the points on the map where Arab villages once existed and to which refugees want to return. She said it is important for patriotic Zionist Israelis to speak with Palestinians. I think she meant the Zionist left should not leave Jewish-Palestinian interaction to Anti-Zionists.

If I had been there, I would have asked the Zochrot people a question inspired by the events in Egypt: You claim Israel should be a democracy, with complete equal rights for all, but how can you guarantee that a post-return Israel would be at least as much a liberal democracy as it is now? Most of the refugees don't live in democratic and/or liberal countries. Why would they care to make sure the rights of their former enemies (which some may see as current enemies) are not taken away?

Zochrot's participation is not a "boycottable" offense. In fact, it is better for them to be heard in the general public, so they can be confronted with the difficult questions they tend to avoid when they only meet with like-minded people, and so people who hear them can see that they don't have good answers to the agruments that don't fit their agenda.

How Egypt Affects Gaza

Barbara Lubin, co-founder of the Middle East Children's Alliance told the New York Times that she hopes that replacing the Mubarak regime by a new one would make Israel's policies toward Gaza "more lax". Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

Whether or not it would be the correct reaction, Israel would definitely go the exact opposite direction of what Lubin hopes. Israel would be very suspicious of a new Egyptian regime, even if it won't be an Islamist government. Netanyahu would fear that Egypt would now cooperate with Hamas, and so, he'd tighten the noose around Gaza. He might even go as far as invading Gaza to retake the Philadelphi Route, along the Gaza-Egypt border.

Hosni Mubarak said yesterday that President Obama doesn't understand Egyptian culture. Barbara Lubin doesn't understand Israeli culture, or the Israeli mindset.

The Report on the Flotilla Fiasco

The Turkel Commission published the first part of its findings today. In summary: Israel did everything by the book, and its actions in stopping the IHH-led "Free Gaza" flotilla in May 2010 were justified. There were problems in the intelligence-gathering and planning stages, but those will be the focus of the second part of the report, due to be published in about a month.

Although I completely agree with the findings, I'm still uncomfortable. The absolute affirmation of Israel's right to enforce a blockade on Gaza and of its claim of self-defense seems rooted in the facts at hand, but I doubt it will be accepted by the world. Perhaps, if the commission had not been a government commission, but rather the highest form - a national commission (or, if the term "ve'ada mamlachtit" is translated directly - a royal commission) whose members are appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, it would be taken more seriously internationally.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey has already said he doesn't believe the report, because an internal inquiry isn't worth anything. Funny, since Turkey had its own internal inquiry into the Mavi Marmara incident and reached opposite conclusions, as did a commission appointed by the dictatorship-dominated UN Human Rights Council.

I look forward to Part B of the Turkel Report, and to a report being prepared by Micha Lindenstrauss, Israel's State Comptroller. Lindenstrauss will supposedly be more critical of the IDF and the government, though he'll focus on bad preparation and probably won't find anything illegal.

Israel needs to learn from its mistakes so another fiasco like this won't return. An international investigation is a waste of time.

Two Types of Criticism

Thomas Friedman's op-ed today is about Shlomi Eldar's documentary "Precious Life", a film I haven't seen yet, but would like to. It follows the story of a baby from Gaza who gets treatment for a rare illness at Tel HaShomer Hospital in Israel. 

Friedman's description of the film is a segueway into a discussion of two ways of criticizing Israel - constructive and destructive:

"Constructive criticism starts by making clear: “I know what world you are living in.” I know the Middle East is a place where Sunnis massacre Shiites in Iraq, Iran kills its own voters, Syria allegedly kills the prime minister next door, Turkey hammers the Kurds, and Hamas engages in indiscriminate shelling and refuses to recognize Israel. I know all of that. But Israel’s behavior, at times, only makes matters worse — for Palestinians and Israelis. If you convey to Israelis that you understand the world they’re living in, and then criticize, they’ll listen.

Destructive criticism closes Israeli ears. It says to Israelis: There is no context that could explain your behavior, and your wrongs are so uniquely wrong that they overshadow all others. Destructive critics dismiss Gaza as an Israeli prison, without ever mentioning that had Hamas decided — after Israel unilaterally left Gaza — to turn it into Dubai rather than Tehran, Israel would have behaved differently, too. Destructive criticism only empowers the most destructive elements in Israel to argue that nothing Israel does matters, so why change?

How about everybody take a deep breath, pop a copy of “Precious Life” into your DVD players, watch this documentary about the real Middle East, and if you still want to be a critic (as I do), be a constructive one. A lot more Israelis and Palestinians will listen to you."

I agree that there is constructive and destructive criticism, though my approach isn't exactly the same as Friedman's. First of all, to be constructive you don't have to start every criticism of Israel with "I know the Arabs are bad too, but..." - that would just be a waste of time. That just sounds too apologetic, as if you have to be much more careful when criticizing Israel than when you're criticizing any other country.

Second of all, you can usually (but not always) understand from the criticism itself, without any "contextualizing introductions", if the critic sees a complex picture or sees everything as Israel's fault.

Thirdly, I'd also use the same standards regarding critcism of Arabs. Just like there are some who see everything as Israel's fault, there are those who see everything as Israel's enemies' fault. That is no more helpful or less destructive than blind criticism of Israel. When you call out either side, be constructive.

Extremist Kenneth O'Keefe

BBC's HARDtalk just introduced me to one of the world's most bizzare characters. Tattooed, crazy-eyed ex-US Marine (and ex-US citizen) Kenneth O'Keefe was interviewed about the events onboard the Mavi Marmara, which he witnessed first hand as one of the pro-Palestinian passengers. [Update: video available after the jump]. The guy is mad as hell at Israel and the world at large.

O'Keefe is a one-stater who dismisses Qasam and Grad rockets as "glorified firecrackers". He said he's willing to die for his cause. He's so extreme he renounced his American citizenship. In the interview, he said he did so because the United States violated human rights, so I assumed this came after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to O'Keefe's website, this is not the case. He renounced his citizenship six months before 9/11, and accepted "Hawaiian [Kingdom] citizenship" (which, of course, does not exist), as part of his battle for Hawaiian independence, an idea which I doubt most Hawaiians support. He also believes the United States is engaged in genocide against native Hawaiians.

On a different front, O'Keefe organized "Human Shield Action to Iraq", which was meant to prevent the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many criticized it as protecting Saddam Hussein's regime rather than Iraqi civilians.

The more interviews this aggressive nut gives, the better for Israel. He's not likeable at all, in contrast with some of the softer-spoken pro-Palestinian activists such as Huwaida Arraf. I don't think he convinced a lot of people who aren't die-hard anti-Israel/anti-Western activists as it is.

A self-proclaimed anti-Imperialism activist who is an ex-Marine: doesn't that sound like a James Bond villain?

Reminder: Ken O'Keefe's interview on BBC's HARDtalk after the jump (video via the blog Jews sans frontieres, which takes the exact opposite view from me on this). Judge for yourselves.