Evan is right. Every debate about Israel’s actions, becomes a debate on its right to exist.

This is the clincher: if one understands Israel’s existence as being an “original sin”, then it does not matter what military action she takes: it will always be “disproportionate”, “illegal”, “evil”, you name it, and the CiF-ers will always be there to chime in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/israel-gaza-attack-palestinian-reaction?showallcomments=true

1) The need for Hamas and the PA to recognize Israel’s right to exist and Jews’ right to live (sic!). Additionally, this needs to include those states - e.g., Iran and Syria, but others as well - who are using entities such as Hamas and Hezbollah as proxies for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish initiatives.

2) Whether or not Hamas, the PA and West Bank and Gaza based clans possess the will to become a nation/state in the first place, in terms of positive motivations and goals (i.e. self-identity, self-governance, internal coherence and cohesion in general, respect for bordering nation/states).

It can be responsibly argued that #2 would follow hand in glove if #1 were to be - genuinely and reliably - achieved, though even that can be argued otherwise. Minimally and serving as a tell-tale indicator, it might be noted how seldom #1 is acknowledged and discussed in an open, unembarrassed, unelided and probative manner.

And all that is basic, before anything dispositive can be conceived, much less effected in the real world.

I would think that for Israel, there’s another core issue: The recognition by its enemies that it has a right to exist, as a Jewish state, in peace, and with reasonable guarantees of security. Daniel Levy seems to think that this will just emerge naturally as a result of a Palestinian state being brought into being, whereas most of the main players have been at pains to tell us that it won’t. Therefore, it needs to be brought to the fore every time Palestinian needs and wishes are in review.

Take this statement of his:
“contributors to the ever-proliferating Arabic language news media and blogosphere hold the U.S., and not just Israel, responsible for what happened today (and that is a position taken, for good reasons, by sensible folk, not hard-liners). – so what about those “natives” like the Palestinians??? Don’t really count, do they, and of course their deep divisions and bitter rivalries have nothing to do with anything, right?

Then Levy claims falsely that after Israel’s disengagement, “Gaza was closed off to the world” – well, this is what Saeb Erekat said in November 2005, after the agreement on the Rafah crossing was negotiated: “This is the first time in history we will run an international passage by ourselves, and it’s the first time Israel does not have a veto over our ability to do so.” True enough, but as it turned out, Hamas had a veto; and that the Rafah crossing has remained closed is due to the fact that Hamas insists on re-negotiating the agreement in a way that will cement its hold on Gaza – hardly something that should be endorsed by somebody like Levy who laments that “Palestinian reconciliation is still vetoed” – again, he knows very well that it is first and foremost Hams that exercises this veto.