« A little catch up on Israel-Palestine | Main | Gilad Shalit's Birthday and the Dilemma It Poses »

Somebody’s listening…and getting angry: an exchange with a British neo-con

I found myself under personal attack last week in Britain’s Jewish Chronicle (JC) by someone named Melanie Phillips. Now I don’t know Ms. Phillips, but from a brief check, it would seem pretty accurate to describe her as a British version of a neo-con and judging by the viciousness of her attack on me, she seemed pretty upset. You can read the full piece here (subscription is free), although here are few excerpts to give you a taste.

Daniel Levy is a fervent advocate of talking to Hamas, along with its parent body, the Muslim Brotherhood…[Levy] seems to be extraordinarily naïve…It is a matter of even deeper concern that the dangerous ideas he espouses are increasingly gaining ground. Support for talking to Hamas has been voiced privately within the Shadow Cabinet — along with the former Tory Northern Ireland minister Michael Ancram, who has now himself talked to it no fewer than three times.

In addition, Phillips called me “dangerous” and an “idiot.”

I responded in this week’s edition of the paper and to my, at least, partial surprise, the paper decided to highlight my pushback on its front page.

Levy has issued a spirited riposte to JC columnist Melanie Phillips, who last week accused him of being “dangerous” and “naive” for supporting engagement with Hamas as part of a peace strategy.

Interestingly, my arguments were echoed today by the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on the Middle East, which criticized the UK government’s policy on the Palestinian issue and specifically on the Hamas boycott. My arguments against Ms. Philip vitriol focused on the substance.

My apparent “crime” is to support engagement with Hamas as part of a strategy for enhancing a ceasefire, security in the region, and ultimately, to advance a peace process that can actually deliver the goods. In being “dangerous” — presumably to Israel and perhaps also Anglo-Jewry — I find myself in not bad company. Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, ex-Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, previous West Bank Divisions Commander and Civil Administration head General Ilan Paz, Gaza Brigades Commander Colonel Shaul Arieli and ex-deputy National Security adviser Yisraela Oron are just a few of the “dangerous” types who support this approach.

To clarify; neither myself, nor I imagine other advocates of engagement, are Hamas enthusiasts or sympathisers. Let’s call it the realist school of Zionism and contrast it with say, apocalyptic Zionism…

Zionist realism accepted the 1948-9 ceasefire lines, preferred Begin’s peace with Egypt over settlements in the Sinai, and today recognises the need for agreed secure borders for Israel that end the occupation of about four million Palestinians…Israel’s destiny for [apocalyptic Zionists] is to live by the sword in perpetuity; generation after generation of warrior super-Jews fending off the invading hordes of Mohammedans. Great as a Hollywood epic, but less so as a lifestyle choice or an Israeli future with any hope on the horizon. For apocalyptic Zionists, settlements, occupation, economic blockade and humiliation are irrelevant. None of it matters. They will always hate us anyway.

Israel can get beyond occupation, beyond its current predicament and on to a more stable, secure, and hopeful footing…This requires smartening-up, not dumbing-down one’s understanding of political Islamists — they are not all the same.

There are political grievances out there that can and should be addressed, and that feed al-Qaedaism. It is worth trying to reach an accommodation with mainstream Islamists, including Hamas and the Muslim Brothers, who are in their own struggle with al-Qaeda and reject the latter’s nihilism.

Israel should continue to talk with the secular pragmatic nationalists of Fatah on a range of issues — borders, security, Jerusalem, etc. But for an arrangement to deliver stability, security, and have broad legitimacy, Hamas should be brought inside the proverbial tent.

In its report, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs argued the following:

We conclude that the decision not to speak to Hamas in 2007 following the Mecca agreement has been counterproductive...We conclude that the decision to boycott Hamas despite the Mecca agreement and the continued suspension of aid to the national unity Government meant that this Government was highly likely to collapse. We further conclude that whilst the international community was not the root cause of the intra-Palestinian violence, it failed to take the necessary steps to reduce the risk of such violence occurring.

Given the failure of the boycott to deliver results, we recommend that the Government should urgently consider ways of engaging politically with moderate elements within Hamas as a way of encouraging it to meet the three Quartet principles. We conclude that any attempts to pursue a 'West Bank first' policy would risk further jeopardising the peace process. We recommend that the Government urge President Abbas to come to a negotiated settlement with Hamas with a view to re-establishing a national unity Government across the Occupied Palestinian Territories.



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (6)

Robert Lynn:

I agree with Ms. Phillips, my conclusion is that you are dangerous and naive. You refuse to acknowledge the reality. You can talk, talk, talk, and people will continue to die, there is no political settlement possible between Israel and the Muslim psychopaths. It's not about it's our fault and it's their fault, a little here and a little there. It's about survival. These are the choices: organize the relocation of all Jews from Israel, submit to Muslim rule, or achieve a military settlement. The first two choices are untenable as evidenced by the ethnic cleansing of Jew and other religious groups everywhere in the Muslim world during the past century. This leaves the third option of fighting for the survival of Israel. It is not an intellectual pursuit of finding common ground between like minded reasonable people.

The Palestinians are 100% percent to blame for their present circumstances. They can change everything as soon as they decide to live in peace and prosper. Living standards as well as moral standards have collasped since the Oslo disaster. You cannot blame Israelis for defending themselves only for not defending themselves. Quit being foolish.

I hate say it, since I don't approve of namecalling in this sort of context but Ms. Phillips is correct in her basic premise. The idea of `engaging' with the likes of Hamas is about as realistic as engaging with Hitler.

The basic premise of any negotiation of this sort is a willingness to accept the existence of the other party, and that is not on Hamas' agenda. It's not part of Fatah's either, or indeed most of the Arab world.

What you refer to as `realistic Zionism' has accepted a number of retreats and concessions, and I think the results speak for themselves.

The Israeli government, composed of those so-called realistic Zionists was eager to accept Oslo and pull out of south Lebanon and Gaza, which meant that Hezbollah and Hamas now simply have bases to train and develop their forces for the ongoing War Against the Jews....and of course, a much closer range to launch attacks against Israel's civilians.

The same thing will happen if Olmert surrenders a large part of Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem to the Arabs and makes them judenrein `for peace.'

It's worth remembering that Yasir Arafat, just after he signed the Oslo Accords went on Jordanian TV and made reference to the Peace of Hubidiyeh, a peace treaty Mohammed entered into with the Quaraysh tribe that was supposed to be permanent...and only lasted until Mohammed was strong enough to massacre them.

That's the context of any peace agreements with the Palestinians, and repectfully, I'm surprised you can't see that.

Bill Wilder:

While the demographic and cultural challenge facing Britain from its mass immigration of Muslims (and the insidious legal regime which nurtures that alien culture within Britain) is a very salient issue for Britons, it is wholly unrelated to the question of what realistic policy is necessary for a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Far from being "dangerous" for advocating inclusion of Hamas in the settlement process, you are simply being realistic. At least one former head of Mossad agrees. And, as reflected in Haaretz's "peace poll", a majority of Israelis also agree.

The reality is the Hamas is the majority expression of Palestinian nationalism. That position has the potential for imposing on Hamas the burdens and responsibilities of governance, if Israel and the West will pursue it. Hamas isn't going anywhere and will remain the majority party in the PA. All the wishing and vitriol from the neocons isn't going to change that.

RB Renfro:

Consider the source.

I am not surprised at Ms. Phillips attack on you at all. I have read some of her work and she is a fanatic and seems racist to me.

If she is against you, you know you are having an impact and on the right track.


Melanie Phillips is a whackjob. As evidence, attached is a link to PZ Myers blog where he discusses an inane attack by her on biologist Richard Dawkins



I saw a speech on C-SPAN by Ms. Phillips talking about her book, Londonistan. Her main theme was that Britain was selling out her own heritage while granting Islam special privileges. It was a quite reasonable talk, and she's a gifted speaker, so I'm very surprised to hear that she would resort to calling someone like Mr. Levy an idiot.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Daniel Levy


Powered by
Movable Type 3.33


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 13, 2007 6:10 PM.

The previous post in this blog was A little catch up on Israel-Palestine.

The next post in this blog is Gilad Shalit's Birthday and the Dilemma It Poses.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.