And if anyone will tell you that the synagogues were symbols of occupation and were worthy of destruction (and some of those cited below do just that!) respond that there's a long history of Muslim desecration of the holy places of other religions, especially of synagogues. Elder of Ziyon has an long (if depressing) list going back decades that's fully documented, of course. Israel Perspectives has a shorter list including more recent events.
UPDATE: Elder of Ziyon link corrected.

And for those who mock the decision to leave the synagogues as giving into "conservatives" or "Rabbis" Mere Rhetoric records the reason for Minister Mofaz's change of heart from the Jerusalem Post:

Speaking publicly for the first time since he flip-flopped on his decision to leave Gaza synagogues intact, Mofaz said he just couldn't bear to lend his hand to the destruction of a Jewish house of worship.

"As a Jew it was hard for me to give orders to IDF soldiers to blow up a synagogue, so I asked that it be reconsidered," Mofaz said. "I believe that there are issues where Israel as a Jewish state considers the decisions of the rabbis," Mofaz said. "We also have to take into account the decisions of rabbis abroad. We knew that the Palestinians would respond to the decision, and the rabbis decided it would be better that the synagogues be destroyed at the hands of Palestinians than at the hands of the IDF."

Unfortunately, the synagogues, rather than providing the opportunity of a Palesitnian confidence building measure became another pretext to villify Israel as Al-Jazeera reported:

The Hamas member, who identified himself as Abu Ahmed, said the demolition of synagogues by the Palestinians would also create problems.

"I think Israel wants the Palestinians to demolish these structures in order to have a pretext for some nefarious designs against Islamic holy places, especially in Jerusalem."

UPDATE: Though I missed this in the Al Jazeera article, Pillage Idiot didn't, the Palestinian Authority called the decision to leave the synagogues standing, "...public relations entrapment."

Even the state Department got into the act:

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Israeli decision "puts the Palestinian Authority into a situation where it may be criticized for whatever it does."

Well no, Mr. McCormack, if the PA had defended the synagogues there would have been no criticism. (The statement cannot be found on the State Department's website.)

And if it wasn't enough to blame Israel, Honest Reporting noted that there those who justified the destruction of the synagogues:

The BBC TV report by Orla Guerin justified the arson mobs in this manner:

Palestinians came streaming to the settlements that caused them so much pain, to sightsee and to loot. Israel stole thirty-eight years from them; today, many were ready to take back anything they could.

This is a clear example of BBC bias. Guerin states as 'fact' that Palestinians in Gaza had their lives somehow 'stolen' by Israeli since 1967, a claim the BBC uses to rationalize the Palestinian mob violence.

IRIS notes that the NY Times simply considered the synagogues to be "vulnerable to vandalism." i.e. one couldn't expect anything else from the Palestinians. Talk about the bigotry of low expectations. That wasn't blaming Israel and is, I suppose, less offensive, but still pretty awful.

But for sheer vileness, there was no topping G. Jefferson Price, a former reporter (based in Israel) and editor for the Baltimore Sun on that paper's op-ed page, wrote "Exploitation of synagogues mars exit from Gaza."

The rabbis and other Israeli extremists who helped to provoke this scar on the withdrawal do not represent the mainstream majority of Israeli opinion. But they have enormous political power. And the timing of their pressure campaign on the Israeli cabinet could not have been better, for there will be an election soon in which the popularity of Mr. Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza will be tested.

The anti-peace ambitions of extremists on both the Palestinian and the Israeli sides are served by the violence that each inflicts on the other.

As noted above, Defense Minister Mofaz, hardly a hard liner, found it impossible to give the order to destroy Jewish places of worship, even former ones. The scar on withdrawal was not the fault of anyone on the Israeli side of the withdrawal. It was the fault of a quasi government whose founding ideology is the destruction of another country. It is the fault of that government for fostering hate instead of reconcilliation and for allowing violence and its perpetrators to flourish in its midst.

And it is the fault of those like Mr. Price who divides the Middle East into those who want peace and those who don't, but fails to demand any concrete action of the Palestinians to show that they want peace or wish co-existence. If he supported peace he would demand restraint by the Palestinians and demonstrations of their good faith. Instead he excuses their excesses.

Mr. Price, and I will be careful here, is clearly anti-Israel. He cannot accurately be called pro-peace either because of the extremism that he sympathizes with and forgives.

Presented with an opportunity to demonstrate to Israel and the world that they were interesting in co-existence, religiuos tolerance and, ultimately, peace, the Palestinians missed that opportunity. Given the opportunity to villify Israel or to promote Palestinian moderation much of the world didn't miss the former.

Technorati tags: Israel, Gaza.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.