Israel Invades Gaza: Online coverage, "citizen reporter" resources.
Today, the Israeli government sent ground troops into Gaza, after an intense 8-day air offensive on Hamas. Two recent Boing Boing posts related to this topic drew intense discussions with an extremely high number of comments, so I thought I'd open up a new thread today -- clearly you, our community, have a lot to say about this, and about alternative resources for news, information, and insight on the conflict.
Among the resources I've pointed to before: Global Voices' special coverage on the Gaza conflict. Rocketboom did special coverage from the region earlier in 2008, worth re-watching for FAQ about those homemade rockets from Hamas. Last week, representatives of the Israeli government held press conferences of a sort on Twitter, and today Twitter is abuzz with tweets pointing to Al Jazeera's new "Gaza coverage" twitterbot. CNN is reporting that some of the weapons being used by Israel to attack mixed civilian and military targets come from the United States. There are an awful lot of protests, pro- and against, going on around the world.
A request in advance to those joining the discussion thread here on Boing Boing: keep it civil, respectful, on-topic, and please avoid personal attacks and moralizing. The road to Godwin's law is a short one. Let's not go there. Predictably, there is much fawning about in mainstream outlets over amateur op-eds on YouTube. If you *really* want endless rivers of unmoderated attack-comments, please just go there, instead. And to members of our international audience who have friends or fam on either side of the battle lines, my heart goes out to you. (Thanks, Derek Bledsoe)
Image: Israeli flag holder on right, courtesy formsixteen. Palestinian flag holder on left, courtesy jilliancyork.
Better a ground offensive then an air offensive.
Better No Offensive. This will only end in tears, and deaths for scores of children and other non-combatants. Of course being Palestinian don't count.
I just hope it means it'll be over sooner. For both sides.
I'm Israeli, so I'm obviously a bit nervous about seeing my soldier friends go into Gaza, but the situation in the South is such that it appears no other option remains. Hamas have dug themselves a hole with their refusal to extend the ceasefire, and now innocents on both sides have to suffer for their pride.
The rockets being fired at Israel by Hamas achieved no goal other than innocents suffering, and cannot be justified, even through Palestinian resistance rhetoric, I don't see the point.
I don't see the point to armed struggle anyway when Israel is willing to negotiate peace, but rejecting the international quartet's demands lay in the core of Hamas's ideology.
Here are two all-waking-hours liveblogs from Israeli perspectives:
muqata.blogspot.com
israellycool.com
Your characterization of Israel's targets as "mixed civilian and military targets" is prejudicial at best. Unless you can demonstrate that any of Israel's intended targets are civilians, a more fair characterization would be "military targets sited in civilian structures." That would get across the potential for civilian casualties while accurately characterizing Israel's intentions and the military situation in Gaza.
"Better No Offensive"
I agree, but a ground offensive will have fewer civilian casualties.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel is probably one of the only NGOs who can still pump medical supplies into Gaza, they need your help:
http://yishaym.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/phr-gaza-appeal/
Combatants for peace is an organization of Palestinians and Israelis who were involved actively in the conflict and are now devoting their energies to promoting grassroots dialogue and non-violence, they need your support:
http://yishaym.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/new-year-same-old-vicious-cycle/
If you care about Gaza & Sderot, please don't waste your time commenting on 5 reader blogs or staging furry protests in SL no one gives a f&$k about. Help the people on the ground, on both sides, who are making daily personal sacrifices in a noble attempt to make a difference.
I don't see the point to armed struggle anyway when Israel is willing to negotiate peace
Peace with apartheid? Peace with bulldozers? That's not peace and it will never be peace. The oppressed have the inalienable right to secure their independence and freedom by any means necessary.
shay @ 4 - "Israel is willing to negotiate peace" - while the blockades and the walls still stand?
Protests in London:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7809656.stm
Moderator note:
Links in this thread must be informative. Propaganda links from any perspective will be unpublished.
SAMMICH @9: of course. If there were no walls, no settlements, no quassams or grads, no prisoners or captives on either sides, we would be negotiating a free-trade zone. As it happens, we have a violent conflict and we need to negotiate peace. The Fatah gov started negotiations with the Israeli, then Hamas denounced all agreements on the grounds that it does not recognize Israel.
I'm not saying that justifies bombings, but yes - there were peace negotiations. There was a ceasefire. Hamas thought it can get a better deal by terrorizing the south of Israel, an Israel thought it can get a better deal by terrorising Gaza.
protests in Tel-Aviv:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052326.html
@Antinous - No, peace in the commonly accepted understanding of the word. If you need a history lesson in how far the Israelis were willing to go for peace, read historian Benny Morris' piercing interview with former prime minister (and current minister of defence) Ehud Barak: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501
@Sammich - The blockade on Gaza was set in place due to Hamas' refusal to accept the minimum requirements of the international quartet (The UN, The EU, The US and Russia), which also appear in the PA constitution. Hamas refuses to renounce violence, to accept Israel's right to exist and to abide by agreements that the Palestinian National Authority has reached with Israel in the past including the Quartet-sponsored roadmap peace plan which envisions a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In 2005 Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip. In 2007, Hamas took over Gaza in a bloody coup and since then has constantly shelled Israeli cities. These aren't illegal settlements or anything, these are in proper 1948 Israel. These are kidnergartens and schools and shops and houses being shelled by the thousands for years.
So yeah, Israel, with a wide consensus of the international community placed a financial blockade on Gaza to pressure Hamas. Because a financial blockade is still considered the lesser evil than either letting Hamas keep arming and shelling or a full scale operation, which is what we're seeing now.
As for the wall in the west bank, it is the single most effective measure taken against terrorism coming form the west bank. I can't say I'm 100% pleased with it's path, but the high courts keep correcting the government on it's placement, in accordance with international law, and I am confident that even though it was a last-measure strategy, it's effectiveness is proof of its necessity. If peace were to be signed, Israel would still be within its rights to fence up its border, but one would hope such drastic measures wouldn't be necessary.
Several years ago I had some sympathy for the Palestinians. This is no longer true.
They have had a number of good offers that were declined. In addition they have continued to deliberately target civilians with both suicide bombers and rocket attacks.
Yes Israels response has caused civilian casualties, but as far as I know that was not deliberate unlike the Hamas. When the troops and leaders deliberately hide or shield themselves with civilians then... As sad as it is, the civilian population should not allow themselves to be used as shields.
Tell me what other country in the region would allow rocket attacks into their country without responding harshly. Egypt? Syria? Iran? ...
At this point I would not only build the wall between Israel and Gaza but I would also set up automated artillery to return fire on ANYTHING that comes over the wall.
When it comes right down to it, if the Palestinians want to be masters of their own fates then they must accept the responsibilities and CONSEQUENCES for their actions.
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
~ Mohandas Gandhi
I want, so badly, to be able to support Israel, they face overwhelming resistance from bad, bad people. But when I hear news-reports about hospitals and mosques being hit by air raids, and seeing those images of injured people, I just can't. I'm not saying that Hamas is innocent, but this response (along with the devastating blockade that has being going on for the past six months) is, IMHO, far, far out of proportion. I'm starting to suspect that the real goal for Israel isn't peace, it's Gaza reduced to rubble. I can't get behind that, for one second.
The truth is, no one is innocent in that region, and no one is 100% to blame. Everyone is guilty, of something. There will never be peace until the rest of the world (and especially the US, with their unquestioning support of Israel) realize this.
These aren't illegal settlements or anything, these are in proper 1948 Israel.
You seem to forget that most of the world's population regards 1948 Israel as an artifact of illegal land theft born of a terror campaign carried out by groups like the Irgun. Perhaps this will refresh your memory.
Of course, if the Israeli offensive is spectacularly successful and Hamas is wiped out as an effective force, that will create a power vacuum. What are the odds of the power vacuum being filled by moderates willing to compromise, rather than even more aggressive hardliners? Not great, from what I've read.
Apparently al-Qaeda has been struggling to get a presence in the Palestinian territories, largely due to existing groups like Hamas having covered their market. Perhaps opening a space for al-Qaeda is actually part of the Israeli offensive's aims, because that would make Israel's fight the West's as well.
Yish @ 12 - is it a level battleground? have the Palestinians also blockaded Israel? Do the muslims build walls to segregate the jews?
I stand as an outsider watching in horror, seeing the hugely imbalanced retaliatory death-toll, and if you are Jewish/Israeli I can tell you that your governmental PR machine is NOT WORKING on the international stage.
I'd also just like to say that I, for one, take no pleasure in seeing the people of Gaza suffering. Nobody wants that. Really. But I can't look into my cousins-down-south eyes and tell them they need to live with 70+ rockets fired a day on them because we are unwilling to act due to the likelihood of innocents on the other side getting hurt.
There's also a lot of bogus rhetoric on the web regarding 'proportionality', 'collective punishment' and so-called 'war crimes' committed by Israel. This stems from a misunderstanding of international law and international humanitarian law.
One merely needs to read Article 28 from the 4th Geneva convention to realize that civilian casualties do not mean that war crimes are taking place:
.That is, so long as Israel is targetting Hamas combatants, supply, and infrastructure, it is completely legal. On the other hand, Hamas generally does target civilians.
Regarding proportionality, Alan Dershowitz explains:
Basically, proportionality has to do with proportional use of force against the threat posed, no legal lacuna requires tit-for-tat or eye for an eye as a rule of law.
Israel is not required to manufacture Katyusha rockets and fire them indiscriminately into the Gaza strip merely because that is what Hamas is doing.
Also, more Germans died in WWII than British, and yet still we feel that the allied forces actions were justified. Just something to think about..
At this point it's a little late to be praying for peace, but if you have it in you to try:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CtARv-VYTQ
Hamas really, really hates Palestinians who won't take up arms against Israel. To them, civilian casualties - on both sides, Israel and Palestine - are only good for propaganda. For Hamas, if Palestinians were really committed to a Palestinian state, all Palestinians would be military, none civilian.
So when Israel blasts the hell out of mosques and homes, and "innocents" die, Hamas doesn't care. They mourn the loss of fighters, martyrs; they're not mourning people hiding for their lives, not mourning people who'd negotiate peace rather than take arms against Israel and wipe it from the Earth.
Will progressive blogs like BoingBoing, in an effort to appear unbiased, miss the chance to condemn an inhumane act?
The question should be, why are they doing this. And my guess is not that they are afraid to offend Israelis or Jews, but because they still simply do not know enough about this conflict to make an informed comment.
After all, many of us who consider ourselves fair do take a stand on the China/Tibet conflict.
#18 Antinous:
You seem to forget that most of the world's population regards 1948 Israel ... [citation needed]
#20 sammich:
No,no, and no. And not my government. see #6.
You seem to forget that most of the world's population regards 1948 Israel as an artifact of illegal land theft born of a terror campaign carried out by groups like the Irgun. Perhaps this will refresh your memory.
If Israel is illegitimate because of this, isn't European settlement in North America, Australia, New Zealand, &c., also illegitimate? Or does a certain amount of time have to pass before one's ancestors' crimes become just the way things are?
Really? *Most* of the world's population? I'd be surprised if more than 50% of the world's population has ANY opinion on the border definition of Israel.
As for this latest conflict? I don't really have an opinion either way. Hamas refuses to stop sending rockets into Israel, Israel refuses to stop answering rocket attacks with military actions. Somebody is going to have to be the bigger person here, and neither side has shown any inclination to do so. And I can't say that I could put myself in that position and agree to ignore either sides' attacks.
@Antinous I was unaware you were elected spokesperson for "most of the world".
I do not need a lesson in history, and I am quite capable of linking to Arab attacks (Hebron massacre, for example), but I really don't see the point to that.
The pre-1967 borders are the de facto accepted borders of Israel, as it is the borders accepted by the important players on the international field such as the US and EU as well as locally important players such as Egypt, HK Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority.
The rest of the world can think whatever they want, I can't say I care much for their opinion.
@17 Oskar
But when I hear news-reports about hospitals and mosques being hit by air raids, and seeing those images of injured people, I just can't [support Israel].
Is a mosque that's also a weapons cache an invalid target? How many of the injured you see are un-uniformed fighters? Keep in mind that there are people on both sides who have a great interest in playing on your emotions with prejudicial images.
I'm starting to suspect that the real goal for Israel isn't peace, it's Gaza reduced to rubble.
Really, if that were the goal, Gaza would be rubble now, the death toll would be orders of magnitude more than hundreds, and there's no way that Israel would send in ground troops or use reduced-explosive, high-precision bombs (made in the USA)!, for that matter, when carpet bombing with high explosives (God forbid) would do the trick.
FYI, again - not to justify Israel's tactics, but just to get a better picture of who we're dealing with. Now, please advise how to conduct a constructive, civilised dialogue with these good 'ol boys:
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
…
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/10/were-being-sued-by-hamas-uk/After the failure of Camp David and Taba, Israel propagated the myth that Arafat (and therefore the Palestinians at large) rejected peace. When in fact it was an unfair proposal (in Camp David), and bowing to domestic political pressures (Barak's defection from Taba talks), that killed it.
Clinton and America still accept this miss, citing the tired phrase, "Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". Then in 2000 after Israelis elected war criminal Ariel Sharon, the slogan became, "Palestinians chose the path of terror instead of peace".
Just ask yourself, have you read the details of the Camp David offer? Do you know what % of the West Bank Arafat was asked to let go of? Did you know that he wasn't offered any part of central Jerusalem (which is actual home to Palestinians)? Did you know he was asked to kiss the refugee/reparations question goodbye?
Time to interrogate those slogans.
My link suggestion is a tough one: it's for American Jews and Israelis who are not afraid to ask themselveds the tough questions, a blog by the amazing Philip Weiss: http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/times-serves-as-baraks-mouthpiece.html
Sorry, the link I meant is this:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/
Shay - My reaction to what's happening isn't based upon an understanding of International Law or International Humanitarian Law. My reaction is visceral and human. I see a huge and overwhelming technologically superior state, having eroded the freedoms of those opposed to it via blockades both within and to the outside world, crushing dissent with overwhelming force, irrespective of whether the victims are civillians or indeed babies...
If Israel is so sure of its righteousness, why didn't it plead its case for war before the UN? Because it has no case.
It is illegal to declare war on nations on the account of the actions of a terrorist minority. US actions in the Mid East have set a precedent of unaccountable intervention, and unfortunately Israel needs no excuse to follow suit.
If we, the West, were so instrumental in creating a modern, multicultural West Bank, then why don't we have some say in how it is run, rather than letting a bunch of racist radical dickheads kill each other for sport?
Finally, let's not forget who supplies all the missiles.
Pray for the children.
#16 Keppoch:
yes, don't we all object to *other people's* violence?
If we're just basically picking sides here, I'm rooting for the Jews.
I mean... with sporting events, I usually pick the underdog... But I dunno, these guys... they have heart, good coaching, great offensive plays. Once in a while it's nice to pick the winning team.
Plus, the JDF cheerleaders are pretty hot. I'm just not feeling the other side's questionable choice of robed women with bombs. I won't link directly to pics of my team's pep squad, I mean, their esprit de corps is a propaganda in unto itself.
Since I'm doing about as much to affect the conflict as everyone else vehemently choosing their sides based on relative perceptions of history and then posting it, I feel to choose a side is best left to instinct and the aforementioned quality of the pep teams.
Also, some things are so serious, one can't help but laugh at them.
isn't European settlement in North America, Australia, New Zealand, &c., also illegitimate?
A) Yes, and B) that's called concern trolling.
The Irgun, those bombers of hospitals and schools and buses, are the political predecessors of Likud, a key player in Israeli politics for many decades. The government was founded within living memory by people who murdered innocent civilians in barbarous acts of terrorism. Moral high ground - ur doing it rong.
Antinous:
You seem to forget that most of the world's population regards 1948 Israel as an artifact of illegal land theft born of a terror campaign carried out by groups like the Irgun.
So, out of the countless changes in ruling societies in this region going back 3,000 years, which would you not categorize as an illegal land theft? And how exactly is that relevant? You might as well argue that Oklahoma should be returned to Native Americans, irrespective of what happens to the millions of people who live there now who had nothing to do with that illegal land theft.
Furthermore, that most of the world's population believes something says nothing whatsoever about factual accuracy. Most of the world doesn't use toilet paper. Most of the world believes in a friendly being in the sky and a never-ending fun-park awaiting you post-life.
@33 That's pretty much the best reasoning I've seen so far in this entire discussion, hats off to you sir.
get some statistics:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
Compare to:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Would someone do a simple exercise?
Google this:
"UN resolutions israel"
and see.
Takuan already warned us that the blogosphere was the next war zone http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456531523&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I fear Shay and Yish have been parachuted in...
@Guston - You recite historical revisionism. Even if Israel's proposal at Camp David was unfair, nothing prevented Arafat from offering a counter-proposal. He was urged to do so. It is not only Israel who holds the position that Arafat refused to end the conflict. Prince Bandhar of Saudi Arabia and Bill Clinton both state that this is the case.
Again, I refer you to historian Benny Morris's interview with Ehud Barak: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501
This position is further backed up by former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in his book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.
I was very sad when Arik Sharon was elected prime minister, but this came after the Palestinian Al-Aqsa Intifada erupted and Arafat rejected Clinton's December proposal which was even more far-reaching than what was offered in Camp David, and for all intents and purposes was an offer for 100% of the territory - including a painful Israeli compromise on the temple mount.
With this in mind, Israelis sought to 'punish' the Palestinians. That they did not 'deserve' a left-wing prime minister like Barak who went so far left that his government could not hold, and in return, all that Israelis received was more terrorist bombings in Israeli streets.
This is an Israeli perspective, obviously, I can't help that, but history backs up my position, your position is only backed up by Palestinian propaganda.
How many Israeli dead up until the commitment of ground forces?
A group of people blowing up a house is a criminal act; as an occupant, Israel was unable to bring a stop to these criminal acts.
Now, the Israelis claim that the authorities of the palestinian people are responsible for bringing these criminal acts to a stop. For this failure, they are inflicting a series of collective punishments on the palestinian people. These punishments involve obliterating the civilian institutions of the palestinian authorities - including police stations. Do they expect this to improve the situation, or are they merely trying to deepen the humanitarian crisis which they have created until it reaches a point when the palestinian people cease to exist as a political entity?
Even if one accepts that it is justifiable to murder suspected criminals without proof or trial, in what circumstances is it justifiable to terrorize, starve and murder civilians to get to the criminals?
In what situation does the molester get to blame his victim for what he does to one who is entirely at his mercy?
@sammich - What would you expect your government to do if you lived in a city that was being shelled on with rocket fire for the past 8 years?
Israel tried to extend the ceasefire, Hamas responded with a dramatic increase of rockets fired to the upper 70s or 80s a day.
No one can be expected to live like that. The Israeli government's first responsibility is to Israeli citizens, only after that to Palestinians in Gaza who have not been under Israeli jurisdiction for over 3 years.
I'm not saying I'm too pleased with the situation, but what can we do?
I urge anyone who reads this who has any influence on Hamas to make them stop firing rockets, for the good of both people.
#39 guston: try UN resolutions US.
#40 sammich: OMGIWMSL. never mind, see you another day.
And please, if you really care so much - do something in the real world too.
Ralph Peters provides the best insight into Israel's Gazan dilemma:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/damned_if_they_do_146263.htm
@Shay. Yes, let's all read Benny Morriss. I insist! Read him because he is one who laments that Israel did not finish the job of ethnically cleansing palestinians, who still calls for them to be 'transferred' outside of Israel.
I do not bother to refute the rest of your speciaous claims. Except with a couple book recommendations of my own. TWO BY ISRAELIS:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Ilan Pappe:
http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231035918&sr=8-1
Amazon.com: Israel's Occupation, by Neve Gordon
http://www.amazon.com/Israels-Occupation-Neve-Gordon/dp/0520255313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231035964&sr=1-1
The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process (Nation Books):
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Camp-David-Collapse/dp/1560256230/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231036028&sr=1-2
@ urinalpooper: the world suffers from a severe lack of a sense of humour, be it black, morbid or otherwise.
What I feel many protestors (regardless of side) fail to take into account, is die Realpolitik of the situation. The logic of the conflict betwixt Israel and Hamas is circular:
-Hamas refuses to acknowledge the existence of Israel, is hostile by policy etc, will not engage in dialogue and so on.
-Israel will not deal with a group that refuses to acknowledge its very existence.
-The people of Gaza supposedly support Hamas, by virtue of the fact that they voted them into power.
So what happens now? We have two parties which cannot meaningfully engage in negotiations without breaking with their own stances/beliefs/ideologies, and thus any power relations between them seem to end up in violence.
We are sitting in our Western homes, fervently discussing our stances and what group we side with, while our politicians make statements about how Israel/Hamas are very naughty boys etc. This makes not one jot of difference to the situation on the ground, where Israel and Hamas are goading each other into perpetuating the current cycle of violence.
For such a cycle to be broken, the parties involved must take some kind of action that differs from what has previously tended to occur (rocket attacks, then airstrikes, then rock attacks, and so on). A ground invasion by Israel disabling Hamas, or the declaration of a ceasefire or similar may put an end to this cycle, and it looks like the former has occurred.
@40 Sammich
I fear Shay and Yish have been parachuted in...
Xeni Jardin, in starting this thread, asked for no personal attacks. When you start questioning other commenters' origins, it says a lot more about you than it does about them.
@42: the problem was that, in Gaza, the very authorities whose job it was to stop the criminals were none other than the criminals, or at least under the same banner and mission statement. The rockets were, to all intents and purposes, a Gaza government programme. And if those controlling the "civilian institutions" were complicit in these acts of war, do they really count as "civilian institutions"?
Of course, this does absolutely nothing to reduce the suffering of the Palestinian civilians hit by he retaliation, but given that Hamas are an Islamist organisation, they're probably not too bothered. After all, any involuntary human shields who die in the inevitable retaliation will become martyrs and get 72 virgins and such.
IMHO, the problem in the middle east could be summed up as "too much religion", on both sides. Any Israeli government of the day, even if it wanted to compromise and seek peace, would find its hands tied by hardline religious parties in the knesset. And the discourse on the other side being increasingly dominated by Wahhabi/Iranian-style jihadist theology (rather than the more secular and inherently pragmatic pan-Arabism of the original PLO) makes compromise unlikely there. And it doesn't look like things will get less grim any time soon.
For such a cycle to be broken, the parties involved must take some kind of action that differs from what has previously tended to occur (rocket attacks, then airstrikes, then rock attacks, and so on).
How about unilaterally withdrawing all Israeli military posts and evicting all Jewish residents from Gaza, leaving behind valuable civilian infrastructure, as Israel did in 2005? That seems like the kind of move that could have been a game-changer.
@Sammich I'm not a spokesperson for anyone.
@34 - Very poignant. I often feel like for many people, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a spectator sport.
People don't realize it's true human suffering going on, on both sides. They just pick a side and f*ck the other side to hell.
@32, 39 The UN has a well-documented anti-Israel bias.
Between Syria's Hama Massacre and HK Jordan's Black September, Israel's actions in 100 years of conflict pale in comparison.
Hell, over a million(!) Algerians died in the French occupation of Algeria, which is orders of magnitude more than what's been going on since 1967. Not that it justifies the occupation, but as occupations go, it's not one of the worst. It pales in insignificance compared to the horrors wrought in Sudan, or by evil regimes like Iran or North Korea, but nobody wants to talk about that when you can just focus your attention on kicking Israel.
@44: Are we to assume that one wrong cancels out another, unrelated one? I'd have to see some peer-reviewed studies on that before I'd believe it.
I fear Shay and Yish have been parachuted in
I am keeping very close tabs on potential astroturfing and following every link to see if it adds some value to the discussion. So far, I've only unpublished one link.
Xeni Jardin, in starting this thread, asked for no personal attacks.
I expect this discussion to be heated. The rule of thumb is that it's okay to be angry but not okay to be hateful. Sometimes easier said than done.
@ACB - don't buy into Hamas or Islamic Jihad rhetoric; At the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there is a national conflict, not a religious one. Relegating the conflict to religious terms serves only to further encroach both parties in the position that no peaceful resolution to the conflict is possible, because the word of god is infallible, and if (s)he calls for Jihad or whatever, then the conflict can never end.
The majority of Israeli Kensset parties are secular, not religious, and Fatah, arguably the largest Palestinian party is secular as well.
http://www.counterpunch.com/eno01022009.html
Brian Eno summarizes it well here:
"Gaza is now an experiment in provocation. Stuff one and a half million people into a tiny space, stifle their access to water, electricity, food and medical treatment, destroy their livelihoods, and humiliate them regularly...and, surprise, surprise - they turn hostile. Now why would you want to make that experiment?"
Note: THE RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT AND TRADE imposed by Israel on Gazans to/from the West Bank/ Israel/ Egypt PREDATES QASSAM ROCKETS. I don't remember exactly which year but it was soon after The 1993 Oslo Accords.
At the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there is a national conflict, not a religious one.
I completely agree. Religion is rarely about religion. You could scarcely accuse other Arab countries of showing true Muslim solidarity with Palestinians. Individuals might feel it, but governments just use the conflict to further their own political agendas.
@Shay: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it that (a) the Knesset elected by proportional representation, meaning that outright majorities seldom if ever occur and to form a government, a party must horse-trade with a number of minor parties to form a coalition, and (b) that this almost always involves them having to court hardline religious and/or nationalist parties? As for Fatah, aren't they in charge in the West Bank, rather than Gaza (which is, from what I recall, a Hamas fiefdom)?
It is, of course, a national conflict, of course, as was, for example, Northern Ireland (which was certainly not about the transubstantiation of communion wafers or whatever). However, religion is a superb incendiary agent for blowing those out of proportion, amplifying absolutism, making compromise difficult and motivating zealots. Religion is the fuel that keeps infernos like this burning.
True Hamas refused to extend the ceasefire, on the other hand, Israel seems to be unclear on the concept of a ceasefire, or they would not have gone in and killed six Palestinians while it was still in effect (November 4th). The Palestinians then started up their rocket attacks ...
Yish @ 28, 38, 44 et al,( and Isaac @ 47 ) - a kneejerk reaction, and I apologize - I see that you're in here for the long haul... unlike Shay, who just showed up today...
I agree completely. Religion is a vehicle, a scaffold, onto which a liberationist movement latched to formalize itd tenets and find its (occasionally ugly inspiration). I hate religion personally, and not a big fan of fundamentalism, but Hamas is a resistance movement first, religous one second.
Hamas official in Guardian interview:
“We are not engaged in a religious conflict with Jews; this is a political struggle to free ourselves from occupation and oppression”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/12/hamascondemnstheholocaust
@ #33 yish
"yes, don't we all object to *other people's* violence?"
Well, as a Canadian (the country that invented UN peacekeeping), I object to everyone's violence.
Neither side has a moral right to kill the other. Let them both back away from revenge or else nothing will be solved.
@Guston - Your claim that the blockade predates Qassam rockets is categorically false. Qassam rockets have been fired, pretty much non-stop since 2001 Al-Aqsa Intifada, the blockade began shortly after Hamas' bloody coup in Gaza, late 2007.
The claim that Gaza has been under an economic blockade since 1993 is preposterous.
guston,
An interesting quote, but Brian Eno is, um, an odd choice to toss into a serious discussion of international politics.
@SHAY. Please understand what I am saying before you refute it. It was not a blockade in the form that was imposed recently after Hamas was elected.
The restrictions after Oslo were ones on freedom of movement. In terms of trade and supplies, everything had to pass thorugh Israel's border, customs taxes, and other restrictions that did not at that time have the aim of starving the population. Merely of controlling its life and commerce. Sara Roy, of Harvard, talks about the commerce aspect, and how Israel systematically de-developed Gaza from 1967 until the present situation of utter obliteration.
@Antinous. I take it you think people involved in the arts are jokers who can't talk politics and human rights? ARE YOU LISTENING XENI?
what? no Israel army Metal band propaganda this time?
@ACB - Current polls would indicate that a completely secular unity government is possible.
Hamas took over the Gaza strip in a bloody coup in 2007. While they won the internal Palestinian government elections, they refuse to abide by PA constitution which would require them to renounce violent resistance, accept Israel's right to exist, and adhere to previous Palestinian-government signed agreements.
@FF11 - Hamas was the first to break the ceasefire when on the 23rd and 24th of June 2008 mortars and rockets were fired from the Gaza strip on Israeli cities. The November 4th raid was to eliminate a Hamas unit planning on kidnapping an Israeli soldier in the same MO as by which they captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. It was pre-emptive strike, but completely justified under the circumstances.
@Sammich - I read Boingboing daily, have been doing so for years. I decided to comment today because I think it's important to hear from someone who's actually here.
But it's 5AM now, and I think it's time I go to bed.
guston @ 64 - tread carefully! Antinous is a rennaissance man if ever there was one...
@Shay. You may find this link useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier
There can be no peace thru apartheid. Palestinians are literally walled in, unable to move freely. Which was why they built tunnels. Why is why Israel broke the peace by bombing those tunnels. Which is why Hamas responded with rocket fire. Which is why Israel has chosen a relentless shock-and-awe response.
#45 AVI SOLOMON
"Ralph Peters provides the best insight into Israel's Gazan dilemma.."
Really? I found that article to be horrendously biased, and even bigoted in places.
Really?
While the article has one or two interesting projections, if that's your "best insight", there may be no hope in discussion.
Hamas and Hezbollah are two of the most calculating, manipulative, and evil terrorist organizations to ever exist. In their brief histories, they have been responsible for many horrific attacks on both Israeli citizens and American military personnel. Those of you -like Mojave- who would side with these organizations by decrying Israel as the aggressor, fail to realize that their existence is, by and large, based on Arab-on-Arab tribal disputes that have been fomenting for fifteen-hundred years or more and not until recently has gained a 'common' enemy.
In the schools that they control in Gaza, the West Bank, and in Lebanon, they teach their children to hate all Jews and to live only for the destruction of Israel and its population. They dress toddlers in 'Palestinian' flag keffiyehs with toy AK-47's in their hands to indoctrinate the next generation of 'freedom fighters' in their 'cause'. They store their weapons in hospitals, schools, mosques, and apartment buildings -knowing full well that the Israelis will strike them wherever they are- in order to provide the most objectionable images for broadcast on TV stations that are either controlled by them, or are sympathetic to their 'cause'. They are the first to show up with TV cameras at sites that are bombed -because they stored weapons there- to show the weeping and ullulation of their women mourning for the dead.
The only way that the 'Palestinians' will ever achieve 'peace' with Israel, is when they begin to value the lives of their children, their grandchildren, and future generations of 'Palestinian' children, more than they value the death and destruction of Israel and the Jews. Yes, it is terrible that people are dying -anyone with any conscience at all should be appalled at the loss of lives- but, Hamas and Hezbollah have created a culture of death that they wish to continue and pass down to generations to come. Those that would 'sympathize' with either Hamas or Hezbollah, should not be so quick to blame -when you fail to understand the complete history behind the conflict- and should first educate themselves and then re-evaluate their 'opinion' before condemning Israel for its actions.
@Guston - You say that as if controlling ones borders is an illegitimate act by the state. The goal was to create Palestinian economic independence. This was done completely in cooperation with the PLO. Before the first Intifada, most Palestinians worked in Israel. By the time the Oslo Accords were signed, this was becoming a security issue, and in order to create a viable Palestinian state, both parties agreed that Palestinians would need to have a sustainable economy independent of Israel's.
All this revisionist history feels like it's taken straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. What was once a goal of the Palestinians is now a weapon Israel 'systematically' used to hurt them. Meh.
@Shay:
"Current polls would indicate that a completely secular unity government is possible."
Are you referring to Israel or Gaza?
why is this discussion important here?
@SHAY.Controlling Freedom of movement between Gaza and Ramallah would be against Geneva Conventions since they are both occupied territory.
Tens of thousands of people in Gaza were denied permits to get an education, go seek medical help, visit their families in Jerusalem or the West Bank, travel overseas, and reach sites of worship.
I'd say these are rather egregious restrictions.
And let's not talk of imprisonment/ detention/ torture/ practices which also contravened international law.
SHAY, Guston had it right, you have it wrong. The first Qassam to hit Israel: 2002. The "Security Barrier": 1996.
@Pilcrow - Unable to move freely into Israel, you mean. That's kind of the point, really.
Like I said, a last measure, I wish we didn't have to come to it, but a very effective one.
In the long term, preventing Palestinian terrorism from the West bank improves chances for peace between the nations, which is ultimately a good thing for both sides.
The tunnels are in Gaza, not the West Bank, and the situation is really nothing like South African Apartheid, I really wish people were more informed of the facts before they picked a side in this wonderful spectator sport.
The economic blockade on Gaza has always had a diplomatic wayout; For Hamas to accept the international community's demands as presented by the quartet. Their refusal to do so has led to a lot of suffering on the Gazan side, but it is their choice to refuse, not ours.
The quartet's demands are very reasonable to anyone with a moral compass and a desire for peace: Renounce violence, accept Israel's right to exist, and adhere to Palestinian National Authority's previously signed agreements which include a dedication to a two-state solution.
Takuan! wtf have you been!
@Falcon_Seven.Go see my link above about the Hamas interview in the Guardian. It's entitled:
"Hamas condemns the Holocaust"
Doesn't sound as evil as one can get with a jewish state.
@75 - The Security Barrier around Gaza is not the blockade Gazans are crying about now. Seriously, people, get your facts straight or stfu.
@ACB - Israel.
@SHAY. You are 100% correct. But it did make Gazans poorer, more miserable, imprisoned, and shot up the unemployment by a factor of 10.
"Current polls would indicate that a completely secular unity government is possible." Are you referring to Israel or Gaza?
How about both together? I think that a Palestinian homeland is a really stupid idea. Look at India and Pakistan. Now increase the acrimony and shrink the physical space. Long term survival for Israelis and Palestinians would be best served by a democratic, secular state.
@Guston - Neither Gaza nor the West Bank fall under the legal category of occupied territory, as they were never part of a sovereign state. Before 1948, this was all part of the British Mandate. From 1948 to 1967 Gaza was occupied by Egypt. From 1948 to 1967 The West Bank was occupied by the HK Jordan. Jordan even went further and officially annexed the west bank to Jordan. This was only recognized by the UK I believe, and you can still see the west bank in official Jordanian maps to this day, though I believe King Hussein (RIP) renounced his claim to the west bank near or around the signing of the Oslo Accords in the early 90s.
Movement between Gaza and the West Bank, so long as it requires going through Israel, is not a natural right of anyone. Israel's security concerns supersede anyone else's right to cross through its borders. This goes without saying for other countries, but is for some reason not taken for granted in Israel.
In a peace agreement, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would be connected by a "safe passage" bridge which would not require Israeli scrutiny or passport control.
So long as a peace agreement is not reached, Gazans and West Bankers who want to travel visit eachother will have to comply to Israeli security demands.
The Security Barrier around Gaza is not the blockade Gazans are crying about now.
Bunch of whining babies, huh?
Wow.
In short, the policies Israel adopted since the mid-nineties began to hurt the entire population of Gaza, and only got worse.
That's at least 13 years of bitterness, resentment, and injustice against the population of Gaza.
And let's not talk about bulldozed orange groves, extrajudicial assassinations, kidnappings, unlawful detention and imprisonment, psychological damage, missiles from the air and always "sorry, too many" civillian casualties. Etc.
@shay, I wish it were so simple that we could easily throw it on the shoulders of the people living in Gaza, blaming (and ultimately punishing them) for electing a militant group with strong anti-Israel rhetoric. However, continuous Israeli airstrikes, embargos and raids into the area are, more than any other factor, to blame for this zeitgeist which allowed a group such as Hamas to be elected.
Israel can't make friends by cutting them off from the world, bombing the hell out them and then laughing when their hospitals have no electricity.
And yes, the rocket strikes were wrong. But it is a deplorable oversight of Western media here to ignore the fact that Israel is every bit as much to blame for breaking the peace in the first place. Even Israeli media admits as much.
Neither Gaza nor the West Bank fall under the legal category of occupied territory
Invoking the British Mandate is not a very good basis for any argument. The relatively arbitrary creation of nations at the end of World War II was one of the worst ideas since the relatively arbitrary creation of nations at the end of World War I. Everything falls apart. The center cannot hold.
@82 - Yes, because we're just so likely to get along.
Multinational states are a failed experiment. See: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and soon: Belgium.
The way things are going, eventually the problem will be only be solved when the arab israelis come to outnumber the jewish ones.
@SHAY #83.I don't have to bother discussing your claim. Tell that to the world which voted unanimously in the UN security council that these areas, and their inhabitants, are precisely, "occupied", in the legal definition of the world.
Israel turns my head upside down. On the one hand I respect the rights for Jews to defend themselves, but I personally feel they have gone too far. Personally, I have never been to Israel, but I have been dead-center in the middle of my family's conflict over Israel.
I'm not going rehash my family history, but before World War II my father was a proud teenage Zionist. He truly believed that Israel was a solution to the problems his family and other Jews faced in Europe. The World War II happened. Then he met my mom and after some years in Polish annexed parts Germany, he moved the family to Israel.
They didn't stay long. And eventually moved to the U.S. He always portrayed the move to America as a positive, but every now and then he would get visibly upset at the war in the mid-east and rant about how crazy the whole mess is and how there would never be peace.
What that meant to me is he had dreams of an ideal Jewish state. The Jewish state was forced into existence after Jewish terrorists basically forced the British to leave and give them the land. He moved there. He got sick of being caught in a war. And left.
I'm caught in the middle since I was born later on in the U.S. and have no real Israeli ties. I have a bizarre array of cousins who seem to only be able to say "Come to Israel..." when contacted for casual contact. And not much else. My brother and sister have pretty much denied their secular Jewish past and see Israel as the only valid expression of Jewish life. Oh, they acknowledge the diaspora world of the Jews... But that always comes second to Israel. And their blind praise of Israel and somewhat delusional view that this isn't a war—seriously, to them it's "something else" and never a war—has really driven a huge rift in the family. Between me and them and even their kids who really were never raised in Israel and have issues relating to Jewish secular life outside of Israel.
Fun-Fact: Did you know that being a secular Jew in the U.S. has become more difficult as each year passes? For many, you might as well be an atheist. When in reality if you look back on the rich Jewish life of the 20th Century, so many great things were created in a secular diaspora... Post-Israel? It's not the same.
In my mind Israel is an effing mess to say the least. In retrospect some part of Poland should have simply been broken off and made into a Jewish state and Israel could have been a "sister state" or something. I don't know. There is no real solution.
But looking at what's happening in Gaza, it's just sick. It's simply an Israeli debacle that will be their Iraq war. A mess of blood and vengeance wrapped in the guise of "defense". And the Palestinians are caught in them middle.
2009 is really the first year I've truly gotten angry at this mess and question Israel's methods. There simply MUST be a better way. If Israel wants to kill Hammas agents and leadership, can't they simply employ counter-terrorist methods on a small scale? Send one small group into Gaza and blow up one basement? These bombing raids are sick and will only inspire MORE Hammas membership.
"get your facts straight or stfu."
I see we are straying here.
SHAY, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Israel was making regular incursions into Gaza and the Palestinians were firing rockets. But the cease fire had put an end to that for 5 months until Israel's raid in November.
@SHAY 83. Except maybe Donald Rumsfeld. He might agree with Shay that the West Bank and Gaza are not Occupied Territories.
http://legacy.fmep.org/reports/vol12/no6/04-rumsfeld_redefines.html
@81 - What made Gazans poorer was that Israelis slowly replaced them in the workforce during the 80s and 90s due to repeated attacks by employees on their employers during the first Intifada.
If Arafat and his cohorts wouldn't have robbed all the money the international community poured into the PA, the Palestinian's would probably be building Disneyland Gaza by now and have had a completely independent and sustainable economy.
Arafat is probably the only revolutionary figure in history to become a multi-billionaire during his revolution.
@89 - That is unlikely to ever happen.
@Antinous: a democratic, secular state would be terrific. Problem is, it doesn't look like you can get there from here.
For one, secularism is in short supply in the region. The entire area is so steeped in religion, millennia of it, that it has a profound effect on people. In an area where many visitors find themselves wandering the streets in hotel bedsheets thinking they're John the Baptist, putting religion on the shelf may be a big ask (more's the pity).
brian eno for president!
@SHAY. Yeah, yeah. Arafat sucked big time, but he was still fighting to protect his people from Israel's closure policies. Gazans could have done ok if they were permitted by Israel to go to the West Bank for work. But they were not.
But according to you, Nothing is ever Israel's fault.
Adios, everyone. Peace.
So why didn't the British create a "national home for the Jewish people" in, like, western Australia or something, where they could spread out and kibbutz themselves into bliss?
The fight over Palestine will never end.
How much financial aid did arafat receive from the international community? It is close to the 3 billion dollars that the US annually gives Israel?
perhaps we should be turning our eyes to what may happen next, rather than how this situation arose.
@84 - I wasn't being cynical at all. I wasn't even being figurative, I've seen people cry, on both sides of the fence. Nobody here takes this shit lightly.
@85 - The terror attacks of the mid 90s weren't so fun on our side either.
@90 - UN Resolutions can say what they like, common sense (and Israeli law) will still require people passing through Israeli borders into Israel to be scrutinized by security. Common sense wins again.
@93 - So Israel was just supposed to allow Hamas to strike the first blow and kidnap another soldier? I'm sorry, Israeli security concerns supersede any ceasefire agreement reached with a terrorist organization. They fired many rockets in the day later which went unretaliated. They had the opportunity to extend the ceasefire, they chose to increase rocket fire. Even Egypt places the blame firmly on Hamas, and they really can't be seen as being pro-Israel in this conflict.
How much financial aid did arafat receive from the international community? It is close to the 3 billion dollars that the US annually gives Israel?
I don't know, but is that number anywhere near the number of rockets fired from Gaza in 2008?
minTphresh - come and sit here while it all gets sorted out - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B9kPIp4MtX0
War sucks. Why can't we all just get along?
Borders are for fascists.
falconseven, where do you get your info? is it limbaugh, savage, o'reilly or hannity?
3 billions? The figure I saw was 2.4 billion last reporting year. That would be US$2,400,000,000.00 given freely by America to Israel and then used by Israel to buy the same amount in weapons. 75% of these weapons coming from the USA.
This is what is called a "business relationship" - well, so long as you don't ask non-shareholders in Haliburton et al, people like ordinary American taxpayers. This cosy relationship may end in one month. Many stakeholders do not like that.
@#104 POSTED BY ISAAC
In all seriousness, aren't there Israeli anti-rocket/anti-missile systems that can knock out these rockets in flight?
I know the Patriot MDS was a fiasco and never worked well against SCUD missiles. But I seem to recall some system being developed specifically to protect against this kind of stuff.
@99 I never said nothing was ever Israel's fault, I've been very critical of Israel, just not on most of the points you've raised.
I'm part of the Israeli peace camp, have been all my life. I still believe peace is the only solution to the conflict, but the mindset needs to shift from arguing over history and justice to pragmatic considerations of the future.
The fact of the matter is, that the Israeli peace camp has done a great job through the decades in creating a consensus for peace. A real willingness to give up some of the Israeli dreams not because the other side is right, but because it's a better future for our children. No such change in mindset has occurred on the other side. This is what distresses me most. Rhetoric there still speaks of injustice and reparation and not much at all of compromise. You'll be hard-pressed to find a Palestinian under the age of 25 who believes in a two-state solution. This is very distressing.
The blame game here can never end, the question is where is Israel willing to go the distance to see this conflict end, compared to where are the Palestinians willing to go to make a historic compromise and mark an end to the conflict.
'm gld w gv mr mny t srl thn ny thr ntn s thy cn s t fr wpns t kll whvr thy fl lk. Gd blss mrc.
/s
#6: Thank-you. Most useful post so far.
#21: "Also, more Germans died in WWII than British, and yet still we feel that the allied forces actions were justified. Just something to think about.."
Who would "we" be? I hold the city bombings in WWII (of both Germans and Japanese) to be almost as bad as the holocaust. (And the city bombings are the main reason that more Germans died than British or Americans.)
The goal was the same: wholesale slaughter with the only discrimination being the ethnic or national identity of those slaughtered.
That said, you're really shooting yourself in the foot by comparing the Israeli bombings in Gaza with the WWII Allied military campaign: The Israelis are at least supposedly aiming for military targets, while the Allies were deliberately aiming (and occasionally succeeding) to wipe entire cities off the map.
#24: Interestingly, in South Africa, we had the Resititution of Land Rights Act, intended to return land to people who, either directly or through their ancestors, had lost it due to the unfair practices of a white-minority government. That act set the cut-off date at 1913. The reason for this is that, if you go far enough back (even just a few hundred years), a lot of South African land was taken from Khoisan-speaking peoples (who are now a dwindling minority) by Bantu-speaking peoples, who now form the majority of the country's population.
This is true all over the world - at some point you need to make a cut off, as deconvoluting the twists and turns of hundreds or thousands of years of history to try to determine who "really" should have which land is deeply impractical and likely to be unfair.
Jewish people are fairly unique in their "hope of 2000 years".
-----------
So, lastly, I leave you with the reason I have little hope for resolution in Israel any time this generation, from an article from the political analyst I distrust least:
"The demographic danger is that Israeli Jews will end up as a minority within the territory ruled by Israel. It is almost a reality already: the 600,000 Jews who lived in Israel when it was founded in 1948 have grown to six million, but despite the huge number of Palestinians who fled to surrounding countries in the various wars, a higher birth rate means there will soon be six million Arabs living in territory under Israeli control. Then there will be seven million, and then eight million."
"Olmert was absolutely clear: if this single political space persists, and the Palestinians become the majority population within it, they will stop asking for their own state. They will just demand the vote—and Israel will have to choose between granting them their demand and ceasing to be a Jewish state, or rejecting it and ceasing to be a democracy.
That dilemma has been implicit ever since the Israeli conquests of 1967. It is now explicit and imminent. In fact, it is already the position of the Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip. So Olmert wanted to make a deal that gave the Palestinians their own state, in order to preserve an Israel that was both Jewish and democratic."
Yish @ 12 - is it a level battleground? have the Palestinians also blockaded Israel?
There is actually an Arab boycott of Israeli goods. I suppose you could call that a blockade.
Do the muslims build walls to segregate the jews?
The Jews in the West Bank feel the need to live behind walls. I don't think any Jews live in Gaza at all. I presume that this state of affairs would continue in any Palestinian state.
@Jack - No. Nautilus was being developed and was scrapped (though the radar module is being used today). There is another system being developed, with slightly higher hopes, but we're years before it becomes operational, and it still might not help the ultrashort range cities like Sderot.
@Shy 110---Wth pcnks lk y, Shy, wh nds nms!
The entire area is so steeped in religion, millennia of it, that it has a profound effect on people.
I'll bet you twenty bucks that Israel will have gay marriage before the US does. There's a strong base for secularism, but the government is still living in the shtetl, at the mercy of the ultra-orthodox.
@113 All Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip were removed in the 2005 Withdrawal.
A Palestinian state would indeed be Judenfrei. I must admit, I take no issue with this Palestinian stance. I would demand as much if I were them. The only problem really is Hebron, but, I, for one, am willing to make that compromise.
#112 POSTED BY KIERAN O'NEILL
You realize you've walked right into a classic piece of propaganda that has been used consistently since 1945? You realize I also have used this line of logic until this past year and have been embarrassed to have ever been a part of that?
Every new war and battle is explained away with the so-called "aiming for military targets" excuse.
There is no doubt in my mind that weapons are better. But humans are still humans and make mistakes. Also, Hammas deliberately uses CIVILIAN AREAS as staging and launching grounds for attacks.
So if you live on a quiet street and somehow a few Hammas guys just decide to jump on your roof... Like magic, your building is now a military target.
Israel has every right to defend itself. But at this point it's clear NONE OF THESE MILITARY OFFENSIVES ULTIMATELY WORK!
Killing 500 people to get ONE Hammas leader has stopped nothing. For every relative killed in this mess, some relative who still lives has now been turned to Hammas because you know what? When your family is blown to bits and you have nothing else to lose, why not join the fight? You're already in hell. Go down fighting.
THAT is the main reason this stuff will never work. Israel is defending itself in a way that just creates another generation of bloody hungry folks with nothing else to lose.
And more Gwynne Dyer, writing directly about the current conflict:
"For Israel's political leaders, this is mainly about looking tough in front of an electorate that just wants someone to "do something" about the Palestinians and their rockets. Nothing much can be done, short of a peace settlement generous enough to reconcile them to the loss of their land, but Israeli politicians have to look like they are trying. Hundreds of people are dying in the Gaza Strip to provide that show.
The Hamas leaders are equally cynical, since they know that every civilian death, and even every militant's death, helps to build popular support for them.
The dead are pawns, and the game is politics. No wonder there is such lack of enthusiasm elsewhere for spending much effort on trying to persuade the two sides to agree to a ceasefire."
@Antinous--117
That's what I find so baffling. I have such sweet Israeli friends that have the most liberal views on all topics--except the Palestinians. They look at the TV and see the dead bodies of children, the 1:100 body count, and they feel nothing.
Dear Kieran: do you see similarities in how the Hamas leadership "serves" the Palestinians and how the Israeli leadership "serves" the Israelis? I know Israeli domestic politics is a brawl with groups from their respective far ends despising the other even to death (reassuring), but is there the possibility that like the Gazans, the Israelis are being taken for a ride? I doubt many dare raise this since it is likely attacked as disloyalty to the group, but what do you think?
Tanks against rocks, soldiers against children, Gaza is the new Warsaw ghetto. General Gabi Ashkenazi, or General Jurgen Stroop. The more things change....wait, they really haven't nhave they? The killing is wrong, no matter. It was said "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". Once in the Gita, last by Oppenheimer. What are we doing?
@115 - Are you being cynical? Polls show that less than 4% of Jewish Israelis are opposed to the operation in Gaza. Close to 80% are Very Much in Favor, and about 13% In Favor. this basically encapsulates the entire political spectrum in Israel.
The fact that the international left's kneejerk antiwar anti-Israel stance doesn't see things the same way the Israeli left sees them likely lies in ignorance of the facts rather than all of Israelis being warmongering bastards.
True Marxists would be disgusted in the way the international left sides with hate-spewing jihadist fanatics like Hamas.
I blame Chomsky, personally.
But this is offtopic.
Anyway, I'm off to bed.
Godspeed.
Shay -- saw your blog; is the reference to Ehud Barak as your "uncle" literal or figurative?
@110, peace at the end of the barrel isn't true peace. Continued 'military actions' against 'terrorist targest' will ultimately lead to another generation of fighting between two people. Are you really prepared to forgive and forget when your family number among the dead? It becomes far more difficult.
Sadly, the next generation will have access to even more lethal technology than this one, and they will likely use it if they are desperate enough. That's why it is so important to stop the cycle of violence in this generation, and not leave it for your children.
Israel's long standing policy of massive retaliation for any perceived transgression is doomed to failure. And so is apartheid. I am unaware of any historic example of successful apartheid.
#117: I'm not justifying the Israeli bombings, just pointing out that they are not comparable to the WWII Allied city bombings. If they were, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, not the hundreds.
(I think you're attacking the wrong person's argument.)
Takuan, so, they finally remembered to flood the tank with warm water and bring up the lights, eh?
Shay, you are something else.
The rest of the world can think whatever they want, I can't say I care much for their opinion.
I still believe peace is the only solution to the conflict, but the mindset needs to shift from arguing over history and justice to pragmatic considerations of the future.
Hamas has only one hope and that is to provoke Israel into doing something stupid. Looks like its working.
THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/03/casualty-figures-civilian-dead-gaza
The UN is not counting adult males among the civilian casualties count!!!!!!!!!!!
Can every man killed be a terrorist?!
What the...
So now who will say how many innocents died on the Palestinian side?
ah, I see from the simultaneous posts, we are on the same frequency.
Quoting #45:
What I feel many protestors (regardless of side) fail to take into account, is die Realpolitik of the situation. The logic of the conflict betwixt Israel and Hamas is circular:
-Hamas refuses to acknowledge the existence of Israel, is hostile by policy etc, will not engage in dialogue and so on.
-Israel will not deal with a group that refuses to acknowledge its very existence.
-The people of Gaza supposedly support Hamas, by virtue of the fact that they voted them into power.
These situations also occur between individuals on a smaller scale. They (Hamas and Israel) should then instead base their negotiations on something else than mutual acknowledgement. If this sounds ridiculous to you then you're not thinking enough out of the box. They need a professional team of negotiators to be plunged in between them.
#120: Tak-kun, I'm not sure I know enough about the internals of Israeli politics to comment directly, but let me try: I guess it depends on what you mean by "being taken for a ride". You could argue that politicians on both sides are doing what they feel is best for their people, just in a very bloody and cynical way.
The reasoning (on both sides interchangeably) could simply be as follows: My people need a strong, central government in this time of crisis. I am the closest to that, so I must keep myself in power. To keep myself in power, I need the support of my people. To do so, I need to strike at the other people.
(Of course, that's allowing them some level of idealism, which, in politics, could be a fairly large allowance.)
#128: Lol. Yep.
So how are Israel's talks via go-between with Syria going? Because ultimately I think there's something about that that is affecting this mess.
KIERAN--131
I can't believe you are laughing about this. What if it was your father or grandfather killed, and counted amongst terrorists?
Yes better no offensive at all.
That said, when a British styled concentration camp is involved (Concentration camps were invented by Cromwell in order to cordon off the Catholics of N. Ireland into a small areas surrounded by a three mile no mans land, later copied by Nazi Germany later still the British used in Africa until the 1980's), there is little to do but bang your tin cups on the bars.
Celinem, that is not at all what the article to which you have linked states.
quite the reverse dear Nail, the icy, coffin-grip of the crushing, black depths is conducive to thought.
I see a similarity in #130 and the self-justification of the Cheney Interregnum.
#133: I'm laughing about the synchronicity of the comments, and certainly not at the situation in Gaza/Israel. If you read my other posts in this thread, perhaps you might realise that.
#135 You are right.. there is more to it.
But still it's just effed up. The Un says they won't deal with the adult male count so as to err on the conservative side??!!
"This has led almost certainly to an underestimate of the civilian death toll. It may be weeks before Israeli and Palestinian rights groups and journalists are able to produce accurate figures."
#136: Indeed, now I think of it - at both the national and international levels. (My country needs strong government / the world needs a strong country to "govern" it).
Interregnum. Good word.
Borders are defined by the nation-states that can defend them. In the long run, Might establishes rightful legitimacy; to pretend otherwise is to know no history. If you want it and you can take it, take it; history will absolve you. Everything is eventually forgiven the victors, even genocide.
Israel and the Palestinians are today committing great crimes while pleading with the world for understanding. Thy cn bth g fck thmslvs.
I fear Celinem is quite understandably not in a very coherent state.
wardish@14:Yes Israels response has caused civilian casualties, but as far as I know that was not deliberate unlike the Hamas.
17 Israelis were killed by Hamas attacks launched from Gaza for the entire year of 2008 (or 26 depending on how you count). In a week, Israel has killed about 60 innocent palestinian civilians including 30 or more children. Any attempt to define "deliberate" to excuse Israel's far higher body count of innocent kills while condemning Hamas is hypocritical fascist flag waving propaganda.
FOETUSNAIL I do need to sleep..
But not before a salute to the fabulous Annie Lennox for demonstrating for a ceasefire!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/03/gaza-israel-protest-shoes-london
shay@20: There's also a lot of bogus rhetoric on the web regarding 'proportionality', 'collective punishment' and so-called 'war crimes' committed by Israel. This stems from a misunderstanding of international law and international humanitarian law. One merely needs to read Article 28 from the 4th Geneva convention to realize that civilian casualties do not mean that war crimes are taking place
OK, shay, in 2008, Hamas militants kiled about two dozen israelis from attacks launched from gaza. How many innocent Palestinians does Israel get to kill before it becomes immoral?
Are you telling me that the Geneva Convention really does allow Israel to kill ten thousand Palestinian children as long as israel is aiming somewhere in the general proximity of a hamas militant? Are you going to hide behind the geneva convention just to avoid the morality of Israel killing far more innocent palestinians in a week than Hamas killed in an entire year?
How many innocent palestinians does morality allow to die by Israeli bombs?
Shay@42: Israel tried to extend the ceasefire, Hamas responded with a dramatic increase of rockets fired to the upper 70s or 80s a day.
No one can be expected to live like that.
Just pointing out that "No one can be expected to live like that" is code for "They made us do this" which is only a skip away from "the blood of innocents we kill is on their hands".
thanks for the link, Celinem, it's good to see Little Shoe's legacy lives on. (as a pleasant sidebar,I have found the perfect sculptural monument for his "legissy", I suggest it be executed larger than life in the finest pot-metal)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Theodore_Gericault_Raft_of_the_Medusa-1.jpg
@142/144 GregLondon
Are you telling me that the Geneva Convention really does allow Israel to kill ten thousand Palestinian children as long as israel is aiming somewhere in the general proximity of a hamas militant
Give us all a break and can your hyperbole. When Israel has killed 10k Palestinian children (God forbid) or has abandoned its current suite of practices designed to minimize civilian casualties, your rhetoric may become relevant. In the mean time, if you don't like the Geneva Conventions, please propose a set of principles for just warfare that you think make more sense.
You can shout "60 > 17!" until you're blue in the face, and it won't get us any closer to an adult understanding of Israel's and Hamas' respective responsibilities in this conflict. Neither law nor morality is simply a numbers game.
Shay -- is Ehud Barak your uncle?
I noticed that, after my last post (#123), the reference in your blog to Ehud Barak as your "uncle" has been altered. The phrase "my uncle" has been replaced with the word "Barak".
I have a full cache on my anti-astroturfing site here. Here's the cached page in Google, and the current version.
The economic blockade on Gaza has always had a diplomatic wayout; For Hamas to accept the international community's demands
Did Israel get its blockade of Gaza approved by the UN Security Council? Also, who, exactly is enforcing the blockade? UN Peacekeepers? And to call it an "economic" blockade when Israel has repeatedly refused to allow food and medicine to enter Gaza is a disgusting act of sheer propaganda.
Much of the world condemns israel's crippling blockade of Gaza. And Israel will only lift its blockade when it gets exactly what it wants: A complete submission of the palestinians to Israeli rule.
The blockade started in 2006 when Hamas won political elections in Gaza. Israel enforced the blockade to attempt to force its own political will on the Palestinians and eject Hamas from offices gained by democratic elections.
No doubt, the apologists like Shay will howl in protest about how evil all of Hamas is. But one could legitimately compare Israel's attempt to outlaw Hamas to be equally stupid and shortsighted as America's attempts to outlaw Bathe party members in Iraq. And normally, I don't have a problem with someone like Israel acting like complete and absolute morons. Except its innocent palestinians who are paying the price for Israels beligerence, hubris, and stupidity.
(I digress terribly, but the more I think about it:)
"The painting depicts a moment from the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse, which ran aground off the coast of today's Mauritania on July 5, 1816. A limited number of lifeboats were available on board, and 147 passengers were forced onto a raft, which was eventually abandoned by the other crew. The raft floated for 13 days, during which time most of its occupants died. Before the survivors were rescued on July 17, they suffered from starvation, dehydration and madness. The disaster resulted in an international scandal, and its cause was widely attributed to the incompetence of the French captain, who had been granted his post in an act of political favour by the court of the recently restored French monarchy."
It's about time for the US to stop sending money and weapon systems to Israel. People in the US should contact their representatives.
I have had Al Jazeera streaming all day. At 2:55 PM Pacific time today I heard a live report form Al Jezeera's corespondent Amir Al-Kahki live from the border crossing to Gaza. He reported personal seeing 40 tons of medical supplies and 20 tons of baby formula cross the border in Red Cross trucks earlier this afternoon.
So the story that there is no humanitarian supplies getting in is just propaganda, unless you are now arguing that an Al Jezeera corespondent is lying in favor of Israel.
Why is Israel's refusal to open its territory to Gaza or those doing business with Gaza considered a 'blockade'? Is Israel preventing Egypt from sending aid to Gaza or preventing Gazans from entering Egypt?
Give us all a break and can your hyperbole.
Right back at you, shay. How many innocent palestinians will you allow Israel to kill? If you want to get out of hyperbole, stop hiding behind legalisms and put out a number that you will allow to be killed.
Oh, yes, I know this is just hyperbole and it's not like real people out there are really dying, so don't you worry about it none. It's all perfectly legal according to your interpretation of the Geneva Convention.
Israel kills 38 civilians on eve of ceasefire
Israel kills 42 civilian lebonese
Israel kills 7, mostly teenage civilians
Israel has killed more than 100 palestinians in Gaza in the first four months of 2008
Israeli airstrikes kill 54 civilians
Israel kills 19 civilians in Gaza
Israel kills another 20 civilians despite UN Resolution
Israel kills 17 civilians in convoy evacutating Lebanon
Israel kills dozen of civilians, calls it a 'mistake'"
Israeli airraid kills 56 civilians, 37 of them children
Man, I gotta say, that's a lot of fake dead bodies for such hyperbole. Good thing we're keeping it real by avoiding talking about actual casualties.
I think it's about time we take religion out of the equation. Enough with all the wars based on religion. It's time we get our sh#@t together and start loving one another, and just do away with past angst.
http://raverantrage.blogspot.com/2008/12/kill-baby-kill.html
Home page: www.RaveRantRage.blogspot.com -->
Peace!
and that (#151) is why this discussion here is important. There are minds being made up, as opposed to prejudices confirmed. This forum, and others like it that deserve the title, are subject to the interested parties' schemes. I imagine there has been less Hamas astro-turfing since they just haven't the linguistic/cultural depth to reach here.
Oh yes, just as the IDF said,the blogosphere is a battleground - and an important one.
To myself the issue is simple: both the Hamas leadership and the Israeli government are served by the deaths of Gazans. They know what they do and why, and they both deserve denunciation. I do hold Israel's moral burden the worse since they have the advantage of power.
Cutting any aid but food and medicine to both would be a start. Even if that does upset the weapons makers.
Is Israel preventing Egypt from sending aid to Gaza or preventing Gazans from entering Egypt?
Yes. It was a huge international news story a couple of months ago. They finally allowed access for a while.
#151 xiptg wrote
"It's about time for the US to stop sending money and weapon systems to Israel. People in the US should contact their representatives."
The US provides annually to Israel 2.7 billion in military aid, all of which must by law be spent on US made weapons , providing jobs to many thousands of US Defense industry workers at a time when the economy is on the rocks and layoffs are everywhere. Many argue this aid to Israel is in fact a subsidy to the US defense industry even more than a subsidy to Israel.
On the other hand, Israel's GDP last year was 135 billion, so the cutting of US aid would not hurt Israel all that much. Israel does not require this aid to survive.
I took this photo in the West Bank around this time last year. I think it sums up the unfortunate irony of the situation.
http://flickr.com/photos/yobosayo/2140641211/in/set-72157603559950025/
Shay@122: The fact that the international left's kneejerk antiwar anti-Israel stance doesn't see things the same way the Israeli left sees them likely lies in ignorance of the facts
Yes, any criticism of Israel is going to be kneejerk, antiwar, anti-israel and ignorant. Israel, of course, is the only country who are thoughtful, truly peace loving, and well informed of the issues. Thank you for really explaining where all this criticism is coming from, Shay.
cjamesatl,
Your blog link can go on your profile page. Thanks.
I think that Shay's comments have been thoughtful and sincere. I've also verified that he's not astroturfing.
sammich! i would love to sit and chat, but i am ever so busy. gotta go and turn on the hose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=draua97qH1Y
how then,Two Gun,would you feel about the retraction of the American military defense umbrella as well? Do you really believe Israel would use nuclear weapons as she has threatened? Or would she moderate her territorial ambitions. Maybe the bluff will be called.
shay@65: Hamas was the first to break the ceasefire ... It was pre-emptive strike, but completely justified under the circumstances.
"They started it" and "we are righteous" in one paragraph. Nice hyperbole, dude. keep avoiding actual death toll numbers as long as you can.
shay@50: The UN has a well-documented anti-Israel bias
WEll, since you said it, it must be true. I'm sure Israel hasn't done anything lately to deserve international criticism. It's just that the world hates the modern state of Israel for no particular reason.
I'm inclined to agree with you Antinous, but I do think it important that the possibility of astro-turfing be raised early and often so as to preempt it. No one is served if it becomes an epithet, but I am distressed by the number of people I meet that it does not even occur to. Question everything. Demand evidence. Do your own corroboration. Those are the values I wish to spread. (for some reason, rabbis,priests and imams dislike me)
#157 Antinous wrote:
"Is Israel preventing Egypt from sending aid to Gaza or preventing Gazans from entering Egypt?
Yes. It was a huge international news story a couple of months ago. They finally allowed access for a while."
No! This is the biggest lie of all. Egypt as any fool with Google Earth can verify for themselves has a border 20 Kilometers long with Gaza. you always hear over and over about the so-called Israeli wall. Well what about the Egyptian Wall? Currently this border is a 20 foot high steel and concrete, barbed wire topped wall manned by thousands of Arab Muslim Egyptian soldiers siting in guard towers with shoot to kill orders against any Arab Muslim Gazans who try to cross it. Note, this is an international border, separating the sovereign state of Egypt from Gaza, with no Israeli soldiers anywhere near. The Egyptians could open it whenever they want and the Israelis could do nothing to stop them.
The big question is why this lie of it being an "Israeli" blockade when it should properly be called an "Egyptian-Israeli" blockade.
And why, you may ask are the Arab Muslim Egyptians shooting their brother Gazans when they try to cross the Egyptian border? The answer is simple. Hamas is an off-shoot of the banned Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi movement which has been trying to overthrow the Egyptian government for 50 years, and among other things assassinated Sadat. That, and the Iranian influence on Hamas makes the Egyptians hate Hamas even more than Israel does, and all the Arab government feel the exact same way too. Look at what Syria did to the Muslim Brotherhood when they took over the town of Hama in Syria in 1982. the Syrian Arab Muslim Army massacred at least 30,000 innocent Syrian Arab Muslim civilians at Hama in 2 days, from Feb. 2 to Feb. 3 1982, according to Amnesty International.
That is why Egypt is blockading Gaza
it's the tentacles.
on the topic of info-war; how any others felt something fishy about the IDF video of "Grad rockets being loaded"? I am open to other examples of Hamas media distortion being cited as balance,I just mention the "rockets" since I had doubts from the moment I saw it a day or two ago. Before,I pointedly add, any media mention of "welding cylinders".
yep minT, it's tough being traf, haram and unclean all at the same time.
"Peace with apartheid? Peace with bulldozers? That's not peace and it will never be peace. The oppressed have the inalienable right to secure their independence and freedom by any means necessary."
True, but Israel also has an inalienable right to defend itself and its citizens.
It's so easy to get bogged down in a mess of inalienable rights, personally I just want a solution that stops the fighting.
#165 posted by Takuan
"How then,Two Gun,would you feel about the retraction of the American military defense umbrella as well? Do you really believe Israel would use nuclear weapons as she has threatened? Or would she moderate her territorial ambitions. Maybe the bluff will be called."
There is no American military defense umbrella over Israel. She has never asked one American soldier to ever fight her wars for her. Israel has always defended herself on her own against 100 to 1 odds if you look at the Arab nations population and wealth compared to Israels.
And what territorial ambitions. You mean her "territorial ambitions" of pulling out of the entire Sinai Desert in 1982, an area twice as big as Israel herself, in return for a piece of paper from Egypt ? Or maybe you mean her "territorial ambitions" in withdrawing from 100% of Lebanon to the international border in May of 2000 as certified by the United Nations?
Or maybe you mean her "territorial ambitions" when Ehud Barak offered at Camp David 96% of the west bank and 100% of Gaza in return for peace, supported in opinion polls by the vast majority of Israelis. Or is it her "territorial ambitions" of pulling 100% out and removing all settlements from Gaza in 2005. Or maybe her repeated offers to return the Golan to Syria for peace which Syria keeps rejecting?
So I am confused. To which of the above "territorial ambitions" of Israel's do you refer?
Israel has killed 75 palestinian children in the last few days
also, from that same article:
The Israeli offensive has prompted condemnation from around the world (but that's just a knee-jerk, anti-israeli thing, right?)
Amnesty International (berated) the administration for its "lopsided" support for the Israeli assault (but we know how biased Amnesty is, right?)
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser for US president Jimmy Carter, (said) "that the US policy right now is completely bankrupt" and the Israeli offensive "will further radicalize the Palestinians."
Two Gun Cohen,
Does it occur to you that Egypt might have some legitimate worry that Israel would launch a military attack against them if they didn't comply?
The revenge killings and preemptive killings of tens, hundreds, and thousands of people will seem negligible when the uncontrolled sorts who fire conventional rockets get their hands on nuclear weapons. Collateral damage and retaliation will not be a consideration. Some of those who remain alive will wish that both sides had made the painful choices to be more restrained. Because the deaths will be in the millions. A holocaust on both sides. Regrettable. Maybe the start of a third world war. Then won't the people of the region be respected and tolerated by the remainder of the people alive on the planet!
twogun: There is no American military defense umbrella over Israel. Israel has always defended herself on her own
allow me to introduce you to Operation Nickel Grass.
he U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, probably the only reason Israel won that war. In response, Arab states enforced an oil embargo on the US, leading to the 1973 Oil Crisis in the states.
Doesn't Egypt come second after Israel for American arms aid? Hasn't America pledged alliance to Israel if Israel is attacked? I didn't realize that meant nothing to Israel. I am pretty sure it means something to Iran though. As to territory; a democracy without non-Jews still has to be somewhere. Which logically means the non-Jews have to be elsewhere.
@#168 POSTED BY TAKUAN:
Takuan, I've had some ups and downs with you and have learned to respect you. But in this case, astro-turfing really isn't the issue. Read my comment in #91; basically there is almost a brainwashed state to many people who instinctively defend Isreal that might read as astro-turfing. I'm not saying their feelings are wrong, but there is something bizarre and dysfunctional to the way Israel sees itself in the world. Somehow if you are not 100% for Israel or have ANY sign of doubt, you are SMACKED down hard. So I can completely understand how someone raised there would react the way Shay does.
It's all effing sad and tragic.
I hope E.T. or some magical Unicorns can come down and do something.
Heck, what's Maru the cat up to?
PS: Let me say that Israel has a right to exist. But to deny this is an effing mess on both sides is delusional.
#176 Antinous wrote
"Does it occur to you that Egypt might have some legitimate worry that Israel would launch a military attack against them if they didn't comply?"
Right, that just makes so much logical scene.
Because they let some traffic over their own sovereign border of their own country into Gaza, Israel is going to go to war with Egypt, a country of 90 million people, with a gigantic American armed army, with whom she has a peace treaty guaranteed by none other than the United States ( you must remember that picture of Sadat, Begin and Carter all three signing the Peace treaty on the Whitehouse lawn, Oh sorry, I forgot you weren't born yet were you)
Right perfect sense. Israel is going to go to war, possibly loosing tens of thousand of casulties with the first Arab country to make peace with her, throw away the most important strategic achievement she has made in 60 years of fighting, namely peace with the largest and most powerful Arab country, all to stop them allowing the Gazans importing some groceries.
Don't you think the answer is a bit more simple, i.e. the Egyptians, along with Jordon, and the Saudis hate Hamas, and fear what it represents for their own regimes, far more than they hate and fear Israel.
I'm a late-comer to this discussion, but to Yish: #27 (at the time of this comment) is the second time the charter of Hamas has been quoted on Boing Boing. Curiously, nobody seems to want do discuss it.
@Antinous #163 -- Agreed, Shay's comments are superb, and he's supporting his position extraordinarily well. I hope he stays.
However, if he is indeed the nephew of Ehud Barak, Israel's Minister of Defense, then it would be helpful to reveal it. At very least, he should offer an explanation as to why, as soon as I pointed it out in post #124 (then in post #149), his blog was altered such that the reference to Ehud Barak as his "uncle" was removed.
Actually, Two Gun, I was born during the Eisenhower administration. And it would be helpful if you could compose yourself a bit.
When are the Jews and Arabs going to figure out that:
a) Neither of their sky-Gods actually exist;
b) A sky-God that doesn't exist can't promise you land;
c) They are pretty much genetically identical.
Maru? quietly practicing his Fur-Buddhism no doubt. A peaceful, though itchy sect.
I understand what you mean.The True Believer's faith can seem to be astro-turfing. I have more patience for True Belief since the are ultimately victims and deserve compassion. Astro-turfing on the other hand is deliberate lying with intent, lies used as a weapon.
I read something today about patriotism in China. Many want out of "a third world kleptocracy", but find it expedient and safer to sing the loudest. Rather like McCarthy era America.
@#182 POSTED BY TWO GUN COHEN
Indeed that's true. But the fact remains Israel seems particularly blood-thirsty right now and this is all scary.
I mean just look at the U.S. with Bin Laden and Pakistan. We respect Pakistans borders but have clearly launched covert actions into Pakistan.
Which brings me back to a point I made before: Why can't Mossad launch a covert operation into Gaza instead of this big show of death and blood?
#178 GregLondon wrote
"The U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, probably the only reason Israel won that war."
Nixon had his own reasons for this. The 1973 was at the height of the cold war, with the Arabs and Israelis being proxies for the fight between the US and Russia.
because it never was about the hairy sky guys.
@#186 POSTED BY SECRET_LIFE_OF_PLANTS
Well might I add my own theory. Do you work in a company with a CEO? How many times do you EVER go above your immediate manager to deal with problems in day-to-day work? The answer for most of us is ZERO. You deal with stuff in your own sphere and realize that the only time stuff floats to the CEO is when things are really, really, really bad.
That said, let's say you think there is a magical CEO of the universe out there. Do you actually think that even if that entity exists they would make any effort to deal with what—in the great scheme of the universe—is a small squabble? I mean wars are not as important as creating planets and life, right?
So that's what drives me NUTS about "true believers". They honestly believe someone so omnipresent would actually waste time dealing with what is a petty squabble.
Seriously, stop invoking magical men in the sky to justify the deaths/lives of others. This is all a horror and both sides are very, very, very flawed.
Two kids in the back seat of a car. Little brother starts poking big brother in the stomach. Big brother tells him to stop it, possibly with a little hair-pulling. Little brother continues. Big brother eventually gets angry and starts beating on little brother with his fists. Dad in the drivers seat finally notices confrontation and pulls them apart, yelling at big brother for being such a bully.
Sometimes poking big brother is really stupid, even if it's just designed to get attention from Dad.
This parable is brought to you by the letters P and I and by the number 2.
Jonathan,
His original assertion is almost certainly true. Since he's commenting in good faith, I don't see a point in pursuing it.
Dear Beedie: if you want something discussed, you have to discuss it. Well?
#189 POSTED BY TWO GUN COHEN:
And that has always lead to great things!
@143
"condemning Hamas is hypocritical fascist flag waving propaganda."
I can see hypocritical.. but fascist? Just because you disagree with someone does not make that person a fascist.
#179 Takuan wrote
"Hasn't America pledged alliance to Israel if Israel is attacked? "
Nope, No pledge, no Treaty, Nothing. The US has never offered to defend Israel militarily, and does not have to as Israel can take care of herself, as evidenced by her repeated victories in war after war against overwhelming odds, outnumbered 100 to 1.
#179 Takuan wrote
"As to territory; a democracy without non-Jews still has to be somewhere. Which logically means the non-Jews have to be elsewhere."
If I understand your implication, you are trying to say you think Israel does not grant rights to non-jews. This is a totally false claim. There are over a million Arab and Christian Israelis comprising 18% of the population. As guaranteed in the Israeli declaration of Independence and in the equivalent of the Israeli Bill of rights, they have the same full civil and political rights as any Jewish Israeli does. The 120 seat Israeli Kenesset has 12 Arab Muslim members and 3 Christians. There is an Arab cabinet minister in the current government and the Israeli Supreme Court has a Muslim justice.
So much for your "democracy without non-jews" claim.
"Indeed that's true. But the fact remains Israel seems particularly blood-thirsty right now and this is all scary."
What evidence do you have to support this statement, as opposed to 'Israel wants to defend itself against rockets. If you don't fire rockets at them you're probably fine'. Note, for instance, that the west bank isn't being invaded.
Antinous #176 -
You're really speculating here - what evidence do you have that there has been any threat to Egypt from Israel over aid to Gaza? As a poster mentioned above, Al Jazeera has documented aid being delivered into Gaza from Egypt recently.
Isn't it far more likely that Egypt hates and fears Hamas and its master, Iran, (as do many Arab nations) and is willing to work with the Israelis to Hamas' detriment?
they have the same full civil and political rights as any Jewish Israeli does.
So any Muslim can get automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return? No. Jewish Israelis and non-jews carry exactly the same identification cards and have the same travel rights? No. Property ownership? No. The list is endless. Israel is an apartheid state.
you know Jack, I really do believe the Israeli government just wants to kill as many Gazans as they can as a war of attrition. One way or another, get rid of them. I also think the gangsters running Hamas want as many "martyrs" as they can get. I really can't find it in me to blame the average Gazan at all. Even if they fire rockets. They shouldn't, but just as much or even more so, the average Israeli should not support this cynical butchery for political gain.
"Indeed that's true. But the fact remains Israel seems particularly blood-thirsty right now and this is all scary."
What evidence do you have to support this statement, as opposed to 'Israel wants to defend itself against rockets. If you don't fire rockets at them you're probably fine'. Note, for instance, that the west bank isn't being invaded.
Moderator note:
Comments are automatically renumbered when anonymous comments are approved and fall into queue. If you don't pull a quote or use a name, your response may be gibberish.
If you trace this thing back to its roots, you just can't help but blame God. He's the original decider, and look where they get us :^/
Your Palestinian flags are larger than your Israeli flags. That is all.
Isn't it far more likely that Egypt hates and fears Hamas
It's certainly one possible explanation, but I don't find it more compelling than the idea that Egypt fears military reprisal by Israel or economic/political reprisal by the US. Honestly, the conflict has gone on so long that I don't think that it's possible to define direct causal relationships any more. It has a life of its own, and motivations are convoluted and arcane.
@#204 / Antonius
I had no idea that was how the system worked. Maybe there's a better place to put this then at the bottom of a 204 comment post?
the discussion may not have been formalized,`Two Gun, but it there have been sufficient expressions from the American side that any threat to Israel (and American interest in the region) would not go unchallenged. I suppose it has become a point of ideology in some circles in Israel that they have always stood alone and unaided (your oft repeated 100 to 1 odds). People need their heroes and Spartans but even more they need the certainty in their enemies minds that powerful allies will appear when needed. Whether by timely gifts of weapons (like recent bunkerbusters?) or by general public statements of the "right to self defense", it has become an established fact in the minds of those around Israel that if they attack they will also face the American response - populist Israel opinion aside. Further, I suspect many in Israel would be quietly telling you to change the subject considering that many Americans are also reading your protestations of total independence. Who knows? They may take you at your word. Pride in country can be a fine thing, but the ruthless military machine now grinding through Gaza was forged in the flames of realpolitik and the aggressive use of every advantage.
#190 Jack wrote
@#182 POSTED BY TWO GUN COHEN
"Indeed that's true. But the fact remains Israel seems particularly blood-thirsty right now and this is all scary."
Particular bloodthirsty? Israel is doing everything it possibly can to avoid civilian casulties. The United Nations says at most 25% of the 500 casulties so far are non-uniformed civilians, so we are talking about approximately 100 innocent men women and children. Obviously even one civilian death is a tragedy, I say with complete honesty, but in the context of the middle east Israel is and always has shown respect for human life. For example, in September of 1971, the current Jordanian regime murdered up to 50,000 Palestinian civilians in a period of one month when they attempted an uprising.
The current Syrian regime, according to Amnesty International, murdered up to 30,000 of their own Muslim civilian citizens after a group closely related to Hamas attempted an uprising, in a period of 2 days in Feb. of 1982.
As I noted both these murderous regimes are still ruling their respective countries.
And of course I am sure you are familiar with the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians murdered in Shiite vs Sunni bombings and massacres over the last 4 years.
So if Israel is "particularly bloodthirsty" for killing approximately 100 civilian Palestinians that they have tried in every way to avoid will going after their intended target of armed combatants, what adjective can you use to describe the Arab Muslims surrounding Israel who intentionally kill their own brother Muslim civilians in numbers thousands of times greater than Israel does on a regular basis?
If I put it in the moderation thread it would be comment #1229. I mention it periodically, but there's really no place to put it where people would read it before commenting.
Btw, isn't this the most annoying/boring conflict known to man/woman in known relative history. Can't we just quarantine the place or something?
I always imagine what would happen if this part of the world would fell in to a black hole, like it just totally vanished sorts. Would this conflict between the two sides just end it all finally? Or does humanity "need" this type of conflict to justify itself? I'd almost be willing to just give "rapture" a chance if it meant giving this sore on the world a break once and for all.
UGH... I'm so sick of this isht.
sorry,just too close to all that oil
Is anyone interested in my proposal for building a double-decker Israel? One side get's the original temple mound/mosque, the other gets sunlight.
Israel is doing everything it possibly can to avoid civilian casualties
The 2006 Israel Gaza Conflict is not exactly a testament to Israeli restraint.
ugh, what oil? in a couple years it'll all be dry. no?
I see the US has blocked a UN resolution for a cease fire. Who could the Bush White House be helping? Hamas?
@219 - always the faithful critic of Bush... and yet I'm helpless to disagree.
any of this untrue?
"Demographic bomb
Israeli historian Benny Morris states:
The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified[...][77]
The term "demographic bomb" was famously used by Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003[78] when he noted that if the percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. Netanyahu's comments were criticized as racist by Arab Knesset members and a range of civil rights and human rights organizations, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.[79] Even earlier allusions to the "demographic threat" can be found in an internal Israeli government document drafted in 1976 known as The Koenig Memorandum, which laid out a plan for reducing the number and influence of Arab citizens of Israel in the Galilee region.
In 2003, the Israeli daily Ma’ariv published an article entitled, "Special Report: Polygamy is a Security Threat," detailing a report put forth by the Director of the Population Administration at the time, Herzl Gedj; the report described polygamy in the Bedouin sector a “security threat” and advocated means of reducing the birth rate in the Arab sector.[80] The Population Administration is a department of the Demographic Council, whose purpose, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics is: “...to increase the Jewish birthrate by encouraging women to have more children using government grants, housing benefits, and other incentives.”[81] In 2008 the Minister of the Interior appointed Yaakov Ganot as new head of the Population Administration, which according to Haaretz is "probably the most important appointment an interior minister can make."[82"
To be continued.
will try to sleep
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3UO6YlkYNJQ
Antinous wrote
"they have the same full civil and political rights as any Jewish Israeli does.
So any Muslim can get automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return? No. Jewish Israelis and non-jews carry exactly the same identification cards and have the same travel rights? No. Property ownership? No. The list is endless. Israel is an apartheid state."
Arab Israelis have exactly the same passports as Jews and exactly the same travel rights to go anywhere in the country they want whenever they want as any other Israeli can, and any suggestion to the contrary is false. The same is true of all other civil rights. Every university is full of Arab Professors, the lecture halls are full of completely mixed populations of Arabs and Jews ( Haifa University is over 50% Israeli Arab for example), the hospitals are full of Arab doctors treating Jewish patients and vise verse.
And I have already pointed out above that the Keneset has an Arab minority representation that puts to shame most western democracies, especially the US, which if you notice has now for example exactly 0 Black senators now that President Obama has left the senate.
And don't even get me started on how the US and Canada treat your native populations or we will be here all night.
You seem to have some vision of Israel based on propaganda and that has no little connection to reality.
True she does have a Law of Return, allowing Jews, who were not allowed to get citizenship in most of the world when they were trying to get away from the Nazis, citizenship. Just exactly like Germany offers ever native German speaker on earth automatic German citizenship, as does Japan offer automatic citizenship for all ethnic Japanese from anywhere in the world, as do many other countries.
#212 POSTED BY TWO GUN COHEN
I'll preface this by saying YET AGAIN, I believe Israel has a right to defend itself much like ANY COUNTRY.
But the concept that somehow bombings in Gaza are somehow "avoiding" civilian casualties really holds little bearing. Face facts: CIVILIANS ARE DYING. And Israel by doing this non-intentionally or intentionally is breeding the next generation of Hamas.
Might I point out that the concept of "intention" has biblical law roots. Meaning that if you somehow can prove you did not intend to do something, all is good. Honestly, Israel is perverting this concept to the nth degree. In the eyes of the "almighty" somehow this makes things better.
Let's lay this out straight: NO IT DOESN'T.
I can't tell you how many B.S. accounts of IDF goodwill I have gotten over the years from relatives I have now happily cut off. Accounts of IDF forces storming homes, but then magically sweeping up their mess before they leave. Or e-mails explaining that Israeli bombings are acceptable because of a leaflet drop that happened the day before. Basically tons of "bubbe meises" that are designed to make horrific acts seem right and just.
I don't know about you but if ANY military force stormed my home, sweeped up and then said "I'm sorry..." I'd think I was patronized. And if leaflets were dropped near by home, I honestly have NO IDEA how I would act or what I would do to save myself, my friends and my possessions.
Technically speaking the "intention" of a U.S. SWAT team throwing a flash grenade into the home of an elderly woman is to get rid of a bad guy. The fact that said SWAT team tossed a grenade into an innocent person's home and caused them stress, heart-attack or even death doesn't make things better. And I can't cite a specific incident about this because this same scenario has played out in the U.S. more often than it should.
Should Israel live in peace? YES! But do not for one second pretend that Israel's illegal settlements and power-grabs of land has had nothing to do with this mess.
Hamas is the feral bastard child of revolution, but Israel is really the well-educated and well funded entity that could do better BUT DOESN'T.
The idea that all of this is exacerbated by biblical nonsense is 100% insane. Look for a better way in the Torah, because honestly I'd like to think there's a true way to end this violence in Israel.
Yeah, but Germany doesn't offer citizenship to people based on Teutonic ancestry and Japan doesn't offer it based on being Shinto.
Where are you getting your information about life in Israel?
well played... but!!!!
The fundamental problem here is that anyone recognizes gaza as anything more than an anarchic region. There is no police force or governing body and there is no hope of peace in any form. Israel's approach as reprehensible as it is, is the only effective approach in addressing a neighboring region that completely lacks any formal government. That is simply the sum of it for better or worse.
There is no police force or governing body
Possibly because Israel has bombed various government buildings and incarcerated or killed members of the government.
@#229 POSTED BY ANTINOUS
And past that Israel doesn't allow any valid infrastructure to exist there for any reason.
I'm not joking when I said "feral" in a previous comment. True, good intent needs to be proven, but just imagine if Israel somehow built a true "grid" there and then passed the proverbial keys to Gaza residents? Might cost less than bombing raids and might do a lot more to repair bad faith.
FYI Ehud Olmert puts it best when he says, "We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself."
You know what, the idea that Israel can somehow absorb all of the world's Jewish population is insane. And it's part of the reason settlements have expanded.
Since we're now 60+ years away from the Holocaust and it's meaning behind Israel's creation, think EVERYONE in the Jewish community and Israel needs to take a real hard look at what it means to be a Jew in the world in the 21st century. And within what scope Israel should exist within that constraint.
It's truly time to be realistic. Because unless Syria negotiates peace with Israel in the near future, there's really no solid chance at peace in the region at any level.
I will attempt to demonstrate with a little math that peace is unlikely in the Middle East, and focus on a couple of reasons.
Consider an infinite sequence of numbers S, where each number is a constant multiplied by the previous number; that is, S(i) = R * S(i-1). If the magnitude of R is less than 1, then the sequence will converge, while if the magnitude of R is greater than 1, then the sequence will diverge or "blow up."
Repeated application of the principle of "an eye for an eye" would lead to a semi-stable situation, but occasionally two eyes or ten will be taken, by accident or on purpose. Then the other party will take two eyes or ten, and the situation will be stable at a higher level--until the next escalation. The principle of "an eye for an eye" plus escalation leads to an average magnitude of R greater than 1.
The principle that each person is responsible not only for his own actions, but for the actions of his neighbors and relatives and ancestors, also leads to an magnitude of R greater than 1. The magnitude of R apparently is larger for bad behavior than for good.
People in the USA do not know history, so they are doomed to repeat it.
People in the Middle East do know history, so they are doomed to repeat it.
If people in a region know and can use knowledge of history without blowups, then they can make better decisions. If people cannot use history without blowups, then their safe level of knowledge of the past is lower, and at best they would make poorer decisions. Therefore, high magnitudes of R are sub-optimal.
I think that it would be desirable but difficult for people to get beyond the principles above, since they are deep in the religion and the culture of the region. On the other hand, the Middle East sequence could blow up even faster than it has of late; maybe there is some moderating influence on R.
I pray that there will be minimum casualties on both sides. I also hope that the Hamas loses this battle and that new moderate and responsible Palestinian leadership will grow. As Obama said in his victory speech:
"to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you."
#226 Antinous wrote:
"Yeah, but Germany doesn't offer citizenship to people based on Teutonic ancestry and Japan doesn't offer it based on being Shinto. Where are you getting your information about life in Israel?"
So Germany distributing automatic citizenship based on if your mother tongue was German, even if your family left German hundreds of years ago like the Amish, and Japan giving citizenship to anyone on earth who can prove they are 100% pure racially Japanese while refusing all non-racially Japanese citizenship even if they live there 50 years is ?NOT? racist but Israel giving refuge to one of the most discriminated groups on earth, a group traditionally denied citizenship in countries around the world for the last 1000 years ?IS? racist?
I am sorry but I just cannot see your logic here.
And you ask where do I get my information. Well, I can tell you where you get your information. You just copied in your post above an entire page from Wikipedia. You copied from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
At least it would have been polite to give them a credit.
I don't even know what my opinion of this conflict is any more. The opinion one develops on such things is dependent on where and when you cut off getting information. If I go back far enough, Israel's evil. If I go back further, than Palestine's evil.
If I get my information from certain sources everything seems one way and then that's probably biased anyway.
I'm not even sure how people here even form opinions on this stuff at all at this point.
I try so hard to find the compassion inside of me to grieve for what the Palestinian people are going through right now, but I just can't find it in me anymore.
No matter what the basis of a conflict is, you do not need to even be a parent to twitch in your seat when seeing images of dead children. There is absolutely no argument that can justify that kind of imagery.
Except of course when an opposing force engaged in war intends just that to happen. This conflict has brought to light just how powerful the tool of propaganda and instant relaying of images of war can be used as weapon in the arsenal of global sympathy.
I have read about ambulances, mosques and even hospitals being targeted by the IDF and I guess in some sick sense of resentment I no longer care about it.
When I see videos like the one posted below of Hamas soldiers using UN Marked Ambulances as troop carriers it makes it even easier to no longer blame the obviously dominate IDF, but rather the ones that choose to use Children, Women and non-combatants as tools of war.
See for yourself, maybe you have more compassion than I do.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=116_1231063776
If you care about Gaza & Sderot, please don't waste your time commenting on 5 reader blogs or staging furry protests in SL no one gives a f&$k about. Help the people on the ground, on both sides, who are making daily personal sacrifices in a noble attempt to make a difference.
You are 50% right. It is possible to give while fighting the propaganda war too.
@ #226 ANTINOUS
"Yeah, but Germany doesn't offer citizenship to people based on Teutonic ancestry and Japan doesn't offer it based on being Shinto."
Actually, many countries do offer citizenship to descendants of their emigrants, and not necessarily because they face persecution where they live, as Jews potentially did and do. A Korean American, for example, will be fast-tracked to citizenship if they choose to move to Korea. A foreigner of non-Japanese descent, say, who tried to get citizenship in Japan faces a really hard time. European countries (Ireland, I think, for example) has these laws as well.
Even if other countries didn't have such laws, it wouldn't make it wrong that Israel did.
Palestinians have the right to return to Palestine, and should, God willing, there ever be a Palestinian state, they'll have the right to go to Palestine and help build it.
(Of course there's the refugee issue, how they should be compensated or if they should be allowed to return. That's separate though from wether or not Jews should be allowed to move to Israel and get citizenship easily.)
There just isn't anything for me to say anymore.
Icy, black, crushing, sounds like this thread.
Here is a an almost hourly updated blog from an international medical volunteer/activist currently in Gaza: http://talestotell.wordpress.com
It is hardly surprising that Palestinians trapped in Gaza in the conditions they are in cast around for ways to attack Israel and Israelis.
It is hardly surprising that Israel seeks to attack people who fire rockets or and make suicide bomb attacks on the general population.
Seems to me that everyone involved is trapped by history.
The Hamas government has placed dozens of Fatah members under house arrest out of fear that they might exploit the current IDF operation to regain control of the Gaza Strip.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
"Israel and the Palestinians are today committing great crimes while pleading with the world for understanding. Thy cn bth g fck thmslvs."
I wish to apologize for writing the above. It was hasty and thoughtless of me and it deserved disemvowelment. I was too imprecise. I meant to say that the Israeli military and Hamas should go fuck themselves.
@Buddy66
... or better, each other?
More blogging from medical volunteers and coordinators in Gaza, with links to other blogs: http://ingaza.wordpress.com http://sunshine208.blogspot.com http://fromgaza.blogspot.com
OK, I am feeling better. I mean that I am *feeling* after almost stopping feeling.
All that's happening is so overwhelming that it threatens to render one numb. Those who can't afford numbness, because they are in the middle of all that shit for example, still quite often fall short of fully feeling. They use all sorts of tricks, either or explaining what happens (rationalization), making the victims responsible of their fate, invoking the absolute right to self defense, blinding themselves to the abuse committed by their own camp...
I don't want to stop fully caring, I don't want to be content with false pretenses, hyper intellectualism, hate of the other or any other crutch.
I've chosen my party and it is the one of the vast majority in any society, the party of those who simply want to live the best life that they can, those whose ultimate goal is to be satisfied that they gave their full effort when comes the time to depart.
I'll give, I'll pray, even though I am not much of a believer in any religion, I'll listen and I'll help any way that I can.
"I'm not joking when I said "feral" in a previous comment. True, good intent needs to be proven, but just imagine if Israel somehow built a true "grid" there and then passed the proverbial keys to Gaza residents? Might cost less than bombing raids and might do a lot more to repair bad faith."
Israel, has in the past done just that. The problem is that the Palestinians (somewhat justly) see this as little more then an effort to distract themselves from the issue of the land they still see as rightfully theirs.
That being said, the only way this conflict will end is when both sides grow so sick of the fighting that they stop caring about who the land belongs to and just try to make some peace.
Well, since I view this thread as being "about alternative resources for news, information, and insight on the conflict" I'll chime in on that topic.
My frustration with altternative news sources is that with the barriers to entry so low (all you need is a web browser and maybe a camera), the ability for either side of a conflict to flood the web with mis-information or half-truths is a given. Add to that the simple reality that most people (I believe) tend to gather their news and opinions from just a handful of sources, so the likelihood of only being exposed to one basic point of view is very high.
Conflicts like this are, in my humble opinion, very complex, and when the motives and arguments for either side are distilled down to, say a short blog post or youtube posting, the only thing you can be sure of is that you aren't getting a full picture of the conflict.
The reality is I can likely find sources to support any position I'm pre-disposed to take, which makes it hard to find the one, true position taking all the facts into account. That someone else can find equally convincing sources to support the position they are pre-disposed to take doesn't make either of us right or wrong, we are, instead, both stuck in the un-edited mud created by alternative news sources, and we both are positive our positions are correct, and we have our list of sources to support our positions.
A posting by a child, wearing an elmo t-shirt, talking about the dump truck toy he lost in a bombing and the dog that was killed by shrapnel is an emotional plea that (in many cases) ignores any greater motivation by either side and causes the viewer to side with the child for any of a number of reasons that have nothing to do with understanding the greater conflict: Maybe you had a dog or a dump truck toy you loved as a child, maybe you feel a special connection to elmo, or maybe you just want to comfort a child.
To be honest Israel lost pretty much all my sympathy with the invasion and flattening of Lebanon recently, on minimal provocation. It was an atrocity, made all the more appalling by the fact it was counterproductive (it only helped Hezbollah to gain power) and killed so many innocent people. I am also ashamed at my government's (Canada) pathetic boosterism regarding that appalling war.
Israel, sadly, will never have peace until it chooses to recognize the humanity of the Palestinians. The actions of the IDF over the past few years indicates quite the opposite.
Not that Hamas is off the hook, or those who support them, but neither side has had anny connnection with justice or being 'the good guys' for a long time.
For a comparison, a few people blow up a couple of highrises and the US blows a gasket and invades/bombs a few hundred thousand people into oblivion 'because we were attacked'. Various parts of Gaza get flattened weekly, and their pathetic rockets are justification for further flattening?
The middle east, alas, is an ongoing demonstration that there is nobody you can be so totally angry at and frustrated with as your closest relatives.
Despite having family history associated with one of the sides in this conflict, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that peaceful co-habitation is simply not achievable. Perhaps the entire region should be salted with radioactives to make it impossible to live there for the next thousand years, and preserved strictly as a historical exhibit, depopulated except for a few caretakers.
These days I feel about Israel the way I feel about unions: Fine idea, was important at one point, and I *want* to like it... but these days I really worry that it's more of a problem than a solution. I don't like that conclusion, but it's hard to avoid.
Sigh. I wonder if this is happening now because Israel's gov. thinks Obama won't be so supportive of this type of action. Pretty ironic for a nation that congealed the way it did to be fencing in a minority group, cutting off their basic necessities, and killing them. Who wouldn't send whatever pathetic bottle rockets they had at anyone doing this to them, and how can anyone not expect such a population to become more militant? If this goes on long enough it could eventually be considered a... no wait the word 'holocaust' is taken... Hmm... maybe this is the first "Dehydrocaust?"
BTW: There might not be oil under Palestinian territory, but there is water, and when living in a desert that is kind of useful too. It's probably not a coincidence that Israel wants these territories since it's where the wells need to be to tap the aquifers and provide Israel with cheaper fresh water than any other source. Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to drill wells, and instead is offering an expensive desalinization plant as a source (which would put total control of the region into the hands of whoever controls that plant, which must be the actual goal since the project makes no economic sense).
The following is quoted from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-127192-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
"Most water resources in the POT come from the three water aquifers in the West Bank and the coastal aquifer in the Gaza Strip. In addition to these resources there are two other resources, the river Jordan basin and some springs. However, these latter sources are not as important as the first source, the aquifers.
As noted earlier, the Israelis began taking all necessary measures to control Palestinian land and water. They delivered most water resources in the POT to the Israeli National Water Company, MEKEROT, giving it a great deal of authority to control almost all water resources and management.
The main purpose of controlling land and water in the POT was to transfer tens of thousands of their civilian population into the POT, putting pressure on the Palestinian population so they would be forced to leave the country. This policy was more evident when the Likud Party assumed power in 1977 (Rouyer, 2000)...
...It was noted above that the PA exerted every possible effort to promulgate modern progressive laws with regard to water. Among these laws was the Water Law No. 3 (2002) which stipulates explicitly that "every person has the right to obtain his needs of good quality of water for human needs". It provided for 'every person', not every citizen, which shows the progressive nature of the law because everybody in the POT, even a tourist or a visitor has the right to water of an adequate quantity and good quality. These stipulations conform to the already established rules and principles of public international law and those existing rules of international humanitarian law."
[emphasis mine]
#226 Antinous wrote
Yeah, but Germany doesn't offer citizenship to people based on Teutonic ancestry and Japan doesn't offer it based on being Shinto.
You're under the misconception that Judaism is just a religion. It's not. Jews are a people, with a very long history. Judaism is hereditary - if your mother was a Jew, you're a Jew. And under a lot of anti-Semitic regimes, if your grandmother was a Jew, you're Jewish, and therefore ought to be killed. The point is that it's not a good comparison; Israel's right of return law is meant for the Jewish people, religious or secular. Jews who have never practiced, or have absolutely no relationship with the religion itself, are still welcome in Israel.
Rats and Carrion birds are cheering BOTH sides. Their ideology is "meat's meat and critters gotta eat" - With a nod to Farmer Vincent of a similar phrase being also on track. Killing often has hidden profit motives even if they seem oblique. The best hope would be starving those carrion eaters by peace ending the killing. Sadly I don't think Gaza's rats are at risk of hunger for some time. Though there IS a risk of carrion birds too bloated to fly if this goes on. Heinlein's "Crazy Years" perhaps begin?
A posting by a child, wearing an elmo t-shirt, talking about the dump truck toy he lost in a bombing and the dog that was killed by shrapnel is an emotional plea that (in many cases) ignores any greater motivation by either side and causes the viewer to side with the child for any of a number of reasons that have nothing to do with understanding the greater conflict: Maybe you had a dog or a dump truck toy you loved as a child, maybe you feel a special connection to elmo, or maybe you just want to comfort a child.
What about this: when we see the suffering of a child, Palestinian or Israelite, maybe we just realize that your 'greater conflict' is pure madness ?
like most other people here i find this all very depressing. there just doesn't seem to be an end in sight. it's so hard to see the wood for the trees what with the complex and violent history of that small strip of land.
in one way, the island of ireland (where i am from) seems comparatively lucky to have had a definite direction for its struggle for independence defined, in part, by its definite geographical independance.
the border of an island can change only by natural forces, it doesn't subtly shift like the gaza strip after a war or power struggle. it doesn't have other countries pushing and pulling at it's border.
the border of a non-island country is imaginary, and pressures exerted on it are passed directly to the people, creating immense tension and complexity over time. imaginary borders need to be slowly dissolved if the human race is to progess and develop.
it may not be working perfectly, but at least the EU is partially dissolving national borders (while admittedly creating new ones)
basically what i'm saying is, is there's a niche for a terra-forming company to come along and build islands for and relocate landless peoples until we've evolved a bit. anybody?
also... in my opinion the most depressing photo i've seen from this current trouble (not a violent or gorey photo)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0102/1230842350607.html?via=rel
Thank you BoingBoing for organising an informative debate.
I think, given the atrocious history of the last 80 years in the region, that if I were a Palestinian I'd fight against the Israeli state and if I were an Israeli I'd fight against the aggression coming from the neighbouring states.
But you can't count on the poor bloody infantry to come up with a lasting solution.
It's time for the politicians to earn their salaries and positions. They should really be held accountable around the world.
T m, mst f th fcts -- nd pnns -- rgrdng th crrnt stt f vnts s dplrbl, mddy rvr. t s lmst mpssbl t mk p my mnd s t th ccntblty r rspnsblty fr hw w hv ndd p t th crrnt sttn.
S fnd t nstrctv t try t ct thrgh th ns nd lk t bth srl's prmry gls. Nt th 2000 pc ffr, nt th 1948 r 1967 brdrs, bt th frst gls dsrd bv ll ls by Plstn nd srl.
-- srl wnts t b rcgnzd nd t lv prdctvly nd pcflly wth th rst f th wrld.
-- Hms wnts vry Jw n th wrld t b dd nd ths shld/cld b ccmplshd wth qnmty thrgh mrdr.
vrythng ls s ns, bt ths nfrms th fndtn f whr my sympths l.
basically what i'm saying is, is there's a niche for a terra-forming company to come along and build islands for and relocate landless peoples until we've evolved a bit. anybody?
What an innovative (and desperate) angle! I don't think that I've heard that one before.
this is horrible
-- Israel wants to be recognized and to live productively and peacefully with the rest of the world.
-- Hamas wants every Jew in the world to be dead and this should/could be accomplished with equanimity through murder.
And you don't even see how slanted this is I bet. If the rest is noise, this is a lie.
As the late, great Warren Zevon said it:
The Envoy
written by Warren Zevon
1980 Zevon Music BMI
Nuclear arms in the Middle East
Israel is attacking the Iraqis
The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese
And Baghdad does whatever she please
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy
Things got hot in El Salvador
CIA got caught and couldn't do no more
He's got diplomatic immunity
He's got a lethal weapon that nobody sees
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy
Send the envoy
Send the envoy
Whenever there's a crisis
The President sends his envoy in
Guns in Damascus
Woa, Jerusalem
Nuclear arms in the Middle East
Israel is attacking the Iraqis
The Syrians are mad at the Lebanese
And Baghdad do whatever she please
Looks like another threat to world peace
For the envoy
Send the envoy . . .
Send for me
Antinous @ #7:
"The oppressed have the inalienable right to secure their independence and freedom by any means necessary."
There's an inalienable right to send suicide bombers into pizza parlors and blow up teenagers? There's an inalienable right to send rockets into civilian areas?
Um, no, not under international law.
The rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza into Israel are repeatedly used to justify this invasion. To put this into a little perspective, these rockets (range about 10km) have managed to kill all of 15 (fifteen) Israelis in the past 7 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks). While this is obviously horrific for the families, and can't be condoned, I really wonder if this is what might be called a "proportionate response", especially considering the perpetual hardships the Palestinians are forced to live under in daily life (limited electricity, food, water, exports/imports etc).
If you look at the geography of the Middle East, and Israel in particular, you'll notice that some key roads run right through it. These are very old roads, going right back to prehistoric times.
If you look at the cities in Israel, you'll find certain key places (Megiddo, AKA Armageddon), where there are at least 25 to 30 layers of archeology going straight back to the stone age.
Nobody "owns" this land. It has been conquered so many times even in recorded history that for anyone to get up and say "this is my land because it was the land of my people" is ridiculous. So let's dispense with this notion right now. Religious text is not a basis for discussion here.
The question is who can defend the land, and who can prosper there. And this is where Hamas simply doesn't get it. The reason why so many countries were in favor of creating a land for the Jews after WW II is because it was already pretty much a fact on the ground. They were already living there. The empire which had sold the land to these people was long gone. The British saw no reason to continue holding things together there. So basically, that's how it happened.
But a funny thing occurred later: The Palestinian birth rate VASTLY outpaced the Jewish birth rate. Now we have a very large population of people who are laying claim to this land by virtue of having been born there, and oh, by the way, they believe the others are infidels and must be pushed out to sea.
There is no way to negotiate this. The conflict is inevitable. It is sad. I know of no Israeli who likes the notion. But they're dealing with survival here, and so too are the Gazans. The shame of it is that if they could put down their history for just a moment, they might be able to negotiate. But the region is steeped in it. There is no escaping it. And so, the fighting goes on.
Let it be a lesson to the rest of us.
@48 verygneiss
So what happens now? We have two parties which cannot meaningfully engage in negotiations without breaking with their own stances/beliefs/ideologies, and thus any power relations between them seem to end up in violence.
America liberates Gaza.
If only the did, this or that111, then peace will dawn....
seriously, and some point one must account for the strange phenomena of fetishizing this sad conflict.
how is it that all around the Internet the noise around this conflict (or indeed any thing Israel does, in Lebanon or elsewhere, reaches a deafening proportion)
All the while, other conflicts and even genocides (Iraq Afghanistan, or pick whatever happens in Africa in most any given moment almost gets no critical mention much less so many comments.
why is that?
why is one of the most complex problems the world faces, gets so many uninformed opinions?
Claims that Israel's existence is due to the terrorist actions of the Irgun are incorrect. The majority of Jews living in the British Mandate did not support the Irgun. Moreover, in 1948 there was an initial proposal for a partition by the UN which was accepted by the major Jewish groups and rejected by all the Arab groups who not only rejected that plan but rejected any plan which would result in a Jewish state no matter how small. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
This lead directly to the 1948 war. Attributing the State of Israel's existence to the Irgun is simply historically inaccurate.
"I've chosen my party and it is the one of the vast majority in any society, the party of those who simply want to live the best life that they can, those whose ultimate goal is to be satisfied that they gave their full effort when comes the time to depart."
INNOCENT, Welcome to the Big Party! Always room for one more.
VILLAGE IDIOT, Thanks a lot for that link. It's really useful.* Water is ultimately more important than oil. Those of us who read human history as the struggle for food, water, and safety should not be distracted by naive chatter about religion, tradition, and surplus wealth.
*TAKUAN, the Water Wars are upon us and can only expand.
We can argue all day long or until the cows come home or (insert your metaphor here...) What it all comes down to is the injustice of it all. Over on the NYTimes website they have a slideshow....cmpr nd cntrst th scns f ttr dvsttn n Gz wth th pr, pr lttl srl wmn sttng t hr nc dnng rm st, tchng hr frhd whr sh gt b-b. Pr wddl chsn n....
Joshua,
do you contend that the terrorism pre-1948 had no effect at all?
If a majority of the Jews didn't actively support their actions did they oppose it?
What about the fact that the totality of the Irgun members, terrorists as they were, became integrated to the IDF in 1948 with no form of process?
What happened of those terrorist? A few examples.
Ben-Eliezer, Aryeh (1913-1970) Elected to the Knesset as a Herut member and served as Deputy Speaker.
Cohen, Ben-Zion ("Giora") – "[c]ommanded the capture of the village of Dir Yassin (Dir Yassin was a massacre) and served as deputy commander in the capture of Malha." Later joined the IDF and attained the rank of Major
Katz, Shmuel (b. 1914) – one of the founders of the Herut movement and a member of the First Knesset; was later inivited by Menachim Begin to be his propaganda advisor.
I could go on forever. Cut the BS propaganda if you don't mind.
T sd wth Hms n ths n s jst pln lncy. Hms' mn gl s th dstrctn f srl.
s fr s nyn thnkng srl's rspns s dsprprtnt, lt m sk y ths:
f lntc ws btng n yr dr, wld y wnt th cps t snd n ffcr r mny t cntrl th lntc...nd prtct y?
Th mn rl f ny gvrnmnt s t prtct thr ctzns.
Lstly, f Hms rlly crd bt thr ppl why wld thy stckpl mmntn nd fr rckts frm msqs, schls nd nnr cts?
What?! I was disemvoweled for being sarcastic? damn.
Awesomerobot, right now, this thread is probably not the best place for sarcasm. I think the one thing everyone has in common is frayed nerves.
There is always a danger in lumping everyone in any particular group together as a whole; I'm sure there are plenty of Palestinians in Gaza who want Hamas to stop firing rockets, just as there are plenty of Jews in Israel and around the world who think Israel should give up the West Bank as part of a two-state solution. Rarely do the reasonable, peaceful, forgiving people have much of power in these kinds of issues
As a neutral outsider it is hard for me to wade through all the information on the Israel/Palestine issue and pick a clear "good guy"; shall we count up and weigh the number of dead innocents on each side to choose a moral "winner"? Hamas continues to fire rockets, and has turned down several peace agreements over the years, but Israel continues to treat Palestinians as second-class citizens, and build settlements in the West Bank.
Sometimes I picture King Solomon wearing a t-shirt that says "Kill Them All and Let G_D Sort Them Out." (And don't misinterpret; "all" means both sides.)
To side with Hamas on this one is just plain lunacy. Hamas' main goal is the destruction of Israel.
One can argue against the treatment reserve to the Palestinian without siding with Hamas.
As far as anyone thinking Israel's response is disproportionate, let me ask you this:
If a lunatic was beating on your door, would you want the cops to send one officer or many to control the lunatic...and protect you?
I wouldn't want them to kill the guy systematically. I most certainly wouldn't them to kill his family too...
The main role of any government is to protect their citizens.
In that case the government of Israel has failed quite a few thousands times and with remarkable constance since 1948.
Lastly, if Hamas really cared about their people why would they stockpile ammunition and fire rockets from mosques, schools and inner cities?
To make you look bad and Israel is helping them to succeed wonderfully.
Jesus! Propagandist here are so lame!
Ill Lich, and isn't that the problem in general. People like to say the law is to protect the minority from the will of the majority, but that is often backasswards. More often than not, it is the majority of us suffering at the hands of a powerful minority. Let me paraphrse someone elses comment, the 80% of us who are fighting over 20% of the pie, who vote for these self serving rich power brokers are suffering an acute case of Stockholm Syndrome.
@#268 POSTED BY CRAIGGER1:
This is tragic. Here's the deal. The fact that Israel cannot even see the craziness in their own behavior is part of the problem. Is going back to pre-1967 borders that reprehensible? Let's face reality: The land grab that was part of the 6 day war in 1967 has done more to destabilize the region than any other act in this mess.
#251 POSTED BY PITHE , JANUARY 4, 2009 7:51 AM
B.S. Here's why. Cultural and secular Judaism indeed exists, but in the case of Israel's defense it ALWAYS gets muddled. One second biblical right is invoked. The next second everyone of every strip is welcomed! One second IDF attacks are characterized as defense as ORDAINED IN THE TORAH! The next second, it's argued as simply an act to defend people.
The reality is Israel has perverted itself to justify bizarre behavior. And as Jew myself (secular) let me say that Israel suffers from a HUGE complex about Jews and their ability to fight. The general—and mainly anti-semitic mindset—is that Jews don't fight. And every IDF person I have ever met is far more proud of their ability to kill than ANY MILITARY FORCE member I have ever met from any place else. To deny that the IDF has "something to prove" is to deny the national language of Israel was changed from Yiddish to Hebrew mainly because you can't order troops with the intrinsically passive voice of Yiddish.
#250 POSTED BY VILLAGE IDIOT
Partially you're right. But Israel is having it's own elections and to sit back and do nothing assures that whoever is in office now won't be elected come February 10, 2009.
It will be very interesting to see what happens between January 20th and February 10th.
#260 pstd by TPS Rprts , Jnry 4, 2009 8:56 M
ntns @ #7:
TPS Rprts @ #260:
"Thr's n nlnbl rght t snd scd bmbrs nt pzz prlrs nd blw p tngrs? Thr's n nlnbl rght t snd rckts nt cvln rs?
m, n, nt ndr ntrntnl lw."
--ntrntnl lw, r n: th srls tk *Plstn* frm th *Plstnns* (s?, t's n thr nm!!!!) thrgh trrrsm nd brt frc.
Trrrsm nd brt frc r th nly wy tht lnd wll vr b rclmd fr th Plstnns.
Tt fr tt s crtnly fr, nd n ths cs, t's th Plstnns nly hp.
Blwng p srl tngrs n pzz prlrs n stln lnd s fr mr jstfd thn blwng p nncnt Plstnns n thr vllgs ws whn th srl dd t n th 1940's!!!
One thing the people holding guns here (literally and metaphorically) have in common, on all sides, is an unshakeable conviction that they are right; IMHO, people who usually think that are right, are usually wrong.
Could anyone here whose sympathies lie strongly with one side or the other list some bad stuff "their" side has done along the way that's brought us to this point?
Speaking as a moderator, I'd like to say thanks to everyone who has tried hard to be civil and articulate despite being angry. Given the subject matter, this thread has required remarkably little moderation.
To anyone who came late to the debate, didn't read the whole thread and just yelled an opinion, you probably lost your vowels.
Two Gun Cohen,
You've now accused me of several things that are untrue. I've never seen the Wikipedia page that you referenced. You're a first time commenter who's posted ten lengthy, one-sided rants in this thread. Feel free to write me or Teresa to explain why you're not an astroturfer.
time for some comedy relief:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
Framing the debate in terms of "proportionality" obfuscates the underlying issues.
Iam,
Don't construct strawmen. They aren't helpful. I did not make any claims that "terrorism pre-1948 had no effect at all". Nor did I claim that there was widespread opposition to the Irgun. The fact that the the Irgun was integrated with the IDF also is close to irrelevant and if anything goes against the argument you are making since it lead to more control of the Irguniks by the moderates.
I moreover don't understand why you think successful election of former Irguniks is somehow evidence that the Irgun was the reason the state of Israel was formed.
I find it interesting that you ignored the majority of my comment which discussed the history of the partition plan. Instead of accusing people of propaganda you could, you know, maybe try to respond to their points?
Donations for Palestine Red Crescent Society / Medical Aid for Palestine:
http://www.palestinercs.org/Donate_online.aspx
PRCS provide the ambulances and medical teams in Gaza, which International Solidarity Movement people are riding with, which blog was linked to at #241 by "mee".
Aside from everything else; Government in electoral trouble weeks before the nation heads to the polls initiates massive military adventures, rallies to the flag and the military and... voila!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/02/2458401.htm
Whoodathunkit?
The old schemes are the good schemes.
Attributing the State of Israel's existence to the Irgun is simply historically inaccurate.
Actually, I attributed Likud's existence to the Irgun. Irgun terror was certainly a factor in the creation of Israel, but the British and other western powers are ultimately responsible for the territorial hack job that created most of the problems in the Middle East.
"Israel and the Palestinians are today committing great crimes while pleading with the world for understanding. Thy cn bth g fck thmslvs."
I second that emotion.
Well, holy shit! Thanks for the Vanity Fair link.
and that was published in April last year
On one hand, ratio of casualties prior to ground offensive was about 100 to one. The main post mentioned Godwin's law, so I won't be mentioning which unsavory historical regime was content with 10 to one retaliation. I would also like to remind that several Croatian generals are tried for alleged war crimes for vastly lower proportion of collateral victims in action conducted on our (Croatian) own ground.
On the other hand, something had to be done about those random rockets and mortar rounds. Additionally, it seems that Israeli troops entered Gaza strip almost unopposed; therefore, Hamas is good only at yelling, emptying AK-47 magazines in the air and occasionally terrorizing civilians and livestock.
I think that solution could be a tampon area of several kilometers manned by UN or NATO troops, but seriously armed and with mandate to use those weapons. However, I don't see either side agreeing to something like this, or, for that matter, many countries volunteering their soldiers.
BTW, I remember when most of radical Palestinian resistance consisted of (USSR-supported) lefties. Now we have religious loonies. Which do you prefer?
BTW, I remember when most of radical Palestinian resistance consisted of (USSR-supported) lefties. Now we have religious loonies. Which do you prefer?
I'll take lefties.
Don't construct strawmen. They aren't helpful. I did not make any claims that "terrorism pre-1948 had no effect at all". Nor did I claim that there was widespread opposition to the Irgun.
Just to keep the discussion on solid bases, your words were:
Claims that Israel's existence is due to the terrorist actions of the Irgun are incorrect. The majority of Jews living in the British Mandate did not support the Irgun.
Now you admit that Israel's existence is in some part due to the Irgun?
How do you reconciliate 'no support by the majority' and 'no widespread opposition'? Not denunciating terrorist violence with all the vigor that you can muster is support in my world.
The fact that the the Irgun was integrated with the IDF also is close to irrelevant and if anything goes against the argument you are making since it lead to more control of the Irguniks by the moderates.
Irrelevant! Having the fanatic mass murderers in your ranks is irrelevant to you? Rewarding their crimes with complete acceptance means nothing to you?
As for control, when Irguniks were regularly promoted to the rank of superior officers who controled who and what?
I moreover don't understand why you think successful election of former Irguniks is somehow evidence that the Irgun was the reason the state of Israel was formed.
That wasn't my point at all. My point is that non only cold blooded murderer, terrorists and authors of many mass massacres got into the IDF without an itch, not only did they get promoted but some even became high ranking government officials who defined the actions and policies for Israel.
If you find this just fine there's little I can do for you.
I find it interesting that you ignored the majority of my comment which discussed the history of the partition plan. Instead of accusing people of propaganda you could, you know, maybe try to respond to their points?
There simply was nothing of interest in it for me but, if you insist:
you see, I was and still am 100% in favor of a state for the Jewish people who want to live there. It is a protection that is necessary to a people which was the victim of so many persecutions. It is also a defense against the rapid decline in the numbers of people who identify themselves as Jew.
There is no way however that I can condone how it was achieved, by terrorism, massacres, expulsions, theft of land, incarceration of whole populations in enclaves, denial of the most basic human rights and of the means to satisfy the most basic needs on a whim... I'll stop there.
Did you really want me to address that part too?
Lefties? Really? I think the only time I consistently see that dated and insulting phrase used is in the case of any Israel discussion.
Hate to break the news to some folks, but most of the progressive folks in the U.S. who did such "leftie" things as march for civil rights, help African-Americans get the right to vote and generally stand for human rights are Jewish "lefties"...
Somehow there's a strain of progressive thinking in Judaism that has been smothered in Israel.
Might be worth it to find and integrate it again. At this rate, it can't be any worse than the mess happening now.
As near as I can tell, the US (and by extension, Israel) is demanding that the Palestinians give up all of their bargaining chips, eg, violence, recognition of Israel, before talks can happen. This is just plain stoopid. I can't believe that anyone actually expects the Palestinians to go along with this, so I guess that actual compliance isn't what is desired.
At the same time, Hamas doesn't seem to want to allow some people who live in the area to live there. That seems pretty darned stoopid too.
Regardless, basing a country on the ergot inspired rantings of tribal elders from 2500+ years ago is, truly, insanity. Especially when there's ample evidence that there is no jewish people. The idea of quoting history endlessly at each other to justify inhumane acts only intensifies conflict, especially since history as written is never recognizable to the people who lived through it. Since they're usually dead.
At some point the residents of Israel and the residents of Palestine are going to have to kick out the leaders that find that the best way to win an election is to kill as many of "the other" as possible.
First of all, I'm an Israeli, so I have a somewhat obvious bias.
I'm from the peace camp, but the status quo over here is causing me despair.Hamas won't talk, no matter what other people think. When, in march 2006, it won the elections Israel wasn't that pleased but declared it would talk with Hamas if it recognized Israel and removed the sections for Israel's destruction and the genocide of the Jews.Hamas response?Warlike rhetoric and rockets. After some time(I think it was that summer) Israel retaliated.
Things have been going in that vein for the last two and a half years. The general sentiment over here, to which I am party, is that Hamas is a fundamentalist organization with dark-ages tribal mentality that wouldn't take any peace offer short of Israeli mass suicide. Israel is far from being pure as the driven snow, but at least some of our governments made an attempt at peace- Barak himself has been resisting calls for an operation that has been going on for the last month or so. According to his speeches he was hoping for the cease-fire to be continued, he was essentially saying:"Things are quieting down and maybe we'll have a chance at peace in a year or three- we don't need a new round".Unfortunately Hamas felt differently.
As to the "Blockade" propaganda- more then 400 truckload of humanitarian supplies have been let into Gaza since the beginning of this operation, and AFAIK more are being allowed in routinely.And no, Israel won't be opening its borders with Gaza anytime soon: we have no interest in supplying people who want us dead with the means.As to bombing the houses of people where the Hamas has stashed ordnance, they are called a few minutes beforehand to allow them to evacuate: they usually do so.
One last thing:Egypt has long blockaded the Gaza border(since 2005 IIRC).Mubarac views Hamas, for many justified reasons, as a threat to his rule.In addition Hamas pretty much mocked Egypt when the latter asked them to consider extending the cease-fire and maybe talk things over with Fatah.
To be clear- I don't think all Palestinians(or even all Gaza residents) think Hamas is the latest and greatest, and I hate the choices that led where we are currently, but sometimes all you have is bad choices. And like most people I'm somewhat barbarian, as the term was defined in Joel Rosenberg's "Not For Glory".And some responsibility should be assigned to the Palestinian side in all of this- not all of it, not by far, but some.
If only half of what is reported in that article is true, the willingness to act out of an unquestioning arrogance is astounding. I have often wanted to give them some benefit of the doubt, you know maybe they are just doing things we can't understand, but this truly is an extraordinarily incompetent group of people. This quote says it all.
Shouldn't they have thought of this a couple of years ago?God of Dirt @295
You want peace talks you have to stop shooting at the other side and agree he has the right to live.Just common sense.There are plenty of other matters that have to be agreed upon before any final agreement will be signed:What happens to Jerusalem?The refugees?The large settlements?And that's before we go into the 1001 details that go into such stuff.
PS.And remember- you can always resume shooting later, if the need arises.Peace talks are a much rarer commodity in this area, unfortunately.
On the other hand, something had to be done about those random rockets and mortar rounds. Additionally, it seems that Israeli troops entered Gaza strip almost unopposed; therefore, Hamas is good only at yelling, emptying AK-47 magazines in the air and occasionally terrorizing civilians and livestock.
They know that they are not up to confront the IDF with its tanks and air support, artilery, modern weapons so they will go underground for some time and they will resurface like the damn floater shit that they are.
Israel knows that as well. This operation is not about getting rid or controlling Hamas: it is about terrorizing the general population. The famous 'collateral damages' aren't 'just something that happens'. They are a strategic element which is statistically analyzed, precisely described in manuals, which effects are cataloged and the way to achieve them rehearsed. It's all in the military and the political logic
It seems that everyone has forgotten that Israel initially bankrolled Hamas as a counter to Fatah.
IamInnocent @299: have you seen those manuals?can point to some reliable citation of them?
I'm not forgetting it as much as ignoring it as irrelevant: what is relevant, to my mind is the present and recent history.Otherwise we risk going into infinite regression loop.
I find it very difficult to respect a country that has violently occupied another peoples land for 40 years, continues to expand those territories at the point of a gun, and then claims they are perusing 'peace'.
All the rest is just chaff, designed not only to obscure the essential facts, but also to cover the trail of a leadership that has discovered a basic political truth - eternal war is a path to perpetual power.
Find an enemy, wage a low level war that you cannot ever lose, prosecute it in such a way that it seems endless, then claim you are the only one that can keep the people safe. It goes hand-in-hand with soldiering - the oldest protection racket on earth - and seems a pretty simple ploy for a people who claim so much history to fall for.
It's true that I would be considered an anti-semite, in the same way I could be called anti-Xtian, or anti-islam, because I find any group that engages in exclusionary, chosen one, phobic behavior, to be inferior and more akin to animals than human beings.
My solution. Put a fence around ALL of the holy land, and once you enter, there's only one way out. Ban modern weapons, and televise the ensuing fun. I call the body bag concession.
Actually, #264 Sutra is dead on. The USA should sign a treaty with the Palestinians, then take all the money we send to Israel every year and use it to rebuild Gaza and force the borders back to the '67 lines. We could reverse the Arab streets perceptions of America overnight and end this travesty in one fell swoop.
suppose Gaza was occupied only by Israeli Jews. Suppose an extremist separatist splinter started launching rockets against the rest of Israel to achieve their political aim. Using the general populace as a shield. What degree of force would the IDF be using to put it down?
Especially when there's ample evidence that there is no jewish people.
The British people are mingled Gaels, Picts, Norse, Normans, etc. That doesn't mean that they're not a people.
Anton @ 298:
Talks happen when you talk. Cease fire talks happen, by definition, when there's firing going on. Peace talks happen, again, by definition, when a state of war exists.
If it didn't work that way, there would be no need for talks.
Staffers at the National Security Council and the Pentagon recently put out discreet feelers to academic experts, asking them for papers describing Hamas and its principal protagonists. Shouldn't they have thought of this a couple of years ago?
When Hamas joins OPEC, the US will pay attention to them. Until then, they're just one of many excuses for us to 'safeguard our strategic interests in the region'. How would peace enrich the US?
Iam,
"is due to" and "in some part is due to" are different statements. My wording was careful. Did the Irgun have some effects? Yes. Does that mean that but for the Irgun Israel would likely not exist? Far from it.
As to your claim that "Not denunciating terrorist violence with all the vigor that you can muster is support in my world" I find it interesting that you would buy into the "If you aren't with us your against us" mentality that has caused so much trouble for the US in the last decade.
As to your later repetition of the integration of the Irgun into the IDF it really isn't relevant to the point at hand; how the state of Israel came to be. One doesn't need to like how Israel handled the Irgun and one doesn't need to be happy with it. I'd be one of the first people to acknowledge that Israel as a whole has not acknowledged how bad the Irgun was and that there are serious elements of cognitive dissonance in that regard (one example that springs to mind is the wording of the official plaque about the King David hotel bombing at the site which portrays the Irgun as almost blameless). But I'm not arguing that Israel is blameless or that its handling of the Irguniks was ideal (I'm not completely sure what else they should have done. There's some evidence that incorporating militant groups into the mainstream can moderate them (see Ireland for example) but that's a very OT discussion). The issue is the claim that Israel exists because of the Irgun. That claim simply isn't accurate.
In any event, Antinous' clarified remark about Likud strikes me as more accurate (although the political history especially in regard to the first Herut is complicated).
And some responsibility should be assigned to the Palestinian side in all of this- not all of it, not by far, but some.
First off I'd like it if the Palestinians were not identified to the Hamas automatically. I certainly will never make the error to assimilate all the Jews to Israel most fanatics.
Also, as much as I'd would like to assess blame where it belongs, I can't bring myself to blame the terrorized and the dying right now. Can you understand?
GODOFDIRT @306
Peace talks don't usually happen while shooting is going on.Tends to make the matter a bit explosive- a state of war is not necessarily characterized by shooting:Israel and Syria has been officially at war since at least 1973(probably earlier), and the Syrian border is the quietest one, maybe excepting the Jordanian.
@Anton:
The myth is that there "should" be a Jewish state in Palestine, because the Jews were kicked out ca 80CE, and that the land was promised to the Israelites in the Bible (which is what I referred to previously as "ergot-inspired rantings"). I say "Bible", because, of course, it was the Limeys and Frogs (I can use those words because I have mixed English and French heritage) promised it to the Zionists in 1917. mtDNA studies and recorded history (in some cases, the lack thereof) say "No single Jewish People," just people who are Jewish.
And it matters because its a myth that is used from dividing the residents of one very small area land from one another. "Britishness" isn't used in the same way at all. My grandmother was born in Thames-Ditton, England, but that does not allow me to move to England and claim citizenship (not that I'd want to).
Both history and myth need to be forgotten, or at least put into perspective, for any kind of solution to take hold. History is written by the survivors, and is most often used to justify their own actions. Most of the history I've seen quoted in this discussion is of that sort.
I'm aware that U.S. foreign policy usually takes the easy route and creates chaos and dictators, with the goal usually no more than corporate profitability. But this administration has from the beginning refused to do their homework, with predictably disastrous results. I've said it before maybe this is what they wanted, maybe they just don't give a crap about the cost; they came into office with an agenda and must act now, while they have the chance. But forcing elections without doing any research is astounding, especially if the desired result was a vote of support for Fatah.
@Anton
Regardless, talking and shooting are not exclusive. Peace talks were ongoing between the US and Viet Nam even while bombs were still being dropped on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and AK-47 rounds were killing and wounding US conscripts.
If a party insists that the other side lay down arms before talking, talks will never start, and the shooting will never stop.
@GODOFDIRT 311
I think you're talking to someone else- I don't deal much in "should" during these arguments- I deal in "is" and "can be".There is a Jewish state in the Middle East currently(Israel), and it has the right to protect its citizens when attacked.The Palestinians want a state- fine by me, the land is big enough for two. But they also want the Jewish state to be destroyed, at least according to their leaders, and since this would probably involve either the death or exile of me and my family, you probably can understand me not being thrilled.
As to Jews being a nation- we are.We are a nation with a long and convoluted history, the last of the old religion/tribe hybrid identities to survive in the first world.I'm a good example: I consider myself a "Jewish Atheist"- because it isn't a contradiction in terms.Judaism is more then a religion, and less- it includes a whole lot of cultural baggage usually associated with nations, and, in its orthodox form, is very hard to get into if you weren't "born in", and if you're "born in" you have about zero choice.
I wish I could find someone to root for.
IamInnocent @299: have you seen those manuals?can point to some reliable citation of them?
No.
Takuan @304, are you familiar with the events of June 1948 involving the cargo ship Altalena, in which the newly formed IDF opened fire on members of the Irgun, even to the point of firing on unarmed men swimming to shore under a white flag?
@#278 posted by Jack:
To deny that the IDF has "something to prove" is to deny the national language of Israel was changed from Yiddish to Hebrew mainly because you can't order troops with the intrinsically passive voice of Yiddish.
You have obviously never seen an angry old Jewish lady. Yiddish can be nasty.
#295 posted by God of DIrt
Regardless, basing a country on the ergot inspired rantings of tribal elders from 2500+ years ago is, truly, insanity. Especially when there's ample evidence that there is no jewish people.
No Jewish people? How do you figure that?
fascinating bit of history there, thanks Avram. As an example though, I would say it points to restraint rather than excess.
Antinous @202
So any Muslim can get automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return? No. Jewish Israelis and non-jews carry exactly the same identification cards and have the same travel rights? No. Property ownership? No. The list is endless. Israel is an apartheid state.
I'm not a long-time poster and so I may be misunderstanding the way things work here, but in my experience moderators generally recuse themselves participation in debate. It's a symbol of the forum's neutrality and it safeguards the moderator from accusations of bias.
in my experience moderators generally recuse themselves participation in debate. It's a symbol of the forum's neutrality and it safeguards the moderator from accusations of bias.
We don't have that rule. As you can see, I've disemvoweled comments from both sides of the debate. I've also allowed a number of links to Israeli blogs because first hand information, even if I disagree with the blogger's perspective, is valuable to the discussion. Having spent six months being excoriated as an Obama supporter (which I'm not), I'm quite used to accusations of moderatorial bias.
Also, there aren't biased moderators and unbiased moderators; only ones who honestly tell you their bias and ones who don't. I know which kind I think is more likely to strive for balanced moderation.
Did the Irgun have some effects? Yes. Does that mean that but for the Irgun Israel would likely not exist? Far from it.
I can only agree to this very clear formulation.
As to your claim that "Not denunciating terrorist violence with all the vigor that you can muster is support in my world" I find it interesting that you would buy into the "If you aren't with us your against us" mentality that has caused so much trouble for the US in the last decade.
You will use my opposition to any form of terrorism to link me to Bush & Co. ?
That's rich!
The issue is the claim that Israel exists because of the Irgun. That claim simply isn't accurate.
I concede that there is a rather large degree of inaccuracy in that formulation.
I intervened because it was all too easy to understand your initial statement as meaning that the Jewish terrorists pre-1948 had no effect on the creation of Israel and on the orientation that it has taken since.
@PITHE
"No 'Jewish People'" in the sense of common ancestry, language, region of origin, etc... that were scattered in a mythical diaspora about 2000 years ago. For all of the criticism that Shlomo Sand has come under for "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" that central point has not been refuted.
And after a cursory reading of the history of the British Mandate of Palestine, I think that the Palestinians and the Israelis should get together and invade Britain. Its really all the Brits fault.
I have learned many amazing, horrifying and downright absurd things through this fascinating discussion. Can't help the feeling though that the more i learn about humans through this exchange of words the less i believe in any a way for achieving peace in anywhere.
I mean, what is this so called debate? People are dying, people are suffering. People. Humans. And we are arguing here about who's vision of history/realpolitiks/religions/righteousness/you-pick-your-favorite-kind-of-fish-to-slap-around-with is best. It all seems to revolve around defending ones opinion about how things are. Like IT would be under attack.
Any ideas how this kind of conflicts could be resolved? This particular one?
And someone tell me why i've been so fascinated by this show of verbal pugilism?
shiroitatsu,
Odd, because I've observed commenters here exchanging ideas and information, and changing or refining their opinions. I've certainly learned from the discussion.
Antinous, as I said, I've learned a lot. But mostly I've become aware of that that we like to toss the hot stone around more than finding a way to cool it down.
Well, I might try to do my part by sharing an insight that I think should be thought in elementary schools all around the world. I first understood it while reading Daniel Gilbert's article He who cast the first stone probably didn't. Following quote is from it:
"First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people's actions but not our own.
Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves - but that the opposite will be true of other people's reasons and other people's punches."
I've got a new identity! And I owe it all to this thread. All along I thought ''American'' would be enough, and fair enough for the three-quarters of me that goes back ten generations (the remaining quarter being the harps McInerney and Ryan who got off that potato boat in 1850); but now I can also self-describe as a secular Christian, I guess, because I descend from people who were, more often than not, Christians for at least fifteen centuries — although not so much for the last hundred years.
It doesn't matter that I am no more a Christian than my cat; I observe some of the cultural trappings of of that tradition:— cursing in the names of the Father and Son, observing Xmas with decorated fir trees and baked hams, calling preachers "Reverend," and exchanging marriage vows in churches (if the bride's parents insist). I'm sure there are lots of other things that I let go by unnoticed, since I am a secular Christian and have no interest in such stuff.
So I am no more a Christian than a secular Jew is a Jew. I just never thought of myself that way before. I was satisfied being an ordinary garden-variety American agnostic*. It's going to take some getting used to, this Secular Christian thing.
* "agnostic" because I have no opinion on Eternity or Infinity.
It's been my experience in the past as a professional forum admin/moderator (30-50k people) that it's a good idea to stay out of debates. It's not about whether you are biased or not, it's about making sure there is zero ambiguity about what hat you're wearing. It's about appearance not fact, and you'll never get around that. The only way to stay clear is wear one hat or the other and never switch mid thread.
A couple ways to have your cake and eat it too...
* Create an alt account and post with it, but DO NOT TELL THE OTHER MODERATORS. If one of your fellow moderators moderates you without knowing, it's a great lesson in how it can feel.
* Swear on a stack of pancakes you will not post opinion if you moderate or vice versa - leave it to another moderator to fill the role you aren't taking. Once you pick a role, stick to it and suck it up if you want to switch mid way through the conversation.
* Make sure everyone can see you are a moderator when posting with your main account. Here on BB, there is no way to know who is one beyond Theresa's . There should be a special tag by your name or some such thing.
anyone who reads the Moderation Policy thread instantly knows who is who.
Regarding the idea of Jews as a "people", "race", "tribe","religion": I agree with Buddy.
Re: Recognizing the "state" of Israel.
The political state is pretty well established.
The geographical state seems to be ever expanding.
For decades I have watched Israel expand its borders. State funding of "illegal" settlements seems never ending.
So I ask: Why is it expected, demanded, that entities recognize the "state" of Israel when its boundries are ever expanding?
What geographical "state" of Israel are they supposed to accept?
To our posters who are Israelis I humbly and sincerely ask: Where do you want to see your borders drawn?
How to stop war has nothing to do with history or fault.
War is a series of socially acceptable murders. The only way to stop war is to stop murdering each other, whether socially acceptable or not. As to whether or not someone was forced to engage in these murders is unimportant. War is constructed to coerce everyone into committing murder, whether the threat comes from an attacker, the government, or a third party. It is important to understand, that in a war everyone is killing in self-defense.
Until we have the courage to die instead of kill, then there will always be wars. The problem is this is damn hard to do when your children are going to be victims as well. This is why I don't believe in conventions. War should be so barbaric and costly that it becomes unthinkable. We are slowly becoming a less violent world, rules of war allow us to continue fighting with modern sensibilities.
Peace will only be achieved when we as individuals realize our lives and government policy actually have little or nothing in common. Because the truth is government policy generally serves only the few percent that own our world. When we learn that we are in many respects all the same and that 80% of us are fighting over 20% of the pie then we will stop fighting their wars and start defending each other.
Only then will all people be treated equally and justice finally served. We divide ourselves for those that would exploit us. Until we are united and indivisible, there will never be Liberty and Justice for all. And not until there is liberty and justice for all will there be peace. We must decide to ignore our governments and connect locally.
A famous example of this occurred in WWI, when front line soldiers spontaneously declared a truce on Christmas 1914. (This also happened the next year between French and German soldiers.) This action stunned military leadership, who immediately issued ultimatums to the troops to continue the fighting. Thereafter on Christmas Eve leadership ordered artillery barrages to preempt informal truces. What would have happened if they had ignored orders en mass?
It is long past the time for us to ignore orders and work together across lines to unite ourselves against those that foment hate and fear, and profit from our ignorance. Imagine if the majority of peaceful Israelis and Palestinians just ignored their respective governments and decided to stop fighting and start sharing. Imagine if they all suddenly started working together to regain control of their lives from extremist and fear mongers on both sides.
Only when the majority is ready to die will the minority lose control, because their control is contingent on our fear.
Nice post FoetusNail
Thanks
anon@283: Framing the debate in terms of "proportionality" obfuscates the underlying issues
Anyone who wants to say there is an "underlying issue" more important than how many people are being killed right now simply doesn't want the spotlight focused on how many people are being killed right now.
26 innocent israelis were killed by Hamas militants from Gaza during the whole of 2008. About 100 innocent palestinians have been killed by israel in the last week alone. My links at #152 show that Israel killed another 100 palestinian civilians in Gaza in the first four months of 2008.
There is no greater sin going on right now than how many innocents are being killed and hidden behind the righteousness of "underlying issues".
dreadletterday@285 has it. headline: Israel's Labour rebounds in polls after Gaza blitz.
Bush's popularity skyrocketed to 90+% after 9/11, then slowly dragged down to 60% around mid february of 2003. By mid february, it was clear that Bush was going to invade Iraq, and his approval rating jumped to 80%.
Israeli elections are in a few weeks and the incumbents were hurting and this little demonstration of Israeli force, at the small cost of a few innocent dead palestinians, ought to help the party in the elections. Nothing like a little war to win an election.
antongarou@296: And some responsibility should be assigned to the Palestinian side in all of this- not all of it, not by far, but some.
Responsibility is a very simple thing.
Hamas militants are responsible for the 26 or so innocent Israelis it killed in 2008.
Israel is responsible for the 100 or so innocent Palestinians it killed in the last week or so. Isreal is also responsible for the innocent palestinians it killed in the rest of 2008 as well.
Buddy @ 328
Flip-mode!
Nicely perspectivized :)
what would have happened, Nail?
http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/PathsFerrol.jpeg
tak@304: suppose Gaza was occupied only by Israeli Jews. Suppose an extremist separatist splinter started launching rockets against the rest of Israel to achieve their political aim. Using the general populace as a shield. What degree of force would the IDF be using to put it down?
Now, don't be going and asking questions like that. We've seen the Israeli government bomb illegal israeli settlements just as hard as it has bombed Gaza.
What? It didn't? Soft touch? Well, there goes that theory. Maybe Israeli is just a touch fascist towards palestinians. A tad. A tiny little sliver of a bit.
Maybe we should look at how the Israeli government has been talking about Palestinians and Gaza prior to their invasion.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=13780
"it would be pointless for Israel to topple Hamas because the population [of Gaza] is Hamas." Deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai's infamous remark about creating a "shoah," or Holocaust, in Gaza, has been matched by Israeli measures. Israel's Minister of Public Security, Avi Dichter, believes punishment should be inflicted "irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians"; Meir Sheetrit has urged that Israel should "decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it"
Yeah, it seems that there is a slight hint that Israelis place absolutely zero value on the innocent palestinians it kills.
Avi Dichter even cancelled a trip to to England in 2007 because he was worried he might be charged with war crimes for his part in assassinating a Hamas military leader back in 2002.
In September 2005, former Israeli GOC Southern Command Doron Almog flew to London and found that a British police officer was waiting in the terminal with an arrest warrant for him. Almog remained on the plane and returned to Israel to avoid arrest.
@278 Jack
"Israel is having it's own elections and to sit back and do nothing assures that whoever is in office now won't be elected come February 10, 2009."
@285 DreadLetterDay
"The old schemes are the good schemes."
and
@336 GregLondon
"dreadletterday@285 has it. headline: Israel's Labour rebounds in polls after Gaza blitz."
seem to have hit the nail on the head. This current situation's proximate cause is internal Israeli politics.
The solution? It's much simpler than FoetusNail suggests (@332). People don't have to be willing to die rather than kill. People just have to vote for a party who will not kill in their name.
People in this case being the 80% of Israelis who are unreservedly in favour of the current agressions, and the citizens of the world who are not ensuring their governments are applying the strongest possible pressures on Israel.
@#341 POSTED BY DR80085
Also let's not forget: Wars for potable water will make the wars for oil seem like child's play in the mideast.
Amy Goodman tipped me off to this on Democracy Now. And honestly, he's 100% right about the role of water to wars in the region.
I meant to type "she's 100% right". Damn my typos!
a new problem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/04/obama-gaza-israel
A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.
And yet US politicians are at Israel's beck and call.
What could Obama possibly do now? Remember, the lame duck administration he's replacing on January 20th idiotically used the mid-east crisis to make their final days seem better by declaring they would create peace by the end of 2009.
O Rly? Nah rly!
It's better if Obama sits back and says nothing until the moment he's in charge. And for all we know Obama's team could be involved in peace talks between Israel & Syria (brokered via Turkey).
srl hs bcm Nz Grmny. Thy r rmd t th tth, blt Wll nd xct t wll.
Th xtnt f th pprssn thy xrt s qt vl t wtnss.
Hw cn th lnd b hly whn ths tht cntrl t hv bsltly n cnnctn t Gd?
Something's been bothering about this and the other previous threads that I couldn't put my finger on until just now. While I appreciate the fact that a region can only be truly understood when its entire history is understood, there is something... off... about discussions that keep going back to 1948 or 1973 or whenever. I brought up some bits myself, but I realized just recently that all that does is take attention off the current situation.
This isn't about whether Jews needed or deserved their own homeland after the holocaust. This isn't about whether Jews rightfully or unrightfully took land from palestinians and displaced them so they could form the modern state of Israel. Yes, those are issues that would probably need to be acknowledged as a source of the current political situation. But they're not what is actually at issue now.
What is at issue now is not whether Israel has a right to exist, but whether Israel's current war against Gaza is legitimate. The United States has a right to exist. That doesn't mean that America's invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was legitimate, a wise decision, or a proportional response to 9/11. The history upon which America was founded is irrelevant to the legitimacy of its invasion of Iraq in 2003 and occupation at least until 2009, probably 2010 or later.
What is at issue now is whether Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza was a legitimate response to Hamas militants killing two dozen Israelis in 2008.
And while we're on the subject of issues, another non-issue that's been coming up on the threads and in discussions is Hamas's mission statement. It's been quoted a number of times as calling for the complete destruction of Israel. And it's been provided as justification for an anhilation of the people of Gaza. And if that's the case, then I've already brought up numerous statements by Israeli politicians who have made clear that they are willing to wipe out entire swaths of Gaza, that they are willing to conduct their war as if all civlians of Gaza are indistinguishable from Hamas militants, that Israel will bring a holocaust upon the palestinians, and that they are willing to conduct this Israeli bombardment and invasion without any regard to teh cost to palestinian civilians.
At which point, neither side can claim the moral high ground in their "mission statements" or intents or whatever you want to call it. Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel is immoral. But Israel's various polticians statements calling for war against all of Gaza regardless of civilian casualties is no less immoral.
What is at issue right now is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, Hamas attacks from Gaza, and Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza. The responsibility of everyone's actions and the morality of everyone's actions around these events can be discussed in a fairly straightforward manner without engaging in a historical regression back to Moses and the promised land. And the more time you spend discussing events not directly related to the current issue at hand, is more time you spend directing attention away from the current issue at hand.
For decades I have watched Israel expand its borders.
Really? That's an extraordinary statement. Most people would say that Israel's retreat from the Sinai Peninsula represented the opposite of an expansion. You could argue that settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were expansions of its territory, but it's hard to quantify them because the border has not yet been determined. In any event, Israel withdrew from Gaza and removed its settlements from there - which once again is a contraction, not an expansion.
@347: You obviously need a lesson in history. Try watching some films (or better still- read!) about Nazi Germany.
@348:
"But Israel's various politicians statements calling for war against all of Gaza regardless of civilian casualties is no less immoral"
-who are these politicians you speak of? care to name them?
I would really like to see some workable solutions proposed.
@#348 POSTED BY GREGLONDON:
Well, another thing to realize is Israel's noble stance of opening it's borders to all Jews all over the world is really scary if you're not Jewish and live in the region.
First, thanks Israel for providing me—and other Jews—with an open door. But I prefer living in NYC in the USA and not in Israel.
But let's say right now every Jew in the world decides to immigrate to Israel. Israel simply cannot physically absorb them. But Israel's foundation is built on providing a home for all Jews?
So guess what neighboring states... Israel might slowly grab land to provide for others.
While Hamas clearly just wants death and destruction of all of the Jews, I really cannot imagine the feeling it must be to be a neighboring state who sees your land as a future land grab and not much else.
Hamas's view is pure death. And Israel's open-door policy spells death for anyone near Israel.
It's all sick.
fuzzyami@350: who are these politicians you speak of? care to name them?
I already posted the link twice.
#351 POSTED BY TAKUAN:
If Syria and Israel could negotiate peace and form an anti-Hamas coalition, then that would really be the best and most practical solution to this. In fact I want to thank Boing Boing for having this discussion because layout out my own opinions and reading what others have said has helped me personally see this as the only way to peace. Israel and Syria becoming allies would change A LOT.
Tak@351: I would really like to see some workable solutions proposed.
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
Starting on page 39.
For the bloodthirsty, it will be a disappointment, since it calls for neither the destruction of Israel nor the annhilation of the Palestinians.
For the pragmatic who just want this shit from both sides to stop, it seems like as good a place to start as any.
Israel is a reality, but then so are Gaza and the West Bank. It's tedious to argue the past regardless of how valid points of history may be; it's clear no argument will sway either side. What might be a good first step is an honest broker. But currently we seem to be the only "intelligent" life in this universe, so I guess until this deadly war of attrition is over we will have to endure this endless merry-go-round of petty point scoring and self-justification on the part of the interested observers, and the deadly reprisals of those vying for the same piece of land. Almost thirty years ago, as a teenager, and as the West pressed USSR to submit, I was too naive to realise that after WWII the Russians didn't have the stomach for another brush with annihilation. This time round though, I'm not so certain that anything short of annihilation will "solve" this problem. Maybe a world-wide conflagration would do the trick, then we could start all over again, taking special care to learn from the past... oops!
what could induce Syria?
Especially when there's ample evidence that there is no jewish people.
If Jews say they are Jews (as a people, not just religion), then they are.
About "lefties" I mentioned, I had in mind what someone else mentioned, that USA and Israel tried to undermine Fatah by bankrolling likes of Hamas. Now they have more than they bargained for.
Syria's very twitchy.
that USA and Israel tried to undermine Fatah by bankrolling likes of Hamas. Now they have more than they bargained for.
Like when the US armed Iraq to fight Iran? That worked out well.
what does Syria need, what does Syria want?
The myth is that there "should" be a Jewish state in Palestine, because the Jews were kicked out ca 80CE, and that the land was promised to the Israelites in the Bible (which is what I referred to previously as "ergot-inspired rantings").
Both history and myth need to be forgotten, or at least put into perspective, for any kind of solution to take hold.
I might agree that formation of State of Israel (especially as it was done, by partitioning Palestine) was wrong. But that is now irrelevant.
mtDNA studies and recorded history (in some cases, the lack thereof) say "No single Jewish People," just people who are Jewish.
Genetic studies also show that, judging by your criteria, no European nation exists. For example, Hungarians have more Slavic genetic stock than Bulgarians. So what?
yup, DNA whatever, you're all a bunch of obnoxious mammals to me.
Jonathan Schwarz has an interesting post. It's about the 6 Day War, in 1967, which I would normally say is in teh past and not very relavent to right now, except for this:
In 1967, Egypt was blockding part of Israel, and Israel announced repeatedly that a blockade was a casus belli, a justification for Israel to go to war against Egypt.
Oh, and one of the posts in the thread gives a link to more quotes of Israel's true intentions towards Palestinian civilians:
Palestinians are like cancer. There are all sorts of solutions to cancerous
manifestations. For the time being, I am applying chemotherapy.’
Moshe Y’alon, Israeli Chief-of-Staff
‘Eventually we will have to thin out the number
of Palestinians living in the territories.’
Eitan Ben Eliahu, Israeli Air Force Commander
‘I believe in liquidationists.’ (Assassination brigades targeting Palestinian activists)
General Meir Dagan, Head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service
Add these to the previous links and quotes I've already posted, and I can only conclude that any attempt to quote teh Hamas mission statement without quoting the equally morally reprehensible statements of Israeli military and government officials is nothing but propagand attempting to demonize Hamas for something Israel is also guilty of.
#361 POSTED BY TAKUAN
Based on nothing but optimistic reading between the lines, but look at Bush versus Obama. Nobody anywhere wants to give ANY credit to the Bush administration for anything, correct? So let's say Syria became allies with Israel and signed a peace treaty while Bush is in office... Bush and "the usual gang of idiots" get credit, all of this idiotic war is validated and Obama is made to look like a fool; because Obama is supposed to be the person who can induce change.
I'm going to bet that peace negotiations with Syria and Israel with Turkey and a new U.S. administration will happen sometime in February. After Bush is gone and Obama is in power. And after Israeli elections.
And if Syria is seriously talking to Israel and it has been kept secret, I'm willing to bet Jordan is watching and waiting as well.
Let's make it clear. Israel is not the only group that hates Hamas. A united group of Arab/Israeli allies could smother them for good.
Otherwise, I see no solution.
hmmm... perhaps Bush can get a note from his parents and go home early?
An article by Barry M. Lando (a graduate of Harvard and Columbia University, spent 25 years as an award-winning investigative producer with “60 Minutes", who identifies himself as a Jew), posted in February of 2008, asks "Why no outcry when Israel launches a brutal blockade—a collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinian men, women and children—threatening their supplies of fuel, food and medicines?"
On page 2 of the article, he discusses a 60 Minutes story he tried to do on AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), and how none of the American politicians wanted to talk unfavorably about AIPAC on the record.
Interesting stuff. Might explain how most americans think we ought to remain neutral but the US government keeps coming down to blind support of Israel. Sounds like AIPAC is to Israel like the NRA is to guns, a lot of lobbying money and power that US politicians ahve to reckon with.
I never understood why for instance the House of Saud didn't just buy the US government...oh wait...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402647.html
Jack @365:
the 2 main problems with that are:
1)Arab dictators have been blaming Israel for all their woes to get the people off their backs for years.Now most of them can't cooperate with Israel without being held as traitors.
2)Bibi Netanyahu stands a good chance of winning the election over here, and he's of the old :land before life" extremist school.Not to mention a disaster of Thatcherite proportions as PM. If he becomes PM any and all peace talks will grind to a halt.
#355
good link.
unfortunately, common sense will never prevail as long as the concerned parties prefer violence to mediation and pacificism.
we need another Gandhi ...
"when I despair, i remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. there have been tyrants