Gaza in Context
I’ve been thinking back on some of the online disputes I’ve been having about Israel’s attack on Gaza, and it occurred to me that what’s missing from a lot of this is context. Not further context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but further context on the use of force in general. The main folks I’ve been arguing with — Jon Chait, Martin Peretz, Michael Goldfarb — are all guys who, I believe, think even in retrospect that support for the invasion of Iraq is nothing worth regretting. And certainly Peretz and Goldfarb were cheerleaders for the 2006 Israeli action in Lebanon, though I don’t remember what Chait thought.
For my part, I think having supported the Iraq invasion is very much worth regretting and over the past five years I’ve changed a lot of my thinking about national security policy and war and peace in general. I was skeptical of the merits of Israel’s attack on Lebanon, skeptical about Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia, skeptical about Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, and skeptical about Russia’s furious counter-attack on Georgia. Long story short, I’m strongly inclined to believe that political actors are much too eager to believe that the aggressive use of military force will accomplish their objectives, and also inclined to believe that political actors are much too eager to believe that bloodshed is morally justifiable.
But put in a different, more hawkish context, I’d say what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly better-justified than what the United States did in Iraq. The threat of Hamas rocket fire wasn’t just a made-up pretext. And the operation seems a lot better-conceived than the one in Lebanon. So given our different prior commitments, I’m not sure I’m having any particularly seriously disagreements with those folks about the particulars of this armed clash or even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict writ large. Or, rather, I’m not sure that such disagreements are really the key drivers of disagreement about this specific thing.
Relatedly, something I’ve heard from fans of this attack is rhetorical questions along the lines of “what would the United States do if we were being attacked by rockets from Mexico or Canada?” Of course with such hypotheticals, it’s always hard to specify the issue correctly. I assume if someone shot a rocket across the Canadian border in the general direction of Seattle that the Canadian government would arrest the guy. But you actually don’t need to get very hypothetical to ask what the United States would do if people felt themselves threatened by foreign killers — we’d do exactly what we did in 2002-2003, namely engage in a panicky, counterproductive, and immoral overreaction driven more by emotion, ego, and politics than by sound thinking about the situation. So I don’t really find it surprising that Israel is reacting in this way.
By somewhat the same token, I do read in the comments section what I would regard as a disproportionate level of shock and appalledness from some quarters about Israeli activities as if this action is some kind of unprecedented outrage in human history. The real outrage is how common and banal, how unsurprising and thoroughly precedented it is.
90 Responses to “Gaza in Context”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Well done.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I think a lot of the outrage in the US comes from the fact that we give Israel about $3-$6B/yr to buy munitions (munitions that have made in the USA on them).
Ofcourse US $$ and munitions were used in Iraq too, but here is the difference:
We live in a country that is a democracy, and for all purposes has 2 major political parties. If we are against an action we have the right to vote in the party that we agree with and vote out the party we disagree with. With Iraq we had one political party who was for the war and still is, and one who was meekly against it then turned hard against it. Since that time we have voted in the party we agree with in huge numbers.
With the current Israel-Palestine conflict the only choice we are presented with are those who get a boner from killing Arabs (R) and those who get a boner from supporting Jews (D). I, as an American citizen, have no opportunity to elect a party that will stop funding the Knesset’s genocide. I had that opportunity with Iraq and I seized on it to vote for a President who promised to bring us out of Iraq (Kerry, but he lost) then successfully voted in a new Congressmen, a new Senator, and a new President who have vowed to get us out of Iraq. I had the choice, I didn’t always like the outcome, but I had a choice to go against genocide that my tax dollars promoted.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Do I understand Israel’s actions? Sure. Does that make them right? Absolutely not. Your discussion of our country is instructive; I criticize my country’s frankly pointless and counterproductive reactions to terror, but that doesn’t mean I want it to be victimized by terrorism again. The same with Israel. What you find almost total unanimity on among bloggers is the idea that Israel must be defended. We just disagree about the best way to defend Israel, and about what conduct Israel is morally permitted to undertake in securing its own defense.
There are two very good reasons to hold Israel to a different standard and expect more from Israel.
1) Israel is a functioning, free liberal democracy, which has the capacity for positive change and the ability to live according to basic codes of just behavior and human rights. Yes, on some level its perverse to ask the better actor to be better still. I find it an entirely banal situation in human life. We ask the most from those capable of giving the most, and right now, for all of its flaws, Israel is much more capable of right and moral action than a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas.
2) The United States has a unique relationship with Israel, different from that with any other country in the world, and are deeply invested in the Israeli state. That makes Israel’s conduct, to a degree, our conduct. When I criticize the continued occupation, or the conduct of the IDF, I’m not just criticizing Israel. I’m criticizing the United States, which is my country and my responsibility as a democratic citizen.
This is a morally and pragmatically vital question for our country moving forward. The fact that the same usual suspects continue to torpedo the conversation by equating support for human rights and justice with support for terrorism and Jew-hatred just serves to demonstrate again how little those people actually care for the well-being and character of both this country and Israel.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I am not sure if the shocked comments are “disproportionate” to the other comments that say the action is justified. But like the Iraq war, what is the end game here? Israel is not going to keep troops on the ground in Gaza forever. What happens when they withdraw? Are they just kicking the can down the road? What happens when the road ends?
January 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Another issue is that the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza have been more of an annoyance to Israel than a real danger. They’ve caused very little damage and only a handful of casualties. Israel almost certainly will end up suffering more deaths in the Gaza incursion than it would have had it allowed the rocket attacks to continue for another year or more.
Even the 2006 Hezbollah missile attacks from Lebanon were only a relatively minor threat to Israel, despite the fact that the missiles were far more powerful and accurate than Hamas’ Gaza rockets. Hezbollah fired over 10,000 missiles into Israel and caused about 100 deaths. That 100-to-1 kill ratio is probably less than what you get in fistfights.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Matthew Yglesias is right to be skeptical about the utility of violence, but the problem with the ongoing massacre in Gaza is not that it is useless but that it is evil — an evil project designed by evil politicians.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:12 am
you actually don’t need to get very hypothetical to ask what the United States would do if people felt themselves threatened by foreign killers — we’d do exactly what we did in 2002-2003
Bravo. And just as the 2002-3 madness in the US had a political underpinning, so it is in Israel. War is the health of the state.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Re JimboSlice
One really gets irritated with fucktards like Mr. JimboSlice who blithely throw around accusations of genocide. Just for the record, if genocide was what the Government of Israel had in mind, they would not be going about it like this. As I have stated previously, they would line up several hundred artillery pieces along the border with the Gaza Strip and make it a free fire zone, much like Hafaz Assad did in Hama. The current action is not only costly in terms of the expense of operating and maintaining helicopter gun ships, jet aircraft, and smart munitions, but, during the current ground action exposes the IDF to battlefield casualties. The artillery scenario, on the other hand, is far more cost effective relative to weapons costs and exposure to battlefield casualties.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Matt, has Israel’s recent attack on Gaza - and its much longer blockade, starving Gaza of food, fuel and medicine - changed your assessment of the two-state solution as a realistic path to peace? It seems to me that Israel has repeatedly demonstrated, over the last several years, an ability to shut down Gaza at will, and that no viable Palestinian state is going to survive if Israel can choke 1.5 million of its citizens whenever it feels like it. Even if all settlements were dismantled in the West Bank - and that’s a huge if, given that Israel has never stopped building settlements there - I don’t see how a viable Palestinian state can be built along the ‘67 borders, as supporters of the current peace process seem to imagine; Israel’s actions in Gaza over the past few years have demonstrated this.
It seems to me that those interested in peace and justice in Israel/Palestine should now focus themselves on a single, secular binational state. The realistic alternative to this isn’t a two-state solution, it’s ethnic cleansing.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:19 am
But put in a different, more hawkish context, I’d say what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly better-justified than what the United States did in Iraq. The threat of Hamas rocket fire wasn’t just a made-up pretext. And the operation seems a lot better-conceived than the one in Lebanon.
I’d agree that if Canadians or Mexicans were launching rockets at the US many Americans would freak out and the President would be pressured into nuking the offending country.
However I strongly disagree. Israel has an economic stranglehold on Gaza and is occupying Palestinian territory and denying Palestinians basic rights. America isn’t doing this (although we are complicit, it’s at Israel’s behest.)
Saddam behaved much worse than Hamas, but antiwar people are deaf dumb and blind about Saddam so it’s no point to argue. People can look it up on the Internets if they care. Hamas was elected, Saddam wasn’t. America is leaving Iraq, Israel wont’ leave the occupied territories b/c they believe they’re vital to their defense and survival. Saddam launched scuds at Israel during the first Gulf war, just as Hamas is launching rockets. Plus Saddam annexed Kuwait and invaded Iran, etc. Commited genocide against the Kurds, etc. Hamas are pikers compared to Saddam.
How long until the Juicebox Mafia says that Afghanistan was a criminal enterprise and then enforce their views in a Cosa Nostra manner? (hence the name)
Israel is screwed. This campaign into Gaza will accomplish nothing accept create another generation of anti-Israel Zealots and cause Israel’s reputation to sink even lower.
On the other hand America removed a psychotic dictator and is leaving Iraq with a democratic government and leaving the region a safer place.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am
In fairness to Chait, I think he actually regrets the Iraq war.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Another issue is that the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza have been more of an annoyance to Israel than a real danger.
Can I nominate this for the most idiotic idea frequently offered in these discussions? It’s a hell of a lot more than an annoyance to the (yes, few) people who have been killed by the things, or to the million or so people wondering if they will be next, even if the odds they will be are lotteryesque.
I’m second to no one in the conviction this reaction by Israel to the rockets is both wrong and counterproductive, but the idea that the rockets are really nothing to worry about or should be tolerated indefinitely is beneath consideration.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Re: SLC
If the Israelies wanted to conduct genocide what they would do is slowly starve the people of Gaza. They would ram humanitarian relief boats. They would close the borders down for 2 years to prevent the people of Gaza from getting food and basic medical supplies. They would create a slow painful death for the people of Gaza, because then later fucktards like SLC could claim its not genocide because it cost Israel a lot of $$.
I would point you to this article from the Baltimore Sun on Nov 26, 2008: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/112608Lendman.shtml
January 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Are they just kicking the can down the road? What happens when the road ends?
Same as in the West Bank: they lay down some more asphalt.
There was perhaps a thought, with Sharon’s debilitation and Arafat’s death, that a generational shift was coming, and old foes whose enmity was forced in the 60s and 70s would give way to new leadership. The constraints of domestic politics and the potential for career suicide seems to mitigate against those new leaders moving towards a settlement.
As I’ve said here before, I’m not averse to can-kicking: there’s been a lot of it in Northern Ireland, over decommissioning arms and power-sharing, but it’s taken place in a context that basically allows time to erode the footprint of paramilitaries and economic growth to get people comfortable with the new status quo.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:34 am
On the other hand America removed a psychotic dictator and is leaving Iraq with a democratic government and leaving the region a safer place.
And that will remain Peter K.’s position until Christopher Hitchens changes his mind. He even has a little Kurdish flag pin on his lapel right now.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I think we’re facing the realization that democracies are no more peace-loving, in practical terms, than other countries.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Re JimboSlice
In the first place, the web site to which goat fucker Mr. JimboSlice linked to is not the Baltimore Sun newspaper. It has no connection with the Baltimore Sun.
In going over to the site of the baltimorechronicle which I had never heard of before, it is quite obvious that it is just another far left wing mouthpiece, much like counterpunch which just parrots the type of lying crap that one might read on its right wing counterparts stormfront and rense. Mr. JimboSlice is going to have to do better then that.
Furthermore, the charge that Israel has prevented the shipment of medical supplies to the Gaza Strip over the last 2 years is a god damn fucking lie. In fact, the Govenment of Israel is even during the current combat allowing shipments of medical supplies and food and even treating wounded Gazens in Israeli hospitals.
I suspect that Mr. JimboSlices’ next source of information to be cited will be the Protocols of Zion.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Matt, my compliments. That was an outstandingly thoughtful and considered post, and it adds a missing and vital part to the discussion.
Consistently the problem with the Gaza discussion is the endless microfocus. A UN School is bombed! A rocket landed in Israel. There’s no discussion at all of the larger context of the situation of Gaza, the history that brings us to this point, or even the metacontext.
Although its arguably vital, that context is ignored in discussion, and even when someone brings it up, its ignored. Deeper discussion simply sinks like a stone.
Guys like SLC (and no, I’m not particularly singling him out as an offender, but merely as the most perfect stereotype) reduce the entire was to sports team trivia. Once in a while they tear their shirts over blood and suffering and utter windy apocalyptic sentiments. But they approach things with the attention span of a retarded football player who can appreciate only the play that is happening on television before his eyes at that moment.
We need better from SLC and others, I think that we need them to be less childish and more insightful, to be less myopic and more intelligent.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Matt, I would expect from you to be the first to cut the BS. If we start calling by their name, things will be better off, even if it hurts Jewish idialists’ sensibility.
What’s going on in Gaza is collective punishment, timed to influence the Israeli elections. The point is to take out as many hotheads as possible and inflict enough pain in the general population so that they will do something to prevents the rocket attacks from happening. And it works, during WWII the french and polish resistence restrained from attacking the germans although they had the capability to do it. The soviets did pretty much the same along the border with Afganistan. There is no question in my mind that aside from a few face-saving rockets, Hamas will be pretty quiet, at least for a while.
Now, what you need to keep in mind is the motivation of the Palestinians, a large percentage of Gazans are refugees that were displaced by the 1948 war, and they are living in what is basically an indian reservation, they have legitimate reasons to beliee that the jews screwed them badly. Eventually the tough talking kids hanging out in the streets with nothing productive to do and no prospects whatsoever of ever having, will come up with some dumb ideas, and the Israelis will have to the whole thing all over again, which I guess they are fine with, they got plenty of ordenance provided by US taxpayers.
From the US point of view I just wish that Israel does it’s punishing and land grabbing on their own nickel. There is no way that Israel is giving the palestinians any land back (other than some barren plot in the Negev), the fact that the settlements keep expanding, proves that they have no intention of ever doing it.
From the humanitaian point of view, I believe the best solution is to get the Palestinians out there and settle them somewhere else where thay can have some hope about the future.
One such place could be the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast), there are vey few people left there and since it’s on the border with China, that fact makes the russians nervous. A big chunk of palestinians could be relocated there and money being used for warplanes and cluster bombs could be used to get the settlers started. It has the bonus that palestinians can convince themselves that they stole it from the jews, and have their pride restored.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
strasmangelo,
Do you really see what is happening in Gaza as representative of what a two state solution would look like?
It is mostly rabid supporters of Israel who pretend that Gaza has been freed from occupation so that the actions of Hamas represent what peace would look like from the Palestinian perspective. But it is absurd to take the current blockade, and the continued occupation of the West Bank as reflective of peace. And so absurd to take Palestinian behavior under such circumstances as representing what peace would look like.
But you seem to commit the same error on the other side. A two state solution would, to be worth the name, be one in which Israel did not control the flow of goods into Gaza and the West Bank (except through their own borders).
The fact that people accept Israelis prevention of goods into Gaza by sea just shows that people accept the current situation as more of a weaker occupation than as a free state (except for the purpose of making ludicrous anti-Palestinian arguments).
So I don’t see that the invasion of Gaza tells us anything about how Israel would behave if a real two state solution was imposed.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Dennis Kucinich criticizes Israel: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kucinich-criticizes-israel-wants-u.n.-probe-2008-12-29.html
BTW re my earlier point, in March this year the house voted 404-1 condemning Hamas. The one nay was Ron Paul.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
In going over to the site of the baltimorechronicle which I had never heard of before, it is quite obvious that it is just another far left wing mouthpiece
That, coming from the person who copy-and-pasted IsraelInsider’s bullshit about Obama’s birth certificate, takes the matzoh. That’s what comes from being the only goy in the Kahanist Klub: you end up trying way too hard.
January 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
One such place could be the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russia
If we’re going with that, how about Brooklyn? Or at least Long Island: the idea of Pamela Geller getting evicted and replaced by a Palestinian family has a certain delicious symmetry to it.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Matt, as someone who has occasionally called out your Iraq war support in comments, I really appreciate your mea culpa. Highlighting the evolution of your thought is a good thing for our political discourse.
But in analyzing the specious “what if Tijuana or Vancouver BC started lobbing rockets at us” analogy the point is NOT that “the Canadians would arrest” the rocketeers.
THE REAL POINT OF THE COMPARISON IS:
“What would the people of Tijuana or Vancouver BC do if the USA had Occupied their city by force, completely contrary to international law, and then because they dislike the new city council; began strangling the flow of people, food, fuel and medicine?”
Or go a step farther and ask what San Diegans would do if they were likewise occupied by Mexico?
Using your explanation of the force of public emotion after an attack, the palestinians seem cool and calm in contrast to our approximately 1 million dead Iraqi civilians.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The real outrage is how common and banal, how unsurprising and thoroughly precedented it is.
Very well articulated.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Most of the people on the fanatically pro-Israeli government right that regret the Iraq war don’t do it because all those silly Iraqis died but because they think the other great evil Iran has been strengthened by it.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Saddam behaved much worse than Hamas, but antiwar people are deaf dumb and blind about Saddam so it’s no point to argue. People can look it up on the Internets if they care. Hamas was elected, Saddam wasn’t. America is leaving Iraq, Israel wont’ leave the occupied territories b/c they believe they’re vital to their defense and survival. Saddam launched scuds at Israel during the first Gulf war, just as Hamas is launching rockets. Plus Saddam annexed Kuwait and invaded Iran, etc. Commited genocide against the Kurds, etc. Hamas are pikers compared to Saddam.
How long until the Juicebox Mafia says that Afghanistan was a criminal enterprise and then enforce their views in a Cosa Nostra manner? (hence the name)
What in god’s name are you going on about. Afghanistan prior to the Taliban was a godforsaken hellhole that lead the world in heroin production, so it effectively was a series of criminal enterprises and not a state. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a godly hellhole that squashed heroin production but harboured Al Quaeda, so it effectively was a criminal enterprise. Currently, Afghanistan is back to being the world’s supplier of heroin and a thriving narco state, so once again, its a criminal enterprise.
As to the rest of Afghanistan, the government is entirely corrupt and ineffectual, and exists only to put its hand out for American money. The Taliban are in control of somewhere between 1/2 to 1/3 of the country and have spread into Pakistan. Warlords run the rest. There’s no economy apart from heroin, smuggling, robbery and foreign aid. The only reason that we aren’t losing as many troops as the Russians did is because we don’t have as many troops in there as the Russians did and our troops try stay out of trouble.
On the other hand America removed a psychotic dictator and is leaving Iraq with a democratic government and leaving the region a safer place.
Well, a psychotic aging dictator who was by that time more interested in writing sappy romance novels than attending his own cabinet meetings, with two corrupt and incompetent sons, and no obvious replacements.
If modern history in Latin America, Asia and Europe over the last 40 years is anything to go by, the Iraqi Baathist regimes dayks were numbered. Saddam was going to go, and after he went, his regime would have dissolved.
Don’t take my word for it, look around: The USSR dissolved, Trujillo’s dictatorship in the Dominican Republic dissolved, Franco’s fascist dictatorship dissolved in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Haiti, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Brazil, you name it.
As to second generation strongmen regimes - well, Babydoc Duvalier didn’t make it more than a couple of years, so write him off.
That still leaves Assad in Syria, Jung in North Korea, Egypt’s succession from Nasser to Sadat to Mubarak. They’re the exception to the rule. Their dictatorships, on the other hand, emphasized a strong cadre of supporting leadership that allowed power to transition. That just wasn’t there with Saddam, he wouldn’t tolerate that strong cadre because it was a threat to his insecurity.
Here’s the unpleasant truth, if we’d have left Saddam long enough, time would have done its work, and the Iraqi’s would have forged a democracy on their own.
Three trillion dollars and thousands of lives… for nothing.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
SLC is your argument that because Israel hasn’t outright nuked the Palestinians that’s a beneficent benefactor?
January 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Re Henry
I have a better solution. Move all the Fakestinians to Kurdistan in Northern Iraq and all the Kurds in Kurdistan to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Fakestinians should get along with their fellow Arabs in Iraq much better then they get along with Israelis and the Kurds already get along with Israelis pretty well. that solves two problems for the price of one.
Re pseudonymous in nc
I guess I have to make a confession. I posted claims about incoming President Osama to stir up trouble. Actually, if Mr. pseudonymous were to mosey over to the Pandas’ Thumb web site, he will find a somewhat acrimonious debate between myself and a truly cockamamie birther calling himself John Kwok. Or over at Ed Braytons blog where I got into it with a number of birther numbnuts.
Re Jimboslice
Dennis Kucinich! A true nutcase, the left wing equivalent of Alan Keyes. I suggest that Mr. JimboSlice examine his record as mayor of Cleveland where he was a national joke.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
For the Canada parallel to be accurate, you’d also need to assume that:
1) “Canada” is not an internationally-recognized, sovereign country but rather a territory monitored by the United States; and
2) The ideology of the de facto Canadian “government” would be at odds with militancy as political expression.
That said, both Hamas and Harper’s Conservatives were both democratically elected. But overall, it’s not a particularly strong argument.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
SLC:
I like pseudonymous solution better, send the pals to brooklyn and Long Island, the pamelas to Gaza and Jenin, and we would have solved three problems for the price of one.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
SLC, that’s a spectacularly bad idea. The Kurds are tough and mean, not like the Palestinians.
They get one good look at the flabby self indugent mess the Israeli’s have become, they’d eat you for breakfast, and fart out the remains.
Really, it’s like replacing the ornamental annoying plastic fish bobbing around in your wading pond with live piranha.
Seriously, this may well be among the top one thousand stupidest things that anyone ever said.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Fakestinians? There could be nothing more artificial or arbitrary that Israeli national identity, modern Hebrew is an invented language created by committee, Israeli cuisine is borrowed from the neighbors, Israeli folk dances were invented in Hashomer Hatzair summer camps.
The idea that Moroccans, Lithuanians, Californians and religious fanatics from Brooklyn can all “come home” to Israel is as absurd as every absurdly constructed national identity on the face of this absurd planet.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
How do we deal with a situation where a small, motivated group of bad actors is acting with belligerence toward a neighboring state……And that group is careful to be interspersed throughout an urban population of noncombatants……And at least some (but definitely not all) of that population support the group of bad actors due to a history of true and supposed victimization …..And even the part of the population that does not support the group of bad actors none-the-less feel that they have been victimized…..And the standard tool box used for dealing with these bad actors will only feed the feelings of victimization predictably leading to a more radicalized support (albeit with some reluctance) for the bad actors.
I could write the same type of paragraph about the sometimes mirror image feelings of victimization on the part of the Israeli citizens, but you get the picture.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
And if Brooklyn/LI are too cold for the Pals we could open up some land in South Florida to give them. I am sure they would love the weather in Boca, Palm Beach, and Miami.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Do you really see what is happening in Gaza as representative of what a two state solution would look like?
Let’s say we wave a magic wand and get rid of all settlements, checkpoints, settler-only access roads, etc. in the West Bank. Let’s say the same magic wand places the elected Palestinian Authority in government over the West Bank and Gaza, and makes Israel and the world recognize it as a sovereign state, formed along pre-1967 borders. You’ll notice, however, that the Gaza strip is still shaped like the Gaza strip, and that the same Israeli military that’s illegally blockaded Gaza over the last two years can quite easily blockade it again, cutting it off from food, fuel and medicine whenever Israel feels like it.
And if that’s the case, a separate, viable Palestinian state can never exist along those boundaries, because any Israeli government can hold any Palestinian government for ransom by starving 1.5 million of its citizens hostage in an open-air prison. It’s not just politics that are the problem here, it’s geography. If the Israeli military can close Gaza’s borders at will, destroy hospitals, power plants and sewage systems from the air without consequence, then Gaza is stuck under Israeli control, and Gazans shouldn’t be fighting for independence - they should be fighting for citizenship.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Re skeptic
I have a flash for Mr. skeptic. Israel has been providing arms and training for the Kurds in Iraq for years. Not only that, DNA evidence shows that Kurds and Jews are closely related to each other. There is every evidence that the Kurds have none of the antagonism toward Israelis that is exhibited by Arabs.
Several years ago, there was a dust up in Syria between the government and its Kurdish minority. It started at a soccer game where Arabs in the audience began yelling Saddam, Saddam at the Kurds who responded by yelling Sharon, Sharon at the Arabs.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
SLC: I guess I have to make a confession. I posted claims about incoming President Osama to stir up trouble.
In that case, we can assume that everything else you post is in equally bad faith. Thanks for clarifying.
JimboSlice: I am sure they would love the weather in Boca, Palm Beach, and Miami.
I hate picking up on JimboSlice here, given his but that reminds me of the curious way in which Cuban ‘exiles’ hold sway in South Florida alongside snowbird New York Jewish retirees.
If your property in what is now Israel was taken over, and your family has spent the last fifty years on the rez in Gaza, then it’s tough fucking shit if you get blown up courtesy of the American military-industrial complex. If your property in Cuba was taken over, and your family spent the last fifty years in Miami, you have a good chance of being elected to public office while your adopted country tries to overthrow the people who took over. Funny, that.
Still, in fantasy-land, the thought of giving over Long Island to the Palestinians really does make me grin.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Matthew: It’s that our government, elected and unelected, has no effective ability to act in our interests but must act on behalf of the interests of a foreign government –Israel’s–that adds the extra shock, appalledness, and outrage.
Though a private citizen, I feel much safer and more comfortable publicly criticizing American foreign policy than Israel’s; when public persons seriously criticize or critique Israeli policy, or American policy involving Israel, they will invariably pay a significant price, being marginalized the least payment.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
But you actually don’t need to get very hypothetical to ask what the United States would do if people felt themselves threatened by foreign killers — we’d do exactly what we did in 2002-2003, namely engage in a panicky, counterproductive, and immoral overreaction driven more by emotion, ego, and politics than by sound thinking about the situation.
Well, yeah, that’s pretty much what we did when we went after Pancho Villa in 1916…
January 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“The threat of Hamas rocket fire wasn’t just a made-up pretext.”
Can’t agree with this. As we know by now, Hamas’ “rockets” really do fit the term “rocket”, as opposed to, say, “missile”, “bomb”, “WMD”, etc. Their ‘arsenal’ is basically a bunch of sub-science-project level junk. doesn’t excuse their using it, but it certainly doesn’t justify invasion and further occupation. they are trying to kill a gnat with a flamethrower.
I don’t think most people are “shocked” that Israel is doing what they’re doing. I think that people get angry when they watch our own country taking actions (or failing to take actions) or supporting actions which actively make major world problems worse. especially in this day and age, with all of the violence both physical and economic going down, the thought of what few tax dollars I have to donate going towards exploding UN schools in Gaza makes my physically ill. part of that is because its already on top of the thought of my other tax dollars going to build an embassy/palace in Iraq, or whatever in Iraq.
the idea that this ‘one last’ invasion of Palestine will finally disarm all of the ‘radicals’ and create a finite limit to Hamas’ ability to fight is just pure fantasy. supplies will get in no matter how draconian the Israelis get. in fact, that will be reversely proportionate. the more they crack down, the more sympathy they generate for Hamas. and on and on. but don’t take everyone’s level of anger as indicating surprise - its a long, slow building frustration that’s being made much worse by how screwed up nearly every important aspect of life seems to be here in 2009.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
And if that’s the case, a separate, viable Palestinian state can never exist along those boundaries, because any Israeli government can hold any Palestinian government for ransom by starving 1.5 million of its citizens hostage in an open-air prison. It’s not just politics that are the problem here, it’s geography. If the Israeli military can close Gaza’s borders at will, destroy hospitals, power plants and sewage systems from the air without consequence, then Gaza is stuck under Israeli control, and Gazans shouldn’t be fighting for independence - they should be fighting for citizenship.
strasmangelo jones,
By this logic, Monaco or any small country is not a viable state either, as should France feel the need, it could really screw the Monagasques whenever they felt like it. Of course, really, when you get right down to it, any country on Earth is not viable so long as the United States has the ability to destroy it militarily.
Pretty much any state can be viable vis a vis their neighbours if there is a good faith effort not to frequently antagonize or attack them. In your scenario, that would seem to be the case. If the Palestinians and Israelis really decided to stop attacking each other and giving each other reasons to violate each other’s sovereignty or lob lethal rockets at each other, there is no reason there cannot be two or more viable states there.
If, on the other hand, a government adopts suicidal policies, it will never be viable, regardless of geography.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
SLC,
Lay off the goats why don’t you? Why do the goats always have to suffer?
January 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I think I am ready for a three state solution. Give Gaza back to the Egyptians and the West Bank back to Jordan and call it a day. The “Palestinians” are the most thoroughly wrecked people in the ME and have no hope of ever creating a cogent government. They have become theater puppets manipulated by their fellow believers and sustained by the UN grievance theater. Imagine if we still had UN supervised refugee “camps” in Europe from WWII. Everyone would think that was ridiculous. The Jews evicted from Muslim countries after 1948 can call it even with the “Palestinians” that left or were evicted from Israel. Basta!
January 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
The proper context Matt should look at war it seems is skewed. Having regret about the Iraq war should not cloud further judgment about the necessity of a war. War should be looked at an ultimate tool that will accomplish an broader objective. I supported the war to oust Slobodan Milosevic. I regret there was not on during the Rwanda ethnic cleansing. I will support one in Zimbabwe for example.
I also don’t think “political actors” at least the once entrusted with power, bloodshed is morally justifiable. They send troops to a battlefield not because they think they are morally justifiable but because they think it is necessary to accomplish an objective. A matter of efficacy, timing and mission plan however is a different debate. The ramification of an ill conceived war as we can see has political consequences.
Matt can argue all day that Israel war can be more justified that Iraq war all he wants, but it is not true. The justification that big scary Hamas is throwing rockets so we need to launch unprecedented air and ground assault, kill 100’s of people is similar to what happened during the days before Iraq war started. It is a pretense for a mandate.
Additionally, despite what Matt thinks the Canada-America analogy does not work either. You bet the Canadians will do more that throw rockets if their people are abused, sequestered, cut of their food and aid supply, take of their land, rights and declare them less than humans.
Let’s not forget Hamas is an armed resistance. They are spawned by an aggression, just like Fatah or Hezbollah and others. Hamas is under no illusion their rockets will destroy Israel. They are under no illusion that they will stop Israel invasion and subsequent destruction. They are echoing the sentiment that occupation and other atrocities will not be accepted. They are already dead as far as they are concerned. Having harsh or light bombardment makes no difference. What will make a difference is the objective they set out to accomplish be it negotiations or any other means available to them.
You also make a contradictory statement. Either you think Israel made a better plan than the one in Lebanon/ or it is an immoral reaction driven by emotion.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Shoter SLC: “According to my team of eugenics specialists, the Kurds are genetic allies of the Herrenvolk. Rumors that the Kurds are Indo-Europeans whereas the Arabs of the Levant are our Semitic cousins are baseless and mean.”
January 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Can’t agree with this. As we know by now, Hamas’ “rockets” really do fit the term “rocket”, as opposed to, say, “missile”, “bomb”, “WMD”, etc. Their ‘arsenal’ is basically a bunch of sub-science-project level junk. doesn’t excuse their using it, but it certainly doesn’t justify invasion and further occupation. they are trying to kill a gnat with a flamethrower.
I feel I should point out, that to a certain extent, the low level of casualties is misleading. While Hamas rockets certainly kill less Israelis than Israeli rockets kill Palestinians (by several orders of magnitude) this does not mean that their relative lack of sophistication makes them a tolerable part of existence to Israelis living within range.
There are sirens and bomb shelters all over the Negev and Coastal Regions of Israel. Depending on where you are, you have between thirty and ninety seconds to drop what you are doing and run to a bomb shelter. Stuck in traffic? Too bad. Asleep? Ouch. In the bathroom? Suck it up. When Hamas is firing 50 rockets a day every day at random locations in Israel, the low casualty rate has little to do with the relative strain on civilian life they do cause. It’s very hard to live a normal life under these conditions. While the situation improved significantly during the ceasefire, before the truce took effect, life for civilians in Southern Israel was a living hell.
Obviously, the quality of living for Gazans is much worse, and I don’t dispute that. What I argue with is the notion that just because they kill very few people, the Israelis have an obligation to just grin and bear it.
Is there a better way for them to strike back that doesn’t involve disrupting and ending the lives of innocent civilians? Probably, my instincts as a human being tell me so, but I can’t think of any, and neither can anyone else. The root cause, though, is something the Israelis have a right to stop.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
For all of you whining about Israel’s “economic stranglehold” on Gaza, you are aware, I assume, that Gaza shares a border with Egypt? Israel only controls access to Gaza from three sides.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“I have a flash for Mr. skeptic. Israel has been providing arms and training for the Kurds in Iraq for years. Not only that, DNA evidence shows that Kurds and Jews are closely related to each other. There is every evidence that the Kurds have none of the antagonism toward Israelis that is exhibited by Arabs.”
SLC,
Have you considered that the Kurds actually like where they’re living now? They are a mountain people; why would they want to be confined to a tiny sliver of land in Gaza? Also, I’m sure you’re aware that Jews and Arabs are closely related to each other. That hasn’t done anything to prevent the conflict.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Now the Israeli army has killed more Israeli than Hamas since the massacre started:
Israel should carpet-bomb Tel-Aviv in retaliation.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
”
Obviously, the quality of living for Gazans is much worse, and I don’t dispute that. What I argue with is the notion that just because they kill very few people, the Israelis have an obligation to just grin and bear it.
Is there a better way for them to strike back that doesn’t involve disrupting and ending the lives of innocent civilians? Probably, my instincts as a human being tell me so, but I can’t think of any, and neither can anyone else. The root cause, though, is something the Israelis have a right to stop.”
Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against colonization or violence? Because both has been going on alongside these rockets for a long time as well.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
By this logic, Monaco or any small country is not a viable state either
The remaining microstates (or similar small self-governing entities) in Europe exist for arbitrage purposes — tax shelters, gambling, duty-free zones and suchlike. They are places to stash wealth.
(The counter-example, which is actually not that small, might be Kaliningrad Oblast, the Russian exclave, which has a pretty shitty reputation as a place for heroin, HIV and prostitution arbitrage.)
Now, Sheldon Adelson could always consider building a huge fuck-off casino in Gaza, since that’s what the rez is designed for these days.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The remaining microstates (or similar small self-governing entities) in Europe exist for arbitrage purposes — tax shelters, gambling, duty-free zones and suchlike. They are places to stash wealth.
I don’t really see the difference, but fine. Pick any country that does not dominate its neighbours and would lose in a fight to one that was particularly stronger than it. The world is full of them, as I said in my post. That doesn’t make them non-viable.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Zaid - I would be willing to bet that the Palestinians could get anything they want if they adopted a non-violent approach - a Ghandi type campaign. The results would reflect so poorly on the Israelis that they would end up having to knuckle under. I realize that is not the Arab way. As it is, violence begets more violence, and currently a lot of people think that Hamas, and by extension the Palestinians, have it coming to them.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Hamas tried this. They engaged in a 6 month cease fire. From the signing of the cease fire in June until it ended in December Hamas launched NO rockets into Israel. What did they get for that? The IDF continued to blockade the Palestinians coast. The IDF continued raids into Gaza. The IDF continued to bomb the sh*t out of Gaza. The IDF continued to kill Palestinians.
Bottom line: Non-violence will never work when you are dealing with an unreasonable opponent that has lost its moral compass and is backed unconditionally by the worlds only superpower, where all criticism of said state is labeled as antisemitism.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against colonization or violence? Because both has been going on alongside these rockets for a long time as well.
I’m not disputing the existence of legitimate Palestinian grievances. Why do you think that I am? Because I’m arguing that the Israeli government has a right to stop rockets from being fired at their civilian population?
I abhor Hamas and their terrorism. If they really want a sovereign state along the lines of the two-state plan, this is not the way to go about doing it, nor is their conduct legitimate. Every rocket that is fired into Israel only strengthens the right and saps even more political will from implementing the two-state solution.
Hamas was firing rockets and smuggling weapons before the Israelis pulled out of Gaza and after the Israelis pulled out of Gaza. They fired rockets before their election and after their election. They fired rockets before Israel instituted draconian border measures to stop these rocket attacks, and afterwards as well. Before the rockets, there were suicide bombings, which only stopped when the Israelis put up walls around the Occupied Territories. These walls had the negative effect of cutting off Palestinian cities and villages from Israel and other Palestinian villages and settlements. If Israel is attacked, Israel feels the need to protect itself. The manner in which Israel goes about doing this is bound to not raise the quality of living standards of Palestinians. This is sad and unfortunate. If there was some easy, humane way of stopping the smuggling of weapons and munitions without physically shutting down the border, I’m sure the Israelis would be happy to implement it. As things stand now, it seems counter-intuitive to me to assume that the solution to this issue is simply opening up the borders and leaving the Hamas foxes to guard the chickencoop. Perhaps I am wrong and perhaps you know of a better idea. I do not mean this facetiously. If they could think of a better way, I am sure they would be doing it.
Do the Palestinians have the right to protest the Occupation? Sure. But they don’t have the right to intentionally and specifically kill civilians. What was their crime? If you want to say that their crime is supporting the government of Israel and its policies, then I suppose the Palestinian civilians are to blame for supporting the Hamas and Fatah governments. And round and round.
As I’ve made clear elsewhere, the Palestinians would have a much better chance of getting a sovereign state if they just stopped with the terror, so that the Israelis could at least convince themselves that they wouldn’t be just be painting big targets on their heads and giving the Palestinians weapons to kill them with. The real losers in all of this, are of course the Palestinians, who have to put up with Israel’s revenge, then Hamas’ revenge, then Israel’s revenge ad infinitum. All the while, they get no closer to a Palestinian state.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
JimboSlice - I don’t see limiting the rockets and mortars for six months while holding a hostage and advocating the destruction of your opponent as very “Ghandiesque”. How about give back the hostage, stop the rockets and mortars completely and start marching on the border crossings with a bunch of women and children in front while singing “We Shall Overcome”. Nothing like videos of Israelis beating up hapless civilians to steer the conversation. As it is, when Israelis do brutal stuff to the Palestinians, which they do, a lot of people think it serves the Palestinian/Arabs (rockets, mortars, suicide bombers, etc.) right. It will never happen so I digress.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I would be willing to bet that the Palestinians could get anything they want if they adopted a non-violent approach - a Ghandi type campaign.
British India got partitioned, about a million people died in the rush to the border, and Gandhi got shot.
And there have been Palestinian non-violent protests. Heard of Beit Sahour? I thought not.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Nothing like videos of Israelis beating up hapless civilians to steer the conversation.
Nothing like having Mark Regev granted time on every TV network in the US to steer the conversation.
Nothing like having Michael Oren writing Op-Eds for the LA TImes without it mentioning that he’s currently serving as an IDF media officer in Gaza.
Nothing like LGF making ‘pancake’ jokes about Rachel Corrie to steer the conversation.
Nothing like every member of the US Congress reading off the same script to steer the conversation.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
They are occupying land that was stolen from the Palestinians. They are living and working on stolen land. Where I come possession of stolen property is a crime. Where I come from its not a crime punishable by death, but my state doesn’t have the death penalty.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Re Fred
1. Actually I had in mind including the West Bank in this population exchange.
2. The Kurds in Iraq are in a very precarious position as they are surrounded by hostile neighbors, namely Turkey and the Sunni/Shiite part of Iraq. In the West Bank and Gaza, they would be next to a (presumably) friendly country on one side with a weak country (Jordan) on the other side.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hamas tried this. They engaged in a 6 month cease fire. From the signing of the cease fire in June until it ended in December Hamas launched NO rockets into Israel. What did they get for that? The IDF continued to blockade the Palestinians coast. The IDF continued raids into Gaza. The IDF continued to bomb the sh*t out of Gaza. The IDF continued to kill Palestinians.
If by no rockets, you mean 329. Hardly reminiscent of Gandhi.
As well, Israel shut down the border at different periods because of rocket attacks. The border was not kept close during the entire duration of the truce. What would happen is that Hamas or someone would fire rockets, Israel would seal the border until the situation quieted down, then would reopen it, then there would be more rockets, etc. etc.
It’s not as if Hamas made anything approaching a good faith effort here. Could the Israelis have been more patient? I suppose, but I don’t know.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I don’t know how legit this site is, but they pretty well sum up the “cease fire” and who really broke it:
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20090101212318310
January 6th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I have a flash for Mr. skeptic. Israel has been providing arms and training for the Kurds in Iraq for years. Not only that, DNA evidence shows that Kurds and Jews are closely related to each other. There is every evidence that the Kurds have none of the antagonism toward Israelis that is exhibited by Arabs.
Okay, now you’re just having a laugh with me.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
They are occupying land that was stolen from the Palestinians. They are living and working on stolen land. Where I come possession of stolen property is a crime. Where I come from its not a crime punishable by death, but my state doesn’t have the death penalty.
OK, first, even on the assumption that all of the Israeli citizens are working and living on stolen land (an assumption I would dispute) what exactly are you suggesting?
That the death penalty is appropriate for such crimes? That the Palestinians’ efforts to kill Israeli civilians is legit? That as long as there are any Jews living in Israel, they will be living on stolen land, and hence, be criminals? Are you rejecting the two-state solution in favor of a single Palestinian state?
January 6th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Check it out! Israel seems to be violating US law (and MORALS!!) with weapons we sold them! Is anyone shocked?
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=108151
January 6th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Matt: “I’d say what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly better-justified than what the United States did in Iraq. The threat of Hamas rocket fire wasn’t just a made-up pretext. And the operation seems a lot better-conceived than the one in Lebanon.”
Once again Matt rolls off the rails with a completely clueless post. Obviously the censors at his organization have gotten to him again. He’s been fairly critical of Israel in the last few days, and somebody obviously got to him. So now he has to back off.
First, he can’t even BEGIN to come up with some logical reasons why this invasion is even remotely justified, given the actual CONTEXT - which is what he is trying to use to justify the invasion. Iraq actually invaded Kuwait - Saddam actually was a dictator. At the very least, half the argument for invading Iraq was for those reasons, at least by the smarter of the neocons, who didn’t rely on the WMD lies to convince people.
Hamas rockets? Please. Matt thinks Hamas rockets justify the “bombing of 1.5 million people in a cage”, as the Norwegian doctor described it yesterday?
Worse, the entire point of CONTEXT - “Not further context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but further context on the use of force in general” - is to establish what is justified and what is not. The ENTIRE HISTORY OF ISRAEL establishes that there is ZERO justification for ANYTHING the Israelis do with regard to the Palestinians except dissolving Israel.
As for the operation being “better conceived than Lebanon” - on what basis is Matt making this claim? According to the Israelis, this operation is intended to “destroy Hamas”. Since people don’t understand that Hamas, like Hizballah in Lebanon, is everywhere in Gaza, this means essentially targeting the entire population of Gaza, just as the Israelis targeted the entire civilian infrastructure of Lebanon.
Further, it has been made clear by experts on the situation that there is NO possibility that Israel can “destroy Hamas” and possibly not even force them to relinquish control of Gaza in favor of Fatah. Therefore on what basis is the claim that this invasion is “better conceived”? It was impossible to dislodge Hizballah from its status in Lebanon by the 2006 war and it will be equally impossible to do anything but ultimately strengthen Hamas by this invasion.
Stupid post, Matt. Get a clue.
January 6th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I don’t know how legit this site is, but they pretty well sum up the “cease fire” and who really broke it:
If you don’t know how legitimate and trustworthy a source is, why use it at all, much less rely on it? My chronology is taken from Wikipedia. I know, (insert criticism of Wikipedia here), but they’re the most comprehensive source there is. They actually count the individual rockets and mortars on a day to day basis
January 6th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I’m an Yglesias fan, been reading him for years, but this post was exceptional above the average. kudos.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Apropos of your defense of Nazi Israel’s starvation blockade, bombings and machine-gunning of helpless Gazans = I think it’s fine what the old Nazis did to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. First of all, (unlike Nazi Israel) they gave them lots of frozen potatoes which the residents used to make potato pancakes and considering all the agitation the Jews were causing - I think the Nazis showed remarkable restraint. They never bombed the ghetto from the air or the ground and they never went in with tanks to shell homes. Relative to Nazi Israel’s current monstrosities - the treatment of the Jews was rather benign. All told, they were more than justified in penning them up the way they did.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“By somewhat the same token, I do read in the comments section what I would regard as a disproportionate level of shock and appalledness from some quarters about Israeli activities as if this action is some kind of unprecedented outrage in human history. The real outrage is how common and banal, how unsurprising and thoroughly precedented it is.”
As opposed to how rare and precious, how surprising and thoroughly unprecedented are the actions of Hamas.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
pseudonomous in nc let slip this pungent brain-fart:
“Nothing like videos of Israelis beating up hapless civilians to steer the conversation.
Nothing like having Mark Regev granted time on every TV network in the US to steer the conversation.
Nothing like having Michael Oren writing Op-Eds for the LA TImes without it mentioning that he’s currently serving as an IDF media officer in Gaza.
Nothing like LGF making ‘pancake’ jokes about Rachel Corrie to steer the conversation.
Nothing like every member of the US Congress reading off the same script to steer the conversation.”
Yes, because all of those actions (reading, making tasteless jokes, writing op-eds and being allowed to state Israel’s official case) are on the same moral plane as physically assaulting hapless civilians.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Richard Blqanco (@ 47) writes:
Is there a better way for them to strike back that doesn’t involve disrupting and ending the lives of innocent civilians? Probably, my instincts as a human being tell me so, but I can’t think of any, and neither can anyone else. The root cause, though, is something the Israelis have a right to stop.
My apologies, but under these circumstances, given the relative legal obligations (Geneva Conventions to which Isreal is a party) and the relative powers in the field, that should be the Isrealis have the oligation to stop.
I say again, I’ve no dog in this fight.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Junmoslice (@60)
wrote :
Where I come possession of stolen property is a crime. Where I come from its not a crime punishable by death, but my state doesn’t have the death penalty.
LOL! (well not exactly a laugh, more like a brief gigglely breathe) I live in Texas; better on you.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:11 am
“The Intifadaholic” appears to be really fucking stupid.
danceswithgoats said:
When the Palestinians of Beit Sahour decided to stop paying taxes to Israel — thinking that ‘no taxation without representation’ might strike a chord — the IDF put the town under siege to starve them into submission, arrested the organizers, and confiscated their homes and property. The US vetoed a resolution condemning those actions.
No-one remembers Beit Sahour in the US, of course, apart from the Palestinians from that town (mainly Christian, for what it’s worth) who now live in Flint, MI.
If Palestinian women and children were to sit down in front of IDF tanks with bunches of flowers, Mark Regev would be telling Wolf Blitzer and Andrea Mitchell and Katie Couric that the flowers were most likely provided by Hamas with Iranian funds, represented an existential threat to Israel, and that there was no alternative but to mow those people down. The anchors would nod gravely. And some fucktard American on a blog would ask why the Palestinians have no Gandhi.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:21 am
That is what is referred to in some circles, as an “ethering”. Well done nc.
Just out of curiousity, how would you solve this conflict and what do you think is actually going to happen.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
JimboSlice apparently lives on land that has been in his family’s possession un-interruptedly since time immemorial. He would never live on land that was “stolen” (i.e., conquered) from someone else — that would make him in possession of stolen property.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Actually Fred I live on a strip of land that was landfill and built up out of the ocean. So yeh, I don’t live on land conquered from someone else, and a I certainly don’t live on land that someone in a refuge camp holds a title for.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
But put in a different, more hawkish context, I’d say what Israel is doing in Gaza is certainly better-justified than what the United States did in Iraq. The threat of Hamas rocket fire wasn’t just a made-up pretext.
Right. WMDs. Way to focus on the red herring. Saddam had no history of violence, oppression, or in any other way posed a threat to anyone. Just a fun-loving kid presiding over Moore’s gleaming lollipops and fruity bubbles.
Now: cue up Obama-rhetoric about invading Afghanistan=good, Iraq=bad. Because goodness knows Afghanistan was chock full of WMDs.
I’m curious, did Y write this from the comfort of his kitchen table? Would he have had a different tone on resorting to violence if a rocket dropped in his backyard as he sipped his morning coffee?
March 1st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 4:11 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:55 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
viagra
Incredible site!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Great site, Good info viagra