The thing is, I just can't morally justify the segregation and
oppression of an entire populace simply because portions of it are
violently hostile to you. It comes down one group depriving another
of liberty simply to guarantee its own -- Israel segregating,
restricting, and occupying the lands of Palestinians simply because
they (legitimately) don't think they can feel safe if Palestinians
have the rights of full citizens either in Israel or in a Palestinian
state*. And I'm sorry -- this is untenable, and only feeds on itself,
as the longer you deprive a group of liberty, the more hostile
they'll grow toward you. I think that is my central problem
* And note that it was Israel who initially decided this with
their mass expulsion of Palestinians who were, by and large, living
peacefully within Israel proper -- and note that of all the attacks
on Israel carried out during the past few years, only two, IIRC, have
been conducted by Israeli Arabs. Both of these things hint
that the liberty-for-safety trade was not only a bad one but an
unnecessary, counter-productive one.
― Nitsuh, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― bnw, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
REMEMBER THE ALAMO!
― Nude Spock, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Samantha, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Ronan, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
I still think there's a difference between going after militants
then going after people sitting in a cafe.
Sure, there's a difference. A huge one. But when "going after
militants" repeatedly results in the death or dislocation of
basically innocent bystanders -- as innocent as the folks in those
cafes -- it becomes a little harder to justify, morally speaking. And
I stick with my point, above, which is that it's really difficult to
start applying general consequences to the actions of individual, non-
representative groups, whereas it's a lot easier to do so for the
regimented military of a sovereign nation. I.e., you can't say that
one side attacks the other, or vice versa, because in the case of
Palestine there is no "other" -- just a mass of individuals
without a state, without a leader, etc.
My point about "suck it" was directed at your interpretation of
what Israel cutting off Arafat means. I'm saying your choice of
terminology reveals an obvious bias towards the situation.
In one sense yes, but in one sense, no: I was originally going to
use "fuck it," but decided to try and keep the boards a little
cleaner. Maybe I should have stuck with "fuck," because what's going
through Sharon or his coalition's heads can't really be that far from
throwing up their hands and saying, "Fuck it -- we give up on talking
to you." That's quite clearly the message, and I think it can
describes that way even if you believe Israel is entirely
justified in doing this.
[W]hat Israel contends is that Arafat was never doing all he
Define "could." Seriously. Because this is what I'm getting at above.
It's undeniable that Arafat physically and politically could
have tried more. But my point is that he could have done so without
gradually abandoning his own clout and losing support to groups like
Hamas -- which would, in the long term, have been a lot worse of a
situation if peace were the end goal. He essentially had to walk a
very fine line between making progress with Israel and pissing off
militants in Palestine -- and sure, it's open to debate whether he
walked that line close enough, but I'm just saying we should keep in
mind that he was never really in a position to utterly subdue
the entire Palestinian populace.
I don't believe the South African analogy is particular fair
because it fails to acknowledge how Israel has been forced to become
a military state due to constant attacks on its existence by
neighboring Arab states.
I can't claim to be an expert on this history, but I think you'll
find that black Africans did their fair share of attacking in
colonial South Africa. Apartheid didn't stem simply from racism, but
partly from the same thinking that seems to be in operation in the
mid-East -- that a particular group of people pose a danger of
rebellion or violence and thus must be pre-emptively subdued. I mean,
look at your statement above: Israel becomes militaristic because of
attacks by neighboring Arab states. The only sense in which this
justifies their attitude toward Palestine is that Palestinians are
also Arabs, and are thus ideologically disposed to be hostile toward
Israel. From there it just becomes a matter of "We will segregate and
suppress Arabs as a whole," which, however logical it may be, doesn't
strike me as morally tenable. It's not just "militants" who are
having their lands seized or their roads blocked in the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip -- it's the vast majority of Arabs within greater
Israel, including many who were expelled from Israel proper
and are not allowed to return, based not on their activities but on
their potential activities. Would a better analogy be the US's
internment of Japanese during WWII?
I think it is a large element in the Israeli mindset of trying to
provide safety first. I think where we also disagree is in gauge of
how much terrorism Israel is going to have to suck up, in order to
get the peace process back on track.
"Safety first" may trump a lot of other concerns, but for me -- and
this may be personal -- it doesn't trump basic human rights. The
internment apparently struck people as a perfectly reasonable safety
measure at the time, but I hope we'd all agree that even if some of
those interned would have been more loyal to Japan than the
US, the greater cost wasn't worth it. As far as sucking up, well,
someone has to do some sucking up here, and thus far it's
Palestinians who are sucking up being tenth-class citizens of the
nation they ostensibly live in, plus progressive settlement. Put
another way: given the choice to be an Israeli citizen or
Palestinian, wouldn't you choose to be Israeli? And doesn't that hint
that the threat of death by terrorism is significantly less onerous
than the situation of the average Palestinian?
From the AP: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who negotiated
interim peace deals with Arafat, said he told Sharon that the
decision to shun the Palestinian Authority was short-sighted. "I
asked him, 'Suppose Arafat disappears, what will happen then?'" Peres
told the Yediot Ahronot daily in an interview published Friday. "If
we chase Arafat out of here, we will get into problems with the Arab
world, and Egypt and Jordan will sever ties with us."
The question, which is moral and not logistical: Israel undertakes
massive sweep in the West Bank, arresting several, killing several
Palestinian policemen in armed confrontation. What do we think,
morally, about a sovereign nation arresting and imposing its own
justice system on (leave alone assassinating) individuals who don't
likewise enjoy the full rights of citizenry in that nation? I stress
that this is not specific or logistical, but a general moral
― bnw, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
If Arafat cannot offer any concessions, as in the Camp David
talks, without pissing off the militants, then what does that say
about the people of Palestine?
You're absolutely right -- it says a whole lot of them consider
Israel's very presence to be an affront (and I think there's a
reasonable case to be made in this regard), and it says that a whole
lot of them are stuck enough on this point that they're not
content to co-exist. Absolutely. The question is how this situation --
which isn't going to be changed simply by telling them they're
wrong -- would best be handled. Having normalized relations with a
figure like Arafat seems the best available way to steer
things in a less oppositional direction; Arafat has as much clout in
Palestine as any single figure could reasonably be expected to have,
he's somewhat beholden to appease the requests of the West, and his
line is soft enough that organizations like Hamas are outright
opposed to him. I think what I'm saying is that if you're dealing
with a populace that's largely hostile to you, the logical route to
changing this is to deal with the least hostile figure that populace
can deliver, right?
Also, I think Israel would contend that Arafat should be pissing
This is where I think you're ignoring the point I tried to make
above. For Arafat to have pissed of militants would have meant
weakening of his support, and quite possibly his assassination. This
would leave us with practically nothing but the very militants
you're talking about, not even a weak check on those
militants -- plus they would be, as you say pissed off. Surely
this was part of Arafat's thinking -- that he could do more good
alive and in power than otherwise. You're saying that Arafat should
have served as a tool to certain ends, but what if too strenuous use
would only have broken the tool?
The quote you provide is yet another example of this: no Palestinian
figure could accumulate any support or maintain any power
without such posturing.
Pre-emptive? If I can't use the cause and effect argument then
neither should you. I could just as easily state that Israel is there
because of terrorism. There also seems to be an overlooking of the
Six Day War.
Here's where I'm really bothered, because you're using a sort of
Palestinian Queen Bee reasoning that's simply not applicable. A child
born in Palestine today is born into a situation where his home is
occupied and open to seizure, his movements are curtailed, etc. That
child did not fight in the Six Day War. Thus any treatment of that
child that is in any way different from that of an Israeli
child is essentially pre-emptive suppression -- pre-emptive in that
the suppression is contingent on the idea that this child may
be hostile toward Israel. I'm not saying it's pre-emptive in the
sense that "Israel started it" -- just that their military oversight
of the Palestinian populace is not based on every single
Palestinian having done something to warrant it. Hence the internment
analogy: it's not that they've individually done something,
just that the entire population is viewed as a threat and suppressed
For what its worth, Arabs (or Muslims might be more fitting) are
citizens in Israel. They receive the same rights, and can vote.
"They receive the same rights" is the most laughable thing I've ever
heard in my life. To name one thing: Jewish-Only Settlements.
I think the first priority of a government is to protect its
C'mon -- certainly some moral boundary must be put on this.
Citizens of the US would theoretically be much safer if we just
killed everyone who was ever involved in a violent crime, but would
you find this morally defensible? We'd theoretically be safer if we
could just nuke the entire eastern hemisphere, but surely there's the
quibbling little concern of destroying half of the world's population
to think about.
Way, way one sided. Palestinians = victims. Israel = opressors.
Come on, you know it isn't that simple.
I'm sorry, but at this point, it basically is. The only "oppression"
Palestinians have been able to visit on Israel is the fear of
possible terrorist attack, which is not so much "oppression" as just
plain "threat." In turn, even the most peace-loving Palestinian lives
under a similar threat of death-by-reprisal (see that toddler,
above), plus a systematic removal of rights, which is precisely
what "oppression" means.
Nah, more so because Israel has more of a Western lean i.e. its a
I'm not sure how you reconcile this with your contention, above, that
Palestinians are Israeli citizens who enjoy all the rights and
privileges of any other Israeli citizens. "They vote," you say ...
but here you say that Israelis enjoy democracy and Palestinians don't.
Still, you make it seem as if Israel does not want to recoginize
Palestine as a state.
Well, define "want." They don't want to -- something like 56%
of Israelis think it's either a good or a necessary or an unavoidable
idea, but it still remains a concession that's being made.
And, as I said above, I understand why. But it's the same as the
suicide bombers -- I understand the motivation, I just don't think
it's morally tenable.
― Nitsuh, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Um.. correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about the
modern state of Israel? (kinda post 1945?)
Secondly, i never asked anyone to shut up about the holocaust.
The link i posted above was for the discussion of a book called
the Holocaust and Collective Memory by Peter Novick (published
by Fourth Estate), in which he examines the history of the way the
Holocaust has been cited by Israel and american Jewish
organisations since 1945. it's interesting in the sense that it
shows there's always been a contemporary political agenda to
using the holocaust as a moral imperative - like you do - and that
until the 1960s, the holocaust was played down, and manifestly
NOT pushed as central to the "jewish character" / justification for
Israeli military action.
I should have said all this when i originally posted, but I
assumed people would follow the link I pasted in.
― Alasdair, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
And also that questioning the logic of it as a moral imperative
that justifies the military occupation of parts of the west bank is
really just building a straw man and setting it alight, in a
pointless and potentially offensive way.
What I'm saying applies more to the US industry of holocaust
rememberance that -sadly- all seems ultimately to say "never
again will we allow Jews to be massacred by Nazis in central
europe in 1945" without looking at the mechanics of genocide
elsewhere or the current problems of the middle east, but still
generating tacit emotional support for Israel to act however it
chooses. So sorry if what i said caused any offence.
The interesting thing about the Holocaust is that even if we
do take it as central to the Jewish experience and character,
and not just posturing or an attempt at justification, it's a rather
unpretty argument, and a bit of another "suck it": the subtext is
that Jews have historically been so threatened that they now have no
qualms about steamrolling anyone who stands in their way. Certainly
that's not an admirable thing?
Also -- and I tried to make this point when we did the "State of
Israel: Classic or Dud" thread, I still don't understand how anyone
justifies the necessity of a sovereign state of Israel. Without
getting into the "what was worse than the Holocaust" argument, which
is totally irrelevant, we can find countless other diasporas who have
historically been massacred, enslaved, and scattered from
their "homelands" in a similar fashion, but it tends to be agreed
that we should strive to live pluralistically, not dislocate masses
of people simple to return people to ethnically homogenous or
ethnically restricted "homelands."
Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure of
white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?
Alex Fishman is the main commentator on security matters
for Israel's largest mass circulation paper, Yediot Achronot, a
publication with right-of-center politics. Fishman is known for his
excellent contacts in the military. On Sunday, Nov. 25, Fishman
issued a prediction based on the recent assassination on Nov.
23 by Israel's security services of the Hamas leader, Mahmud
Abu Hunud. It was featured in a box on the newspaper's front
It began, "We again find ourselves preparing with dread for a
new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line (Israel's pre-'67
border)." Since Fishman was entirely accurate in this regard, we
should mark closely what he wrote next. "Whoever gave a green
light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby
shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement,
Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside
the Green Line, of the kind perpetrated at the Dolphinarium
(discotheque in Tel-Aviv)."
Fishman stated flatly that such an agreement did exist, even if
neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas would admit it in
public. "It is a fact," he continued, "that, while the security
services did accumulate repeated warnings of planned Hamas
terrorist attacks within the Green Line, these did not materialize.
That cannot be attributed solely to the Shabak's impressive
success in intercepting the suicide bombers and their
controllers. Rather, the respective leaderships of the Palestinian
Authority and Hamas came to the understanding that it would be
better not to play into Israel's hands by mass attacks on its
In other words, Arafat had managed to convince Hamas to curb
its suicide bombers. This understanding was shattered by the
assassination of Abu Hunud. "Whoever decided upon the
liquidation of Abu Hunud," Fishman continued, "knew in advance
that that would be the price. The subject was extensively
discussed both by Israel's military echelon and its political one,
before it was decided to carry out the liquidation. Now, the
security bodies assume that Hamas will embark on a concerted
effort to carry out suicide bombings, and preparations are made
― Phil, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Tim, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― bnw, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
HUGE difference: my complaint about Israel was that it was
created specifically as a homeland for people of a certain
ethnic heritage, as dictated by the completely deplorable,
imperialist, anti-pluralistic line of thinking that various sorts of
people should separate themselves into self-determining "homelands"
(even if this means massive dislocation and reduction of self-
determination for someone else). This is somewhat different from the
people of an existing land adopting Islamic law, which is
woefully theocratic but in the end not so different a concept from
our own religiously-inflected laws in the US. In those cases Muslims
already constitute the dominant portion of a region, whether
we like it or not. But to create a nation specifically so that
one group can be dominant within it? The subtext is that people have
some sort of right to be able to go to a country in which they are a
part of the ethnic majority (and that said country should be situated
wherever they ethnically "come from," regardless of whether someone
else has arrived there in the meantime). We have to reject
that logic. To not reject that logic is to doom the very
idea of pluralistic societies, and to call for exactly the
sort of violence we see in the area right now.
You might recall, in that thread, that I ragged on Liberia for the
same reason as Israel. I rejected the idea that Jews deserved as self-
determining Israeli homeland for the same reasons I rejected the idea
that Germans deserved a self-determining Aryan Fatherland, just like
I'd have rejected any suggestion that all of the black people in the
1870's US should have been shipped over to Liberia or given Alabama
and Mississippi as their own sovereign nation.
And I think I pointed out, in that thread, that some of this may have
to do with personal experience. I do not understand
nationalism, because I don't have any nation to be nationalistic
about: I'm a "foreigner" no matter where I go. And yet I completely
reject the idea that I "deserve" or have a right to anything else; we
should all be foreigners.
And while I'm not going to claim that this is what was going through
Arafat's head, all of this is why I understand rejecting Palestinian
statehood if it's not accompanied by a "right of return" for all of
those who were expelled from Israel.
"Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure
of white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?"
Honestly, I know next to nothing about it except that it sounded
terrifying. A case of the "haves and the have-nots"? I can't even
begin to get my head around the tribal violence in Africa.
Not tribal violence -- I asked because it bears on our discussion,
insofar as you would sort of have to support land
redistribution in Zimbabwe in order to support the existence of
Israel. The rationale behind land redistribution is that, well, the
land is African land and belongs to Africans, and white ownership of
it is the result of violent colonial seizure; thus it's time to give
it back. I am rather sympathetic to this logic. I am not as
sympathetic to the rather less clear-cut logic of the creation of
Israel, where the link goes back a long time, and the creation
of a diaspora and the shifting population of the region were due to
more natural historical processes, and not a recent, easy-to-identify
colonization -- plus the very existence of a diaspora, of
millions who had left the region, for centuries upon
centuries, and then try to make claims upon it?
At root I am sympathetic to the idea that people need land to live on
(see Zimbabwe), but hugely unsympathetic to the idea that people need
a land. It's reductive, archaic, racist, stone-age thinking,
and I simply can't support it.
― Nitsuh, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
The current situation is hardly cut and dried. My ambivalence is
increased by the fact that impoverished black employees get detained,
tortured and beaten senseless for working on these farms. Often they
have no recourse but to work in such places in order to escape
The general populace are more concerned with survival than politics.
In my experience, the overriding concern is with the increasingly
totalitarian regime under President Mugabe.
Inspired somewhat by President Bush, his most recent tactic is to
label any opposition party member a "terrorist" and have them dealt
The situation in Zimbabwe is spiralling rapidly out of control, and
the forcible repatriation of white-owned farms is only one such
― Trevor, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Afghanistan News Sunnah Sunni
Deobandi Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya
Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh
Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War
Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement
Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn
Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot
Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual
Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair
Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah
Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir
Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" ar-Rasheed
Sunnah Deobandi Sunni Islam
Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya
Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab
Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant
Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special
forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala
Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot
Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual
Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair
Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah
Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir
Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama"
― copy, Sunday, 28 July 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Up to 16 killed as Israeli forces storm aid convoy
― ᵒ always toasted, never fried (crüt), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:15 (six years ago) Permalink
Stay classy Israel.
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:16 (six years ago) Permalink
Ask Imaam Imam Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islaam Islam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuda
Afghanistan News Sunnah Sunni Deobandi Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama" ar-Rasheed trust
Sunnah Deobandi Sunni Islam Islaam Kashmir Afghanistan Jihad Jihaad Chechnya Kosovo Awliya Sufiyah Sufi Soofi Sibghatullah Shah Pir Pagaro Sindh Punjab Balauchistan Balochistan Afghanistan Terror Terrorism War Militant Radical Extremist fanatic fundamentalist Sunni movement Special forces soldiers wahabi wahhaabi wahhabi Syedayn Shaheedayn Ambala Deoband Saharanpur Kandhla Thana bhawan Akora Khattak Balakot Hyderabad Karachi lyari MQM Hikayat Hikayaat peace spirit spiritual Waliullah wali saint worship veneration Sajda Ghairullah Ghayr Ghair Kufr Ilhaad Zanadaqah Wahdat ul Wajood Shahood Tassawuf Islaah Tazkiyah Nafs Shaytaan Satan Shaitan Zikr Dhikr Zakir Zaakir Dhaakir Abid Zahid Zuhd Istaghna Sabr "Safhaat min Sabr ul Ulama"
― sir mountebank (velko), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:19 (six years ago) Permalink
― ksh, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:20 (six years ago) Permalink
Not to play Captain Defend an Israel, but acc. to the very sparse on details article, the people were killed when they resisted the commandos. If supposedly there were no weapons on board, what exactly were they resisting with? (For all I know, they just resisted by punching the commandos, or sitting peacefully, but that seems kinda unlikely.)
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:26 (six years ago) Permalink
Larger story from Haaretz, including:
"The boats are carrying items that Israel bars from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials." -- which is really fucked up that they aren't allowed in Gaza.
The military said in a statement: "Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade (of the Gaza Strip) ... During the takeover, the soldiers encountered serious physical violence by the protesters, who attacked them with live fire."
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:29 (six years ago) Permalink
IDF claims they used tools and knives and someone went for a soldier's gun. Protesters claim that they only passively resisted. In any case, 14 protesters were killed in international by the IDF after commandos stormed their flotilla carrying aid to Gaza. Draw your own conclusions.
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:33 (six years ago) Permalink
Just to preempt, I think the whole Gaza situation is totally fucked up, and that there is a lot more Israel + Egypt could and should be doing for the people living there. Either/both governments should stepped forward to work with any humanitarian mission if they are that concerned about weapon/rocket smuggling. That neither did, and just told the mission that they can't deliver the aid, is super cold hearted and basically evil by way of Hannah Arendt thoughtlessness. That said, if you want to deliver aid to Gaza, and you already know it's likely that Israel will step in and stop you (at least an even shot, some shipments are allowed through, some are halted), don't carry weapons. That a) sets you up for a violent conflict and b) justifies what Israel was complaining about in the first place -- that you're bringing weapons into Gaza -- and totally undermines any humanitarian mission you might have. And if you're going to carry weapons (maybe you need them in case of pirates? idk), don't open fire on the freaking army. How could that possibly end well?
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:35 (six years ago) Permalink
The statement quoted in Haaretz says they were attacked with live fire.
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:36 (six years ago) Permalink
and protestors say they only passively resisted
― ᵒ always toasted, never fried (crüt), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:39 (six years ago) Permalink
Channel 10, a private station in Israel, quoted the Israeli Trade Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as saying between 14 and 16 people had been killed on one of the flotilla ships. He said on Israeli Army Radio that commandos boarded the ship by sliding down on ropes from a hovering helicopter, and were then struck by passengers with “batons and tools.”
I think you are missing the point of the flotilla. It's not simply a matter of delivering much-needed supplies to Gaza. The point is to violate the Israeli blockade. The point is to draw attention to Israel's policies.
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:41 (six years ago) Permalink
I guess it's possible commandos killed innocents only passively resisting, and then the army covered up for a bunch of psychos in their army, but sounds very unlikely to me. Israel has a functioning press. I don't think that's the kind of thing the government could get away with. (But I could be wrong!)
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:42 (six years ago) Permalink
Considering it's just "he said she said" at this point and will probably stay that way, history is written by the victors, etc.
― Fetchboy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:43 (six years ago) Permalink
I guess it's possible commandos killed innocents only passively resisting, and then the army covered up for a bunch of psychos in their army, but sounds very unlikely to me.
Have you no knowledge of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:43 (six years ago) Permalink
If the purpose was to provoke Israel into murdering civilians, then mission accomplished, I guess. It seems like a lot of strategy is provoking Israel to do something horrific and then hoping something changes because of it. Maybe this'll be the catalyst for complete change in the relationship between Israel and Gaza -- or maybe it'll just be another really tragic, morally repulsive moment in the Middle East that does nothing to change the status quo or make life better for the people living in Gaza.
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:46 (six years ago) Permalink
Super Cub, I know plenty about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Do you know how Israeli Press works? Most press in Israeli is very cynical and holds the government to account often. It seems unlikely to me that you could get away with lying about something like this.
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:47 (six years ago) Permalink
Well, Ha'aretz is basically Israel's answer to The Guardian and is normally the go-to paper for a liberal viewpoint. But what they've done is to Xerox a government press release/statement without digging further, which may in itself be a comment on the behaviour of the military.
― I eat truffle fries because my captors say they'll kill me if I don't (suzy), Monday, 31 May 2010 07:52 (six years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I don't think the immediate report tonight will be the final story. But if soldiers opened fire on passive resisters, I imagine that'll be in Ha'aretz this week.
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:53 (six years ago) Permalink
Well it only happened a few hours ago, miles out at see - not sure what kind of coverage you're expecting yet
― Ismael Klata, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:54 (six years ago) Permalink
― Ismael Klata, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:55 (six years ago) Permalink
If you know a lot about Israel and this conflict, how is it inconceivable to you that the IDF could be covering up a botched operation that resulted in civilian deaths? The last 20 years are riddled with instances of alleged IDF abuses and accusations of cover-ups. It's a mainstay of this conflict.
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:55 (six years ago) Permalink
And yeah, this happened like 5 hours ago.
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:56 (six years ago) Permalink
idk Super Cub. Like I said, I guess it's possible they are lying about there being live fire resistance. Just super short-sighted to lie about something like that imo. There were a lot of people on the flotilla. It's not the kind of thing you can conspire about one way or another. I don't see all of the activists making up a story and sticking to it, and, as that website you just linked points out, it's hard to get soldiers to lie about their roles in a conflict.
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 07:59 (six years ago) Permalink
tbh, I really hope there was live fire. If Israel killed those people, even if they were wielding batons or whatever, it's going to end up really fucked up. Especially if Raed Salah was a casualty. There could be another Intifada, and if you can't trust the Israeli army to handle the flotilla situation, you definitely don't want them trying to handle rioters and protesters all over the place. Things could get massively screwed up really quickly.
― Mordy, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:05 (six years ago) Permalink
I don't want to debate you on this, so this is the last post I'll make on the subject.
I think you are woefully ignorant of the dynamics of this conflict. It's entirely possible that the IDF was fired upon, but it's ridiculous to say that the IDF wouldn't use grossly disproportionate force and then try to cover it up (or at least try and justify it). That is pretty much the IDF's standard operating procedure when it come to Gaza. That was the basic strategy in the Gaza War.
― Super Cub, Monday, 31 May 2010 08:09 (six years ago) Permalink
a country full of ppl including my wife's family, as I think you know, so I don't need to be reminded of that
do not feel owed, do feel concerned. Israel does in fact have a huge stake in being liked by people in the US and EU.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, 23 September 2016 15:54 (four weeks ago) Permalink
If Israel thinks it's only "Jill Stein leftists" I'd say it faces a reckoning in 10-20 years.
ppl have been prophesying this reckoning since at least 67 if not 48. i suspect it's hysteria.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 15:56 (four weeks ago) Permalink
BDS is only 10 years old, the south african boycott movement took about 30. Not saying it will definitely happen but I wouldn't be too smug about it either.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, 23 September 2016 15:58 (four weeks ago) Permalink
south african boycott movement had a lot of things going for it that BDS does not. for one, they were trying to end an apartheid system, not a military occupation. apartheid is inherently unjust. a military occupation is only unjust when it stops being necessary. as long as palestinians are stabbing jews and firing rockets from gaza they will not have the moral leverage that south africa did. nb i understand that south african resistance also included the use of terrorism but again - that was to end an unjust society, not to end an occupation - and even then it didn't take off until it had a leader with serious moral authority. maybe you're right and 20 years from now everyone will be boycotting israel. but i doubt it. i don't see it trending in that direction. if anything i think BDS is boiling off. if one day the pressure becomes too hot for israel, all they have to do is withdraw from the WB like they did in Gaza. unilaterally declare borders and keep whatever settlements they decide to. that's an option open at any time. you can't bully them into accepting all descendants of 48 + 67 refugees. it'll just never happen.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:05 (four weeks ago) Permalink
and meanwhile israeli society will become more mizrahi and more charedi and american liberal ashkenazi jews will become more and more defensive about it. but does anyone really believe that mizrahim gaf about what american jews think of them? i have yet to meet one who does.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:06 (four weeks ago) Permalink
honest leftists can't support any country
this is a weird thing to say
I fully support Costa Rica for ex.
― Οὖτις, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:12 (four weeks ago) Permalink
there may be exceptions but i think among major world countries none of them live up to left-wing ethics. even once beloved scandanavian countries have turned out to have secret nativist cores.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:15 (four weeks ago) Permalink
dim view of the world you have there
― Οὖτις, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:16 (four weeks ago) Permalink
how could it be otherwise? the nation state is inherently problematic. any time you're defending a nation state's interests you're going to run afoul.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:17 (four weeks ago) Permalink
there's a scale, it's not like every country in the world is militarily dominating its neighbors. there are plenty of countries that are small and relatively insignificant in the scope of world affairs and primarily concerned with minding their own business.
― Οὖτις, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:19 (four weeks ago) Permalink
i think you'd be surprised. many countries you might think of as innocuous have all kinds of domestic + neighborly issues that just don't get 1% of the reporting that the israel/palestine conflict gets.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 16:20 (four weeks ago) Permalink
BDS is only 10 years old, the south african boycott movement took about 30. Not saying it will definitely happen but I wouldn't be too smug about it either.― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, September 23, 2016 3:58 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, September 23, 2016 3:58 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
especially since its such a big deal on college campuses.. at least in california. there's tons of stories out there about students in the pro-palestinian/pro-israel camp really going at it. I havent seen polling but I think the youts are way less pro-israel than they used to be.
― carthago delenda est (mayor jingleberries), Friday, 23 September 2016 18:12 (four weeks ago) Permalink
my impression is that it's mostly a v minor cause that keeps getting blown up primarily by hysterical right-wingers who use the existence of BDS as a cudgel to attack all liberals w/
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 18:16 (four weeks ago) Permalink
it's one of those things that is hard to gauge the actual size + impact bc both its proponents and its detractors have an interest in making it appear larger than it is. in terms of real world consequences though i'm not convinced it has had, or will begin to have a material impact on Israel. it may have an impact on American Jewish college students who feel battered and politically marginalized, which is definitely unfortunate but it's unclear how hurting American Jews will force Bibi to withdraw from the WB.
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 18:17 (four weeks ago) Permalink
"a military occupation is only unjust when it stops being necessary"
this isn't wrong exactly but tbh every occupying power thinks their occupation is "necessary"
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 23 September 2016 21:44 (four weeks ago) Permalink
i agree but it's much easier to make the case - or at least make it controversial enough that it can't be settled unanimously - when hostilities are still ongoing
― Mordy, Friday, 23 September 2016 21:45 (four weeks ago) Permalink
@PageSixBenjamin Netanyahu was booed by the audience at "Hamilton"
@DougHenwood Best thing I ever heard about “Hamilton"
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Monday, 26 September 2016 21:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink
This week, with its fresh new $38 billion commitment in hand, the Israeli government announced the approval of an all new settlement in the West Bank, one that is particularly hostile to ostensible U.S. policy, the international consensus, and any prospects for an end to occupation. The new settlement, “one of a string of housing complexes that threaten to bisect the West Bank,” as the New York Times put it this morning, “is designed to house settlers from a nearby illegal outpost, Amona, which an Israeli court has ordered demolished.” This new settlement extends far into the West Bank: closer to Jordan, in fact, than to Israel.
In response to this announcement, the U.S. State Department yesterday issued an unusually harsh denunciation of Israel’s actions. “We strongly condemn the Israeli government’s recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank,” it began. It suggested Netanyahu has been publicly lying, noting that the “approval contradicts previous public statements by the government of Israel that it had no intention of creating new settlements.” The State Department invoked the aid package the U.S. just lavished to describe it as “deeply troubling, in the wake of Israel and the U.S. concluding an unprecedented agreement on military assistance designed to further strengthen Israel’s security, that Israel would take a decision so contrary to its long-term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians.”
Much of that, while a bit more rhetorically clear than usual, is par for the course: The U.S. — in vintage Obama fashion — issues pretty, pleasing statements claiming to be upset at Israel’s settlements while taking continuous actions to protect and enable the very policies Obama pretends to oppose. But the State Department denunciation yesterday was actually notable for what amounts to its stark and explicit acknowledgement — long overdue — that Israel is clearly and irreversibly committed to ruling over the Palestinians in perpetuity, becoming the exact “apartheid” state about which (Ehud) Barak warned....
So Israel — in the words of its most loyal benefactor — is moving inexorably “towards cementing a one-state reality of perpetual occupation” that is anti-democratic: i.e., the equivalent of apartheid. And the leading protector and enabler of this apartheid regime is the U.S. — just as was true of the apartheid regime of the 1980s in South Africa....
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, 7 October 2016 11:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink