the USA, Israel, and national interest

(and I think they are able to deal with that condition to talks, and if Hamas engages in violence, it is an indication they don't want to negotiate. when they want to negotiate, they will be able to respect a cease fire. this isn't like a random person is performing an act of violence and then negotiations are called off. the other party is committing an act of violence.)

yes, it won't be easy! obviously. actually getting hamas to talk seriously will be very, very hard. dealing with the whole situation will be even harder now than it was 8 years ago. but israel has a certain amount of responsibility for that.

and anyway the fact that it will be very difficult is no excuse for not doing it. it's not going to get easier. there's still only one way out.

i don't even argue about this shit anymore.
― tipsy mothra, Monday, December 29, 2008 2:20 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

^^
evidently not true, btw. but the argument is dishearteningly repetitive and familiar.

Israel should be erased from the pages of the book of time if they're going to move against an entire people for a renegade move maybe made by ''Hamas'' or whoever gets a handful of rockets. 200 dead is a joke meant to provoke Hamas to act in a way that will push the Israeli government way right in the elections in February.

There is no way the Palestinians can act like a state because of the dehumanizing embargo imposed against them. The Jews who run Israel are terrible in their media face and I bet that reflects across the board of their government. Self-righteous idiots. Ahmadinejad gave a Christmas address on BBC 4 that's more decent than anything I've heard from a Western leader besides Obama. And fuck Israel for ruining Iceland, pouring poison in their ear and flushing their money. Neocon Israel is Nazi, and they're playing their cards so the Greens, Ashkenazis et al won't sweep into power. Death to Reaganite governments everywhere, by any means necessary.

I was not aware that the Jews were responsible for the crisis in Iceland? But that does make a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Ahmadinejad gave a Christmas address on BBC 4 that's more decent than anything I've heard from a Western leader besides Obama.

He also wants Israel wiped off the map and denies the Holocaust, so fuck a Tehran cunt by any means necessary.

Maybe he's just confused.

''... Wiped off the map'' is a common phrase in Arabic. It translates to ''clean slate.''

Sheik Yitzhak Patrin V. burt stanton:

GO

Patrin, are you gonna explain how Israel ruined Iceland? I'm pretty interested.

ahmadinjead: now there's an animal

did you ever notice how much he looks and acts like george w?

xxxp RF hacking tunneled through Bobby Fischer's fillings.

I'm glad we got that settled. I wanted to straighten this out in the HuffPo comments, but it's such a hassle to post there.

wau, Likudniks reprazentin'

glad we were able to incorporate ahmadinejad into this discussion

that was Morbius, not ahmedinejad

there are two sorts of people in this debate: those who spell ahmadinejad correctly, and those who don't

Things will surely be different when we have a former IDF adventurer as White House chief of staff.

there are two sorts of people in this debate: those who spell ahmadinejad correctly, and those who don't

lol

احمدی‌نژاد

^^ ahmadinejad "spelled correctly"

solution: move israel to baja

jews benefit, arabs benefit, mexico benefits

those who transliterate ahmadinejad correctly, those who don't, and wanton clever-clogs

احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد احمدی‌نژاد

Some charged that Emanuel was an Israeli citizen or a dual U.S.-Israeli national (he is neither, he was born in Chicago in 1959); or, they alleged that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), losing his finger confronting a Syrian tank during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon (he did not serve in the IDF, and lost his finger in a freak accident while working as a teenager in an Arby's restaurant). A few accused Emanuel of skipping U.S. military service to join the IDF in 1991 (also not true -- in the midst of the 1991 Gulf War, while U.S. forces were manning Patriot missile batteries in Israel and the Arab Gulf, Emanuel volunteered for a few weeks, as a civilian, doing maintenance on Israeli vehicles).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/rahm-emanuel-and-arab-per_b_143976.html

Gustafus
Party: NA
Reply #9
Date: Nov. 6, 2008 - 12:47 PM EST
The first thing Obama did betray his anti war base. Game set match - Israel. Rahm Emanuel has an Israeli passport. Rahm Emanuel served in the IDF in 1991. Rahm Emanuel means more war on Islam. Rahm Emanuel means OBama lied to his base... he drank the kosher kool aid to win the election.... all done behind the scenes of course... complete with psyops operations against the anti war supporters... with stories planted that Jews in Israel were 'fearful'... that Obama was a closet Muslim.... ooh.... Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer... and all of Tel Aviv are toasting their historic defeat of the American electoral process.....Obama - lawn jockey for Israel. I'm disgusted. And everybody on this site should feel betrayed and angry. THIS is what Jew hatred is all about - now, before, always... we are the suckers and the dopes... and they pull all the strings... and make and break the kings. I'm rootin for Iran. Save us IRan... save us.

morbs?

Emanuel volunteered for a few weeks, as a civilian, doing maintenance on Israeli vehicles

split those hairs, baby

yeah, you wouldn't ever want to know too much about anything

interesting, from the latest issue:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88105/walter-russell-mead/change-they-can-believe-in.html

btw

baby

lol

two good posts on talkingpointsmemo, by josh marshall and, from just before the current bombardment, bernard avishai. avishai's is especially to the point:

Hamas is growing in power--in the West Bank, too--directly as a result of this grotesquery. It is absurd to think of Gaza as a separate matter. Nor will the Hamas leadership be intimidated by shows of force. Actually, they thrive on it--precisely because eruptions of violence allow them to be seen as the steadfast opposition to the inertial expansion of Israeli occupation. An Israeli attack on Gaza, which must be bloody, will be play right into Hamas's hands.

... The simple fact is, this problem is too big for Israel. We will need the world's involvement; anyone who tells you something different is either covering for the settlers, or afraid for electoral reasons to appear squishy about Israeli autonomy, or arrogant, or ignorant, or thick, or all of these at once. This post is not the place to describe what involvement means, though the contours of a two-state deal have been obvious for many years. The point is, what Hebron represents cannot be solved by this deal in a few decisive months, like the evacuation of the Sinai was. New changes to the landscape will take years. Or the landscape will look like Bosnia.

avishai's whole blog is worth paying attention to.

and tom segev, in haaretz:

But the assault on Gaza does not first and foremost demand moral condemnation - it demands a few historical reminders. Both the justification given for it and the chosen targets are a replay of the same basic assumptions that have proven wrong time after time. Yet Israel still pulls them out of its hat again and again, in one war after another.

Israel is striking at the Palestinians to "teach them a lesson." That is a basic assumption that has accompanied the Zionist enterprise since its inception: We are the representatives of progress and enlightenment, sophisticated rationality and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent rabble, ignorant children who must be educated and taught wisdom - via, of course, the carrot-and-stick method, just as the drover does with his donkey.

...As a corollary, Israel has also always believed that causing suffering to Palestinian civilians would make them rebel against their national leaders. This assumption has proven wrong over and over.

...here is another historical truth worth recalling in this context: Since the dawn of the Zionist presence in the Land of Israel, no military operation has ever advanced dialogue with the Palestinians.

Most dangerous of all is the cliche that there is no one to talk to. That has never been true. There are even ways to talk with Hamas, and Israel has something to offer the organization. Ending the siege of Gaza and allowing freedom of movement between Gaza and the West Bank could rehabilitate life in the Strip.

(Tipsy, thanks for keeping up the better side of this "disheartening argument" -- I appreciate it, because I don't like doing it either, and there are some statements on this thread that boggle my mind too much to respond to reasonably and calmly.)

Mordy, some of your analogies in particular -- like the one about this being a conflict between "two people," or the comparison with Mexico and Texas -- seem to spell out in themselves what you're willfully avoiding about the situation: things like the difference between a functional democracy and a stateless collection of people with various pockets of very short-term leadership (or the difference between Mexico and the U.S. occupying Chihuahua.) These things aren't even the subtle complexities of the situation, they're the basics of it, and it seems bizarre to me to bring such strong opinions to the table without acknowledging them. (Also it's weird to hear you defending Israel by asking for Palestinian self-determination, but that's another story.)

Well, looks like Israel is doing exactly what I said they should. you can keep your book lernins

"What you said they should" was genocide, if I remember correctly

So is a stateless collection of people with various pockets of short-term leadership off the hook for any responsibility for their actions?

There is no "their" there

OMG i was just about to make that joke

I think I'd take calls for the punishment of Palestinians more seriously if their state hadn't already been almost completely destroyed and the actual culpable rocketeers rounded up and put on trial, rather than the collective punishment meted out by IDF helicopters and tanks but you know.

xpost -

That's not an attempt to be glib or land a zinger, by the way, so I'll do the boring explanation:

It's just that you say "their actions" as if there's an identifiable collective there, and then you talk about it as if the "their" in question is the same thing as "Palestinians." It's not, obviously. The reason you're being reminded that it's a stateless collection of people with etc. etc. is that this severely complicates the idea of anything called "their actions." There's no single actor; there's a tumultuous collection of factions working toward different purposes and beholden to one another in different ways and with various levels of legitimacy and authority that are rarely honestly and freely derived from the people (and when they are it's not necessarily for the reasons that would make things morally simple for us).

Nobody's said anything about people not being responsible for their actions, mind you. This is more a reminder that you have to think a bit about how broadly that "their" stretches and how that works when you're making broad moral claims.

Right, just like peace activists in Israel probably don't deserve blame for these attacks, even though they are a part of the Israeli state.

But the people who voted Hamas in? The people in Hamas? Both those sub-groups seem to deserve some responsibility for their actions...and both groups have the ability to influence their own future, so they ain't powerless.

I think I'd take calls for the punishment of Palestinians more seriously if their state hadn't already been almost completely destroyed and the actual culpable rocketeers rounded up and put on trial...

the rockets were still coming down, to be basic. the violence will be counter-productive but it's not being done on a whim.

all of what nabisco says -- "There's no single actor; there's a tumultuous collection of factions working toward different purposes and beholden to one another in different ways and with various levels of legitimacy and authority that are rarely honestly and freely derived from the people " -- would also apply if palestine were a "properly functioning" state, surely?

it applies -- ta-da -- to israel as well.

or are we saying that civilian members of democracies are legitimate targets as a result of "their" governments' actions?

Yes, that's exactly what iatee is saying isn't it?

Or course it applies to Israel as well: that's why we all agree that rocket attacks are not good things! That's why we agree that they're terroristic, and not justifiable reactions to the actions of Israel as a state! And one reason some of us worry about Israel's offensives is that Israel does not have a very good track record of extending that same courtesy toward Palestinian civilians.

Iatee, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Hamas is powerless, or does not have responsibility for its institutional actions. Much of what Tipsy has argued in this thread is that this sort of response toward the actions of Hamas is counterproductive -- that it strengthens Hamas, that it's not part of a coherent long-term strategy toward peace and security for anyone. The response he's mostly gotten has been "yeah well that's what happens when you fire rockets," which isn't much of a response, and doesn't address his point. We're not just talking about the lack of coherent authority in Palestine for moral reasons, we're also talking about it for practical reasons, because it influences what you can do or should plan to do in terms of a long-term strategy for not having this problem anymore.

Nabisco, I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not defending Israel, per se. I'm simply suggesting that we do both sides of the conflict a disservice by pretending that one is incapable of stopping violence and the other is. Not only have stateless peoples been able to secure rights for themselves in the past, but, as Brohan points out, both parties are full of individuals. Shalom Achshav is an Israeli political party. There is no "their" there in the knesset either. I'd like to see Hamas man up and take responsibility for their people and their actions. Israel should not be babying the Palestinians. It's degrading and unuseful. They should take care of their people, and their state, and let the Palestinian leadership figure out best how to take care of their people. If at some point it becomes evident to Israel that taking care of the Palestinians is most useful to the Israeli population, then maybe they'll do that. But to ask them to ask selflessly because the Palestinians are little children is pretty racist, IMO.

And if you're asking what Israel has to gain pragmatically from retaliated against rockets, I mentioned a possibility earlier: If you want to run a government, sometimes you need to take action when assholes keep attacking your constituents. You can't run a state if your coalition keeps falling apart.

(retaliating*)