the USA, Israel, and national interest

Which isn't to say there isn't a solution. But I think it's understandable that Israel responds to rocket launchers with retaliation and not with, "Hey dudz, here is some Peace, man!"

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.

I agree with all of this, I think the majority of the things the Israeli government does are counterproductive and very bad for its long term-interests. Where I differ is that I don't expect the Israeli people to be acting any more rationally when they're in this sort of psychological position than the Palestinians do (or the Americans did...) just because they have a more organized political structure and bigger guns.

the issue is not -- or at least shouldn't be -- the relative responsibility or accountability of the palestinian or israeli populations. that's a moral rabbit hole. the only thing that matters is whether actions make an ultimate resolution more or less achievable. if this attack seemed like or could be justified as part of a coherent move toward that resolution, that would be one thing. that is, if the military devastation of hamas was likely to actually remove obstacles to eventual peace, it would be easier to justify from a practical stanpoint. but there's no indication of that, at all. as tom segev says in that column, this is just the same thing over and over, and it doesn't lead anywhere good.

also let's not exaggerate the threat of the rocket attacks. the threat is real, for the people who live in those areas, but it is hardly existential. the real existential threat is the inability to come to terms -- however painful -- on a two-state agreement. anything that makes that agreement harder to reach is a much graver threat to israel than any number of poorly aimed and randomly fired peasant rockets.

(a "practical stanpoint" = the point of view of yr average stan)

I'm not going to try and quantify the existential threat, but I think that Israel ignoring rockets drop on Sderot for over a year because it's one of the poorest cities in the country is a pretty huge existential threat.

Mordy I think it is really disingenuous to try and compare the "no their" of a democratic state to the "no their" of Palestine -- yes, obviously neither is a hive mind, both are just collections of people with different agendas, but one of these has a working, central, legitimate authority and the other struggles to have anything even vaguely resembling one. I suspect you know that's disingenuous, too.

Contenderizer I think that's a reasonably fair way of putting a lot of that, but keep in mind that I'm saying "there's no 'their' there" in response to a whole lot of earlier posts that seem to act as if the situation is symmetrical. It's just ... really, really, really not symmetrical.

P.S. Mordy I'd note here, just in passing, that a lot of Hamas's popularity in Palestine stems from the perception that it did a much better job "taking care of people" -- in terms of things like hospitals and schools -- than Fatah did. This isn't a defense of Hamas, or anything, just a note that development and peace are not necessarily polar opposites for such groups, which is definitely a problem in figuring out how to respond to them. Israel's strategy has seemed, for a while, to be to make them polar opposites, by strangling and destroying any positive progress that doesn't come along with peace; a lot of signs suggest this creates a vicious circle that helps no one.

...military installations should not be based in civilian areas. Hamas ignore this rule, presumably because of the propaganda value of high casualties.

-- IK

Yeah, sure, "presumably".

Or presumably they do this because they are not granted the right to have a military in the first place, and thus must hide it. Or presumably because they are massively, MASSIVELY overwhelmed militarily and have no ability to win in a direct, "fair fight". Or presumably because they don't really own the land they occupy, or much of anything at all, and therefore lack the luxury of such conventional manners.

Insisting that military rules developed by and for rich, powerful, first-world nations must apply to all-but-powerless, third-world non-nations in their conflicts with the former = the height of hypocrisy.

I'm not being disingenuous, I'm just suggesting that your comparison is meaningless. If your argument is that Palestinian authority can't be held responsible for rogue terror - I don't disagree. But when the elected leadership is claiming responsibility for those attacks, what do you gain from saying there's no "their" there? Weren't most of the retaliatory installations hit those of Hamas leadership?

also let's not exaggerate the threat of the rocket attacks. the threat is real, for the people who live in those areas, but it is hardly existential. the real existential threat is the inability to come to terms -- however painful -- on a two-state agreement. anything that makes that agreement harder to reach is a much graver threat to israel than any number of poorly aimed and randomly fired peasant rockets.

Rocket attacks / suicide bombings are psychological threats - and they were meant to be. Obv way fewer Israelis die, but they still succeed in freaking everyone the fuck out. In that sense, they're exactly as successful as the IDF attacks.

the only thing that matters is whether actions make an ultimate resolution more or less achievable. if this attack seemed like or could be justified as part of a coherent move toward that resolution, that would be one thing. that is, if the military devastation of hamas was likely to actually remove obstacles to eventual peace, it would be easier to justify from a practical stanpoint.

-- tipsy

Sometimes our responses to situations -- even the best available responses to situations -- have less to do with acheiving an "ultimate resolution" than with solving an immediate, short-term problem. Here, I think the Israeli response isn't an attempt to resolve the conflict as a whole, but simply to stop the rockets from falling, if only for a while. On that level it seems entirely reasonable, if not entirely prudent.

Insisting that military rules developed by and for rich, powerful, first-world nations must apply to all-but-powerless, third-world non-nations in their conflicts with the former = the height of hypocrisy.

Insisting that there are certain moral standards that might be applicable to *everyone in the world* = not exactly the height of hypocrisy.

Air assault won't bind terrorists to submission. It will motivate them to suicide attacks, despite what the moderates think. Terror lives in the cracks of society, and Israeli intelligence is obviously nowhere near capable of squashing it, because it would have arrested the faction directly responsible for the rocket shots. If that's its motivation in attacking at all.

So how should Israel act? It can't let Palestine become a conduit for ''mad'' ''Islamofascist'' leaders of surrounding states? More Westerners need to adopt the morality of religion en mass? Learn to communicate with ''culturally backwards people''? Relocate to Florida ?

Insisting that there are certain moral standards that might be applicable to *everyone in the world* = not exactly the height of hypocrisy.

― iatee

True enough, but that leaves a lot of middle ground.

Don't murder is pretty much a human code dating really far back. It's application in military code is an allowance (fine, you can murder THESE people), not a stringency.

Insisting that military rules developed by and for rich, powerful, first-world nations must apply to all-but-powerless, third-world non-nations in their conflicts with the former = the height of hypocrisy

No, that's absolutely wrong. Those rules are there to make war as humane as possible. If you can't adhere to them, don't fight. What you don't do is ignore them and make up your own rules to your best advantage. Israel could nuke Gaza by that logic.

Sometimes our responses to situations -- even the best available responses to situations -- have less to do with acheiving an "ultimate resolution" than with solving an immediate, short-term problem.

but if solving the short-term problem actually exacerbates the long-term problem, then there's an inherent self-destructiveness in it. plus, this is not just about rockets. it's about israel wanting to muscle up after the embarrassment of lebanon and to counter the growing national sense of directionlessness and insecurity. it's a short-term shot of courage with the possibility of a serious hangover. not a good idea, for people or countries.

tipsy, I wonder what you think this longterm existential crisis is for Israel? Are you referring to the population crisis? Because it seems to me that Israel has more to gain from keeping attacks at bay in the short run than they do rushing Palestinians into an autonomous State. I'm all in favor of Democracy and self-determinacy, but I'm curious what you think the cost of Israel's current strategy is. I'm not convinced that giving the Palestinian's autonomous leadership is going to curtail any rocket sending. Syria (I'm not sure if they still do this) wasn't ghettoized, and they certainly had no problem shooting rockets in Israel. Saddam Hussein used to shoot rockets into Tel Aviv. Certainly the Palestinians aren't going to form a society more self-dependent than pre-War Iraq, are they?

Klata, If Palestinians played by the ''rules of war'' and fought in grids or however retarded armies used to fight, where would the average US citizen get his drugs? From Rockefeller Pharmaceuticals?

I mean, if Israel's only motivation is, Stop Hitting Us with Fucking Rockets, than maybe they'd like an assurance of that before helping the Palestinians further?

What the hell does that mean? I'm hardly making a controversial point here xp

Sometimes our responses to situations -- even the best available responses to situations -- have less to do with acheiving an "ultimate resolution" than with solving an immediate, short-term problem.

^^ If you believe this please do not ever start doing heroin

Without resistance to ''democracy'' you wouldn't be able to smoke pot and thus unable to sympathize with your enemy.

Those rules are there to make war as humane as possible. If you can't adhere to them, don't fight.

-- IK

Those rules also privilege wealthy, powerful, industrially/militarily established nations over unruly, impoverished rebels. American mythology tells us that its Revolutionary War might not have succeeded had it been conducted in accordance with the almost courtly rules of engagement that prevailed in its day. And American actions in Vietnam and Cambodia might have gone very differently had the Vietnamese and Cambodians agreed to "play fair".

It's all well and good to insist on basic wartime moralities, but if you're sitting in a first-world country that happens to be fighting a war with third-world upstarts, then you kind of lose the high ground when lecturing them on the decency of their strategies.

Then again, maybe you're talking to me from Switzerland, so who knows.

If you believe this please do not ever start doing heroin

― nabisco

Hee. Fair point, but I think you're oversimplifying again. Triage has value. Ideally you integrate your short-term tactical responses with a coherent long-term strategy, but sometimes the long view terribly cloudy.

gorilla warfare != explicitly targeting civilians

trying to stop children from dying = first-world country snobbery

tipsy, I wonder what you think this longterm existential crisis is for Israel? Are you referring to the population crisis?

it is the population crisis, but it is a lot more than that. it is very clear that israel cannot reach a state of normalcy and security without resolving the palestinian problem. even if the current situation of the palestinian people were morally tolerable (which it's not, imo), it is obviously not sustainable. it is unstable and dangerous and every attempt to punch it back into submission just makes it moreso. a permanant state of siege is not a condition that either israelis or palestinians can tolerate. as we've seen, the longer this goes on, the more radicalized the palestinian population becomes (and the israeli population too, for that matter), and the the harder it gets to reach any non-apocalyptic resolution. (and also the more openings are created for iran, syria, et al.)

the possible solutions are very limited: one state (which would be the end of the jewish state) or two states (the only hope for preserving the jewish state). anything not working toward two states is effectively working against the longterm survival of the jewish state. plenty of israelis understand that. and of course, hamas understands it too.

(and i'm not even touching the moral argument about whether there should be a permanent jewish state, just saying that if that's the express goal -- which it is, of israel and the u.s. -- then there are things that need to happen that aren't happening.)

Ha, don't worry, it was a bit of a lazy zing. I don't have much left to argue here, I don't think -- I've mostly been stressing the "no their" idea about Palestine because there were so many posts from yesterday that seemed to want to talk about Palestine an a coherent entity somehow equivalent to Israel, or something, and that seems like madness.

I will say that I really hope it's true that this weekend's offensive has mostly killed actual militant-related Hamas members; I do hope that turns out to be true.

Tipsy, I almost want to ask you to unpack this:

one state (which would be the end of the jewish state)

I mean, I wouldn't argue for a one-state solution because it just doesn't seem remotely practicable. But you're objecting to it ... culturally?

xpost - hahaha never mind

gorilla warfare != explicitly targeting civilians

― Mordy

trying to stop children from dying = first-world country snobbery

― iatee

What's with the cheap reductionism? I'm not saying anything like either of the above. I'm saying, first, that there might be more to Hamas' placement of its military resources than a cynical attempt to boost civilian casualty figures, and second, that insisting that Hamas fight out in the open according to traditional rules of engagement is functionaly equivalent to insisting that they commit suicide.

and Tipsy OTM about everything

putting a smaller group's self-interests and survival above the safety of civilian population = a bad thing

I really don't see where the first-world snobbery comes into that.

Those rules xp are from the Geneva Conventions, which are accepted by pretty much every state (including Palestine, which is kind of pertinent). They don't favour one state over another - there's plenty of scope for different tactics within them - they're just designed to limit the carnage. What favours the first world isn't the rules, it's the better technology, better training, better equipment and larger armies. Without the rules, they would just totally obliterate their punier opponents

Hamas doesn't have to fight out in the open. Morally, though, they should stop bombing Sderot. Like, period. No discussion. You can't explicitly and intentionally bomb children and maintain any kind of moral ground, no matter who you are.

You're a bad pet owner and don't understand cats. Your cat scratches you, which is against the rules, so you put 300 cats to sleep and injure 1000.

Oh and Mordy, just as a note, I don't think the problem of controlling factions is at all meaningless here, and I think it's an issue on both ends. This is all stating the obvious, but . . . there are no long-term solutions here that don't involve two authorities being to make agreements and ensure that individuals keep to them. The main expression of this problem on the Israeli end is having settlers who won't cooperate with agreements, and having political pressures at home that make it touchy to go force them to cooperate. The main expression of this problem on the Palestinian end is, well, everything. It's not as if this isn't understood -- the P.A. itself is an effort to create some central authority on that side that can be dealt with -- but there are kinda more questions than ever about how you help achieve that, whether a militant central authority is better than none at all, etc. . . . Again, stating the obvious, but this stuff doesn't strike me as meaningless in the least!

Exactly, thanks for articulating my problem with the arguments on this thread. Palestinians aren't pets. XP

sorry, when Israel conducts air raids on a densely populated Gaza slum they're intentionally killing children too, unless you want to be Orwellian about it.

(Argh Mordy there's a very lazy retort to "Palestinians aren't pets" that I hope nobody makes here)

Yes, Morbius, and that is wrong.

There's a difference between targeting a Hamas building and hitting a child, and targeting a school and hitting a child. Surely you know that?

I didn't say you were a human xxxxp

Sorry 210, dude. I have no idea what you're talking about.

everybody knows only the Jews can build children xxp

putting a smaller group's self-interests and survival above the safety of civilian population = a bad thing

― iatee

Absolutely. But you're presenting this as if it's something cut-and-dried. If not in the neighborhoods they actually inhabit, where should Hamas base their military operations? If they were to establish seperate, clearly identified military bases, they would be annihilated instantly. If they were to quit the territory they're fighting, for they would no longer be able to do so. Their actions are a product of their circumstances, just as Israel's are. A product more of necessity than morality.

And, yes: given the massive inequalities of power, given the physical circumstances of the conflict, and given the histories of the nations involved, it is somewhat hypocritical for Israeli, American and/or English citizens to fault Hamas' morality in this regard. Was the French resistance behaving immorally in operating out of civilian neighborhoods?

P.S. I'm not justifying Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians. I'm not even justifying Hamas' failure to distinguish itself from civilian populations. I'm saying that it's kind of hypocritical to fault them for the latter when your country is more-or-less at war with them.

"Your attempt to survive is immoral. You should come out into this nice clearing over here so we don't have to blow up all of your children while trying eradicate you."

^^ reductionist, I'm sure

you know, i told this story upthread about rockets hitting this secondary school but i don't think the qassam rockets were *aimed* at the school. don't they fire them from, like, a couple miles away, with no guidance?

Their actions are a product of their circumstances, just as Israel's are. A product more of necessity than morality.

summarizes my thoughts on the whole subject pretty well

I wonder if I might interrupt to ask all you experts to comment on where and why you disagree with the Geneva Accords/Initiative, and to do so in this thread about the 2009 election in Israel:

2009 elections: Israel/Palestine and Obama

But I never get anywhere with "constructive" policy threads...

a statement from the j street project.