the USA, Israel, and national interest

(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.

From tomorrow's Times

great link!

Save the high street – ditch bad service and ugly sales girls

Pretty girls cost the same to employ as ugly ones. Nobody likes to be served by a boot-faced crow

That second statement is patently untrue and would be way more fun to talk about

I mean just basic common-sense macroeconomics here

is "the times online" something like the onion, for british people?

Thanks for the link, Ismael. Good column.

British Onion, as requested. Not as clever, but the swearing is better

It is a good column. I was expecting something much more one-sided.

Reading The Corner it really makes me sad that these are the people who claim to be Israel's defenders in the media. They are even retarded when I'm sympathetic to their beliefs. From a Daniel Pipes' post today: "10) The Israeli goal should be victory, not ending terrorism."

Fuck you, Daniel Pipes. Israel's goal shouldn't be abstract nonsense you came up with in shower-inspired platitudes.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/gaza.aid.boat/index.html

Among the passengers were physicians from Britain, Germany and Cyprus and several human rights activists, including former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney.

OMG Cynthia McKinney!

aka, my president.

No harm to McKinney, FWIW. Lucky, that. Iraeli's don't seem tolerantly inclined at the moment...

"La de da gonna ride this boat into a war zone." In reality I have no opinion about this conflict, but man, these types of liberals are embarrassing (and I'm a little left wing). I bet they went in thinking, we're gonna help those poor Palestinians! "wtf, why are we getting rammed?" uhhh, it's a fucking war zone you morons.

eh, it was international waters, not a war zone.

Story sounds really suspicious to me. They claimed Israel didn't contact them, but they saw a patrol boat and they even tried to maneuver AROUND the patrol boat? At a certain point don't you open communications to the boat that you're afraid is going to ram you? Seems much more likely to me that Israel told them to turn back, they were like, "Fuck that, we're going forward," and then they got rammed.

That's an entertaining article. "The collision was so severe, Penhaul said, that the passengers were ordered to put on their life vests and be ready to get in lifeboats." - the fact that the sentence ends there does undermine the gravity of the incident a tad

So like, do you reckon that Israel has a right to ram any boat it wants to in international waters?

They basically got away with all but sinking a US Navy ship in international waters

Which the folks on the Dignity must have forgotten about

XXP Presumably they don't have that "right," but I don't really know what the provisions regarding international waters and war are. For all I know they do have that right. Countries have been known to fight wars over international waters, no?

they weren't travelling under a red cross or a red crescent, and it appears at least one of the flags in the photograph is palestinian, so this basically reeks of dumb stunt, especially knowing that american sailors died for less

Cynthia McKinney, I forgot about her. She's sorta the original Joe the Plumber.

Tombot OTM, re: dumb stunt.

Israel is likely to interdict in international waters rather than allow entry into an active war zone, vs.

...Israel has a right to ram any boat it wants to in international waters?

not really sure how cynthia mckinney is the original joe the plumber

don't you see, she voted right nearly all the time in the House, just like Joe the Plumber.

greenwald, as usual, more OTM than anyone else: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/30/democracy/

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.