the USA, Israel, and national interest

ha - at least we agree about revolutionary road

It seems like a lot of the people that wsj article is talking about aren't really ideological extremists but just people who happen to live in Sderot.

btw vermonter in re birth of a nation, there's another UK partition project growing up before our eyes a little further east, and again the same thing is happening - attempts at secular democracy being hijacked by religious extremists. we're 230 years in and this happens to us, so I think it's safe to say it'll be a while. OTOH history goes faster every day.

Apparently making the British viceroys feel unwelcome is a one-way ticket to sturm and drang of the bloodiest variety

I know I was being simplistic in that last post, but damn, I really hate the argument that this particular situation calls for a special kind of one-sided moral outrage over the "very clear evil that those people over there are doing over there!" I mean, it is clear that great evil is being done, on both sides, but it's also clear that the situation exists as it does due to a big tangle of achingly complex sub-situations, and that any attempt to mash it down into a simple bad guy vs. good guy scenario is FUCKED - is seriously part of the problem. And that's why I was getting all moony-inna-joony with the deep thoughts back there.

^^ which is more of the same, I suppose...

israel made the decision to exist, therefore they are responsible for shit that is done to them

― TOMBOT, Thursday, January 8, 2009 1:52 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

israel shouldn't have worn that short skirt to the party. she was fucking asking for it.

― Mordy, Thursday, January 8, 2009 1:54 AM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark

Well let's not be completely obtuse. 1) Israel's decision to "exist" did involve displacing a ton of people and they've been a bit slow to confront the consequences of that. 2) Israel has made normal life in Gaza pretty much impossible since the Hamas election in 2006, which is almost since the withdrawal.

haha yeah it is unfortunate that deontological ethics doesn't work at the level of nation-states

xpost to contendo

or, you know, any time you're making decisions that actually affect other people

1) Israel's decision to "exist" did involve displacing a ton of people and they've been a bit slow to confront the consequences of that. 2) Israel has made normal life in Gaza pretty much impossible since the Hamas election in 2006, which is almost since the withdrawal.

Re: the first point, yes, there was displacement. But there was also an enormous displaced Jewish community living in Cyprus internment camps and a sizable Jewish community in Israel from before the war. Obv. displacing one community with a second isn't a good thing, but it's not like a colonialist oppressor threw people off their land to make way for new citizens. (And before the war, there wasn't much displacement - which doesn't mean it's right and okay, but does explain a bit the circumstances.)

Not to mention that the generation growing up in Israel now didn't kick Palestinians out of their homes to clear the road to Jerusalem in '67.

NOT TO MENTION that, as shitty as displacement is, if Arab armies didn't lock down Jerusalem, attack the Jews living there, and didn't blockade settlements so that people couldn't eat, the army wouldn't have felt it necessarily to throw Palestinians out of their homes to clear the blockade.

This wasn't a fucking colonialist army trying to abuse the poor, innocent civilians living there. There was some huge fucking evil shit that the Palestinians were complacent in to get things to this point. And it doesn't excuse the current situation (esp since current Palestinians weren't the ones blockading thousand year old communities), but it does lend a little understanding to the matzif.

(Sorry if I sound snitty or pissed. I'm just upset right now about the situation in general. When family are in a war-zone, you feel this shit intensely.)

Re: the first point, yes, there was displacement. But there was also an enormous displaced Jewish community living in Cyprus internment camps and a sizable Jewish community in Israel from before the war. Obv. displacing one community with a second isn't a good thing, but it's not like a colonialist oppressor threw people off their land to make way for new citizens. (And before the war, there wasn't much displacement - which doesn't mean it's right and okay, but does explain a bit the circumstances.)

Oft-repeated and obfuscating statements. There is a "sizable" Indian immigrant population living in New Jersey -- would that somehow help to justify displacement of non-Indians for the creation of an Indian state there? And what difference does it make to what I said whether they are "colonialist oppressors" or not? They wanted the land and they took it. And my point is that at very least that leaves the country with some kind of moral responsibility to repair some of the damage.

NOT TO MENTION that, as shitty as displacement is, if Arab armies didn't lock down Jerusalem, attack the Jews living there, and didn't blockade settlements so that people couldn't eat, the army wouldn't have felt it necessarily to throw Palestinians out of their homes to clear the blockade.

― Mordy, Thursday, January 8, 2009 3:00 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is nonsense. Displacement was part of Ben Gurion's plan. It may not have been a part of every version of zionism, but it was a part of the Ben Gurion version, which is the one that prevailed.

His plan was buying homes, which Israel did. They bought up a shitload of real estate, mostly using donations from the Diaspora community in America. They didn't throw people out of homes because of some grand plan tho. They did that to open up blockades.

none of this is relevant in 2008.
except for the interesting coincidence that harvey milk decided to be a homosexual at exactly the same moment that jews decided the torah said something about canaan in it.

Also, I happen to believe that the post-WWII Jewish community didn't do anything wrong by moving to Israel. I think they had a crisis of placement (for reasons the Palestinians aren't to blame for), and they wanted to return to a historical, cultural and, yes, religious homeland. And until the 6DW, they didn't throw any Palestinians out of their homes.

Oh come on, Mordy. Maybe we could have avoided all of this if the Marshall Plan had included a free boat trip and USA citizenship coupon for any survivor who wanted out of Europe.

Maybe, but it didn't. My point is just that blaming the Jews in Israel for displaced Palestinians is fucked up. Yes, there are displaced Palestinians, and yes, that needs to be fixed. But the Israeli's didn't /do it/ to them.

(please nobody show up and tell me that the marshall plan did in fact have that somewhere in it)

They weren't innocent victims. This isn't like the English settled Native American territories, and killed and displaced them to take their land.

I think the Marshall Plan explicitly didn't have that. Don't remember it totally off-hand, but I think the US pretty clearly did not want all those survivors.

haha "explicitly"

SECTION 33B-II
THERE WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE ANY PROVISIONS MADE TO OFFER CITIZENSHIP COUPONS OR FREE BOAT RIDES TO SURVIVORS OF HITLER'S ATTEMPT AT GENOCIDE NO NO NO NO NO

Right. I remember that section.

In a surprising twist, that particular article was lobbied for most heavily by none other than Dr. Brown, who some have speculated was acting on behalf of established northeastern deli operators who didn't want any more competition.

back to being vaguely serious, I think it's funny how easily the current situation regarding israel gets reduced to "displacement" when nobody would think to say the same thing about similarly dire and ludicrous shit happening in India and Pakistan, despite the fact that as far as I can tell there was no nationalized effort to systematically exterminate Hindus in the past century.

It's because, like I said earlier in the thread, people expect more from white Israelis and think that all those third-world people are too stupid to not kill each other.

(Not actually sure if this is true, but sometimes people's justifications for Hamas terror certainly sound like they think Palestinians are unable to act like normal people.)

I wouldn't put it all down to crypto-bigotry as much as everybody feels entitled to have an asshole about the Holy Land (also lol white people think the bible is about them) while they never had to learn about the babri mosque vs the ram mandir.

a moral argument for human shields.

I'm not sure where morality comes into it. Just try to imagine how fucking desperate you'd have to be to use your own most vulnerable people as shields for your own weapons. There's nothing moral about it. But there is a logic to it.

What human shields? Fucking hateful construction that.

Just try to imagine how fucking cynical you'd have to be to use your own most vulnerable people as shields for your own weapons.

What is this desperation bullshit? Loads of just as (or more) desperate people DON'T kill people.

Jeez, but I am stupid, I broke an unwritten law never to get involved in anything whatsoever on the internet about Israel, never never never be so stupid

There's nothing moral about it. But there is a logic to it.

^^^ could refer to a LOT of things on BOTH sides.

also I'm not sure hamas can really be called 'desperate'. there's some very simple things they could easily do to improve their own situation and the lives of the palestinian people, like say, stop shooting rockets and have a dude say "we recognize the state of israel." but I guess that'll happen when they're REAL desperate though? until then, human shields.

So your they're not desperate, just fundamentally depraved?

(Note how I am completely granting that "human shields" are an ongoing Hamas tactic, when I have no idea if anything of the sort is true)

I don't think the Palestinian people are depraved. I think they are in a tough position with bad leadership. I do believe that the people who abuse their own people, put children in harm's way, and attack innocent civilians are fundamentally depraved.

Hamas?? Yes.

In fact, I would argue that if these actions aren't actions of depravity, then there are no depraved actions in the world.

OK good to know.

I do believe that the people who ... attack innocent civilians are fundamentally depraved.

IE the fucking IDF.

No?

Maybe where we disagree, Tracer, is I believe there are some actions that are inexcusable no matter what the circumstances. Maybe you think someone's environment can possibly justify certain behaviors? I mean, this isn't someone mugging a dude for his wallet because he can't afford his rent. This is a guy telling his kid (or his nephew, maybe) to stand in front of the antiaircraft defense so that if Israel strikes, he'll be able to put his kid's picture in the newspaper as an example of Israeli brutality.

If someone in the IDF attacks and kills a civilian with intentionality, then yes. That is also depravity. No question.

So if Hamas are depraved subhuman animals, what does that make the people who voted for them?

I didn't use the words subhuman or animals. I just used the word depravity. Lots of human beings do depraved things. We don't excuse them tho. Madoff is depraved - he is still human.

And the people who voted for them wanted certain social services that it looked like Hamas could provide over Fatah...

Look, are you guys fucking serious?

So if Hamas are depraved subhuman animals, what does that make the people who voted for them?

It makes them some people who voted for some depraved motherfuckers.

I do believe that the people who ... attack innocent civilians are fundamentally depraved.

IE a lot of people on both sides