the USA, Israel, and national interest

and dovetails nicely as well with charlie's "don't forget the UK!"

I've reread this several times and can't figure out whether you meant "It was partly 'our' fault so we should STFU" or "It's not about us so we should STFU".

Though I suppose the S-ing TFU is really the key bullet point, there.

Haha Dan you beat me to it. Not to mention that flick where Christopher Atkins is a lol college student/male stripper who nails his teacher, Lesley Anne Warren:

http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/night-in-heaven.jpg

i have friends who have been protesting at the israeli consulate in los angeles and my gf is the daughter of a holocaust survivor and the latter issue has made me very wary of getting into it with the former, which i have been sorely tempted to do (not in a "fuck you guys" kind of way but in a neutral ground kind of way, but i worry it might get less diplomatic than i would like).

charlie I was just saying that the india/pakistan situation also has a similar history as regards the UK's involvement

My problem generally is that everybody is eager to condemn. Each side seems far more interested in leveraging their victimhood than in actually trying to find a real solution. Hamas are hallucinatingly crazy and the Israeli settlers alone have done far more to damage Israel than Hamas has ever done. I've debating this all over the planet with Israelis, Syrians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Algerians, American Jews, leftists, rightists, etc..., and as usual (and I'm not proud of this) I am left with the urge to shrug, throw my hands in the air and walk away.

well yeah, you're not a stakeholder in this. none of us are except Mordy.

The unthinking switch reaction is a. partly due to whoever the crazy decision makers are in Israel at the time and b. due to the collective psychologies of the Israeli masses who vote for the bastards. Basically, I'm curious as to how a non-unthinking switch group could realistically gain control of the country? Change the attitudes and perspectives of a majority of Israelis? Okay... how?

I am left with the urge to shrug, throw my hands in the air and walk away.

I understand this impulse, because I've had it about other foreign affairs, but for some of us this isn't an option with this particular affair.

iatee, read the thread before you post

oh sorry, we're talking about MTV now?

iatee, read the thread before you post

Tom, his point is fairly valid. Given that Israeli elections are more predictable and transparent, that way may lie the path to some kind of breakthrough. Hamas may have won an election but methinks they'll be like the Nazis or Communists and not really consider voluntarily stepping aside after a fair election. So how do you get Israelis torealize that, yes, they have a right to self-defense but pushing Gazans to the brink isn't more likely but less likely to leave them susceptible to the demagoguery of extremists?

Wrt to the Gandhi jest above, I merely meant that they need to see that violence is not the only way to achieve their ends. There is a long history of glorified violence in the Arab world - it made them what they are today as opposed to sleepy inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula - and the Israelis after the Holocause and several punishing national wars for survival are eager to appear as tough as anybody. Awesome. Kudos, hardmen. Nice biceps, but can you now use your fucking brains for once. War and struggle aren't about looking tough, they're about getting to the end with the best result possible and, for both sides, several 'unacceptable' results have been passed by in the past and won't be viable options ever again. The good options are dwindling.

this isn't an option with this particular affair.

Mordy, I failed to write in my post that I've been having these discussions since at least '83 or '84, so while I know it's not an option, the idea of walking away from it has a certain appeal nonetheless.

My cynicism in regard to Israel is sufficient that I should probably not engage in this thread, but I must align somewhat with M. White in regard to the bloody-minded futility of Hamas choosing to engage in acts of war against an opponent they cannot defeat militarily, and knowingly inviting massive retaliation. This strategy obviously has much deeper roots in power-seeking by Hamas than in any discernable plan to rectify the situation of the Palestinians. In my view, for this, they are shitheels.

Israel, otoh, is either totally blind to its own role in perpetuating the wretched quality of Palestinian leaders, or the government is so committed to a policy of lebensraum that they happily pay the price of endless war as the only possible means to this end. Being deeply cynical, I presume the latter is true. In my view, for this, they are the bigger shitheels.

but pushing Gazans to the brink isn't more likely but less likely to leave them susceptible to the demagoguery of extremists?

That's backward, btw. Sorry.

xpost - iatee, I feel like you're asking "how does one solve the Israeli/Palestinian crisis," which ... if I could answer that I would probably stop posting to ILX.

But you have unthinking-switch positions on both sides here, obviously. "We will vigorously defend ourselves against all threats" versus "we will fight forever against the entity that traps us in glorified refugee camps and periodically demolishes them." Or "we will give nothing to Palestine unless our security is assured" versus, well, good luck finding anyone to assure you of that without some massive changes. Both make sense, neither helps.

Part of the asymmetry I was talking about way, way upthread is that it really does strike me as more likely for Israel to be able to skew away from that "switch" position, if only because a functioning informed democracy with actual authority over its citizens is in a way better position to take coherent long-term positions about things. (Beyond which the very logic of an occupation, the burden of it, is that you have put yourself in this position of control: occupying and controlling people and then saying it's all up to them is not in my opinion a very realistic position to take; it's that abdication of your own role in things I was talking about upthread.) And there's a weird sense in which Israel has a greater stake here, in the sense that it has more to gain and more to lose. (Progress comes best in those moments when more Palestinians feel they're in this position, too, of having a stake beyond occupation and poverty.)

So I think the answer I'm giving you here is no, I don't know how, but I don't think that kind of transformation is some unthinkable thing to hope for with Israel, especially when the alternative is calling the whole thing off as unsolvable.

And there's a weird sense in which Israel has a greater stake here, in the sense that it has more to gain and more to lose.

I feel like you, nabisco, or someone else on this thread has expressed this sentiment before. I wonder if you could elaborate on it? I'm not quite sure why Israel has more to gain/lose than Palestinians.

I'm actually going to resort to Bob Dylan to elaborate on it (i.e., "when you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose"). One reason why economic development, basic services, infrastructure, etc. in Palestine are really a boon to both sides: there's a lot less call to militancy when you have something worthwhile to build and protect.

isnt that the theory behind fightin ~*tha insurgency*~ in iraq and afghanistan

(As far as things to gain, the huge things Palestine stands to gain are very, very long-term and shaky and dependent -- real, huge carrots, but somewhat distant and blurry ones in the big picture, you know?)

Part of the asymmetry I was talking about way, way upthread is that it really does strike me as more likely for Israel to be able to skew away from that "switch" position, if only because a functioning informed democracy with actual authority over its citizens is in a way better position to take coherent long-term positions about things.

― nabisco

^^ THIS! This is why it makes more sense to push Israel. For any number of reasons, it seems much more reasonable to think that Israel might be able to self-correct, to choose a more constructive path. Therefore, it makes sense to protest Israeli actions and to mobilize international support for the idea that Israel must change course. Risk with that is that it could make Israel defensive and thus more set on a hardline approach, but it's hard to know what else to do.

This isn't arguing that Israel is "the bad guy" or that Hamas/Palestinans are incapable of changing their ways - it's simple pragmatism. Israel's democracy is more functional. Israel's economic and military circumstances give it more waffle room. Israel is more likely to hear and respond to Western pressure.

Really? It seems to me that Palestinians can gain a State, infrastructure, etc. They can lose their lives. Israelis can live in a state of fear, or they can gain some peace and security. It seems to me like the Palestinians can lose a ton more, and gain a ton more.

I think the answer to "who has more to lose" is entirely dependent upon the values you're projecting upon the Israelis and the Palestinians. If you take nabisco's position that the Palestinians feel like they don't have anything, then he's correct in saying they have a lot less to lose by going militant-aggressive. If you take Mordy's position, he's correct in saying that the Palestinians have a lot more to lose; ie, their chance at a stable, viable nation. This all goes directly towards nabs' "short-term/long-term" post.

But see, the Palestinian's situation is fucked, they have little reason to hope for anything better, and they don't seem to be listening to the West anyway. So talking about what the Palestinians might hope to gain by doing things differently is beside the point. They're not tuned into the conversation, they're stuck in end-game mode, and have no reason to trust promises of peace and security anyway.

(CNN) – Joe Wurzelbacher: Plumber. Campaign celebrity. Foreign correspondent?

‘Joe the Plumber’ is headed overseas to try his hand at covering the conflict in Gaza, Wurzelbacher’s publicist Thomas Tabback confirmed to CNN Wednesday.

Wurzelbacher plans to spend 10 days in Israel reporting on the conflict for pjtv.com, a Web site run by conservative media outlet Pajamas Media.

The famous plumber will be focusing on the Israeli perspective on the situation. "It's tragic, I mean it really is,” Wurzelbacher told CNN affiliate WNWO “I don't say that in any little way. It's very tragic, but at the same time what are the Israeli people supposed to do.”

Wurzelbacher told WNWO he’s not worried about the potential dangers of his new gig. "Being a Christian I'm pretty well protected by God I believe. That's not saying he's going to stop a mortar for me, but you gotta take the chance,” he told the CNN affiliate.

“Israeli officials are very excited to have him,” Tabback told CNN.

I saw that and immediately knew I was going to hell for the mean thoughts that popped into my head.

yeah same here :/

I had a bad thought, but my God has room for evil thoughts regarding Joe the Plumber. In fact, He encourages them.

seriously if anything can unite israel and palestine imo it might be this noble cause

Oh, Joe, you magnificent ass, I do hope you don't die; that would be too good for you.

Speaking of human shields....

xpost - Mordy, that's why I said "in a weird way." We're talking on an individual psychological level here, not an institutional one (there's very little "institutional level" for Palestinians!). Israelis have a sense of security at stake; Palestinians don't hugely enjoy one even in the best of times. There is not a ton built there to hold onto. Yeah, lives and services matter as much as ever, but it's not easy to get loads of people in a space where they look happily on the entity that takes those things in an effort to have more of them. It seems pretty clear at this point that IDF bulldozer tactics don't encourage Palestinians to cooperate with Israel, they encourage Palestinians to take militant stances toward Israel, and to support militants. Whereas I think that when Palestinians have something concrete in their hands that they've built and gained, their internal politics are going to be more cautious; they're going to look toward leaders who offer a way of protecting that and don't risk falling back to nothing. But when you're already pretty close to nothing and very, very far from those gains and don't have the kind of institutional representation that takes larger, longer-term positions, then -- as Dan says way more succinctly -- it's much easier to drift toward militancy.

I dunno, Laurel, Joe might make a better projectile than a shield. Perhaps somebody could do some testing...

yeah no Xtians ever died in the Holy Land amirite

im glad were all wishing death on some midwestern goofball

Oh come off it, Max. He gave up the right to be considered a "harmless" "goofball" months and months ago.

Joe said that if Obama is elected it would spell the end of Israel. I'm not sure why Joe wants to be there when it happens.

Anyway, I'm not wishing death on him at all -- didn't you see that God will protect him from mortar fire?? He could be the Israelis' greatest asset, plant that guy in front of anything you want to protect and you've got a winnar.

multi-xpost

People who have no security whatsoever in their lives or possessions learn to be profligate with both, since there is no reason for them to think that they will be under their control tomorrow. One of the "lessons" Israel has systematically taught the Palestinians is that they, the Israelis, can take away the lives and possessions of the Palestinians at will.

Paradoxically, their lack of power is a very potent reason why the Palestinians constantly seek to fight rather than negotiate. If peace is given to them as a gift from Israel, it will not be a peace they will ever trust and the profound asymmetry of power, which Israel insists upon maintaining and demonstrating with great frequency, is at the heart of the matter. The only way forward is to move toward an equalization of power, and this is impossible under current Israeli policy, which promotes Israeli security far, far above Palestinian security.

This is an interesting theory. I don't think I have the background in group psychology to know whether it's true or not. Have studies been done (or articles published) that argue the merits of it?

I mean, this isn't comparable (because Palestinians aren't children), but when I was a kid, I was often punished for misbehaving. I felt like I had no control. But that didn't make me more violent and wild. This obviously might be different, but I don't think it's self-evident that lack of appearance of agency leads to militancy.

(I don't want to understate the amount I'm distancing my childhood anecdote from this situation. 100% different. I'm just saying that the argument isn't self-evident to me.)

I learned it from studying Irish history.

It's not comparable, because when you were a kid, you could look forward to adulthood that would include some measure of power over yourself and possibly others around you, as you witnessed other adults having.

Being a little flip here, but I think there's plenty of recent empirical evidence that nations taking such disciplinarian stances toward peoples they've conquered are not often paid back with smiling cooperation. I dunno, it does seem somewhat basic and self-evident to me that militant groups breed quite well among people who have very little, and whose very little is at the mercy of someone else -- or at least better than they do when said people are busily investing in their own development and the opportunities of their own lives, with a sense that they can safely build those things . . .

Aimless OTM.

If it helps, Mordy, a more acceptable group-psych truism might be that when people group themselves into nations (even unrecognized quasi-nations), they invest their national super-identities with an enormous amount of pride. As a result, few nations are happily willing to knuckle under to an enemy state, to become the vassal of their "oppressors". Basically, if you force a person or group to recognize and accept their own powerlessness, they will probably always hate you for it.

Conversely, if you work to engage with and empower a person or group, while you risk having them use that power against you, you at least stand a chance of building a healthy LTR.

If I understand correctly, though several neighboring countries offered to absorb refugees after 1948, only Jordan followed through. Are there any good explanations floating around of why this is? I've assumed that it was some combination of their leaders wanting to keep pressure on Israel, and not wanting to absorb what would probably be a serious economic hit, but no doubt there are other angles.

Of course to "solve" the problem you'd need to combine this with compensation. But I have no idea how many Palestinians would accept $$$ + resettlement to Syria, or Egypt, or Libya. (Depends on the $$$, I suppose.)

And you can "discipline" a regime, but short of old-school colonization I'm not sure how feasible it is to "discipline" a populace.

If I understand correctly, though several neighboring countries offered to absorb refugees after 1948, only Jordan followed through. Are there any good explanations floating around of why this is? I've assumed that it was some combination of their leaders wanting to keep pressure on Israel, and not wanting to absorb what would probably be a serious economic hit, but no doubt there are other angles.

A lot of the Middle East really doesn't like the Palestinian people, as much as they might love the cause.

maybe 'doesn't like' is the wrong phrasing. 'doesn't think very highly of'

(without getting involved in it again, i'm just dropping by this thread to say nabisco otm.)