the USA, Israel, and national interest

I was gonna xpost something there but I've deleted it because what's the point; this Lamp post is appalling to me, but whatever

http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/img_4121-300x225.jpg
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/img_4166-300x225.jpg
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nazi3-300x225.jpg

Thank god these guys are here to help.

Unlike Nabisco, who merely made his dismay and disapproval public and unmistakeable, but who has not rolled up his sleeves and done anything really useful Lamp has just entered into tense direct negotiations with the Israeli government aimed at alleviating this morally untenable situation. A joint declaration is expected soon.

Does anybody have any photos of gay asses to post?

If being "knowledgeable" about the topic is a way of suddenly disappearing the fact that the conditions of Palestine are just plain flat-out Not A Good Thing, then perhaps some "faux" naivete is entirely in order, you know?

I think this misses the point. I don't think anyone here (myself included) thinks the Palestinian situation is a "good" one. But all these things that you think distract from the clear truth aren't just distractions. A lot of them are really important issues that have a lot to do with the why. Obscuring the "why" doesn't give any insight or help to the Palestinians. It might make us feel morally righteous (WE WON'T STAND FOR THIS) but the truth is that any progress requires these "distractions." We need to know the history of the crisis, the current facts on the ground, the possible negotiations that could move things forward. I think one of the reasons left-wing protests of Israel aren't particularly successful is because they ignore all these things. I've seen it various times on this thread - that youtube video isn't actually Israeli's attacking Gaza, but who cares? Or 'who knows whether Hamas uses children as human shields or not?' As though these are just side points and it doesn't really matter what reality is. This is not unlike Americans who felt bad for the Georgians during the war last year - they don't actually know what South Ossetia is, or who lives there, or why Russia invaded Georgia. But they know it's really sad for the Georgians and they're in a bad situation and so BOO RUSSIA, RUSSIA SUCKS. But you kinda have to know something to get something done.

(And I'm not saying you have to be pro-Israel to been aware of the situation. But that some subtlety is required. Faux-naivety is pretty bullshit IMHO.)

Mordy, nabisco didn't say those things were distractions. He actually said something quite different. It's weird how you completely ignore what he says, and just argue against what suits you.

Although maybe he will come along and actually try to argue that we don't need to "know the history of the crisis"! Or that we don't need to know "the current facts on the ground" - or "the possible negotiations that could move things forward". But you know, I doubt it.

Israel may be able to ignore demonstrations in London with consummate ease, but that is not quite the point. The British government may take some notice of them in formning their own position, and the British position may present the Israeli government with a factor worth noticing. This same dynamic, the more it plays out in Europe, will have a cumulative effect. Israel exports a lot of stuff to Europe.

And it is better than doing nothing, imo. Sometimes you need to make a choice and take a stand, even if the details are murky and complex. (Somehow I doubt that one of the possible outcomes is Israel disappearing or suffering genocidal warfare.)

i agree w/ mordy and don't get nabisco's post. no-one protests about the unconscionable conditions in, ooh, i dunno, zimbabwe; this *is* about what's happening now and thus those ugly distractions creep in.

No Aimless you got to understand - the Palestinians are on the freaking VERGE of destroying Israeli society forever. Or do I have that the wrong way round. Well whatever.

Israel may be able to ignore demonstrations in London with consummate ease, but that is not quite the point. The British government may take some notice of them in formning their own position, and the British position may present the Israeli government with a factor worth noticing.

yeah we did a bang-up job stopping the invasion of iraq with these tactics.

no-one protests about the unconscionable conditions in, ooh, i dunno, zimbabwe

Yes they do, you gormless scat fancier.

DMSARP(sgsmb), the USA is less susceptible to international pressure than Israel. An equal effort directed toward Israel would have a much greater effect.

And you should not need to have a guarantee about the outcome to have a sufficiently good reason to make the effort. Moral actions should not always be about odds of success.

shouldn't really respond to that but no, you don't get tens of thousands on the streets about it, poindexter.

xpost

Maybe it has to do I dunno the millions and millions of dollars in weaponry and aid that the US and the UK have given Israel. Rather than Zimbabwe.

have you never walked down The Strand, NRQ?

this ended at the israeli embassy.

zimbabwe has an embassy here too.

yes louis, there is a vigil, as there is at the chinese embassy. doesn't get tens of thousands of people either.

xpost

DMSARP(sgsmb), if you demonstrated in the street about it, they'd be that much closer to achieving tens of thousands, wouldn't they?

I'm sure you are quite satisfied with your reasoning here, but I don't think you've thought about it long enough, yet -- or else your true arguments and conclusions are different from the rationalizations you are offering us.

lol i was just flexing mah pedantry, proceed

i think it's a bit dishonest to present this as just some random well-intentioned protest that the haters are trying to shit on rather than a package protest by a particular brand with some sinster axes to grind

Yes they do, you gormless scat fancier.

Indeed, of course they do. The lack of mass protest has to do with the fact that our governments are actually willing to criticize Zimbabwe

Also, what does Israel expect from leaflet dropping threatening an escalation other than a refugee crisis?

Spanish Civil War, anyone? Joining active demonstrations against the fascists during that war required you to join forces with Stalinists. Mass demonstrations aren't always neat or pretty. But they are a damn sight prettier than killing hundreds of children.

Hey at least the IDF is DOING something.

Mass demonstrations aren't always neat or pretty. But they are a damn sight prettier than killing hundreds of children.

oh for fuck's sake, are you really saying that? do my eyes deceive me? if you don't join the protest, you are (colluding in the) killing (of) hundreds of children?

Why yes. It's basically the same thing!

Of course Aimless would say that - that's just the kind of guy he is!

Nah, but he basically did the same thing he criticized someone else for like 2 posts ago.

are we ready to have this thread locked yet

i think we're very close to a solution of the crisis, hang on

are you really saying...

Did I really say that? I don't think so. Let me clarify.

What I had in mind is that, if the you are deterred from demonstrating against an abhorrent act by the thought that you may somehow lend support to a group whose actions you also have reservations about, then it is legitimate to consider where your greater reservations lie.

One the one hand you have a war going on right now that is killing many hundreds, including a very high proportion of non-combatants. One the other, you are concerned that your protest might possibly be seen as condoning rockets fired randomly into Israel - although this is not how the demonstration's purpose is framed. Just the presence of groups who may condone this seems troublesome.

So, do you wait until a pristine opportunity to march comes along and meanwhile do nothing, or risk the chance of sending a signal that may have a few political components you disagree with? It is a legitimate question, but silence also risks the chance of sending a wrong signal. Your choice.

Well put.

not wanting to be identified with certain messages at a protest where people are waving swastikas about seems perfectly reasonable to me

you are concerned that your protest might possibly be seen as condoning rockets fired randomly into Israel - although this is not how the demonstration's purpose is framed.

condoning more than this, and the demo *does* frame its purpose in explicitly pro-hamas terms, from the reports i've read. (it is organized by the SWP-ish StWC.) what you've written, especially the use of the word 'risk' in the final paragraph, does lead me to the cliche that it's more about the protesters than the plight of palestinians. (not to mention the fact that the demo will achieve exactly nothing -- about a million of use marched against UK involvement in the iraq war, as i said.)

xpost

Stop the War Coalition isn't even SWP-ish: Lindsey German was the then-editor of their magazine Socialist Review, and her effective second-in-command was John Rees, then of the SWP, now of Respect.

Although lol at this section from the SWP's wiki:

The SWP has been accused of being overly accommodating to the allegedly reactionary concerns of some practising Muslims; for example its anti-Zionist stance has been accused of being anti-semitic by Zionists

A pal of mine lives off Kensington High Street. He tells me his street's been smashed up, piles of debris and piss everywhere - plus loads of groups of masked guys chanting from 'down down israel', through 'death to israel' all the way to 'death to jews'. Also the local muslim-owned shops getting attacked for selling alcohol. He's a bit shocked at how intimidating it all is

so is no one mentioning Iran and the bigger picture in this whole thread which I haven't read completely yet? That's okay since I need to paste this somewhere - and now maybe y'all can tell me how veracious this seems:

Bush reportedly rejected Israeli plea to raid Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_israel

WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran's main nuclear complex, opting instead to authorize a new U.S. covert action aimed at sabotaging Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported.
Israel's request was for specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for an attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran's major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country's only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the Times reported Saturday in its online edition. The White House deflected requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S. efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
The covert efforts, which began in early 2008, involved plans to penetrate Iran's nuclear supply chain abroad and undermine electrical systems and other networks on which Iran relies, the Times said, citing interviews with current and former U.S. officials, outside experts and international nuclear inspectors who spoke on condition of anonymity. The covert program will be handed off to President-elect Barack Obama, who will deciding whether to continue it.
According to the Times, Bush decided against an overt attack based on input from top administration officials such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who believed that doing so would likely prove ineffective and could ignite a broader Middle East war.
Israel made the push for permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran following its anger over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier. Israel sought to rebut the report, providing evidence to U.S. intelligence officials that they said indicated the Iranians were still working on a weapon.
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment Saturday.
In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this week, Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said he believed that Iran is the biggest challenge Obama will face in the Middle East and that more sanctions will be needed to force Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions and support for extremists. He said the Bush administration has been trying to "shore up and store up leverage" to bequeath to the Obama administration.
Last month, Obama suggested that a combination of economic incentives and tighter sanctions might work. Tehran rejected the proposal. Obama also has said he would pursue tough-minded diplomacy.

This article hints at actions that would be highly typical of the Bush administration specifically, and US policy in general.

It obv tiptoes around the very great probability that these covert actions aimed at sabotaging Iran's "suspected nuclear weapons program" amount to acts of war against Iran. We seem to be at war with a fair portion of the world, covertly, when you get right down to brass tacks.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054296.html

Haaretz editorial board comes out against the offensive -- which is a bit of a bigger deal than just having usual suspect columnists like Gideon Levy do it.

did pinefox go? what did he make of the invited speakers?

Oh wonderful.

Go to what? Your post shows a blank.

go to the demo. the clip is of one of the numerous speakers who extolled the virtues of hamas.

What's your point?

I went to the rally in Hyde Park, yes, as I said upthread. I didn't go all the way to the second rally which was, I think, somewhere beyond the Israeli Embassy. As your clip doesn't work I can't tell whether I heard it or not.

my point is, the pinefox and others painted the demo as a simple plea for peace, but in fact its invited speakers variously praised hamas (above and beyond the 'right to resist), denied the right of existence to israel, and encouraged the crowd to 'shut down israel shops', not boycott, shut down. pretty unedifying stuff, no? perhaps it's not worth commenting on, what do you think?

b-b-but he was being very specific about shutting down a tiny market stall in westfield don't you see

That sounds pretty bad if invited speakers denied Israel's right to exist and urged action against Israeli shops in London.

So you think the original message of the protest was effectively hijacked into anti-Semitism?

Hijacked?