the USA, Israel, and national interest

Incidentally, I strongly recommend former IDF member Seth Freedman as an even-handed commentator on Israel - clearly not a Hamas apologist, or someone who is not directly invested.

(And I'm genuinely bemused as to what Mordy's "Oh dude" is about - if the Law of Return etc. has been discussed upthread and I missed it, I apologise and will review.)

there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

I'm...wait, what? Is that confusing to anyone else?

It's confusing without the first half:

But whatever else you might say about the so-called "usual suspect" critics of Israeli military action in the US and UK, whether protestors or published writers, there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

IOW, there is overlap between the ppl criticizing Israel for military action and the ppl opposed to US military action after 9/11 and the ppl opposed to UK military action after the Underground bombing.

I don't think we've discussed it above. My position on it is that I'm pro having an explicitly Jewish, though not necessarily religious, country in the world. That's one of the reasons I'm pro a two State solution. (I believe that if we reach a historical - or ahistorical - moment where a one State solution would be viable, it would be a good thing to have, but I think that's a messianic moment.) So I'm not in favor of the Law of Return.

I didn't "Oh dude," about your question about Israel as a Jewish State. More that I thought my opinions and beliefs were pretty laid out and obvious. I'm very pro-Israel; I've visited there numerous times and have family members (at the moment two brothers and a sister-in-law) living there. Additionally I have a third brother who wants to join the Israeli army in February. At the same time, I'm critical of Israel's current excursion into Gaza (and I was very against their recent invasion into Lebanon). So I "Oh dude'd" because it sounded like you were suggesting I search my feelings and discover what I believe about Israel. I've been dealing with Israel intimately since I was a child - so it's not like I haven't thought these things through.

(And I don't intend to reenter the discussion right now, but I wanted to answer you directly since you were confused about my earlier response.)

Honestly, I'd find it hard not to study Jewish history (I've taken Classical, Medieval and Modern Jewish history courses throughout undergrad) and not be in favor of a Jewish State.

For example, I have repeatedly encountered the idea that Israel should not be criticised for its response to rocket attacks since no other country would react with any more restraint.

― Flyboy

Well, I've said that, because I wouldn't expect any other country to react with more restraint, outraged, one-sided, butthurt criticisms of Israeli "war-crimes" seem intellectually lazy to me. But I guess that's a different kinda thing.

(Find it hard to study and not be in favor* rather)

Flyboy: I have repeatedly encountered the idea that Israel should not be criticised for its response to rocket attacks since no other country would react with any more restraint. But whatever else you might say about the so-called "usual suspect" critics of Israeli military action in the US and UK, whether protestors or published writers, there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

don't know what you're saying here. the two things -- frequent rocket attacks and one-off terrorist bombings -- are quite different. but what relevance has that overlap? some of those critics are more sympathetic than others -- the StWC are wholly reprehsnsible imo. but this is a non-sequitur isn't it?

there's no parallel i can think of that isn't stupid, but anyway were many people proposing military action after 7/7? it must have passed me by; i suppose there were people saying we should stop fighting the wars we have etc etc. though i marched in 2003 there is something a bit retarded about listening to 17-y-o retard bombers, though i'm willing to admit this is just pique on my part.

Equally, I wouldn't support criticisms of the extent to which Israel is egalitarian, democratic etc. that are based on lionizing US/UK/European democracy. The argument that goes "We should support Israel because they are a beacon of progressive Western attitudes like ours in the Middle East" is based on two misconceptions, not one.

― Flyboy, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:28 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok i kind of feel you there but, again, US/UK/European democracy, though imperfect, is preferable to other immediately existing alternatives. it's kind of the easiest argument ever to say 'well, under my utopian scheme that doesn't exist anywhere we wouldn't have these problems', which is what i'm inferring from your post.

I thought my opinions and beliefs were pretty laid out and obvious. I'm very pro-Israel (etc)

I think there's a lot of scope for a range of opinions on specific issues within the boundary of being "very pro-Israel"! For example, many who are pro-Israel are also in favor of the Law of Return, while you're not (unless you thought I was talking about Palestinian right to return).

unless you thought I was talking about Palestinian right to return

i assumed this; probably a good idea to make it clearer

Oh, sorry. Yes, I thought you were talking about the Palestinian right of return.

I think Aliyah is amazing, and have saved a lot of lives over the last half century.

(Are there people who are pro-Israel and are anti-Aliyah??)

"Are You That Somebody?" could bring peace to the Middle East.

Apologies if it wasn't clear that I meant "opposed to continued military action after 7/7"... As for the idea that there's a difference between one-off bombings and frequent attacks - I assume the suggestion here is that what the Israeli population has been subjected to is so much worse as to make comparison stupid and irrelevant. In terms of casualties, this doesn't stand up: B'Tselem via Wikipedia reports that 1,053 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks from the beginning of the through April 30, 2000, and 13 since the end of the ceasefire, while around 2,974 people died on 9/11. If you're suggesting that over time, the repeated nature of rocket attacks or the threat of same would make people who opposed military action after individual terrorist attacks change their minds... I can't disprove this, obviously. But it seems unlikely. Again, I'm not trying to say anything at this point about how sympathetic/valid the critics/protestors in question are - all I'm saying is that it seems reasonably clear that people in the UK or US who oppose Israel's response to terrorist attacks also tend to oppose their own country's response to terrorist attacks when it follows a similar course.

You are handwaving really major things like siege mentality in order to make your comparison.

i assumed this; probably a good idea to make it clearer

I would have thought that at least someone as informed and invested as Mordy would know what the Law of Return is. The capitals are also a clue: i.e., it exists, whereas Palestinian right to return does not.

Mordy, what's your take on the settlements? Be as general or specific as you like.

If you're suggesting that over time, the repeated nature of rocket attacks or the threat of same would make people who opposed military action after individual terrorist attacks change their minds... I can't disprove this, obviously. But it seems unlikely.

― Flyboy

That's weird, cuz from over here it seems REALLY, REALLY likely.

Contextually, Flyboy, placed next to the word Demographics, it was confusing. Also, socially I've never referred to it as the Law of Return. I know it as Aliyah.

As far as settlements, I think that some have valid purposes. Settlements that were erected to protect Israeli water supply in the Golan, or to keep Jerusalem protected from siege were valid. That said, most settlements were founded for the purpose of creating "reality on the ground," and as I'm at least agnostic on the "holiness" of Israel, if not totally atheist, I think they were shitty. I think most "settlements" right now (or settlement-type places like the Peace House) are totally worthless. So I guess my answer is: On some settlements I'm pragmatically in favor, tho I feel ultimately ambiguous on them. On the vast majority I'm pro dismantling them.

I would have thought that at least someone as informed and invested as Mordy would know what the Law of Return is.

I'm not sure if this is sarcastic, but sometimes investment means that you use different words and some things have different meanings. Like I said, I always referred to this as Aliyah, and the Right of Return always referred to the Palestinians. <shrugs>

Apologies if it wasn't clear that I meant "opposed to continued military action after 7/7"... As for the idea that there's a difference between one-off bombings and frequent attacks - I assume the suggestion here is that what the Israeli population has been subjected to is so much worse as to make comparison stupid and irrelevant. In terms of casualties, this doesn't stand up: B'Tselem via Wikipedia reports that 1,053 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks from the beginning of the through April 30, 2000, and 13 since the end of the ceasefire, while around 2,974 people died on 9/11. If you're suggesting that over time, the repeated nature of rocket attacks or the threat of same would make people who opposed military action after individual terrorist attacks change their minds... I can't disprove this, obviously. But it seems unlikely. Again, I'm not trying to say anything at this point about how sympathetic/valid the critics/protestors in question are - all I'm saying is that it seems reasonably clear that people in the UK or US who oppose Israel's response to terrorist attacks also tend to oppose their own country's response to terrorist attacks when it follows a similar course.

― Flyboy, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 10:05 PM (55 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, there is a clear difference between repeated rocket attacks from without, part of a pre-existing conflict and explicable in its terms, and one-off bombings such as 7/7 that come 'from within' and are not directly related to military engagements.

what would be the equivalent of britain pulling out of afghanistan for israel?* given that hamas is committed to the destruction of israel, i'm guessing it would have to be a more nuanced response -- but this is irrelevant to the point. it has nothing to do with casualties; you just can't, as a state, allow daily rocket attacks.

If you're suggesting that over time, the repeated nature of rocket attacks or the threat of same would make people who opposed military action after individual terrorist attacks change their minds... I can't disprove this, obviously. But it seems unlikely.

again, it depends what the bombers are after! i suppose if the taliban began to fire rockets on london, it'd sort of be equivalent. but this was some fucktards from leeds.

Again, I'm not trying to say anything at this point about how sympathetic/valid the critics/protestors in question are - all I'm saying is that it seems reasonably clear that people in the UK or US who oppose Israel's response to terrorist attacks also tend to oppose their own country's response to terrorist attacks when it follows a similar course.

what the fuck @ 'similar course'? i was against the iraq and afghanistan wars but these are scarcely comparable situations in any sense at all. of course it's clear that there's the overlap you mentioned before; but their arguments are quite different. attacking iraq because of 9/11 is less justifiable than attacking gaza because of hamas, foolhardy though this course of action will probably appear.

*the brit-bombers had a lot more in mind than pulling out of iraq and afganistan. the most recent lot also seemed to have a problem with 'nightclub slags', and iirc the 7/7 crew mentioned uh chechenya? fuck 'em.

attacking iraq because of 9/11 is less justifiable than attacking gaza because of hamas, foolhardy though this course of action will probably appear.

Thanks for writing that. This is pretty much 100% my position.

^ agreed, but the Iraq war is a whole other level of criminal, retarded bullshit, even compared to the shit under discussion in this thread

yep. (flyboy: do the anti-war 'left' say boycott us/uk goods, shut down anglo-american shops, and praise the afghan and iraqi resistance? maybe don't answer the third question.)

Btw, the basic law that Balad is being banned with was originally instituted to stop Kahane's Kach from dismantling the Israeli Democracy and establishing a Jewish theocracy.

To some, for Israel to be defined as a Jewish state is non-negotiable, a necessary protection. To others, to have the state defined in this way prevents the country from ever being truly egalitarian, democratic or secular, and inevitably leads to a two-tier society in which Arab Israelis are treated as second-class citizens or no even recognised as Israelis at all. I sort of think that everybody who wants to discuss Israel/Palestine has to know where they stand on an issue like this, and be clear about the ramifications (such as the Law of Return and its demographic implications).

While this might be a fun philosophical debate to have, as far as political arguments go, it's pretty much irrelevant. Israel is going to remain a Jewish state. As far as Jewish Israelis are concerned, this is not a peace bargaining chip, not even theoretically.

That's true. And the driving fear -- warranted or not -- behind the Israeli inability to make peace is that Palestinians will never really accept that.

Israel stops a Gaza aid shipment because it contains a "luxury item" -- dates

That's true. And the driving fear -- warranted or not -- behind the Israeli inability to make peace is that Palestinians will never really accept that.

true, and that's the point at which israelis start to look self-destructive to the rest of the world, which has mostly at this point recognized (as have many israelis, to be fair) that the only hope for a sustainable jewish state is to reach accommodation with a palestinian state sooner rather than later -- never mind what the gallup polls say about palestinian "recognition" of israel. give them a country and then come back in 5 years and do the polls again. so much of the israeli posturing of the past 8 years seems to be about trying to maneuver into a maximally strong position from which to negotiate final terms, but the problem with that strategy is that you never reach the maximally strong position. you squeeze fatah and up pops hamas. you squeeze hamas and you end up fighting a war in gaza two years after you left it. and meanwhile everybody on the sidelines is watching the clock tick down and wondering wtf you think you're doing.

otmfm

well, they got that ceasefire by inauguration day, what're the odds? No one's better off.

Hardly surprising. I figured Israel was going to try to do as much damage as they could before Obama got sworn in, anticipating that he might play a more active role.

i hate the date game. every world event someone postulates how it was "just in time" for some other event like the illuminati are pulling the strings.

well in this case the whole operation was pretty obviously driven by the american and israeli political calendars. it's not like those things are secret.

How does timing imply illuminati? I think it's pretty clear that the Israeli government was "pulling the strings" on its own actions.

I mean since when does speculating about the political timing of certain actions = conspiracy theorizing?

The timing of the Gaza war and the cease fire around the administration change in DC was so blatant, cynical and self-serving that it should give Obama a super-sized mega-clue what dealing with the Israelis is going to be like.

The timing of the Gaza war and the cease fire around the administration change in DC was so blatant, cynical and self-serving that it should give Obama a super-sized mega-clue what dealing with the Israelis anybody with whom the president will ever interact with is going to be like.

one too many 'withs'

To be fair I don't anticipate the new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development sending out a phalanx of gunships on the eve of his confirmation.

I think he means in foreign policy terms

BTW in spite of the offensive, looks like Likud is going to win elections.

I think he means in foreign policy terms

It's still bogus to say that all nations behave as cynically as Israel has lately.

true

But I also think it's bogus to say "wait til he deals with *the Israelis*" as though there is something singularly cynical about Israel

If the subject is "what is dealing with Israel going to be like", this particularly nasty episode is extremely relevant.

Anyway, I don't understand the premise here. Obama's chosen middle east advisors have plenty of experience dealing not only with Israel but with the very people who will probably be in power shortly, including Netanyahu. They already know just fine what dealing with Israel is like.

my point was that military action is often linked to political power wrangling, but there is always political wrangling going on. so if this had happened 6 months from now we'd hear "its b/c obama's too busy dealing with economy" or something.

why i am always wary of those statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)