the USA, Israel, and national interest

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)

It's really not comparable, like tipsy mothra said the relationship isn't controversial or secret in this case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480625,00.html#

By getting its soldiers out before the Obama inauguration, Israel hopes to pave the way for a smooth beginning with the Obama administration and spare the incoming president the trouble of having to deal with a burning problem in Gaza from his first day, the Israeli officials said.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the plan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Israeli officials said they hoped to pull all troops out of the Gaza Strip by the time Barack Obama was inaugurated as U.S. president Tuesday. The withdrawal would avoid subjecting Obama to a vexing Mideast problem on his first day in office, and also give Israeli politicians time to prepare for elections next month.

etc.

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

well, aren't there lots of people living in other countries who support Israel, would be entitled to emigrate to it under the law of return, but choose not to? They are kind of anti-aliyah, at least in so far as it applies to themselves.

spare the incoming president the trouble

This steaming pile had to be sourced anonymously?

XP That's not anti the concept. That's just not taking advantage of it. When I don't get free Ben + Jerry's when it's offered, that doesn't mean I'm against Ben + Jerry's giving away ice cream. Sometimes I just don't feel like leaving my apartment.

I getcha... though you do sometimes get people saying that people have a duty to take up aliyah.

By which I mean I read Ariel Sharon saying something implicitly along those lines once.

Yes, lots of people believe that. But the ability to make aliyah and the requirement to make aliyah are not the same thing. I support the former, not the latter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

anyone read this

belgium can't do it, but surely the israelis and palestinians can

belgium has less incentive

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

thanks Hurting :)

wow, that was infuriating

>wow, that was infuriating

especially the woman's very rationale at the end. it's just all justified because of the Holy Land argument. we are going to use our sanctimonious teachings here to rip people out of their homes in the 21st century and hold onto this earth FOREVER. CHOSEN PEOPLE RAH

sure there are tons here and there who believe all manner of fundamentalist rhetoric. but the fact that she's the elected leader or whatnot is the disturbing factor

Yeah, it is maddening. I've had a number of conversations with a range of "moderate Israelis" on the settlers in the West Bank. It's not uncommon to hear outright rage against them, references to them as "crazy" etc., and even claims that they are going to ruin everything for Israel, but at the same time the reaction was more mixed when Israel was actually moving settlers out of Gaza (it was painful for many to watch scenes of the government forcibly moving "its own people.") It would be much tougher for Israel to relocate the West Bank settlers, who are numerous enough to make themselves felt very strongly within Israel proper if moved there.

I've wondered for a long time whether the settlements are more a case of deliberate, coherent strategic prevention of a two-state solution or merely the result of a lack of political will or an imbalanced political balancing act. My guess is that it's at least some of both.

Watching that video even I couldn't help feeling Holocaust resonances. I certainly don't think there's any "final solution" in the works, but there is certainly systematic oppression and humiliation.

That was the thing that struck me the most---I guess I'd never fully appreciated how systematic the oppression really was. Actually startled roommate when I said "what teh fuck" aloud to the part about only Israelis getting to use the roads.

But yeah, equally unsettling were the images of forcible removal. That kind of government action is stomach-churning regardless of your sympathies, though I can't shake the feeling that that is a very central part of the settler's strategy in the long run.

Yeah, I didn't know the thing about the roads myself. I actually didn't realize how massive the "settlements" had become -- settlement is a misleading word, really.

I know this is flawed as an analogue, but the first thought I had when they showed those aerial shots of the settlements was of Tibet, and the official gov't policy of the Han Chinese moving in there and just supplanting the native people by creating their own developments. But all comparisons end when you consider the demographics, and how the guy chillingly said that soon the Palestinians will outnumber Israelis, so...

"...according to the report: Within 10 years... The Israelis have three options:

1. They could try ethnic cleansing. Drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank.
2. Give Palestinians a vote, which would end of the Jewish state.
3. Inflict apartheid "

Then they show the guy from Jerusalem who's got family there and is never allowed to return again after getting kicked out, and you realize HOW fucked EVREYONE is going to be...it turns me against the last-minute-of-the-Bush-presidency-actions of the past 5 weeks so much more

these policies are basically leading to an inevitable march towards endless "active" war - unless some really strong third party intervenes that cannot compromise on rejecting a two-state solution