Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

I think there are a lot of people who think the occupation is bad but don't call Israel an apartheid state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/25/after-leveling-iraqs-tomb-of-jonah-the-islamic-state-could-destroy-anything-in-the-bible/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3

xp Yeah, that's me and most of my friends. I don't know who she's talking about but in my circle most people are critical of Israel without even thinking of using the word apartheid or any Nazi comparisons.

As this is an all-encompassing thread, I should point out that my loathing for ISIS far surpasses any feelings I have about Israel.

i am sad that isis is (among many other things) destroying sites like that but who the fuck wrote that article? it was terrible, has this dumb jokey tone throughout.

But then Yahweh sent a great storm. When Jonah’s shipmates found out he was running from the Man Upstairs, they regretfully threw him overboard. Rather than let Jonah drown, God sent a great fish (or a whale, depending on the translation) to swallow him and — yuck — vomit him on dry land.

huhuhuh you're an asshole dude.

"yuck"

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180400/hamas-killed-160-palestinian-children-to-build-terror-tunnels

Israel rejects Kerry's cease fire proposal http://www.breakingnews.com/t/SuR

if we really wanted a cease fire we could get one p easily

Five Israeli talking points debunked

5) Hamas hides its weapons in homes, mosques and schools and uses human shields.

This is arguably one of Israel's most insidious claims, because it blames Palestinians for their own death and deprives them of even their victimhood.

This is a person who doesn't understand the difference between blaming Hamas for Palestinian deaths and blaming Palestinians for their own deaths. Hamas is not synonymous with Palestine and we should be trying to avoid that impression as strenuously as possible lest we actually start blaming Palestinians for Hamas.

I've often heard the line of argument from Zionist friends that Palestinians, through their election of Hamas and "refusal to reject" their militancy (whatever that means), are on the whole culpable for Hamas's crimes. Glad to hear you take a more nuanced view.

First point in the Nation piece is fundamental. How can a "war" of "self-defence" take place against an occupied territory rather than a sovereign nation?

Just want to say how grateful I am for the level of debate on ILX at times like this when everywhere else I find either self-affirming echo chambers or bitter namecalling.

First point in the Nation piece is fundamental.

idk this seems largely semantic (Vietnam was a "police action" etc) and just sort of emblematic of how Israel dgaf about UN or int'l conventions because why should they it's not in their interest

But it's fundamental to ideas of proportionality, no? They shouldn't compare casualty ratios with wars between sovereign nations.

Eh you can call it a war or a revolt or a civil war or whatever and it does shift the calculus of international law but what really determines acceptability of tactics imo is public opinion (inside Israel, and maybe the US) and brazenness.

i don't consider myself "pro-israel" but the concept of "proportionality" seems really hollow and catch-phrasey to me.

Not sure I understand how a principle of international law becomes hollow and catchphrasey.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv))

Thanks for the quote- I think Shakey was asking about proportionality (on the other active thread maybe?)

I get why people bring it up but appealing to Israel to adhere to international law is about as pointless as appealing to America to adhere to international law

(for my part I was unaware of the origin of the proportionality term as well, fwiw)

or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage

"the anticipated military advantage to this attack was, like, so important to us, the incidental civilian casualties were totally worth it, sorry"

stated pedantically proportion indicates quantity weighed against other quantities and nobody agrees on the value of any of the things being compared in the first place.

Israel's rejoinder that the US dgaf about proportionality is OTM. Israel shouldn't be the only nation criticised on these grounds.

Yep. As imprecise as proportionality is as a principle, it is the best one we have.

Israel would be justified in pointing out that at least they're putting soldiers on the ground rather than just dropping stuff on stick figures from 10000ft.

Oops...

fairly pathetic how easy it is to spark a conflict between these two when you want to. everyone's so trigger-happy p much any lone nut w an agenda could do it.

i was working on a quick "waitaminnit, how did we get here anyway?" post re: proportionality of response but those tweets are good enough summary. what a sick joke.

Onion really on their game lately:
http://www.theonion.com/video/israel-unveils-new-defense-system-to-deflect-accus,36548/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:1:Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

Beit hanoun has been completely destroyed

JERUSALEM — Israel’s top ministers decided Saturday night to extend a humanitarian halt to hostilities in the Gaza Strip for 24 hours, but said their troops would continue to operate to destroy tunnels from Gaza into its territory during Sunday’s pause.

The decision came despite continued fire from Gaza into Israel during Israel’s initial four-hour extension of a 12-hour humanitarian pause on Saturday that both sides had agreed to at the request of the United Nations.

this is nuts:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/american-died-suicide-bombing-syria-u-s-officials-say-n116491

(i realize it's from a month ago - i didn't see it until tnite and i'm a little surprised it didn't make more news when it happened)

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.607332?v=3AB70A172CE96761671E1E0AC73F54CC

Kerry's latest cease-fire plan: What was he thinking?

Kerry isn’t anti-Israeli; on the contrary, he's a true friend to Israel. But his conduct in recent days over the Gaza cease-fire raises serious doubts over his judgment and perception of regional events.

Yeah, that's paranoid bullshit. 'Other photographs show Kerry carousing romantically with the Turkish foreign minister in the pastoral grounds of the U.S. ambassador's home in Paris' Come on.

yeah, i don't believe there's a conspiracy, but i have no trouble believing that kerry is a singularly incompetent secretary of state

Nevertheless, that article is so drenched in bullshit it negates it's points.

Like, I'm interested in the stuff about different alliances in the region, but how can I use anything which just names Qatar and Turkey 'the most radical and problematic elements in the region' without further explanation? Not Syria, or ISIL? Turkey more 'radical' than Saudi Arabia?

well, Qatar certainly fits the bill since they're the primary bankrollers of ISIS, MB + Hamas from what I understand. Turkey is maybe more bark than bite.

there's definitely a split going on in the sunni world atm between more moderate countries (egypt, saudi arabia, i'd include PA here too) and more radical ones (qatar, mb, hamas)

Well that is really interesting, do you have more articles on that? What does that do to Syria, where the idea that we couldn't distinguish between moderate opposition and radical was a main reason for not supporting anti-Assad forces?

But also, the US throwing support behind that alliance and calling it 'moderate' would probably be a pretty bad idea, right? I mean, Egypt is executing hundreds of it's citizens for political reasons, and supporting SA never ever turns out right. It would further legitimize MB, probably.

I'm on zing atm but when I get to my computer I'll find u the stuff I've read about the Sunni split

sounds great. thanks!

Still out but I just saw PA condemning Kerry as well for the ceasefire:
http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Palestinian-Authority-blasts-Kerry-for-appeasing-Qatar-Turkey-at-Ramallahs-expense-369091

jpod is so often a fool but i think i agree w/ his read here: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/07/27/obama-intervening-to-save-hamas/

frederik - this looks like a good place to start re what i was discussing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/10678644/Saudis-UAE-Bahrain-withdraw-envoys-from-Qatar-in-security-dispute.html
maybe this too:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/04/qatar-gcc-demand-stop-support-brotherhood.html#

idk, there's a lot of information out there - this has been a slow-boiling thing. it's also the context behind the competing cease fires - qatar's which is essentially meshaal's ceasefire demands, and egypt's which is more favorable to Israel.

also this is gonna make me sound like a conspiracy theorist but i wonder if kerry/obama has been backing the qatar plan (so unexpectedly) is bc of... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-selling-11-billion-arms-qatar-24559078

maybe?

xxp, he could also be interceding on humanitarian grounds. the calculation in any response to hamas has to be metered against civilian losses. any cease-fire agreement that doesn't result in dismantling hamas ultimately results in the preservation of hamas.

Thanks, I love this stuff! But I think it's highly problematic to call SA, UAB and Egypt for 'moderates'. They are reactionary dictatorships afraid of a populist islamistic movement (and I use islamistic in the -ism sense here, not trying to argue that the other side is pro-democrazy). There was nothing 'moderate' about the crackdowns on opposition in Egypt and Bahrain. I can see a whole lot of reasons for US not wanting to be on the side of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, without wondering about weaponssales and such. And I think in the long run it's stupid for Israel to support the reactionaries so freely. The whole 'only democrazy in the region'-thing sorta loses it's luster if they're actively supporting the anti-democratic governments elsewhere. Plus, they will always have public opinion against them.

turkey-egyptian tensions:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/07/26/Egypt-to-summon-Turkish-envoy-over-Erdogan-comments.html

Well, Erdogan otm. Though it's obviously kinda rich coming from him. Made me remember there was an analysis of Turkey in my newspaper this week. Apparantly there is talk of Erdogan making peace with the Kurds, in hope of creating an alliance with the Kurds in Iraq and perhaps Syria as well. He's definitely ambitious.