Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

I hope more reactions continue to shift from knee-jerk hyperbole to more thoughtful, productive pieces, both like the comment above as well as in pieces such as this one:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/10_truths_about_the_israel_gaza_conflict

re: deposing Hamas

is there truth to the idea that deposing/dismantling Hamas, assuming at this point that they are unwilling to join in politics on the condition of demilitarization, will leave a vacuum in Palestine into which a much worse radical group is likely to enter? given the way this has been playing out, it seems like the climate has become more hospitable to radicalization if not immediately then on down the line after a generation of Palestinian children, whose early memories will be substantially influenced by the events of the last month, come of fighting age.

i guess i wonder what the "long game" result is that Israel sees out of all of this.

I blame every Palestinian death on Hamas.

Well that sure is handy.

I appreciate what Peter Schwartz is trying to do but the whataboutery is ridiculous. Many of the countries he thinks we should be protesting against, including Syria, Russia and Venezuela, are countries that western governments are already hostile towards, thus obviating the need for street protests. (Venezuela's rights and wrongs are a whole other issue really, I'm just citing it because he does) He jumbles together too many different situations and timeframes (Why mention Argentina in 2014, decades after the junta?) for his point to stick.

Yeah, it's such a stupid argument. The reason people are "harder" on Israel is because it's seen as a western democracy, it's got the full support of the United States, the difference of power between Israel and Palestine, and it's been illegally occupying lands since 67. People are so disingenuous when they ask why people don't protest as much about other conflicts. I mean, the same could in that case be said of non-Israelis who care passionately about Israel.

I do get a little upset still by some of the people I follow who talk about Israel as though it's some kind of singularly evil force in the world, but that's not a point I feel like loudly arguing at this time. Much as I don't feel like trying to make the case that Israel is not committing "genocide" (even though I think they are probably not) when I see Israeli people I vaguely know saying stuff like this:

"Since you brought it uppp... Your right , there must be a real long term solution.... That being said, they just need to be wiped off the map. Completely. Sorry for sounding so blunt :)"

Direct quote, emoji and all.

People focus on Israel in part because there are very vocal groups in this country drawing a lot of attention to Israel, including both its detractors and supporters!

Also, there WAS a lot of focus on Syria for a time. Then media fatigue sets in, people feel there is no solution, don't know who to support, etc., and frankly (unfortunately) there will eventually be media fatigue on Israel too.

I think Israel's long game is very clear, just repeat 1982-present endlessly

People focus on Israel in part because there are very vocal groups in this country drawing a lot of attention to Israel, including both its detractors and supporters!

Is that really true? I don't get the impression that the detractors are all that vocal. For sure there is a difference this time around, thanks to social media, but historically that has not been the case. Or am I missing something?

Yeah, that's a good point about Syria. Whenever a conflict drags on people lose interest. Same thing happened with Iraq and Afghanistan ffs.

When I was in college in the late 90s/early 00s there was a decent amount of Palestine activism on campus. Edward Said was widely read and very popular, Chomsky was very popular, etc. Palestine is a popular cause in the Arab world and also in certain factions of the left. I realize that's kind of circular "people are talking about it because people are talking about it." I also think that Europe pays attention because of the holocaust, and one of the reasons I dislike the "Zionism = Nazism" formulation is that it sounds to me like a handwashing -- "If they are doing bad things now, we can finally take our minds off our residual feelings of guilt."

yeah that schwartz argument is ridiculous. the us senate didn't give unanimous blanket support to syria or russia yesterday. the us govt hasn't given billions to syria for decades. for the longest time i was very sympathetic to arguments that focusing on the united states' relationship w/ israel more than its relationship w/ egypt or saudi arabia was absurd and very possibly rooted in anti-semitism. not any longer. for one thing those relationships receive far more scrutiny in the media and in the govt than our relationship w/ israel does. there isn't a politician in washington that doesn't trip over themselves any chance they get to declare themselves a 'friend to israel'; this is not remotely the case w/ egypt or sa. there are realpolitik arguments in favor of maintaining or developing relationships w/ egypt and (god knows) sa. post-cold war there really aren't any w/ israel beyond 'aipac' and 'florida'. are there ppl criticising israel who defend syria and russia's crimes as morally and legally just? yes. but let's not pretend glenn greenwald is actually powerful.

When I was in college in the late 90s/early 00s there was a decent amount of Palestine activism on campus. Edward Said was widely read and very popular, Chomsky was very popular, etc

You're talking about a very small part of the US population. That activism doesn't translate into the mainstream media, into the two political parties or the general population. It's almost a fringe element.

I also think that Europe pays attention because of the holocaust, and one of the reasons I dislike the "Zionism = Nazism" formulation is that it sounds to me like a handwashing -- "If they are doing bad things now, we can finally take our minds off our residual feelings of guilt."

I'm not disputing your claim when it comes to Europe(your original point only adressed the US and that is what I responded to). Here the pro-Palestinians have historically been very vocal in media, politics and among ordinary citizens.

this is good (from one of my fave blogs) -> http://ottomansandzionists.com/2014/07/31/dealing-with-world-that-is/

Very much feeling Hurting 2's comments itt.

Very ood piece but I have a question about this line, quoting some of his Jewish friends:

the IDF is the most moral army in the world

Where does this myth come from? It was never true and it sure as hell isn't now but I see that phrase a lot. Not to say, of course, that the British or US armies are shining beacons of morality and fairplay.

Good piece, not ood

I think it partially comes from this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM0fTss0UX4

the term 'moral army' is flawed much in the same way as 'humane execution' imo.

I don't think Peter Schwartz is guilty of 'whataboutery'. First, Schwartz compares other hostile nations to Israël in regards to the IDF claiming moral high ground, which I think is very fair. Second, he is against the singling out of Israel, but will still condemn it, and he places the nation in the same bracket as Syria, Sudan and powerful western nations, which I also think is fair. From what I understand, and I may be wrong, 'whataboutery' is the idea that Israel behavior is excusable because it is no better or worse than a lot of nations today, and most nations in history. None of these behaviors are excusable and Israel should answers to its crime, but so is the CAR, Hamas, the Qataris, the Russians, the US and etc

I understand whataboutery as being "Why act against X and not Y?" when both are bad, not saying that X is better than Y. I don't think his general point is wrong but his indiscriminate jumble of Countries That Do Bad Shit or Have Done Bad Shit at Some Point undermines it.

Where does this myth come from?

I have no idea but I heard this kind of thing all the time at religious school as a kid

hamas paragliders! http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/38688-140730-shin-bet-investigation-uncovers-hamas-paragliding-terror-plot

Same here. I remember seeing the white peace dove a lot in conjunction with the Israeli flag.

I kind of want to write an article about tired pro-Israel canards called "Ah, but if only the Palestinians..."

72-Hour Cease-Fire Announced in Gaza

“Israeli and Palestinian delegations will immediately be going to Cairo for negotiations with the government of Egypt, at the invitation of Egypt, aimed at reaching a durable cease-fire. The parties will be able to raise all issues of concern in these negotiations.”

By palestinian delegations, do we mean also Abbas and WB officials? Sorry if the answer is obvious.

I think yes:

A delegation comprised of various Palestinian factions reportedly arrived Tuesday in Cairo for talks on an Egyptian cease-fire initiative proposed two weeks ago to quell the fighting between Hamas and Israel, according to Al-Arabiya.

The delegation - including representatives from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad - was slated to meet with Egyptian officials to discuss the draft truce, which Hamas and Islamic Jihad previous rejected and Israel accepted.

Among the delegation members were Fatah's Azzam al-Ahmad, Moussa Abu Marzouk of Hamas and Ziyad Nahal from the Islamic Jihad, according to the report.

I assume Israel's not going to give up anything

As an aside, I am a big fan of Fox News-esque coinages, so I am glad this situation has given us "terror tunnels." Not saying they're anything else, I just love the phrase.

Egypt mediation does suggest a cease fire that heavily favors Israel's interests.

i wonder if the US/Israel split over the last week or so was just some geopolitical good cop/bad cop - have bibi repudiate obama to indicate to hamas that they couldn't use international pressure as a bargaining chip. ("this guy is crazy - he even told the US to go away")

this is interesting (and even vaguely hopeful at the end):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/world/middleeast/quest-for-demilitarization-of-gaza-is-seen-getting-netanyahu-only-so-far.html

http://www.jta.org/2014/07/31/news-opinion/nyt-on-why-no-photos-of-hamas-fighters-we-dont-have-any-1

Despite the ceasefire, reports now that Israel is still shelling in/around Rafah. Hamas fired a mortar back. Fragile.

Israel officially ends cease fire.

The army said it had warned residents to stay indoors.

useful advice

Are you certain that the ceasefire was broken by Israel?

Well, Israel at least officially declared it over. Not sure who broke it first, there's different rumors about that. But both parties have been firing.

abducted Israeli soldier.

Does the term 'abducted' apply still, when in a war a soldier captured from the other side is a prisoner of war?

Yes - kidnapping for ransom is a "war crime" whether it's a soldier or civilian.

anyway, in order to find the soldier, alive or dead, this happens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

Ok, thanks. xp

iirc- looking for relevant quote xp

Abducting belligerents is legal but they have to be treated as prisoners of war.

Right that's what I was forgetting. And they're entitled to visits from some UN or humanitarian organization. I recall reading about this in detail re Shalit

Thanks guys, was wondering about this.

Maybe all the militants were not cc'd and they did not know there was a cease fire?