Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

Hamas has also been building tunnels into Israel for attack purposes during this pleasant period of not firing all that many rockets.

I hate these arguments, they lead nowhere. Israel is or has been at war with Hamas or other Palestinian resistance factions for 66 years now, who's more responsible for the latest chapter is almost irrelevant -- did the murders of three teenagers warrant mass arrests? Did the mass arrests warrant rockets? Did anything warrant the murders in the first place (although they were not by Hamas)? Do the rockets and tunnels warrant mass bombing? Does Israeli "security" warrant taking more territory? Do Hamas militants blend in with civilians? If so, does that make killing the civilians ok? Does the fact that rockets were fired from near a UN shelter warrant bombing several full ones? Is it just the fog of war, and if so, is it ok to say, "well, what can we do, it's the fog of war?"

I believe that Israel in some sense "started it" if you go all the way back to the beginning, and hence has a responsibility to not give up on trying to end it. I think Israel is a bigger obstacle to a resolution than the Palestinians are at this particular moment, and have been for some time, and yet I am wary based on the short and dense history of the conflict.

I hate the situation there in a deep way. I hate the paranoia of being a small minority in the world with a history of being persecuted. I hate seeing the suffering of ordinary people who did nothing to deserve it, and I hate feeling like I am either for the suffering of others or against the ethnicity/religion I happen to have been born into.

Sorry for again being dramatic but I haven't been able to think about anything else for maybe two weeks now, I'm not sleeping much, I can't concentrate on anything.

Just started watching that Vice thing and already it underscores what irks me about the Israel debate. You quickly have a summary about how, after Indian independence, Pakistan was created specifically to be a Muslim state, about how Kashmir is an occupied territory, about police brutality and killing, Pakistani militants, accusations of terrorism, secret underground tunnels, etc. But not a lot of people on the street up in arms about Kashmir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nzm2CidMpM

Be warned: they subtitle Indians and Pakistanis speaking perfectly clear English.

My sister in law crossed this World's Most Dangerous Border on foot with her friend maybe 10 years ago.

thread hurts my head but thanks for that post hurting

weeeell the Israel of Kashmir is India, so

i refuse to watch that vice thing

Vice thing isn't terrible, just steps on its toes to be worse/more smug than it needs to be.

All of the Vice things do that but most of them are good reporting in spite of it

I'm actually fascinated by the relative stability of India. The Muslim minority there still numbers, what, 150 million? And yet the country is democratic and not totally rife with conflict and extremism, *despite* having its own religious/strategic/border pressure point created by international meddling. Haven't heard a lot about Kashmir lately, have we?

Outside of Kashmir there were 1200 (mostly Muslims) dead in religious violence in 1992, same again in 2005, a couple of hundred a year since then, Hindu neo-Fascist party recently elected as government, etc. India has tended to have one party (Congress) in power that has actively pushed the cause of communal unity but discrimination has always been rife and there's a huge push-back from the influential far-right against efforts to stop it. Lack of stability in Pakistan probably goes some way towards explaining why there has been less of a call for Kashmir to join it in recent years.

Also Pakistan dialled down the support when the separatists kept trying to kill its own President.

The problem with the Israel issue is not religion, but nationalism. There's a deep and horrific irony to the fact that nationalism caused so much suffering so the solution was: nationalism. But here we are and this is what's happening.

curious about what folks think about this piece, written by a friend of mine

i think it's problematic to cite charedi opposition to secular zionism w/out discussing a) the huge shift in charedi opinions re israel that occurred after 1948 (even staunch opposition more-or-less folded under the rubric of denying the secular state but supporting the Jewish community living there), b) religious zionism (particularly thinkers like rabbi kook), and c) the reason why the chofetz chaim writing in Raden in the late 19th century might not be applicable to jews in the 20th century (like that 90% of the Belarusian Jewish population was killed in the Shoah). i'm not going to say he's outside the bounds of Judaism - but he's definitely outside normative bounds of Orthodoxy and has been for almost a century of thought (neuturai karta don't count). i think it's clever to try and center a kind of liberal-humanism within an authentic textual tradition (he's not the first person i've seen do this over the last month) but it's superficial to try this without handling the myriad of objections the community would naturally raise.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that if you're going to place your anti-zionism within the context of charedi judaism, don't do so by picking a historic movement w/out doing serious rehabilitation on the reasons why it is anachronistic.

Echoing Hurting 2's response to LBI on countries where Jews should have gone and can go, Mordy and others have mentioned this historic item as well :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iraqi-yazidis-stranded-on-isolated-mountaintop-begin-to-die-of-thirst/2014/08/05/57cca985-3396-41bd-8163-7a52e5e72064_story.html?hpid=z1

Meanwhile ISIS continues to commit ugly acts

Stranded on a barren mountaintop, thousands of minority Iraqis are faced with a bleak choice: descend and risk slaughter at the hands of the encircled Sunni extremists or sit tight and risk dying of thirst.

Humanitarian agencies said Tuesday that between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians remain trapped on Mount Sinjar since being driven out of surrounding villages and the town of Sinjar two days earlier. But the mountain that had looked like a refuge is becoming a graveyard for their children.

ISIS are now in Lebanon as well

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/al-qaeda-offshoot-islamic-state-expands-its-reach-into-lebanon-as-tensions-rise/2014/08/05/09cbbb46-bb6b-4dda-b472-e1288a2dfde8_story.html

That is horrible. Almost regret the fact that by the time there is a legit genocidal uncontroversially evil regime in the Middle East, the West has given up completely on military interventions.

So is the only answer from the left regarding ISIS, that we have to wait for and hope for (and maybe encourage) a more inclusive Iraqi government which will somehow cause slightly more moderate Sunnis to give up on tacitly enabling ISIS, and that the Iraqi military should stop them themselves?

Haven't really seen many people on the right chomping at the bit to get stuck in again, tbh.

Neo-cons are busy insisting that they defeated the Iraqi rightwing extremists while Bush was president, and that if only Obama had convinced Iraq to let US troops stay in Iraq without the restrictions the Iraqis wanted, ISIS would never have formed and taken land. The Washington Post's neo-con editorial page editor is frequently implying that the US should be active in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria

american "left" (really centrist-democrats) will probably be more willing to intervene abroad in 2016 i imagine. obama seems to have a personal aversion to it (and why not? his career comes substantially from his opposition to the iraq war), that hillary doesn't seem to share.

Maybe they should send the Israeli army.

Bad joke. But between Syria and Isis on the loose, not to mention ongoing trouble throughout Africa (Mali, Nigeria, Sudan ...) we really do have a clear idea of what genocidal, civilian-targeting regimes and armies really look like, and really fight like. The fact that the most horrible of the bunch are being left unchecked is troubling at the least, but given Isis has clear aims, and momentum, it's hard to believe the world will just let them spread. Well, the western world. Neighboring countries don't seem to have a problem with unchecked radicalism, until they do, and then they generally don't go to the UN before cracking down hard. Even then, just whose responsibility Isis is is a big question, and considering how little Pakistan did or could do to stop the spread of its own radicals, and/or the Taliban, it's unclear that any regional powers (as such) have the mettle to offer any more than the usual passive "tactical support" should intervention come to pass.

NYT looks at the debate over the civilian-combatant ratio:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/civilian-or-not-new-fight-in-tallying-the-dead-from-the-gaza-conflict.html

The Times analysis, looking at 1,431 names, shows that the population most likely to be militants, men ages 20 to 29, is also the most overrepresented in the death toll: They are 9 percent of Gaza’s 1.7 million residents, but 34 percent of those killed whose ages were provided. At the same time, women and children under 15, the least likely to be legitimate targets, were the most underrepresented, making up 71 percent of the population and 33 percent of the known-age casualties.

Israel army will probably fight ISIS if they try to cross into Jordan, I imagine. Or attack from Lebanon.

0.33*1431 = 472

btw

it doesn't really speak at all to the argument that attacking militants, knowing civilians will also be killed, constitutes intentionally targeting civilians, but it does disprove the argument that the israeli attacks were indiscriminate.

The Peshmerga will contain ISIS to some extent. The Iranians are already fighting them within Iraqi borders.

It's difficult to ascertain how legitimate a fighting force they are when they've faced almost no opposition so far. There's at least a chance that when things get tougher the mercenaries and weekend jihadis will gtfo.

acc to arutz sheva (right-wing israel media org that deserves very heavy skepticism) hezbollah is not going to confront ISIS directly in Lebanon... yet:

The Islamist army known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) has gained a foothold Lebanon, where it is facing the Lebanese Army. Hezbollah, another potent Lebanese force, said Wednesday that it has no plan to directly engage ISIS at the present.

Hezbollah’s leadership told the Lebanese Daily Star that the organization is providing only logistical support to the Lebanese Army in its battle against ISIS in Arsal, but it continues to secure its hold on surrounding areas and could enter the fray if the Islamists gain ground.

In seeking to establish a foothold in Lebanon, he said, ISIS first used car bombs, then suicide bombers, until it was prepared to launch an open battle.

For now, Hezbollah has taken a decision to step back from the confrontation with ISIS in Arsal and leave the mission to the Lebanese Army, which has no choice but to stamp out the threat at any cost, the official said.

However, the Shiite militia has deemed the 11 kilometers separating Arsal from Labweh, a bastion of support for Hezbollah, a red line which could trigger Hezbollah's direct intervention.

So far, the Lebanese army has lost 13 of its soldiers in a costly battle with rebels to retake the north-eastern Sunni town of Arsal – on the Syrian border and hitherto a resupply base for Islamists trying to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

Isis does not need to be a coherent fighting force if they manage to take over an entire country or two. Because then getting them out of power will take some doing (see: Afghanistan).

They can not take over any of the countries they are operating in.

But the difference between roughly half the dead being combatants, in the Israeli version, or barely 10 percent, to use the most stark numbers on the other side, is wide enough to change the characterization of the conflict.

does it really, though? israel's estimate is that 47% of casualties are combatants, and somehow this is seen as an acceptable standard? like maybe you can point to that data and say that sure they've been mostly trying to hit combatants, but to say that 50/50 doesn't count as at least a LITTLE indiscriminate is...a stretch. i mean, you can say that those numbers "disprove" indiscriminate bombing by virtue of not being distributed the same way as general population demographics, but any kind of decision-making that allows for being totally, utterly wrong 50% of the time hardly counts as discriminating

that's called "precision" when God is on your side

and so yes, the IDF may not be intentionally bombing civilians, but since they consider their own statistical estimate of the civ/comb ratio to be acceptable and justifiable, it's clear they have very little regard for the value of the average gazan life

as someone else said upthread, if there had been militants ensconced in an israeli neighborhood they definitely would not have bombed it to the ground

sorry, typo: they may not be intentionally ~targeting~ civilians, but they most certainly are intentionally ~bombing~ them

any kind of decision-making that allows for being totally, utterly wrong 50% of the time hardly counts as discriminating

i don't think the IDF's said they were "wrong" in their choice of targets, have they? isn't their argument that hamas is cunningly positioning starving families right over tunnels and munitions, so that in order to nullify the threat posed by said tunnels & munitions they have no choice but to explode whatever is around them?

it very much reminds me of the classic scene (which movies? i can't remember) where the baddie grabs the girl, puts a gun to her head and cackles at our hero, who calmly takes out his own revolver and shoots the girl. "what's up NOW bitch"

sorry, typo: they may not be intentionally ~targeting~ civilians, but they most certainly are intentionally ~bombing~ them

― gbx, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 15:46 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm

it very much reminds me of the classic scene (which movies? i can't remember) where the baddie grabs the girl, puts a gun to her head and cackles at our hero, who calmly takes out his own revolver and shoots the girl. "what's up NOW bitch"

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand),

don Siegel's space jam?

re ISIS:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/zalmay-khalilzad-to-fight-the-islamic-state-kurdish-and-iraqi-forces-need-expedited-aid/2014/08/05/746d8680-1c24-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html?hpid=z3

FOrmer US Ambassador to Iraq op-ed excerpt

There are different views on how Washington should sequence additional assistance to the Iraqis, including direct U.S. attacks on Islamic State targets. One view is that the United States should condition such support on the selection of a new prime minister and the formation of a broadly accepted unity government in Baghdad. There was merit to this logic before the Islamic State’s recent gains, but now the threat is escalating so fast that waiting could have catastrophic consequences. Irbil, Baghdad and Mosul are operating on a different timeline than Washington.

Looks like the Peshmerga (which it's worth remembering is at least ten times bigger than ISIS counting regular and irregular soldiers) has started an assault on the fringes of Mosul.

ISIS's novel strategies don't change the fact that it takes a lot of dudes to control territory for a prolonged period of time. They seem to have a core of experienced and enormously well-trained fighters, and they have a clever way of inspiring others to spontaneously join them throughout the region, but they can't spontaneously generate more well-trained fighters.

sorry if this has already been posted above, can't load previous posts. Patrick Cockburn on ISIS in Iraq http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n14/patrick-cockburn/battle-for-baghdad

also a lot of fighters from abroad iirc xp

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/558898-why-is-no-one-acting-against-isis

he doesn't really have an answer. everyone hopes they'll be someone else's headache?

political correctness gone mad imo

I'm starting to think Dexter Filkins is right. The fact that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place doesn't mean it was a good idea to pull 100% of our presence out now. Even a small presence probably could have prevented this.

Of course, a small US military presence wouldn't fix our larger fuckups with regard to the structure of Iraqi government.

i'm starting to think dexter filkins has "gone native" with all the generals he hangs out w/all day

Maliki didn't want a US presence in Iraq so i'm not sure how viable it would have been. He also doesn't want the US to actively support the Peshmerga with a referendum on independence coming up.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hypocrisy+over+Gaza

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ugsv5u-sW0

not this prick again