Gaza continues to have a political/cultural effect here. The imbalance between the blogosphere, where Gaza is Guernica, and the mainstream media (They asked for it) becomes more intolerable by the hour. This can't last. There will come a time, and sooner than later, when either the old order will crumble so definitively, or the established voices of the web will gain so much more influence, that the word blogosphere will cease to be pronounced protoplasm, and just be the frikkin media. Two important voices. David Bromwich in a very prominent post on Huffpo:
The eighteenth-century moral thinker Joseph Butler once gave us one of
those sentences that are so true they earn a separate life for
themselves. "Every thing," said Butler, "is what it is, and not another
thing." Gaza is not Iraq then. Mumbai is not New York, and the contests
against terrorists are not the War on Terror. Butler also asked once in
passing: "Why might not whole communities and public bodies be seized
with fits of insanity, as well as individuals?" We have seen it happen
in our time. This surmise received vivid confirmation from the head of
an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon who told the
Haaretz reporter
Meron Rappaport in a story published on December 9, 2006: "What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs."...
When an allied nation goes out of itself, in the same sense in which a
person may be out of himself, the work of a friend is to say no and no
again and refuse to give the self-destruction our blessing.
And here is Matt Yglesias at Thinkprogress saying pitilessly what we all queasily sense to be true about this situation: that all Israel really wants from the so-called peace process is to create an Indian reservation for Gaza.
All throughout the âpeace processâ years â through the good ones and
through the bad ones â Israel continued expanding both the geographical
footprint of its settlements and the population living upon them. For
most of this time, Israel has often appeared unwilling to enforce domestic Israeli law
on the settler population, to say nothing of abiding by international
law or agreements made. And while Israel has stated a desire to leave
the Gaza Palestinians alone in their tiny, overcrowded, economically
unviable enclave, the âdisengagementâ from Gaza has never entailed
letting Palestinians control their borders or exercise meaningful
sovereignty over the area. The proposal has basically been that if
Palestinians cease violence against Israel, then the Gaza Strip will be
treated like an Indian reservation. Israelâs policy objectives in the
West Bank appear to be first seizing the choice bits of it, and then
withdrawing behind a wall with the residual West Bank treating like
post-âdisengagementâ Gaza.
About Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Isn't what Matt's saying precisely what Henry Siegman said in that 2007 article in LRB?
http://conflictsforum.org/2007/the-great-middle-east-peace-process-scam/
The status quo is what Israel wants, and sadly it's what they will get to keep as long as it has the support of the US and all its obsequious vassal states.
The eighteenth-century moral thinker Joseph Butler once gave us one of those sentences that are so true they earn a separate life for themselves. "Every thing," said Butler, "is what it is, and not another thing." Gaza is not the West Bank then. Hamas is not Fatah, and Hamas' struggle/actions shouldn't be put in the equation that leads to Palestinian liberation. Butler also asked once in passing: "Why might not whole communities and public bodies be seized with fits of insanity, as well as individuals?" We have seen it happen before. As the Muslim Canadian Congress noted recently: "The Islamist group had deliberately put the civilian population of Gaza in danger… Hamas deliberately rocketed Israel in an attempt to provoke an Israeli response."
When a nation need of saving goes suicidal and lashes out, a friend must say no and give it a guiding hand toward an independent and constructive life.
Just because Hamas is run by Palestinians, it doesn't mean their actions are helpful to the Palestinian cause and should be supported by people sympathetic to the Palestinians. A little self criticism is needed here in the pro-Palestinian movement – I know, it's hard. -Just words of advice.
Diagnosis of Israel – Munschausen syndrome by proxy.
I don't understand why there wasn't this outcry during the Lebanon invasion.
Michael W wrote "A little self criticism is needed here in the pro-Palestinian movement – "
You are missing the point. We here are not part of the pro-Palestinian movement. We, most of us anyway, have become convinced that the American Israeli alliance is leading the US into unnecessary wars in the ME. They are Israel's wars, not ours. The root cause is the continuing colonization of Arab lands. I am not really all that interested in why Israel is doing it, but I recognize the reality of what they are doing. Phil maps it back to the original zionist enterprize and he is probably correct.
But for now the problem is what does the US do to extricate itself from this mess. I am not in the least bit interested in taking sides, but it seems obvious that being Israel's war ally is not the solution. I have no idea how to solve the IP conflict but there seem to be many sensible observers here that believe the correct course is to try to force Israel into giving up it's West Bank colony and to work for the two state solution. It might not work. However, even if it doesn't there does seem to be a growing realization that the US must change its relationship with Israel. This latest chapter with Israeli's massacring Gazans seems to be aiding this growing realization. Just because we react in horror to Israel's actions, doesn't mean that we are backing the Palestinians. I suppose if you live in the dichotomous world of the Bush mentality — 'you are either with us or against us' — then perhaps you can only see us in those terms. There is, though, multiple political positions besides those two extremes. The one that I support is what is in the best interests of the US.
The best interests of the US are peace in the region.
Peace will occur by a viable two-state solution, which Israel is dragging its feet on, and Hamas rejects.
That leaves either the requirement for regime change of Hamas, or of Israel.
Now, THAT would be dragging the US into a conflict unnecessarily.
It may be the net least violent approach, or it may be the laziest approach.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052036.html
Anshel Pfeffer / Right and Left, Diaspora Jews more critical of Israel than ever
By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: Zionism, Hamas, Gaza
There is something very strange and more than a little frustrating for a reporter used to being on the frontlines to experience a war in Israel from afar. Having to experience the goings-on not only from the reports of one's Israeli colleagues but also through the hall of mirrors that is the international media, with its sometimes incomprehensible agenda and likes and dislikes. At least as an Israeli you know where you stand, with all the familiar personal views, loyalties and criticisms. But to be a non-Israeli Jew can be a lot more difficult during such times.
The Best mohammed T-shirt art is from Sweden. Watch and read the info at,
link to
/>
Please don´t translate read in English.
At this moment, on CSPAN's Washington Journal, Matthew Lee from the AP provided the following response to a caller who said Obama's
new gate-keeper served in the IDF–the caller drew attention to
the Americans who fought in China (the "Flying Tigers) who had
to sign a statement declaring their first loyalty to the USA or lose
their citizenship:
"That's not true, he never served in the IDF."
Of course he did serve as a volunteer in Israel, for a support group assisting the IDF, that is, he admits to sorting and stacking
for example, IDF tank treads.
This is classic.
And the US government in congress and in the Fourth Estate have been doing it forever to deflect information seeping down to the
masses via the internet. The real issues are never addressed because of these continual blatant lies by omission.
Hopefully, such callers will learn they have to be ready with a
follow up and/or get to the facts beyond underground generalizations that themselves are only partial truths. I'd guess
that caller has now discovered the truth parsing whether or not
Obama's chief gate keeper "served in the IDF."
Now on the same C-SPAN show, another caller asks Matthew Lee
why isn't the MSM addressing the true aggregate of factual context, noiting W & M's book.
AP guy ignores the reference to M & W and quips a generalization that says nothing.
Now C-SPAN showing Candi Rice's latest public response to the Gaza thing.
It's all HAMAS's fault. We want a durable and sustainable peace. She notes HAMAS turned down Egypt's latest offer.
Mr Lee, AP says she's trying very hard to address peace in the region. Clinton, Obama, and their top Middle East transition aids
are all talking with Candi.
Witty, the USA has long been dragged into the conflict–and financing and supporting whatever Israel decides to do with its American welfare check and matrix of memorandums most Americans have no clue about. Whether this has been in the USA's best interest you have not addressed except to
conclude peace is in the USA's best interest, and that can only come by way of a two-state solution accepted by both sides.
Is it in the USA's best interest to be seen by most of the whole world as the free bank for any Israeli regime's whims?
Is most of the world simply anti-semitic, or is the USA a proxy for
Jewish chauvinism armed to the teeth by Americans and with nukes not subject to anyone's inspection or monitoring?
Or does most of the world have reason, international law, and the
legacy of the Nuremberg trials on their side?
Fact check: Witty, once again, lying for his 'peeps'.
"Peace will occur by a viable two-state solution, which Israel is dragging its feet on, and Hamas rejects."
Hamas does not reject the two-state solution. That is false.
Also, you're claim that peace is only viable through a two-state solution is disingenuous.
It's possible for a one state, democratic solution where the state becomes a state for all of it's citizens.
Of course Israeli racism is an obstacle to overcome, but if we can get those who claim they want peace to stop lying all the time, we've got half a chance.
@Stevieb,
A one state solution is impossible. Just look at Lebanon. Each political party has militias and when ever they have a dispute they kill each other.
As the Muslim Canadian Congress noted recently: "… … Hamas deliberately rocketed Israel in an attempt to provoke an Israeli response."
It puzzles me why the "Muslim Canadian Congress" would consider this bald assertion to be worthwhile contribution to the debate.
The ineffectiveness of the rocket "attacks" begs some questions about who is actually behind the activities.
They get the Palestinians nowhere while at the same time providing a convenient pretext for Israel to create mayhem in Gaza.
I smell a rat.
Controlling both sides of a conflict is an old trick and I am surprised that most look no further than the "obvious" explanation when seeking to understand what is happening.
Other possibilities deserve some consideration if the analysis is to be taken seriously.
And even if in the unlikely event that the rockets do prove to be solely a Palestinian initiative, that does not justify Israeli retaliation (blockades, bombing, etc.) against the whole population of Gaza and their infrastructure.
It is not how we should be conducting our affairs in the "twenty-first century".