-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Pamela Olson
- Eleanor Kilroy
- Alex Kane
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
I can imagine it being a minor hassle, provided you have the insanely powerful military needed to support an invasion of the US in the first place. Privately owned small arms are notoriously ineffective against armored vehicles or even modern body armor.
But as Gaza has unfortunately shown us, you don't need to "take" anything anyway. You can just cordon off densely populated areas and control the flow of anything going in and out. Or you could just bomb any civilian resistance to smithereens.
Short answer: No.
Slightly longer answer: Not in the sense you mean, namely with a Jewish majority, Jewish norms and Jewish culture imposed. Democracy is not compatible with built-in ethnic supremacy. There is no such thing as a democratic Apartheid state.
In a practical matter, this theoretical question is irrelevant anyway. Israel is not democratic because it rules millions of people without these people having any say in it.
In an actual democratic state, subject and sovereign are one and the same. In Israel, the Jewish people are the sovereign and subject (if you're generous, you can also include the fig-leaf minority of Arabs inside the Green Line in this category), while the Palestinians are subjects only.
Which countries are you referring to?
The thing is that Ashton also mentioned the Belgian children who had recently died in a horrible bus accident. Quite clearly, she did not judge the circumstances of the deaths - because obviously there is a difference between an accident and a murder - but she was simply trying to evoke empathy for the terrible tragedy that a child's death always is for the families.
What you colleague is thus saying is that Gazan children's deaths are not a tragedy, that they should not be mourned, that we should have no sympathy for them.
I admire your restraint. I would have picked up my plates and moved to a different table. And that's only because breaking his nose would have gotten me into trouble.
While I agree with your point that living in Israel proper instead of in a settlement does not excuse any Israeli from responsibility for the occupation, in this case you're overreacting. Mr. Burston mentioned his living inside the Green Line specifically to counter previous insinuations that he lives in a settlement. If these insinuations are factually incorrect, it is appropriate for him to set the record straight.
I oppose banning commenters on principle - as long as they are not openly abusive or blatantly dishonest with their comments. I don't think that either Witty or Blankfort were.
That said, I don't think this site's discussion will be any worse off because of the absence of Witty, Werdine, eee and whatever apologists for Israel we had here. Let's face it: Their responses to topics were so predictable, you could simulate them with a software application. And since their opinions were unchanging and unchangeable, it is futile to expect them to contribute fresh ideas either.
It's more likely to be an attempt to further provoke the Palestinian side in the moribund "negotiations" currently taking place in Jordan. See it in the context of Hamas-affiliated Palestinian members of Parliament being arrested, Abbas' VIP status being reduced etc.
Heap insults and injuries on the Palestinians while allegedly "negotiating" with them, then when they decide they can't take it anymore and quit, you can point fingers at them. That's Israel's game.
Is it possible that this is the result of stupidity rather than design? That, like our man Santorum, they do not actually realize that there is a difference in status between the WB and Israel proper? That they actually think that all who live between the river and the sea are Israelis?
Yes, but:
link to youtube.com
I'm reckoning that Paul's position is actually more pro-Palestinian than he lets on in the current campaign. It is quite telling that his above statements are being dragged up now, by various pro-Israeli players, to defame him.
But the bottom line is that supporting Paul is the pragmatic choice from an I-P view. Withdrawing all support from both sides will be better for the side which has received less support, and we know which one that is. In addition, the EU and other players may be willing to pick up the tab for the Palestinians in such a case. That they'd be willing or able to prop up Israel's arms budget in the US' stead is doubtful. Finally, if Paul says that he would grant Israel carte blanche in dealing with its neighbors, that is in no way different from the Israel policy of previous administrations.
Nonsense.
If he wanted to see less misogyny and rejection and Israel by Israeli Arabs, he would have said: "I would like to see the misogynist and rejectionist elements of Israeli Arab society reduced." Which would still make him an arrogant asshole, talking down to an oppressed minority from a privileged position, but not necessarily a racist.
But he didn't say that. What he said was "less Arab", which means that a) he considers all of Arab society to be misogynist and rejectionist and b) that this is an unchangeable feature of being Arab.
Both of these elements, separately, show Morris to be what everybody with even the the slightest ability to put 2 and 2 together already knows he is: A racist. It is no different than claiming that Jews are inherently greedy parasites.
To be fair, the US generally doesn't do "limited". Another critical failure of US (and generally Western) policy is that apparently it doesn't know how to conclude wars by anything else than "surrender".
Ah yes. So what does that tell us about previous (and future) US inventions? How "extreme" was the level of hatred in these cases? I do have a fairly clear picture of the level of racist hatred that accompanied the "intervention" against Japan which you cited as an example of a just war (I'd still like to know how you suppose it fits the criteria for one, by the way.) However, I'm not quite clear on how "out of proportion" you consider the level of Islamophobia evidenced by US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Could you clarify that?
P.S.: You would really do your credibility a favor if you dropped Kosovo from your list. In addition to what I already mentioned you should know that NATO intentionally a sabotaged a political solution in favor of a military one.
It really baffles me how one can make such arguments in a world where the UN exists. Prof. Slater simply ignores this entirely. There is only the faintest allusion of an international court, and only to set up an argument which amounts to a fatalist fallacy - because international institutions are ineffective in enforcing international law, so the argument goes, they should be ignored.
I, for one, do not think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is ideal. I do not even agree with its basic premise - which incidentally is exactly the same basic premise Prof. Slater applies: That nations are completely autonomous actors and there really is no such thing as international law.
But if I have to decide between two different worlds where the "law of the wild" is to continue, I'd rather have the US be a hippopotamus than a pack of hyenas.
Would you or would you not grant the American government the right to start wars at will? And if you’re saying “only if they are ‘just’”, then who is going to decide if they are ‘just’?
I wonder if I'm ever going to get answers to those questions.
International law is actually pretty clear, isn't it?
UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force or threats against other states. Exceptions are Article 51 (self-defense versus an armed attack against a state) and when authorized by the UNSC.
There is precious little wiggle room for both the Kosovo war and the Iraq war not being blatantly illegal wars of aggression by these standards. And no, the "Right to protect" didn't enter into it, a) because it was not invented at the time and b) because it does not include ignoring the authority of the UN.
Not that a war would necessarily be just merely because it is authorized by the UNSC. The Iraq sanctions post-Gulf War I, which ruined the Iraqi economy and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths at the very least, were patently unjust, yet authorized by the UN (by means of trickery, granted.) By the way: To leave them out of the picture and claim that the first George Bush "did the right thing" is either a remarkable oversight or downright callous. In retrospective, toppling Saddam back then would have been preferable, not because I agree with it in principle, but because the Iraqi people would at least have been spared a decade of being slowly starved.
How anybody, in the year 2012, can still regard the Kosovo war as justified is beyond me. We know that it was based on lies and fabrications. NATO openly broke international law with its intervention, intentionally attacked civilian targets, blocked all meaningful attempts at a diplomatic solution and in the end broke its own promises to respect Serbian territorial integrity.
On top of all that, far from preventing ethnic cleansing, NATO made it possible. It didn't lift a finger to prevent the rampage of murder and looting against the Serbian minority, the burning of Christian churches and the creation of a hundred thousand refugees.
Really? Everyone? If the majority of the people on this planet thought that a prospective war was unjust, the US would go along with that? When has that ever happened?
You're trying to establish self-defense as an analogy. So when somebody shoots another person and says it was self-defense, do we just take his word for it? No, we don't. So why should we do so in cases of aggressive war?
Just FYI: My question were not sarcastic at all, they were very serious. And obviously "everyone" is not the answer. Who should in your opinion have the real power to declare a war "just" and therefor intervene in foreign conflicts, internal or international?
If all your considerations of just war are merely intellectual exercises to be applied ex post facto, but don't have any real consequences anyway, then I don't see the point. And I don't see why one would be opposed to starting any wars at all. That you, now, declare the Iraq war "unjust" does not make any Iraqis less dead.
I don't see how you musing about how a war was just or unjust in retrospective is supposed to translate into any concrete political consequences. Would you or would you not grant the American government the right to start wars at will? And if you're saying "only if they are 'just'", then who is going to decide if they are 'just'?
Principles usually don't do the judging themselves. People do that. So who gets to judge? The President? Congress? The UN? You? Me? Not anybody in the countries about to be attacked, I guess?
Oh, a "proper" evaluation, I see. Who gets to evaluate that?
Except that Germans were also expelled from areas which were German before the war or any prewar expansion (East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania), did not at any point in recent history have anything but a large German population majority and were simply emptied of their indigenous inhabitants to facilitate annexation and exploitation by Poland and Russia.
It is actually quite similar to the Nakba, and there really is no justification for it unless you would also allow for the Nakba to be justified in principle. The key differences are that a) The German people, as a nation, did not have all or even most of their land taken away like the Palestinians did, b) most Germans, including former refugees, voluntarily agreed to settle things with Poland and Russia by means of a peace treaty and c) as individuals, former German refugees can move back to their former homes because almost all of the territory in question is now part of the EU.
In a related matter: Didn't you say earlier that WW2 was a just war? But now you have admitted that it was fought in an unjust manner (by intentionally incinerating German and Japanese children, among other things.) So it wasn't a just war after all?
I'm also uncertain how WW2 - accepting your reasoning that Roosevelt "intervened" - meets your other criteria. How exactly did Roosevelt exhaust all other options before going to war? You may or may not know that Konoe proposed a direct meeting with Roosevelt to solve the issues by negotiation and that the American side refused.
And how was the cause just? Is defending one colonial power's possessions against another one really a just cause? What do you identify as the cause of America in the Pacific War?
The theory of just war as you present it (and your interpretations make it very much your own) has not exactly had a good record of success in preventing wars, including patently unjust wars.
You would give a government, or even just a branch of a particular government, the right to decide whether it meets the wobbly criteria you'd apply to "just war" or not. The results are not difficult to discern:
Cast Lead was a just war.
Gulf War II was a just war.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a just war.
Everybody fights only just wars. Nobody will ever say "We're going to fight an unjust war". And since you're willing to place the decision whether a war is just or unjust in the hands of whoever starts the war, there objectively is no unjust war - so the term has no meaning.
"Pat Buchanan’s book ‘Churchill, Hitler, and “the unnecessary war”‘ provides evidence for that argument about Japan, and Germany too."
Well, I'm skeptical about that. (And I don't know Buchanan or his writings beyond what I can quickly look up on Wikipedia.) Hitler was a different league. The argument that the West should have just 'let' Hitler conquer Eastern Europe fails to take into account just how different a league. Stalin's rule over Eastern Europe was horrible but there can be little doubt, from all the German plans we actually know about, that Hitler's rule (part genocide, part enslavement) would have been far worse.
(I am not going to fault him for effectively arguing that the Allies should have let the Holocaust happen, since the Allies did in fact let the Holocaust happen.)
Since the actual President at the time did not send troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews, why would it have been a reasonable assumption that whoever else would have been President at the time would have done differently?
These statements rest on several assumptions I cannot support:
a) That Japan had no choice but to go to war against the US. I disagree. If Japan had not directly attacked the US, but instead just continued grabbing undefended colonies of European nations, there would have been no immediate consequences. The decision to directly attack America was not a necessary one, and in hindsight from the Japanese perspective, it was a disastrous idea.
b) That US military action was a decisive factor in the defeat of Germany. Again, I disagree. By the time the US made it felt militarily, the Soviets already had the upper hand.
c) That Germany was not interested in war with the US. We know that Hitler assumed war against the US to be inevitable, and we also know that he enthusiastically and unnecessarily declared war against the US - even though the terms of the alliance with Japan did not require him to.
Finally, it's impossible to tell if the US provoking Japan into war did any good as far as the bigger picture is concerned. Yes, Japan's colonial rule was horrible. Even more horrible was its democidal war in China. But Ron Paul would probably say that the US did not opt to negotiate with Japan in good faith in order to reach its goals diplomatically without simultaneously pushing Japan into a corner by means of an embargo.
In any case: As I mentioned, Paul has said that US involvement in WW2 could not have been avoided at the time. But he has also said, IIRC, "Iraq is hardly Germany".
Errr... no.
America did not "join the fight for moral and strategic reasons". Japan and Germany formally and openly declared war to America. I have never seen Ron Paul suggest that America should not defend itself when it is attacked. Questioned about WW2, Paul has said that US involvement could not have been avoided - but he did add that part of the reason was the unnecessary participation in WW1 which led to the Versailles Treaty system and a host of other problems.
This is getting seriously Orwellian.
No it does not for the precise reason that international law forbids settling one's own civilian population in occupied territory and countries other than Israel tend to follow this law. Colonialism on the other hand does equal Apartheid.
Military occupation alone would be bad and should be ended as soon as possible (in stark contrast to Israel's efforts to entrench it). But what makes Israel's occupation into a colonialist Apartheid regime are the settlements and the economic exploitation of the territory. No one with even the least little bit of historical knowledge can argue that this is not colonialism.
"Is Apartheid practiced Areas C?"
Of course it is. I could not, to be honest, completely follow the logical contortions you went through in order to pretend it isn't. Israeli settlers have infinitely more rights in Area C than Palestinians have, first and foremost the right to vote for the government that rules this territory. Clear-cut apartheid.
The same is, by the way, also true of Areas A and B. GOI still exercises sovereignty over these areas. Israelis can vote for GOI, Palestinians can't. EOD.
Of course, the intellectual gerrymandering you're engaging in is nonsense to begin with, and is very much the same as the architects of the Bantustans attempted. Basically you are saying that in SA there was no apartheid because Blacks and Whites lived in separate areas, and inside of each of these areas there was no Apartheid. Which amounts to saying that there was no Apartheid because there was Apartheid - which is exactly the level of intellectual honesty your argument has.
"This is not the case in Israel/Palestine."
Yes it is. And just to nip this bud, it is thoroughly irrelevant if Israel needs 'just' the land and the resources. The land and the resources cannot be conveniently disconnected from the people by any means other than outright ethnic cleansing, which leaves the 'omelet' analogy quite intact.
"Israel is no demanding too much land"
The funny thing is, it's not even possible to refute this because Israel does not tell anybody how much land it is demanding.
"But you are right that the Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic."
You know, the anti-semitic interpretation is just one. One other plausible view of Shylock's speech in particular is as a poignant expression of the rage of the oppressed as a trait that may collide with Christian morals, but is basically very human. This is the way I have always interpreted this part of the play.
"Honest". Now that's a good word. It means something like "truthful", right?
Well, here's a bit of truth:
Israel is the Palestinians' enemy! That's the way our reality works!
Maybe in Wittyverse, an institution that occupies your land, expels many of your people, reduces the rest of them to the status of third-class citizens at best, unfree serfs at worst, takes your natural resources, destroys your economic opportunity, routinely humiliates you just because it can and kills, maims or imprisons everybody who dares raise a finger against all this is not an enemy. But in this universe, it is.
To not call Israel an enemy of the Palestinians would be a lie, and nothing else. No rational human being can honestly say that the state of Israel is a "neighbor" or, zenith of absurdity, a "friend" of the Palestinian people.
Look at this from a pragmatic angle. The increasing power of the Ultra-Orthodox and the resulting fissures in Jewish-Israeli society are good news:
a) They contribute to the deterioration of what's left of Israel's reputation.
b) They have the potential to seriously fracture the Jewish-Zionist community in Israel. In the long run, this might even result in genuine civil strife.
c) Haredi for the most part are economically and militarily useless. Their prevalence in Israeli society is bound to weaken it.
Operating from the assumption (and this is the only reasonable assumption left) that everything that is bad for Israel is good for the Palestinians, the more internal fissures Israeli society suffers from, the better.
Appealing to the decency of "liberal" Zionists and thinking they might recognize the parallels between discrimination against Palestinians and discrimination against women is futile. Being a Zionist (in the current sense) literally requires you to be an unashamed hypocrite and to lack the capacity for empathy.
The most futile of notions would be to support "liberal" elements in Israel against the encroachment of Jewish fundamentalism. On the contrary, secular Jews coming under pressure is something that should be welcomed. If the increasing Iranization causes mass emigration of the secular elite: Excellent! If the Israeli economy falters because of the combined effect of brain drain and economically underproductive Haredi: All the better! If it suffers even more because women are shut out of the productive process: Wonderful!
P.S.: Yes, I am taking somewhat of an advocatus diaboli stand here. But then again, how would you counter these points?
No, he's not.
a) I could be wrong, but I am fairly certain that the majority of these quarries have been established by Israel and are most definitely not simply continuations of pre-1967 operations.
b) Israeli operations, which amount to ruthlessly exploiting the natural resources, quite definitely "seriously impair" the value of the property.
link to freedomfunnies.com
The first two panels sum up the foolishness of your way in a nutshell.
Israel is the oppressor. The Palestinians are the oppressed. They are not in any way, shape or form "peers", hence a "peer peace" is nonsense. Palestinians do not need to make peace with Israel, they need to be freed from Israeli oppression.
Nobody who claims to have a "pro-Israel perspective" can ever approach any Palestinian and claim they are equals.
It is abhorrent, but let's be pragmatic: If the two main instruments of oppression and harrassment in the WB are busy fighting each other, it's good news for the Palestinians.
Oooh, a "statelet". Or an "autonomy" even. How incredibly generous.
And there people say Israel does not have a clear position. It's crystal clear and has been the same since 1967: "We are the masters of the land. You can remain and make do with the scraps we leave and manage your own affairs as long you don't make any trouble. You will never have any rights or self-determination in this land, but you can quietly live a serf's life if you properly submit to us."
"Universalism is not natural and quite destructive."
Natural: Running around naked. Eating small animals raw. Incestuous sex. Fleeing from big cats. That's about it.
All relevant human behaviour is cultural. Using the term 'natural' in this context is a big fat warning light: 'Here lies thinly disguised social darwinism'.
Truth be told, I don't see any progress happening before the US and its traditional cronies are pushed aside. Another small step on the way:
link to content.usatoday.com
The J14 movement is in its infancy.
If by "infancy" you mean "deathbed", sure. The J14 movement has already fizzled out and it's not likely to have any lasting effects.
Death rates have more to do with age structures than with anything else. So even if one took the reported rates for Gaza for granted (which is a dubious idea, but let's run with it), it doesn't say much.
But yeah, I agree. Physically eliminating the Palestinians is not (yet) part of the Israeli agenda. For the time being, Israeli brutality serves the following purposes:
- Terrorism, to bludgeon Palestinians into submission. The currently discussed article is a splendid example of how that works.
- Keep the conflict going on a level that is manageable for Israel.
- Motivate Palestinians on the West Bank to leave, in other words ethnic cleansing.
Note how severely underreported this was in the international media, especially in the US (as far as I can see from my Internet-centric view). Naturally. You don't want people saying to themselves: "What? You can make Israel behave just by withholding some candy, I mean military aid from them? Without them throwing a temper tantrum? Why don't we do that?"
"Compromise". Right. So if I want to plunder your home and kill your entire family, and you want to keep your possessions and your family members' lives, a fair compromise would be me leaving one of your kids alive and taking only 80% of your stuff.
Seriously, there really is not anything to say about the initiative other than Richard, eee and BHL endorsing it. This is actually all the condemnation it needs.
... Israel will whine, protest and bitch to no avail. Which is why all of these guys are going to cancel any future trips to countries that might extradite them to Turkey.
Not the kind of farce where throwing lots of money at it will get a guilty man free, I'm afraid...
Except that he never used a phrase like "holy to several religions", nor anything similar. He just mentioned Jesus Christ's birth and Mohammed's ascension. The first mythical event is associated with Betlehem, the second with the Al-Aqsa mosque. Both are, of course, located outside Israel's borders and inside the borders of what Abbas (not to mention 100+ countries) consider the Palestinian state.
Of course, you did not know this - because you were to lazy to read the transcript yourself rather than relying on Ravid's disingenuous interpretation of it.
"So what’s stopping Abbas from sitting down with Netanyahu right now?"
The realization that it would be pointless and his time would be better spent doing just about anything else?
That is actually fairly simple: The resolution aims for a Palestinian state to be established, with a legal claim on all the territory beyond the green line.
After this is accomplished, the two states of Israel and Palestine can still conduct negotiations on an exchange of territories on a bilateral basis - as equals.
The method used up to now – and I am choosing my words carefully – has failed. We must therefore change our method!
We must stop believing that a single country, even the largest, or a small group of countries can resolve so complex a problem. Too many crucial players are being sidelined for our efforts to succeed.
I would like to say that nobody imagines the peace process can happen without Europe; nobody imagines it can happen without all the permanent members of the Security Council; nobody imagines it can happen without the involvement of the Arab states that have already chosen peace. A collective approach has become essential to creating trust and providing guarantees to each of the parties.
That is from French President Sarkozy's speech at the UNGA. Read the whole thing (as far as it relates to Palestine) here:
link to isria.com
It's pretty much the speech Obama should have held and would have held if he wasn't an amoral coward. The "single country, even the largest" bit is not particularly ambiguous.
Not the one on which you can in any way, shape or form be classified as "liberal", that's for sure. You're a plain old racist who sometimes makes the less than convincing attempt to dress up his racism by using "liberal" terminology.
No 20% minority of Arab-hating, Uzi-toting Herrenmenschen in privileged hilltop settlements, no.
Woody's solution is very sensible. Palestine should have immigration laws which do not discriminate against any religion. A Jewish Israeli should have the same chance to immigrate to Palestine as a Buddhist Japanese.
Of course, privileging former illegal settlers is out of the question. That would be massively unfair to law-abiding would-be immigrants and it would reward criminal behaviour.
Of course it's not violence. Was that a joke question? Then again, by your logic, Gandhi's brutal burning of his helpless passport would probably pass as "violence".
Nonsense. Not only does entering a settlement not mean entering someone's home, but merely entering public grounds (from which one is excluded by means of racist discrimination) - it is of course not necessarily violent. Violent means using destructive force - normally with the potential to inflict actual harm on people. Simply marching into a village is not violent.
And just FYI: In most of the civilized world "trespassers will be shot" is illegal. (I'm saying "most" because I wouldn't it put some US states, especially those starting with "Tex" to differ. But generally speaking, murdering trespassers is just that.)
You and dim dragged your not-at-all-humble selves into that by trying to establish yourselves as some kind of eyewitnesses to "disprove" Jdledell's points - which you would not, by the way, even if all you said was true.
However, based on past experience, it is a lot more reasonable to assume you are lying than to assume Jdledell is.
In the last thread where stunningly brutal treatment of children by Israeli forces was documented, you tried to use semantic games and other trickery to somehow obfuscate these atrocities. The only sensible deduction is that you are only interested in one thing: Neutralizing criticism of Israeli conduct.
Believing you when you claim you would court-martial IDF soldiers engaged in crimes against Palestinians - after you tried all your best to minimize and justify documented brutal treatment of Palestinian children by the IDF - would be entirely irrational.
As I said: It is much more reasonable to assume that you are lying. I usually give people the benefit of doubt and assume they are decent people with moral integrity, but you made it absolutely clear that you don't deserve this.
@ tree
Zing!
In any case: We have read the description of what these Israeli thugs do to Palestinian children. The only acceptable response by any decent human being is to condemn this.
The only thing eee's feeble attempts at justification, distraction and minimization tell us is that he is not a decent human being. His words are more like those of a borderline sociopath, and a racist one at that.
That is somewhat interesting, but it's also nothing new, and it certainly doesn't merit engaging him in lengthy discussions on the minutiae of his turpitude.
"I am sure the Americans were loved in Japan right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki because apparently that is what you believe."
Actually, I'm willing to bet that even immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans in general were better liked in Japan than Israelis are among Palestinians. Even accounting for the numerous crimes that American occupational forces committed as well.
Yes, the Turkey-PKK conflict in the 80s and 90s was a much larger, bloodier and intense one than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was at the time.
That goes for both sides, by the way. Turkish forces also suffer casualties that dwarf whatever the IDF has to deal with.
It is still an ugly situation, no doubt about it, and Turkey's methods are and should be open to criticism. But harsh as this sounds: The violence is not the main problem in Palestine. The subjugation and total lack of rights and freedoms is. In this regard, the Kurds are in a much, much better situation than the Palestinians are. There still is considerable need for necessary improvements (and I am cautiously optimistic these will continue to trickle down as Turkey modernizes), especially as far as respecting their ethnic minority rights goes, but the bottom line is that Kurds do have civil rights in their country. Palestinians don't.
a) The situations of the Turkish Kurds and the Palestinians are not even remotely comparable.
The former are Turkish citizens who belong to an ethnic minority which has been severely oppressed in the past and still faces discrimination.
The latter are subjugated colonial subjects without any civil rights whatsoever.
b) The situation of the Turkish Kurds is generally improving thanks to political reform efforts in Turkey. The situation of the Palestinians gets worse with every settlement, wall segment and house demolition.
Generally, the Turkish Kurds are more aptly compared to the Basques in Spain. It should also be noted that, according to polls, the majority of Turkish Kurds are interested in having their status as an ethnic minority inside Turkey respected, rather than form their own state.
Exactly.
If Palestinians had the same rights in Israeli-ruled Palestine as Kurds do in Turkish-ruled Kurdistan, Richard's dreaded one-state solution would be a reality.
Even if one was against a Jewish state in principle - which I, for one, am not - that would not at all mean condoning the murder of Jews.
"But I cannot concede that attacking a car full of civilians is anything but an act of terrorism."
Well...
... they could've missed another target and hit the civilian vehicle by accident.
... they could've misidentified a civilian vehicle as a military jeep.
... it could've been the action of a single bad apple who was going against orders.
No, I don't really believe any of these. But we all know these are the explanations that we would hear from the IDF in a parallel case.
Now why condemn similar Israeli actions more loudly and clearly than Palestinian actions? Why hold Israel to a higher standard? First of all, because their transgressions are arguably more numerous and definitely more devastating. Second, to quote Michael Neumann: "[Israel] is not being held to one [a higher standard]; it aggressively and insolently appropriates it."
Israel is an established state and a well-respected member of what is usually called "The West". It is a member of key international organizations and bound itself by treaty to uphold international law. It has vast material resources at the disposal of a highly developed government apparatus.
To hold Israel to a higher standard than rag-tag bands of militants who are denounced as terrorists in large parts of the world would be a matter of course even if Israel was not engaged in a brutal occupation and colonization project.
If Israel were reduced in status to the level of Hamas and the PRC, I'd gladly hold it to the same standards. If Hamas and the PRC were elevated in status to that of Israel (which I really don't want to see happen), likewise.
But as long as Israel's and the Palestinians' status remains so vastly unequal, I'll continue holding them to different standards. Everything else would be immoral.
I somehow must have missed the news report of the RAF bombing Dublin to rubble, and the Spanish dropping white phosphorous on the Basques also escaped my notice.
When rachelgolem uses stupid strawman arguments, it's her fault alone.
Oh, you're having comprehension trouble. Let me help:
A state exercising sovereign control, partly or in full, over territory that does not belong to said state, by means of military force.
A state ordering, instigating or allowing civilian individuals or groups, private or public, to exploit the resources of an occupied territory (land, water, etc.) for any purposes not directly necessitated by the needs of the military occupation forces.
I don't see where any of this is vague.
Look who's talking.
Little newsflash for you, hate-boy. The IDF basically admitted that they had no clue if the PRC had anything to do with it. They just randomly murdered someone they didn't like.
link to warincontext.org
Extra laughs produced by the IDF's line that they knew the attackers came from Gaza because they carried AKs... which are only the most common firearm on the planet and used by just about every militant group in existence.
Retaliation is not defense.
In the above quote, you just did that.
Now, you'll go about how Israel doesn't intend to kill civilians. It's debatable, but irrelevant.
Fact 1: Israel "state defense" attacks on Gazan targets almost always wound or kill non-combatants, including children. Most certainly every such attack risks such harm to non-combatants.
Fact 2: Israel still conducts these attacks even though they inevitably kill non-combatants including children.
Ergo: For Israel, killing Hamas "operatives" is more important than not killing children.
Ergo: Defending Israeli "state defense" means rationalizing violence against civilians.
Other changes... hmmm... I dunno, let me just phone President Mubarak and ask him.
That's odd. They tell me he's no longer in office. So who was installed as a successor by the NDP... it has been dissolved? How could the SSI let this... what? Also dissolved, you say?
Clown.
a) They didn't say it was an Israeli false flag operation. They say they wouldn't put it past Israel. I happen to agree (insofar as "Israel"=the Israeli government): I wouldn't put it past them either. I still think it's tremendously unlikely in this case.
I do have to admit it's rather fishy that Israeli intelligence supposedly could not predict and prevent this attack, but mere hours after it occurred said they knew exactly where the attackers came from and the names and locations of who planned the attack.
But my money is on the other possible explanation: They did not and do not have a clue and just killed someone they randomly picked from the "disliked by us = deserves to die" list to kill (along with his small son, and several other bystanders who are in the "may live unless it's inconvenient" category.)
b) You live in a country where not only did a political fanatic murder his own head of government to sabotage negotiations with "the enemy", and not only he received enthusiastic encouragement and support by radical right-wing groups for doing so, but was also prodded into assassinating the Prime Minister of Israel by a Shin Bet agent.
Suffice to say, the case for "Israelis would never do this" is a little weak.
Then again, to make it clear: Not saying this was a false flag operation. It was most certainly not one in the sense that Israelis, or people in their direct employ, were the attackers - that is indeed an absurd idea. It is possible that it was a case of "let it happen" that could involve someone at about any level of the intelligence service food chain, but that, too, I consider exceedingly unlikely.
The bus is not the target. The soldiers are. Are you suggesting that military forces should be shielded from attack by using civilian vehicles?
Anybody know how many of the Israeli casualties in this attack were off-duty soldiers?
(Do not assume, by the way, that I am not keenly aware of the fact that it is no consolation to a grieving parent, sibling, spouse or child that their loved ones died in uniform. I know very well that this does not make it less devastating and I feel for all who suffer such a terrible blow. The same goes, of course, for the families of civilians who become "collateral damage".)
Never? Really? So even firing back at the attackers in this case was not OK? Total, Gandhi* type pacifism is what you advocate?
I don't subscribe to this notion. There are circumstances under which violence, by Israelis or anybody else, is justified. It's just that in practice, the Israeli military's violent actions are almost always either grossly disproportional or not justified by anything remotely resembling self-defense. Case in point: Barak randomly killing a few Gazan "extremists" (plus "collateral damage" including a nine-year-old boy) with no proven connection to the preceding attacks on Israelis.
* Well, "popular image" Gandhi...
Israel has enough weapons already to remain unassailable for an extended period even if a total arms embargo were enacted. Plenty of time for Israel to come to her senses.
That's not what Paul did. He compared the authorities' reactions, which were similar despite the very different circumstances.
During the 2009 Gaza War, Paul addressed Congress to voice his staunch opposition to the House's proposed resolution supporting Israel's actions. He stated: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers." He then went on to question the very purpose of America's support for Israel, asking: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?"
The Lobby doesn't forget, Ron.
Just as a progressive is only acceptable in the form of a PEP, a Libertarian is only acceptable in the form of a LEI. Oppose monetary aid to other countries and US meddling in foreign affairs all you want - but not when it comes to Israel!
Godspeed!
It's a) completely racist by conflating biology and ethnicity, which is the very essence of racism and b) nonsense.
The very idea of a "Jewish genetic marker" is both racist and ridiculous.
*facepalm* You asked for it.
Yes you do, by insisting that the results of ethnic cleansing by Israel - which continues to this very day - should neither be reversed nor should those responsible be punished.
If somebody said "I don't support theft, but I think thieves should get to keep what they stole and there should not be any penalty for theft", that person would be considered a liar or a lunatic.
Oh, sure. Can't speak for others, but I am entirely in favor of giving Jews who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and their heirs, absolutely the same right of return as should be given to Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948.
What I don't support is the colonialist invasion of unrelated Jews from America or Russia and your feeble attempts to permanently install these invaders as 'residents'.
Man, what?
I seriously don't get what you mean here. I could speculate, but it'd be guesswork.
Double standards. American Jews who are practically guaranteed to break Israeli laws by setting up illegal outposts - because they are anti-Arab fanatics whose whole raison d'être is opposition to a Palestinian state - are not only freely allowed into Israel, you also want to force the Palestinian state to accept these people as citizens.
Past terrorist activity can be used as a reason for exclusion, sure. Then again, most people (a vanishingly small minority anyway) affected by this are probably smart enough not to immigrate straight into an Israeli prison anyway.
Strawman. Nobody's asking for people from Yalo to have the right to live in Jaffa.
As I said: You hide behind Israeli laws preventing this, when it is those same Israeli laws that created the refugees in the first place.
You support, and enthusiastically so, the past, present and future right for Jews to immigrate not only to Israel but also to the occupied territories. But you vehemently insist on preventing Palestinian refugees, who have a much more recent connection to the land and are much more in need of a “safe haven” than pampered American Jews, from doing the same.
Oh yeah. To the point of controlled, voluntary insanity.
The time-honored excuse for brutality. "Disproportionate" is a-okay if you're a state! An exchange rate of a hundred dead Palestinian children for one Israeli is entirely acceptable if you're a state, right?
Legally, complete nonsense, since international law does recognize and emphasizes proportionality. Morally, a declaration of bankcruptcy.
I think it is somewhat indicative of the relationship you enjoy with reality that the title of the book is actually 'This time we went too far'. Note the absence of a question and the presence of quotation marks.
I had already written a quip asking you to stop wasting my time and instead show me something where Morris talked about...
... but then again, in light of my above observation, it may just be that in your mind, he did espouse these things in the lecture. Have you gone, or are you in the process of going, full Orwell?
No, you don't. You support, and enthusiastically so, the past, present and future right for Jews to immigrate not only to Israel but also to the occupied territories. But you vehemently insist on preventing Palestinian refugees, who have a much more recent connection to the land and are much more in need of a "safe haven" than pampered American Jews, from doing the same. You hide behind Israeli laws preventing this, when it is those same Israeli laws that created the refugees in the first place.
You are fooling no one.
And of course, I do support fully equal rights for Palestinian refugees wherever they live. I just don't support your frivolous idea that this comes at the expense of their right of return. The best solution would be to give Palestinians the choice between citizenship in their home (Israel or the "territories", as the case may be) or in their current location.
Unless Israelis do it. Then all of it, and much worse, is entirely proportionate, right?
It did. You are falsely conflating a civil war in Mandate Palestine (which was also instigated by proto-Israeli forces, but that is not relevant here) with the war between several Arab countries and the state of Israel.
Israel was, at the moment it was declared a state, already busy invading and conquering territory that - according to its own declaration of independence - was not his own. Arab armies only entered Palestinian territory after this.
No, it is completely true, and Morris' claims of what the "Arab war plan" later changed to are not relevant in this context:
"The transformation of the exodus in April into a massive demographic upheaval caught the AHC and the Arab states largely unawares and caused great embarrassment: It highlighted the AHC’s (and the Palestinians’) weakness and the Arab states’ inability, so long as the Mandate lasted, to intervene. At the same time, it propelled these states closer to the invasion about which they were largely unenthusiastic." Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 263.
When and where?
So, your approach is to cover your ears and sing LALALALALA? Because he most definitely did say that.
So what? Netanyahu has been in "the business" for even longer.
Making up this kind of poppycock would be insulting in any circumstances, but from a staunch defender of Jews settling where their imaginary ancestors were alleged to live 2000 years ago, it is monstrously absurd.
As I said:
Don’t you dare insult our intelligence by your generous idea to allow in a few old people on the condition they abandon their families.
Refugees don't want their "day in court" in an Israeli system of "justice" that will do everything it can to thwart their claims. They want their homes and property back.
I have shown above how the refugees dream of returning to what they see at their lost homeland could possibly (possibly - I don't know) be realized, while still taking into account Israeli wants and priorities - namely, the desire for a Jewish majority state.
Your only response is that the refugees' dreams and aspirations should be crushed.
You never take into account what Palestinians actually want. In your view, only Jewish Israelis are entitled to having their free will respected - while Palestinians are to be told what their "needs" are by you and your ilk, and supposed to accept it.
That is what makes you a racist - quite similar to Morris. An agreement based on equality and mutual respect is alien to you, and that's why you do not need to be reached out to in order to achieve peace - you need to be pushed aside. You are in the same category as Lieberman, as the Kahanist and, yes, as the radical subgroups of the Palestinian political spectrum (not only found in Hamas.)
Good one.
Oh, wait, that wasn't a joke, right? That makes it even funnier.
No. That is gibberish.
You just love telling Palestinians what they have to think, feel and want, eh? Do you share Morris' psychic powers?
Lemme offer a more rational explanation: All you are interested in is to keep the refugees out of Israel. All of them. You couldn't care less if they feel at home in any of the countries you listed and how they are treated there. For you, only one thing is important: They are not in Israel.
Again, that you should lump others with Likud is highly amusing, seeing how close you are to their actual positions: No compromise whatsoever on refugees - none may return. (Don't you dare insult our intelligence by your generous idea to allow in a few old people on the condition they abandon their families.)
Well, glad we could clear that up:
- My position on Point 1: Refugees: Based on the principle of the right of return, a compromise that would not overwhelm Israel's or Palestine's capacity, would keep Israel's precious Jewish majority and focus on those refugees who are most in need.
- Your position on Point 1: Refugees: All refugees must be kept out of Israel! Let the Arab dictatorships handle them!
That is supposed to be "working for peace"? Are you quite serious?
No, it is correct. Your claim that they planned to or wanted to - no matter if true or not - does not change the fact that they didn't.
Quiz question 1: Was Deir Yasssin, to take a standard example, part of the Jewish portion of the partition plan?
Answer: Nope. Far away.
Quiz question 2: What, then, were proto-Israeli forces doing there?
Answer: Protect Jerusalem? Which, according to the plan they supposedly had accepted was not part of their state and ergo none of their business?
It's really quite easy: Israel was the first to reach beyond its self-declared borders and make a grab for territory. Israel's attacks and campaign of ethnic cleansing was what motivated the Arab states to intervene.
Morris himself acknowledges that. But you just can't escape your own reflexes.
Indeed.
The major problem is while the opinions of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza are comparably well-researched, I am not aware of any such research in the major refugee populations outside these areas.
Among those who are polled, there is normally a workable, if not exactly overwhelming support for 1967 borders with minor land swaps and very solid support for an end to the conflict and all claims after the signing of a peace agreement (so much for your mindreading, Mr. Morris...)
Palestinians are less supportive of compromises regarding the refugees and East Jerusalem, and least supportive of the demilitarization of the Palestinian state.
As I said, this does not include refugees outside of Palestine. Trying to figure out what would be acceptable to them (for example, if the ~2 million refugees with Jordanian citizenship would largely want to stay in Jordan) is basically guesswork.
***************************************************************
For my tentative proposal for the minimum acceptable solution for Point 1: Refugees, I am just going to be optimistic and assume that the Jordanian citizens would largely stay put. I'll also assume the same for refugees living outside of camps in the WB/Gaza.
Basically, this leaves us with the refugee populations of Lebanon and Syria, and the camp populations of WB/Gaza, as those most in need. In total, about one million people.
For these groups, I'd suggest the following:
1. An offer of citizenship in the place of origin for all refugees from Syria and Lebanon. This would mostly mean Israeli citizenship, but since there are also people who were displaced from the WB in 1967, a minority would get Palestinian citizenship.
Ideally, this would be complemented by offers of citizenship in third countries (US, Europe). I'd place little to no faith in Lebanon and Syria themselves. These countries are to foxtrotted-up to provide for the refugees.
- Total number: ~900,000
- To receive Israeli citizenship (guess): ~500,000
- To receive Palestinian citizenship (guess): ~200,000
- To receive other citizenship (guess): ~200,000
2. Refugees living in camps in the WB and Gaza should receive Palestinian citizenship, plus permanent residency rights in their country of origin (again mostly Israel, with a minority of internally displaced Palestinians):
- Total number: ~600,000
- To receive permanent residency rights: ~500,000
My reasoning here is that while these refugees of course have the same rights as others, they are more rooted in the society of the Palestinian state and should be incorporated into its future political life.
Also, I won't deny that, odious as it is, bringing down the number of potential Arab voters in Israel will make this more likely to acceptable to the Israeli public.
Together with the settlers in non-swapped areas, Israel will have to deal with an influx of up to 1.1 million people, depending on how many Palestinians with permanent visas will want to move. The population level in Palestine will drop by up to 400,000 (taking into account the settlers leaving non-swapped areas and refugees moving in, I'm assuming about 100,000), leaving some room for additional influx from the Palestinian diaspora outside the camps.
This will all cost a lot of money, among other things to compensate those who do not choose to return, but considering the obscene amounts Western countries throw around to rescue banks and buy weapons, it should be doable.
The important, basic line is that this solution in principle recognizes the right of every single refugee to return to his or her home. I am optimistic in my assumptions about how many would actually want to, and I tried to be creative to adapt this into a form which can with some effort be crammed down the throat of the Israeli public.
Obviously, researching the refugees' opinions is needed before even proposing such a plan. It is very well possible I am entirely off the mark in my assumptions.
Complete Bravo Sierra. You are working at harrassing pro-Palestinian activists. If you claim to be "working for peace", try writing a few thousand posts' worth of condescending, sanctimonious lecturing on pro-Israel* websites for a change. You have some catching up to do.
*And you know darn well what I mean by "pro-Israel".