Gaza: 350,000 Palestinians Cross Into Egypt For Food!!!
The scenes out of Gaza are incredible. After blowing up the border walls with Egypt, 350,000 Palestinians have crossed over.
This is the last thing Israel wants (an open Gazan border) but this is the inevitable result of Ehud Barak's policy of blocking essential supplies to starving and freezing people.
And it's more evidence -- if any more is needed -- that the United States and the international community must help Israel and the Palestinians end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza,
I don't know if the Gaza breakout is good or bad. But I do know that the blockade of Gaza is illegal, immoral and, it is now obvious, stupid.
Will any of our Presidential candidates address this issue? No way! What are they crazy? (Well, they may denounce the Palestinians for...I don't know. For something).
For, um... eating. They can denounce ravenous Palestinians for eating Egypt.
By the way, if Palestine is going to be its own country, what business of it is Israel's whether or not it has an open border with Egypt? Seems like that'd be an issue for Egypt and Palestine.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 23, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might be confusing "occupation" and "control." Israel NEVER intends to give up control of the Palestinians, whether they live in Gaza or the West Bank. Until that mindset changes, Quisling Abbas is just wasting him time talking to his boss Olmert.
January 23, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is dying to give up control of the Palestinians. Israel understands that it made a mistake in occupying Gaza in 67. Today, it will gladly hand over Gaza to Egypt, the Palestinians "brothers".
Will they take them, though? No - because nobody wants to control the Palestinians, including Israel. People want the Palestininans to be able to control themselves.
What a daunting task... eh?
January 24, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think Israel has no choice but to call in airstrikes in order to defend itself. I mean obviously if Palestinians get their hands on stuff like bread, well, that's just a major security threat...
January 23, 2008 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which Russian writer said that you could only judge a state by looking at its prisons?
I love these images. Let the world see!!!!
January 23, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Never mind the spineless candidates. It'll be interesting to see what kind of coverage this gets in U.S. media. I take it this happened early in the day over there, probably late enough to miss this morning's papers here, but early enough so that the shock value will have worn by the time editors get around to planning their Thursday morning fronts this afternoon.
.
Still, it's one helluva story. And there ought to be dramatic photos, as well as good ways for reporters to follow up.
.
My bet, however, is that they won't. It will certainly get some nice inside play, but I doubt that our media--chiefly the major newspapers--have much appetite for pointing out the essential inhumanity of penning people up the way Israel does in Gaza.
.
Kudos to M.J. for making an appropriately big and timely sound about this.
.
(Now if we could just somehow ween him off the timid and compromise-with-Republicans-prone Obama candidacy, he'd be darn near perfect.)
January 23, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, Haaretz: 350,000 Palestinians have crossed over.
CNN (updated 2 minutes ago): at least 50,000 have crossed.
January 23, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
And where is the inevitable story about Palestinians "smuggling" money into Gaza? Somewhat ironic since Israel claims to have left the territory but Palestinians still need their permission to bring money in.....I guess sovereignty isn't what it used to be.
January 23, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gaza is sovereign the way that the Warsaw Ghetto was sovereign.
January 23, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"My bet, however, is that they won't. It will certainly get some nice inside play, but I doubt that our media--chiefly the major newspapers--have much appetite for pointing out the essential inhumanity of penning people up the way Israel does in Gaza."
The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC...all front cover stories...all replete with photos. It guess it's getting covered. And actually the Post has been covering this brewing story just about everyday for some time now.
Hard to see why Obama is so popular with the Dem base. He IS the candidate of bi-partisanship. Most of his positions are solidly centrist. Hillary, actually, is much more of a "stuff it down their throats" Dem than Obama. And of course Edwards is even more so. But the base just can't bring itself to vote for him!
January 23, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the central dilemma facing the Democrats is this: do we choose someone who will *reverse* the policies of the current administration (by "stuffing it down their throats"), or do we choose someone who will be able to help our country return to a functional government, which is one where the parties work together? Can we have both? Because both of them are absolutely essential.
We have an electorate right now which is buying in to the Republicans' central meta-message -- that government doesn't work. The combativeness and partisanship that has worsened since 2000 helps the right wing push its privatization agenda. Stuff-it-down-their-throats-ness may help to solve some of the policy disasters, but at the expense of further alienating the electorate and making people believe that sacrifice and belief in the efficacy of government to solve problems are useless.
January 23, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You lose. It's at the top of Google News' home page right now, with 3,911 related articles. More's the pity for the people of the Congo, Kenya, Zimbabwe and the like, the Palestinians do get plenty of press, perhaps more than Iraqis. Of course, if all you read is M.J. Rosenberg and his commenters, there's only 3 countries in the world that matter.
January 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Egypt had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Egypt with plenty of aid money, second after Israel. Maybe no one expects an Arab regime to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Rwanda had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Rwanda with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects an African regime to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Taiwan had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Taiwan with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects an Asian regime to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Hungary had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Hungary with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects a Central European regime to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Ecuador had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Ecuador with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects a Latin American regime to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Samoa had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Samoa with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects a Pacific Island to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Ireland had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Ireland with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects the Irish to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Kansas had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Kansans with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects wheat farmers to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when the Congressional Black Caucus had ALSO kept its borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides blacks and congressmen with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects blacks or congressmen to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...
Can you explain why it is that Israel is uniquely blamed for the plight of the Gazans when Peter Shwartz had ALSO kept his borders closed and did not provide any aid, water, fuel, food?
The US certainly provides Peter Shwartz with plenty of aid money, after Israel. Maybe no one expects Peter Shwartz to act humanely. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way you make a point! Beautiful. It seems "Colore oscuruo" is having an issue with your comments. Hard to say.
January 23, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I need to bother explaining my points, but for the slow learners, I'll spell it out.
First, Israel due to its particular circumstance and actions has a unique responsibility for Gaza not shared by other states. It is Israel which by its existence has displaced the Palestinians from much of their former territory. It is Israel which has occupied the West Bank and Gaza strip since 1967 and has exercised direct control over the economy and society for thirty-plus years. It is Israel which installed settlements, further deforming and disrupting Palestinian society and economy in Gaza. It is Israel which, even after theoretically pulling out of Gaza, continues to exercise direct control over Gaza's borders, population, economy and necessities. It is Israel which wages war upon Gaza and engages in punishment of the civilian population. So clearly, the burden should lie on Israel. Egypt is a bystander, much like Ecuador, Taiwan, Samoa, Rwanda, the Black Congressional Congress and Peter Shwartz.
In a larger sense, whatever duty lies upon Egypt is a duty of common humanity. The obligation on Egypt to act is the same as the obligation on Ecuador, the Black Congressional Congress, and on Peter Shwartz.
January 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I rerated your comments. I believe the format of your original message obscured its intent.
January 23, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
When people talk about the Arabs responsibility for the Palestinians, what they mean is: please take on the moral and financial burden of Israel's actions.
Think how much propaganda you have to swallow to believe that.
In other contexts, it is laughable. While it is great that Jordan, Syria and others have taken in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, it is hardly the moral duty for Jordan et al to make the Iraqis citizens so that the people in Iraq who drove them out (including the invaders) are relieved of responsibility for causing the exodus.
January 23, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
No that is not what they mean. What they mean is why should Israel be held to standards other nations aren't held to and don't adhere to.
January 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disagree.
January 23, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mean like the Geneva Conventions or UN Resolutions?
January 23, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Were the UN truly an impartial world body, I would agree. But since it tends to do things like rule that Zionism = racism whilst ignoring places like SA and Iran, it's hard for me to use the UN as the standard it aspires to be--as much as I'm in favor of a robust UN.
January 23, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
If by SA you are referring to South Africa, the UN was quite active there. If you are referring to Saudi Arabia... what great sin are you accusing them of? In respect of Iran, the UN security council constantly debates resolutions and sanctions against Iran for undertaking nuclear programs which do not violate any treaty, what exactly do you fault the UN for ignoring? The Geneva conventions are universally applicable and predate both the UN and Israel, how do you justify ignoring them?
Are you just talking out your ass? It strikes me that what we are hearing from you is not reasoned or substantive discussion, but merely talking points designed to deflect or disrupt. Is this a discussion you wish to engage or merely derail. Frankly, I'm still agog over your suggestion that Egypt should abandon its treaty with Israel and re-enter into a state of war. At the very least it suggests that you aren't thinking about your statements, and at worst it implies a fundamental dishonesty to your positions.
January 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No; that isn't what I said and specifically said so in response to your original question. However, when a humanitarian crisis is occurring, it is the duty of both parties to an agreement to discuss what to do about it. Egypt is a party to the agreement; it has a border with Gaza; it could truck in food, medicine, etc., even if it didn't open the border.
It was Saudi Arabia I was referring to--pretty clearly a racist and brutish regime, which doesn't brook other religions in its midst, points that Israel is constantly accused of.
I'm fine with your disagreeing with me and pointing out my errors, but speculating about my motivations or what I'm up to is pointless. Just ask and I'll tell you: I'm participating in this conversation and raising questions and points, the same as everyone else.
January 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, it is not at all clear what you say. You're a master of glib superficials, but deeper than that you have problems.
In regard to your allegation that it is a duty of both parties to a humanitarian crisis to discuss what to do about it... do you allege that Egypt is a party to the crisis because it shared a small border?
Does this mean that since Gaza has a mediteranean coastline, every other state with a mediteranean coastline, or a sea coastline is also a party to the crisis?
If the border is relevant, do you apportion degree of responsibility? Israel's border with Gaza is four times longer than Egypts, at least. Is Israel's responsibility four times greater? Or is it the same, whether its an inch or a thousand miles?
Does the degree of control over the borders matter? In which case, Israel completely controls Gaza's borders?
If you are arguing that Egypt should at least have had discussions with Israel on this matter... on what basis do you claim that Egypt has not had such discussions? I would argue that the proof is on you to support such an assertion, as you are making it.
As for Saudi Arabia, can you explain what it is that you specifically don't like about them? Have they invaded any countries lately? Are they interfering in the affairs of their neighbors? Are they carrying out internal genocides, ethnic cleansings, pogroms, gassing their own people, violating the Geneva conventions? What international law are they breaking? Etc. What exactly are you accusing them of that you think the world should be condemning them for or imposing sanctions or intervening?
Speculations about your motivations are not necessarily irrelevant. You are either foolish or dishonest. One is forgiveable, the other is not. One can be transcended, the other will only coarsen.
For what it is worth, I don't think you are participating in the conversation. I think you are playing games.
January 23, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In regard to your allegation that it is a duty of both parties to a humanitarian crisis to discuss what to do about it... do you allege that Egypt is a party to the crisis because it shared a small border?"
Yes; insofar as humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is concerned, Egypt and Israel both have a duty to do something about it because Egypt also controls one of Gaza's borders and is party to an agreement that the borders will be closed.
If you want to quantify the duty, I would say that Israel has a greater duty because they imposed the embargo. However, they are not uniquely responsible.
Valdron--I don't participate in meta conversations here where one poster, or set of posters, becomes the topic of the conversation. It's pointless. I asked a question at the top of the thread; you gave me your answer. That's it.
January 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic that you criticize the UN for not being tough enough on Apartheid South Africa considering the tight relationship between Israel and the Apartheid Regime.
January 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
South Africa wasn't what I was referring to--it was Saudi Arabia.
A lot of regimes were tight with South Africa, not just Israel. That said, Israel shouldn't have been. Nor should our country have been. But this is a larger question--how to engage with bad regimes.
January 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one who knows my feelings about the UN thinks I regard it as terribly useful, but I do believe that international law, especially enforced at a regional level, is useful.
We must, of course, assume O.J. Simpson is innocent of murder, since a jury of his peers did not find evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Following your logic, should no further murder prosecutions take place?
The Geneva Conventions are not enforced by the UN, but by other organizations. A better example, however, might be the generally accepted Rules of the Road for marine navigation. While various vessels normally have the right of way, that right is overridden if the vessel, which otherwise might be required to yield, is "more burdened" -- has less ability to manuever. For example, a vessel under sails only is more burdened than a power boat. A supertanker is more burdened than a destroyer.
In this unequal contest, the Israelis are far less burdened and have far more options for their own defense, against what would be called nuisance fire in almost any conflict. The Israelis do not appear to be using the doctrine of hot pursuit against rockets. They do not appear to be using radar or other systems to track back to the firing point. They do not appear to be using armed UAVs to surveill the area and take rocket crews under fire.
They do not appear to be using active defenses against the rockets, such as their modified Oerlikon Skyguard system -- they seem to have suspended the Nautilus/MTHEL system. While I'd have to see detailed maps, they don't seem to be using passive defenses, which range from underground buildings to simple chain-link fences that cause rockets to predetonate.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your post, Howard, especially with regard to who is burdened the most. I have said this myself. My point isn't that Israel shouldn't abide by international law or even the UN.
If you want to strip it down, my point is that the Jewish right to self-determination (Zionism, if you will) is a much more controversial precept than other people's right to self-determination. In fact, other people's right to self-determination is largely taken for granted--even though new countries have a tough time coming into existence.
Stripped down, a lot of the disagreement on these threads and beyond comes down to this basic distinction. Not every post; but a lot of them. Is a Jewish state fine or not fine; moral or not moral.
Thus, Israel's right to maintain a dominant Jewish character is pilloried as racist by any number of countries, whereas Saudi Arabia's right to maintain its Arab character, or Muslim character, or even Sunni character, is considered (perhaps a bit backward and not in line with Enlightenment principles) but unexceptional and to be accepted, essentially. Their business.
Howard, I don't mean to launch us into our disagreement around Jews and Zionism (not now anyway). You have argued against Jewish or Israeli exceptionalism. I would argue that the Jew has been made an exception by other peoples--as in what is accepted as unexceptional for others is considered exceptional and objectionable for Jews.
This basic imbalance, I feel, cuts across, or undergirds much of the discussion about Israel, the UN, etc. Again, I'm not accusing you of this position, just giving you more detail on where I'm coming from, given that my answers here have been terse.
January 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can agree to disagree about Zionism, although I believe, for example, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record, on human rights, than Israel. You won't see me making excuses for the Saudis or others that want a single-something (ethnicity, religion, etc.) state.
There could be a traditional and theological argument about Jewish suffering, as with the thirty-six just men. Nevertheless, no, I do not accept Israeli exceptionalism, for any reason; I do not accept Saudi exceptionalism for any reason.
That being said, I am hard on Israel simply because I believe Israel's actions reflect badly on the United States, and people attacked with US weapons tend not to regard the US as neutral. I operate on the principle that with a very few historic exceptions, nations have mutual interests, but alliances come and go. I do not consider Israel a useful or reliable ally of the United States.
Again, I would cite the Republic of China residents of Quemoy and Matsu as being less complaining under much, much heavier fire.
If a Jewish state wants to operate on its own, that's practical international law. If I ran a gunshop, and sold a weapon to a wild-eyed individual, I might be held responsible for crimes he commits. Cut off all US military assistance to Israel, and Israel can be all the Jewish state it pleases.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You won't see me making excuses for the Saudis or others that want a single-something (ethnicity, religion, etc.) state."
But somehow, the world community nor the left-wing of American politics are never up in arms about it. Nor are they up in arms when Jordan slaughters Palestinians or Syria does the same.
"That being said, I am hard on Israel simply because I believe Israel's actions reflect badly on the United States, and people attacked with US weapons tend not to regard the US as neutral."
I understand that and share that concern. But why, then, aren't we hard on SA or Egypt when they use our arms in various ways? I know YOU are and have been on these threads. (I'm only directing this to you, because you responded to my post. I'm asking a question.)
But very few others voice these sentiments in anything other than a perfunctory way--it never generates any heat.
Why not say, "Cut off all military aid to SA and Egypt and Jordan and they can be all the Muslim they want." After all, it was our presence in SA that first caught OBL's ire.
January 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In principle, I would agree with cutting off aid to those Muslim states. In practice, I come back to nations having interests, not allies. There is a US economic interest in Saudi Arabia, and I'm not completely convinced the US has no liberalizing influence on their human rights.
I once walked out of a job interview when I learned that the client was the Saudis. While I needed a job at the time, I suppose I had my principles. I'm willing to work with Israeli colleagues in the private sector, but I would not do anything that directly assisted the Israeli Defense Forces -- or the Saudi National Guard.
Bluntly, the Saudis are vicious to their own people. The Israelis spread the wealth, and I simply do not trust the Israeli government. With respect to the specific Gaza situation, I see, as a military analyst, Israeli politicians, and quite likely public opinion, playing a victim card. OJ's race card was no prettier.
Eventually, the Chinese Nationalist pulled their people out of the most heavily shelled areas. It might be sensible for Israel to move back, and yes, that would inconvenience people in a very narrow country. While I will explain the details if you like, let me say that if the Gaza Palestinians obtained longer-range weapons, those actually are easier to counter.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it is not the same. They share a border with Gaza. They can open it.
January 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they have.
You share a heart with the Palestinians. You should try opening yours.
January 23, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
No; they did not. It was blown open.
My heart--or yours--obviously has no affect on the situation.
However, I do open my wallet to Peace Now and other organizations working for a peaceful two-state solution. I also vote for those who I believe will try to help the two parties to achieve it.
January 23, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And meanwhile, you are content to let the Gazans starve and suffer for want of food, fuel and medical supplies?
You are absolutely correct. Your heart, if you have one, has no affect.
January 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you are just as content.
Maybe you can tell me what you're doing so that the Gazans won't starve?
January 23, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I donate money to actual humanitarian relief organizations, sponsor a palestinian family, and volunteer time and to charitable causes. I've provided assistance to refugees and immigrants, and assisted them in keeping in touch with their families.
January 23, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you give money to Palestinians through Christian relief organizations, you probably will have your charity by our government. Kinda puts a crimp on helping them, no?
January 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong.
It is the Arab coalition of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, & Lebanon that launched the 1948 war on Israel. The same nations spoke on behalf of what you term “Palestinians”, but really, they were Arabs – a part of the Ottoman Empire, and mostly associated with Trans-Jordan or Egypt (naturally). It is these nations that denied Resolution 181 to split the land into two entities; and as a consequence – the quest to destroy Israel had begun.
Imagine what an advantage the Arab coalition had in terms of resources and numbers; or don’t imagine, look it up and you’ll be shocked.
The objective was clear: annihilate the Jews. “Continue Hitler’s goal – he did half the work, we can do the other. “
Seems like an easy task, eh?
You point that Israel occupied Gaza in 67, and as such, Israel is responsible for everything that happens within. Israel occupied Gaza from Egypt which was at war with Israel. In addition, Israel occupied Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria who was also at war with Israel, and the West Bank from Jordan (also an actor in the war).
Is there such a thing as major wars being conducted without the element of occupation as a strategic move in winning the war? Enlighten me.
People tend to turn a blind eye to human history; the nature of colonialism and occupation. The latter being a result of war, the former being a result of exploitation and expansion. No matter where you're from Valdron, I assure you your home nation "occupied" or "colonized" the lands (or parts of it) from some entity at one point in its history.
It’s how humans operate and have operated throughout our history.
Israel's occupation of Gaza was not a unilateral move that stemmed from boredom (i.e. US war in Iraq), but rather a strategic move that stemmed from survival and wars.
The point really is that Israel was and is fighting for its survival, less so as the newly established Democratic nation of Israel, but more so as the home of Jews that are left on this planet.
To be clear for the slow ones:
Jews faced and still face extinction; a struggle to survive as an ethnicity, as a religion, as a culture, as a history, and as a nation.
This is hardly a reality for Muslims and Arabs which dominate the Middle East.
The horrors of the Holocaust have embedded Military Positivism in Israel’s grassroots as a means of survival. Absorb this point and realize that Israel is indeed unique; a nation fighting for survival against those who have sponsored what you call Palestinians. These very same nations surround Israel and dominate in terms of people and land/territory. Israel represents less than one 1% of ME lands and less than 1% of the ME population.
This is a reality that truly reflects a struggle to survive.
The bottom line - Israel screwed up by not giving Gaza back to Egypt and not giving the West Bank back to Jordan. This does not nullify the fact that they were responsible for the territories occupied from them.
The turning point was the creation and legitimization of the Palestinian identity - which with time bred its own internal leadership and representatives: PA --> PLO.
In other words, Egypt and Jordan gave their authority of the occupied lands to the Palestinians - and essentially to Israel.
I would buy your arguments only if the Palestinian "nation" showed signs of willingness to develop as a moderate and normal nation that respects basic freedoms: human rights, tolerance, freedom of speech, equality and liberty. Instead, the goal was to reclaim all the lands lost during the wars through an endless fight that has resulted in today's misery. Israel inevitably plays a role, but to put full blame on Israel is plain stupid. It also serves as an excuse for the incompetence of the Palestinian people to build a society, and for the ancient mindset and behavior adopted (i.e. suicide bombers).
Which brings me to the last point.
Today's emerging liberal movement is so hypocritical that it's beyond insulting. What happened to establishment and respect for human rights? Of freedom of speech? of tolerance for other religions and races?
It is the paradox of our day; so called liberals standing up for an occupied entity, just because they are occupied, with no consideration to history and context, while ignoring facts that characterize the entity as one with no regard to the essentials of liberal democracy.
To clarify for the slow ones; liberals today have created an alliance with radical Islam and extremists; promoting notions of no tolerance, abuse against women and minorities, no freedom of speech, no liberty, and a jihad to defeat the West!
Way to go.. keep up the good work!!
January 24, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Downrated for the utter stupidity of the penultimate paragraph.
January 24, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. A number of interesting points right up to here:
I am a little unclear how cutting off children's water and food in an act of collective punishment is compatible with the "essential of liberal democracy".
.
sPh
January 24, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to your comment about "Military Positivism", I must observe that in forty-plus years of reading military literature, this is the first I have run across the term. Checking a few sources, Google gives 7 hits on this apparently widely accepted term. Going to the most credible, from the Air University Review, November-December 1974, in an article by Adrian Preston, entitled "National Security As An Intellectual Challenge", Dr. Preston's usage is I'm sure I am impressed with the contribution of Victorian analysis to your argument. I might be a bit more impressed with something that came out of current research from the Strategic Studies Institute, one of the (mid-level) Staff or (senior-level) War Colleges of any major military power. I might be more impressed if this theory, not otherwise in the literature, came from a recognized military theorist -- perhaps Martin van Creveld, a world-respected Israeli scholar?
I might be more tempted to buy your offer if, based on its geographic location and lack of a need for global power projection capability, Israel was not a regional superpower, whimpering when faced with homemade light artillery.
The Soviets had a very good term in their strategic literature, the "correlation of forces". Given the correlation of forces on the Gaza front, if someone tells me that is an existential threat to Israel, I'm glad that we have some excellent new classes of atypical antipsychotic drugs. Risperidone is a good choice, considering that it can be given as a long-effect drug to those who might otherwise forget oral medication.
I shall be delighted to engage in a detailed discussion of the facts of the correlation of forces, military balance (to use the term of the Royal Strategic Studies Institute), or other reputable source, with respect to the relative power of Israel. While I'm not a Redleg, if the IDF still hasn't grasped how to use their AN/TPQ-36 or -37, or AN/MPQ-84 in a counter-rocket mode, I could help explain it, as well as the use of newer and complementary systems such as the LCMR and Rocket Launch Spotter.
Until then, keep playing the victim card. It won't accomplish much, but it may be good for idle hands.
Incidentally, I agree with you that, viewing the situation through a retrospectoscope, it indeed might have been better not to create a Palestinian state. That, unfortunately or not, is a reality, just as it is a reality that Israel has what is in the top five, and possibly top three, nuclear arsenals.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please learn some facts. Israel has been pressuring Egypt to limit the crossings into and out of Gaza. On the BBC this morning, they analyzed the agreements that Egypt and Israel had on closures.
I'm sure we will see Israel take control of all the border crossing soon...and then you will hope that none of us notice.
BTW, Egypt is acting: They are allowing the Gazans to escape Israeli's monstrous seige. Good for them.
January 23, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean Israel pressures...and Egypt just has to comply?
If Egypt had those agreements, then it's also in Egypt's court to undo them and allow aid in.
January 23, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If" Egypt had those agreements? Are you disputing the existence of a treaty between Israel and Egypt? Are you disputing the existence of bilateral agreements governing relations between these two countries? And the existence of agreements or understandings governing Egypt's deference to Israel in regards to Gaza?
If you acknowledge the existence of these Agreements, do you feel that Egypt should simply break them?
Would there be consequences from Israel for Egypt breaking its treaty?
You want a war?
January 23, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. I'm suggesting that agreements are two-way streets, particularly when humanitarian concerns are involved.
January 23, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
All agreements are two way streets, your comment is a meaningless evasion.
I put it to you again: Are you arguing that Egypt should have breached the terms of its Treaty with Israel, thus abrogating the Treaty and reassuming a state of war, in order to aid the Palestinians?
It's a simple question. The answer is either yes or no.
January 23, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a semantic issue really. When Israel builds nuclear weapons on the sly and lies to the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon Administrations in particular, they are allowed to keep them under "strategic ambiquity." When Iran starts a weapons program on the sly, it is characterized as clear evidence that they are liars and can't be trusted.
In short, if we like you, your lies are signs of nuance or sophistication. If we don't like you, you're just a liar.
Reexamine the above posts using this framework and they make sense.
January 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.. when Iran declares (in public) that Israel should be wiped off the map - one needs to associate this rhetoric with intention. Building a nuclear bomb would enable this goal to be executed.
Hitler wrote about his goals to eliminate the Jews years before coming into power. Once he had the power, what did he do?
People need to learn from history. Jews can't afford to be targeted again, because they might not survive this time around.
January 24, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gather, then, that you are not terribly familiar with the effects of nuclear weapons, particularly early-stage fission devices that can be mated to a missile? Production rates thereof?
Similar understanding, I'd assume, to the capabilities of PAC-3 and Arrow, with DSP warning, of the plausible number of weapons Iran can generate?
As far as "Iran" declaring in public, it was not the Supreme Leader, or anyone with any control over the Iranian military. Further, translation is an issue. Khruschev's remark "we will bury you" was an idiom closer to "we will outlive you and see your funeral", rather than "we will kill and bury you". In like manner, a number of Farsi speakers indicate the remark in question was not that dissimilar to the Russian idiom; an alternate translation is "Israel will vanish from the pages of history", which does not imply attack.
Personally, I'm more worried about Israel's control over real bombs than Iran's over weapons that do not yet exist, and, giving Iran the benefit of an immensely effective test and production process, cannot approach Israel's arsenal for many years.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 24, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No; I've answered that already.
Nor is it a meaningless evasion: If it is a agreement between two parties then both parties have some responsibility for the outcome and amending the agreement as they see fit.
As to quantity of responsibility, I've already answered that as well: Israel has the greater responsibility.
January 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then if your position is that you don't want a war and Egypt is not entitled to abrogate the Treaty, then you have no cause to complain about Egypt do you?
What have you got left? That Egypt has some obligation to engage in discussions with Israel to amend the treaty based on Humanitarian discussions?
Okay. Sure. How do you know that they're not and that they haven't been in the past? Are you privy to Egypt's diplomatic initiatives?
What would your response be if I told you that the Mubarak regime had broached the matter of Gaza on multiple occasions and always been turned down on security issues? What would your response be if I told you that they were raising the matter now and getting the cold shoulder?
Somehow, I don't think you'd blink. You'd just trundle out some other dishonest evasion and we'd play this game all over again, until once again, your farcical and slipshot argument leaves you pinned in a corner, and then you'd simply offer up another lie or evasion.
But perhaps I'm just being cynical.
In any event, since the greater responsibility lies on Israel, it strikes me as very clear that its up to Israel to initiate the discussions or negotiations with Egypt to amend the treaty to allow Egypt to engage the problem.
By the way, I would also like to reply to another of your knowingly dishonest remarks that the left wing gives a free pass to regimes like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistant in favour of criticizing Israel.
This is such a flagrant and outrageous untruth that really, I'm astonished.
Saudi Arabia has never been immune from criticism. Amnesty international, Human rights groups, women's rights groups, reformers and progressives of every stripe have criticized the Saudi's. They are blamed for torture, subjugation of women, religious repression and backdoor supporters of terrorism, corruption, you name it. Liberals and leftists have never forgotten or overlooked that 14 out of 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's.
Afghanistan's Taliban was ignored in the west, except by women's groups and leftists who continually condemned the brutality and sexual repression of the Taliban.
Frankly, a remark like that from you goes well beyond simple dishonesty and crosses strongly into the country of obnoxiousness.
January 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter - Israel gets the blame because not only have they sealed Gaza's border with itself(understandable) but have imposed a sea and air embargo on Gaza. The border agreements Israel has with Egypt mandate no commercial traffic, it all has to go thru Israel so Israel can collect the taxes (and embargo the Palestinian tax money).
The days of Israel keeping Gaza as an open air prison are over. While I believe the border will be tightened up, goods and services will now begin to flow thru Rafah.
Israel has been seriously dumb in the way they have handled Hamas. What are they going to do when 1,000,000 Gaza people march thru the fences into Israel? That is what is going to happen if Israel tries to keep this nonsense up.
January 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you expect Israel to handle Hamas?
Israel declared Gaza a hostile territory. 3,000 rockets will do that.
But any more action, such as an incursion or some sort of embargo will only spark international criticism, which will cause Israel to immediately shift policies.
In any case, shouldn't Hamas stop firing Rockets for the sake of their people?
Or have we alrady learned that Hamas has no concern for the Palestinians people. Neither does PA.
Shame for the poor Palestinians.
January 24, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume your reference is to the rockets rather than Hamas per se. In that case, through active and passive defense measures that, for some reason, Israel is more reluctant to use, while having more capability, than the Republic of China. I would also not have the slightest problem with Israeli armed surveillance that hit rocket teams with kinetic strikes.
If I were a Palestinian, and heard phrasing such as yours, and I further knew the lack of economic viability of a physically divided state, I might well be brushing up on design of considerably nastier weapons than are being fired from Gaza.
Hamas, and an appreciable number of Palestinians, may have concluded that their situation is hopeless. Like the kamikaze at the end of WWII, they may think that their death is inevitable, so they want to do as much damage as possible.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 24, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I don't understand why anyone would maintain cordial relations with people that are firing rockets at them and have elected a government that denies their right to exist.
January 23, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your right: Every elected Israeli government since 1948 have been committed to the right of Palestine to exist.
January 23, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
They DID agree to the partition.
January 23, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean they agreed to accept 55% of historic Palestine when they only occupied a fraction of that at the time?
And, let's be clear: Every Israeli government since 1948 has supported the creation of a Palestinian state? (None have, actually.)
More hasbara nonsense.
January 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that the Jews had the right to create a state on LESS than 55% of the land?
January 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Jews should have a homeland on land that they actually owned. (I don't know what that percentage of historic Palestine was, however. It may have been 30-45%, I don't know.)
In any event, I don't believe either side should be move the other people around to accomplish this goal, though.
January 24, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Historic Palestine"? What kind of nonsense are you blabbering about?
January 24, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for "correcting" me: the British actually adminstered the Zionist Mandate....er....no, the Jewish Mandate...no, no, that's not it. Oh, it was called the Palestine Mandate.
So who is blabbering?
January 24, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an unbelievable disgrace. As complete an indictment of Israeli policy as I've ever seen. Olmert meet Bloody Sharon. Sharon, Bloody Olmert.
January 23, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is quite amazing that MJ never bothers to note that these "Palestinians" continue to pour rockets into Israel. Nor does he ever wonder whether if the rockets stopped, the interdiction might also stop. In fact, whatever Israel does is always wrong; and whatever the "Palestinians" do is always right, or at least forgiveable, because it isn't the"Palestinians", it is merely Hamas, or whatever.
January 23, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
All right, herewith some Palestinian mistakes and/or enormities---falling for Sharon's provocation, not accepting crappy deals as better than nothing, not leaving settlers alone to block the highways. Allowing frustration to support rocket attacks, electing Hamas, not cleaning up Fatah. Supporting or tolerating terror bombings.
In general, not acting weak and in need, which might garner some sympathy from the more humane Israelis.
Now can you offer some Israeli mistakes or enormities? Or are they always right?
BTW, things were in fact stopped, very quiet, before Sharon stirred things up again. Stopping might be necessary, but it is proven to be not sufficient.
January 23, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have correctly rejected the narrative that "if only the Palestinians were responsible" the Israelis would treat them well. Forty years of occupation have provided irrefutable evidence against that claim. And yet the noise machine just keeps singing that off-key tune....
Recall Israel nevers misses an opportunity to obfuscate, delay, and hedge on final status. And the settlements just keep being buildt And every brick put in place is a silent witness to their utter lack of good faith.
January 23, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually been more like 70 years of occupation, Myth. Jordan occupied the West Bank and ran the government there pre-67.
January 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect. Jordan may have adminstered the West Bank but it did not "occupy" it in the way that Israel does. I know: I have relatives who live there. Some examples: no special "Jordanian only" roads, no nightly military invasions, er, "incusions," and no condemnation of Palestinian farmland for Jordanian "settlements." But if you need to believe that Palestinians were as miserable before 1967 as they are now, don't let me assauge your guilty conscience.
January 23, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would have a strong argument if everyone in Gaza either participated in firing rockets, or actively supported those who are doing it. Can you share some evidence that this is happening?
Otherwise, even though a terrorist gang may be firing these rockets, Israel runs afoul of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, banning collective punishment.
I have to take some exception to the phrase "pouring rockets". The Qassim rockets have the approximate power of a large hand grenade, GRAD and Katyushas have somewhat more.
The latter two, GRAD having replaced the Katyusha, are Soviet designs. The designers' idea of "pouring" is a bit different than this case: the artillery rockets were intended to be fired at an area, typically with a battalion of 18 launcher trucks, each with 30 rocket tubes (some had 40), or a single salvo of at least 540 rockets. After firing, the battalion would drive as fast as possible to avoid counterfire, reload, and launch another salvo. They would keep repeating this, which is rather different than the threat from Gaza.
In customary international law, if a country is attacked by a third party that the second country will not stop, there is a right of hot pursuit or of counterfire. It is expected that the level of reaction will be proportional to the threat of the attack.
There are passive and active defenses that Israel could be using, as well as sensors that could quite precisely identify the firing point. I don't see Israel significantly using defense, in part because the rocket fire is more of a political problem than a real hazard.
Let me put it this way: I've lived in Newark and DC, and there were areas to which I sometimes had to go, where there was a real risk of being mugged. I went anyway, with defense in mind. Given that this sort of rocket is inaccurate by design (i.e., they are intended to spread out when fired in a salvo of hundreds), I wouldn't assume my instant doom if I stood in the town square of an area being attacked by singly fired rockets.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, let's put this in the context of a government responsible for protecting it's people. Do you know of another government that would allow rockets to be fired at their citizens -- however inaccurate?
The history of Arab and Iran's government in response to terrorist attacks on their soil is swift, brutal, and anything but humane, and yes, collective punishment. Witness the Iranian marganilization of their Kurd and Arab minorities.
These attacks make it difficult to muster united support for Palestinians among world leaders. They would all, actually, react the same way Israel is reacting. Would they not?
January 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brook Dataski asks: "Do you know of another government that would allow rockets to be fired at their citizens -- however inaccurate?"
It seems to me that the Palestinian Authority has been utterly unable to counter continued Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian citizens. Far more Palestinian civilians have been killed in this conflict than Israeli civilians.
Does the Palestinian Authority have an air force? Does the Palestinian Authority have a navy? Does the Palestinian Authority have an army that can prevent foreign forces performing arbitrary military manouvres on its territory? Of course, not.
January 23, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
no Palestinians don't have any of these things, but my point is no other government would allow this either. Russia's complete demolishment of Chechneya is a good example, even though Russian civilian casualties have been limited in that conflict. I'm thinking like other heads of state will be thinking vis-a-vis this situation.
The question is how does firing rockets at Israel bring Palestinians any closer to their goal? Israel has already said they are ready to talk, so they already have the attention of Israel and the international community. So, what political goals, if any, are being achieved by firing dozens of inaccurate rockets every day into Israel?
January 23, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So, what political goals, if any, are being achieved by firing dozens of inaccurate rockets every day into Israel?"
Beyond self-esteem...none that I can see.
January 23, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Bui Diem, IIRC, while Ambassador of South Vietnam to the US, who said "Dignity. It is more important to us than your freedom."
Don't dismiss self-respect. It was politically unthinkable for Sadat to approach Israel until the Egyptian military had been recognizably effective in the Yom Kippur War, even though they eventually lost the advantage, and international intervention was necessary to save the Egyptian Third Army (actually a US corps-sized formation, if anyone cares).
While they were ineffective in defense, there's no accident that Noriega called his paramilitaries "Dignity Battalions."
To consider other cases where self-esteem was probably the only motivator towards the end, see the Battle of Chapultepec, and Los Niños Héroes. I won't use the Battle of the Alamo, because that sacrifice did have a strategic value. See the Battle of Camarón. Look at essentially all the Japanese-occupied islands in the Pacific, which were attacked by superior forces; Guadalcanal and Tarawa being the only ones where the outcome was not preordained.
Look at the WWI Battle of the Falkland Islands and the conduct of Admiral Graf Spee.
Why did Sublieutenant John Godwin, RNVR, being taken to the Nazi execution grounds, grab the leader's pistol, kill him, and die standing? Surely Godwin knew he could have lived a few minutes longer had he not taken the action.
Indeed, look at the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto, or the revolts at Treblinka or Auschwitz-Birkenau. What did they gain?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very rude to defeat all these specious arguments so easily....
January 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disparage dignity nor self-esteem.
But given a choice between self-esteem and continued hostilities and possibly getting a state...I'd choose the latter.
Godwin and the resistance didn't have that kind of choice.
The two parties to this conflict, I believe, have always had choices.
Moreover, this is a conflict where the two parties keep trying the SAME THING over and over with no new results. What's the point of continuing?
January 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The serious question would be "does the Palestinian in the street believe he might get a state?" If he doesn't, then your choice doesn't exist for him.
One Palestinian may say "Insh'Allah" about getting a state, and has convinced himself that it is his duty to strike back against People of the Book. If God wants him to have a state, he will get it.
A Palestinian more knowledgeable of history would observe that physically divided states have a very poor record of success, be they East and West Pakistan, or Germany and East Prussia. If Israel was willing to discuss fully ceding land that would make a contiguous Palestinian state, I'd find the argument of getting a state much more credible. The political geography that exists today, however, would not make much of a state. If I were a Palestinian, I'm not sure I would believe I had a viable choice.
I would not object if Israel made such an offer contingent on being able to install sensors in the Palestinian lands, sensors that would speed the detection and location of rockets, mortars, and other light harassing artillery. I'd want the output of these sensors made available both to an international monitoring group and the two sides. If Israel adopted rules of engagement that let it attack a rocket crew on sight, I would have no objection, and that is likely to be possible with armed unmanned aerial vehicles, not risking a crew.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your proposal on one condition: The Palestinians must be able to install sensors in Israel to monitor IDF activity.
Your posts are always thoughtful and decent. Unfortunately, you still accept the basic premise that peace will still allow a Zionist hand in a future Palestinian state. Basically, the Palestine will be subject to eternal Israeli control. That attitude, or basic supposition, must go.
January 24, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
good post. I had to look some of these up. Mythbuster -- take notes here -- Howard's posts are loaded with substance.
The only monkey in the wrench here is whether this is apples or oranges. If an enemy is charging your position and you're down to 5 guys to hold the ground -- that's resistance. If the enemy (israel) is publicly stating over and over that they want to sit down and talk about a settlement, and you lob offensive weapons that have no defensive value -- is that resistance? I say no. It's actually attempted murder.
January 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose that comes down to the credibility of the settlement offer. I don't think that Israel has much credibility with the Palestinians.
Did Saddam Hussein have credibility with the Bush administration? Or are you accusing the Bush administration of murder of Saddam Hussein?
January 24, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much evidence do you need? Had the wheels of Olmert's jet even retracted following Annapolis than the Israeli government announced they were increasing settlements in East Jerusalem (yeah, yeah, "natural growth" and other such wankage)?
Anyone who has followed this conflict closely sees the following pattern: a Period of Quiet. American pressure on Israel to stop building settlements. Israeli leads "defensive" operation into Palestinian territory. Palestinians respond. Israel claims they have no "partner for peace." More settlement construction.
January 24, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm perfectly capable of pointing out your flawed reasoning without including Wiki sites. Thanks for the advice, though.
January 24, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
To deal with the monkey wrench, there are gray areas like this in many wars. Let's take it down to the individual combatant level, as in the First World War, when machine guns were truly fearful weapons.
A German machine gun crew, in their trench, is firing on Allied troops, along with the riflemen in the same trench, and the artillery in the rear. In the event the Allies took the position, or at least got into the trench, the machine gunners (having no close-in weapon) would often raise their hands and surrender. More often than not, the Allies, who had just lost comrades to that gun, would kill the machine gun crew.
Could the crew have stopped firing at some earlier point, and not raised as much Allied anger? Of course, if one of their officers saw them do so, they might or might get a warning before being shot by their own side, and replaced at the gun.
That's a simplistic version of this more complex situation. You suggest the enemy is offering negotiations, but what if you do not consider them credible? For example, you might be a Palestinian knowing some history, and realizing that discontiguous states tend not to be viable. AFAIK, Israel ceding a strip of land between Gaza and the West Bank has never been on the table.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 24, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, India and Pakistan were doing it for years.
A good example is Russia and Georgia. Chechens used Georgian territory for attacks, and much bloodier attacks that anything in the Intifada. Putin was very irate, but he did not bomb crap out of Georgia, actually, there was not a single attack.
Another example is that for years and years USA was supporting what could be called freedom fighters or terrorists in various countries, like Angola, Nicaragua, Cuba, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. and surprise! nobody embargoed USA nor bombed USA for that reason. But if they could they should! Is it what Brook is saying?
January 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
January 23, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
React the same way? You mean the rest of the world would take land that doesn't belong to them?
January 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic considering that Brook somehow overlooks the fact that the United States has a long history of firing rockets and shells at countries at which it is not actually at war, with no expectation that these countries have any entitlement to respond in kind.
Examples?
Iraq, post-Gulf War, pre-occupation.
Pakistan, under Bush II.
Afghanistan, under the Taliban, during the Clinton era.
Sudan, under Clinton.
Lebanon, under Reagan.
Libya under Reagan.
Currently 'reasonable' people in America have been discussing the United States 'right' and 'need' to fire rockets or drop bombs on Iran without the need for all that 'war' stuff, which will undoubtedly kill thousands of innocent civilians, but for which no reprisal is expected.
By the same token, I'll note that Israel has carried out two military strikes on Syria, a country with which it is not in an active state of war.
In the past, its raids on countries it has not been at war with have included Iraq and places as far afield as Tunisia.
And I'd note that in the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein fired SCUDS at Israel, and the United States was adamant that Israel was not expected to respond.
Ergo, Brook is talking out his hat, once again...
January 24, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You comment is childish. And what is it with the quotes around Palestinians? Are you one of those racist, slack-jawed trolls who claims that Palestinians aren't a people?
The spirit of Kahane lives on....
January 23, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are "Palestinians" in quotes? Why not "Jews" or "Americans." Are "they" mythical "people."
January 23, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nor does he ever wonder whether if the rockets stopped, the interdiction might also stop.
Nor do you wonder that the rockets might also stop if the illegal settlements actually stopped--something that has been going on for over 30 years.
That is really one of the key matters, yet the settlements continue to expand, with the Israeli government's promises to stop them as equally valid as the Palestinians promises to stop the rocket attacks.
Chicken or the egg, not--it is easy to see that the illegal settlements predate both the rocket attacks and the suicide bombers. Thus, according to this view, it is the Israeli right wing Zionists that are causing the attacks, and by using current Israeli government logic, the entire Israeli population should suffer the consequences for the fringe group that holds so much power in its government--just like the Palestinians and Hamas, or whatever.
January 23, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Chicken or the egg, not--it is easy to see that the illegal settlements predate both the rocket attacks and the suicide bombers."
Good analysis. It is very much chicken and egg. But attacks on Israelis predate the illegal settlements...as in prior to 1967.
A lot depends, at bottom, on whether one is re-fighting the 1948 war or seeking redress of the occupation. It's not always easy to tell. And that is a big obstacle to an agreement, IMO
January 23, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your ultimate statement, however, I am specifically referring to today's imbalance of responsibilities, and the fact that the settlements are never mentioned as a counter factor to the cessation of rocket attacks.
I'm not sure what your point about attacks on Israelis predating the illegal settlements amounts to. Is this a rationale for building the settlements?
January 23, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No; it is not a rationale, nor an excuse for the settlements.
They must stop for there to be peace and, at this point, I'm pessimistic about that happening.
Yes; I agree that it's tit for tat; rockets for settlements.
I guess I tend to see the conflict in its long-term; its roots leading to its branches and leaves. So, in some ways, it's not just tit-tat. It's that neither side has come to the conclusion that they can't have everything they want. So, in effect, they keep re-fighting 1948.
January 23, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rockets for settlements? The settlements started long before the rockets. Have you heard of post hoc ergo proctor hoc?
January 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes; but the armed hostilities started long before the settlements.
No; I don't know the meaning of the Latin phrase.
If by "settlement" you mean Tel Aviv...or any Jewish state in the region... then we are re-fighting 1948. That isn't a way forward.
January 23, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If one wants to be completely accurate and go all the way back to the beginning, armed hostilities obviously started after the settlements and were originally initiated by the settlers, in the 20's and 30's.
January 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not entirely.
January 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So... if Zionists weren't colonizing Palestinian lands in the 1920's and 30's, Palestinians would have travelled to Newark or Vienna to take potshots at them?
Pull the other one.
January 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't my point.
Rather, I reject the parallel or equation between the settlers of the 20s and 30s and the settlers of today that your remark seemed to assume.
January 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
Israel has been consistently held to higher standards. Higher than any other nation, in fact - including liberal democracies of our present world.
Hypocrisy, ain't it bliss?
Just like ignorance.
January 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's that occupation working out for you?
January 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just food, for cigarettes, for ice cream, or just for a walk to see a new place or to see some family member or friend they haven't seen for many years. Or to breathe different air. This is so beautiful!
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 23, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intentional or not, your profile is set to not allow contact. I'll suggest, here, that your current submission in the queue is better as a blog post. Pfaff is always worth reading.
January 24, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just shows how ungrateful those Palestinians are, blowing up that nice wall that the Israeli government so thoughtfully provided!
I'm sure there will be another Press Release today from the Israeli govt. saying that there really is plenty of food, water and electricity in Gaza, and the Pals are just making it all up.
January 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Olmert has already announced today that Isreal will not allow a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Translation: Israel has been shamed into admitting that they have caused a humanitarian crisis and are now in PR damage control mode.
January 23, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, quite he contrary.
Haven't we learned who has freedom of press and who doesn't? Haven't we learned who has mastered PR trickery in convincing ignorant liberals that Israel is truly creating a humanitarian crisis? Remember the Jenin Massacre? Or the planting of dead babies to show the Tv what Israeli's are doing? The classical move of staging scenes with women and children crying.. give me a break.
Anybody that lives in the region knows this reality. Anybody that doesn't is simply clueless. Even those "housing" Palestinians.
Such ignorance.
Israel repeatedly warned Hamas that it will cut off power if the hundreds of rockets continue. Does Hamas care? No, it plays into their plans to escalate the conflict.
Blame Hamas for the people's misery, not Israel.
Next step will be a total incursion, and then you will cry even more.. blaming Israel even more.. just like Hamas wants you to do.
It's a war that Hamas can't win, though. Unfortunately for them, they aren't thinking rationally and as such, we'll witness more horrible incidents in the near future.
Who will suffer? The innocent people of hopefully 'soon to be' Palestine.
January 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think Mr. Ehurwitz has done a fine job of providing the Pseudo-Nazi point of view. Thank you sir.
January 24, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet. He has provided the "real" truth, which is too much for we mere mortals to accept. ("You can't handle the truth.")
His downplaying the Jenin massacre is instructive. As you will recall, Israel refused accesss to Jenin for days after the fighting because it did NOT commit a massacre. Of course, if it had committed a massacre, it might have refused access for days so that it could hide evidence of the crime. At best, that is an open question. But as Field Marshall Rumsfeld taught us, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," so the IDF is not getting the benefit of the doubt.
January 24, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blame Hamas for traveling back in time, and ghost writing the Geneva Conventions!
Dude, it's a war crime whether or not they 'warned Hamas.'
January 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think will happen next? Will Barak restore the siege with a bloody strife against tens of thousands of Palestinians lining the crossing? And if not, will it become a commercial crossing, and the end of siege? I think the first, but it will not be easy.
Olmert and Barak screw up, it seems.
January 23, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ronald Reagan said in his Brandenburg speech:
(my emphasis)
January 23, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite all the vitriol hurled at Israel here, Egypt was enforcing the blockade from their side as well, up until the fence came down, and for those who know the region's history, there is a good reason for that.
This is ultimately bad for the Palestinians long-term. It's not like Egypt is in any position to absorb hundreds of thousands of Gazans and provide for them. The ultimate Hamas strategy here would be to either drag Egypt into their conflict or bring Mubarak down, tear up their peace treaty and install a radical Islamic government.
Mubarak could be placed into a situation much like King Hussein of Jordan, when Yasser Arafat tried to overthrow his Jordanian government. The result was Black September and thousands of Palestinians dead, exiled, or on the run. Hamas is badly overplaying their hand. Arab governments will back Mubarak (and quietly Israel) against them.
January 23, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments reminds me of that line in Life of Bryan when the characters are on their way to crucifixion and one of them acts up and is told, "You're only making it worse for yourselves."
Smell the coffee. It can't get any worse. The genius of this move is it exposes the misery of Gaza to the whole world.
Hamas has played exactly the right hand: Show the "morality" of Mubarek's Egypt and Olmert's Israel to the entire world.
God be thanked!!!!
January 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The world already knows. The tragedy is we want a better future for Palestinians than they seem to want for themselves.
January 23, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is "we"? Surely you are not talking about Israel, unless you have a very wry sense of humor.
January 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
i mean the majority of Americans and world citizens who would like to actually see a Palestinian state -- unlike Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and other Islamic versions of the KKK that want anarchy and chaos.
January 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The majority of the world's citizen also opposed the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation long before Hamas even existed. Israeli apologists always falsely affirm the consequent, i.e., they claim the occupation was made necessary by Palestine freedom fighting, while Palestinian freedom fighting actually was made necessary by theIsraeli occupation.
January 24, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Tear down that wall!
If Abbas was a real leader of the Palestinian people he would be leading an army of Arabs armed with chisels and hammers that would proceed to dismantle The Wall. Instead he wastes his time posing for photos with Olmert and Bush who will pay him hundreds of millions for keeping his nose clean.
January 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
it could also be an Israeli plot to empty Gaza, then swoop in and take it back and resettle it. Don't put it past em.
January 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink