Gaza: It's Time To End the Blockade In Exchange For An End To The Kassams PLUS Steve Rosen Gets A Job
It has become more and more obvious that the Gaza war made no sense. Hamas,keeps firing Kassams. One hit a schoolyard on Saturday. On any other day hundreds of kids would have been out there playing.
And, of course, the war itself took 1200 lives, 400 children. Olmert said that his response to the Kassams would be disproportionate and he kept his word. It was.
All those dead (mostly innocent) and the Kassams keep coming.
On the diplomatic front Hamas is in better shape than ever. Tony Blair was in Gaza today for the first time. John Kerry, Keith Ellison, and Brian Baird were all there last week.
I would be very surprised if the Obama administration does not open some kind of dialogue with Hamas soon, if it hasn't already. And I am certain it is pushing for a Fatah/Hamas unity arrangement.
If Israel's intent was to eradicate Hamas, the war failed miserably.
What now?
America should join Egypt in implementing a simple exchange: an end of the Israeli blockade in exchange for an end to the rocket fire. That was the original deal last year but Israel pocketed the cease-fire and did not end the blockade. That is why the cease-fire collapsed.
Prisoner exchanges should follow that basic deal, along with overall negotiations But ending the Kassam fire and the blockade that is starving Gaza has to come first. For real, this time. Fully binding on both sides.
Sounds crazy, I know. But I think Obama, Clinton and Mitchell can do it.
If they don't, there will be a second round of war. It will fail too. But innocents will die for nothing and we'll be right back where we are now.
Rocket science this ain't.
AND HERE IS TODAY'S ANNOUNCEMENT THAT STEVE ROSEN NOW HAS A JOB (it clearly gives him a lovely perch from which to smear Obama appointees).
I am not going to comment on any aspect of the job announcement (the things stated, and not stated) but I will say that his career is described in a rather amusing way considering where it led!
MJ - is it just me, or is the current Israeli government (and the one likely to follow shortly) showing a distinct inability (or disinclination) to learn from experience?
March 1, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what they say. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
And both Israelis and Palestinians do learn from experience, but usually the wrong lessons.
March 1, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally! An American links the rocket fire to the blockade.
Let in the macaroni! Who knew the IDF was afraid of pasta.
March 1, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you explain the fact that the Hamas rockets pre-dated the blockade? They've been going on since well before the Gaza withdrawal in 2005
How do you explain the fact that rockets were routine until recently over Israel's internationally recognized northern border with Lebanon?
Soon or later you have to confront the fact that there isn't a concession that Israel could make that would appease the fanatics of Hamas.
March 2, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad Says: "How do you explain the fact that the Hamas rockets pre-dated the blockade? They've been going on since well before the Gaza withdrawal in 2005."
The strip has been under a general closure since 2005. Since last fall the IDF has increasingly cut the amount of food allowed in.
Brad says: "How do you explain the fact that rockets were routine until recently over Israel's internationally recognized northern border with Lebanon?"
No sequitur. BTW, the Zionists continuously violate Lebanese airspace and the border. However, if you are a Zionist child killer and thief, commonly referred to as an "IDF soldier," you don't consider violating Arab land as inappropriate.
Brad says: "Soon or later you have to confront the fact that there isn't a concession that Israel could make that would appease the fanatics of Hamas."
Fanatics? The polite term is "Israeli voter."
March 2, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have learned from experience, Old Grouch. The Israelis have learned that no matter what they do, the United States will never respond with more than a slap on the wrist, or with more calls for elaborate, drawn out, impotent, window-dressing "peace processes". So they have concluded that they can keep doing whatever they want in the West Bank and Gaza, and elect whatever kind of government they want.
Now maybe they will finally go too far, but you can't say that their conclusions run contrary to previous experience.
March 1, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really never made any sense MJ. There is an old saying that goes 'what doesn't kill you will make you stronger' and it applies here. Unfortunately Hamas is as strong, if not stronger, than ever.
I would say the Obama Administration has already opened a dialogue with Hamas based on Sec'y of State Clinton's proposal of US aid to help rebuild Gaza. What will be the response from the Netanyahu/Lieberman government is the big question.
It looks like it will come down to one of two choices for Israel. Either make peace or kill 'em all. I hate to put it in such a harsh, and what I consider to be offensive, way but that is the reality of it.
March 1, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 1, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too stupid to live? You're joking, right? Employing hyperbole?
March 1, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are indeed a racist asshole.
March 1, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racist assholes would actually be insulted by the comparison.
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, whenever I read one of Shooter's messages, it's like my computer is taking a sh*t on the screen.
March 1, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations! You have hit the asshole trifecta with this post: stupid, delusional, and racist. I do hope that you realize that your logic applies equally well (or perhaps even better) to the Israelis.
March 1, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to you three, yes Palestinians are too stupid to live.
This is about religion. (Racist? Are you to stupid to live as well?) At some point, Palestinians are going to have to accept Israel's right to exist, and stop trying to kill Jews. Hamas is the aggressor here.
Don't like it? Too bad, try and explain to religious fanatics the folly of attacking someone militarily superior by orders of magnitude. Hell try explaining to Hamas that it's a bad idea to kill Fatah, their own countrymen.
Hamas is by definition irrational. Hamas is violent. Palestinans routinely slap away real chances for peace, and as a result are rounded up into a small area where they can do less harm to others. Why anyone wants to stick up for confirmed liars and genocidal maniacs is beyond me, but stupid can be found everywhere. Meanwhile Darwin continues on. Oh well.
March 1, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Avigdor Lieberman to TPMCafe ....
March 1, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Liberman's too high brow. Shooter's been in mourning since God threw his hero, Meir Kahane, into the eternal garbage bin.
March 1, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Limbaughian in that he delights in offending and getting a reaction.
March 1, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
By his perverted misconstruction of Darwin, the shooter off of his motormouth is also saying in effect that the six or so millions of Jews killed in the Holocaust were "too stupid to live."
His bigotry nonetheless is a typical counterexample to MJ's statement that the "Gaza war made no sense." For civilized people, it certainly did not. But for bloodthirsty maniacs and politicians who kiss up to them, it did. That indeed is ultimately why it happened.
As America ought not to continue effectively enabling this endless killing for the sake of killing, it is to be hoped that the US Congress comes to its senses, and finally endorses a civilized policy along the lines Mr. Rosenberg suggests.
March 2, 2009 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah here's a good response to dissect...
Excuse me, did the Jews there shoot rockets at Germans like Hamas does today? Did the Jews there call for genocide, like Hamas is today? No. In fact Hamas' direct correlation is Hitlerian Germany. What is the matter with you? Why are you defending aggression by the Palestinians?
No sense? So you're OK with the attempts to kill Jews by Gazans? How many Jews have to die to make it worthwhile to try and stop the rockets? 10? 100? 1000's? Pick a number.
The reality is that you are enabling Palestinians to continue the quest to eliminate Israel, by encouraging the belief they are right to kill Jews. Once again, what is the matter with you?
March 2, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing is the "matter" with me. I do not care, however, for your paranoid delusions and stupid lies. I never said Palestinians were "right to kill Jews."
March 2, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you arguing with Mr. Genocide? When you engage him, you're only delaying his visit to Meir Kahane's shrine. And that makes him testy.
March 2, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In order to expose him (e.g. to expose the connection between his callous bigotry and the fog of AIPAC-and-worse disinformation, fearmongering and trickery that has blanketed America's public discourse for far too long).
March 3, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because Blair is in Gaza means nothing... He's all talk.
Blair in 2006:
You think Blair will stand up to Netanyahu? The guy who can't even bring himself to admit Palestinians have any rights?
I feel a dog and pony show coming on. Netanyahu is laughing -- having his Bring It On Moment knowing Europe and the US can do nothing -- He's got pals in the Congress that will make sure of that.
March 1, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about Blair's statement that you take issue with? That there has to be a negotiated settlement or that the parameters would be something along the lines of 67?
March 1, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both!
...that Blair has sat on his boney arse and done nothing but blow smoke.
March 1, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As everyone not drunk and delusional on the Neocon Likudnik Koolaid from the beginning, this war was doomed from the outset. I certainly hope that Obama has seen the light, and there is reason to believe he has. Neither we, nor the
Israelis and Palestinians can keep going the way we have.
March 1, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
End the blockade without a successful international monitoring system, and Hamas will start importing Iranian Katushas en masse, and eventually start using them. Then the last Gaza incursion will seem like kids playing with bottle rockets; the death toll will be much higher on both sides.
Israel needs to talk to and recognize Hamas, but Egypt needs to let EU or Turkish troops into Sinai to monitor shipments into Gaza to screen for weapons. Where is the international community when it is needed?
March 1, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Where is the international community when it is needed?"
Quietly cowering to the supremely powerful supporters of Israel, which Israel has been quite aware of since way before the Gaza Massacre.
Who's going to stop 'em?
March 1, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Quietly cowering to the supremely powerful supporters of Israel..."
Who's drunk the koolaid now?
I think it's a pretty near certainty that when a line becomes common wisdom, it's time has already passed.
You're creating a boogey man.
March 2, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm with Dan K and billwalker on this.
Those who prophesize that Israeli policy is "doomed to failure" have scant evidence for that certitude.
Sure if the world were just and justice prevailed I would be on the "doomed to fail" bandwagon, but there is scant historical evidence for that.
People say that we—the USA—are the natural leaders of the world because we have moral standing that no other power has. That moral standing has been severely eroded and will continue to erode, but we will still be the default superpower for some time. However, in the long run we stand to lose that position. The real question is whether globalization will usher in an amelioration of the “law of the jungle” in international affairs or whether we as a race are doomed to eternal strife.
March 1, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the strife of the past century has occurred because power was and is much too consolidated.
The same international bankers funded both sides of most major wars going back to WW1.
Strife is a big part of human nature, but the species is much better served by healthy checks and balances to power.
Russia, Iran, and Venezuela seem to be the last standing opponents of what George Soros recently labeled, "the prevailing world order."
Think of how much healthier the U.S. would be if several parties could be competitive in presidential and congressional elections.
If the same interlocking establishment controls the entire world, with no checks on its power, you get the Lucifer Effect on a massive scale. There may not be as many international wars, but the people at the top would turn the vast majority of the population into indentured servants bordering on, and often actually becoming, slaves.
Humans are greedy by nature, so conflict is inevitable. The two possibilities are greed opposed or greed unopposed.
It is probably better for majority of humans that power be decentralized as a result of this global crisis, as opposed to seeing power become entirely centralized in the form of a global currency and global financial institution. Nothing good ever comes from a colossal consolidation of power, at least not in the long term.
To be more specific, yes we are doomed to eternal strife, but it can be minimized by diluting power and authority, and increasing cooperation.
More checks and balances that way when somebody (like Israel) decides to go rogue.
March 1, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as a matter of getting clear about what you are saying and what I'm saying, the observation has been made since ancient times that what causes strife is factions: the more factions the more strife. While I don't disagree with you for the need of checks and balances which are comprised of competing interests, I don't think global unity must lead to the Lucifer Effect any more than a world awash in competing factions checking and balancing each other will. They might just be infernos of a different kind.
A thorny issue indeed!
March 1, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, a thorny issue. Military war between easily identified parties vs. equally or more damaging economic/class warfare that can be disguised as incompetence, natural disaster, or terrorism.
I don't know if you saw the video footage of Tom Delay visiting the Mariana Islands, but he praised the sweatshop managers, and said that the economic order of the Mariana Islands was a model that the Republican party was trying to bring to the United States.
That is the natural desire of the rulers of any entity in most cases. So even if this utopian global entity were created and sounded great (as described by Brian Williams, Scarborough Country, and Wolf Blitzer), it would only be a matter of time before it was controlled by malevolent forces, and with an unopposed global entity, billions of people would suffer unimaginably.
Think about Israel, which has never really had its power over the Palestinians checked. The more power that they've gained, the more land they become greedy for. The country is now so consumed with greed for coveted land of the powerless Palestinians that non-exploding, glorified bottle rockets landing in rural areas are seized as a good enough excuse to wipe out or otherwise force out the entire population of native refugees.
If Israel's power had been kept in check better, the country would not be as consumed by greed. This is just human nature, and humans can rationalize anything.
Give me 10 billion dollars, and it would probably just be a matter of time before I argued sincerely for a lowering of taxes for the top tax bracket, the abolition of the estate tax, and the elimination or privatization of Social Security.
That's just how we humans are, and the creation of a global entity raises the stakes exponentially.
I'd rather see the opposite, where poor countries refuse to continue paying their predatory interest rates to the World Bank and IMF (for loans taken out by corrupt predecessors), the weakening and breakup of the megabanks, and a strengthening of national sovereignty everywhere.
There's no solution to man's inclination toward greed and conflict, but it can be minimized with checks and balances.
I can't even think of how Americans can take back the power seized by the creation of the Federal Reserve, so the idea of real checks and balances in a global entity completely and thoroughly escape me.
I strongly believe in global unity in a general sense, but the people who would end up controlling a global entity could be working toward peace and global unity now, and they very clearly are not. Human nature.
March 2, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give me 10 billion dollars, and it would probably just be a matter of time before I argued sincerely for a lowering of taxes for the top tax bracket, the abolition of the estate tax, and the elimination or privatization of Social Security.
Mean like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Gates pere?
Not.
You're really getting high on your own paranoia.
March 2, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about Israel, which has never really had its power over the Palestinians checked. The more power that they've gained, the more land they become greedy for.
Is that why they gave back Sinai?
March 2, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Gaza. And substantial majorities favor giving up the West Bank in exchange for peace, but no matter.
And of course, we can never take back the "power" ceded to the federal reserve. Say what?
Please note that billwalker has in previous threads pushed the Israel - 9/11 connection. Now, he would probably say that my dismissal of the purported linkage is evidence of my niave worldview. I suspect most reasonable people would conclude otherwise. At least those of us who take our cues from the freemasons.
March 2, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once they get started, certain theories cannot be stopped. In part because logic can never unravel--or substitute--for what actually happened. Chomsky made this point with regard to making sense of how the buildings fell.
His point was that, even in a highly controlled experiment, any number of unexpected and hard-to-impossible to explain things happen. How much more so in a massive event like 9/11 where who knows how many factors are interacting in multiple ways in uncontrolled fashion.
So lots of anomalies are almost certain to crop up. But it doesn't make sense to try and superimpose logic on what happened afterwards, because the event wasn't a controlled experiment in which we could have predicted what "should" have happened.
Doesn't mean Israel wasn't involved--and as long there is that "logical" possibility, there will be those scouring the event for evidence "pointing" in that direction. It's JFK all over again. Unless someone, at some point, comes forward and says, "I did it and here's how it was done" and solves the mystery once and for all, these theories will multiply forever.
I guess the closest we have to someone like that is OBL.
March 2, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
America should join Egypt in implementing a simple exchange: an end of the Israeli blockade in exchange for an end to the rocket fire. That was the original deal last year but Israel pocketed the cease-fire and did not end the blockade. That is why the cease-fire collapsed
But why did Egypt, at that time, join America in enforcing that blockade by re-locking the back door to Gaza after the successful breech by Hamas into Egypt?
Why should Hamas trust any assurances other than those given "at the highest level", as they say.
And the keys to Gaza's back door must be in United States hands, so that there can be no question who is responsible for the babies who die from shit ridden water.
March 2, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
the keys to Gaza's back door must be in United States hands
Seems like Egypt just gave one of those keys away without asking permission? I dunno, I just happened to come across that story while reading your comment at the same time, strange....
March 2, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 2, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's been some confusion over that $900 million figure.
While the BBC news site implies the $900 million will be going "to help rebuild the territory after Israel's three-week offensive, other news reports are saying that Hillary Clinton has said she will only be allocating $300 million for reconstruction in Gaza. A very small drop in the bucket, the rest will go to the West Bank.
Also, we should remember, at this stage anyways, Israel still has not agreed to let 'any' reconstruction go ahead in Gaza -- let alone enough humanitarian aid.
I guess it's going to be a 'watch this space' --waiting to see just how 'even-handed' Clinton will be?
March 2, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: linked text should read $300 million for 'Humanitarian' in Gaza.
The talk of 'reconstruction' had been previously used.
March 2, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, unfortuantely, to add more confusion... there are news reports that the $300 million will be going to "humanitarian aid" not "reconstruction"? Guess she expects Israel hasn't stopped bombing yet.
She really needs to update her DoS website... to tell us what 'she' really means.
March 2, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
from the A.P. article on Clinton at the meeting, further cited in my reply below:
The intent is so obvious here, just like in the other things cited: strengthen the Palestinian Authority, weaken Hamas. That IS the program, it's so clear.
How many ways does he have to express that in words and hires and actions before people will believe it? The most radical thing you're probably going to see is an attempt to peel the more moderate away from Hamas and over to a P.A. coalition, and they're probably looking at trying to squeeze the more radical rulers in Iran somehow in the same process (don't forget Iraq is also a consideration with that.) I wouldn't be the least surprised if Obama agrees with the commenter here who keeps saying that Pakistan is much more important than Israel/Palestine.
Obama just continues in everything he does to show himself in foreign policy as to the Mideast and Southeast Asia to be first and foremost, anti-Islamic-radicalism. In his inaugural address, who did some think he was talking to when he said "unclench your fist" and "we will not apologize for our way of life"? I don't think "Zionists" the correct answer, and I would suggest to those who think so to read his speech to AIPAC again and to take it literally this time.
March 2, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly reiterating virtually everything Obama has been saying for months, once again, despite what many on M.J.'s threads seem to be lead to believe by his suggestive posts,
the Obama administration I/P program = anti-Hamas, quite sympathetic towards Israel, and negative on Iran:
March 2, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will reiterate that there has been much speculation that the talkie talk stuff is just for show. I wonder if there will be fallout from Clinton's remarks as they signal that nothing has changed except the wardrobe. I suspect the leaking "US official" was Obama's real Mideast Monitor, Daniel Shapiro. He's along for the ride.
Haaretz has an article with Israel's demands....er..."red lines" on what US FP on Iran should be. A useful guide for those of us who will be looking for American adoption of the Israeli requirements:
" Israel plans to present U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a series of "red lines" it wants Washington to incorporate into its planned dialogue with Tehran about Iran's nuclear program.
Clinton arrived in Israel last night and will meet with various Israeli officials Tuesday.
The red lines were jointly formulated by the Foreign Ministry and the defense establishment, and Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has been briefed on them. The document recommends that Israel adopt a positive attitude toward the planned U.S.-Iranian dialogue, but proposes ways of minimizing what Israeli officials see as the risks inherent in such talks. Its main points are as follows:
1. Any dialogue must be both preceded by and accompanied by harsher sanctions against Iran, both within the framework of the UN Security Council and outside it. Otherwise, the talks are liable to be perceived by both Iran and the international community as acceptance of Iran's nuclear program.
2. Before the dialogue begins, the U.S. should formulate an action plan with Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain regarding what to do if the talks fail. Specifically, there must be an agreement that the talks' failure will prompt extremely harsh international sanctions on Iran.
3. A time limit must be set for the talks, to prevent Iran from merely buying time to complete its nuclear development. The talks should also be defined as a "one-time opportunity" for Tehran.
4. Timing is critical, and the U.S. should consider whether it makes sense to begin the talks before Iran's presidential election in June.
The red lines were approved by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak at a meeting with senior defense officials last week. All three plan to raise them at their respective meetings with Clinton Tuesday.
Within the defense establishment, the majority view, led by chief of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin, is that Israel should regard the U.S.-Iranian dialogue as an opportunity rather than a threat. The minority view, spearheaded by the Defense Ministry, is that the dialogue entails grave risks."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068177.html
The last para is to me, the most significent as once again, it demonstrates the division of opinion between those with the most direct knowledge of the situation vis a vis Iran and the dumbf~@% politicians ie the "Defense Ministry".
The article concludes with the interesting news that the Israelis will be pressing Hillary et al about what in the hell IS Dennis Ross supposed to be doing re Iran, exactly?
Goooooooooooood question.
March 2, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
nothing has changed except the wardrobe
Do you mean nothing has changed from Bush?
Whether you do or not, I myself don't see any change in general goals (as I said, anti-Hamas under an umbrella of anti-Islamic radicalism, sympathetic to Israel, negative on Iran) but more of the tinkering with the methods.
That is right on the front page of my New York Times today:
This leak is obviously purposeful in order to aid all of Hillary's further meeetings.
(More background for others interested: my thread on Obama foreign policy starting with Joe Biden's speech in Munich, which includes comments from Lally.)
Remember when several here were up in arms about Obama not speaking out more loudly about Gaza between the election and the inauguration, saying "there's one president at a time"? I think that's because, big picture wise, he doesn't differ that much with Bushies, only on the "go it alone" cowboy method of invading Iraq, thinking you don't need Russia or "old Europe," etc. He's trying to bring it back to a place like of Bush I, forming a large world coalition against the bad guys.
(And I would like to reiterate: Israel is not considered one of the bad guys. When it comes to the Mideast as well as Southeast Asia, he doesn't appear to disagree very much with the Bushies about who the bad guys are. The "Obama's going to be more even-handed" meme one often sees from M.J. et.al. very much appears to be false.)
March 3, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has made coalitions with allies a major part of his process and the missile shield trade-off stuff was also mentioned by the bushies.
The problem is that we need the Russians more than they need us. The article didn't mention the nervousness about Russia supplying Iran with a defensive anti-missile system that could be a serious liability to US/Israeli air attacks.The Great Game continues....
As for my "wardrobe" crack...basically agree w/Marc Lynch that nothing coming out of Hillary's mouth couldn't have come out of Condi's. This reality is finally starting to dawn in the MSM.
I've been contending for awhile now that Obama et al are listening to the voices offering advice based on Roger Cohen's Green Zonism-based versions of invented realities...which includes the childish goodguys vs badguys characterizations. No change so far. Perhaps abysmal failure will force it, eventually, but so far, it appears that the Obama team thinks tweaking things around the edges will suffice.
March 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
O shit O damn.
To add to my already dismal asessment of the Obama FP team, Politico reports that Madame Secretary is tasking two hardliner Syria-haters to represent USGOV views to Assad:
"The two officials going soon to Damascus are Jeff Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, and Daniel Shapiro, a National Security Council aide responsible for the Middle East. Both are accompanying Clinton on her trip to the Middle East."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19550.html
Dennis Ross as whatever re Iran and these two outright enemies of Syria are signaling that our ME/Iranian policies of engagement are deliberately designed to fail; then what next?
March 3, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a proposal: End the blockade without any - any - preconditions. Stop using the Gazans as pawns on a strategic chessboard. And if that's too much to accept, then no more pontificating about everyone else's moral failures.
March 2, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a counter-proposal: End the rocket-fire from Gaza without any - any - preconditions. Stop using Israeli lives as pawns on a strategic chessboard.
Or is Hamas aggression just fine and dandy with you?
March 2, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
BradtheDad,
You could also have left the second sentence intact, re: "Palestinians lives."
March 2, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, a half dozen Israelis died vs. 1200 Palestinians.
Israel is (rightly) up-in-arms about Shalit but the Palestinians lost 400 kids, not soldiers, kids.
It is not the peace side that plays games with human lives.
It is the status quo crowd which will justify the death of any Palestinian kid by saying (1) it was n accident (2) Hamas was hiding in the school (3) even if they weren't, they might have been (4) Palestinians don't love their kids the way Israelis love theirs.
Like clockwork. Same old, same old. So utterly unhuman.
So utterly un Jewish.
March 2, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're talking about Hamas, MJ. Not the Palestinians, writ large. But you knew that. Same old same old, indeed. Any excuse to slam us as "unhuman... un Jewish."
March 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you do support the murder of 400 Palestinian children. That's pretty inhuman.
March 2, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah c'mon. Where do you get that?
March 2, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
From here, Tintin:
"We're talking about Hamas, MJ. Not the Palestinians, writ large. But you knew that. Same old same old, indeed. Any excuse to slam us as "unhuman... un Jewish."
March 2, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have to unravel that one for me...
March 2, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ focused on how the "status quo crowd " would always justify the killing of Palestinian children. Bar replied with the childish charge that MJ was implying that Israelis were "inhuman." Bar's reaction implicitly validated the status quo argument, i.e., that the killing of 400 Palestinian children was acceptable and not a proper subject of criticism, so my comment followed:
"Well, you do support the murder of 400 Palestinian children. That's pretty inhuman."
Not that hard to unravel.
March 2, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bar replied with the childish charge that MJ was implying that Israelis were "inhuman."
Well the exchange, on re-reading it, is a bit cryptic I'd say. But off-hand, I think Bar is complaining that MJ is accusing HIM and AG of being inhuman and un-Jewish.
Bar is pretty clearly NOT a supporter of the "status quo," certainly not based on what I've read, and I've read quite a lot. Nor could he in any way be construed to be a supporter of killing 400 children.
He mostly complains about what he feels is MJ one-sided presentation of the conflict.
March 2, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They will believe whatever they need to validate their narrow bigotries, Tintin. To mythbuster, like our "pro-life" friends, I will be a babykiller. To MJ, like the minyans of Beit Podhoretz, I will be "inhuman and un Jewish." Narrowminded bigots inevitably become that which they hate, because little else can fit in their tiny minds anymore. I believe I need to take a lesson from bslev's example, and start avoiding MJ's little circle jerk.
March 3, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bar:
I come by this because you are a poster I loyally follow. I do post here now and then and I cannot tell you what the right thing is to do. But all good people, all genuine people, all people who have posted here long enough to know where you come from, know that you have been treated inappropriately and that anyone who thinks you to be a bigot is full of shit, MJ included. I don't really care what Mythbuster writes about you and neither should you. The guy is all about one-liners and zingers and he has spoiled more threads with his zest to win arguments with quickies than you can count. But MJ is a real person, representing an organization that both you and I see promise in. It's a fucking shame, and it's his loss and the loss of every thinking person who is interested in I-P issues on here, if you should choose to abandon these threads to the knee-jerk, parchesi playing, showroom dummy circle jerkers who see no hypocrisy in calling you a racist, while at the same time convulsing at even the slightest hint that someone is suggesting, dare I say it, anti-semitism in this or that comment about "zionist bankers" or whatever. Sheer fucking hypocrisy.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
March 3, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the talmudic defenders of the circle jerk, I have no problem equating accuasations of indifference to dead chiildren and "unjewishness" to an allegation of racism. I have the misfortune sometimes of using what I know from living in the real world, and I also know a shitload about semantics after practicing law with for almost twenty-five years.
March 3, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, from what I have seen so far (as further presented in my other comments on this thread,) Obama is following a "Bar Kafka/bslev/Tintin/ArmchairGuerilla" Mideast policy. Perhaps with a touch of "Brad the Dad" added in. If you guys are "inhuman and un-Jewish," so is Obama.
March 3, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I would disagree with this.
I favor talking with Hamas. Not because I'm "pro-Hamas" in any sense of the word, but only because they are the force in Gaza and therefore must be engaged in some way.
This is not a moral judgement on my part, only a realistic one.
I've held the same sort of view about Cuba for a long time. The best way to weaken an adversary is, in effect, to "co-opt" him by engaging him.
Talking with Hamas, or even Hezbollah, doesn't mean you lay down your arms and take whatever they dish out. But that's the way opponents of talking often make it seem. No. Talking with Hamas gives them LESS wiggle room with their own people because if they don't come across in negotiations THEIR people lose patience with THEM. Then their power starts to shrivel.
And that's true of world opinion, including about the other Arab states. Right now, the Arab states seem reasonable. But the surest way to flush out whether they ARE reasonable is to give them a chance to be reasonable...and that requires talking.
But again, none of this, IMO, means leaving Israelis vulnerable.
March 3, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops, sorry, tintin, move it more over to a more "Brad the Dad" style policy, then. :-)
March 3, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't have a fundamental problem with opening up contacts with Hamas (on some level and to some extent), and certainly not with the proposition that the blockade be lifted in exchange for a complete cessation of the missiles (the latter of which, by the way, is the position favored by the IPF). In short, I guess, contrary to the Obama Administration's current position, I would not condition contacts with Hamas on the organization's agreement to recognize Israel, as I agree with those who say that that should be the outcome of a negotiated settlement. In the long run, I tend to believe that the Palestinians in the aggregate have no interest in the type of sharia-based society favored by Hamas, and as a corollary I believe that a free and independent Palestine would spit out Hamas and its more radical fellow travelers in a second. One problem, of course, is that Fatah also appears to be a very unsatisfactory alternative, and there is, accordingly, a political vacuum.
March 3, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me try this delicately, because I largely agree with you about Mythbuster's postings...and certainly about his judgement of you.
It's important to remember that Mythbuster's wife is Palestinian. He has a lot of family who've suffered a great deal through all of this. For all I know, he has family or friends who've died in Gaza or elsewhere as a result of this conflict.
My point is...I think quite a bit of what he says comes from grief. Grief and a feeling of powerlessness from not being able to stop the killing and suffering of people whom he loves.
I'm not trying to diminish the moral foundation of what he believes and says here. I don't mean to be condescending to him at all. I don't "agree" with much of what he says in his zingers. Nor do I think you shouldn't defend yourself as you see fit. And since I think you're a good, thinking, and caring person, I defend you as well.
But when I read Mythbuster, I try to keep these facts in mind.
March 3, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista.
Although I was also confused by your comment, Bruce is dead on about those of us who "know" you weren't confused about mythbuster's contention and knew well it was from an alternative reality. I just shrugged it off and perhaps was lax in not protesting the mischaracterization. I'm sorry I didn't add my voice in a more timely manner.
Whatever your abysmal taste in guacamole says about your judgement, you are no zionist thug. ;~{)
March 3, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A noble and genuine intervention.
March 3, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is just a stupid geek question, but what the heck ever happened to anti-tactical-missile defenses and counterbattery fire? These were supposed to be solved problems 15 years ago.
March 2, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point that Lally and Howard Berkowitz long ago, when tpm had other software.
March 2, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice how Israeli casualties have declined dramatically since 2002, but the level of violence against Palestinians has increased. And the demonization is non-stop.
Pretty telling.
March 2, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the latest on the anti-missile systems; oddly enough it's in the Israeli comptroller's report issued today:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1235898326670&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
March 2, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or do these discussions resemble the conflict itself?
(Minus the dead bodies and destruction)
One side lobs one or two "good points"...the other side comes back with one or two other "good points."
A bit like WWI trench warfare.
March 2, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that.
Scoring points is of course more important than any real attempt at mutual understanding in this grievance-a-thon.
March 2, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to listen to most Isareli arguments. You see, we're too busy burying Palestinian children.
Never forgive, never forget.
March 2, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone want to bet this situation is not going to get any better in one year, five years, ten years ?
I cannot convince anyone to take my money - not even a coke.
Look at all the odium in a cool-headed discussion as this one is ... can you imagine any sort of rational negotiation among all the parties that would rather hate each other than eat, sleep or have sex ?
The people who hate are running this show. There will be no peace.
Meanwhile : a serious situation is out of control in Pakistan ... anyone paying attention to that ?
March 2, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine the following situation: the Israeli f*ck bomb is stronger than the Palestinian f*ck bomb. The Palestinian demographic would never surpass the Israeli population. In this situation would Israel grant citizenship to all the Palestinians thereby making a one-state? My answer is yes as Israel could afford to be magnanimous as the Jewish character of Israel would not be threatened.
But back to reality, the Palestinian f*ck bomb is stronger. The basic core of Israeli politics revolve around two questions:
1. What does Israel want?
A Jewish state with more and more land
2. What is the problem?
Too many Palestinians and Israeli Arabs
The answer given by Israel is settlements, house demolitions, checkpoints, gaza siege and semi-starvation, gaza war, discriminatory laws, fostering the fatah-hamas split, political assassinations (including Rabin), loyalty oaths, etc, etc, etc.
Israel could have had a two-state solution, keeping the Jewish character of the state with the Palestinians having their own sovereign and contiguous state. This is now too late. There is now even talk of doubling the settlement population of the West Bank.
The trajectory of the situation is twofold: 1) Palestinian reservations and Palestinian transfers. 2) BDS: With the next Israeli dispraportionate war, the Boycott-Disinvestment-Sanction movement will become cool and fashionable. What happens after that, we will see.
March 2, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me the bottom line in this keeps coming back to what are the end results of the blockade and bombing? Is it weakening Hamas? Is it killing Hamas fighters/terrorists? The answer to the first question is 'no' and using Israel's present strategy the answer will be 'no' in the future...the blockade is easily defeated and the air raids/missile attacks/ground incursions they have used up to now have not been effective in defeating Hamas. In fact it makes Hamas stronger. How can I make this conclusion? With the answer to the second question. While the bombing is killing Hamas fighters most of the casualties are Palestinian civilians, the overwhelming majority being women and children. All this is doing is creating many more future fighters by sowing more seeds of hate and anger. As long as the cycle of violence continues there will be a never ending pool of Palestinian people who'll want to see harm done to Israel and Israelis.
March 2, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct. And that is precisely why the Gaza slaughter DID make sense to those (on both sides) with a paranoid-delusional or other vested interest in maintaining the cycle of violence. At long last, the time has finally come for the US government to make a clean break from such maniacs.
March 2, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed...
But the Israeli people keep on electing harder line leaders and the Palestinian people have shown no inclination to stand up to the terrorists in their midst. I think the US government needs to bring the diplomatic 'weight of the world' down on both sides and make this our, and the world's, top foreign policy priority. I still have not changed my opinion on this nor do I expect that I ever will...the only way for there to be a safe and secure Israel is when there is a fair and negotiated peace with the Palestinians.
March 2, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink