"Bad Things"

by von

I'm commenting on Publius' recent post, All That Chas, but I'm doing so on the front page because I'd like to head in a direction different from Publius' argument.  Publius writes:

And the hyper-sensitive, hysterical attacks on critics of Israel’s current policies simply illustrate that – on some subconscious level – these people recognize that Israel is doing some bad things. Otherwise, there would be no need to stifle debate and bully critics.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  But I was left with a question:  what do Publius (and many commentators on this post) mean when they write or imply "that Israel is doing some bad things"? 

Are these "bad things" the types of things that the US wouldn't do if put in Israel's position?  Because I'm fairly confident that the US would respond with overwhelming military force if the de facto government of Mexico was randomly firing rockets at Laredo and McAllen, TX.  (Indeed, we basically did that with Pancho Villa.)

Is it because Israel's response is viewed as disproportionate?  If so, what's a proportionate response?  Lobbing rockets back into Gaza, tit for tat? 

Is it because Israel's response is viewed as counterproductive?  I might agree with that view, but this is a strategic objection, not a moral one.  No one confused me with a moralist, for instance, when I criticized the Iraq war because we lacked enough troops.

Is it because civilians are being hurt?  If so, how is this different from any other war?  And how does it differ from a proportionality objection (I.e.: you're hurting civilians because you're using too much force.  OK; fine.  How much force should I use?)

I have no doubt that Israel is doing "bad thing" in the sense that every country and every person does "bad things."   You frequently can't act -- particularly in the middle of a shooting war (which Israel is in) -- without doing some kind of harm.  And you need to act sometimes.  But I don't understand what "bad things" means in the context of Publius' post or the resulting discussion.

Comments

[d'd'd'dave]

What Von said.

[(The Original) Francis]

well, for a start, what is Gaza? A country under occupation? A territory whose occupants have no voting rights? Does the Geneva Convention apply?

Same question for the West Bank.

Also, what about the spread of settlements occupied by Israelis across the West Bank?

Let's start with those three.

[dan]

Either this is a joke or I haven't been reading this blog enough recently. Your Mexico hypo leaves out any analogue to the important facts -- it would not be that Mexico is randomly lobbing rockets into Texas, but that the U.S. had taken the northern portion of Mexico by military force and was occupying it.

Is Gaza under occupation in your view, or not?

[mightygodking]

Is it because Israel's response is viewed as disproportionate? If so, what's a proportionate response?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, just perhaps, responding to the twenty or so Israeli deaths caused by rocket attacks over the past decade with over three thousand Palestinian deaths caused by the IDF is indeed disproportionate, what with the 1:150 ratio and all, and maybe a "proportionate response" would involve significantly less Palestinian casualties.

Really - it's not rocket science.

[Bob L.]

For "bad," read "counterproductive."

Things are bad all over. The whole world is at the point where no one can figure out what to do about Pakistan. Similarly, neither Israel nor anyone else can figure out what to do about its current situation (except for most Arabs, who would like to see it disappear). Every time Israel guesses wrong, by my definition it's doing something "bad."

I'm Jewish and have relatives in Israel. It occupies a spot in my heart second only to the US. I will defend its right to existence and peace at the top of my lungs (I'm way too old to take up arms). But I have no idea how it's going to get out of its current fix -- and that hardly makes me unique.

And yes, on the scales of law and morality some of what Israel is doing probably does measure "bad" on the good-bad scale. Even those of us who take for granted that Israel seeks peace with honor and wishes to practice a high morality in its affairs are also constrained to realize that under the pressures now afflicting it, both internal and external, it can't be the paragon it would wish to be. Example: the West Bank settlements. They're both morally and strategically bad.

Jews take it for granted that they'll get a bum rap everywhere, and most of the time they're right. But there is such a thing as overreaction. It's grossly hypocritical of so many other countries to hold Israel to a standard that they'd never hold themselves to, but by that impossible standard Israel is sometimes "bad."

My solution? I have none. Those with more faith in God are advised to pray like hell.

[Lars]

Like Dan, I initially thought this post was a joke: the Gaza Strip is under occupation. The borders, including Gaza's border with Egypt, are controlled by Israel and are generally closed. In response to the question 'what would we do if Mexico was launching rockets at the US?' I would ask you: what would you do if you were locked up in a giant open-air prison, with no economic prospects becuase the occupying power had closed all your borders, if you could literally see the physical growth of your children stunted because that occupying power did not allow the importation of even basic foodstuffs?
Bishop Desmond Tutu said that the situation in the Occupied Territories was worse than apartheid. Let's start with discussing that 'bad thing,' shall we?
And Dan's final question is appropriate in this regard: is Gaza in your view occupied or not? Do the Geneva Conventions apply or do they not?

[Personal Failure]

We probably shouldn't judge Israel's response by the way the US has acted in the last 8 years. That would make practically anything a reasonable response.

[Donald Johnson]

I take it, then, that there's no need to explain what bad things the Palestinians have done? We're all clear on that? It's only a question of how we could possibly say Israel has done bad things, since after all, they're just like us and act the way we would act (and did act) if we'd stolen someone else's land and treated them like dirt and they had reacted by committing terrorist acts. And lord knows the US has such a sterling reputation there can be no stronger defense than to say that Israel is only acting the way we would act. Yeah, no doubt about it, IMO.

This post is either a bad joke or not worth a long response. Both sides (or rather, all three) commit atrocities for which there is no justification. Try reading some Amnesty International reports, or HRW statements or examine the B'Tselem website.

[publius]

Dont' have to respond in full, but Exhibit A is settlement construction. Exhibit B is denying citizens food and medicine in Gaza. Exhibit C is making life miserable in occupied territories more generally. Exhibit D is the unnecessary disproportionate response to basically everything.

But it really just comes back to the notion that Israel is trying to steal land either to boot them out permanently or to create two states unilaterally.

[shah8]

I strongly disagree with von's take. Sorta

What's "bad" about it is that the Likudnik's pose is a strongly minority opinion, complemented by the approval of christianists.

Without bullying and loudspeakers, the will of the majority would be in a different direction.

[d'd'd'dave]

//Is Gaza under occupation in your view, or not?//

Gaza Occupiers

Philistia -> Egypt -> Israel -> Babylon -> Persia -> Greek -> Seleucid -> Roman -> Byzantine -> Umayyad -> Abbasid -> Ikshidid -> Fatimid ->Seljuk -> Crusader -> Ayyubid Period -> Mamluk -> Ottoman -> British Mandate -> UN Partition Arab State (11/29/47 - 5/14/48) -> Egypt -> Israel -> Palestinian Authority

For how long during the last 3000 years has Gaza been independent? 6 months in 1948. On and off since 1973 depending upon whether the Gazans can live peaceably with their neighbor Israel.

[von]

but that the U.S. had taken the northern portion of Mexico by military force and was occupying it.

[other comment]

Like Dan, I initially thought this post was a joke: the Gaza Strip is under occupation.

You realize that there had recently been a shooting war with Mexico, and many Mexicans did view us as occupiers, at the time of the raid to get Poncho Villa, correct?

In any event, what does the status of Gaza have to do with my question?

[antrumf]

"Is it because Israel's response is viewed as counterproductive? I might agree with that view, but this is a strategic objection, not a moral one."

I'd reject that assertion. If something is counterproductive, it's unnecessary. And if an unnecessary action leads to the kind of death and destruction we just saw in Gaza, then that's a pretty damn immoral action in my view. If it's counterproductive, then there's no justification for the kind of losses that occurred.

[rea]

You realize that there had recently been a shooting war with Mexico, and many Mexicans did view us as occupiers, at the time of the raid to get Poncho Villa, correct?

Well, the shooting war with Mexico was about 70 years in the past at the time of Villa's raid, was it not? Columbus, New Mexico was not in the territory seized by the US in the war, but in territory the US had bought peacefully (if corruptly) later. And as far as I can tell, no resident of the formerly Mexican territories occupied by the US had anything to do with Villa's raid. I don't think resentment of US ownership of New Mexico was a major driving force behind the Mexican Revolution--if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

[Pooh]

Yeah, what Publius said, settlements.

[dsn]

@dan
"Either this is a joke or I haven't been reading this blog enough recently. Your Mexico hypo leaves out any analogue to the important facts -- it would not be that Mexico is randomly lobbing rockets into Texas, but that the U.S. had taken the northern portion of Mexico by military force and was occupying it."

Ever heard of Texas?

[Kilks]

But didn't the US fail to catch Pancho Villa? Pancho Villa did attack the US once, but he was much more a player in the Mexican revolution.
Villa was much more interested in fighting Huerta and working against Carranza.

And settlement construction is the main "bad thing" which I would point to.

[manamongst]

That "Bad things" is collective punishment. What right would we have to blockade Guatemala or Belize from Mexico because of rocket attacks? I don't even like the devil's advocate tone of this post, like Israel needs another cheerleader or apologist. Bad things are sending/infiltrating Mosad into our telecom companies or active bids to government contracts to place their technology within it to more or less eavesdrop, even driving icecream trucks, or posing as art students to gain entry into sensitive facilities. The Israel Von thinks he's empathizing with is not the Israel that counts. I'm talking about the ones that count the cold-blooded Likudist/Zionist that know more than they could ever tell, the kind that send Mosad to live across the street from Mohammed Atta in Hollywood, Florida...to, you know...just watch things...or the ones that happen to be just lucky enough to be driving around NYC the day of 9/11 with cameras laughing. With the number of other intelligence agencies that tipped-us off. You beleiev that piss-poor ass covering assessment they gave was what they really knew. Do you know how many Israelis are quietly discretly deported? Or how many in our government carry dual citizen-ship? And I'm not a hater I've actually live in Israel and know how real people are treated in Ben Gurion. Seriously Von what are you? If this wasn't such a vouched-for site I would begin to think you're another in the long line of what I referenced above...Many Israelis have looked at the hard facts and decided they've gone too far to change their behaviors first, and realize that the Palastinian birthrate is kickin the Israeli birthrate's ass. And many in the current Knesset have come to the conclusion that there is nothing Palestinians can do to keep an Israeli foot out of the Palestinian arse. So you're either extremely gulible, the problem, or another in their long line of delay tactics.

This is kind of sad to say but at this point I would trust a country with nukes (hmmm let's pick Iran) that has never attacked another country in their exponentially longer history than Israel than Israel themselves...they've proven they can't even adher to the proper use of Phosphorus...why would I trust them with mini nukes let alone nukes. So a more prudent article would be to draw attention to Israel's lack of accountability on arms control themselves. because with the crap you've dabbled-in here...it only fuels those who would say there are secret "lobby" elements with puppet string tied around your wrists. Well at least your writing wrist...

Sad...

[theo]

For how long during the last 3000 years has Gaza been independent? 6 months in 1948.

Fantastic argument. When have the Roma (that's gypsies to you) ever been independent in the last 2000 years?

They obviously can't manage their affairs. Why don't you go round them up and keep them in apartheid bantustans.

[rea]

Well, the shooting war with Mexico was about 70 years in the past at the time of Villa's raid, was it not?

It occurred to me after posting this that you may have had in mind
Wilson's occupation of Veracruz in 1914--although the US had withdrawn well before Villa's raid on Columbus. The main problem with that theory is that Villa supported the US occupation of Veracruz, which was undertaken as a blow agasint the regime of Villa's eney, Huerta.

[manamongst]

The Mexico comparisons only water-down the posts awkwardness. A better comparison would be an apartheid South Africa, lobbed rockets are only a recent problem and simply a distraction by the calculated infrastructural tweaks that have essentially strangled a society in a sociological eugenics strand. Bulldoze here, divert roads there, wall up this olive grove, close this checkpoint. How can we turn a 5 minute trip for trade into 2hour trip, how the f!@k! do you quantify that?

[Observer]

The only thing that is important, apparently, is that someone speak truth to Israel.

And that truth, apparently, is never respond when attacked and to (a) create a single state with no promise of Jewish citizenship then (n) allow millions of Arabs to move in. Because, apparently, every other nation, dictatorships all, are preferable.

Apparently, the fact that there is one democracy in the middle east means there is one too many. It doesn't matter that there are Arab Israelis with all the rights of their fellow Jewish citizens.

All that is important is to use the democratic process one time, to elect a single party that wipes out all opponents, that uses mobster tactics to dominate its citizens, that is dedicated to constant warfare and self-destruction, that dresses up its children in plastic bomber vests and sits them down in front of cute animals that teach to kill non-human animals.

All that is important is to speak truth to Israel. And that truth is, go away and die.

[dan]

dsn: Yes, I've heard of Texas, and this "Mexico" analogy will prove, in the future, to be accurate. In 75 years no one will have a recollection that Gaza or the West Bank belonged to anyone other than the Israelis. (Sure, I've heard the demography arguments, but I see no steps the Israelis would be unwilling to take to maintain the occupation).

[vaux-rien]

And if an unnecessary action leads to the kind of death and destruction we just saw in Gaza, then that's a pretty damn immoral action in my view. If it's counterproductive, then there's no justification for the kind of losses that occurred.

It would be counterproductive if the goal were a peaceful solution or the safety of Israeli civilians. Assuming that the leadership of Israel is neither stupid or insane we can conclude that this is not their goal.

[carranzasmom]

Una cosa me da risa:
Pancho Villa sin camisa...

I think the post is an experiment to determine how quickly one irrelevant tidbit can self-derail a post.

[jb]

With the ascendency of Netanyahu and Lieberman in the Israeli power structure, could it be that what some Israelis have in mind is a single-state solution to the "Palestinian" question, a single state entirely void, or nearly so, of any Palestinians? Are conditions in Gaza and the West bank to be made so untenable, in the former by encirclement and starvation, and in the latter by giving free reign to the spread of settlements into a "Greater (read: Biblical) Israel", that the only alternatives for Palestinians will be departure or oblivian?

[manamongst]

Observer please...Theocratic Democracy at best, I see also you've touch the major points on any AIPAC talking point memo.

Apparently their is no other option in the entire world other than Israels own method of ham-handed counter-attacks, and doing absolutely nothing. Apologists such as yourself don't help at all. You're what many call a low-information voter that seems to think you have a grasp of the actual facts.

[manamongst]

My thought exactly carranzasmom!!!

[Lars]

"In any event, what does the status of Gaza have to do with my question?"

OK, that's a good question. Let me give it a shot.

Well, for starters, that means that the situation that Israel is in is not a war, but in one of putting down an insurrection. And that means that Israel as the occupying authority has certain responsibilities. One of those is adhering to the Geneva Conventions which among other things forbid the occupier from settling occupied territory with people from the outside. It also means that the occupier is responsible for seeing to the general welfare of the people in territories under occupation. That means supplying electricity, food, shelter, etc. Yeah, occupation is a tough business, which is just one reason why countries generally try to get out of it by ‘un-occupying’ occupied territories, by making them independent.
Israel of course does not want to do that. But neither has it been fulfilling its responsibilities as an occupying power.

Israel could actually leave Gaza and end its responsibilities as an occupying power by ending its sea blockade and relinquishing ultimate control over the Gaza-Egypt border. But that of course would make Gaza ‘liberated Palestine’ and dramatically enhance Hamas’ position vis-à-vis the PA and enhance its international standing as well. Israel certainly does not want to do that. And keep in mind that Gaza is a part of the OT, and from an international legal point of view cannot be considered separate and distinct from the situation in the West Bank. Neither Hamas nor the PA nor the Israeli authorities consider Gaza as separate and distinct from the WB. So the Gaza situation has to be understood as linked to the situation on the WB. And so the problem in Gaza is in major portion one of Israel’s own making.

Keep in mind too that the shooting started when the cease-fire that Hamas had worked out with the IDF expired. Hamas offered to renew that cease-fire but, it being election season and all the candidates in Israel facing the need to look tough, declined the offer.

And one completely separate point on the ‘bad things’ that Israel did in the recent Gaza War: It used white phosphorus. Take a look at Gershom Gorenberg’s post on his website Southjerusalem.org. His conclusion is that the IDF may well have commited a war crime in its use. Here is the link: http://southjerusalem.com/2009/02/the-phosphorus-question-revisited/#more-951

Finally, commenter manamongst does make a good point that this is a case of collective punishment- which is also illegal.

[Anderson]

Like Dan, I initially thought this post was a joke

I'm still not sure that Von doesn't have a beer riding on whether he can get 300 comments before sunset.

But, Von, c'mon -- Israeli blockade? etc.? For real.

Put another way, if Mexico were doing to the U.S. what Israel was doing to Gaza after the Hamas elections, how would the U.S. respond?

[Anderson]

Italics begone?

[Carleton Wu]

In any event, what does the status of Gaza have to do with my question?

Can you claim to seriously pose the question whether Israel has done 'bad things' or not if you deny in principle the idea of invoking context to decide whether their actions are, in fact, wrong? You seemed willing to invoke context in pointing out the rocket attacks on Israel and how they provoked and Israeli response, but we're not allowed to go any further down the chain of causality, we are asked to stop after reaching an offensive Palestinian act without being able to ask what provoked that act?

[Carleton Wu]

For how long during the last 3000 years has Gaza been independent? 6 months in 1948. On and off since 1973 depending upon whether the Gazans can live peaceably with their neighbor Israel.

I wonder if you hold to the same principles regarding other peoples. Estonia- they've rarely been an independent state historically, so you're Ok with the Russians swallowing them back up, right? You're good with China retaking Taiwan?

[manamongst]

I think he had several beers riding on the post before this one...lol

Seriously...you sure your firm isn't representing...well...you know...them?

"Von is an attorney in the midwest. When not working, von launches ill-informed tirades on domestic and international policy, drinks, watches television, drinks some more, and maybe has something to eat."

"...von trusts you to understand that the views expressed here are his and not his firm's."

My suggestion, take a flight to Israel, order a halal meal...if you get out of Ben Gurion, join a Sabra and let him show you around.

[Patrick]

I have no doubt that the US would be doing the same thing that Israel is doing now, if the US were in Israel's position.

I also have no doubt that the US would be doing the same thing that Palestine is doing now, if the US were in Palestine's position. No doubt at all.

And the people championing Israel's right to self defense as if that was actually relevant to the question of HOW Israel should defend itself would undoubtedly be the ones firing the rockets, if they had been born in Palestine. Its the same logic: the idea that a failure to retaliate will embolden your enemies, and a sufficient retaliation will intimidate them. Naturally your enemies think the same thing: a failure to retaliate will embolden you, and a sufficient retaliation will intimidate you.

It should be obvious, but it never is- just look to your emotions, and recogize that people in other countries, including your enemies, probably feel the same way.

[dmbeaster]

Some more "bad things"

1. Destroying hundreds if not thousands of homes in Gaza for no apparent reason (including just bulldozing villages). The destruction bore no relationship whatsoever to resistance or rocket locations -- it was wholesale destruction based on some perverted perceived benefit (collective punishment? depopulating areas?).

2. In the last 48 hours of the prior war, strewing Southern Lebanon with thousands of cluster bombs that inherently result in many unexploded bomblets, and which serve as a de facto mine field, killing civilians attmepting to resettle the area. The bhombing campaign had no apparent military purpose other than to terrorize civilians so that they would not return to the border areas.

3. Non-stop activities to drive Arabs from their homes and seize the land for settlers. It has been going on now since 1948, and takes many forms. The recent post about the inexplicable ruling to demoish houses in Jerusalem for allegedly not having permits (although over 100 years old) is an example.

Perhaps in vons' world these types of events raise no moral dimension, or using the word "bad" is some form of meaningless emotional triviality. Then perhaps we should apply the same anaseptic view to Palestianian ooutrages, and ask why terror bombings or other outrageous behavior by Palestinians is inexplicably called "bad." After all, would not that be the response that US citizens would use to oppose an occupying power that seeks to drive them from their land?

[Shygetz]

Did the US occupy Northern Mexico for decades, refusing to grant the occupants of Northern Mexico citizenship and, therefore, a voice in their self-governance? No? Then I think your analogy is a bit contrived.

[tgirsch]

von:

As others have pointed out, the fact that the US isn't effectively blockading all of Mexico makes a HUGE difference in your moral argument. I'd say it completely unravels it.

[wonkie]

We sort of did do what Isreal is doing. We, meaning Americans of a previous era, occupied land belonging to tribal nations and then killed the people off, justifying ourselves with the rationalization that we had to defend ourselves (among other rationalizations, of course).

Of course the parallel isn't exact but there are a lot of similarities: two peoples occupying the same general area, mutual misunderstanding, one side disportionately powerful yet always playing the victim, the gradual dispossession of the weaker side, the distruction of the weaker side's economic base, and the assumption that the weaker side has absolutely no business defending itself.

So would we act like the Isrealis? Sure. We already did.

However the Palestinians are not going to die out. On the contrary, they are procreating at a rate greater than the Isrealis. The Isrealis will not be able to shoot them all or bomb them all or starve them all or force them all to immigrate. So while our policy of dispossessing, surrounding, and killing the members of tribal nations until there weren't enough survivors left to be worth fighting any more worked for us, it will not work for the Isrealis.

Their course of action in regard to Palestine is self destructive.

[wonkie]

Oh, another parallel: when convenient the stronger group refuses to acknowledge tradional land and home ownership by members of the weaker group.

[von]

As others have pointed out, the fact that the US isn't effectively blockading all of Mexico makes a HUGE difference in your moral argument. I'd say it completely unravels it.

Only if you assume that Israel's blockade of Gaza was not a prior, measured response to prior attacks, including repeated suicide bombings. But more on this:

Can you claim to seriously pose the question whether Israel has done 'bad things' or not if you deny in principle the idea of invoking context to decide whether their actions are, in fact, wrong? You seemed willing to invoke context in pointing out the rocket attacks on Israel and how they provoked and Israeli response, but we're not allowed to go any further down the chain of causality, we are asked to stop after reaching an offensive Palestinian act without being able to ask what provoked that act?

Again, I'm not saying that Israel hasn't done "bad things" in the sense that there's been an ongoing armed conflict for the last 60+ years and Israel has been trying to defend itself. You'll find that I'm a critic of the settlement policy to the extent that I'm willing to consider doing things to discourage the practice that would probably disqualify me from a position in the state department in the current clime (i.e., I'd introduce the stick of a potential cut in aid). Nor am I saying that the Palestinians have no cause for complaint, although they would have been in a better boat had they been better led in 1948 and not betrayed by the Arab states.

What I do find mystifying is why you'd talk about Israel doing "bad things" without the context, namely, that Israel is at war.

And, yes, I agree with all those who point out the imperfections in the comparison to Villa. Gladly, you won't find an exact historical parallel to the Israel/Palestinian dispute save for, well, the history of Israel and Palestine.

[mckinneytexas]

So, what is the appropriate response to 3000 rockets fired into one's country?

[Jesurgislac]

von: Only if you assume that Israel's blockade of Gaza was not a prior, measured response to prior attacks, including repeated suicide bombings.

So to you, killing children is a "measured response", von? Aren't you supposed to be "squishily pro-life"? How "squishy" is that?

[wonkie]

I think the best parallel can be found in a typical kindergarten classroom or home with elementary school age kids.

The whole conflict comes down to, "But Mommy, he started it!"

Right now that cry is coming from the kid who is kneeling on the other kid's chest.

We can't stop the fight if we continue to think in terms of who started it or who hit who last or how hard or any of that crap.

Id it was up to me we would only give asistance to whichever side was actively contributing to ending the conflict. Right now that's neither. If it was up to me, I wouldn't send a cent of assistance to Isreal and the only help I'd sent to Palestinain would be humanitarian: hospital funding and that sort of thing.

[Carleton Wu]

Again, I'm not saying that Israel hasn't done "bad things" in the sense that there's been an ongoing armed conflict for the last 60+ years and Israel has been trying to defend itself..... What I do find mystifying is why you'd talk about Israel doing "bad things" without the context, namely, that Israel is at war.

Ok, but I think that the Israeli occupation of Gaza is part of that story. While we agree that Israel is in a constant state of war, I think we disagree that Israel is always "trying to defend itself". They've IMO obviously been taking unjustified, aggressive actions- the "bad" actions that have been brought up.
Other Israeli actions might be either confused or badly intended; I can't imagine an outcome of the Gaza invasion that either moves peace forward or makes Israel more secure- it's bad for everyone, except for people who do not want the status quo to turn into a two-state solution (ie radical Palestinians and Israelis) and therefore seek to disrupt the status quo.
I will say the same thing about the Hamas rocket-shooters- they do not want peace, and so they engage in provocations that are certain to continue a conflict.

[Phil]

"Israel has been trying to defend itself"

Israel as a nation is not at risk of destruction or invasion at the hands of the Palestinians anytime soon, so this is sort of unnecessarily dramatic. "Trying" to defend itself indeed.

Also, if, as you claim, Israel truly is "at war," then it's engaging in collective punishment, which is a war crime, which is in fact a "bad thing."

Still, that you're willing to consider the possibility of a threatened cut in aid to Israel . . . stand back, kids, von means business!

[Ara]

mckinneytexas: *That* is the frame that causes so much problem in this conflict. If you just look at the very last event, isolated from context, then all kinds of things would be on the table and the conflict also seems rather one-sided. Of course, the Israeli response doesn't seem extreme given that 3000 rockets were fired into southern Israel. It does seem a little more extreme when you realize the 3000 rockets were in part at least a response to the ongoing blockade. And then the whole thing becomes ridiculous when you realize the 3000 rockets were just the very last episode in a painful, bloody 60 year history of diplomatic and political failure to come to terms with the situation. In other words, if the only question we ask ourselves is, "What is the appropriate response to the very last incitement?", then 60 years from now, we will be asking ourselves the same question.

[Ara]

von: I would say that engaging in a rather indiscriminate war with a region that is (1) not a significant military threat (2) comprised 53% of children (3) without allowing them the option of leaving is a Bad Thing.

I don't think any of these assumptions are beyond dispute. We can argue about whether Israel's wartime tactics are indiscriminate. That's a question I go back and forth on. We can quibble about the nature of threats. Certainly Hamas is a threat to murder a lot of people across the border and certainly they intend to be a threat to the Israeli state, but I don't think they are the kind of existential threat to the Israeli state at this point that justifies an all-out war. I would be a lot more supportive of military operations, even despite the costs in civilian deaths, if I thought they would be effective at achieving some long-term benefit. I just think you end up killing thousands of people every couple of years and don't get much out of it. If there weren't such a history of failure between these two parties, I wouldn't be such an advocate of changing tack.

One of the major reasons I don't believe in violence on either side is that I don't think violence deters anyone. Statesman absolute love to puff up their chest and say that nothing will destroy their resolve and in democratic states, I surely believe their threats. I also don't think any amount of Israeli aggression is going to deter the 16-21 year old Hamas foot soldiers that are each generation's war-fighting fodder.

Unlike a lot of people on the left, I don't think it's at all obvious or self-evident that Israel does bad things. I think it's a close call, I think it's a matter of judgment, and I think it is a tricky situation. But I do think in the end that there are bad things that are done.

[McDuff]

Um, isn't the US already killing thousands of Mexicans as part of an unjustifiable "war"?

And, I'm not sure what the OP's point is supposed to be. "Isn't this the kind of thing the US would do?" doesn't seem to be in any sense an argument against the actions being "bad" unless we are committed to the idea that the US's actions can never, by definition, be bad.

Perhaps the argument is supposed to be that this is just another example of the painful deterministic self-destruction brought about by putting borders on the dirt and guns in people's hands and expecting a bunch of apes to not bollix it all up just because some of them can write poetry or something. That Israel don't do anything worse than any other state would do in that situation. And, you know, that could very well be 100% correct. But I still don't know why it wouldn't make it bad.

[Nell]

Ara: But I do think in the end that there are bad things that are done.

By Israelis, at the behest of the Israeli government and public.

Using the passive voice is a classic way to avoid putting the responsibility where it belongs. The rest of the comment clearly signals a reluctance to assign that responsibility (close call, matter of judgment, tricky situation). But if, however reluctantly, you are forced to make the judgment that Israel does bad things, please just say it.

[Carleton Wu]

So, what is the appropriate response to 3000 rockets fired into one's country?

1)what is the appropriate response to a blockade that keeps your children from getting adequate nutrition and denies medical care to your family? what is the appropriate response to blowing up an entire apartment building to kill a single opponent? what is the appropriate response to ongoing colonization of your territory, appropriation of your homes, fields, water, etc?
If your going to try putting yourself in someone's shoes, you might do well to try a Palestinian pair before you advise others to try Israeli shoes.

2)More seriously, something that isn't virtually guaranteed to perpetuate the conflict and cause me future misery down the road.

Israel's problem isn't primarily Hamas, it's her own radicals who want to displace the entire Palestinian population and claim Greater Israel
The Palestinians' problem isn't primarily Israel, it's their own radicals who want to displace Israel and claim Greater Palestine.
The conflict won't end until each side recognizes that reaction to the radicals on the other side while turning a blind eye to one's own radicals cannot produce a viable peace.

[Brett Bellmore]

The whole conflict comes down to, "But Mommy, he started it!"

More like, "But Mommy! Every time I let go of him he starts it again!"

Israel is in a bad situation, they've got irrationally vicious people on their borders. And civilized behavior presumes that you're dealing with civilized people.

By irrationally vicious, I mean that while the Palestinians have reason to be pissed off at Israel, the way they express this anger is profoundly self-destructive. Picking a fight with a much more powerful neighbor is just flat out stupid.

And does anyone really doubt that, if the Palestinians stopped attacking Israel for a significant stretch of time, (Not just long enough to reload, the 'traditional' middle east definition of a "cease fire".) that the sanctions would be relaxed? Not instantly, of course, the Palestinians have got a long record of responding to relaxed sanctions by trying to kill Israelis. But eventually.

Personally, I'm amazed by the tolerance of the Israelis, by now the US would have genocided the Palestinians under the same level of provocation.

[Donald Johnson]

"Israel is in a bad situation, they've got irrationally vicious people on their borders. "

On both sides.

The rest of your comment is contemptible filth.

[Brett Bellmore]

I can live with you despising me.

More to the point, Israel can live with you despising them. I doubt they could survive what it would take for you to stop despising them, though.

[Donald Johnson]

Oh, don't take it personally, Brett. As Orwell made plain many decades ago, it's perfectly normal for people to make excuses for war crimes and oppression and atrocities, or to remain willfully blind and ignorant to such things when they are done by the "civilized" people as they see them. There's no indication that what Orwell wrote about in 1945 has changed any--I mean, there you are. I just don't think those views deserve any respect. If you want to think that it's evil Ay-rabs vs. civilized good Westerners then you can wallow in your rich fantasy life.

As for what Israel could take, a two state solution very close to the 67 borders and maybe a truth commission for both sides would make me happy.

[Hugh Jass]

Why do I have to envision a hypothetical in which I try to predict how the United States would act if Mexico were lobbing bombs into our country? Why don't I put hypotheticals to the side, and recall what did happen when, before 1948, it was the Jews who were seeking their own country and using terrorism to try to effectuate their goal.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As for what Israel could take, a two state solution very close to the 67 borders and maybe a truth commission for both sides would make me happy."

I think that would be a great place to reach, too. But that's not a description of something Israel can do, it's a description of a desirable result. And it's a result that requires Palestinian cooperation.

The only reason Israel exists is that the Palestinians lack the capacity to carry out a genocide. Israel does not lack the capacity, yet the Palestinians still live. This demonstrates a fundamental moral asymmetry to the situation, for all that neither side are saints.

The problem is to convince the Israelis that the Palestinians would not use any relaxation of sanctions as an opportunity to obtain more and more deadly munitions, and use them. And the problem with convincing them of that is that all the evidence says they'd do exactly that.

Resolution of the situation either requires the Israelis to be suicidally trusting, or the Palestinians to spend a considerable period of time EARNING trust. And the Israelis are not suicidal. It's up to the Palestinians.

[Ara]

Nell: The passive voice in such statements is only a problem when it is *unclear* who the agent would be. Since in this case, it is perfectly clear from the context who I think is responsible, I don't think the use of the passive voice represent any kind of moral failing on my part to call a spade a spade.

DJ: What's so interesting about all this is that almost everybody agrees on what the compromise should be (67 borders, dismantling settlements in the West Bank, no right of return), and yet people who fundamentally agree with what compromise ought to happen will argue to the bloody death about who is responsible. In other words, in assigning blame, people couldn't be more polarized. In imagining a solution, I think there's a lot more consensus between left and right than there is on most issues in this country.

[liberal japonicus]

I can live with you despising me.

Perhaps the Palestinians feel the same way.

[Ara]

Brett: Counterfactuals are really dangerous in politics. I don't really know in what conditions we can know them to be true. Given that, we can argue about them endlessly. And if somebody is inclined to be pro-whatever, they're going to grasp onto those counterfactual to allow them to hold the position. Once a person believes that "If the Palestinians could, there would be a genocide of Israel" there is nothing, nothing that makes sense as a concession Israel should make. Ever.

But that's just it about counterfactuals: what makes them so hard to falsify should also make them hard to believe.

[now_what]

Presumably those who spring to the defense of Israeli Jews herding people of the wrong ethnicity into concentration camps and who criticize the violent reaction of the Palestinians to this set of circumstances, who justify the Israeli Jews in their struggle for Lebensraum on the grounds that the Palestinians did not ever have an independent homeland, presumably these people would have condemned the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in the strongest of terms - and would have been puzzled at any assertion that the German response to it was disproportionate.

If not, what does that tell you?

[Shane]

Brett. You seem to take as an axiom that the Palestinians are unconvincable. That they don't have, don't need and wouldn't notice any evidence for their worldview. Is that how you see it?

I don't see how your second last para doesn't perfectly apply both ways.

[alec]

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on your soul.

[noseeum]

leave italics, leave!

[wonkie]

Oh for crying out loud, Brett.

The Israelis committing suicide if they take the first steps toward peace? The Palestinians need to earn their trust?

Look at the relative strength of their repective military forces and say that with a straight face.

Let's face some facts.

Both people will continue to live in the same area. That means the only solution is a two state solution.

Right now the Isrealis are not fighting for their lives in the sense of fighting for the continued existance of their nation. They have the stronger military, the healthier economy, a history of winning in direct fights with their neighbors.

The Palestianians don't have any of that.

The current situation is that the Israelis are making it impossible for the Palestinians to live and shoving them into increasingly smaller and smaller areas. It doesn't matter a damn why or if the Palestinians did something to deserve it or didn't or whatever. Our concern should be with the future.

So think about it: what is the logical outcome if Isreal continues? Now you have stated that the Palestinians are stupid vicious people because they aren't willing to just let their homes be bulldozed and their farms be confiscated and their economny wrecked. I guess you think that the Native Americans who fought back were stupid, vicious people too. Regardless of the validity of your value judgement, you are right about this: they will fight back. Of course they will. And people like you will use that as a reason to keep taking their land and starving them of the necessities of life which means they will fight back with means...either a Final Solution of dead Palestinians or Isreal becomes a pariah state like South Africa was.

This is why it is incumbent upon the Isrealis to take the first step.

If they want peace.

If they are thinking about the future.

After all, if the Isrealis start pulling back from the settlements, and let the Palestinians get back on their feet, then there is something to talk about, a way to work around the extremists on both sides and move forward toward a two state solution.

On the other hand if the Isrealis want more and more war, eventually resulting in their own destruction as the rest of the world gets disgusted with them, then, sure continue the current policy.

But the possibiity that the Palestinians, who have, as you yourself note, legitimate greivances will just quietly lay down and die? Nope.

Not likely.

It is so incredibly dishonest to cast this as a poor-Isreal-fighting-for-her-life scenario. If the Palestinians had a highly trained military force, nuclear weapons, settlements in core areas of Isreali land, and a successful blockade around Isreal, then we could talk about the Isrealis as the victims and the Palesinians as the ones who need to intitate efforts for peace frist.

[now_what]

May God have mercy on your soul.

There are ways for people to make bigger fools out of themselves than quoting Ben Stein, but most of them are at least fun.

[Carleton Wu]

And does anyone really doubt that, if the Palestinians stopped attacking Israel for a significant stretch of time, (Not just long enough to reload, the 'traditional' middle east definition of a "cease fire".) that the sanctions would be relaxed?

Does anyone really doubt that if the Israelis stopped their economic warfare, attacks in densely-populated civilian areas, and abandoned the settlements that the Palestinian terrorism would almost completely cease? That the few Palestinians still intent on attacking Israel would be either ignored or actively opposed by a people who had a homeland, peace, some prosperity, and no particular reason to hate anymore?
Why do you ask one side to unilaterally stop behaving terribly in your thought experiment, but lack the basic consideration of the Palestinians (as human beings with their own interests) to even contemplate putting the shoe on the other foot?

The only reason Israel exists is that the Palestinians lack the capacity to carry out a genocide. Israel does not lack the capacity, yet the Palestinians still live. This demonstrates a fundamental moral asymmetry to the situation, for all that neither side are saints.

First, that would obviously do tremendous hard to Israel. So, they have the capacity to do something that would hurt them tremendously, yet they do not do it. What marvellous masters of restraint they are!
Of course, there are some Palestinians who would do that. There are others who would not. Just as there are some Israelis who would gladly wipe out the Palestinians, and most who would recoil from the thought (or who would practically recognize this as a disastrously stupid move).
Funny, you always manage to focus on what you want to see- Israeli radicals might as well not exist in your world. Who do you think is living in the settlements? Who do you think advocates for directing money to the settlements from the Israeli government? Why, in your world, is Israel engaging in the obviously counterproductive settlement policy in the first place?

[ScentOfViolets]

Israel, it turns out, is very, very bad:

We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side, and we asked which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations. As shown in Figure 2, this analysis shows that it is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.

It is Israel that stole money from the Palestinians, not vice versa. It is Israel that . . . oh, we all know this by now.

Even people like von know this. You can tell by the way he's arguing - the totally loser 'if you can't make me say I'm wrong I win' gambit.

[Gary Farber]

Israel. Israel. Israel.

Not "Isreal."

[DBN]

We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side, and we asked which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations.

This is a wretched definition, as the Palestinian rocket attacks haven't killed very many people, and yet being shelled daily over a period of months is not exactly a "conflict pause." If the Palestinian rockets aren't particularly deadly, it's not for lack of intent.

Even people like me know this.

[Brett Bellmore]

"First, that would obviously do tremendous hard to Israel. So, they have the capacity to do something that would hurt them tremendously, yet they do not do it. What marvellous masters of restraint they are!"

Might not make them marvelous masters of restraint, but it damned well makes them better masters of restraint than the Palestinians, by a long shot.

Look, this is something of a prisoner's dilemma, but it ain't a symmetric prisoner's dilemma. While the best outcome requires the Israelis and Palestinians to cooperate, the vast disparity of power means that the Israelis have a much BETTER non-cooperating outcome available to them than the Palestinians do.

Under the circumstances it's up to the Palestinians to earn the Israelis' trust, by an extended period of non-aggression. That might not seem fair to you, but that's the reality of the situation.

[John Spragge]

Talking about Israeli settlement activity as a whole misses the point. The majority of settlements and the majority of settlers pose a minimal problem; they cluster along the border for easier access to services in Israel proper. The problem arises from a relatively small ideological/religious movement that aims to claim all of "Biblical Israel" and to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. These settlers make themselves a nightmare to their neighbours; they have engaged in numerous terrorist activities, including the murder of an Israeli Prime Minister. I don't believe this movement has the support of the majority of Israelis or a majority of Jewish people; the evidence I have suggests that the majority of their support comes from "Christian Zionists", who want to see "Biblical Israel" re-established so as to facilitate the Second Coming. Arguing that the Palestinians have a responsibility to "earn" anyone's trust ignores both history and the reality that settlements do not reflect a desire for land or security, but a religious belief that no Palestinian can change.

I also find the argument that the Israelis can achieve a "better" outcome by not cooperating reflects dangerously short-term thinking. Israeli policy can make a two-state solution difficult and painful to achieve (painful mainly in Israeli political terms), but in doing so, they merely make the "one-state solution", a secular or Islamic democracy in all of historic Palestine, considerably more likely. Certainly, Israel can make the lives of Palestinians very difficult over the next five years or even ten, but after that, Israel faces a stark choice: uproot the settlements, proclaim a permanent apartheid state, or accept a democracy in which non-Jewish voters will have either a majority or something close to a majority. And here the demography and politics creates a serious problem. The nationalist arguments that the extreme right in Israel would have to use to justify apartheid or ethnic cleansing have a very ominous ring to Jewish communities in the diaspora, and would almost certainly lead to a fatal isolation of Israel.

[Yarrow]

"U.S. might do X" does not equal "X is O.K."

[Jesurgislac]

Brett, the reality of the situation is that while Israel can in fact slaughter Palestinans - and does, thousands each year: can in fact demolish Palestinian homes, torture Palestinian suspects, steal Palestinian land - can do all of that: the reality of the past forty to sixty years is that Israelis cannot expect to be able to treat Palestinians with routine, dehumanizing brutality and expect that no Palestinian will ever fight back against this treatment.

And in fact, it appears clear that the Israelis do not expect it: they merely consider that the trivial amount of harm that the Palestinians are able to do to them, is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of continuing to remain in illegal occupation of Palestinian land, with all the routine brutality that entails.

*sends up a fervent prayer to the kitten that von or someone else in the Obsidian Wing collective will take sufficient interest in this thread to FIX THE BLOODY ITALICS, please*

[liberal japonicus]

According to cleek

should work. Let's see.

[liberal japonicus]

Guess not. But this is a way of calming down a thread-just put it italics and everyone will run away screaming

[Slartibartfast]

Fixed?

[Jesurgislac]

My faith in the power of the kitten is restored.

[Slartibartfast]

Sometimes the kitten's minions have to go to sparring practice, get beat on, and then fall asleep for a number of hours.

The kitten, you see, wants ninja minions. With frickin' lasers.

[ScentOfViolets]

This is a wretched definition, as the Palestinian rocket attacks haven't killed very many people, and yet being shelled daily over a period of months is not exactly a "conflict pause." If the Palestinian rockets aren't particularly deadly, it's not for lack of intent.

Even people like me know this.

Posted by: DBN

Does that include the people firing these rockets ;-)

No, you are one of those odious types who won't be happy until you find a definition that favors Israel, no matter how contrived it is. And it is people like you that are part of the problem.[1]

But hey, just to satisfy you, I'll say which side is more likely to kill first after a cease fire. Israel, overwhelmingly so. Does that satisfy you?

Let's get one thing straight here: the people who are opposed to the policies of Israel didn't just decide this to spite others (unlike a large number of a certain political party I won't mention.) And the people who are opposed to the policies of Israel are for the most part people who were once rather sympathetic to that state. What we have here is people who are predisposed not to favor 'the terrorists', yet over the years, have abandoned the pro-Israel camp in droves.

This despite the massive media advantages it enjoys, and despite the 'special' relationship it has with the U.S. No, these people know very well that what they are doing is indefensible. Note also that the attempts to stigmatize those as 'Jew-haters' have also fallen way off - a previously rather successful ploy, most probably because the charge has gotten more and more ludicrous.

No, Israel has been behaving very, very, very badly indeed.

[1]At some point, this gentlemenly 'two sides can reasonably disagree' has got to be dropped. I would say the vast majority of people like this DBN tosser are arguing in patently bad faith. Accordingly, I suggest that they be pressured, heavily, to prove that they are arguing in good faith. Otherwise, simply cut them.

[ajay]

Gosh, I think von has just successfully trolled his own blog. Again. What's next on the agenda, von - abortion?

[now_what]

The majority of settlements and the majority of settlers pose a minimal problem; they cluster along the border for easier access to services in Israel proper.

Hilarious. Go look at a map of the settlements, OK?

Under the circumstances it's up to the Palestinians to earn the Israelis' trust, by an extended period of non-aggression. That might not seem fair to you, but that's the reality of the situation.

Under the circumstances it's up to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to earn the Germans' trust, by an extended period of non-aggression. That might not seem fair to you, but that's the reality of the situation.

[Z]

I agree the Mexico comparison is really stupid. A better comparison would be the US government versus the Native Americans. They attacked and killed a lot of American settlers, but what we did to them is worse.

[Uncle Kvetch]

More to the point, Israel can live with you despising them.

Of that I have no doubt. Can it live without my tax dollars, too? If so, I invite it to do so posthaste.

[wonkie]

"Look, this is something of a prisoner's dilemma, but it ain't a symmetric prisoner's dilemma. While the best outcome requires the Israelis and Palestinians to cooperate, the vast disparity of power means that the Israelis have a much BETTER non-cooperating outcome available to them than the Palestinians do."

Ok once again: the Israelis have nukes; the Palestinians do not; the Israelis have a very well trained profesisonal military with a history of winning; the Palestinians do not; the Israelis are settling in formerly Palestinian ares displacing people from their homes and businesses causing a refugee crisis; the Palestinians are not; the Israelis are blockading Palestine, not vice versa.

Yes, there is a vast disparity in power. If you can justify your assumption that the Israelis are the weaker party, please do so.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Under the circumstances it's up to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto to earn the Germans' trust, by an extended period of non-aggression. That might not seem fair to you, but that's the reality of the situation."

While there are undoubtedly plenty of innocent victims in the middle east, anybody who thinks that the Palestians, the people who put Hamas in power, are as a group innocent victims is wacked.

But that's beside the point. My point is that given the disparity of power between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Palestinians need peace a lot more than the Israelis. So they're the ones who have to make it happen.

[now_what]

the Palestinians need peace a lot more than the Israelis. So they're the ones who have to make it happen.

the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto need peace a lot more than the Germans. So they're the ones who have to make it happen.

[Ara]

ScentofViolets: Thanks for that article about cease-fire pauses. I wonder if there is a kind of base rate fallacy there, though. 79% cease-fires are broken by Israeli attacks, but Israel is much more successful at being lethal. Lets say 10 rockets are fired but don't kill anyone. One would think that that would ordinarily count as breaking a cease-fire, but it would not on their statistics.

[Carleton Wu]

While there are undoubtedly plenty of innocent victims in the middle east, anybody who thinks that the Palestians, the people who put Hamas in power, are as a group innocent victims is wacked.

Yeah, that's the first event in the chain- nothing relevant happened before that. Why they chose violence when everything was so peaceful, no one knows.
How would you react if someone committed the lunacy of wondering why the Israelis invaded Gaza without any reference to the rocket attacks? If that person said the Israelis aren't innocent because they invaded Gaza out of the blue?

You maybe are aware that some Jews attempted resistance from the Ghettos. And a good German might have used that resistance as an excuse for increased violence- just as you have done here.
You also seem to think that the Palestinians are some sort of monolithic block. People usually do this when they're demonizing a group, it makes it easier to handle seeing dead children if one says to oneself "nits become lice".

[Carleton Wu]

Might not make them marvelous masters of restraint, but it damned well makes them better masters of restraint than the Palestinians, by a long shot.

The Palestinians destroyed Israel? Funny, I didn't see anything in the news.
Or, do you mean that the Palestinians continue their low-level attacks on Israel, just as the Israelis continue their low-level attacks on Palestinians? Cos I don't see how that makes either side a master of restraint.

Look, this is something of a prisoner's dilemma, but it ain't a symmetric prisoner's dilemma. While the best outcome requires the Israelis and Palestinians to cooperate, the vast disparity of power means that the Israelis have a much BETTER non-cooperating outcome available to them than the Palestinians do.
Under the circumstances it's up to the Palestinians to earn the Israelis' trust, by an extended period of non-aggression. That might not seem fair to you, but that's the reality of the situation.

A good example of an argumentative technique that I find profoundly frustrating- a failure to make an argument on one level (moral) segues seamlessly into a new argument on entirely different terrain (practical). If the Israelis aren't in the right, well at least they (equipped by the US) are stronger.
And it's a bad argument- the Israelis are happier in the status quo, but this also means that they have more to lose. So neither side is pleased with the status quo, and additionally in the long run the value to each side of the non-cooperating outcome is much more difficult to predict.
It also raises the question- if the Israelis get a better deal because they are stronger rather than because of a moral case in their favor, why should the US spend billions to produce this outcome?

[matt]

von is just a troll. it's ridiculous that good bloggers share a space with him. just ignore.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Or, do you mean that the Palestinians continue their low-level attacks on Israel, just as the Israelis continue their low-level attacks on Palestinians? Cos I don't see how that makes either side a master of restraint."

Palestinians engage in low level attacks on Israel because that's all they're capable of on a sustained basis. (Chiefly because the sanctions deny them access to all the munitions they'd otherwise have.) And they keep it up despite all it's cost them over the years. It's not a demonstration of restraint. Israel could wipe Gaza from the face of the Earth in hours, so "low level attacks" (Which consist mostly of return fire anyway.) do in fact demonstrate restraint.

And I find these Warsaw ghetto analogies either radically unserious, or remarkably stupid. Jewish attacks on Germany played no part in triggering the Holocaust, but Palestinian attacks on Israel are a critical component in the violent dynamics of the middle east. You can't just take the wrongs committed by Palestinians, and airbrush them out of the picture like that.

Well, you can, but nobody should take you seriously if you do.

[Carleton Wu]

von,
I was re-reading the original post, and I have another question:
Is it because Israel's response is viewed as counterproductive? I might agree with that view, but this is a strategic objection, not a moral one.

I think this reasoning is flawed. Knowingly acting in a counterproductive way has moral implications; in this case, Id argue that a significant amount of support within Israel for these actions comes *because* they are counterproductive. Or, rather, that they are very productive, but towards a different end: keeping the Palestinians angry and radicalized, therefore preventing movements towards peace. They are only counterproductive insofar as be buy the cover explanation.
If you don't know that the clear liquid in the bucket is gasoline, and you throw it on the fire while trying to help, that's a practical problem. But if you *do* suspect (or know) that it's gasoline, and throw it anyway on the pretext that it might help somehow, then you are aware of- and morally responsible for- the likely outcome.

So the complete failure of anyone in the pro-Israeli camp to explain how the Gaza invasion was supposed to produce a better outcome for Israel in the future is IMO indicative of a moral AND a practical problem.

[Anderson]

von is just a troll

I think he's more like Lisa Kudrow in the Friends episode where Ross finds out she doesn't believe in evolution.

(Except that I have a crush on Lisa K. but none on Von.)

[Carleton Wu]

Palestinians engage in low level attacks on Israel because that's all they're capable of on a sustained basis.... Israel could wipe Gaza from the face of the Earth in hours, so "low level attacks" (Which consist mostly of return fire anyway.) do in fact demonstrate restraint.

This would cause tremendous harm to Israel, threating her very existence. They show no more restraint in not doing this than they do in not nuking Tel Aviv.
btw, your "return fire" argument here is the epitome of your blinded position- every Palestinian act is agressive, every Israeli act that follows is defensive or retributive, but in fact they just form a chain of tit-for-tat violence. Sometimes escalating, sometimes de-escalating. Only a rabid partisan could view such a chain of violence as offensive-defensive-offensive-defensive.

And I find these Warsaw ghetto analogies either radically unserious, or remarkably stupid. Jewish attacks on Germany played no part in triggering the Holocaust, but Palestinian attacks on Israel are a critical component in the violent dynamics of the middle east.

Analogy is never perfect. But the basic idea, that the embattled weaker party ought to kowtow to the stronger because they are stronger (and that moral reasoning has no place)- well, that's what you're espousing here. And no one claimed that the resistance caused the Holocaust. Tasty straw, and 9.5 for completely dodging the point.

You can't just take the wrongs committed by Palestinians, and airbrush them out of the picture like that. Well, you can, but nobody should take you seriously if you do.

I have, in fact, mentioned the wrongs committed by the Palestinians on this very thread. I am not mirroring your nutball position that Israel is always right by claiming that the Palestinians are always right. I am very clearly saying that both sides have radical elements that commit bad acts.
Should anyone take you seriously if all you've got left is your Fearsome Strawman Army? Can your brain process the idea that one does not have to be a rabid partisan for one side or the other?

[now_what]

Jewish attacks on Germany played no part in triggering the Holocaust

German propaganda about Jewish attacks on Germany did. The analogy continues.

[DBN]

No, you are one of those odious types who won't be happy until you find a definition that favors Israel, no matter how contrived it is. And it is people like you that are part of the problem.

My sympathies, insofar as I have any, lie with the Palestinian people. However, I'm poorly tolerant of dumb arguments for any position.

But hey, just to satisfy you, I'll say which side is more likely to kill first after a cease fire. Israel, overwhelmingly so. Does that satisfy you?

It's more accurate, certainly, but it fails ot support the idea that Israel is usually the aggressor. If I fire twenty or thirty gunshots into a crowded room, and fail to kill anyone, that does not mean that the police are not justified in using lethal force to stop me.

This has been going on for so long that the idea that either side is merely reacting to the other is ludicrously partisan.

[Brett Bellmore]

"German propaganda about Jewish attacks on Germany did. The analogy continues.

You're joking, right? That Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel for years, and all those suicide bombings, is just "propaganda", on a par with German lies about the Jews?

Man, reality denial on a massive scale.

[now_what]

You're joking, right? That Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel for years, and all those suicide bombings, is just "propaganda"

The best propaganda starts with a kernel of truth. Like, for example, the fact that between the June 19, 2008 cease fire and the Israeli invasion of Gaza on November 4, 20 rockets were launched from Gaza at Israel, resulting in 0 fatalities, and that in the month prior to the Israeli invasion, 1 rocket had been launched from Gaza at Israel resulting in 0 fatalities and 0 injuries.

That is the kernel of truth. The propaganda was the assertion that Israel was in severe danger from attacks by Gaza and that this danger justified an invasion resulting in heavy civilian casualties and massive infrastructure destruction, that it justified an embargo of food and other civilian aid, that it justified the use of chemical weapons in civilian areas, that it justified other war crimes, and so on.

Likewise, it is undeniably true that as early as 1933, there were a few calls in the UK press and by a few US individuals and organizations such as the America Jewish Congress among others for a boycott by Jews of German exports.

That is the kernel of truth. The German propaganda was that these calls were a threat to Germany, and that this threat justified a boycott of Jewish businesses and professionals in Germany, that this justified painting the Star of David on the doors of these business and in some cases smashing their windows, and that this justified the ever increasing hostility to Jews in Germany that led to Kristallnacht and then eventually the Holocaust.

Ridiculous claims, as only those practicing reality denial on a massive scale would deny.

[ScentOfViolets]

Sigh. What is it with drivel like this?

It's more accurate, certainly, but it fails ot support the idea that Israel is usually the aggressor. If I fire twenty or thirty gunshots into a crowded room, and fail to kill anyone, that does not mean that the police are not justified in using lethal force to stop me.

The original notion, pushed for many, many years was that the Palestinians were the aggressors and that Israel - how did their spokespersons phrase it - 'has the right to defend itself'. Just recently, the prevailing meme was that 'Hamas broke the ceasefire'. And of course, they didn't - that was Israel.

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that you didn't know this? The second part goes to methodology - the idea being 'what counts', and the problem being that we're supposed to assume that randomly firing off rockets is supposed to trump everything else. Well, no, no it's not. I'd put blockades, aggressive settlements, stealing large sums of money at least as high. Note also the wranglings over whether or not Hamas is able to control all the rocket attacks, and whether or not there are provocateurs deliberately doing the same thing to give force to the idea that Hamas is 100% at fault.

But rather than look at all the claims, counter-claims etc, and get bogged down into deliberately extended arguments as to whether three rocket attacks equals one Palestinian child crushed by a bulldozer, the study looked at verifiable results. Which sounds like good science to me - and which tells me you're not much for science.

Finally, I don't believe you when you say your sympathetic to the Palestinians. Got any quotes to back that up? Because your analogy was completely ludicrous, the equating of rockets being fired with "fire twenty or thirty gunshots into a crowded room, and fail to kill anyone". Uh, if I fire 20 or 30 rounds into a crowded room, the long odds are that I'm going to kill at least 10 to 20 people. I know this. You know this. Everybody else knows this. So why use this as an analogy? Probably because it provokes an emotive response against the Palestinians.

So your protestations as well as your 'logic' leaves me cold. Until you make some effort to convince me otherwise, I'm categorizing you as a bad-faith shill. This isn't me, that's all on you. If you're not, you'd best change your behaviour.