Morrie's Wigs Don't Come Off!

by Eric Martin

If, as a nation state, you find yourself casting about for a trustworthy United Nations ally to back your position on human rights, and your current raft of policies are of such a quality that China becomes the logical go-to partner, rather than pursue such a partnership with China on matters of human rights, perhaps you should reassess the policies that make such a union so attractive.  Especially when China's penchant to intercede on behalf of North Korea and Iran are cited as evidence that you, too, can gain shelter under China's umbrella.  Matt Yglesias opines:

Even very hawkish Israelis who don’t care at all about the welfare of Arabs do care about helping Israel to avoid international isolation. Israel’s not North Korea or Burma. Its citizens want to participate in robust social, cultural and economic ties for the world. This makes it a problem to do things like totally blow off the Goldstone Report.

Caroline Glick (a Senior Fellow at Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy and a frequent contributor to NRO), writing in the Jerusalem Post, has what she thinks is the solution to this a Sino-Israeli alliance against international human rights norms:

America’s behavior towards the UN today should serve as a reminder to Israel that we mustn’t put all our diplomatic eggs in America’s basket. If we wish to neutralize the threat the UN-based international community poses to our national interests, we must expand our international alliances.

In our efforts we have a potential ally in China. One of Beijing’s abiding positions is that it opposes UN sanctions on individual states. In the Chinese view, such sanctions diminish national rights to sovereignty. It is on the basis of this claim that China has justified opposing sanctions against rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

Israel should make the case to the Chinese that China should back Israel in international institutions, by among other things vetoing UN Security Council resolutions against Israel. If in defense of the principle of sovereignty China is willing to block sanctions against Iran and North Korea, then surely Beijing should be willing to take the far more benign step of supporting Israel.

Or, you know, you could work to make your human rights record less like states that need to turn to China for support on matters of human rights.  Just sayin'.

Comments

[Phil]

I mean, like you wouldn't shoot someone right in the face if you thought they were coming to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But the Palestinians are supposed to be Gandhi. Who do you think you're fooling, Brett? Can you give us a list of the posters here who you really think are that stupid?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you appear to be stupid enough to think somebody who is hopelessly outmatched as a matter of physical force ought to be engaged in trading shots. Stupid enough to think somebody who desperately needs world opinion on their side is well advised to put a radio controlled bomb on a Downs syndrome victim, and blow him up in a daycare center.

That level of stupidity requires exponential notation to record.

Ok, drop it, we're never going to agree, and the Palestinians are too vicious to ever try any approach that doesn't involve trying to kill people, so it's academic anyway.

You know what's going to happen? The Israelis are going to continue keeping their heel on the Palestinians, 'cause the alternative is accepting being continually attacked without responding, and nobody does that if they don't have to. And in that fight only the Palestinians need to.

World opinion will continue to be mixed enough for them to get away with it, because the Palestinians are so revolting in their behavior as to always make the Israelis look better to anybody who isn't using a double standard.

And eventually the oil wealth of the Middle East will run out, and public opinion will turn decisively in favor of Israel once we don't need to humor our source of petrochemicals.

And it's all a bloody shame.

[Slartibartfast]

Brett, I haven't been paying much attention to you, but calling people "stupid" is an outright violation of the posting rules. You've been banned, possibly temporarily, depending on how much you're interested in staying on the straight and narrow.

Write the kitty if you're interested in returning, and the kitty may elect to hear any acts of contrition you might have to offer.

[Phil]

[i]Well, you appear to be stupid enough to think somebody who is hopelessly outmatched as a matter of physical force ought to be engaged in trading shots. [/i]

You mean like taking on the US government and the armed forces, as you often fantasize about doing?

Given your choice of adjectives, though, I suspect that Palestinians are like the black people of the Middle East to you. Which would explain a lot.

[Donald Johnson]

"Ok, drop it, we're never going to agree, and the Palestinians are too vicious to ever try any approach that doesn't involve trying to kill people"

There are, of course, Palestinians who practice non-violent resistance, something you obviously know nothing about, and to talk about "the Palestinians" being too vicious says more about you than them. It also shows you pay no attention to Israeli behavior, which has been both vicious and sadistic.

[elm]

I'm not cool with collective punishment. You guys, on the other hand, are apparently cool with collective vicious stupidity. That's what I see in the Palestinians: A stubborn determination at every decision point to cut off their collective noses to spite their faces.

Apparently you are.

The punishment is clearly collective. Palestinian violence is in no part collective. If any of Gaza's 1.5 million residents commits violence, you would apparently condone Israel killing thousands.

Israeli responses to violence -- destruction of houses, disproportionate killings, bombing schools, and choking off food and medicine -- are designed to cause maximum provocation. From a group of 1.5 million, you can always find some number willing to respond with violence.

That violence, even if committed by few, justifies more disproportionate killing, destruction of property, and deprivation of food, medicine, and fuel by Israel.

This has always been the logic of settlement, invasion, and apartheid. Every aggressor has claimed justification and cited some grievance, no matter how small.

It is revealing that you leap immediately to leap to analogies with Hitler. Was Mandela completely nonviolent? No. Did that justify the violent retribution of the Apartheid government of South Africa? It did in the eyes of some.

[Jesurgislac]

While in total agreement with elm, Phil, and Donald, I think it's not-cool to respond to Brett while he's banned. (And having been subject to it myself, I think this is exactly the kind of situation 24-hour banning was made for.)

[Marty]

From Phil (not even counting the other piling on)

I mean, any "libertarian" who had a lick of goddamned sense in his head would be on the side of the Palestinians here.

a man who not a week ago was jerking off the to idea of shooting people if a new US Constitution didn't come out the way he wanted.

I do feel somewhat sad for you, though, that you are locked into such a confusing and contradictory brain. Does it hurt?

You're, like, the person I can readily look to for moral guidance. Because I can suss out your opinion and know that "DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT" is the right thing to do.

Can you give us a list of the posters here who you really think are that stupid?

I am not sure that Brett finally broke down and actually just answered in the EXACT words Phil used deserved a ban. A waarning maybe (to Phil also?), but not a ban.

[Jesurgislac]

A 24-hour ban gives Brett the time to cool down and consider whether he wants to respond to the many questions (not just from Phil) how he reconciles his claimed beliefs in libertarianism with his assertions about the Palestinians and the Israeli government in this thread.

Or just walk away from the debate.

Or respond only to Sid.

Or start a new argument somewhere else.

All valid options.

...open thread?

[elm]

Jes: I'm in complete agreement that it's not cool to respond to someone when he's banned.

I offer my sincere apologies for doing so. That was rude.

(In my defense, I didn't see the second page of comments last night, but that doesn't change my assessment that my behavior was rude nor my apology.)

[hairshirthedonist]

While you guys are trying not to be rude, I'm going to assume that any lack of timely response from Brett to this comment indicates that Brett agrees with Jes on everything forever.

(In my defense, how could I be expected to pass that up?)

[Donald Johnson]

I won't apologize. I knew he was banned, but his disgusting comments about the Palestinians were still out there and that's what I responded to.

[Slartibartfast]

Brett's now unbanned.

Let's keep it civil, shall we?