A Hungry Mob Is an Angry Mob

by Eric Martin

Although this is not the type of story that one comes across in the Western media very often, it should not come as a surprise to anyone paying attention (via):

As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007, after Hamas...took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza. [...]

However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare. [...]

The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn't be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza. [...]

According to figures published by Gisha in coordination with the United Nations, Israel allows in 25 percent of the goods it had permitted into Gaza before the Hamas takeover. In the years prior to the closure, Israel allowed an average of 10,400 trucks to enter Gaza with goods each month. Israel now allows approximately 2,500 trucks a month. [emphasis added]

Unsurprisingly, that economic warfare isn't working out as planned - that is, unless the intended outcome is the empowerment of Hamas and groups that are even more militant than Hamas, which is a distinct possibility given Israel's own sordid history in conneciton with the origins of Hamas itself.

Daniel Larison offers some observations:

Hamas’s security forces remain strong and in full control, while more extreme Islamist challengers are gaining influence because of an Israeli embargo that has done more to frustrate the population than to weaken Hamas’s grip, analysts say. ~The Washington Post

The article goes on to say that Israel wanted to “wait and see whether Gaza’s residents would rise up and force Hamas out.” One might conclude from this that Israel would end the blockade once it realizes that this is never going to happen, but that would be wrong. The trouble with this wait-and-see approach to regime change is that there is no obvious end to it...Even if Hamas is eventually overthrown by people in Gaza, it will likely be by a more radical faction that comes to see Hamas as corrupt and ineffective, much as Hamas saw Fatah, and the rise of that faction will provide new justification for continuing the blockade.

There is a certain perverse logic to all of this. The misery, poverty and hopelessness created by a virtually stagnant private economy in a densely-populated, isolated enclave radicalizes the population even more, but more than that it deprives them of the incentive to turn against their own leadership and it makes them incapable of organizing effective resistance against the local regime. Everything about the blockade ensures that the political conditions in Gaza can only get worse, but lifting the blockade depends on the improvement of those conditions...

The Post article continues:

Bruce Riedel, a former Middle East analyst for the CIA who is now with the Brookings Institution in Washington, said he has no doubt that “Hamas now faces a much bigger threat from the extreme jihadists sympathetic to al-Qaeda” than from Fatah, which controls the West Bank. Al-Qaeda sympathizers appeal to Hamas’s core constituency “of militants who want to fight Israel, not live in a cease-fire and under blockade. They are frustrated that Hamas won’t allow [rocket] attacks or attempts to kidnap more Israelis [bold mine-DL]. Hamas has the upper hand for now because it has more force and is ruthless in using it, but the long trend is worrisome.”

The standard line we hear in defense of the blockade is that it is necessary to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel. The analysis in the article suggests that the blockade is actually making future attacks more likely by encouraging more radical groups to challenge Hamas on account of its apparent lack of militancy. The cease-fire is holding, but the blockade is still being enforced rigorously. The tightness of the blockade seems to have no relationship to security conditions. Under these conditions, Hamas appears unduly weak and conciliatory. To the extent that there are any political forces opposed to Hamas in Gaza, they are even more implacable and uncompromising, and the blockade is slowly making them stronger.

Now, if an al-Qaeda affiliate or copycat group were to rise to power in Gaza, that would certainly give Israel a leg up in the PR war, at least in terms of the domestic audience in its most important benefactor, the United States.  Our public and politicians have been known to be driven to support, to the hilt, any number of counterproductive policies by the mere shadow and whisper of Osama bin Laden. 

I'm not suggesting that the Israeli goverment, even one helmed by the odious Netanyahu, would prefer this outcome.  Not even Netanyahu is that foolish - I think.  However, regardless of the actual desires and intentions of the Israeli government, it is helping to create such an outcome nevertheless.

Comments

[John Cole]

Totally OT, but has anyone seen or heard from Gary Farber lately? He has not posted on his blog for a month, and I know he was going through a tough patch earlier this year.

[Eric Martin]

JC: Check with him on Facebook if you have access to that corner of the tubes.

[cleek]

you didn't just drop a Robyn Hitchcock ref on us, did you? 'cause that would meet or exceed expectations.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Cleek, I don't recognize this as an RH ref (and I'm a huge fan)--what did you have in mind. I think Eric is quoting Bob Marley.

[Ugh]

Now, if an al-Qaeda affiliate or copycat group were to rise to power in Gaza, that would certainly give Israel a leg up in the PR war...
I'm not suggesting that the Israeli goverment, even one helmed by the odious Netanyahu, would prefer this outcome. Not even Netanyahu is that foolish - I think.

Mmm... that's probably right, but I think the background thinking for Netanyahu is (a) if such a thing were to ever happen it would only be marginally worse than the Hamas status quo and thus acceptable; and (b) even if it is more than marginally worse, we'll just repeat the Gaza war, writ large if necessary, and that will take care of the problem. Also we will, ultimately, receive US backing in any eventuality.

In the meantime, rocket attacks are way down and I'm PM of Israel, why fnck up a good thing?

[cleek]

what did you have in mind.

A happy bird is a filthy bird.

not familiar with the Marley ref. but i suppose RH probably is.

[Sapient]

I heard the Israeli ambassador talking, just for a couple of minutes - I was in the car, on the Diane Rehm show. He was very open about the fact that it is economic warfare in that they are trying to show the Gazans how miserable life can be when Hamas is in charge as opposed to the relative prosperity elsewhere in Israel (although I'm not sure how the Gazans are supposed to experience the contrast).

It's absolutely unconscionable for the United States to be supporting that. How do we get out of this trap?

[Eric Martin]

It was a Marley ref FWIW, but I'm not opposed to RH mashups ;)

[Uncle Kvetch]

A happy bird is a filthy bird.

Ah, of course. Beautiful tune.

[alphie]

"It's absolutely unconscionable for the United States to be supporting that. How do we get out of this trap? "

Trap?

When it comes to the rights of dusky people, America has always been the most...flexible country.

[Slartibartfast]

When it comes to the rights of dusky people

Interesting that you categorize people by skin tone, alphie. Tell me, on your dermatone scale, are the residents of Gaza more or less "dusky" than the residents of Israel?

[Julian]

I understand your indignation, Slarti, but Alphie did say "flexible," which would also allow the U.S. treating people of the same dusk differently.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Tell me, on your dermatone scale, are the residents of Gaza more or less "dusky" than the residents of Israel?

I think it's pretty uncontroversial to note that Jews are generally categorized as "white" in American culture,* while Arabs most emphatically are not. Would you disagree?

*Of course, this wasn't always the case...

[Prof. Smackdown]

Are you sure that radicalizing the Gazans is unintentional?

Didn't Bush say that he won the trifecta (terrorist attack, war, and recession, or something)? IOW, when things get worse, he wins.

I recall reading an argument many years ago that extremists in the Israeli gov't and extremists in the Palestinian mov't have a symbiotic relationship. Sort of like Bush and Bin Laden, after all.

Each gets what they want when the situation is radicalized. Didn't Yglesias (or someone) link to an article that argues that the Israelis gov't doesn't want peace, it wants the West Bank? The plan is working; why change it?

IOW, it's a feature, not a bug.

[alphie]

are the residents of Gaza more or less "dusky" than the residents of Israel?

Are there a lot of Palestinians from Russia?

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's pretty uncontroversial to note that Jews are generally categorized as "white" in American culture

And Lebanese are categorized as...what? Is it fair to say that Helen Thomas is regarded as a white person?

Are there a lot of Palestinians from Russia?

That doesn't answer my question, alphie.

[Ugh]

And Lebanese are categorized as...what? Is it fair to say that Helen Thomas is regarded as a white person?

The former, not-white, the latter, white, without any contradiction.

I see the point you're making Slarti (I think, my Slarti-Fu-Radar has been pretty good), and it's almost undoubtedly correct, but Uncle K's "in Amercian Culture" caveat seems (to me) to carry the day. Cf. Germans as "The Huns".

[Slartibartfast]

without any contradiction

Eh? But Helen Thomas is Lebanese on both sides of her family.

Maybe not culturally, though. Which would naturally tend to make her skin lighter in tone. Or something. Really not understanding alphie's point, here.

But yes, Ugh, your Slarti-Fu-Radar is generally right on the button, for which I am grateful and appreciative, but which should cause you some concern about your own mental twisty-turny-ness.

[cleek]

Didn't Yglesias (or someone) link to an article that argues that the Israelis gov't doesn't want peace, it wants the West Bank? The plan is working; why change it?

this one, from Jim Henley, prolly.

[Ugh]

which should cause you some concern about your own mental twisty-turny-ness.

It's the vodka.

[Model 62]

It's absolutely unconscionable for the United States to be supporting that. How do we get out of this trap?

The last time the United States found itself in a similar trap (imposing economic sanctions in order to inspire a popular uprising/coup), it got itself out by dropping the pretense, invading, replacing the local government with an occupation government, transitioning that government into a relatively friendly new government, supporting that government through a civil war, and then retreating to well secured air bases.

I don't think even the Israelis have the balls to try that trick in Gaza.

[alphie]

AS the Israeli economic sanctions on Gaza are what impoverishes it, we should deduct the $400 million in aid we're sending to Gaza from Israel's $3 billion annual welfare payment.

[Sebastian]

Helen Thomas isn't white? All these years I never would have guessed. (Or cared really, but there we are).

What would an Al-Qaeda copycat government do that Hamas does not already do? Send rockets, mortar, and suicide bombers? Try to start a war?

[Ugh]

Really not understanding alphie's point, here.

Ah, missed that this started with alphie, not Uncle K such that the latter's caveat does not (necessarily) apply to the former.

[Ugh]

What would an Al-Qaeda copycat government do that Hamas does not already do? Send rockets, mortar, and suicide bombers? Try to start a war?

Well, it seems Hamas is willing to stop (some/most of?) the various rocket attacks, as you've been noting and I think the general assumption is that al-Qaeda would not. Perhaps a distinction without a difference.

[Eric Martin]

No, that distinction matters very much.

Hamas has stated, repeatedly, that it would offer peace for the 1967 borders. Al-Qaeda has not.

[Sebastian]

But their charter suggests otherwise. And they further demand complete right of return for all Palestinian refugees. Which is about 4 million (mostly descendants of the original refugees).

To be clear, they are demanding the right of influx of 4 million Palestinians into an Israeli population of only 7 million.

In scale to the US that would be like Mexico demanding that we accept about 170 million immigrants. And not just any immigrants, but 170 million of whom the majority have been trained since infancy to hate us and actively want us dead.

The fact that so many commentators are dismissive of Israeli concerns about the alleged right of return is mind boggling to me.

[Slartibartfast]

It's the vodka.

Oh. Speaking of which, we're within a day or so of my birthday, and friends just moved in with us while they're gutting their new-to-them home, so as a consequence I've got an ice-cold martini (barbarians, us: the vodka kind) with my name on it, if I choose to blow off sparring for the night.

Which is looking more and more like a certainty.

I can come back and give you a sample of Slarti's brain on vodka (which it mostly isn't, believe it or not), which may require that Ugh resort to something more potent to reliably interpret.

But maybe not. I'd hate to be responsible for anything awful, like a consultation with Mescalito.

[Eric Martin]

But their charter suggests otherwise. And they further demand complete right of return for all Palestinian refugees. Which is about 4 million (mostly descendants of the original refugees).

To be clear, they are demanding the right of influx of 4 million Palestinians into an Israeli population of only 7 million.

The fact that so many commentators are dismissive of Israeli concerns about the alleged right of return is mind boggling to me.

Seb,

Hamas has not agreed, preemptively, to cast aside all of its demands because that is not how negotiations achieve desired results.

Hamas has put forth a series of demands, and some are clearly a stretch, but they contemplate a negotiated settlement, and they contemplate an Israel within the 1967 borders.

al-Qaeda's position is not to compromise on any matter, no negotation, etc., and no Israel at all.

I find it disturbing that there is no appreciation of the difference.

[Sebastian]

"Hamas has not agreed, preemptively, to cast aside all of its demands because that is not how negotiations achieve desired results."

Israel has been in negotiation with the Palestinians longer than you or I have been alive. There is holding on to a demand for concessions and there is holding on to a demand.

I haven't seen even strong hinting that Hamas might be willing to give up on "the right of return" in exchange for, well anything. (I frankly haven't even seen weak hinting, but there may be some evidence of that somewhere).

They contemplate an Israel within the 1967 borders that gets to have 50% of its population immediately augmented by Palestinians.

"Clearly a stretch" is a bit of an underplay. I'd go for "clearly sabotaging the negotiation".

And yes I'm quite clear that Israel, especially of late, has been doing a reflexively bad thing with the settlements.

That just suggests to me that at the moment, neither side gives a crap about peace.

[Eric Martin]

Israel has been in negotiation with the Palestinians longer than you or I have been alive. There is holding on to a demand for concessions and there is holding on to a demand.

Israel has not been negotiating with Hamas for as long as my son has been alive (8 months today).

I haven't seen even strong hinting that Hamas might be willing to give up on "the right of return" in exchange for, well anything. (I frankly haven't even seen weak hinting, but there may be some evidence of that somewhere).

It's hard to say until they start negotiating.

And yes I'm quite clear that Israel, especially of late, has been doing a reflexively bad thing with the settlements.

That just suggests to me that at the moment, neither side gives a crap about peace.

This might be true. But mind you, the settlements are not a "recent" phenomenon.

[Turbulence]

Slarti, do you understand that in cultural matters, whiteness is not purely a function of skin pigmentation? For example, both of my parents are Arabs. My father is somewhat dark skinned and my mother is much more fair skinned. Even though my mother has the same skin tone as your average Italian/Greek, people don't generally consider her white. She doesn't have a white name. She has an accent. She belongs to a funny religion. Where the church services are conducted in Arabic. Her style of dress is more conservative than her white peers. There are a million little things that mark people from non-white cultures as non-white, even if their skin color is the same shade as other people who are white.

Over time, the whiteness of cultures in America changes; not so long ago the Irish and Italians and Greeks were obviously non-white. These days, not so much.

[Nell]

wrt whiteness: There's also the whole history of Israel's diplomatic, military, intelligence, and political support of the white Nationalist apartheid government of South Africa. Yes, there are some Jewish citizens of Israel who are darker than some Palestinians; but view in much of the world is that it's a European settler colonial state. Hence "white".

[Sebastian]

"Israel has not been negotiating with Hamas for as long as my son has been alive (8 months today)."

I'm not understanding your point. You've been alive for significantly longer than 8 months.

"It's hard to say until they start negotiating."

That is true in the abstract. But every single time Israel has negotiated with any Palestinian government, they have made absolutely clear that they insist on the right to put 4 million Palestinians into a 7 million population. That includes for example: the Madrid Peace talks (1991), Oslo (1993), reiterated by Arafat surrounding talks for the Hebron and Wye agreements (1997), the Camp David summit (2000), the Beruit Summit (2002), and all of Hamas' current demands.

"This might be true. But mind you, the settlements are not a "recent" phenomenon."

And the demand of return is not a recent phenomenon either.

And yes, it is perfectly clear to outsiders like us that there is absolutely not the slightest chance for peace while one side demands the ROR and the other side refuses to get rid of most of the settlements. But that doesn't mean that either side is going to give up, it is absolutely possible that they will just both continue making war.

But there is one significant difference. Israel, at Camp David, offered to dismantle nearly all of the settlements (the major exception being those in Jerusalem which they offered to jointly administer). The Palestinians have never offered to give up the demand to suddenly bump up 50% of the population of Israel.

And just to stave off a possible objection--that previous negotiations were with Fatah not Hamas--Hamas has as one of the keys to its rhetoric against Fatah that Fatah goes too far in giving things up to Israel for peace.

[Nell]

On the post topic: In his appearance on the Colbert show, Oren was equally open about the blockade being kept in place to achieve a political goal. The Israeli govt clearly feels safe to be honest about it in the U.S. media, where no one will actually call them on the cruel and inhumane nature of the tactic.

At every turn, the hard-line policies have increased the radicalization in Gaza. It may not be intentional, but it's not something the policy makers are doing anything to avoid.

And speaking of hard-liners vs. not:
Seems to have gone almost completely unremarked in the U.S. that a group of high-ranking Israeli naval reserve officers have called on the govt to allow an international investigation and condemned the immediate effort to put the responsibility on the flotilla participants.

[Nell]

Correction: the naval officers were calling for an independent inquiry (by someone other than the military itself), not for an international investigation. Not as newsworthy, though evidence of a strong and ongoing political conflict inside Israel.

[sapient]

Thanks, Nell, for your comments. I hadn't seen this NYT article earlier, first, stating the following rationale for the Gaza embargo (clearly not a "security" concern):

"The idea was that the West Bank would prosper while Gaza would fester."

But most importantly, the article also indicates (vaguely) that there is some reason for hope that there is an end in sight, not only because of international pressure, but also that from some high level Israelis.

[JoshK]

1. Hamas has not offered any sort of negotiation. You might be confusing them with the PA, which has been involved in ongoing negotiations. If you're going to pretend that Hamas' list of demands is a negotiating tactic, then that's a bit of a stretch as it includes demands for the removal of all Jews from Israel.

2. And if you're going to call Netanyahu odious you should bear in mind that the lowest form of an argument is the ad-hominem attack.

3. You do have to acknowledge that the last war + the economic sanctions have reduced greatly the number of cross-border attacks. It doesn't follow to suggest that Israel should open the border up when the most likely outcome is more attacks.

4. I think Thomas is a Maronite and they are not really Arabs. I think they are actually closer to Jews and Italians then Arabs...

[KCinDC]

The trouble with this wait-and-see approach to regime change is that there is no obvious end to it

Castro will be gone any minute now, and the Cuban exiles will be welcomed back with open arms. The blockade will work. What's 50 years in the grand scheme of things?

[Hartmut]

2. And if you're going to call Netanyahu odious you should bear in mind that the lowest form of an argument is the ad-hominem attack.

Could we compromise on even more corrupt than the already high average(imo he is the Israeli Berlusconi) and belonging to the Hynkel school of political rhethorics?

[Eric Martin]

I'm not understanding your point. You've been alive for significantly longer than 8 months.

I think you're smart enough to know my point, as your later comment indicated.

And just to stave off a possible objection--that previous negotiations were with Fatah not Hamas--Hamas has as one of the keys to its rhetoric against Fatah that Fatah goes too far in giving things up to Israel for peace.

Yes, but Hamas has been steadily moderating its position since taking over governance duties. As usually happens.

1. Hamas has not offered any sort of negotiation. You might be confusing them with the PA, which has been involved in ongoing negotiations. If you're going to pretend that Hamas' list of demands is a negotiating tactic, then that's a bit of a stretch as it includes demands for the removal of all Jews from Israel.

Has Israel offered to negotiate with Hamas? Did I miss that? Even the US refuses to have any dealings with Hamas. And, no, Hamas' list of demands does not include the removal of all Jews from Israel. They have actually repeated several times recently that they would accept the 1967 borders. We should probe further to see if they mean it.

2. And if you're going to call Netanyahu odious you should bear in mind that the lowest form of an argument is the ad-hominem attack.

I call Netanyahu odious only because I have put up a series of posts that criticize, with specificity, his odious policies. It is not ad hominem alone, and it was a comment in a comment thread with a pretty sizable background. So, yeah.

3. You do have to acknowledge that the last war + the economic sanctions have reduced greatly the number of cross-border attacks. It doesn't follow to suggest that Israel should open the border up when the most likely outcome is more attacks.

That is a logical fallacy. Further, what if rocket attacks spike tomorrow. Does that prove that war and blockade was a failure? Are you prepared to stipulate that?

And, if you read what I actually wrote, you will see that nowhere did I say that Israel should "open the border up." It would be better if you stick to my actual positions rather than strawmen.

[AreaMan]

The blockade may not oust Hamas from power, especially since there isn't any other group with the power to take them down. But it will stop their aggressiveness and the rocketing. Israel can live with that trade-off.

If making Gaza poorer seems to be making it more violent, consider that making them a lot richer would have also made them more violent. They'd have wonderful weapons and would love to use them.

Arab hostility to Israel has little to do with wealth or poverty.

[Eric Martin]

If making Gaza poorer seems to be making it more violent, consider that making them a lot richer would have also made them more violent. They'd have wonderful weapons and would love to use them.

Huh? How would wealth buy weapons if weapons are not allowed in? Point being: Hamas does not lack weapons because it lacks money.

Israel can live with that trade-off

How far Zionism has fallen.

Arab hostility to Israel has little to do with wealth or poverty.

Nor Israeli hostility to Arabs.

[Catsy]

He was very open about the fact that it is economic warfare in that they are trying to show the Gazans how miserable life can be when Hamas is in charge as opposed to the relative prosperity elsewhere in Israel (although I'm not sure how the Gazans are supposed to experience the contrast).

If true, this is monstrous--and unfathomably stupid. It amounts to collective punishment of the civilian population for who their leaders are.

In other words, "we're going to make you miserable so that you realize how much your leaders suck." By this remarkable twist of logic, we should try to reduce abortions by making the process of getting one as difficult and traumatizing as possible so that we can show pregnant women just how traumatizing and awful abortion is.

Oh, wait.

[cleek]

to me, since the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, while certainly there should be humanitarian aid and people not starving to death, to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go makes sense.

oh wait. that wasn't me. that was Sen. Schumer.

[Ugh]

cleek beat me to it. Can't we do better, state of New York? I guess not.

Lack of Empathy: Not Just for Right-Wingers (Of Course).

[Catsy]

What gets me is how nonsensical it is. Not just wrong, but utterly wrongheaded and having no possibility of producing the stated outcome.

Hamas isn't blockading these people--Israel is.

The Palestinians aren't blockading themselves--Israel is.

Israel's reasons for doing so are irrelevant to this point. Notwithstanding their desire to blame Hamas for the outcome, it is an ironclad, indisputable fact of physics and reality that the blockade is an action taken by the state of Israel--that action, and its consequences, are the responsibility of Israel. Not Hamas.

Even the stupidest person alive--hell, even my 9-year-old--can tell the difference between proximate cause and externally-inflicted punishment, even if they don't know the terms. In my son's case, he long ago grew out of thinking "stop hitting yourself" was actually a meaningful description of cause and effect.

[Christian G.]

The part that cleek quoted above from Schumer's comments is pretty ugly, but the part before I find remarkable as well: "The Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Torah, in David, in a Jewish state, in a two-state solution. More do than before, but a majority still do not"

There were of course polls in the past that showed majorities for a two-state solution. Depending on the times, the support goes up and down. But what on earth are those references about the Torah and David supposed to mean?

[Christian G.]

Nevermind, apparently, the transcript is not 100% correct.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti, do you understand that in cultural matters, whiteness is not purely a function of skin pigmentation?

Eh? WTF? I mean, really, WTF?

She doesn't have a white name.

You're speaking English, yes? I'm asking because this completely does not translate. I have no idea what "doesn't have a white name" means.

[Turbulence]

Eh? WTF? I mean, really, WTF?

Haven't you read any of the comments made at OW about how various ethnicities transition from being not white to white over time? Are you really so unfamiliar with American history that you don't realize that Irish people, let alone Jews, have not always been considered white in America? Did you fail to click the Amazon link that Uncle Kvetch helpfully supplied?

I have no idea what "doesn't have a white name" means.

Really? So, given the names John Smith and Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, you'd have no idea which name was more likely to belong to a WASP and which name was more likely to belong to a person of color? Is that right? You really couldn't even guess?

[JanieM]

My dad was the son of Italian immigrants with a recognizably Italian surname that I still get asked to spell every single time I have to give it to someone. (With good reason.)

My mom was born a rural Baptist with a name about as identifiably "old American" (if you object to "white" in this meaning) as Smith.

My mom's mother was furious when my mom told her mom that she was marrying an Italian Catholic. (My grandfather died when my mother was a child, so his opinion wasn't available.)

My mom says that in what she calls the "ladder of prejudice," in her younger years blacks were at the bottom and Italians were a bare step higher. (Irish, Swedes, Finns, Hungarians, etc., were higher still, but not at the top.)

My parents both chose to marry outside the groups they had been born into, but I'm speaking particularly of my mother because she's still alive and still talking about these matters.

My mother's surname has been "Italian" for more than sixty years. She often comments on the fact that nowadays in the county where I grew up, there are a lot of "Italian names" in positions of power and authority: school principals and superintendents, city managers, etc. There were no "Italian names" in such roles when she (or I) was younger.

This is to say nothing of the Asian and Middle Eastern names that are now joining the mix in my home town, especially in the medical professions.

I can't speak for Turbulence, but I think this is related to what he's saying. There’s a lot of us/them linked to names, not just to skin color. Some of my dad’s cousins, who owned local businesses, changed their surname to sound more “American.” When my grandparents came to this country with their parents, all their given names were “Americanized.” Luigi became Louis, Raffaele became Ralph, etc. One of the things I find interesting is that many immigrants nowadays keep their original, “unAmericanized” names. I like that. I wish it had been like that 100 years ago.

As a footnote, Wikipedia says this about "WASP":

It is an informal term used in the United States and Canada[1] in reference to an ethnic elite with high social status and presumed power. The term excludes Catholics, Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. It is used to identify an elite of upper class, well-educated Protestants.

"WASP" annoys me because it carries connotations that don't necessarily correlate to its literal meaning, but I don’t know of a substitute term that doesn’t carry those connotations. My mother was as clearly as possible (from the literal point of view) a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, born into a countryside full of same, with the occasional German(-American) or other non-Anglo-Saxon northern European mixed in. But she, and they, were very poor farming people, not elites. So I'm always at a bit of a loss to know what label to use. "Old American" works pretty well to describe the names, but that’s just my own quirky attempt to get at the meaning without the inapplicable connotations of “WASP.”

[Jesurgislac]

Turb: I have no idea what "doesn't have a white name" means.

Really? So, given the names John Smith and Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, you'd have no idea which name was more likely to belong to a WASP and which name was more likely to belong to a person of color? Is that right? You really couldn't even guess?

To be fair to Slarti, Turb, there are light-skinned Arabs, and there are parts of the US in which it really would be impossible to tell, because Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim may look as white as Halle Berry does, and John Smith could have one white ancestor, the man who owned his great-grandmother.

There is a different experience of discrimination to be had if your name is data that leads someone inclined that way to discriminate against you as soon as they know it, than if your name tells them nothing but the instant they see you they know you're not inside the pale, to use a metaphor from yet another area of discrimination.

And for most black people whose ancestral history includes being owned and named by "WASPs", the name isn't what will trigger discrimination.

(Cue the "we'll all wear the same number, they won't be able to tell which one's Jackie" story.)

Slartibartfast evidently hasn't been following the discussions in which this topic came up, but it's not as if he's a mod or anything, he's under no obligation to follow every discussion thread here...

[Eric Martin]

Haven't you read any of the comments made at OW about how various ethnicities transition from being not white to white over time? Are you really so unfamiliar with American history that you don't realize that Irish people, let alone Jews, have not always been considered white in America? Did you fail to click the Amazon link that Uncle Kvetch helpfully supplied?

Italians were not always considered white.

When my Italian father was getting married to my Swedish/Finnish mother, her uncle told my father, sincerely and with the best intentions that my father shouldn't worry since they didn't oppose "mixed marriages."

There was a period of time when more Italians were lynched in Mississippi than blacks.

[JanieM]

When and where I was young, "mixed marriage" meant specifically religion, a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant. There was no need to specify; there weren't any other religions around, and as far as the Catholics were concerned there was no need to make distinctions between Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.

***

When my dad applied, as a young man, for the job he ended up getting and keeping til he retired, his soon to be former boss wrote something like this in his letter of recommendation: "Even though his people are Italian, ____ is a very hard worker." My mom still has the letter.

[John Thullen]

I was cautioned by my mother not to let it slip to my Welsh-born paternal grandmother (a wonderful woman) that my steady high-school girlfriend (circa 1966-68) was Catholic.

I don't know that Civil War would have broken out, but my Protestant grandmother might have muttered "Papist" and spat into her pot roast.

My mother told me years later that when we moved to Long Island from Pittsburgh in the late 1950s she and my Dad (Ohioans) were surprised but pleased to learn that Jewish people were, what ....... normal and made good neighbors.

Most of my buddies were Jewish, and I had a long-term crush (again) on the Catholic girl across the street.

I remember one of my buddies' older brothers had his barmitzvah (not that I had any understanding of what that might be) and cake and ice cream were served and presents were received.

I thought, if this is church, sign me up. The Presbyterian Church we attended seemed terribly austere after that.

All of these matters were spoken of in sotto voice in my family. My parents and grandparents generations made their private little peace with change in America but none of them ever got their brains around the Civil Rights Movement.

So what's with Mississippi, he asked rhetorically? Who did they lynch before the new folks started showing up, and after they wiped out the natives? It sounds like lynching there was like bringing the new neighbors in other places a casserole when they moved in -- "Hi! My name is Betty and we live next door. Welcome to the neighborhood -- if you need anything just holler. When my husband gets home -- his name is Haley -- he'll come over and help you move that washer and dryer into the basement and then we'll have a little lynching party for your husband. Buh-bye!

Word is that Sharon Angle in Nevada is so conservative that she believes we should return to the conservative past and do things the old way like we did when America was full of originalists who believed the Italians and the Irish should be lynched too.

Besides, those people didn't go running to the government to set up unelected bureaucracies who told US who we could hire or live next to. They took the abuse and kept their mouths shut. Not like some people I could mention.

I mean, was there a Martin Luther Ciccolini or a Patrick X out there causing trouble?

[someotherdude]

Between">http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520255340">Between Arab and White: Race and Ethnicity in the Early Syrian American

Arab Christians, in the United States would be some of the first organized protests against the newly created Israeli state.
Most ethnicities seem to derive from one racial category. However, Arabs and Latinos are two ethnicities, which are multiracial…and Arabs have been multi-religious, as well. Much more so than “Latinos” and European/Whites.

Each European Empire had a slightly different way to structure racial and gender hierarchies. The Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British, Belgium (and eventually, German) Empires borrowed each other’s research, but had different “twists” on enforcing them. The Spanish started off as genocidal race Empires, then became “assimilationists” Anglo-Protestants began as tolerant settlers and as Empire and slavery grew, so did their heightened awareness of race and difference,… religion became a secondary category…although the discourse around Africans and American Indians usually spoke of their pagan religions, they were more apt to convert to Christianity, than say, European Jews, and yet it was their racial category which would determine how The State treated them.

(PS, has anyone noticed how the keys jump around after installing Windows 7)

[someotherdude]

As an aside, many of the Scotts and Welch folk found that their relationship with the British state changed, once they became representatives of Empire,…in the US, they would eventually refer to themselves as “Anglo”, however, back in the homeland, they were found on the bottom of the hierarchy. This happens with European Catholics, who found they were better treated by the US state, if they became settlers, than if they remained in urban centers.

[JC]

As referred to above, Henley's takes seems to describe the situation accurately. The blockade will stay in place, the support for Netanyahu is going up in Israel, because Israel both wants more land, and also refuses to give any line of site possibility for missiles, the West Bank will stay under Israeli control. The outcome of which, as was noted recently, Palestinian Authority will continue to be seen as 'appeasers', for cooperation - as seen by the cancellation of elections scheduled for this month in the West Bank.

So, what is to be done, really?

If people were serious about this, and specifically about opposing the collective punishment of Gaza, we would start doing what we did to South Africa. Start urging companies to urge companies in the United States to stop doing business with Israel and Egypt, for supporting the blockade, and then in a few years, as things continue to get worse, this will pick up steam, this will become a more popular postion.

So, we personally sanction the blockade with our purchases, and then start doing the same, say, specifically to Israeli's tech sector. See if we can push down sales of these items.

that will get noticed.

[Slartibartfast]

Sorry, I've been extremely busy, and now on vacation where I'm self-limiting Internet activities.

Haven't you read any of the comments made at OW about how various ethnicities transition from being not white to white over time?

Who's talking about transitioning over time? I'm talking about (apparently) conflicting assessments of ethnicity (which isn't completely interchangeable with skin color) right now.

Did you fail to click the Amazon link that Uncle Kvetch helpfully supplied?

I did, thanks, but found it not immediately apropos, as described above.

So, given the names John Smith and Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, you'd have no idea which name was more likely to belong to a WASP and which name was more likely to belong to a person of color? Is that right? You really couldn't even guess?

Guess skin color? Are you mad? You do understand that someone having a name like "Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim" could have any color skin at all, and any ethnicity, do you not?

I'm guessing you don't. I would hazard a guess that the odds might be good that we're not talking about the P part of WASP, but I wouldn't bet good money on it.

"John Smith" could be any color.

But I see that much of this has been covered already, so I leave you to condsider that because I'm part Irish, I'm nonwhite (by some standards, anyway, and apparently we're permitted to give the old ones equal consideration, here) and also non-Protestant (having been borne Catholic), so I don't fit the WASP mold all that well either.

That's neither here nor there, but it addresses your points as well as your response did mine.

[Turbulence]

Who's talking about transitioning over time? I'm talking about (apparently) conflicting assessments of ethnicity (which isn't completely interchangeable with skin color) right now.

Slarti, the reason I mentioned transitioning over time was to demonstrate that when people talk about "whiteness", they're talking about a socially constructed attribute, not a purely biological attribute that you can objectively measure with a camera. Apparently, this was unclear. Let me break it down into steps for you:

(1) The Irish used to be considered non-white many years ago.

(2) The Irish are now considered white.

(3) During the intervening time, the skin color of the average Irish person has not changed appreciably.

(4) Therefore, we conclude that the criteria for whether someone is considered "white" is not purely a function of skin color.

What part of this argument do you disagree with?

[Slartibartfast]

Really, I don't have a problem with any of that. I just am not seeing the relevance to anything I said. Maybe you should look again, because it appears that you're rebutting someone else's argument.