Gaza
Anyone who dares to speak about what is currently going on in Gaza is bound to be attacked. As a Zionist, or "ultra-Zionist," defending Israeli state-terrorism, or as in favor of Islamic terrorism and attacking innocent Israeli citizens. Perhaps that's the reason that the "main stream media" (and most of the rest of the media, as well as our brave politicians) simply say things like "it's a tragedy." "Damn." "Wish there was something we could do."
The current knucklehead-in-chief, who expressed very little interest in furthering a Middle East peace settlement for most of his two terms, now simply says "It's Hamas's fault." Now there's political insight, backed up with rigorous historical and political analysis.
To say that the invasion of Gaza might be immoral—if not illegal (see below)—is not to say "I think more Jewish kindergartens should be bombed." To say that Hamas shouldn't be sending rockets into areas populated by civilians is not to say "There are no Palestinians, and if there were, they aren't really human beings."
It's easier to ignore, caricature, or simply adopt the status quo ante (which, I fear, is the track Obama has adopted). The status quo ante might look like a democracy surrounded by terrorist-loving Muslims who hate Jews and hate peace. Or the status quo ante might look like a country that receives annually huge sums, public and private, from the US, and pits one group of people using tunnels to get fuel against another group that has F-16s and nuclear weapons.
I won't make any calls here, because a) such calls are pointless b) I'm no expert and c) I don't like getting called a Judeophobe racist or a Judeophile racist any more than the next person.
However, for those who are interested, I've given some links below that provide a perspective that is rarely seen in the "mainstream media" and will be virtually unmentioned on any "respectable" television or radio outlet (and I'll stretch the notion of "respectable" to the extent of including the FOX News Channel).
From CounterPunch, reliably predictible in its perspective, but valuable, in its own way, as a critique of the Likudniks and their approach:
Paul Craig Roberts
A Palestinian perspective (also from CounterPunch)
*****
An interesting discussion (including useful responses) on the
legal issues involved in the invasion of Gaza
Middle East Online
An earlier essay from Harper's
Michael Lerner's perspective
A Debate on the Invasion from "Democracy Now!"
I'll be interested in your comments.
As a pre-emptive strategy, I'm guessing I might get some that say
1) "Why do you hate Israel?" (I don't, and hasten to add that I distinguish the activities of a state from that state's religious affiliation, even when the two are, for historical reasons that are profoundly distressing, as closely connected as they are in Israel. That is, criticizing Israel is not, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. Really.)
and
2) "Where are the articles providing the perspective defending Israel's right to self-defense?" (No one I know of denies that right—except the lunatic fringe, in whom I'm not interested —but to interpret what is going on as simply a sudden, isolated event, responding to unprovoked rocket attacks from Hamas, is a) a bit naïve and b) precisely what is stated in many articles one can find much more easily in the US media.)
The current knucklehead-in-chief, who expressed very little interest in furthering a Middle East peace settlement for most of his two terms, now simply says "It's Hamas's fault." Now there's political insight, backed up with rigorous historical and political analysis.
To say that the invasion of Gaza might be immoral—if not illegal (see below)—is not to say "I think more Jewish kindergartens should be bombed." To say that Hamas shouldn't be sending rockets into areas populated by civilians is not to say "There are no Palestinians, and if there were, they aren't really human beings."
It's easier to ignore, caricature, or simply adopt the status quo ante (which, I fear, is the track Obama has adopted). The status quo ante might look like a democracy surrounded by terrorist-loving Muslims who hate Jews and hate peace. Or the status quo ante might look like a country that receives annually huge sums, public and private, from the US, and pits one group of people using tunnels to get fuel against another group that has F-16s and nuclear weapons.
I won't make any calls here, because a) such calls are pointless b) I'm no expert and c) I don't like getting called a Judeophobe racist or a Judeophile racist any more than the next person.
However, for those who are interested, I've given some links below that provide a perspective that is rarely seen in the "mainstream media" and will be virtually unmentioned on any "respectable" television or radio outlet (and I'll stretch the notion of "respectable" to the extent of including the FOX News Channel).
From CounterPunch, reliably predictible in its perspective, but valuable, in its own way, as a critique of the Likudniks and their approach:
Paul Craig Roberts
A Palestinian perspective (also from CounterPunch)
*****
An interesting discussion (including useful responses) on the
legal issues involved in the invasion of Gaza
Middle East Online
An earlier essay from Harper's
Michael Lerner's perspective
A Debate on the Invasion from "Democracy Now!"
I'll be interested in your comments.
As a pre-emptive strategy, I'm guessing I might get some that say
1) "Why do you hate Israel?" (I don't, and hasten to add that I distinguish the activities of a state from that state's religious affiliation, even when the two are, for historical reasons that are profoundly distressing, as closely connected as they are in Israel. That is, criticizing Israel is not, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. Really.)
and
2) "Where are the articles providing the perspective defending Israel's right to self-defense?" (No one I know of denies that right—except the lunatic fringe, in whom I'm not interested —but to interpret what is going on as simply a sudden, isolated event, responding to unprovoked rocket attacks from Hamas, is a) a bit naïve and b) precisely what is stated in many articles one can find much more easily in the US media.)
posted by kmosser | 4:24 PM
14 Comments:
I've got quite a few opinions on this matter, but perhaps I should wait until I've read the links...it'll be interesting to see the comments. For a guy who avoids arguing about topics like abortion, you sure picked an equal if ever there was one.
Thanks for the 'Michael Lerner's Perspective."
No one commenting yet? Maybe if I get the ball rolling...
I heard a spokeslady for Israel say on the radio last night (The World, I think it was) that, "Anyone who works for Hamas is a terrorist". Ha! They're both terrorists! Are people really blind to that? What you have is two terrorist organizations killing the civilians surrounding the other.
Through a link from one of the ones you provided I found an editorial by Mr. Dershowitz: "These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding."
Maybe it's because I'm Swedish, and Swedish/Israeli relations have been anything but warm, but is Israel really one of the set of "moral democracies"? Didn't Israel issue a stamp with the founder of a terrorist organization on it? And didn't they elect the mastermind of a UN official's assassination to the office of Prime Minister? Hmm.
I can't help but think that anyone with half a brain, from either group, would, I don't know...MOVE!?!? And why would you ever decide that's a good place to breed? You'd have to be insane, have no foresight, or be ignorant as to where children come from to have kids in a perpetual war zone where people strap bombs on themselves and regularly blow up buses or where a highly funded military leaning orgnanization will blow up a car full of people if they think one suspect is in it. Madness.
I understand there are grievances on both sides, but it's gotta stop somewhere. What's the saying? An eye for an eye makes the world go blind? I'm no expert, but it seems to me that a balanced result would've emerged by now had the bargaining tables been level, not stacked. Stop sending selective aid, especially the military kind, and I think you'll see better negotiating. This isn't just Israel's big brother I'm talking about. That includes the nations supporting the terrorists on the other side as well. But I can't help but notice the disproportionality of it, despite what Dershowitz says. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that Israelis feel themselves to be worth more than the Palestinians. Kinda like America with Iraq. A handful of mostly Saudis kill around 3000 Americans and we kill how many Iraqi civilians? What's an insultingly conservative estimate now? 30,000? Madness, madness, madness.
Questions for Bazarov:
"They're both terrorists!"
Would define what a terrorist is. Certainly there are REAL differences between the two, so I am curious how you are using the category of "terrorist."
"I can't help but think that anyone with half a brain, from either group, would, I don't know...MOVE!?!?"
This is easy for someone to say who is not Jewish or Muslim, but it is an unfair question. It would be like me asking you: "why not just give up the theory of evolution?"
F
Most of what I wrote was to evoke a response, which it has done. Granted, the method's a bit childish, but far greater men than I have employed the method with much success, so I'll excuse myself thusly. But I stand by what I wrote, with appropriate wiggling...
Encarta defines a terrorist as follows:
somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes.
The organization I was referring to, the one founded by a guy who later adorned an Israeli stamp, was Lehi, aka The Stern Gang. It was this organization that assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish citizen working for the UN, who, by the way, helped free approx. 30,000 prisoners from concentration camps. Yitzhak Shamir, involved with Lehi, gave the OK for the assassination; he was later Prime Minister twice. I would add that he himself justified his actions by saying: "...neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat." Others in the Israeli government have later identified the actions as "terrorist".
I will admit those instances took place long ago, but using violence and force to impose political will has not ceased. To blame current Israelis for the actions of their predecessors is a bit too blunt for me, but I do wish they'd not venerate the fuckfaces. Another reason calling both terrorists shows that it doesn't do much. When the Israeli spokesperson called any who work for Hamas a terrorist, the design of such rhetoric, in my opinion, was to justify killing scores of civilians whilst attacking the rocket senders/evil doers/freedom-haters. Hamas uses similar methods when describing Jews and justifying their vile behaviors. Plus, I think there's an overwhelming bias, or tendency, in this country to eat up one sided bullshit, that is that put forth by Israel and her admirers. Many seem to think Israel is this innocent, good land full of well meaning people with no blood on their hands. I don't agree, however, with what one of the articles hinted at--that is, that the Jewish Lobby in this country is so powerful and that's why we support them. Call me cynical, but I believe there's an American interest, other than "promoting freedom", by having a little brother who plays ball with us over in the MidEast. I don't think such a lobby could get its way if it weren't in congruence with pre-existing wishes of another agenda.
I agree there are differences between Hamas and the Israeli government. However, I think the resulting difference is mainly due to power. Had Israel not the military might it now has, I think we'd be seeing similar tactics employed now as were employed in the late 40s, or what Hamas is currently doing. Granted, Israel is allowing aid to be delivered to Palestinians and does temporarily halt the salvos to allow this delivery, which is rather remarkable considering how humans have carried out warfare in the past, where starvation, rape, genocide, and the like were the norm. However, I'm not ready to pat Israel on the back just yet. I think Israel has missed a golden opportunity to be the "good cop", undermining Hamas. But, I'm no expert, so perhaps that would be naive. Yet, I will call a spade a spade when I see it, and killing approx. 20 times the number of civilians in a timespan that's just a fraction of the time which the rocket fire has taken place, is, to me, quite deplorable.
With regards to the "MOVE" comment, I stand by that. I would abandon evolution should evidence, you know, the stuff faith lacks, which proved contradictory to the current working theory of evolution come about and a new principle, which better explained known and independently arrived at facts of the world better than the current paradigm. People constantly refer to my devotion to the scientific method as some sort of religious devotion. In rather limited senses of the word might that be true. I think science can inspire awe with which none of the religions I know of can compete; Carl Sagan summed it up much better with his quip about small gods. However, it is not faith. To me, faith is a weakness, a crutch, a successful meme which at best is benign, and more likely than not to cause problems. It, in my opinion, is never useful, but I can easily separate 'faith' from 'hope', the latter very likely being beneficial in many cases. So, I'd place those that don't move because of their faith in the "insane" category of the three I provided, though if pressed on this point, I'd wiggle yet more, because anyone who has studied the human mind and the various 'disorders' that can arise realizes there's no line that separates the crazies from the sane ones; most definitions are usually just pragmatic for whatever purposes those definitions were designed, be it reasons ranging from health insurance coverage to rhetorical devices in argument, I having employed the latter. If I were to concede any part of the 'move' comment, it would be economic. I plan on moving to a more civilized country, yet can't, because of financial reasons, for quite a while. However, should Canada be rocketing Ohio (a seemingly popular talking point I don't much see weight in), I'd change my priorities and get out a lot quicker than I'm currently doing. So, yes, it may be difficult to move, but as long as you didn't start a family, I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible to find refuge in another nation.
Ahh, dialogue! And I didn't even have to send a rocket your way or kill a non-combatant, third party negotiator!
In response to Bazarov:
First in regards to “terrorist.”
When looking through your response, I identified your three central arguments. I hope this is a fair summary.
1. “Violence and force to impose political will has not ceased [from Israel]”
2. “Calling both terrorists shows that it doesn’t do much;” in other words, the term “terrorists” and other such terms are simply presented by one side as political propaganda to advance there cause.
3. Difference yes, but this is due to the difference in power between the two because the level of power effects the ones role in a conflict and the particular military strategies that are use. Yet, but in there essence maintains a “terrorist” agenda/outlook.
If this is a fair representation of your argument, I can I see your point. Yet, I still believe you are using the term “terrorist” too broadly. In using just the encarta’s definition of “terrorist,” I think you could apply this to that tactics of most any country at some time in there history. I think most countries at some point were guilty of using violence to impose political will; frankly, this is to be expected since both are by their nature connected. Furthermore, most countries use propaganda; who wants their country to look stupid? If this is the case, it raises the point: if you can apply the term to everyone, you can apply the term to no one; in other words, what is the point of using the term if it does not distinguish any one group from another. Now, what I think is key is to incorporate the encarta’s definition of “terrorism,” which after stating basic tactics claims, “These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals—that is, by those who are neither part of nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, or other governmental agencies of an established nation-state.” Notice if the emphasis on nongovernmental groups, hence, the distinguishing factor between Israel and Hamas. Of course this may not be too satisfying since both groups are still using similar tactics. However, to “lump” both groups under the category of “terrorist” does a disservice to the actual complexity of the situation. I think what is needed is clarification in analyzing the situation. Such clarification could be: the instigator of violence vs. the responder to the violence; the one who has just reason for using violence; the proportionality of violence used; the amount of attempts by one side before violence was used, etc… In doing such a clarification, a clearer picture may arise than just putting both sides on equal footing by calling them terrorist.
In regards to “move.”
Yes, I agree it is nice to use dialogue without using violence. I do wish this to be the case in the Middle East. Yet, I still do not think you are giving enough credit to the actual situation. I know that as an atheist, you must think these people are being unreasonable. I guess you are wondering, why don’t they just accept only what empirical evidence gives them, admit there is no god, and these doctrinal issues will fall away. Well, the difficulty is that you are assuming that all there is, is just the physical world. You are assuming that all we can know comes from just empirical evidence. Yet, this stance requires faith. To say that only empirical evidence matters, you are taking a “faith jump” because you cannot justify that claim with what you claimed only matters: empirical evidence. You are using your claim to justify your claim. In other words, you cannot justify radical empiricism with empirical evidence, one can only believe in radical empiricism because it feels right; hence, faith is needed. Now, I am not saying that you are wrong as an atheist; however, I do think you are giving your atheistic position an unjustified prominent place among religions because you think your position does not require a “leap of faith.” You probably think religion, using Marx’s motif, is just a “pain relief drug.” This may be true for some religions, but this unfair to a great majority. This is part of frustration with Dawkins and the bunch because they go after the easy prey, like fundamentalist. However, realize that there are many smart people, who know science and yet believe in a god, and yet some believe in particular doctrines to go along with a god. Now, I know this response is long, but I encourage you to not trivialize the situation. If you are not willing to give up your faith, why should they?
F
”If this is the case, it raises the point: if you can apply the term to everyone, you can apply the term to no one; in other words, what is the point of using the term if it does not distinguish any one group from another.”
I agree. I think the term is used to justify actions that would otherwise be found intolerable by those associated with the actions. I don’t like the term terrorist, because I think it’s the 20th and 21st Century version of a word like ‘heathen’, ‘heretic’, ‘barbarian’, ‘pagan’, etc. It’s what one group of people uses to justify indecent actions taken towards another group of people.
By using a definition that makes one group a terrorist group and the other not seems to me pointless. I think it's like the Big-End/Little-End disparity Swift so elegantly portrayed and ridiculed. Call it what you will, it's just a different way to eat an egg. The behavior may have variations but the intentions are similar enough. When one side calls the other terrorists, it doesn't do much when you haven't any moral high ground to stand on. Or at least that's how I see it. So I don't care if one is state run vs not.
Good luck in finding an instigator. I know there will be plenty of people who are willing to claim one started it. As far as fixing the problem that's well beyond me, though I think it's safe to say a two state strategy would probably be the best starting ground. Where to go from there is beyond me. Maybe we could give the Palestinians Utah and billions of dollars and let them deal with the Mormons instead.
I don't think I brought up religion. I don't think this conflict is one over religion. I think it's over territory and free access in and out of that territory. Extremists on both sides will use religion to make their arguments more forceful, that is, to people who give weight to those things--I'm not one of them. If religious differences magically disappeared I don't think the conflict would.
As far as dealing with what I personally believe I don't think this is the arena for that. I used to enjoy arguing over religious questions, but the older I get the more tedious it gets. I'm not going to convince anyone and as long as apologists keep using the same old arguments and methods I won't be swayed. I wish they'd try to keep up. It's not exactly the most enlightened position one could take these days. I'll provide a response at http://afallingtree.blogspot.com/ if you're curious (whenever time permits). Otherwise, you'll just have to do with the following: you're wrong. Atheism, materialism, or reductionism, what ever you want to call it, doesn't require faith--atleast not my sort. This problem probably arises from the way we each define "faith".
One area I must concede...I wasn't aware of how destitute those living in Gaza were. Most Israelis are affluent enough to move if they wanted to I'm guessing, but it's unlikely those in Gaza are, let alone could if they wanted to due to border restrictions (one of the reasons for dispute). I still can't help but think that if I found myself over there though I'd do all I could to get out. Breeding there is still on shaky ground ethically in my opinion, but that too is another matter.
Thanks for all the links Kurt. I gained much from them. I'm wondering though, do you know of any sources that could back up what Lerner had to say about Hamas officials being assassinated during the cease-fire?
In responce to Bazarov.
I am sorry if I offended you in terms of your position on religion; that was not my intention. The reason why I brought up religion was because I was trying to suggest way the option of “moving” is not so obvious. Anyways, I will still say that religion is key to the problem in Gaza. Now, in the US, we are surround with the debate of separation-of-church-and-state. In other words, people go or don’t go to church, then go back to work on the next day. With Judaism and Islam, they are cultural religion; meaning, their religion calls for specific rules/polices that shape the culture they live in. This is comparable to Christendom that dominated Europe for so many years. They believe the are chosen people who were promised land, and are to live on this land in accordance with divine law. Notice here, that in order to live in accordance with divine law, one politics with be affected. In other words, politics and religion are wrapped up in this mess. This is why I think it is unfair to say “just move,” because that is only a political suggestion that is not taking consideration the religious implications. And, although you may not value there religious views, I still it is helpful to give them credit. That was why I attack your religious views, hoping you would in turn you would give them more credit. But, perhaps that was not the best idea on my part.
F
B: I do not have any evidence supporting (or not supporting) Lerner's claim. He's not the type to make stuff up, in my experience reading his stuff.
The BBC is reporting that Israel killed a UN driver (details below from the Democracy Now! headlines at their Website), after the UN confirmed his safety. Israel is "investigating."
Again, to criticize Israel here is not to support Hamas (necessarily). I just think one has to work harder than one should to hear some other perspectives in the US media. We shouldn't have to, although imagine trying to get the information before we could use the Google on the Internets, which is a series of tubes.
The gist of the story referred to above is this:
"UN, Red Cross Suspend Relief Work After Lethal Israeli Attacks on Aid Convoys
The measure came hours after the UN shut down major aid operations in Gaza after Israel attacked one of its aid convoys. Israeli snipers killed two Palestinian aid workers who were reportedly trying to retrieve the body of a colleague who had been killed in a previous Israeli attack. The killings reportedly came during the three-hour pause to the bombing agreed to by Israel to allow humanitarian relief.
UN relief spokesperson Christopher Gunness: “I can confirm that UNRWA has suspended its operations in Gaza because of staff security. We’ve had a shooting of a driver in a convoy clearly marked as a UN vehicle. There have been a number of attacks in which UN facilities have been hit with direct hits and others. We’ve had no choice but to suspend our operations until we can get guarantees of the security of our staff. We’ve lost—our staff have been killed. We’ve had no other choice."
The UN says it’s lost all confidence in Israeli pledges. Israel has attacked several UN and medical installations this week, including a UN school where forty-six civilians were killed."
F: You write
"With Judaism and Islam, they are cultural religion; meaning, their religion calls for specific rules/polices that shape the culture they live in. This is comparable to Christendom that dominated Europe for so many years."
Maybe that's why Bazarov is scared. I might join him in this case.
In responce to Mosser.
"Maybe that's why Bazarov is scared. I might join him in this case."
I agree. I am too scared by this event. I imagine that is why you posted this blog to begin with. Nevertheless, the question remains, what is the best way to deal with this scary situation.
F
If it is cultural, I can't help but think of the scene in 'Erik the Viking' where the king refuses to believe the island is sinking and dies along with his delusion. If someone really wouldn't move, not because they couldn't afford it, but because of religious reasons, well, what do I say to that?
Maybe I'm being extremely naive here, but after reading a lot of the links and similar sorts of articles, I'm hopeful that the fundamentalists are few and far between and only gain favor when bloodletting gets high--moderate voices can't be heard over the insane screaming. I would like to think that most people on either side just want to live a peaceful and predictable life and would be willing to give up some of the cultural/religious demands for the sake of harmony.
I wouldn't bend much to accomodate religious/cultural views, but that's just me. If a religion justifies something I think violates human rights, such as making half the population submissive by compulsion or systematically herding large groups of people against their will, I'm not going to stop calling it what I think it is: wrong. I realize people over there aren't going to wake up one day and have their head cleared from the fog of supernatural belief (look at America!), but I don't think kowtowing to their nonsense is going to prove helpful.
"I would like to think that most people on either side just want to live a peaceful and predictable life and would be willing to give up some of the cultural/religious demands for the sake of harmony.
I wouldn't bend much to accomodate religious/cultural views, but that's just me."
On Either side is exactly why the conversations on this nightmare are sooooooooo funny...
Really. What happen to the Intermediate - Baz and Mos?
Are you screaming a worthless argument? You mean to tell me there really are just two sides?
JR
adidas nmd
abercrombie and fitch
gucci uk
ugg boots
nike air max
timberland boots
prada handbags
ugg boots
ugg outlet
fitflops sale clearance
201612.21wengdongdong
Post a Comment
<< Home