Bluejack ([info]bluujack) wrote,
@ 2009-01-14 10:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Middle East Conflict
More conversation about Israel, Palestine.

A couple of points I'd like to record; I think both Israel and Palestine have been a bunch of big jerks, and the constant fingerpointing about "they started it" is pathetic. My solution to the situation would be to cut both Israel and Palestine out of U.S. funds. Promise big funds to both if they can make peace, and deliver on that. To hell with the rest.

I'd like to like the Palestinians: initially they were totally screwed by the creation of Israel, which dispossed vast numbers of Palestinians of their land, their homes, and their liberty. More recently we (Clinton) screwed them by inviting Arafat to the table when they had legitimate, non-radical leadership ready to negotiate a real settlement. Clinton thought no peace would be lasting unless Arafat was on board, but legitimizing Arafat invited Palestinian radicals into positions of power that have only exacerbated problems ever since. Most recently, Palestinians screwed themselves by electing Hamas.

In case there's any doubt, Hamas are cut from the same cloth as the Taliban. They're not good guys. They have reinstituted the kind of Koranic law that we used as partial pretext to invade Afghanistan. Palestinian Christians certainly can't be too enthusiastic about the re-introduction of crucifixion as a form of punishment.

But, yeah, disproportionate as the violence is, it's pretty clear that the Palestinian leadership thinks there is more to be gained by promoting that violence than by peaceful solutions.

Who I really feel sorry for are the Israeli moderates who deplore the actions of their own government (I know how that feels), and the Palestinian minority, including the middle east's largest Christian population, who just want this hell to be over.

(15 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]akirlu
2009-01-14 08:02 pm UTC (link)
Many countries regard a blockade as an act of war. For instance, it was the US blockade of Cuba that put the crisis in the Cuban Missile Crisis -- there was every reason to believe the Soviet Union would interpret that blockade as an act of active agression and respond in kind by considering itself at war with the U.S. Given that Israel has had Gaza under blockade since Hamas took Gaza, why only focus on Hamas as thinking that there is something to be gained by promoting violence rather than peaceful settlements? What do you think Israel thinks. As for Hamas not being the good gus, fine, but are you saying that we are? That the Knesset is? Who has clean hands and pure motives exactly? Since when does being run by bad guys justify the invasion of sovereign territory?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-14 08:19 pm UTC (link)
No: I think there are no good guys.

But there is definitely some media momentum behind the "Israel bad, Poor Palestinians" meme, and while I can get part of the way there, I can't quite get all the way there for the reasons noted in the post, above.

Certainly *we're* not the good guys, not even by "blundering around destroying everything but at least with good intentions" standards, for reasons noted by readherring yesterday.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]akirlu
2009-01-14 08:48 pm UTC (link)
Well, I guess I can't see how the reasons above militate in any way against the idea that starving the residents of Gaza, and then slaughtering starved, bombed-out civilians in their hundreds or thousands (depending on what you count) is in any way not bad. Doctors on the ground suggest that the Israeli numbers that half the victim toll is military is laughably high, and in a region where the population is by far majority female and the average age is in the high teens, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be. And even given your assessments of the wrong-headedness of Hamas (some of which seems under-informed and unsympathetic to the realities on the ground in Gaza), in light of Israel's decades-long campaign to put Palestinians in an untenable position, how can you *not* say poor Palestinians? If the US press is *finally* skewing in favor of some sympathy for the situation of the Palestinians of Gaza, is that any more distorted than the years of accepting Israeli propaganda as fact?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-14 08:55 pm UTC (link)
Am I saying it's not bad? I'm not saying that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]akirlu
2009-01-14 08:57 pm UTC (link)
Then I cannot fathom what you're trying to say with: "But there is definitely some media momentum behind the "Israel bad, Poor Palestinians" meme, and while I can get part of the way there, I can't quite get all the way there"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-14 09:04 pm UTC (link)
my perspective? you're jumping on one sentence, taking it out of the context that was rejecting radicalism and the promotion of violent means; if you think i'm just plain wrong about the radicalism of Hamas, that's fine. Help me see what I'm missing.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]akirlu
2009-01-14 09:30 pm UTC (link)
To me, you're asking the wrong questions. Radicalism is bad, but it doesn't appear in a vacuum. How is radicalism not a predictable, expected, even *reasonable* response to the conditions and pressures that the Palestinians have been put through? How is the radicalism of Hamas not the fruit of decades of deliberate policy choices on the part of Israel? If you starve a population, its children will have lowered intelligence and poor impulse control. If you deprive those children of positive role models, they will take what role models they can find. If you financially support radical Islamist groups to provide a counterbalance to radical secular groups (yes, Israel has provided financial support to Hamas beginning in the 1980s) those Islamist groups will grow and find a voice, and if you act like a monster against the only obvious defender is a terrorist organization, who do you think your victims will flock to?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-14 08:59 pm UTC (link)
I think my original post was saying poor everyone, and there are innocents everywhere who are suffering, and there are villains on both sides perpetuating it for their own ends.

Other than possibility of you defending Hamas (which you are welcome to do, the cure to ignorance is information, not accusation), I don't think we're disagreeing.

And back to the *original* original point: we need to stop being pushed around by Israel, because the only way I see to stop this is to cut off the money. Which I can't imagine you disagreeing with either.

If you want to argue that we actually switch "sides" and intervene militarily on behalf of the Palestinians... well... you could persuade me as long as it came with a throw-out-the-Palestinian-bums-too clause, but I don't see that as a reality in any administration present, anticipated, conceived, or imagined.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]akirlu
2009-01-14 11:49 pm UTC (link)
I didn't read you saying anything like "poor everyone". More like "poor everyone who isn't Muslim or in any way implicated in supporting Hamas". If that's not what you meant, then listing only the exceptions to guilt may not have been the way to express sympathy for all concerned.

But again, if the Israeli government is acknowledged to be bad, why is it only the Palestinian government of Gaza that has to be thrown out in order for the US to act on behalf of the Palestinians? If you want some better information on Hamas as a political movements, there are some good snippets in this response to House Resolution 34.

Hamas has a long-standing reputation among Palestinians for its charitable work -- when the corrupt Fatah government was doing nothing for ordinary Palestinians, they could still go to a Hamas charity center and stand a good chance of getting a bag of rice. A bag of rice means a lot when you have nothing else to eat. Moreover, Hamas particpated legitimately in a fair democratic election and won a plurality based on the profound corruption, incompetence, and ineffetuality of Fatah. Reports suggest that at least on the corruption front, Hamas rule is an improvement. There are places in the world where we support less legitimate governments with worse records, and we have a recent set of examples of how well it works when we intercede militarily to throw out an existing government. That is, not so much. So I'm not clear why getting a government we approve of should be a pre-condition to our taking a stance in defense of the civilians of Gaza.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-15 12:11 am UTC (link)
Well, I didn't say that a change of government was a precondition to anything either. It's like you're having an argument with someone else in the room, someone I'm not hearing.

Thanks for the link. I don't see anything in there that changes my opinion of Hamas as an antagonising factor. I see plenty of refutation against support for Israel in the conflict, but I wasn't supporting Israel to begin with. I do see arguments for Hamas as the legimitate government in Gaza, but I don't dispute that either.

While we're linking, here's a better articulation of my thoughts: Akiva Kenny Segan.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]akirlu
2009-01-15 12:36 am UTC (link)
I didn't say that a change of government was a precondition to anything either.

Okay, then I don't quite follow what you inteded by this: "...intervene militarily on behalf of the Palestinians... well... you could persuade me as long as it came with a throw-out-the-Palestinian-bums-too clause"

As for Hamas as an antagonizing factor: okay, fine, what would you have them do? What is a viable non-antagonizing response, exactly?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-15 12:56 am UTC (link)
They could, at any time, renounce violence as a means of solving this conflict, and state uncategorically that any further attacks on Israel are the work of individuals, operating alone, and that they see that as criminal behavior.

Before you go there, I would say exactly the same of Israel, and I would further suggest that Israel has an enormous debt of raparation to *add* to their already considerable debt of raparation.

Whether this is a "viable" response, I don't know. It's the only possible path out of the conflict *I* can imagine other than total annihilation of the Palestinian people, or eradication of Israel as a jewish nation.

When Obama takes the reigns, I certainly hope--but have no evidence to believe he will--deliver a smack-down on Israel that informs them clearly that no violence will be supported by the United States. But on its own, I don't think that solves the problem either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]akirlu
2009-01-15 01:06 am UTC (link)
If France had renounced violence in 1940, do you think that would have been a viable step in resolving the conflict with Hitler? What leverage would Hamas have with Israel at that point, precisely. If that's your idea of viable, or the only thing you have to suggest, then it's a little hard to take anything you say on the subject. Because yeah, telling the Palestinians to turn the other cheek and let Israel continue to slaughter them doesn't meet the laugh test for workable responses.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]bluujack
2009-01-15 01:28 am UTC (link)
Well... I guess this conversation isn't going anywhere.

For my part, I don't think the occasional ballistic rocket over the border meets the laugh test for workable responses either.

I'd be hard pressed to say what we disagree about, but we sure seem to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]readherring
2009-01-14 08:58 pm UTC (link)
We have a good guys v. bad guys mentality in this country. If Hamas are the bad guys, then Israel must be the good guys? I don't know if this mentality stems from popular entertainment, or from the couple of times that we actually were the good guys.

We need more cynics.

(Reply to this)

(15 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…