Going into Lebanon and then later Gaza in force to root out the problems at their source, and then stopping and withdrawing in the face of the usual international reaction. Their international reputation would have hardly been worse if they had finished the job. Anyone who supported the initial policy in each case has to be disapointed by the ultimate lack of fortitude to follow through with it (which was predictable to me as both these campaigns started, though I hoped I was wrong), and anyone who opposed Israel in these cases is quietly thanking their good fortune.
Yet as I said, the each unfolded predictably, every time, exactly as I have foreseen, because at bottom even - especially - the Israelis want to not only do the right thing, but what is actually worse be *seen* and *perceived* as doing the right thing. So when they go to cut the knot, they saw half way through and when the International Community's Greek Chorus shouts them down, they stop and back off, letting it regrow and metastasize, letting it feel it has the momentum, feel a sense of victory, and that the Winds of Change are on their side.
This inevitably leaves them with the worst of both worlds. Surely WRM knows Napoleon's saying that if you set out to take Vienna, TAKE VIENNA.
Probably the best strategic move Israel could do now is rename itself "North Korea" (while not adopting that nation's political ideology). Then they could do whatever they want, sink any ship, threaten and kill anyone they needed to, and the ever-so caring International Community wouldn't care one whit - except to urge "Caution" and "don't over-react" and "nobody should escalate the situation."
Anyhow, it's really all over now; as my mother said the other day about this, it's like a dying person connected to a respirator. Everyone knows what is to come, but no one knows when.
Or, in one of my favorite quotes, tragic in this context, "The non-inevitability of events we nevertheless know are bound to come."
It is non-inevitable: Something could change, in us, the broad us, the so-called civilized world. But do you think it will? In time? Since it hasn't yet, despite many wuss-slaps to the face by reality, when and under what circumstances do you think it will? Again: In time. In this case, in time for the Israelis, who one would think have sacrificed enough and been sacrificed enough to other's self-regard.
T.S. Eliot: "Half of the harm that is done in this world Is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm. But the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
These days it most, more than half, of the forces for evil in this world would be readily checked if it wasn't for these two sorts of people. But we let them hold the reins.
People with actual concern will probably have a lot of good ideas to improve on the situation, such as this one.
Instead of just posting such possible scenarios here, let me know when they happen. Or at least give a guess the odds of them happening and within what time period. Or even being attempted.
Those entities that are important enough to matter won't pursue any such policies, because they are not in the interest of those who matter. (Even if they're actually in our interest as a whole, America's and Europe's &tc, in addition to Israel's, which arguably they are, and arguably in the interest of the people of Gaza, moderate Islam, &tc as well).
If they were, the situation would not be what it manifestly is, the obvious-to-anyone-not-brain-dead double-standards would not be in play in the first place. All my other posts would be wrong instead of what they are: Accurate analysis.
None of this is really a secret at all. Duh I mean, this Blog even has a category for the "War Within the West." You can even read their journals/books/papers, listen to their speeches, not the "public" ones but ones that are really also open to the public but hardly anyone except other members of The Movement participate, but it's always out there, even if it's just a matter of someone momentarily forgetting they're on tape* in a brief, and seen out of context of The Movement as a whole (as we're always expected to perceive these things), inconsequential episode.
It's almost as if we in practice put an SEP Field (from the Hitchiker's Universe) around all this and refuse to notice it by making the connection, even when our noses are rubbed in it: We'll read or hear this or that theory, but then never make the connection to practice. We view each episode singularly, dismiss it as deplorable but minor, then collectively slip it down the memory hole and move on to the next one, only allowing ourselves to see a bunch of fading dots.
*(admittedly, this is a minor example, as is Brennan; poor Paul Brennan, whiped and scourged personally in another thread: He's just such a small member of The Movement. He'll probably eventually be thrown to the railroad tracks and rolled over by the machine itself when the time comes. Just ask one of Progressivism's elder statesmen and formative leading lights, Williams Jennings Bryan, if he were alive to defend his real legacy. Compared to a towering figure such as him, Brennan is a gnat. And if they'll treat their own leading lights this way, these, the most compassionate, caring force for good in the world today and indeed all of human history, what chance do you, poor mortal, stand at their hands? What chance does Israel, now that they are no longer fond of it?)
"What chance does Israel, now that they are no longer fond of it?"
Israel is backed into a corner. As the saying goes, backed into corner come out fighting.
If Israel gets tired of pulling punches and does some wrath of God stuff, their score- to- settle-card has a lot of room under the heading "retribution." Good old fashioned biblical an eye for an eye shit. And millions upon million of scores to settle, in fact.
And personally, I will be cheering them on and simultaneously be not surprised. Because if they take out Palestine, maybe some of Turkey, and Iran, it would be as if a lot of our dirty work got done for us, without all the hemming and hawing of our man in the White House, who characteristically does nothing, or makes a situation worse.
If they blew all their neighbors sky high, and it was televised live on TV, I'd keep eating the popcorn and spill not so much as drop of my drink on the remote.
Maybe Israel will be the answer to our prayers beyond our wildest nuclear holocaust fantasy, one that surpasses the current villainous hypocrisy and nihilism our beloved armed chair liberals exhibit who are siding with Palestine as I write this. And the prayer answered would be this: doing things Old Testament style. It would be refreshing to see such direct action.
I'll sum up my theory with a thought: Obama, through his own inaction, and no "fault" of his, may bring this situation to a brink where Israel grabs the initiative and hits the button. And Barry can say, "who, me?" meanwhile maintaining his cherished "street cred" of a guy middle named Hussein with the Muslim set.
Israel was not dealt a very good hand, which makes it all the more impressive how well they have played it.
I will also say that I have never cared for Netanyahu. When I see him I see Leah Rabin.
His blunders are depressing. His reaction to the transparent baiting by the flotilla, his swallowing it hook, line and sinker leaves me despairing.
As far as the people on the flotilla are concerned, their deaths are their own faults, their actions were more than reckless and they were used.
But, Netanyahu, inadvertently and because of the arrogance, impetuousness and lack of dimension he has shown in each of his terms as Prime Minister, should resign. He has done enough damage to Israel and should not be allowed to do any more.
"His reaction to the transparent baiting by the flotilla, his swallowing it hook, line and sinker leaves me despairing."
Well, while agreeing that the feeling it illicits is somewhat like despair, I also see a different side to the same coin. Which is, I think viewed another way the bait- taking is just a commonplace overreaction. And haven't we all at one time or another overreacted when we were on the defense?
I have not abandoned all hope. Perhaps the push and pull of the tides might turn Isreal's baited defensiveness and overreation to offense. Come on Israel, overreact again! No, not that small. Bigger!!!
I think we just might like what we see. Sometimes change can only occur when following a shake down that hardens the resolve.
When all the inequity of the situation weighs very heavily upon my conscience about the bad hand Isreal has been dealt, I just pinch myself and conjure a reminder that can't help but make me smile a little:
Remember that the Atom bomb was founded upon the genius of a Jew. All wrongs against God's chosen will be righted as sure as judgement will come upon those that don't believe that Jews were handed God's word.
And apparently God's talent for theoretical physics, was entrusted to the Jewish people, no small responsibility to have. The Jewish people have been gifted with much, which is why so many lesser minds seeks to steal from them and belittle them. This unscientific, but unshakeable confidence is faith, faith unbroken, faith that has sustained, and will sustain Israel.
Heh. As much as I understand such sentiments at times like these, what is called for is the resourceful defiance of Jacob, not the general destruction of a "Samson Option".
We've been in this situation ourselves, back in the days when we were blockading places like Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington, NC. And on occasion, boarding and confiscating British ships and "British" cotton.
The British complained mightily, and they blustered, and they quoted much "law of civilized nations" and "world opinion", but when we refused to back down they did nothing.
Not to belittle the Turks, but if they're made of sterner stuff than the Brits, they have very lately acquired it.
Alright Porph, let's start at the beginning (I'm not even going to tackle the follow-up post, as it's so ponderous that I can't figure out your point).
The real strategic failure is that Israel continues to start measures and then backpedals
I think one of the reasons Israel backpedals is public opinion, I think the other is they realize they do not have strategic options. In Lebanon, Hezbollah basically vanished into the countryside. They could destroy some limited bases here and there, but those have almost no value to a guerrilla organization. Meanwhile, they were being ambushed consistently. Now, (and my memory hear is a little weak) I don't think Israeli forces were damaged all that much, but when you have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, it's time to leave.
Same thing with the flotillas. How could Israel have 'gone farther' in this case? Israel needs to realize that they are fighting a PR war as well as a physical battle. Put on a good face, be as diplomatic as possible, and when they resort to aggression, it looks better for you.
When you start dropping commandos onto a battleship, you're not going to look good, even if nobody dies. Especially if you can't find weapons on board. (Oops).
Probably the best strategic move Israel could do now is rename itself "North Korea"[,] Then they could do whatever they want
Drumline please!
Seriously though, the reason why North Korea can do this is because they have nothing to lose. They're already sanctioned to death. The only move the west has left is war, which S.Korea desperately wants to avoid.
Israel, on the other hand, is basically a protected commodity of the united states. It has free trade, military upper hand, nobody bothers to investigate their weapons cache, and the US favorably drops 3 billion on it's doorstep every year. Israel has a LOT to lose from being overly belligerent.
Not that they've even been punished for these things. Other than a harsh condemnation, and worldwide disapproval :( Israel has basically been allowed to do whatever they want.
I'm not saying I disagree with this, just pointing out that N.Korea and Israel are in very different politically-strategic positions.
Juliet #2:
This certainly is a curious Doctor Strangelove discussion and thread. How this irony works in the context of a blockade of 700,000 children is not clear to me.
When you start dropping commandos...
Returning to the post by Porphy, I take it as simply saying overkill not underkill would be preferable measures to take. It's too simple to just measure Israel in terms of PR and diplomacy. There are invisible forces at work---religion, and biblical retribution. Muslim religion is very clear that it's the "us vs. The Infidels.". It's easy to forget Judaism is just as vehement in the "us vs. The Muslims". It's a tacit insult to Judaism being heaped on by the media to expect Israel to swallow some PC script and worry solely about whether they "look good.". The fight between Muslims and Jews is primordial, primitive and nasty. If you need context think of a Jaguar vs a crocodile. From the fights onset you're nog sure which beast is going to win, but one or the other will end up being eaten. It's not about appearance it's fight to the death. In our modern sterile lives it's too easy to dismiss messy elemental struggles like Jews vs Muslimz. There is no compromise one or the other ends up dead.
The statement below pertains to the Rachel Corrie, the last ship in the flotilla that is heading for Gaza. Had this statement been released a week ago, then There would have been no problem with boarding the ship:
Israel says doesn't want clash with 'Rachel Corrie'
Foreign Ministry calls out to last flotilla ship en route to Gaza, asking it to sail directly to Ashdod. 'We have no interest in boarding ship,' statement says. 'If cargo contains no weapons we will convey it to Gaza'
Roni Sofer
Published: 06.04.10, 17:13 / Israel News
The Foreign Ministry said Friday that Israel "has no interest in a confrontation" with activists on board the Irish vessel Rachel Corrie, currently making its way towards the Gaza Strip as part of the flotilla that arrived Monday.
"I would like to transfer a message once more that has already been conveyed through public and private channels, to the ship Rachel Corrie currently making its way to Gaza," the ministry's director-general, Yossi Gal, said in a statement.
"We have no interest in boarding the ship. If it sails directly to the Ashdod port, we will secure its crew and refrain from boarding it. Israel is prepared to receive the ship and unload its cargo. After it is checked to make sure it contains no weapons we will be prepared to transfer all of the goods to Gaza," he added.
Gal also invited the activists on board to accompany the shipment to the Gazan border. "We will cooperate with the UN and international organizations in order to ensure that all of the cargo is put to the use of Gaza's citizens," the statement said.
Bibi is simply a bull in a china shop. he really should resign.
toc3,
That offer was made to the flotilla, both before they sailed and during the interception. The flotilla refused.
So what was Israel to do at that point, sink the ship? Go aboard guns blazing? (The latter is especially problematic when you reflect on the children brought along specifically to be on deck when the ships crossed into Israeli waters.)
There were any number of tactical options available. They could have sent tugs, grappled onto the boats, and towed them to port. They could have rammed them. They could have fired teargas on the decks before putting men on the ship. And so on. Nearly anything would have been better than fast-roping into an angry mob.
The salient question is why did the selected option become the preferred approach>?
Thanks for the safety tip, Alchemist, but I think they had that one figured out by 1948.
Yes, this is a war of public perceptions. Why do we assume that Israel is going to lose it? Because Helen Thomas is losing it?
Here are the real losers, in rough order:
1. The Palestinians. The pawns of all other sentient life forms, the Palestinians are losers almost by definition, and the more they "win" the more they lose, lose, lose. Every victory by their international comrades sets back the day when Palestinians will enjoy a peaceful, normal life.
2. The AK Party (Turkey). Their Islamist stealth government makes more noise than a Russian tank in a china shop. Their threat to send the Turkish Navy against the Gaza coast is a stupid display of aggression that they will long regret - unless "belligerence" is an exclusive property of Jews. The AK Party has so far narrowly avoided being abolished in their own country as unconstitutional and anti-secular. Their future is nonexistent, and Erdogan should resign.
3. Barack Obama. He is already being blamed for emboldening Israel's enemies. (Not fair? Since when is the war for hearts and minds fair?) Be that as it may, he has already squandered all of his influence with Israel by engaging in Berkeley-Intifada antics, and he is powerless in this situation. As he has been in all other situations.
4. The Democrats. The smart ones know that this is a pro-Israel country, with a pro-Israel political establishment. They were already worried about the Jewish vote, and the wave of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas blather pouring forth from the left will hurt the Democrats with all voters. It will hurt them far more than it hurts Israel.
As I wrote the above, I caught Obama's CNN interview about the flotilla.
Everybody needs to work together to deplore everything. Everybody = Israel, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, "and I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process once we've worked through this tragedy."
Goldfish on the carpet. I'm moving him up from Loser #3 to Loser #2.
I think one of the reasons Israel backpedals is public opinion, I think the other is they realize they do not have strategic options.
More to the point, public opinion in this case is a strategic weapon. My sympathies for Israel aside, looking at this in the cold light of day I can say that the Israelis were outplayed in the arena of public opinion, not just tactically, but strategically: Once those aid ships left port, there were no good options for Israel, only varying types of pain. That's how you know a good strategy when it's unfolding-- when you can only choose between different flavors of pain.
Major scenario one was that Israel lets the flotilla through. Their blockade is broken in the eyes of the world, their internal politics go non-linear and their government probably falls, reshuffles itself, and after a few months resurrects itself with less stature.
Major scenario two was the Israel forcibly turns the flotilla aside. The blockade is maintained, but Israel fans the flames of anti-Semitism through-out the region, giving Turkey more reason to distance itself from Israel, and potentially disrupting Egyptian internal politics as well.
What happened was a particularly bad version of scenario two, where not only does Turkey get credibility and a reason to distance itself, but Egypt's internal politics were disrupted enough for them to open the Rafah border crossing open for several days.
Not being an expert in non-violent maritime warfare (as so few of us are) I'm not sure Israel had any options of greater finesse, here. I somewhat suspect they did, but I won't push that judgement very hard. Those look like the two main options Israel had to choose from. As such, despite that it was deployed against Israel, this was a brilliantly conceived and executed propaganda operation.
This may not be "fair" but warfare isn't "fair" in any context.
What would have happened if one of such ships were bounded to the US? Vessels are not allowed to come within hundreds of miles from the US without complying heavy requirements, begining with sanitary inspection.
I don't see that what Israel has done is far different from what any other nation would do.
Regarding public relations from the Israeli side, I think full military forces should not assault a ship. The example of the Coast Guard corps in the US is clear: paint the boats in white, choppers in red, wear shorts (British?) and sailor hats. If assault forces are needed, they should dress in blue, and wear signs of "Police", preferably. I think that could be improved.
On the other hand, IMHO this propaganda operation was pretty well conceived, being developed in a moment in which many governments around the world needed to shift the public attention from other issues. For instance, in the Eurozone there is a growing banking crisis which is simply being covered up. This has magnified the issue, in my opinion.
Israel is the point of contention of Muslim extremism, hence it is very useful to European governments. It is a distraction for the Muslim world that otherwise would be knocking on Europe's gates. Therefore, I don't think they would like Israel ceasing to exist, or moving Jews elsewhere (as if they were debt). IMHO the issue with this operation is not the existence of the state of Israel, it is just a distraction in the moment it was needed, not only for Muslims, but at least for Europeans too.
[public relations war] was figured out by 1948
And yet, they keep making mind-numbingly stupid decisions about how to approach these situations.
Besides: Love your list of losers. It's like you tied together everyone you don't like and declared them losers. What are the odds?
Seriously though, I agree with your that Palestinians are perinial losers. However, this brought aid, PR and awareness to their campaign. When you have nothing, that's worth something.
Their threat to send the Turkish Navy against the Gaza coast is a stupid display of aggression that they will long regret
You know it's funny, Turkey used to be one of Israels' top allies. Part of the problem is the newly established muslim party, but I don't see this playing well in the largely secular parts of Turkey either. Frankly, it's a loss of alliances for both, and therefore a loss to both.
Israel: Go through the israeli newspapers. Check the opinion pages. I keep seeing the words 'botched' or 'failed', or 'underestimate'.
So yes, I'm saying technically, in the eyes of the world, the palestinians came out on top. But it's a hollow, hollow victory. As all of them are, until they're allowed to make their own country.
Alchemist -
Wrong. If it were just a list of everyone I didn't like, it would include, for example, David Duke.
But David Duke is a big winner here, since he's now practically writing the script for the entire lefthead blogosphere. In fact George Soros could save some money by dumping all those over-eaters on his payroll and just hiring Duke. He's like the whole shebang in one package.
The list also does not include the Hangmen of Iran, since they also are not losers here. Once again they have found somebody to do their dirty work. And their goal of becoming a legitimate nuclear power - a legitimacy founded entirely on hatred of Israel - continues apace.
Hillary Clinton: also not a loser. Maybe she doesn't really want to challenge Obama in 2012, but it must be nice to get all of those pleading phone calls.
Two other examples of the whole that people refuse to see:
Minor: Helen Thomas, see post above. But this isn't her changing, she's always been what she is, and been a beloved figure in the appropriate circles: The "Official Press" (which consists of that which the FCC wants to formally officialize and directly pipeline money too; just aknowledging what I've already long described. Sure, this new policy probably won't be enacted in its entirety now, if at all now, but you can see I'm not the only one who knows what it is when I see it) and the broad ECS/Movement as a whole. She is what she is, the fact that she blurted it out more blatantly and it got wider notice this time is not a change in her. A few months down the line we'll all have effectively forgotten this incident (it'll be there, when it somehow comes to mind, but won't direct any cognative connections or behavior even on our part).
Secondly and more importantly, again only one facet of the whole: It should be obvious to all who are not blind tha the entire instituional "Non-Proliferation" regime has become the chief facilitator of proliferation today and barrier to effective action to prevent what it was created to prevent. This is far from a unique example of an institution where the polarity has been reversed. (Institutions originally meant to facilitate peace and the security of civilized forces in the world from their enemies now routlinely facilitate the later and hamper the former. Again, now only a few facets of the entire Iron Polygon).
And yet we never connect any of these into a whole.
One final thing: There might come through a sense of futility and hopelessness in my posts, and that's certainly not what this site is about. I don't intend to be a Derbyshire saying we're all doomed.
But recognizing the nature of the problems we face is the first step to solving them; most ultimately bury their heads in the sand on the scope of it, in part because the implications of what we might have to do to solve these problems are so dire, we don't really want to do it. Frankly I can't think of an effective solution I would want to pursue.
The most we might do is momentarily rouse ourselves to action in order to vote into office (but not into power) people even the supporters of whom know in their hearts are worthless, and then go back into sedation feeling we've rolled the boulder up the hill.
Third potential example I might use, in a later post, but which I've referenced before, and which A.L. should be at least passingly familiar with (though I can't remember now if he supported it or not): The popular mobilization in California to recall Grey Davis which subsequently elected Ter Gubernator as a modern-day poor-man's-rich Cincinnatus to solve California's problems, which were already then at crisis point, and which said efforts resulted in the usual suspects making a sustained and successful effort to demolish the public support for him, the near-ruination if his reputation, the popular repudiation of the very things they elected him to pursue, and his transformation into a girly-man public-face of the very forces he was elected to rein in. Again, only another facet of the whole.
My dispair is that people really actually bury their heads in the sand about all of this. Theoretically Bill Whittle is right: It would be the simplest thing for an electorate that 60%-70% believes one thing to disempower a governing class that manifestly is on the opposite sides of those things...but it appears they won't do it in time, either here or for Israel. That's modern Wilsonian "public policy/impersonal-bureaucracy-insulated-from-the-public" Democracy for you, especially when combined with a Lipmanesque Official Press that I'm sure almost anyone reading this knows nobody can rely upon for an accurate presentation of, say, the Israeli-Palestinian matter or thus anything else of import.
The non-inevitability of events we nevertheless know must come to pass.
"...but it appears they won't do it in time, either here or for Israel..."
Just what do you think replacing the Netenyahu government would achieve?
The error here was either lack of intelligence or not accepting the intelligence.
All ships originally indicated an intention to breach the blockade.
The Israeli's are quite within their rights to board all vessels that declare an intention to breach the blockade.
One ship out of six refused to heed the blockade. That ship contained ratbags who declared an intention to fight.
You do not have to review the Israeil government information. How about looking at some of the open source info from the belligerents.
At what stage do you bend to the lies spewed your enemies and copied without verification by the media.
At what stage do you bend to the lies spewed your enemies and copied without verification by the media.
But that is precisely the issue. The Obama administration has decided to make common cause with America's enemies and jettison its purported allies.
None of what has been happening in American foreign policy makes sense otherwise.
(Come to think of it, none of what has been happening in American economic policy or internal policy makes sense otherwise.)
Just what do you think replacing the Netenyahu government would achieve?
It would remove an incompetent from office.
Really? This is all just a move by the left/Obama to aid our enemies while insulting our allies? That's the only reason why someone would advocate against this whole situation?
Really?
Instead, let me redirect you to this phrase:
Whether or not I agree with the Palestinians (I generally don't), Whatever my feelings on Fatah & Hamas (I think they're scum of the earth), every human (in my view, and in the view of the founders) has an inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
As long as Palestine is prevented from having it's own nation, a great injustice is being done. As long as children are starving in the streets, a injustice is done. As long as innocents are prevented from traveling to see family and friend, an injustice is done.
Of course, on the other side, as long as Israel is attacked with rockets and bombings, a great injustice is also being done. And this week, both sides of the injustice were brought to a head. One injustice does not make the other acceptable.
To be persnickety, a people doesn't have a nation, a people is a nation. What the Palestinians lack is a state.
One of the little ironies that fascinates me so is that, for decades, a right-wing (in the context of the United States) mantra has been, "There is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinians." Not those exact words, and usually with a little more qualification, hedging, and careful phrasing, but still, the intent was clearly to draw an arbitrary line in the sands of history and say, "Well, there was no Palestinian people then, not in the sense that these misnamed Palestinians want, so they have no claim."
Well, I have a grave disagreement with that argument. I don't buy the arbitrary line in the sand. Maybe there was no such thing as the Palestinian people then, but there for damn sure is now, to the shock and horror of... well, basically everyone. They've created themselves through blood, pain, and suffering, even if some was self-imposed, and more imposed by that cynical incompetent bastard Arafat, and the rest dished out by the rest of the Arab world, plus Israel.
It is what it is.
But recently-- maybe it's always been this way and I just wasn't paying attention-- recently, the Democrats seem to be listing in the opposite direction to make almost the exact same argument about the state of Israel. No one really disputes that there is a nation called Israel, only that there is historical precedent for a state. Well, again, to varying degrees of dismay in the world, there is one there now, dammit.
It is what it is.
Forcing either group to pack up and leave by the millions is absurd, unjust, cruel.
Still, even having said all that, and drawn a limited, carefully defined equivalence, I am not buying the greater moral equivalence. I do not buy the argument that Israel is "just as bad as" Hamas. Israel is deeply flawed by it's lunatic settler fringe, but I have no real doubt that if they had a genuine peace offer, they'd take it and live up to it.
But right now, one of the reasons that the Palestinians lack a state is that they use the trappings of a state to launch rockets and suicide bombers at their neighbors. Well, go figure. They can do something about that; they can stop.
Another reason they have no state is that the land they occupy is just not geographically viable as a state. There's no way to defend it, no way to even pretend to be self-sufficient, its current incarnation isn't even connected, and both parts have different geographic problems and concerns. It's a farce.
But they can't even start to work on those problems-- which will require epic levels of creativity to solve-- because they're too busy attacking Israel. My sympathy is not zero, but it is sharply limited.
I do not buy the argument that Israel is "just as bad as" Hamas.
Neither do I. Generally I say that because Israel is more stable, I expect better behavior from Israel than from Palestine. (Just as I expect better behavior from us v. Al Queda). In some places, Israel does a remarkable job. In other places, (like the flotilla raid) I think Israel tried to force the issue, and just made it a lot worse.
Israel is deeply flawed by it's lunatic settler fringe, but I have no real doubt that if they had a genuine peace offer, they'd take it and live up to it.
The settlements, despite being fringe do contain a wide swatch of public support. These settlements are designed to take bak the holyland (much of which is below Palestine) in pieces. As long as the settlements are allowed to grow, there will never be a peaceful settlement. Israeli politicians know this, and also know that a majority party cannot exist that does not support the settlements.
one of the reasons that the Palestinians lack a state is that they use the trappings of a state to launch rockets and suicide bombers at their neighbors. Well, go figure. They can do something about that; they can stop.
Can the average Palestinian actually stop the rocket barrage? Hamas certainly could, but I'm not sure the average Palestinian could, even if Hamas was voted out of office.
The way I see it, it's become a cyclic problem. Each side responds in a way that escalates tensions. (violence leads to occupation, occupation leads to fear, fear leads to hatred.... and that leads to further violence).
Not that I have a solution, even if Israel loosens their strings, the anger is still there, violence is expected. But not solving the occupation also makes violence likely.
What is needed is for Palestine to give up anger (or at least outbursts of aggression) while Israel SIMULTANEOUSLY gives up settlements and occupation. This is an incredibly difficult demand on both sides. Israel does not want to end settlements, and Palestinians have very little control over what Hamas actually does.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION / a personal message to Joe
Tried to send you an e-mail, which I think will interest you, on the flotilla aftermath, & Islamofascism, & an earlier posting of yours. Please provide an e-address (sent to my AOL acct.)
Joe@windsofchange.net and kat@pathcom.com both failed.
Thx,
Anon (Ed S.)
As long as Palestine is prevented from having it's own nation, a great injustice is being done.
Offers have been made. Why have they been rejected?
As long as children are starving in the streets, a injustice is done.
Indeed. However, no children are starving in the streets, no matter what Palestinians and their supporters would like us all to believe.
As long as innocents are prevented from traveling to see family and friend, an injustice is done.
Well, that is a problem, isn't it? But is there a state of war between Hamas and Israel or isn't there? (And remind us, who has declared that the other must be destroyed?). As for the Palestinian Authority, they're in no hurry, as long as they continue to get huge amounts of financial aid, lots of sympathy for their "suffering," and the get to see Israel slimed and smeared more and more with each passing day.
Ergo?....
Offers have been made. Why have they been rejected?
One of the largest issues that Israel has never been dealt with is Right of Return(ROR). Much of the anger stems from Palestinians who were forcefully removed from their homes. There is unlikely to be a signed peace treaty that deals with this on some level. (Israel is also unlikely to agree to ROR, which has basically blocked peace negotiations.
However, no children are starving in the streets, no matter what Palestinians and their supporters would like us all to believe.
Proof? Link? Evidence of any kind?
As for the Palestinian Authority, they're in no hurry, as long as they continue to get huge amounts of financial aid, lots of sympathy for their "suffering," and the get to see Israel slimed and smeared more and more with each passing day.
I agree that the Palestinian authority is a large part of the problem. Again, the occupation also feeds the power structure of the Palestinian authority.
My point is that there is no single strand, no smoking gun or magic bullet that's going to solve this problem. We're not going to wake up tomorrow and have no rockets unless that change is fostered. It's going to require a cabal of changes by Palestine, and by Israel. (Of course, I wonder if there are people who would prefer it if Palestine merely fell into the ocean...)
"One of the largest issues that Israel has never been dealt with is Right of Return(ROR). Much of the anger stems from Palestinians who were forcefully removed from their homes. There is unlikely to be a signed peace treaty that deals with this on some level. (Israel is also unlikely to agree to ROR, which has basically blocked peace negotiations."
The right of return is a poison pill designed to flood Israel with Palestinians, overwhelming the demography. We know this because Palestinian leaders have said it outright.
Its also not true that Israel has never addressed the subject. Reparations are on the table. Millions of Palestinians flooding into Israel are not. That is a dead issue because it would be suicide. Palestinians obviously would have the right to return to the new Palestinian nation (or nations), and Israel could provide some financial compensation. Thats the only deal possible, so to hold on for something else (as has been the Palestinian position) is the same as torpedoing the process. One of the Palestinians unbendable demands is for Israel to commit suicide. That is not negotiating in good faith. Until that demand is dropped, you are right, there will be no long standing deal.
But it's also part of the issue that creates anger in the first place. And on some level, that anger is understandable (even if I dont' agree with how it's acted on). Feeling like you've been removed from something that's owed to you has led to the same sorts of anger and outbursts in the Israeli settlements as well. On both sides, it's really a self-perpetrating cycle.
I don't see that ending anytime soon.
Proof? Link? Evidence of any kind?
Listen, if you wish to believe the propaganda masters in Gaza (and the Palestinian Authority, for that matter), it's your right, just as it is for all those progressive humanists all over the world. Just don't ask a question like, "But, but why would they lie?..."
Anyway:
Link 1
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/06/danish-report-from-gaza-wheres.html
Link 2
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001114.html
Link 3
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7806209/Dispatch-Just-how-hungry-is-Gaza.html
Link 4
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001072.html
From:
Link 5
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001117.html
As anyone who follows the Middle East closely knows, Israel supplies Gaza with ample goods. Indeed the standard of living there is higher than it is in many other areas of the Arab world – or in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan. For example, 20 per cent of all Gazans own a personal computer (i.e. an average of more than one per family).
An outstandingly ignorant commentator, The Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens, today writes (in a piece flagged at the top of the front page of The Financial Times under the heading “Israeli power is now the enemy of peace”) that Palestinians are denied adequate food and water in Gaza.
At least some American journalists attempt to tell the truth about Israel.
The Washington Post Middle East correspondent reported yesterday: “If you walk down Gaza City’s main thoroughfare – Salah al-Din Street – grocery stores are stocked wall-to-wall with everything from fresh Israeli yogurts and hummus to Cocoa Puffs. Pharmacies look as well-supplied as a typical Rite Aid in the United States.”
“When Western people come, they have this certain image of Gaza,” Omar Shaban, an economist who heads Pal-Think for Strategic Studies in Gaza, told The Washington Post. “We have microwaves in our homes, not only me, everybody. If you go to a refugee camp, the house is bad, but the people and the equipment are very modern. The problem is the public infrastructure.”
Israel has never had a problem with anyone who might want to supply Gaza with goods. Israel does have an issue with those who would allow the unfettered entry into Gaza of weapons and militants (of the kind on the Mavi Marmara) which would make a future war with Israel much more likely.
Also, essential readin for anyone who is interested (though most certainly aren't):
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1362/hamas-siege-of-gaza
Indeed, they are Masters at the game."
Thanks for the pictures, I had a heard things to that effect, but pictures help alot. Still, it doesn't mean that starvation (or rather malnutrition exists). You can google "ethiopian markets" or "somali markets" and see carts lush with food... it's just that food is restricted.
The first article you site talks about expensive food stuffs from illegal imports. Again, the problem is only partially food. The other is jobs. Again, at end of link #1:
(Link is blocked today, so I'm paraphrasing)
"The real problem is not food, the problem is that there are no jobs".
As NPR cited today, 80% of the populace (of Gaza shoreline) lives on less than $2 per day. That still leaves 20% that can afford markets. I've also heard it mentioned that groups like Hamas & Fatah have the best access to the middle class, and so are undamaged by the embargo. If so, this is another reason why the embargo fails.
Now, this still leaves alot of questions: How much food is there? How much reaches the general populace? how much food does $2 bring?(assuming this number is accurate)
To be honest, there's no way to answer that question without going there... which isn't likely to happen. Next best option is news reports, so it's nice to have some other links.
On part 2: Again, Hamas has a stranglehold on the country. And since they are also "the military force", there is very little Palestinians can do about it. Again, the embargo only makes Hamas stronger, so it's not a surprise to me that they would push to avoid the aid for as long as possible.
On part 2: Again, Hamas has a stranglehold on the country. And since they are also "the military force", there is very little Palestinians can do about it. Again, the embargo only makes Hamas stronger, so it's not a surprise to me that they would push to avoid the aid for as long as possible.
Again, the clueless narrative.
How exactly do you make a totalitarian regime with a stranglehold over its population "even stronger"? Pray tell.....
Look, it's actually quite simple:
1. There is no starvation in Gaza.
2. Gazans are, materially, better off than their neighbors in the Egyptian Sinai.
3. Hamas, the "government" of Gaza, is pledged to destroy and dedicated to destroying Israel.
4. Hamas doesn't have enough of the types missiles it wants and needs to attach Israel from the southwest. (It looks at Hezbullah as its inspiration. It has the same mentor, Iran.)
5. In order to get those types of missiles and the types of missiles it needs to be able to bring them in from the sea.
6. Unfortunately for Hamas, Israel is blockading Gaza to prevent them from getting those missiles in the numbers it wants (50,000? 60,000? like Hezbullah. Why not?)
7. Iran, which has armed Hezbullah to the teeth, and Syria as well, would like to do the same for (the poor suffering Palestinians in) Gaza, but has been thus far prevented.
8. Iran is pledged to destroy and dedicated to destroying Israel. So is Hezbullah. So is Syria.
9. The only way Iran can get those missiles into Gaza in the quantities it wants is to ship them in by sea.
10. Turkey is now an ally of Iran and Syria.
11. This point bears repeating: Turkey is now an ally of Iran and Syria.
12. Turkey is using its muscle (along with all the moral and ethical power it commands) to break the blockade so that those Iranian missiles can get into Gaza. The humane rationale, which every idiot around the world seems to buy into, is "Poor, starving Gazans suffering under Israeli Nazi-like blockade."
13. Turkey has permitted Iran to join it to do this. A flotilla is nearing Gaza as we speak.
14. Turkey is doing this as a member, presumably in good standing, of NATO, and as an ally, presumably in good standing, of the USA.
Where this is going shouldn't be too hard to figure out. The question is, what is Obama going to do.
The answer is: He's going ditter, express disappointment and regret at all Palestinian suffering but essentially do nothing. In other words, he will de fact support Turkey's charges regarding Israeli "provocation" and stress the suffering of the Gazans (for whom all people of good will must feel and empathize with). Then, when Turkey calls on NATO to honor its commitments to side with Turkey (and Iran!!) when the inevitable shit hits the fan, Obama is going to continue to dither and philosophize, indicate his deep disappointment at events, and say that regarding NATO, his hands are tied---but a treaty is a treaty and it must be honored.
Thus, if this scenario is accurate, NATO will have to decide; and in one fell swoop, he will, with Turkey's generous assistance, undermine NATO entirely while encouraging (if not specifically enunciating) the view, which will be readily picked supported by "good people everywhere," that it is Israel (led by Bibi and those Likudniks) that has fomented this war with its "former friend and ally", Turkey, merely because Turkey wishes to alleviate the unconscionable plight the Palestinians in Gaza, and Palestinians, generally, at Israel's hands.
Hezbullah is waiting in the wings, as are all the humanists in Europe and elsewhere, sharpening their knives and preparing to take care of the "Zionists" in those places.
And there is absolutely no way that Israel will not be blamed for this.
(Nonetheless, those of us more sophisticated sorts must maintain our composure and insist that both sides are equally to blame, I suppose....)
Conor Cruise O'Brien wrote that he was sitting next to the Israeli UN Ambassador, listening to a speech by Adlai Stevenson to the General Assembly (during the Cuban Missile Crisis). In a horrible misspeak, Stevenson said "Cuba has circumcised international agreements!"
The Israeli ambassador leaned over to O'Brien and said, "See, I knew we'd get blamed for this."
More Gaza Misery.