Reflections on Cast Lead and collective madness
This is a guest post by s.o.muffin
It is more a month since I have neither commented on HP nor, indeed, read the blog. Succumbing to occasional megalomania, I allow myself to imagine that it matters and that somebody noticed. I am probably wrong.
I can imagine the heated discussion and the sparring, in particular in the context of Operation Cast Lead. Well, I have a lame excuse: as events were unfolding, I have been away (in Israel, since you’ve asked), with virtually no Internet connection. Being in Israel, watching the TV in real time, talking with friends and relatives, all this made the experience much more visceral. And considerably more hopeless.
I have returned from Israel before the guns went sort-of silent, in turmoil and despair, and busied myself in work. Of course, in spare time I have been conducting lively conversations with myself and promised myself to share them wider. Not, however, too soon. I wanted the raw emotions to subside, the small voice of reason and introspection to be heard again. The time, I believe, has come, and here I am.
To make it clear, I wish not to dwell upon the moral aspect of the war. Not, I hasten to say, because the moral aspect is unimportant. It is absolutely vital. Societies that abandon morality, see human interaction as merely an abstract exercise in game theory, are giving up much of what it means to be human. Yet, the problem with talking morality is that one addresses emotions and subjective views of what morality is all about, and this is not good at all in persuading others. I can easily play to the gallery, elicit showers of praise from those who already agree with me, but frankly this is of minor importance. I wish to reach to those who disagree with me. To beseech them to examine their minds, rather then their hearts, to ask themselves whether perhaps, just perhaps, they are wrong.
My thesis is not that Cast Lead was immoral (although it was), it is that it was stupid. The operative difference between immorality and stupidity is this.
Immorality is when you are inflicting unjustified damage upon others. Stupidity is when you inflict unjustified damage upon yourself.
What, for goodness sake, was the purpose of Cast Lead. (Or, to the cynics among you, who suspect that the purpose was saving the political careers of Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, why was Cast Lead so supposedly conducive to this project? Why, in other words, was it overwhelmingly supported by the Jewish Israeli voting public?) The strategy underlying it, indeed underlying much of Israeli (and Palestinian) behaviour for generations, is the wish “to teach them a lesson”. To show them in this particular instance that, once they fire Qassams or Grads, the retribution will be terrible, out of proportion. To sear in their consciousness, in memorable words of Lt Gen. Yaalon, that “violence doesn’t pay”. (By what he meant “their violence”.)
The simple point is that this lesson is doomed. The actual lesson that they learn is the exact opposite of what you intend. You wish to teach them that their violence doesn’t pay, they learn that they must acquire bigger weapons, so that they can’t teach you their own lessons. Each side repeats this obvious blunder, each side escalates the conflict – only for the other side to escalate it in turn. Cast Lead might have achieved few months of lull but it generated enough rage and determination for Hamas to acquire bigger and more effective weapons, to target Tel Aviv rather than Sderot.
Each side has all these Mickey Mouse theories that the time is on their side. No, it isn’t. As this conflict simmers, occasionally boiling over, it escalates and both sides are condemned to pay the butcher’s bill. The simple fact is that there is, as there always was, only one way of solving this conflict. Everybody, friend and foe of peace, knows it. Not just the outlines of peace are clear as a pikestaff, but its details. And this is the only alternative to ongoing ratcheting up of the conflict. Neither Greater Israel nor Greater Palestine nor the ridiculous idea of two people, hating each other with all cells of their bodies, living together in a unitary state. In their cooler moments a majority of people on both sides agrees with this, yet cooler moments are becoming increasingly rarer.
Until last month I believed that the mission of those who wish to rescue Israelis and Palestinians from themselves was to persuade silent majorities on both sides. I now realise that, although this is a nice idea, it will not fly. Both sides (an aberration familiar in prolonged ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts) took collective leave of logical, calm thinking. Each is wrapped in its own (true or false, but always ever-so-convenient) victimhood, each starts and stops the narrative whenever it suits its own outrage, each sees the other side as acting (with malice), itself as reacting (with no choice). Inconvenient facts are dismissed out of hand or explained away. It is easy to blame politicians, except that politicians are giving their public what their public wants. And, while it might be possible to replace politicians, it is impossible to replace the relevant publics.
In other words, this conflict cannot be resolved by its main protagonists and it must be solved by concerted, determined action of outsiders. After all, the Quartet, Americans, Europeans, Russians, even the Arab League, all agree on the blueprint. And all agree that this conflict is much more than just a cancer eating into lives of Israelis and Palestinians. The world, frankly, can afford it less and less. And the world must step in – not to entice, facilitate, persuade or bribe, but to force a compromise. Using all the levers the world has, short of direct military action.
As long as the purpose is clear, the end game agreed, explicit and detailed, the vital interests of both sides catered for and the pressure equitable and proportionate and applied to both sides, I believe that this can work.
And that, unless we wish to advance through the Periodic Table, from Cast Lead all the way to Fissile Uranium and beyond, it better should work.
Comments
| 4 February 2009, 8:26 am |
The entire rant is predicated on one insane premise: Jews are not entitled to defend themselves against genocidal maniacs.
As to the huge hubris and moral smugness and superiority: it’s too revolting to even go there.
| 4 February 2009, 8:31 am |
“The simple fact is that there is, as there always was, only one way of solving this conflict.”
I clicked the above link:
“Error 404 – Page not found!
“The page you trying to reach does not exist…”
Symbolic?
| 4 February 2009, 9:04 am |
No, not really symbolic, just shambolic. I wrote the links in a plain-text file which I then sent to David T., and who formatted it – somewhere something happened along the way and I am happy to take the responsibility (and to learn the lesson not to be too clever with HTML in such circumstances).
Try http://www.geneva-accord.org/ or my original link, http://www.mideastweb.org/geneva1.htm
| 4 February 2009, 9:11 am |
Force compromise why? – Israel is a sovereign state which was founded on the basis of a UN Resolution – why should it be expected to surrender that sovereignty and have a solution imposed upon it and against its will. All I hear is that Israel has to make painful concessions and I am wondering why having been forced to successfully fight six wars since 1948 in order to retain its existence and independence it has to make painful concessions. Let the other side make painful concessions and be satisfied that it has been fighting a war against the Jewish State and not another Muslim State (remember Jordan and Black September) since by now it would be but a footnote in history. I pray for the day when the so called enlightened left finally get it that unless and until the other side realise whilst they follow the path of “glorious resistance” and “Palestine from the river to the sea” aided and abetted by Iran et al there will never be rapprochment or even peace since both in essence mean the deligitimisation and are predicated on the destruction of the Jewish State.
| 4 February 2009, 9:12 am |
What N.O. said, with bells on. Its like watching a rerun of some nutty pacifist in 1940 claiming that there should be negoiations with that Mr Hitler fellow. Your consistent pollyannism has went beyond the stupid and into mendacity.
| 4 February 2009, 9:17 am |
Until last month I believed that the mission of those who wish to rescue Israelis and Palestinians from themselves was to persuade silent majorities on both sides. I now realise that, although this is a nice idea, it will not fly. Both sides (an aberration familiar in prolonged ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts) took collective leave of logical, calm thinking. Each is wrapped in its own (true or false, but always ever-so-convenient) victimhood, each starts and stops the narrative whenever it suits its own outrage, each sees the other side as acting (with malice), itself as reacting (with no choice). Inconvenient facts are dismissed out of hand or explained away. It is easy to blame politicians, except that politicians are giving their public what their public wants. And, while it might be possible to replace politicians, it is impossible to replace the relevant publics.In other words, this conflict cannot be resolved by its main protagonists and it must be solved by concerted, determined action of outsiders. After all, the Quartet, Americans, Europeans, Russians, even the Arab League, all agree on the blueprint. And all agree that this conflict is much more than just a cancer eating into lives of Israelis and Palestinians. The world, frankly, can afford it less and less. And the world must step in – not to entice, facilitate, persuade or bribe, but to force a compromise. Using all the levers the world has, short of direct military action.
Dear me. You seem to have been afflicted with a very severe case of Self-Important Moral Grandiosity, in which you’ve elevated yourself to such a great height of clear-sighted perspicacity that you regard yourself as able to reduce one democratic nation and one or possibly two aspirant nations to the equivalents of children or primitive tribes who lack your self-ascribed wisdom, insight and ability to see the obvious. Why don’t these tiresome entities Just Get On, which they could do merely by taking your advice?
Your wisdom extends to casting them as moral equivalents. How could anyone fail to agree with you?
Of course, I’m one of the pathetically partisan individuals who doesn’t. Because reducing the complexities and looking for truth between different accounts of the reasons for Operation Cast Lead is one of the foolish and no doubt misguided things I insist on doing. Do you know, I don’t even believe that Cast Lead was mounted to increase the election chances of any Israeli politicians, because of my stubborn and no doubt misguided focus on the evidence that the preparations for it were being made long before there was any reason to think there would be an election at the present time, and also I frivolously can’t help thinking that most nations being on the receiving end of escalating barrages of rockets for a period of six weeks before the Israeli attack started might also have resorted to war rather than retaliatory gestures. But that’s a measure of how blinkered I am compared with your brand of grand, superior and entirely original insight.
Then of course, there’s Khaled Abu Toameh. Who is he to speak, compared with someone as wise and convinced of his own rectitude as you? But there he is, a mere Palestinian journalist who writes for an Israeli journalism, and reports from deep inside Gaza and the West Bank, based on a lifetime in the Palestinian territories and a career start inside PLO-controlled news media. And there he is, tiresomely and at enormous length spelling at views that–shockingly and so perversely–are completely at variance with yours.
Read them here. And please do take the time to read the whole thing.
Just a taster from him about De Haut en Bas views like yours:
And where are we standing today? I told you before that I’m one of those people who support a two-state solution. I think it’s a wonderful solution. But in the end we’re getting a different kind of two-state solution. We have two separate entities. One in Gaza, and one in the West Bank.The one in Gaza is an Islamic state run by Hamas and supported by Ahmadinejad, Syria, Hezbollah, and some people say Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s a very dangerous situation, and as a moderate Muslim that’s the last place I want to live on this earth.
What we have in the West Bank is the secular, corrupt, powerless regime of the PLO. Abu Mazen, Abu Shmazen, all these Abus. The Arafat cronies who failed their people over the past fifteen years. Who lost the election in January 2006 because of the corruption. Who were kicked out of Gaza because they failed. Who have lost control over half the Palestinians who live in this part of the world. And they are sitting in Ramallah. These people are in power only thanks to the presence of the IDF in the West Bank. If the Israeli army were to leave the West Bank tomorrow morning these PLO people would collapse in five minutes and Hamas would take over.The question we should ask ourselves in the wake of this scenario is whether or not there is really a partner on the Palestinian side for any deal, let alone a peace agreement. Any kind of deal. Is there really a partner on the Palestinian side? And the answer is simple. No.
Hamas is not a partner for any peace agreement because Hamas is not going to change. All these people who believe that Hamas will one day change its ideology, that pragmatic leaders will emerge in Hamas, these people are living under illusions. Hamas is not going to change. To their credit we must say that their message has been very clear. It’s the same message in Arabic and in English. They’re being very honest about it. They’re saying “Folks, we will never recognize Israel. We will never change. We will not abandon the path of the resistance.” They’re very clear about it.
And the greatest irony of all about your grand prescription for an instant solution is this: if you think that outside nations can enforce your solution on Israel and the two Palestinian entities, you are failing to recognise that it could only be done by military force, despite what you say about “everything short of direct military action”.
If President Obama got up tomorrow and said he would immediately stop all military aid and arms supplies to Israel tomorrow, it would not persuade Israel under any conceivable elected government to sign up to a “peace settlement” with Hamas. It wouldn’t work even if every nation declared sanctions and withdrew their ambassadors and imposed boycotts on all things Israeli.
It would of course lead to Hamas and Iran declaring a megavictory.
Perhaps in the last resort then you would want to see a multi-national force under the UN banner invading Israel and the Palestinian territories and forcing the parties to make peace? Why not? Let’s call the operation Fool’s Gold. Sounds prettier than Cast Lead.
| 4 February 2009, 9:21 am |
I completely disagree, Muffin.
What the world must do is to STEP OUT. Go away UN. Let the Palestinians in Gaza realize that they are free to use their efforts to smuggle better weapons only because the world has stepped in for too long. Go away UNWRA.
The day the Palestinians realize that, save for International meddling they will be eating sand and drinking the sea in days, they will understand that their dreams of destroying Israel are hopeless.
The world is financing the conflict. For too long. Goodbye UN. Let the conflict be solved at last.
| 4 February 2009, 9:28 am |
Yes, there’s too much moral equivalence here.
There is no comparison between Israel, an operational democracy with rule of law and basically civilised values, and the genocidal-cum-Mafiosi terrorist rabble they face.
This is not to say that all the wrong is on one side. Israel was wrong to try and “create facts on the ground” – a stupid, stupid policy pursued in Sinai, Gaza, West Bank and the Golan Heights. Now being pursued in only the latter two. Israel was also wrong to annex Jerusalem, fatally undermining its moral authority.
I agree though Muffin, that people should work for an imposed settlement. This conflict is far too dangerous to be left to the participants. The solution is indeed a two state one with special status for Jerusalem and effective demilitarisation of the Golan Heights.
The first requirement is that Hamas be ousted from Gaza and destroyed as an effective organisation. Easier said than done of course.
In an ideal world the Palestinian state area might be returned to a UN Mandate, run by the UN itself with maybe a strong Egyptian and Jordanian presence.
| 4 February 2009, 9:30 am |
Excellent post! How do I know this? Cos the usual idiots are firm in their disagreement with it.
Hitler references in the first six posts? Sheesh, its gotta be some kind of record.
| 4 February 2009, 9:43 am |
Nice one SO Muffin
I agree. Also you have annoyed the Wingnuts and so are onto something.
| 4 February 2009, 9:45 am |
It’s probably true that outside intervention will be needed to solve the conflict. However, the problem with the Gaza operation wasn’t the kind of lesson Israel wanted to teach Hamas.
The problem was that the aim was to teach a lesson at all.
Wars are for defearing enemies and not for teaching lessons.
That Israel didn’t want to defeat Hamas means that it had no business going to war in the first place.
| 4 February 2009, 9:48 am |
“Gazans tell Israeli investigators of Hamas abuses”
Feb. 1, 2009
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST
“Nuaf Atar spoke about the use of Gazan schools to shoot rockets at Israel. Zabhi Atar revealed that Hamas used food coupons to entice Palestinians to join its ranks and Hamad Zalah said Hamas took control of UNRWA food supplies transferred to Gaza and refused to distribute them to people affiliated with Fatah.
These are three examples of testimony from Hamas and Islamic Jihad men who were captured by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. Details of their interrogations have been released for publication by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency)….”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304655613&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
| 4 February 2009, 9:49 am |
Muffin, you’ve been missed. But I don’t agree with your post.
Judy’s response above is excellent. All I can add is to ask, don’t you think that peace would be easier to achieve if:
(i) Arab society was not infected by genocidal anti-semitism; and
(ii) Qaradawi, and others, were not issuing fatwas declaring that any peace treaty with Israel would invalid, illegal and unenforceable as a matter of Shari’a law?
And if it would be, if you agree that these cornerstones of Arab rejectionism lie at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, why should Israel be punished for them by having an external solution enforced upon it?
And how will the originators of this external solution force a compromise on Hamas, without using military action? Wouldn’t they have exactly the same problem with Hamas that Israel has now?
And where’s the benefit for Israel, if external forces prevent it from defending itself while failing to counteract Hamas’ genocidal anti-semitism and terrorism?
| 4 February 2009, 9:51 am |
That Israel didn’t want to defeat Hamas means that it had no business going to war in the first place.
Agreed. They should have tried to break Hamas.
| 4 February 2009, 9:51 am |
“… you have annoyed the Wingnuts and so are onto something” Truly incisive comment – and obviously the author of “The Prorotocol;s of the Elders of Zion” was equally on to something since that also annoyed the “Wingnuts”
| 4 February 2009, 9:52 am |
… Breaking Hamas’ hold on power is sufficent, I should say.. Killing them all would be unnecessary and too much.
| 4 February 2009, 10:01 am |
Judy -you’re a star!
I too was in Israel for part of the duration of Cast Lead.
My conclusions are quite different to those of s o muffin.
Before rushing in with an international team aiming to sort out those pesky locals so that the rest of the world can place a big tick beside the M.E. box on its ‘to do’ list, it would probably be wise to pause and take a look at the less than impressive results of international intervention so far.
From the partition, through various failed UN peace-keeping and humanitarian missions and Oslo, international intervention has not exactly acheived sparkling results so far.
The world may well be tired of this conflict and indeed fearful of the possible results of its escalation, but believe me, the people actually living it are even more fearful and tired.
If the international community really wants to help, the first place to start is Iran. There’s no point in putting a filling on a tooth when what is really needed is root canal treatment.
As for the ‘it was all about the elections’ theory – I have heard this so many times recently, and frankly find it quite laughable.
Anybody with a modicum of sense knows that as a political strategy, military action is a double-edged sword. Had there been a significantly higher number of Israeli casualties, Cast Lead could have ruined political careers. You do not go into an operation like this knowing the precise outcome.
The timing of the operation had far more to do with other factors.
1) The Hudna was for 6 months and ended in December. Hamas refused to renew it.
2) The operation began when all the schoolchildren were on holiday and therefore easier to protect.
3) Weather – winter wars are difficult because of mud. A forecast of a week or two without significant rainfall is important.
4) Public opinion – the Israeli public had been pressing its government to put an end to the unbearable conditions under which the people of the South were living for a very long time.
You know what? I’m even prepared to accept that maybe not making things too difficult for Obama at the beginning of his term could have been a factor, but only a minor one, and way down the list of priorities.
| 4 February 2009, 10:04 am |
What Tevya says.
The issue is not if you have “annoyed us”. I am here to debate you Muffin, even if I am annoyed, and I would love to do it sharing a coffe.
The issue is that however a dove you may be, if you try to do the same with a Hamas, you will probably end up tortured, paraded to the crowd and killed.
Therefore, if you think that “the world” would succeed where Israel has not, without using force against Hamas, you are deluded.
I prefer your hopelesness. At least that is a coherent feeling for a dove, given the situation.
Best,
Fabian
| 4 February 2009, 10:12 am |
… Breaking Hamas’ hold on power is sufficent, I should say.. Killing them all would be unnecessary and too much.
Why?
Did we worry about killing too many Nazis did we?
| 4 February 2009, 10:15 am |
Excellent post! How do I know this? Cos the usual idiots are firm in their disagreement with it.
Hitler references in the first six posts? Sheesh, its gotta be some kind of record.
I agree. Also you have annoyed the Wingnuts and so are onto something.
Animal Farm lives! Or at least the Animal Farm sheep do. What’s more they’ve learnt to call the ones to disagree with names! Sheeplike thinking, instead of all that tiresome analysis and historical fact checking Another sure recipe for ultimate peace
| 4 February 2009, 10:17 am |
I have made it a rule not to respond to any post in which the proportion of foam-in-the-mouth to logical argument is >10 but to treat with respect those who disagree with me respectfully.
Which brings me to Tevya’s post. Of course, all you are mentioning is a absolutely true: Arab and Islamic rejectionism, anti-Semitism, fundamentalism. However… Firstly, is this the only problem preventing peace and solution to the conflict? Secondly, is it totally disconnected from Israeli actions? Look, there is huge amount of resentment and hatred in Israel toward the Palestinians and you and I can probably see where it is coming from: a reaction to suicide bombings, Qassams, the lot. Don’t you think that Israeli actions, by the same token, influence Arab perception of Israelis? That pictures of dead Palestinian children on Al Jazira deepen hatred and resentment of Israel in the Arab world?
Responsible societies, like responsible adults, are aware that their actions influence the world about them, to the same extent as the world around them influences their actions. They don’t lash out out of frustration or anger, they weigh the long-term outcome of their actions. Yes, Arab hatred is a major factor in the ongoing conflict. Reasonable people in this situation should ask “so, what are we doing about it, to diminish this hatred?”. And you know what, I am not sure that firefights in Al Hiwa are the right answer.
Unlike the cheerleaders for both sides, I don’t believe that the right way of curing addiction is to provide the addict with more heroin. What we need is Tough Love: recognising the basic and enduring interests of both sides, as well as their inability in this juncture of time to take care of them in a responsible manner.
| 4 February 2009, 10:24 am |
and I would love to do it sharing a coffee
Next time I am in Tel Aviv. There is decent espresso on the TAU campus although you people in Humanities wouldn’t know where :-)
And, mind you, my opinion of Hamas isn’t higher than yours. But don’t you see that all the blockade of Gaza, Cast Lead and, concurrently, ongoing expansion of West Bank settlements, are achieving is to strengthen Hamas? To play into their hands? They don’t want this conflict to be resolved (by anything short of genocide): the right strategy is to think what can whittle their power away and strengthen moderates. The right strategy doesn’t abandon the stick, but also holds a large carrot. Think about it, while I take a rain check on the coffee.
| 4 February 2009, 10:36 am |
I can’t understand why s.o. muffin is being so viciously attacked. His ‘from above’ solution is a desperate one. He empathises with suffering, so his plea is coming from inside and not from above, or from somewhat abstract ideologies.. He makes points about the vicious circle of violence which are worth considering. Why don’t some of you argue with him instead of screaming at him? He obviously has a desperate desire for peace and wishes some Divinity could come from above and tell everyone to stop. Unfortunately Hamas would be a very difficult cookie to deal with by anyone at all. I despair – but will go on thinking about it.
| 4 February 2009, 10:44 am |
Judy, you’re spot on. Muffin’s responses to comments are even more shallow and dripping condescension.
| 4 February 2009, 10:45 am |
I am not at TAU anymore, Muffin, and I was never at Humanities. I was at Social Sciences. I got my degree last year.
I am at the Hebrew U. now.
But no, I still don’t agree with you.
| 4 February 2009, 10:48 am |
But don’t you see that all the blockade of Gaza, Cast Lead and, concurrently, ongoing expansion of West Bank settlements, are achieving is to strengthen Hamas? To play into their hands? They don’t want this conflict to be resolved (by anything short of genocide): the right strategy is to think what can whittle their power away and strengthen moderates.
This is precisely the point.
This conflict may strengthen or weaken Hamas – I don’t know.
But that’s the name of the game here. The purpose is to outflank rejectionists – Yisrael Beiteinu, Hamas – to end the conflict, to build two secure states.
The danger is that the strategy that you choose to achieve that aim, has the opposite effect: emboldens rejectionists, allows them to recruit, and so on.
That may be the unintended result, either of bombing Hamas or embracing them. I don’t know
However, it is the only measure in this debate that counts.
| 4 February 2009, 10:55 am |
Reasonable people in this situation should ask “so, what are we doing about it, to diminish this hatred?”.
I wish someone knew the answer to this. But isn’t it wrong to blame the victim of racism, to ask the victim to change to accomodate the prejudices of the racists?
I don’t think that Arab genocidal anti-semitism and Islamic prohibitions on peace are the only problems standing in the way of peace.
There are many things that Israel has done wrong over the years which have caused the Arabs to hate – Deir Yassin, the 1948 expulsions from Lod and Ramle, the seige of Beirut, the aggressive settlement of the territories, the nutters in Kiryat Arba, the foaming not-for-real nutters in Hebron.
But my point is that in a world without genocidal anti-semitism and Islamic prohibitions on peace, the Millwall tendency on the Jewish side (no-one likes us and we don’t care) would fall away, as the vast majority rushed to embrace the possibility of peace.
And given that we must live in the world as it actually is, we must have a strategy for dealing with Hamas which recognises who and what they are.
| 4 February 2009, 10:59 am |
What did we do to stop the Germans from having genocidal hatred?
| 4 February 2009, 11:10 am |
Nothing to say other than what a simply excellent piece.
| 4 February 2009, 11:20 am |
Yes but the elephant in the room is Iran which is supporting Hamas and Hezbollah financially and is not one of your “external players.” Although the time this is the case, and Iran remains as opposed to the existence of Israel as any Hamas or Hezbollah militant, I see little prospect of change.
| 4 February 2009, 11:27 am |
But don’t you see that all the blockade of Gaza, Cast Lead and, concurrently, ongoing expansion of West Bank settlements, are achieving is to strengthen Hamas?
Hamas is being strengthed anyway…by the basic presence of Islam (and Iran).
What you are proposing is basically handing over your Lunch to the School Bully with a plea to “don’t hit me any more”.
Nothing to say other than what a simply excellent piece.
The anti-semitic fraud and liar TheIrie’s reaction alone is enough reason to reject this piece of Pollyanna Wishful “Why can’t be all be friends!” thinking.
| 4 February 2009, 11:34 am |
What did we do to stop the Germans from having genocidal hatred?
Exactly, Josh.
S.O.Muffin, and I’ve noted this before, is one of those liberals for whom his own personal sense of smugness is more important than the lives of Jewish children. His typical liberal self-loathing has manifestested itself to such an extent that he ignores millenia of history and doesn’t consider Israel (and by extension himself) worth defending. He might as well just walk into Gaza with a sign on his back saying “Kill me now and get it over and done with”. For him and TheIrie, its all about them. Their selfishness is staggering.
| 4 February 2009, 11:37 am |
I think everyone realises that the moderates on both sides have to be strengthened in order to approach a solution, but no responsible government can ignore attacks on its people. Ordinary citizens can only take so much before they demand action from their government, and I think that’s true throughout the world.
I’m sure Fabian and others here will remember the public feeling prior to operation Defensive Shield. There was great anger and frustration even amongst left-wingers like myself that the government was not taking enough effective action to prevent ordinary people going about their daily business from being sitting ducks for suicide bombers.
Just turning the other cheek and hoping that the terror will go away by itself doesn’t work. In fact I would go so far as to say that it encourages it.
Both Cast Lead and Defensive Shield were held off for as long as possible – months in fact – and cannot accurately be described as ‘lashing out’. There comes a point, however, when the cheek can no longer be turned.
Bear in mind too, s o muffin, that the Israeli government is responsible to its electorate which is comprised of the parents, spouses and siblings of the soldiers it sends to war as well as the soldiers themselves. This makes lashing out in anger very impractical and maybe goes some way to explaining the broad support for Cast Lead seen amongst the Israeli public.
I read a very interesting article the other day by Ron Ben Ishai in which he suggested that Hamas, at Iran’s instruction, is trying to make the Israeli electorate move to the right by continuing attacks on Israel in an attempt to create a rift between Israel and the West which will serve Iran’s ultimate interests. This bigger picture is what the international community should be examining – not temporary blockades or a few caravans in the WB. Those can be dealt with later and let’s face it, there has never been a shortage of ‘reasons to be angry and violent’ on the Palestinian side – but the real reason is Israel’s very existance.
| 4 February 2009, 11:46 am |
Morgoth
“S.O.Muffin, and I’ve noted this before, is one of those liberals for whom his own personal sense of smugness is more important than the lives of Jewish children.”
I’m following this debate to learn rather than to comment, but I note that Muffin has fought in wars for the IDF. A little more respect might be due.
| 4 February 2009, 12:05 pm |
Excellent Post S.O Muffin – it seems to me that Mogorth has same taste for blood and death as the supporters of the death cult Hamas.
| 4 February 2009, 12:06 pm |
Israelinurse, good post. The democratic consent behind Israel’s defence policies, particularly given the nature of its citizens’ army, is always underplayed and misunderstood in the UK.
You’re right also about the need to see recent events within the context of wider regional politics.
As well as mentioning the direct influence of Iran, it’s also worth recognising that Israel hasn’t been able to take what might be the best strategy in its conflict with Hamas – i.e. hand over control of Gaza and its borders to Egypt under a UN mandate – because of the concerns of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority: Egypt, because Mubarak’s regime fears the threat of its Muslim Brotherhood, reinforced and rearmed by Hamas, and the P.A. because that would split the future state of Palestine into two.
===========================================
Morgoth, the difference between Andrew I and Muffin is that Muffin is speaking honestly, from the heart and in good faith.
Anyone who’s debated with Andrew knows that he isn’t.
| 4 February 2009, 12:10 pm |
For Moggie, of all people, to accuse an ethnic Jew of antisemitism really is the pits.
Vampyres of the Western World: some prefer Jewish blood; others, Palestinian; yet more will settle for either as long as they get some.
| 4 February 2009, 12:24 pm |
A brilliant post, Muffin – not the hurried insta-punditry of the armchair general, but a considered humane response to a tragedy which blights the daily lives of ordinary people.
| 4 February 2009, 12:25 pm |
I would agree to some of the points raised in your post, S. O. Muffin, if it was about a conflict between countries or nations. However, as your basic premise is wrong, your conclusions can’t possibly be right. The Israel-Palestine conflict is by no means a local conflict between two nations. It’s only a very small part of a much wider conflict between two worlds – and I don’t mean West and East, and certainly not the (in)famous clash of civilizations.
One world is, of course, the muslim world – enriched by our energy thirsty societies, emboldened by multiculturalism and the former colonial powers guilt, and although divided by internal struggles over theological, racial and other issues still racing forward to expand its influence and its own values.
The other world, facing Islam’s ambitions and growth, generally unaware and unwary of the real nature of what it’s crushing into, divided over economical, social and other issues, is the rest of the world, of which Israel and Palestine are but very small battlefields.
The only way out of this conflict is for the whole world to change – both sides, of course. Until it happens (and it will happen, surely, the human race is constantly changing or we’d still be living in caves) the conflict will go on and on, a war here, a strike there…
Be very careful, S. O. Muffin – if TheIrie would ever agree with me I’d hide in the deepest hole I can find and never crawl back again.
| 4 February 2009, 12:45 pm |
Also you have annoyed the Wingnuts
Oh, sure, Fabian is a wingnut.
What a loon.
| 4 February 2009, 12:47 pm |
Morgoth, the difference between Andrew I and Muffin is that Muffin is speaking honestly, from the heart and in good faith.
This may be true, but he is, not withstanding his IDF service, talking absolute delusional soft-headed shite.
| 4 February 2009, 12:50 pm |
For Moggie, of all people, to accuse an ethnic Jew of antisemitism really is the pits.
Where did I do that, Alec? Cite and quote please.
P.S. isn’t Gliead Atzmon an ethnic Jews as well?
David Herman, it is not a matter of a taste for blood, it is a matter of survival. The Enlightenment must survive.
| 4 February 2009, 12:53 pm |
Hitler references in the first six posts?
You need to see an ophthalmologist. There were no ‘Hitler references’ in the first several posts.
As to Benjamin: his position is always to annoy sensible people with his ignorant ‘analyses’ of the ME, which he knows nothing about. No wonder he feels in his element.
SOM:
I have made it a rule not to respond to any post in which the proportion of foam-in-the-mouth to logical argument is >10
Then you would never respond to yourself, would you? Your post is one long foaming, with no logic whatsoever. You attack the victims of a genocidal programme for defending themselves. Yes, I can see how this is ‘logical argument’ …
And … your comment above is even more condescending, smug and ‘morally superior’ than the original post.
| 4 February 2009, 12:56 pm |
For Moggie, of all people, to accuse an ethnic Jew of antisemitism really is the pits.
Well, no, it isn’t. Are you saying that ‘true race and blood’ trumps truth and facts? That sounds dangerously like a racist statement. The message is no less true / untrue / honest / mendacious, because the person conveying it is / isn’t an ethnic Jew.
Morgoth:
What has IDF service to do with it?
| 4 February 2009, 1:09 pm |
This very thread, for a start, Moggie; where you are defining what is to be a Good Jew and declaring in disagreement, even Bad Jews, to be antisemites. Nor does Atzmon himself a Jew.
It’s not your blood being spilt.
| 4 February 2009, 1:09 pm |
This very thread, for a start, Moggie; where you are defining what is to be a Good Jew and declaring in disagreement, even Bad Jews, to be antisemites. Nor does Atzmon himself a Jew.
It’s not your blood being spilt.
| 4 February 2009, 1:12 pm |
Sorry to break the news, but the world has been interfering in the Middle Eastern conflict for some time now: say, for 3.500 years or so. And that interference has never been quite useful or helpful.
We’re not dealing here with a small, simple, self-contained and remote conflict. Nobody in the world today is really an outsider to it: everybody is, in some degree, an insider. We cannot count on “neutral” or “altruistic” countries, international organizations and NGOs to deal dispassionately and maturely with it, unless, of course, we believe that the UN or the OIC, for instance, are serious institutions whose only objective is peace and prosperity for everyone.
Actually, there’s not even an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To call it thus is a form of reductionism since, from very early on, it has been an Arab-Israeli conflict, and if we take Iran’s and Turkey’s role in account, it can also be considered a Muslim-Jewish conflict.
But it is still more than that. If earlier it couldn’t be understood out of the context of the Ottoman Empire’s decline and fall, later it had to be examined through the lens of European rivalries and, then, as part of the Cold War. Nowadays, at the very least, it would be very naive to even attempt to describe it without situating it within the contemporary crisis of the Muslim world.
The Muslim-Israeli conflict has a bit (or a lot) of everything: territorial and ethnic disputes, ideology, nationalism, religion, you name it. Still, when everything is said and done, it will have to be solved (not in our lifetime, anyway) by Israel and its immediate neighbours and nobody else.
| 4 February 2009, 1:17 pm |
Haven’t heard even a single call for a revival of the Geneva Accords from any Palestinians of any political stripe and as I recall even the peace group One Voice was bullied out of the WB for not being antizionist enough, but I have a scheme (albeit one very very difficult, if not impossible to implement) which if realized might (or might not) open a door to find someone to negotiate with amongst the Palestinians other than with Arafat’s ‘old guard’ heirs in Ramallah or the genocidally intentioned antisemitic militias in Gaza in order to get to a ratification of a peace treaty based on UNSC 242:
If there was a way that Shabak and/or the CIA could not only arm, train, finance and assist Hamas, the PRC, PIJ, PFLP-GC, the Al Aqsa Brigades and assorted Al Qaeda offshoots, but far more importantly be seen by the Palestinian population in the WB & Gaza to be arming, training, financing and assisting them (on Al Jazeera), I have little doubt that a majority of those Palestinians who supported these groups in the past would soon condemn them as CIA traitors and dupes of the Zionists. Maybe with this batch of bastards tainted, some moderate movement would have a brief moment to gain popular support. Israel and the US should then publicly denounce the moderate movement giving it street credibility amongst Palestinians as well as among some in the Arab & Muslim world and among the Western anti imperialism of idiocy crowd. At that point I think negotiations would stand a chance.
On another note referring to sanctions on the Hamas government in Gaza as a blockade or a siege is propaganda.
Finally I learn far far more about what’s going on politically from Khaled Abu Toameh, than I ever will from either S O Muffin or Uri Avnery. Maybe that’s because the former is a damn good journalist whereas the other two are merely opinionated Israelis.
| 4 February 2009, 1:55 pm |
This very thread, for a start, Moggie; where you are defining what is to be a Good Jew and declaring in disagreement, even Bad Jews, to be antisemites. Nor does Atzmon himself a Jew.
Alec, point out in this thread where a) I have accused S.O. of being anti-semitic, b) or him not being a “good Jew” (you’re phrase, not mine). By all means criticise me all you want on the basis what I actually *said* (S.O. being a numpty-headed pollyanna with an inflated sense of smugness), but not for what you *want* me to have said.
P.P.S. is Atzmon an Ethnic Jew (your phrase, again), or not?
| 4 February 2009, 1:58 pm |
morgoth,
can you actually do army service?
do they allow quasi-Satanists, like you, into the army? or maybe you’d gloat over the blood too much?
| 4 February 2009, 2:07 pm |
Morgorth, you have done it on at least two prior occasions I can think of, plus your general tone of declaring him an enemy of Israeli Jews. Your immediate hysterical screeching is up there with the cries for apologies or prosecutions for war-crimes for the invasion of Iraq as an sign of a deep-rooted pathological need for control.
Plus, you don’t know what a pollyanna is.
| 4 February 2009, 2:12 pm |
Cite, Alec. To where I have called him an anti-semite in this thread.
I think you need to apologise and shut the fuck up.
| 4 February 2009, 2:37 pm |
I think you need to apologise and shut the fuck up.
Oh, grow up. Another pit you’ve just reached is, after shouting and screaming at a man who was fighting in defence of Israel and being beaten by Israeli Policemen in defence of Palestinian rights before you were born, to start bleating about being libelled yourself.
Your approach to personal criticism and debate is as disreputable as that of TheWhiney. Right from the outset, you began shrieking that S would have appeased with the Nazis or cares more about his own “smugness” than “Jewish children” or was promulgating an argument that someone else you deem antisemitic (i.e. TheWhiney) fully endorses. Of course you were accusing him of being in league with the enemies of Jews.
Ultimately, though, it’s you who’s objective antisemitic in which all Jews must take a loyalty test as defined by you, both on Israel and in their own religion or lack of (I recall your assuming Fabian would venerate child-murder; that is, Isaac).
| 4 February 2009, 2:46 pm |
Pisa: I am not sure whether this sort of reductionist approach, Islamic world vs the rest, explains much. Somehow, today’s headlines tend to melt once subjected to the filter of history. Thirty years ago the conflict de jour was Communism vs Capitalism (and even then it didn’t explain everything) and where are we now? So let us see all this in proportion.
Having said this, we all have a problem just now with a wave of intolerance and fundamentalism in the Muslim world (and not just in the Muslim world, but it is true that in simple operative terms Muslim fundamentalism looms the largest just now). Fine, on this we are agreed.
But, like in every society, fundamentalism is not essential to the Muslim world. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists and not all fundamentalists are Muslim. The battle lines run across Islamic world exactly like they are drawn across other worlds. It is in our vital interest that the battle with Islamic fundamentalism is won, but it is important to realise that this battle will ultimately be won among Muslims. In other words, by standing firm on the essentials of tolerance, democracy and Enlightenment values, while offering Muslims, like everybody else, the opportunity to join “our” project as equal and respected partners. A stick and carrot approach, if you prefer it in these terms.
Now, ask yourself whom does it help to follow the Hamas blueprint, invade Gaza and kill 1300 people, most of whom have never been Hamas operatives and many of whom children. Does it help in this battle with fundamentalism? Or does it provide fundamentalists with all the help they need?
The 2007 Lebanon War effectively delivered Lebanon to the Hizbullah. Now the whole story repeats itself. This is precisely why I was talking of stupidity.
| 4 February 2009, 3:00 pm |
The 2007 Lebanon War effectively delivered Lebanon to the Hizbullah. Now the whole story repeats itself. This is precisely why I was talking of stupidity.
You mean 2006, of course. But I think the political situation in Lebanon is more complicated than that. You’ll notice how anxious Hezbollah was to stay out of the recent conflict. I think one positive result of the 2006 war is that Hezbollah– yes, even Hezbollah– understands that taking on Israel again any time soon would be madness.
| 4 February 2009, 3:00 pm |
“There can be only one.”
Far too many people are whistling past the graveyard here. The exististential problem is that those who seek a two-state solution are deceiving themselves. At least Hamas is honest and forthright about their objectives–it is those who fail to take them seriously or believe that divine “statecraft” (ala Obama’s beliefs) can solve the rubick’s cube of the Palestanian/Arab/Muslim/Jewish /Israeli question. Taking Hamas at their word, one is forcd to recognize that any solution that does not involve
the crushing of Hamas and the killing of it’s leaders and the slaughter of a goodly number of Palestinians sufficient to make them want the slaughter to stop at any cost, is guilty of violating the most very basic laws of physics–which state that two separate and distinct objects cannot simultaneously occupy the same point in time and space in the same universe.
General Curtis LeMay (the Commander of the WWII US 20th Air Force who was responsible for designing the campaign to fire-bomb Japan’s cities, and under whose command the atomic bomb was dropped and who was the first head of the newly-created post-war Strategic Air Command, SAC) once was asked by a “peace commission” his opinion as to the best approach to terminating wars: “Oh, it’s very simple, really,” he replied, “you simply kill as many people as you can, as fast as you can–until the other side can’t take it any more–and then the war ends.”
There will NEVER be a negotiated diplomatic settlement to this problem: “What else is history but the erasure of borders and the disappearance of peoples?”–British Foreign Office Official.
| 4 February 2009, 3:02 pm |
But S.O. how were the Israelis supposed to stop the rockets if Hamas refuses even to recognise it’s antagonist?
| 4 February 2009, 3:05 pm |
sorry-should have added “that are wrong and ‘unreasonable’.” after the word “question” in the second sentence.
| 4 February 2009, 3:06 pm |
I’m not denying that real children have been killed in Gaza, though neither do I believe that we have reliable numbers yet.
But I’d like to know who should be considered a real child in this kind of conflict. We know that the IDF hasn’t been sending boys under 18 into Gaza. However, if a masked Palestinian “militant” carrying a weapon or launching a rocket, though he is not dressed in a uniform, is killed or wounded in battle and then turns out to be, say, 16 years old — well, is he a child or, in that situation, a fighter?
Since during this operation it seems no Palestinian was wearing a uniform, how can we even distinguish clearly between civilians and combatants?
All I know is that whenever the Palestinians attack Israeli civilians, there are usually as many male as female dead and wounded. But, among the Palestinians, the number of women and girls killed or wounded is almost always much lower than that of men and boys.
As I said, we don’t have reliable numbers, but if, instead of being 1/1, the proportion of Palestinian children above 14 killed is, say, 4 or 5 boys/1 girl, how can one explain that except by admitting that at least some of those counted as children were actually combatants?
| 4 February 2009, 3:11 pm |
Gene: I didn’t comment on the outcome of 2006 (yes, you are right on that) War vis-á-vis Israel but vis-á-vis the balance between secular and Islamist forces in Lebanon. And, as you know, it essentially broke the back of the secular coalition and delivered it to the hands of Hizbullah and to Syrian agent of influence.
| 4 February 2009, 3:14 pm |
Alec,
for the second time, answer my question and stop blustering.
If you can’t substantiate an allegation, withdraw it and apologise.
| 4 February 2009, 3:18 pm |
P.S. Alec, I didn’t realise you were such a Heinleinist. Starship Troopers much, do you?
| 4 February 2009, 3:20 pm |
Puzzled:
But S.O. how were the Israelis supposed to stop the rockets if Hamas refuses even to recognise it’s antagonist?
Actually Hamas recognise that that Israel is their antagonists. (I am not sure about their grammar, though.)
Of course, there is the obvious question that so many have been (legitimately) asking in Israel in the days before the conflict, “how do we stop the rockets and the mortars?”. And, incidentally, I do not make light of Hamas terrorisation of the population of South Israel and will have no truck with the morons bleating about “pinprick, ineffective weapons”. However… The very problem both with Israelis and with Palestinians is that everybody starts and stops the clock of causality whenever this suits their own self-righteousness. The Qassams were a “reaction” to something (allegedly, the blockade). The blockade was a “reaction” to something (allegedly, the Hamas takeover). And we can go on and on.
Israel should by all means stop the rockets and, under very well defined circumstances, this might include the use of lethal force. But the whole point is that you use a force, and other means of politics, to a political end. A reasonable political end might be driving a wedge between Hamas and broader Palestinian population. Do you really believe that this is what the blockade accomplished? And that’s what Cast Lead accomplished?
| 4 February 2009, 3:21 pm |
I might add, building upon my previous post, the example of India, Pakistan and Kashmir. Partition (the original “two-state” solution) stopped neither border/territorial disputes (Kashmir) nor did it cause the Muslims still living inside India to cease their agitation for the supremacy of the Muslim faith and power and control.
Islam, insofar as it’s relationship with the rest of the peoples of the world is concerned, is the functional equivalent of the Andromeda Strain.
| 4 February 2009, 3:28 pm |
<i? You need to see an ophthalmologist. There were no ‘Hitler references’ in the first several posts.
A lie
| 4 February 2009, 3:34 pm |
SOM writes as a sensible Israeli — a partisan of that country, for sure, but someone who realises that ultimately Israel is on a hiding to nothing, pursuing a bankrupt strategy that in the final analysis will never secure its existence.
It’s just a pity that this otherwise entirely reasonable voice — someone it would be possible to have a serious and honest debate about a possible progressive future Middle East that can work for all its peoples — has chosen to explore his views in this nest of psychotic Islamophobes where commentators can openly compare Muslims to microbes needing to be wiped out.
Genuine question, SOM: why HP? You took a month off posting; has the reaction here to your post made you regret that decision, or confirmed it?
| 4 February 2009, 3:36 pm |
Muzzle it, Morgoth, you’re trolling. I missed out the word objectively (as well as large parts of grammatical sense) the first time, but included it when calling you objectively antisemitic, by own your terms.
| 4 February 2009, 3:40 pm |
Reductionist approach, S. O. Muffin? How can a theory about the whole world being involved in a conflict be labeled as “reductionist”?
If you look back – a long way back, like hundreds and thousands of years – you’ll see that regional conflicts based on religion/race/economy issues were always very popular. The rise and fall of christianity is but a chapter. There is, however, one significant difference between those past conflicts and the present one – this time, our world got smaller. It’d take me less time to fly from Israel to eastern Europe than to travel from my town to Eilat, in southern Israel. It’d take less time for a nuclear headed missile to fly from Iran to anywhere in the world than it’d take the western governments to understand how wrong they’ve been. As I mentioned before, and this is the only issue over which I agree with you, the best way to end this conflict is a complete change of the parties mindsets. That is, if we manage not to destroy our planet first.
Regarding the capitalist-communist issue you brought up as an example – I’m not sure how it undermines my theory, but I think this particular conflict isn’t over yet.
Your statement that the 2006 war “essentially broke the back of the secular coalition and delivered it to the hands of Hizbullah and to Syrian agent of influence” is wrong in more than one way. Historically speaking, the process began long before that war and it was in no way connected to Israel.
| 4 February 2009, 3:43 pm |
You’re a lair and a fraud, Alec. Just like TheIrie. Some friend you have there, S.O.
| 4 February 2009, 3:43 pm |
“You mean 2006, of course. But I think the political situation in Lebanon is more complicated than that. You’ll notice how anxious Hezbollah was to stay out of the recent conflict. I think one positive result of the 2006 war is that Hezbollah– yes, even Hezbollah– understands that taking on Israel again any time soon would be madness.”
Hezbollah’s actions during this war was no more and no less what they did in 2006 prior to the war, as in fire a few rockets. You justify 2006 as some sort of genocide, yet when convenient turn around and downplay it.
“Did we worry about killing too many Nazis did we?”
Are you suicidal or something?
| 4 February 2009, 3:44 pm |
You’re a liar and a fraud, Alec. Just like TheIrie. Some friend you have there, S.O.
| 4 February 2009, 3:46 pm |
Its like watching a rerun of some nutty pacifist in 1940 claiming that there should be negoiations with that Mr Hitler fellow.
What you are proposing is basically handing over your Lunch to the School Bully with a plea to “don’t hit me any more”.
S.O.Muffin, and I’ve noted this before, is one of those liberals for whom his own personal sense of smugness is more important than the lives of Jewish children. His typical liberal self-loathing has manifestested itself to such an extent that he ignores millenia of history and doesn’t consider Israel (and by extension himself) worth defending. He might as well just walk into Gaza with a sign on his back saying “Kill me now and get it over and done with”.
Don’t you dare misrepresent me!
| 4 February 2009, 3:54 pm |
Genuine question, SOM: why HP? You took a month off posting; has the reaction here to your post made you regret that decision, or confirmed it?
My absence of six weeks had nothing to do with who posts – and who doesn’t – on HP: read above.
And no, I don’t regret that decision (i.e., to post here). And I don’t believe that HP is a nest of anything. It is an open blog, on which everybody can post and is almost never censored. This means that, in addition to reasonable, well-argued posters, there is the usual cohort of wingnuts and obsessives of all colours and creeds. I have learnt to disregard them and to treat them with the contempt they deserve. At the same time, I reserve the right to argue with those who express well-argued, sincere and reasoned opinions with which I disagree. And also to respect those whose views are different from mine, as long as they have earned that respect.
And “arguing” means that I listen to their arguments and they listen to mine. If my post persuaded even one person (or caused apoplexy to even one wingnut), it was all worth it.
| 4 February 2009, 4:00 pm |
This means that, in addition to reasonable, well-argued posters, there is the usual cohort of wingnuts and obsessives of all colours and creeds.
I think the problem is that with HP it’s the blog maintainers, not simply the denizens of the comment boxes, who are the wingnuts and obsessives. I’m thinking of the absurd post last week where the Independent was all but accused of inciting pogroms because it used the expression “massacre of innocents”. Unfortunately it wasn’t lunatics like Morgoth or Nearly Oxfordian making that claim, but leading lights David T, Brett and Neil D.
Anyhow, I will leave you to your Augean task and wish you the best of luck with it.
| 4 February 2009, 4:01 pm |
Herman is, once again, posting lies about me. My post was no. 2. Kindly find the sequence of letters ‘Hitler’ in it.
You can’t. You are a disgusting liar.
| 4 February 2009, 4:02 pm |
And that quote, Alec, does NOT support any of your hysterical allegations.
You are still a liar and a fraud.
| 4 February 2009, 4:04 pm |
The totally deranged Voice of Reason (ROFL) calls me a lunatic.
Priceless!
| 4 February 2009, 4:07 pm |
Of course it doesn’t, Morgoth. Nor does it support his sickening accusation that you are an ‘antisemite’.
Now all we need is for the usual moonbats to claim that I was a member of the Hitlerjugend in my youth …
| 4 February 2009, 4:09 pm |
it is good to read an informed and readable post on this topic
which brings us back to the nub of the issue, is there a military solution for ethno-political conflicts?
I’d say, no, as I think a political solution is the only long term viable option, and looking around the world, from the Six Counties (that’s Northern Ireland to the rest of you) to the Balkans, etc that seems to hold true
it is an illusion that EITHER side can truly resolve this conflict by purely military measures, as it was in Ireland and beyond
so the question is, how to draw in those parties which COULD bring themselves to reconsile their differences, agree compromises, etc together
that I don’t know, but I think Syria is a starting place
| 4 February 2009, 4:19 pm |
A reasonable political end might be driving a wedge between Hamas and broader Palestinian population. SO Muffin
I agree that would be one useful tactic but how to achieve it? I mean, the sight of Fatah members being murdered and maimed hasn’t, as far as I can see, exposed Hamas to general Palestinian opprobrium so what can you suggest will open their eyes to Hamas’ essential character?
| 4 February 2009, 4:24 pm |
Modernity, once again, you put me in the uncomfortable position of defending the IRA. Unlike Hamas, the IRA had no wish to wipe out the entire population of Britain. Unlike Hamas, the IRA had rational political aims. Unlike Hamas, the IRA actually operated to vaguely rational methodologies. Hence the events of the late 90s when having been militarily defeated, the IRA came to the negotiating table and effectively surrendered.
There is NO analogy that can be drawn between what happened in the island of Ireland and what is currently happening in the Middle East. What you and S.O. forget is that you cannot reason an opponent out of a position he or she has not reasoned him or herself into.
| 4 February 2009, 4:28 pm |
And this is a crucial point. Hamas are NOT rational actors. Their actions are not based on rationality or logic or reason. They actually think they have a divine mandate to first wipe out Israel and then conquer the rest of the planet in the name of their religion. They are the modern day equivalent of, and indeed, are a Death Cult. They are the human equivalent of Ebola.
And S.O. wants to sit down and negotiate with them? Over what? The length of the swords that Hamas thugs will use to behead any surviving Jews?
| 4 February 2009, 4:53 pm |
I mean, the sight of Fatah members being murdered and maimed hasn’t, as far as I can see, exposed Hamas to general Palestinian opprobrium so what can you suggest will open their eyes to Hamas’ essential character?
The question is not simply the essential character of Hamas but the options in front of the Palestinians. OK, so they have the option of sticking with a fundamentalist, hate-filled movement, and in exchange they will live under blockade, occasionally invaded and shelled. Or they have the option of supporting a movement committed (with all its flaws) to a two-state solution and peace, and in exchange they will get expanding settlements and “outposts”, creeping dispossession and annexation and the occasional photo opportunity.
If you want really to drive a wedge between Hamas and the Palestinian public, give the latter real, genuine options that are preferable to the status quo. Not vague promises accompanied by the reality of harsh occupation. The greater stupidity (which I didn’t mention in my post, so as not to make it even longer) is not what Israel has been doing recently in Gaza, but in the West Bank. The real lesson the Palestinians received was that it doesn’t pay to compromise with Israel and that fundamentalism is the only game in town. As I’ve said, stupidity.
| 4 February 2009, 5:27 pm |
Yes, but what have been the real lessons Israel received from the Palestinians? Why should Israel even begin to take seriously that the Palestinians really accept a two state solution before they officially and openly give up the so-called “right to return”? Israel is not the only agent in the conflict nor is Israel the only party that has to make “painful choices and concessions”, right? It’s up to the Palestinians and to the Arabs in general making Israel trust them. There’s no denying that the Israelis too have been victims of agression, that the Jews there have been under local and international attack since at least the 20s and that they are a besieged ethnic minority. I fail to understand why is it only Israel that has to act and make sacrifices. What about the Palestinians themselves, the Syrians, the Saudis and so on?
| 4 February 2009, 5:44 pm |
Israel is not the only agent in the conflict nor is Israel the only party that has to make “painful choices and concessions”, right?
Right, absolutely right. And, between you and me, the Geneva Accords, say, are not that bad a deal in this tit-for-tat of concessions.
Thus, Israelis give up 23% of historical Eretz israel, Palestinians give up 77% of historical Palestine.
Thus, Israelis give up the Right of Return to Hebron, Gush Etzion and Beit Ha’Arava, (several hundred individuals at most), while Palestinians give up the Right of Return of hundreds of thousands of original refugees.
I fail to understand why is it only Israel that has to act and make sacrifices.
I believe I just answered this.
| 4 February 2009, 6:11 pm |
Now, ask yourself whom does it help to follow the Hamas blueprint, invade Gaza and kill 1300 people, most of whom have never been Hamas operatives and many of whom children.
Hey S O Muffin why don’t you look in the mirror and ask yourself why you have to lie claiming to know with absolute certainty that most of the people killed by the IDF during Cast Lead were women and children and not Hamas operatives when you obviously don’t know that at all?
| 4 February 2009, 7:24 pm |
Thus, Israelis give up 23% of historical Eretz israel, Palestinians give up 77% of historical Palestine.
Whenever encountering comments referring with all seriousness to percentages of “historical Eretz Yisrael” or “historic Palestine”, red flags ought to go up immediately that the comment is 99% propaganda.
| 4 February 2009, 7:32 pm |
“two peoples hating each other with every cell in their bodies”
Not only is that a despicable generalisation, but if that were true what could the international community possibly do to change that? Other than put Prozac in the water supplies?
I didn’t get any further in that post as it was based on such an idiotic assumption.
| 4 February 2009, 9:57 pm |
And, between you and me, the Geneva Accords, say, are not that bad a deal in this tit-for-tat of concessions.
Of course Muffin, the Arab and Muslim world, and the Palestinian factions just can’t contain themselves with enthusiasm for the Geneva Accords, that’s why they bring it up so often. Meanwhile Khaled Abu Toameh tells us that if Israel was to cede the WB entirely and evict all Jews from living in the WB at the present time when Palestinian leadership consists of either the corrupt and unaccountable Arafat/Abu Mazen old guard, the genocidally intentional Hamas, or the muqawama mujahideen in the PRC, PIJ, Al Aqsa Brigade, and various Al Qaeda type groups, Ben Gurion Airport would have to be shut down zone due to snipers and Tel Aviv would come under missile, mortar and rocket fire. But why listen to a damn good journalist like Abu Toameh when Muffin – a guy who promotes the unsubstantiable blood libel that the IDF killed more women and children in Cast Lead than armed belligerents – knows so much better? So which Palestinian factions of the ones I mention above would Muffin suggest Israel negotiate with on the lines of the Zionist conceived Geneva Accords at the present time?
| 4 February 2009, 10:16 pm |
So which Palestinian factions of the ones I mention above would Muffin suggest Israel negotiate with on the lines of the Zionist conceived Geneva Accords at the present time?
I understand, Lbnaz, that this question is directed to me. Well, I hate to sound pompous, but if you want to engage in any sort of discussion with me, you have to do so without cheap jibes, name calling, drawing straw men and “arguments” that, frankly, don’t elicit much respect. Or at least not enough respect to engage with you.
| 4 February 2009, 10:54 pm |
Well, I hate to sound pompous
LOL.
How about answering this point, which you have made it your speciality to run a mile from (always with the same cowardly excuses):
a guy who promotes the unsubstantiable blood libel that the IDF killed more women and children in Cast Lead than armed belligerents
This is not a ‘cheap jibe’ or any of your other mendacious and yellow-bellied excuses. It’s a statement about the lie you are promoting.
| 4 February 2009, 11:28 pm |
Now, ask yourself whom does it help to follow the Hamas blueprint, invade Gaza and kill 1300 people, most of whom have never been Hamas operatives and many of whom children.
Hi Mr. Muffin, without any cheap jibes, but without conceding even a centimeter to your baseless allegation that because I’ve been citing points raised by Khaled Abu Toameh, both he and I now are being accused by you of “drawing strawmen arguments and arguments that don’t elicit much respect” , I nevertheless will ask you politely:
Will you kindly substantiate your allegation that most of the 1300 people killed during Cast Lead never have been Hamas operatives or armed combatants and second, kindly explain who among the corrupt and unaccountable Arafat/Abu Mazen old guard, the genocidally intentional Hamas, or the muqawama mujahideen in the PRC, PIJ, Al Aqsa Brigade, and various Al Qaeda type groups, would you (Muffin) suggest Israel negotiate with on the lines of the Zionist conceived Geneva Accords at the present time?
| 4 February 2009, 11:54 pm |
Absolutely hopeless post, Muffin. I agree with N.O., Judy, Morgoth, but most of all Fabian. The best thing the rest of the World can do, and that means most of all the DEC (Oxfam and all) and the BBC, is to get out and stay out. As for why Muffin is wrong:
1 Not hitting Hamas will only encourage them to increase their rockets
2 The rockets are getting better, soon even Tel Aviv would be in range. That cannot be allowed to happen – why wait until it does?
3 As Khaled Abu Toameh has said, there is absolutely no point in talking to Hamas, and Fatah is little better. I do wish Blair, Brown, Clinton, Moon and Haig would get that through their heads
3 Israel had had enough. This is not about morality or logic, they (the whole bloody country) has had enough of this behaviour.
4 Nature has equipped us with anger for good reasons. There really are times when it is more effective to get mad, not to get even, and this is one of them.
5 Fatah in the West Bank got this last message loud and clear. They at least have a vestige of rationality, and one of the things restraining them is the thought of Israel’s fury in Ramallah and Nablus.
6 You make moral equivalence between a democracy which wants peace, and a bunch of ruthless fanatical thugs who would throw their children, wives and grandmothers into Saddam’s shredder if they thought it would drag a Jew in after them.
7 Ruthlessness works:
The story is told that, during Lebanon’s civil war (1975–90), four Soviet diplomats were kidnapped by a terrorist group. Two days later its leader received a box containing the testicles of his son – and a warning from the Russians: “Don’t ever bother our people again.”
The Soviets’ reprisal was ruthless but effective. The three surviving hostages were released unharmed and no more Soviets were kidnapped in Lebanon.
Muffin, you really have not absorbed the mood of Israel – all the more surprising for someone who was there. I’ll say it again: They have had enough. Shimon Peres is one of the most moderate af all Israel’s leaders, listen to him here, and you just might get it.
| 5 February 2009, 1:20 am |
As much as I would like to believe S.O. Muffin arguement that some sort of imposed peace is possible, I cannot. Muffin is wrong and his critics are right. There will no peace between Israel and the Palestinians any time soon. However the continuing wideining of the peace with Arab countries, other than Syria will continue. As to Iran, its threat, even with nuclear weapons is to Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf oil kingdoms, not Israel.
Just today, saw a copy of Time magazine from the week before Obama’s innaguration. It’s cover story proclaimed that Israel could not defeat Hamas and was in more danger then ever before its history. This convinced me that Israel is in good shape and will be around long after Hamas has followed its Nazis and Communist friends on to the scrapeheap of history since anything Time magazine says with such assurance is bound to be wrong or at least greatly exxagerated.
| 5 February 2009, 5:16 am |
In lieu of the disappearance of S O Muffin from this thread, it seems a particularly appropos moment for some Frank Zappa
The muffin man is seated at the table in the laboratory of the utility muffin
Research kitchen… reaching for an oversized chrome spoon he gathers an
Intimate quantity of dried muffin remnants and brushing his scapular aside
Procceds to dump these inside of his shirt…
He turns to us and speaks:Some people like cupcakes better. I for one care less for them!
Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a fully charged icing
Anointment utensil he poots forths a quarter-ounce green rosette (oh ah yuk
Yuk… lets try that again…!) he poots forth a quarter-ounce green rosette
Near the summit of a dense but radiant muffin of his own design.
Later he says:Some people… some people like cupcakes exclusively, while myself, I say
There is naught nor ought there be nothing so exalted on the face of gods grey
Earth as that prince of foods… the muffin!Girl you thought he was a man
But he was a muffin
He hung around till you found
That he didnt know nuthinGirl you thought he was a man
But he only was a-puffin
No cries is heard in the night
As a result of him stuffin
| 5 February 2009, 8:48 am |
Lbnaz: You have accused me on this thread of all kinds of dishonesty, knowingly telling lies and much else which (given that I have much better things to do) I don’t intend to read again. You can quote Frank Zappa as much as you want, but if you really expect me to treat you with more seriousness and respect than you deserve and actually to “answer” you just because you all of a sudden “ask me politely” – dream on.
I am absolutely happy to engage with individuals who disagree with me. Actually, I am eager to do so (and hopefully given an evidence of this on this and other threads). But this assumes minimal standards of behaviour (yes, from both sides) and a readiness to engage with arguments and ideas, rather than being abusive or using ad hominem arguments. Thus, you have joined a list of individuals, from TheIrie all the way to Nearly Oxfordian, with whom I am not willing to enter into any conversation. Whatsoever. Whether they agree with me or not.
| 5 February 2009, 9:44 am |
Thus, you have joined a list of individuals, from TheIrie all the way to Nearly Oxfordian, with whom I am not willing to enter into any conversation
Yes, the usual pathetic running-away trick of all cowards when their bluff is called.
Muffin rants about ‘ad hominem’. This is the sad individual who called me ‘pond life’. Now he whines when he is on the receiving end, like all cowardly bullies.
Thanks for this, muffin. You are entirely correct.