roachboy

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/wo...t.html?_r=1&hp

first off, this is appalling.
the policy logic behind this is a direct result of yet another disastrous choice made by the far right nutjobs in the bush administration. it embodied a number of elements particular to "democratization" in the rightwingworld--fetishizing the fact of elections so long as the group you want to win does in fact win. so the elections are "free" so long as the population "freely" agrees with what the administration understands as being american interests. in this case, those interests were: hamas should not be elected. but they were, and everyone knew they would be. once they were elected, the americans decided to back israel's response, which was to seal off gaza, lay seige to it, under the assumption that if hamas could not provide basic services to the palestinian population, their political legitimacy would collapse.

except it didn't work, mostly because it was, and is, a brutal and idiotic plan.
unless you operate with the assumption that a siege is invisible, that you can seal off an area, trap it's population, starve it out, refuse to allow medical supplies in, etc etc etc without anyone noticing that these problems follow from a siege rather than from organizational breakdowns within the governing party, the effects of siege are likely to be the opposite of what was desired. had the israelis and americans wanted to undermine hamas in this way, they should have put it in the position of having ot govern more or less normally.

this is not rocket science.

if you want to read sustained coverage of what the past 18 months have meant for the population of gaza, go here:

ei: Palestine

i emphasize the origins of this situation because it seems to me that today's raid, directed at a "terrorist infrastructure" which apparently included some children, and the rocket launches which prompted it---all follows from this idiotic policy decision.

worse, you have an extremely weak olmert government jockeying for electoral position. you have the expriation of the cease fire that egypt had negociated followed by a phase of posturing--a couple days ago, hamas signalled it's willingness to extend the cease fore--but in the interim there was an increase in the number of rocket and mortar incidents---but people in gaza do not have basic things like flour (see the ei articles on the top of the linked page, from 25 december)--they do not have basic medical supplies---who on earth would seriously expect people NOT to act independently (maybe)---but this acting is interpreted as "evidence" that hamas does not control the population--and so and so.

apart from the situation itself, what astonishes me is the relative absence of coverage of gaza in the american corporate press. i find it interesting that the boundary which separates that which is covered from that which is passed over in relative silence is coterminous with official foreign policy logic. hell, in comparison, iraq is a policy triumph for the bush administration. maybe this silence is a function of the way in which the press has come to operate relative to the state--reduced staff coupled with need for streams of information results in increased reliance on pre-packaged infotainment ("public diplomacy") such that the sequence of official talking heads not only determines the narrative logic within particular stories that are covered, but also which stories are covered at all.

but gaza represents the furthest lunatic extension of the "war on terror" the most obscene sequence of implications of it. hamas was designated a "terrorist" organization a priori--this designation is what set the policy into motion that resulted in an 18 month siege of a civilian population. it constitutes a basis for an immanent critique of this entire "logic"....

but the american press rarely gives it any attention, particularly not now in a context of crisis and christmas, elections and transition, which result in a wholesale collapse into narcissism.

but maybe this is a good moment to look forward.
what do you think the obama administration should do relative to this situation?

i think the incoming administration should immediately begin reversing the bush administration's policy toward israel with respect to gaza. it should be carried out on both human rights grounds and with arguments concerning the political damage this situation is doing to israel itself. you'll notice in the ei coverage linked above that a dominant term for referring to what israel has defaulted into by following the logic that it has been following is apartheid. this association is of great concern to many israelis, and for obvious reasons.

the siege should be ended immediately. hamas should be allowed to govern under the assumption that the exercise of power will moderate it---it is self-evident that this other tactic has not and will not work.
the quartet framework should become a centerpiece for moving negociations forward concerning a two-state solution in the region.
the political disadvantage the fact of the siege puts israel in, combined with indications coming from olmert's government over the past month or so that israel is willing to stop providing the funds it was officially not providing to settlements in the west bank may make it easier to advance a reasonable solution.

the sticking point will be jerusalem.

but what do you think should happen?

in the immediate run, what do you think should be the reaction of the americans to this escalation in explicit violence (a siege is itself obviously violence)....?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

percy

I was waiting for something like this to happen before Bush left the White House. Part of the resolve of this situation are that the expectations be that Iran will see the carnage and get involved. Israel and the Bushco are just itching for an excuse to draw the Iranians in. Unfortunately, the US inaugerations are a month away, so there is plenty of time for more. Really to bad for all the innocent people involved

what do you think the obama administration should do relative to this situation?

i think the incoming administration should immediately begin reversing the bush administration's policy toward israel with respect to gaza. it should be carried out on both human rights grounds and with arguments concerning the political damage this situation is doing to israel itself. you'll notice in the ei coverage linked above that a dominant term for referring to what israel has defaulted into by following the logic that it has been following is apartheid. this association is of great concern to many israelis, and for obvious reasons.

I think the US should go back to the neutrality that was in place when Clinton was in office. The balance between the Israelis and Palestinians was proportional. Now it is very onesided. I don't see Obama changing the aid equation that much, simply because AIPAC won't let him. And if he does significantly, no matter how good his performance as president, he will be relegated to one term because of it.

roachboy

i doubt very seriously that iran can or will do anything, particularly given that the bush people have made it abundantly clear that they'd love to launch some planes.
but at the same time, the problem with that is that the american military is already overstretched---so "we" are not in a position to keep a lid on the consequences that would follow from such an action-reaction sequence. i don't see a regional conflagration--which would be the result of that---serving anyone's interests anywhere.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Infinite_Loser

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is that Israel should let Hamas rule in Gaza without intervening in any way, shape or form? If that's what you're saying, then I fail to see what that will solve. Hamas will continue to attack Israel as they have been doing for the past, I dunno', few years.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

roachboy

i have to go, but i'll write this out quickly...maybe expand (or address logic problems, which speed does not help to preclude)...

hamas is strong in gaza for several reasons:
the occupation itself
the israeli strategy for hobbling the plo/fatah so it could turn around and claim there was no point in negociating with the palestinians because there was no party with whom to negociate (remember? this only ended with the oslo accords)
the internal corruption of plo/fatah

these are general, but are arranged in both chronological and logical order.
to my mind, then, the most basic problem is the occupation itself.

if the idea behind the present siege--which violates every understanding of human rights---was to "demonstrate" that hamas could not provide basic services. the idea, such as it was, is to undermine the legitimacy of hamas in this way.
but any nitwit can figure out that by using a siege to bring about this end, israel and the united states are in fact strengthening the position of hamas because they provide a perfectly accurate outside force on which to blame the inability to provide basic services. the israelis have cut off food supplies, they've cut of fuel supplies, they've blocked medical supplies from getting in. this is barbaric.

faced with the disaster brought about by their own policies, it now seems that the israelis are preparing to mount a military operation into gaza. great stuff--a real step forward.

let's say that there was at some previous juncture something to the idea that hamas would be undermined by governing--that there was something to the ideas that (a) holding power would moderate because it would shift the source of legitimacy away from opposition to israel to the ability to provide continuity of services---because in a contemporary capitalist context, the regular functioning of infrastructure amounts to a political argument for the legitimacy of the state and, by extension, of the ruling configuration. in the degenerate depoliticized world of the united states at the moment, you can see this relationship---when continuity of capital flows is disrupted, the continuity of service delivery becomes a problem and suddenly there's action. so it would follow that (b) hamas would be in a far more vulnerable position were it allowed to actually govern because it would only be in that scenario that problems of continuity would be attributable to it. now, such problems are direct extensions of occupation, of siege.

behind this is another perfectly obvious point---the motor rounds and rockets that have been fired at israel since the cease-fire lapsed on the 19th are a RESULT of the siege itself.

from which follows a question or two--what exactly has this "strategy" accomplished? by way of trying to starve out thousands upon thousands of civilians, the israelis have insured that hamas remains both militant and legitimate. if hamas is internally weak in gaza, the israelis have propped it up.

and if you imagine that this strategy, such as it is, is a response to violence directed at israel, it's result has been more violence, a perpetuation of the logic of violence, because a siege IS violence--it is an appalling type of violence--it is a continuous violence based on attrition.

this kind of violence undermines the credibility of israel itself. it makes israel look like a brutal colonial force--which it is. it erodes ANY claims israel might have to a moral high ground in this conflict. it is a very very bad situation for israel, which stands to loose in any number of ways should this persist.

and mounting a large-scale military operation against a civilian population weakened after 18 months of siege is NOT a sane way to "resolve" the problem.

in fact, this is such a problematic action that i cannot imagine even the most hardline american likud supporter not wondering if there's an entirely different way to approach gaza simply because this is a foul type of disaster, a gift that keeps on giving, one that produces entirely the opposite effects as were built into it in the first place. israel is LESS safe because of this, israel is MORE isolated because of it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Infinite_Loser

Hamas attacks Israel for the simple fact that Israel exists, not because of what Israel might have done to Hamas.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Slims

Israel to Hamas: Stop shooting rockets at us.

Hamas to Israel: No

Israel to Hamas: Check out our air force.



I don't see the problem. Israel has repeatedly tried to disengage from Gaza, even allowing Palestinian Governance, but the Palestineans keep trying to kill israelis.

Hamas supported those attacks and refused to police them internally, which makes them a sponsor of terrorism.

Israel attacked valid military targets, to include a graduation of Hamas fighters (Hamas didn't think Israel had the balls to attack during a workday with everybody out and about).

And Roachboy, if Israel was laying siege to Gaza, everybody in Gaza would be dead by now. Every time the Israelis open up Gaza and loosen restrictions, the Palestinians use the opportunity to kill Israelis'.
-----Added 27/12/2008 at 06 : 55 : 31-----
Oh, and in case anybody really thinks that the Palestinians and Hamas just want to be left alone and that Israel is the agressor, check out these quotes from the Hamas Charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Personally, I think Israel has been fairly restrained by not simply emptying the area of every single non-israeli and claiming the land as part of Israel, permanently.
-----Added 27/12/2008 at 07 : 02 : 29-----
Oops, forgot this, which is included in the charter as a quote from (I believe) the Koran:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).






So the Hamas Charter makes it pretty clear that they won't be content until they kill all the Jews. Can you show me anything similar on the Israeli side? Does the Israeli constitution have similar language? NO? Then maybe they really are being attacked by the people who swore to kill them.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

roachboy

nice dodging of the central question.
but maybe i blab too much and it gets obscured.
so this way:
what has this strategy gained anyone?

i would argue that it hasn't gained anyone shit. i mean nothing,
it's a stupid strategy. period.

let's not play the game of pretending that this conflict is written in stone. it isn't. the starting point is not text 2000 years old nor is it texts that are 800 years old--this conflict dates from 1967. it dates from the start of the israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza. unless we agree on this, we aren't talking about the same thing.

the problem with linking this back to some imaginary intractable conflict is that intractable is a byword for passivity. there are definite, concrete reasons for the present situation in gaza.

my argument is that those reasons are fucking stupid, based on the sort of assessment of the situation that only stupid people buy into, and that chief amongst those people are american conservatives. so far as i am concerned, this is basically just another example of the catastrophic consequences of allowing the american right any power at all anywhere ever.

that clear?
i hope it's clear.
i want this to be clear.
let me say it another way: american conservatives are delusional both in general (look around you) and in particular when it comes to politics involving israel. the policies of the bush administration with respect to gaza are evidence of this. the result of them is that alot of people end up dead for nothing.

there is not question but that israel is laying siege to gaza, and has for 18 months. read some actual information about what reality looks like and take the trouble to interpret it. if you rely on american conservative talking points, you'll never know anything. read through the material i linked to from electronic intifada above. you might not like it, but much of it is reality, deal with it, then we'll talk.

so i didn't think i'd have to do this, but it appears that i do.
because i started this thread, i insist upon two points:

(s) the starting point of this conflict is 1967
(b) israel is laying siege to gaza.

there is no argument about either of these that makes any sense.
so consider both constraints from this point out.
if you do not agree, then start another thread.
with that option available, i'll not hesitate to vaporize posts that do not conform to these constraints.
consider if an occupational hazard.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Dunedan

So, lemme get this straight: You'll use your powers as a moderator to censor the opinions of those who do not agree with your premises, you who have made it your distinctive Modus Operandi on this board to simply brush aside any arguement or viewpoing with which you don't agree with saying "i don't buy your premeses" and "you no longer interest me."

I argue that, say, "The root of this problem is in 1947 because that's whn Israel was created" and "They're not beseiging it because, if they were beseiging it (see Stalingrad, Leninggrad, Sevastopol, etc)) they'd be leveling the joint, block by block, with mass artillary fire in an attempt to occupy the city militarily." You then use your power as a Moderator, calmly backed up with typical leftist smugness, to censor me.

Even if we disagree with someone's viewpoint or the parameters they set for their post, we do not call them an asshole, or spend an entire paragraph berating them with foul and abusive language. That's why this paragraph has been removed.

Left-wingers, champions of free speech my stinkin' asshole.

Slims

Ok, perhaps I missed what you were getting at.

To address your points: my quotes came from the Hamas Charter, which is a modern document written in 1988, well past your 1967 cutoff.

I am also not concerned about who, in the distant past, may have instigated the conflict.

Israel is only laying siege to Gaza in the sense that everytime they open their borders to Gaza, Palestinians blow themselves up in Israel, so they have restricted them. Shortly before this current air campaign, Israel did start to reopen it's border crossings into Gaza but were thanked with continued rocket and mortar attacks.

Second, Gaza has a lot of coastline, and it is by no means completely surrounded by Israel and they are not under a 'Blockade'


I get tired of these discussions because it seems to be a classic case of a little guy picking on a bigger guy until he gets pissed off and kicks the crap out of the little guy. Of course, then the big guy gets in trouble.

Israel, IMHO, has every right to do what they have been doing. The Palestinians are deliberately agitating, and have made absolutely no attempt to police their own people. If Gaza went quiet, and there were no more attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, bulldozers driving over Israelis, etc. how long do you think it would take before Israel opened it's borders? Instead, every time Israel tries to back off, something else happens and Hamas refuses to even attempt to prevent future attacks. It would be a lot easier for Israel to tolerate the occasional attack if Hamas was actively pursuing those who conduct those attacks.


Gaza is basically under self rule (because Israel agreed to let the Palestinians Self-Govern in a peace attempt) and is thus basically autonomous. Israel has no obligation to support Palestine, and it is in no way a human rights violation to simply remove what support was being offered and wall itself off from the people who are trying to destroy Israel.


How am I delusional? I am far from perfectly informed, but I try to put forward reasoned opinions. If you explain where I went wrong in this post I will listen.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 12 : 41 : 38-----
I also agree with your statement that Gaza is only trouble for Israel, both physically and politically.

What would happen if Israel let the Palestinians form their own state? Wouldn't those attacks then be an act of war between two nations? If Palestine wants to become it's own state, they need to start taking responsibility for both the well being of their people, and attacks launched against Israel from within Palestine.

With Hamas' current, continued refusal to recognize the right of Jews to life, or the right of Israel to exist, where could Israel even begin to negotiate? How can Hamas make a deal with a state they dont' recognize, regardless of how many concessions Israel makes? If you remove the Carrot as a negotiating tool, you are only going to get the stick.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 12 : 58 : 29-----
I just reread your last post, and I apologize for missing your mention of the link to Electronic Intifada.

Did you really, seriously, say that I was delusional because I get my talking points from the mainstream media and then suggest that I read an activist website in order to get an accurate picture of things?

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

dc_dux

rb....you and I have major differences on this one, and you know I am not a conservative.

You suggest the Gaza problem started in 67. I would agree that the current Palestinian problem was exacerbated at that date. But what caused it? I would suggest it was the combined attacks against Israel by Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

The starting point was 1947 with the partition of Palestine. The Israelis accepted the partition, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab nations did not and declared their intent to remove every drop of Jewish blood from the Middle East and drive Israel into the sea.

Every conflict since then, including the 6-day war in 1967, was initiated by the Arab nations, in massive numbers against a nation surrounded by its enemies. Over time, Egypt and then Jordan, recognized the senselessness of further aggression and made peace with Israel.

As late as the 90s, the Israelis and Palestinians had negotiated a two state solution, with Israel trading land for peace....only to have it fail at the last minute at the hands of Arrafat.

And yet, Israel continued to make concessions. In 2003, in a further attempt at peace, Israel unilaterally dismantled all of its settlements in Gaza and withdrew, giving Gaza political autonomy and a pledge to continue peace talks.

The response....the election of Hamas on a counter pledge to continue its aggression against Israel.

The current situation in Gaza is as much a conflict between Hamas and Fatah as it is between Palestinians and Israel.

Hamas' priority is not governing in Gaza, but maintaining the instability to secure its position by blaming it on Israel.

The Israeli siege was a response to the continuous firing of rockets into Israel for the last 5 years. An over-reaction? perhaps. What would you suggest they have done to stop the rocket attacks against Israeli civilian populations?

The solution is in the hands of the Palestinians......put peace above terrorism and they will find a willing partner in Israel.

Until such time, I support Israel's right to defend itself.

Where we do agree is on the failed Bush policy and its refusal to negotiate with Hamas.

I am hopeful that Obama will pursue a policy that will bring all parties, inlcuding Hamas, to the table and perhaps the peace deal that Clinton brokered may finally be achieved.

But make no mistake about it, it will require Hamas recognition of the right of Israel to exist, or short of that, the Palestinian people turning their backs on Hamas and electing a government that makes peace its number one priority.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 01 : 00 : 45-----
Totally uncalled for. If I was a mod, I would have booted your ass for this personal attack.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dlish

i tend not to get involved in these sort of debates, partly because i try and stay partial.

However, sometimes im really irritated and irked by some comments that i just have to reply. This time is one of them.

slim do you mean clearing out of gaza militarily? or are you talking of a diaspora?

are you talking for real or is your diatribe utter nonsense and sarcastic?

lets look at it realistcally..

militarily the israelis can do it, but will be condemned.

politcally they will be condemned whichever option you take

historically, with the holocaust being a direct catalyst of the european dispora, they will be condemned again.

there is no easy way out of this, but rampant bombings isnt a solution. even the ardent rightwinger will agree to the fact that every war is settled politically eventually.

one thing is for certain though, they just created another 1000 suicide bombers in the last 24 hours.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

dc_dux

On this, I agree.

Only to add that Hamas and its the ardent supporters also need to agree to the fact that every war is settled politically.

More suicide bombers and rocket attacks will only result in more Israeli strikes.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Slims

Ok, my computer just decided to stop showing quotes, so I am not sure exactly what you quoted, Dlish, but I will try to respond.

I am not advocating genocide, nor am I advocating that Israel try to 'push the Palestinians to the Sea'. The blockade comment was meant to illustrate the foreign nations can still import into Gaza, and the Palestinians can still export goods (if any) via the sea, without Israels involvement.

I was trying to say that should Israel decide to wage all out war on Palestine, they are more than capable of doing it, and that such a position is more or less equivalent to the Israelis sitting back and doing nothing as they are both untenable for the Israelis.

Instead, Israel has taken the middle path and, after repeated warnings, retaliated against Israel. I believe I said in my post pretty much exactly what you put forward in your rebuttal of me.

I feel that Israel is in the unique position of being pressured to help (through humanitarian aid) the very same people who are trying to kill them.

With regard to a two state solution, I am all for that. The point I made was intended to illustrate that such a solution would not work unless Hamas was able, or at least willing to police it's own people and pursue political solutions that are less than perfect.



I understand if you don't agree with me, but I don't intend to be incendiary, and if there is something in my post that continues to upset you, please let me know and I will address it as it was likely not intentional. I have reread all my posts, and I am hoping it was a simple misunderstanding as I don't see anything even suggesting something so horrible as a diaspora being appropriate.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

powerclown

The only group dumber than hamas in this situation are the Israelis, and Im pro-Israel. Every time they do something like this, they play right into the hands of every nutjob islamic religious extremist organization in the region. By bombing gaza, Israel are perpetuating everything they claim they want to see an end to, no matter how justified they may be in their attacks. They can't go in and destroy hamas (hezbollah et al) outright, which is what I would like to see happen...so hamas wins a propaganda victory claiming more "disproportionate violence" from those occupying bullies in tel-aviv. Of course everyone knows hamas' goal is the destruction of Israel...so anything short of their own destruction, preferably by Palestinian moderates, is a win for hamas et al.

roachboy

i think last night i misinterpreted an aspect of slim's post and tried to head off attribution of the conflict around gaza to some "eternal religious conflict"---so i tried to cut that option off by limiting the time frame. my apologies if i was maladroit in how i said it.

as to the question of siege, i really no other way to look at what the israelis are doing to gaza. i've been following non-american press coverage of it for the entire time--the consequences of the siege are not only a grotesque violation of human rights but are also very bad policy. a military action--a ground action--against gaza seems to me entirely outrageous.

to clarify one other point--i am neither pro nor anti-israel. israel is simply a fact. there seems to me no reason in principle why a flourishing israel and a viable, functioning palestine cannot coexist. i see some reason to be hopeful about this in medium term when i think about the direction the quartet seems to be moving in--and there has been some important progress in that context despite gaza. there was some movement on the question of settlements in the west bank for example. there was at least some reason to imagine that a rethink of the self-defeating dynamics of recents years is possible...a prospect that might bring better lives for palestinians and a more secure situation for israelis. this action dashes that.


dc: on the question of hamas' "maintaining instability" rather than governing--the direct motivation for the siege is to prevent hamas from governing. so the argument is circular.
my main argument so far in this thread is that this action is self-defeating, that it props hamas up, legitimates it---so much so that you have to wonder if there's a way in which hamas is functional for the israeli right...i would have preferred exactly the opposite response 18 months ago, and exactly the opposite set of events that we've seen unfold over the past 24 hours.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

rb....the reason "in principle why a flourishing Israel and a viable functioning Palestine cannot exist" can be traced to one indisputable fact.....Hamas' unwillingness to recognize Israel's right to exist.

Don't underestimate the role of internal Palestinian politics in this latest conflict. The Palestinian PM Abbas laid the blame directly on Hamas, and not Israel.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

dc--and i think, as i've said, that hamas would have moderated by necessity had the policy choices been otherwise on the part of israel and the united states--and it is in abbas interest to say that about hamas given the internal political rivalry between fatah and the plo. personally, i think it was entirely the fatah's fault that they lost in gaza.

hamas positioned itself as a left opposition. the central rhetorical move that enabled that positioning is the statements about israel. if hamas is kept in this kind of fragmented, untenable situation and has to maintain its own legitimacy at the same time, there's no motivation to abandon that posture---which as i recall (and i could be wrong about this one) there's been indications they'd have been willing to do.

we'll not know for sure because the situation was defined otherwise and now we're watching things slide down the toilet following the logic that followed from that.

would any options have been taken off the table had israel and the united states engaged with hamas? i don't see it. i really don't.

what's sure is this sure as hell hasn't worked.

this really is a debacle.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

rb....what other policy choice could Israel have made beyond what they did in 2003-04....unilaterally dismantling all settlements in Gaza, withdrawing all IDF forces and giving autonomy to the residents of Gaza?

The Hamas response in their successful campaign to win in the political arena in Gaza in 2006 was to continue to pursue its aganda of attacks against Israel.

At some point, the Palestinian people in Gaza must make a choice.....peace and stability or the continuation of the hatred spewed by the extremists with a self-serving agenda.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 11 : 32 : 59-----
rb.....would you accept the Charter of Hamas as a governing document if you were in the Israeli government?

Article 28 is particularly vitriolic:

Article Twenty-Eight
The Zionist invasion is a mischievous one. It does not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires. It relies to a great extent, for its meddling and spying activities, on the clandestine organizations which it has established, such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions, and other spying associations. All those secret organizations, some which are overt, act for the interests of Zionism and under its directions, strive to demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion. The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”

Should moderate Palestinians accept it? That is their choice

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

here's part of my rationale for thinking that the us/israeli response to jan 06 was a bad idea--if you look at, o i dunno, almost any us "radical" interest group from the 1970s (i am thinking in particular of the cases that manuel castells wrote about in books like "city and the grassroots") a pattern surfaces that actually gaining access to power presents oppositional groups with a real problem, one that they typically are not prepared for as their politics are oriented otherwise--this problem has to do with making the transition into acting in the context of an administrative apparatus. you're no longer outside at that point, so it makes little sense to continue pretending that you are outside---with that change comes an undercutting of the rhetoric of opposition. this lay behind my argument that it would have made far more sense had hamas been allowed to assume power in gaza. and i don't think that this initial move would have taken any options off the table---i can for example imagine easily (as i am sure you can) a scenario in which we collectively would land in this sport anyway, but from a different origin---and others in which things could look very different at this point.

a second question has to do with political language, but from a different angle--if the above is basically a footnote that i'd stick underneath the claims about about the moderating effects of holding actual power, this is more about what claims like "israel has no right to exist" actually do. i see it as a positioning move. if fatah is weak for other reasons and you want to run against that organization, you need to stake out a position in relation to them rhetorically--i see the opposition to israel as a whole to be such a positioning move.

and i see the siege as freezing hamas in that rhetorical space, as enabling hamas to distance itself from power and as if anything legitimating hamas by enabling it to point to the siege to explain everything that's gone south in gaza over the past 18 months. in other words, it is (as i've said) an entirely self-defeating policy.

where i really disagree with you is in putting responsibility for this on the people of gaza--particularly not 18 months into a siege at the point where the shit is about to hit the fan, by all appearances. first because it obviates the consequences of the siege itself---which it does not take a rocket science to see as solidifying and intensifying opposition to israel rather than the opposite, and solidifying support for hamas at the same time. second, i thought that elections were supposed to be a good thing, and that the expression of the will of the people an important act, something that should be respected. what you're suggesting---i think---is that it's ok for the united states and israel to react to the elections in gaza by saying WRONG ANSWER.

by that logic, you'd have half expected an international embargo of the united states in 2004 after bush was elected a second time. WRONG ANSWER. if it's legit in the case of gaza, it'd have been legit then. in the way it was "legit" in 1972 chile. that kind of thing. it's a strange position to adopt.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

percy

This is a two sided coin though. Many people in Israel, especially those who favour the opinions of Benjamin Netayuhu also believe that the Palestinian's do not have the right to a homeland, therefore not the right to exist as well.

The Israeli's have every right to protect themselves, there should be absolutely no discussion about that, but often go above and beyond international law in their attacks.

The biggest problem with the entire situation is why on earth are the Israeli's still left in charge of the Palestinian's. Anyone with half a brain would realize this is a recipe for disaster. Kind of like asking an alcoholic to watch over the bar at a wedding so that no one swipes the booze.

Israel controls the water, food, electricity supply and demand,...decides who goes where and when, when people can mill freely or under curfew, controls foreign moneys earmarked for Palestinian's, conduct raids that leave women and children in prisons without charge, etc, etc. Shouldn't this area have international peacekeepers?

roachboy

the internationalization of the gaza situation is among the things that the quartet has been talking about---and over the past 24 hours, i have found myself wondering about whether the incoming obama administration, the sense that this will result in a change in american policy that would--i think--make the quartet process more central and end the witless unilateral support for the israeli right characteristic of the bush people, is a proximate explanation for israel's actions. the immediate causes are outlined in the ny times article in the op--the expiration of the ceasefire and space between agreements coupled with a spate of mortar and rocket attacks. i wonder the extent to which the lapse of agreement/inability to put a new one in place has provided israel with an excuse to act during a phase of political weakness in the states, a hamstrung lame duck incumbent, and before the new administration comes in to maybe change the rules of the game.


i just found this article and think it's funny given the way the thread's been unfolding


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ael-gaza-hamas

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

I would ask the Palestinians this question, who voted in a group of religious fanatics unfit to administer to the needs of the civilian population in Gaza. The squalor and desperation of the Palestinians is deliberately maintained and perpetuated by Iran, Syria, Egypt, Hizballah/Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan...because doing the right thing by truly helping the Palestinians improve their living conditions would by definition necessitate an end to hostilities toward Israel.

Sun Tzu

The foundation that has built the rally of defense because "they want to push us into the ocean" holds no more water today than what little it did. To see any innocent life taken is a terrible thing regardless of which side. It would be a completely different issue if continued settlements were not still being built and exsisting ones expanding.


Its not really complex or complicated. Lets say your family lived in the neighborhood for about 200+ years and the property was handed down you.



Your neighbors, who moved in a year ago from another country, move the fence line over and absorb your property. Their justification is a story claiming the ancestors were here first thousands of years ago and the land was given to them by God.


What would you do to dispute this land? The courts follow the same philosophy as the "neighbors". Any move on your part will have you labeled as a terrorist and be dealt with accordingly.



When what little property you have left is absorbed and you find yourself surrounded by these new "neighbors" and they want you out, what now?


You are harassed every time you leave your house. Your family is threated by your neighbors on a daily basis. Your children's school is closed on a regular basis. You are prevented from seeking medical attention most of the time. The list goes on.

There is plenty of footage of what is going on now. Investigate.

What would anyone do? Fire rockets? Throw stones if you had to?


Results of what could be a peaceful two state solution will never be realized until the settlements are stopped and dismantled in the West Bank and Golan Heights. Gaza is an absurd excuse for what some may see as being generous.

The other way of looking at this is taking morality out of it. The one with the biggest guns is correct. Ofcourse it means a dark future for all of us.

Does US debt to China outweigh Chinese intervention if Iran is attacked?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

dc_dux

What new settlements have been built or expanded in Gaza?

All settlements were dismantled in 2005....alll Israeli troops were withdrawn in 2005.....governing power was ceded to the Palestinian people......

...and the rocket attacks continued.

Hamas cannot "push" Israel into the ocean. They can and have continued to attack civilians and its the obligation of any government to protect its civilians from unprovoked attacks.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 12 : 55 : 48-----
I concur.

The Palestinian people have been a pawn.....not of Israel but of the neighboring Arab nations.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

so wait....the latest rounds of mortar and rocket attacks destroyed a few buildings but didn't hurt anyone. in the past 24 hours, the israelis have killed 280 and wounded 600. there are tanks moving in southern israel, reserves have been called up. this certainly looks like ground war getting ready, don't you think?

the occupation itself--how it has been administered, how the israelis have chosen to proceed--explains the rocket attacks. i would imagine that were any of us living in gaza, that the thought of launching something against an overwhelming and oppressive enemy would cross your mind.

within this cycle, there is no hope. the reason i keep referencing the quartet is that they appear to be nearing a way to step out of that cycle. i really think that there needs to be international peacekeepers in gaza. the siege needs to end. and not the way the israelis appear to have planned.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

The occupation you speak of (dating back to 1967) was the direct result of an unprovoked attack on Israel by Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Again, the Palestinians were made the pawns by the action of their Arab brothers not by the Israelis.

Explain to me how the closing of all settlements, withdrawal of all IDF troops, and autonomy to the Palestinians explains the rocket attacks.

Was there a better way? Perhaps....but only if both sides were willing to discuss a peaceful settlement and that has never been the case with Hamas.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i'm aware of how the occupation started. i'm also aware of the fact that since 67 the situation has fundamentally changed--israel is now a regional military superpower and the idea that any combination of forces in the region can push it into the sea is a pipe dream. it isn't gonna happen. if you connect the gaza situation back to 1947, what it primarily enables is the erasure of the post-67 state of affairs.

that the occupation came about as it did says and explains nothing about how israel has chosen to deal with the west bank/golan (which i've not talked about here--because for the time being, it's separate) and gaza. in the west bank, for example, the massive israeli settlement program did not follow logically or inevitably from the nature of the 67 war.

if you look at the guardian article i posted above, it's curious to note that what we're talking about traces the outline of the public relations fight that's presently happening. blurring out the post-67 situation, downplaying occupation, blaming hamas as if they fall under the conventional bush administration category "terrorist"--you know, snippy but otherwise unmotivated people who just want to blow stuff up. i think the fact that these arguments are being repeated in this conversation is interesting because the article is pretty good about pointing out what's at stake in the positions.

this is not just about hamas. it really isn't.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

rb....focusing on Gaza, what more should Israel have done beyond dismantling all settlements, removing all forces and giving autonomy to the Palestinian people as a step towards Palestinian statehood...with only one pre-condition in return, the right of Israel to exist peaceably among its neighbors?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

i supported the israeli decision to remove gaza settlements (they should do the same in the west bank)...that constituted a real concession on israel's part.

the problems we are now experiencing at a remove follow from the refusal to recognize the election results. this is a simple empirical reality.

and while i understand the desire to live peacefully amongst one's neighbors, and am all for it----how exactly does refusing to recognize an election and imposing a state of siege for 18 months reflect a desire to live peaceably?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

the refusal to recognize the election of Hamas is a direct response to the refusal to of Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist and a willingness to continue to call for suicide bombings of Israeli civilians.

The security of Israel is not threatened by Hamas; the safety of its civilian population is.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Slims

Don't knock the Israeli's for being competent.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Baraka_Guru

Hitting a mosque--among other targets, including a greenhouse--and having women and children among the dead: I hardly think rb's statement was a question of competence. He was hinting at the disparity in demonstrated force.

Despite any disagreement we may have on the causes and continuing problems of the situation in this region, Israel should be expected to demonstrate reasonable management of any situation that arises out of it. I've said it before in other threads, but regardless of any action of Hamas or other militant group, Israel does not ever get an "exempt-from-human-rights-standards" card. They need to be held to the same standard as any other nation, especially considering their military capabilities.

I don't have much else to say on this situation at this point, except that I tend to have a problem with responses to this that suggest Hamas is to blame for the deaths caused by Israel. It would be irresponsible of Israel to accept that claim or to endorse it. On the same note, I tend to get frustrated when heads of state do not either condemn such military action or at least suggest restraint or balanced force. I'm not sure we're seeing balance here, especially if you look at what the Israeli military is gearing up for.

As far as the Palestinian rocket attacks are concerned, I sincerely hope they aren't using them just to get a rise out of Israel as a way to garner international sympathy in the wake of heavy-handed Israeli military action. There are better ways.

The bottom line: There is no military solution in Gaza. Any military action should be considered a failure on some level, and often on more than one.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

this is, in fact, this bad.

Peter Beaumont on what the latest attacks mean for the citizens of Gaza | World news | guardian.co.uk

in the end, there are mutually exclusive claims from both sides that one can latch onto in order to evade what is happening on the ground.
but the Problem is what has been happening on the ground, and even more what seems about to happen.

it seems that in order to support this action you have to substitute very general rationales and avoid looking to hard on what the siege has already meant. i posted a link to a large collection of articles above from electronic intifada which is replete with descriptions from people who are in gaza. ignore the editorials and read the descriptions if you like. call it activist if you want--i see in that evasion.
through these descriptions you get a glimpse of reality.
and that reality is not pretty.
at all.

and if the israelis launch a large-scale ground assault on gaza, there will be no rationalizing away the result will be a massacre.
it is self-evident that this will be a masscre.
the conflict is hopelessly assymetrical: a military superpower bringing its air and ground forces to bear on a densely populated civilian area the ruling party of which israel does not like, a population that has been deprived of economic wherewithal, food and medical supplies for 18 months.

i do not understand on what grounds that can be understood to be ok.

obviously, neither side is composed of angels.
but nothing, and i mean nothing, justifies 18 months of siege followed by one of a radically assymetrical military action like this.

and frankly i do not understand the desirability of this action from the israeli side either---they will not be able to control information entirely, and sooner or later the world will see fragments at least of what they will put into motion. i don't see how israel can possibly benefit from the ongoing human rights disaster accelerated into god knows what. i don't see anything good coming from this for israel, except perhaps the fake sense of security to be derived from moving against hamas. it will radicalize and add solidarity behind the types of actions that it is supposed to prevent. it will intensify the conflicts is it supposed to end. it will throw any hope of a peace process out the window. and alot of civilians will end up dead.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

I agree that human rights standards should apply to all.

That includes:

Hamas suicide bombing on bus in Jerusalem, June 2003 - 17 dead

Hamas suicide bombing on bus in Jersusalem, August 2003 - 23 dead

Hamas suicide bombing attack in cafe in Hillel, Sept 2003 - 7 dead

Hamas suicide bombing attack in Asdod, March 2004 - 10 dead

Hamas suicide bombing in Beersheba, August 2004 - 17 dead

Total number of Israeli civilians killed in Hamas suicide bombing attacks (from '95- '05)- 480

And yet, Israel still took the unilateral action to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and give the Palestinians autonomy in the region. With tougher border control, the suicide attacks have been fairly well controlled.

The rocket attacks...not so much.

To put in perspective, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005:

Qassam rocket attacks launched by Hamas from Gaza (note what happened after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 05):

Again, I agree.

But it takes two to make peace.
-----Added 28/12/2008 at 05 : 59 : 51-----
What happens when rocket attacks fail:

Gaza rocket kills Palestinian girls

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

well, dc, at the rate israel is going so far, they should equal that 10 year fatality total from rocket attacks by like...tomorrow. 290 so far. one day.
how many people have died in gaza so far from, for example, not being able to recieve medical care because basic supplies were blockaded?

but hey, who's counting that?


further, you act as though rocket attacks and a full military assault on a largely civilian population after 18 months of siege pits equivalent forces against each other because you can construct sentences that make that equivalence. there is no such equivalence.

again, this is why i think the post 67 context is the relevant one--israel is a regional military superpower.

this action pits a regional military superpower against a largely civilian population already weakened from 18 months of siege. it will be a massacre: nothing more nothing less.

you also overlook a point made in the last article i posted about the origin of hamas. it came out of the sharon period strategy of attempting to undermine the plo so israel could then claim there was no point in negociation because there's no party to negociate with.

to be clear, this is in no way an excuse of the rocket attacks--they are obviously not helpful, they obviously should not happen, and the casualties are obviously unacceptable.

but it is somewhere between problematic and disengenuous to move from this to justifying this kind of absolutely assymterical action.

particularly if you factor out the consequences of the last 18 months, which you do not seem to like addressing.
on the other hand, the only angle from which these consequences look good is one rooted in what appears about to happen to gaza.


added a moment later:
it appears that egypt is trying to broker another cease-fire. let's hope that works. i'll post a link to an article (in french--sorry)
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/...ens_id=1106055

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dc_dux

rb....perhaps there would have been NO siege if not for the suicide bombings and escalation of rockets attacks since Israel's withdraw fro Gaza and the Hamas declared threat to Israeli civilians (not to suggest that there is a threat to Israel's existence)...but I guess you cant accept that.

And perhaps there would have been fewer Palestinian civilian casualties if Hamas had not used them as human shields (a human rights violation) by placing rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods and military command posts next to hospitals and mosques.

We obviously look at the cause of the current crisis, the actions and reactions over the last few years (or last 40 years) from different perspectives.

We share one common hope...that cooler heads will prevail.

And I'm done here.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

percy

Israel really doesn't care who or how many they massacre because no one in the world will stand up to them for that and those who think about, refrain since they will labelled as something they are not.

Israel is really pushing buttons here and taking serious advantage politically. They know Bush is powerless during the transition and Obama's hands are tied since he has not been sworn in yet. So it is extended hannakah for the Israeli's.

And besides I have to wonder what Obama would achieve anyway. His first post democratic nomination speech was for AIPAC,...err, I mean audition, and he had to tell them Israel is the USA's number 1 priority. So he passed the audition for AIPAC, now he has to get used to the strings that attached.

Xazy

Imagine if rockets were being fired Tigugna in to San Diego, hundreds, how long would until it would be occupied by the US?

Since Israel left 3 years ago the violence has not left, Hamas has refused to recognize Israel right to even exist, and one of the main negotiating points of the truce was for the release of Galit, which has yet to occur. Since then Hamas has continued to rearm, attacks even during the truce did not die, last week they fired over 170 missle, rockets, at civilians, killing a 30 year old resident of Netivot and wounding 4.

And I do feel for the Palestenian people, the problem is Hamas fires from heavily civilized areas and literally use human shields for their military facitilities.

At some point Israel has to defend itself, Obama & Clinton has said this both during their campaign this past year, and I hope they will continue the view that a nation has the right to defend itself when they are being fired upon daily by a nation being run by a terrorist group which will not recognize its neighbors right to even exist.

dlish

the key phrase here being 'defend itself'. what the israelis are doing now is not self defence. the disproportionate use of force can never be self defence.

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy