One of the most repulsive moments of the present Middle East conflict occurred after one of Hezbollah’s rockets killed two Israeli-Arab children: Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah pointedly apologized only for these deaths, thus making it clear that there is nothing to regret in the deaths of Israeli civilians. Doesn’t this make clear the ethical difference between Hezbollah and the Israeli… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (62)Page 1 of 1 pagesWrong Title!
The author’s question:
“Why does Israel, fully aware of these tactics, still bomb the sites? The obvious answer is that it believes the deaths of innocents are worth the price of hurting Hezbollah.”
Let try a different mental experiment and imagine that, one of the suicide bombers is entering your house and your children are at home. You are armed. Do you shoot even though there are many people near him including his own children?
If you are of a different race and you choose to shoot, does that make you a racist?
Well, in my case, it makes him dead on the doorstep.
That is realism!
P.S. When I read this I knew that the writer must be living in the world of academia.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2006 at 8:31 AM Whattheheck:
Last time I checked, Hezbollah wasn’t in anybody’s house but their own, in Lebanon, while Israel was conducting the systematic bombing that is the basis of the article.
The “academic” got it right. The thing about “academics” is that they conduct these “mental” experiments properly (analogies actually have to be analogous), rather than spout populist cliches. Lay off the Faux News, its bad for you.
Posted by Imran on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:00 AM Imran,
What would you honestly do in my example?
btw, The rocket sites they went after were hitting where the IDF’s kids were.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:06 AM For fun, one might wonder what would happen if Mexico decided that it wanted back Texas. . . I am sure if they began shooting rockets into Texas and randomly blowing up/killing civilians, we would see their point and apologize and then give them whatever they wanted. . .
Posted by wolf on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:23 AM Whattheheck:
The problem with your analogy is that the guy threatening imminent harm is in your house, justifying your use of lethal force in self defense (in its actual legal meaning, rather than its Bush inspired Orwellian opposite). You know, as well as I, that the situation in the Middle East is NOT analogous.
btw: The Katyushas were fired AFTER the Israelis began their systematic bombing of Lebanon. In fact, since Hezbollah chased Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, it had not fired a single rocket at Israel, much less at Israeli kids.
Posted by Imran on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:36 AM Wolf:
Ironically, that is exactly how Israel was created, but instead of the land dispute being 150 years old (like Texas), the Zionists terrorized both the British and the indigenous population on the basis of a 2000 year old dispute. Indeed, terrorists like Shamir, Begin, and other “founding fathers” would later become Prime Ministers.
No wonder Israel fears terrorism; its very existence is living proof that terrorism works.
Posted by Imran on Aug 30, 2006 at 9:57 AM Imran,
You are dodging my question. When someone senses HIS family is in danger legality has little or nothing to do with it. Justification can be discussed later.
As far as land disputes go, virtually everyone in the world can claim prior ownership of someplace. It has always been a case of, “"To the viictor belongs the spoils.” Nobody too weak to hold on to what they have will have it for long.
Remember the first part of the article’s title. The second part is only a demand. The concllusion is unlikely to happen without the power to bring it about.
UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978 but has done nothing. (Just like their 12 years dealing with Saddam.) Why? Because they are all talk.
Shall I assume in the scenario I offered you would call for the U.N to arbitrate with the bomber?
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:02 PM This is why Israel is hated world wide.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14762.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14753.htm
Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:09 AM Spinoza,
“This is why Israel is hated world wide.”
Yes. You are absolutely correct. Isn’t it strange how many people will read these 17,000+ words bashing the one side and totally accept it. Is it because of the use the word “facts” at the beginning? Or is it just acceptable due to having heard and read many others similar?
Too bad so much opinion posted on the internet is absorbed at face value without noticing there is not a single credit or reference to authenticate the stats or allegations.
I expect this commentary is being cited on dozens of web blogs and sites and will become a part of the historical record along with the embellished versions and photos.
The Middle East is a mess and has been forever. Western involvement on either side has only exacerbated their ancient hatreds by arbitrarily scribing boundaries in the sand. (1922, 1948)
The U.N.’s involement has been no better solution in Lebanon than it was in Iraq. Sanctions never solve anything — they effect the lowest level population only and the hate is NOT directed at their leadership no matter how bad they may have been. It would only come back to haunt the U.S. once again.
Posted by whattheheck on Aug 31, 2006 at 7:06 AM I have to comment before I even read past the first paragraph!
“Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah pointedly apologized only for these deaths, thus making it clear that there is nothing to regret in the deaths of Israeli civilians. Doesn’t this make clear the ethical difference between Hezbollah and the Israeli… “
The author goes on to say the Israelis “regret ALL civilian deaths"blah blah blah…
this shows the authors bias,and made me chuckle.
How much apologizing has Isreal done?This reminds me of the Christians who sin all week,to be forgiven every Sunday.If they really cared,they would stop the killing!
Isreal TARGETED civilian population centers,while Hezbollah focused on military members.
Now I will read the rest of the story and comments.
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Sep 1, 2006 at 8:04 AM Yes, Kaw, I noted that and wondered about the authors point also. But the next sentence clarified his position.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 1, 2006 at 11:59 AM Poor what the heck, yes there is the “fog of war” in which all sides try to portray their side as good and most damaged. But face it your side lost in the propaganda war and they lost because they deserved to lose. Israel acted immorally and illegally as it most always does only this time they were most boorish and the whole world was watching. The Internet is very good at exposing wrong doing. Everyone knows that Israel is acting like barbarians in Gaza and the West Bank. The world is watching and judging.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:13 PM Spinoza,
I find it interesting that you said, “...your side lost...”
In prior wars before the instant media sympathy advantage became a factor, it was far more common for damage to the other side to be exaggerated and your own losses to be minimized. This was for at least two reasons — to encourage your side and avoid giving the enemy vital damage assessments which would tell him what tactics were most effective. We might add to that the wishful thinking of those directly invoved.
Today the propaganda flies hot and heavy 24/7, but the advantage is always with an accuser. It is very difficult if not impossible to PROVE a negative. Whether it is a person charged with child abuse or a country charge with immoral or illegal action. They result may show something happened, but the who, what and why of it may include a wide range of options.
You obviously believe, “The internet is very good at exposing wrong doing.” I see it as something different.When people have “discovered the truth” for themselves with an internet search there is a reality rating higher than that which is fed to us by MSM anchors or published in newspapers — because the “finder” takes on ownership.
I’ve seen the same kind of thing with people who have discovered they can design, (using prepared templates) do their own (clip) art and publish (ink jet). One example which comes to mind is a surgeon who made his own PowerPoint presentations for a speech at an AMA meeting.
He got $7,000 for an eye surgery (mine) which took him 45 minutes plus several short office visits. Yet, he was so proud of his presentation which took much longer. I could have done it better for far less money.
We used to pride ourselves on presumption of innocence. Now shear speed and volume leads to judgment and condemnation in everything from rape to murder when it is easier than ever to distort and fake nearly any kind of evidence. What is true, is true regardless of our opinions or perceptions.
If “my side” lost… then as a U.S. citizen (from your flag) yours did also. Your sympathy for the other side won’t mean anything to them.
I still am willing to give the benefit of the doubt (where motives are concerned), withhold judgment and believe the truth will ultimately prevail. What is true is true regardless of our opinions or perceptions.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 3, 2006 at 6:54 AM The only “racism” revealed by the author’s “mental experiment” is his own. An experiment that honestly attempted to parallel the situtation on the ground would be more something like this: Suppose that Hezbollah has spent six years building bunkers and placing rocket launchers under villages in northern Israel, the villagers of which went along with this militarization. And suppose said villagers elected members of Hezbollah to the Knesset. THEN suppose the civilians in these villagers were used as shields while the rocket platforms in their midst were used to launch attacks on Israeli civilians. Would the IDF launch attacks on those villages then?
The answer is yes, and the stacked-deck nature of the author’s version of this “experiment” merely reflect his lefty-academic’s need to cry “racism” whenever he doesn’t like something and, I suspect, the latent antisemitism (however shallow) he disguises under abstractions, prolixity, and his token criticism of Hezbollah.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 3, 2006 at 9:02 AM Jews have a hard time admitting they have been acting immorally and unjustly. They make all sorts of excuses for themselves. Sometimes it is better to be honest. and live with ones neighbors in a peaceful manner.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 3, 2006 at 9:05 PM Spinoza,
“Jews have a hard time admitting they have been acting immorally and unjustly.”
Who has determined in this case that the Jews have acted immorally and unjustly and when was the trial?
If indeed so, are you contrasting this with admissions by the Lebanese and Hezbollah (which I’ve missed) or inferring they are free of this human tendency?
If you happened to read the Human Rights Watch on this I suggest also reading the article at The Weekly Standard for an evaluation of the claims.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/649efeoa.asp
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 4, 2006 at 7:38 AM “Jews have a hard time admitting they have been acting immorally and unjustly”? Unlike who, for example? Arabs? Muslims? American leftists? The French? Plumbers? Armenian housewives?
The tendency to assign traits common to human beings everywhere to a particular group currently out of favor with the Politically Correct is one way the Politically Correct rationalize their prejudices.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 4, 2006 at 8:36 AM Mitch, how right you are.
With the aid of the internet it easy to find a way to rationalize almost anything.
On this site is an article about plagerism. Finding an original source for some of the “facts” can keep a person occupied full time.
Much of what I have tried to trace dead-ends as unsupported claims published and then multiplied. Whatever happened to real (an honest attempt at accuracy) investigative journalism? It seems to have been smothered by speed.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 4, 2006 at 10:03 AM 5:1 is the ratio of Jews to Palestinians in Israel....
....which ratio most securely grounds Israel’s right to exist (admittedly the ratio might have been more like 5:3 if not for the heavy hand of the returning Diaspora).10:1 is the ratio of Palestinians to Jews in what these days gets identified as the occupied territories: which ratio if anything more surely seals the Palestinian people’s claim to (exclusive) domain over what the 1949 world left to them of their original homeland (especially given the 1 arrived illegally).
The post-war powers conceded that the holocaust entitled one race to push another aside in 78% of Palestine. Today, Israel, if anything, is losing population—leaving no tenable rationalization for overloading its late comers onto the Palestinian 22% real estate left overs—doubly overcrowded already thanks to the returning Diaspora displacing a million-plus Palestinians over the sides.
Apartheid South Africa had some purely selfish reasons for dealing as painlessly as practicable with black Africans—practicable without losing power—they wanted to exploit black labor. Israel has little to no use for Palestinians—which inclines every interaction in the direction of the vindictive and the punitive—Israelis mostly wishing Palestinians would check out (Ariel Sharon made a career of saying: “Jordan is a Palestinian state; Egypt is a Palestinian state").
Could the Israeli recurring nightmare of hate filled Arabs pushing the state of Israel into the sea be more than anything a product of below conscious fear of severe punishment due for sins of “lebensraum” (Jews not making really good fascists): “The Picture of Dorian Netanyahu”?
*******************************************
Which is a better candidate for “most dangerous terror organization”: the fourth military power in the world (IDF) which kidnaps (yes, kidnaps) and kills far and wide with little thought of legitimacy or the fifth military power in the middle east (Hezbollah) which managed not to kill a single Israeli civilian between the IDF’s 2000 evacuation of Lebanon and its 2006 reinvasion, excepting two border clashes with military opposition?Hezbollah fired 4,000 122mm artillery rockets in the direction of populated Israeli cities, once Israel bombed populated Lebanese cities. As world attention was diverted towards LWII, the IDF pumped 12,000 (!) 155mm cannon rounds into Gaza—not many of which set fire to empty fields.
Does Israel suffer from “hyperactivity”? Had all of its soldiers had been killed by the resistance groups during recent events there would have been little to do—a couple of retaliatory strikes. But as long as one of its soldiers was alive out there somewhere Israel felt compelled to do every last crazy thing doable—not excluding using whole (defenseless) nations within range for extended bombing practice. Should Israeli cabinet members be subjected to EEG testing?
**************************************
If the US public ever catches on (meaning if its equally unknowing media ever lets on) that the hurt in the West Bank and Gaza is all Palestinians’—and their billion-plus Muslim well wishers’—let’s hope America then moves with all deliberate speed to lift the imposition of our 5 million Israeli friends off 4 million equally deserving Palestinians—more specifically 400,000 Israelis who now live upon (the choicer parts of) the of the homeland that the world once told Palestinians they could keep.Denis Drew
Chicago
ddrew2u@comcast.net
www.purpleocean.org/blog/80
Best sources on day-in-day-out occupation abuse:
“Counterpunch”
http://www.counterpunch.org/
“Occupation Magazine”
http://www.kibush.co.il/
“The Other Israel”
http://otherisrael.home.igc.org/
Posted by denis drew on Sep 4, 2006 at 12:34 PM The only way to get a two-state solution is for the US to get firmly behind its little brother and push it hard in that direction.
That will only happen after the US media does the South Africa thing on the occupation—day in and day out—until it sticks.
A couple of new angles for our media to consider:
Our press treats terrorism in Israel the way it would treat the same in France if Algerians were suicide bombing French train stations and restaurants long after France exited Algeria—for motives of racial hatred, or some kind of religious fascism alone.If France were literally bulldozing one-eighth of its population into Algeria and making the lives of native Algerians as unbearable as possible in the hope that more of them will give up living there, such terrorism against French civilians would still be both wrongheaded (impractical) and immoral—but the focus of everyday reporting would presumably focus overwhelmingly on the unconscionable ethnic cleansing of a poor, third-world people by a rich, first-world people.
****
Israel withdrew 8,000 settlers from Gaza because it was taking the equivalent of one infantry division to defend them—not worth the trouble. Is it more likely that that need to defend them was a result of unreasoning anti-Semitism and “Islamofacism”—or is it more likely the hatred was generated by the settler’s 1/2 of 1% of the Gaza population expropriating for themselves 17% of the land which took up 40% of the arable land.Just extrapolate that logic to the whole occupied territory situation. Israel has to realize that it is just as much in its own interests to give back to the Palestinians the entire 22% of the original Palestine that the world promised they could keep back in 1949 (note: Israel never gave up iron control of Gaza—would not even allow Palestinians to run a pipeline from a natural gas field to the power station that it subsequently blew up).
Big brother could be a big help moving Israeli perceptions in the direction of common sense a lot faster than seems likely to happen otherwise.
[Last minute notion: we wouldn’t call it the “occupation” of Algeria—maybe we need to come up with a more descriptive word.]
Denis Drew
Chicago
Posted by denis drew on Sep 4, 2006 at 1:05 PM Visit
http://www.worldcantwait.org
and organize to take back this country
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 4, 2006 at 5:05 PM Dennis Drew,
No matter how hard the US pushes Israel toward a two-state solution, what could possibly make you think the Palestinians or their regional allies will leave Israel in peace? Both Hamas and the PLO still call for the elimination of Israel, not a two-state solution. Which of the players have made any even little motion in that direction? Only Israel, whose motivations you pretend you can discern, based on your general distrust, and therefore do not ascribe to moving to two states, but nonetheless, what have the Palestinians done that suggests they will be satisfied with that? Have they given up the notion of a right return to pre-1948 homesteads.
“Israel has little or no use for Palestinians,” you claim. Actually, the Arabs who live in the region have no use for the Palestinians, either, accept as an excuse to attack the Israelis. That is why, in 1948, the Jordanians and Syrians kept the Palestinians in refugee camps,rather than letting them immigrate, which is not how the Israelis treated the Jews booted from their Arab homes. In fact, the Palestinians who chose to remain in Israel or work in Israel do reasonably well and have, generally, a higher standard of living and more freedom of choice than the Arabs living in Syria or Saudi Arabia or any of the other family-run dictatorships in the area.
“[O]r is it more likely the hatred was generated by the settler’s 1/2 of 1% of the Gaza population expropriating for themselves 17% of the land which took up 40% of the arable land.” Come on, the Palestinians have hated the Jews since the late 1800s, long before any of your statistics were a glimmer in their eye. In the middle ages, Arabs taught their kids to throw rocks at the Jews in their midst. This is not a rational response to legitimate grievances; this is long-standing tribal hatred.
Which is not to say the Israelis are blameless, only that the Palestinians are not the blameless pure victims you seem to believe.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 4, 2006 at 6:03 PM If Zionists were Christians, Buddhists, or Zorastrians, Palestinian opposition to Zionist would be exactly the same. Palestinians opposed Zionism not becase it was Jewish, but because it was a colonialist movement that destroyed their homeland.
“When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves—that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.” — David Ben-Gurion, 1938
“. . . Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.” - Moshe Dayan, 1956.
Posted by Peter H on Sep 5, 2006 at 10:43 PM “Both Hamas and the PLO still call for the elimination of Israel, not a two-state solution”
For the record, the PLO has supported a 2-state solution since 1988. Even with Hamas, it’s not contradictory to say that all of land between the Meditterean and Jordan belongs to Palestine (which, given that Palestine was overwhelmingly Arab before Israel’s ethnic cleansings from 1947-1949, is not an irrational ciam), but, at the same time, for the sake of pragamatism, you can accept a final resolution that would result in a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries, as Palestinian Prime Minister Ismaill Haniya has stated. How are Palestinians longing for their “pre-1948 homesteads” any different than the proclamations of every Israeli leader in Eretz Israel?
Of course, Israel has taken steps to make a Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible, such as placing the Separation Barrier in the heart of Palestinian communities, annexing the Jordan Valley, and creating a “Jewish belt” around East Jerusalem. So while Israelis accuses Palestinians of denying Israel’s right to exist in theory, they, are in actual practice, denying Palestine’s right to exist as an independent and sovereign state.
Posted by Peter H on Sep 5, 2006 at 11:01 PM Mitch,
The PLO and Hamas calling for the elimination of Israel is like the Apaches calling for the elimination of the American nation. Nice deal if there is anyway they can get it. You convict yourself by your own words (aha!) that the other Arabs (for whatever reason) don’t care much about the Palestinians and they are helpless to accomplish it themselves (just joshing you).The Palestinians would surely accept back the 22% of their nation the world said they could keep. They even seemed ready to sign Oslo II which assigns them only 60% of the West Bank in noncontiguous clumps—presumably in the hope of somehow getting the rest later (hope probably being by intimidating violence).
My latest sales angle is that the settlers are sort of illegal immigrants with tanks and F-16s.
The settlements equate to America creating settlements for its citizens in an equally densely populated Philippines by bulldozing Filipinos aside or to France establishing settlements in an equally densely popluated Algeria by penning up its citizens in the less desireable quarters.
Not quite catching on to this, American media treat terrorism against Israel (I would not have bombed a single WWII Japanese city—neither would have America have been the first to do such a thing if Germany had been a peaceful democracy) as if Algerians were sucide bombing French markets and transportation out of hatred for past offenses (or whatever). Actually the media should be covering the occupation of Arab lands as they once coverd South Africa without justifying terrorism against civilians.
Orignially, Jews moved into Palesting until they had a comparable population to Palestinians in the 78% they now have (don’t know the real numbers)—meaning they caused less pain taking over. In the occupied Arab territories the Palestinians are already terribly over populated and now the settlers want to come in and take the best of what little they have got—talk about casus belli! Whoever is right or wrong—the settlers have got to come out so America doesn’t end up trading anymore skyscrapers for settlements.
I understand how desperately Jews want an Israel to exist (Italians would miss Italy—I’m not sure the Irish would miss Ireland; we are the genetic life boat of the Celts—who survive when others can’t—and we can live anywhere and ususally do) but two irrational cycles seem to be set up here:
One: The Israel of their dreams is pure and perfect, of course. There seems to be an irrational equating of anything less than perfect Israel to the real Israel not existing after all (whore-madonna come to mind thanks to my brain’s search engine, parallel waveforms).
Two: The irrational equating of the occupation of the super dense Arab territories as a simple extension of a “few extra” neighborhoods out from the original success story (which succeeded in 4 years while the Arab territories hasn’t succeeded in almost 40). Remember the WWII comparison—you have to think things through from scratch.
Posted by denis drew on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:41 AM The Palestinian reality is that Israel was created by Europeans, guilty over the holocaust, on their land; that despite the “people without a land, a land without a people” slogan, hundreds of thousand real people, who had lived there for generations, were expelled, to create this “Jewish utopia” in 1948. The Palestinians suffered further losses by trusting neighboring Arab regimes to regain their land for them by force. Their tactical military errors notwithstanding, the land remains stolen against the wishes of the indigenous population.
It amazes me when people talk about how “grateful” the Palestinians should have been to get what was offered in 1948. It’s the equivalent of me taking half your land by force, and then when you fight me to get it back, I defeat you and take the rest, mocking that you should have been happy with the half I had left you. What hogwash!
Today, if there is to be a solution, the question is not who gets what as a matter of right, but how much taken/occupied land should Israel get to keep, or be rewarded with, by virtue of its monopoly on overwhelming force. I won’t kid myself about the reality of a nuclear armed Israel, even on stolen land, if you won’t delude yourself about the “righteousness” of what is Israeli imperialism.
The solution lies in the hands of those who have stolen the land. They want “security” after having stolen land, but don’t want to have to return any of it. Some “liberal” Israelis might part with a portion of the land, but only if they get to keep the best parts, including all of Jerusalem. In return, the Palestinians get ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza, and have to kill fellow Palestinian discontents who won’t accept such a “grand bargain.”
Rather than asking the Palestinians why they obstruct such “peace,” honestly ask yourself what you would do.
Posted by Imran on Sep 7, 2006 at 3:35 PM In order to find a solution, one must correctly analyze the problem. The purpose of my previous post was to place the Middle East paradigm in its correct context. I get tired of hearing how poor Israel is just “defending” herself, as if hordes are attacking for no reason whatsoever, without any discussion of the land grab which is the basis of the conflict.
There are those in Israel who do not want to give up any land, for any reason, and envision a God-given mandate for a Greater Israel, of biblical proportions (no pun intended). There are Palestinians who do not want to reward Israeli aggression with any of their stolen land. And only one of them has a monopoly on overwhelming force, including nuclear weapons. So now, tell me, which side should, or is in a position to, begin the compromise?
The self-righteous Israeli dismissal of any compromise, because some Palestinians might reject any offered deal, is putting the cart before the horse (Implied in these dismissals is the Israeli recognition that any deal legalizes its theft of Palestinian land and isn’t morally acceptable). Such self-righteousness is simply unbecoming for the thief who started this whole mess in the first place.
Posted by Imran on Sep 7, 2006 at 3:39 PM “The PLO and Hamas calling for the elimination of Israel is like the Apaches calling for the elimination of the American nation. Nice deal if there is anyway they can get it. “--You miss the point: it doesn’t matter whether the Palestinians completely succeed. The point is that as long as the elmination of Israel is their goal, they will kill Israelis--civilians, women and children--and no government or society is going to stand by and allow that ongoing threat to the lives of its citizens, even if the society as a totality is not threatened. It is easy at a remove of several thousand miles to make smirking comparisons; tough decisions have to be made when people shoot Uzis into the wedding parties and apartment buildings of your countrymen.
I find it interesting that Dennis Drew can only see irrationality on the Israeli side and has apparently decided that the Palestinian strategy of attacking civilians in their homes is somehow rational, even though said strategy is not working, even 50 years later. On the one hand, it is apparently not irrational; on the other it is impossible to accomplish. Shall we call it quixotic?
To Peter H., I can only say that “for the record” the PLO still has the elimination of Israel in its official charter, and its behavior since 1988 cannot seriously be said to be working toward a two-state solution. What official Palistinians say is often at odds with what they allow their clansmen to do.
“If Zionists were Christians, Buddhists, or Zorastrians, Palestinian opposition to Zionist would be exactly the same. Palestinians opposed Zionism not becase it was Jewish, but because it was a colonialist movement that destroyed their homeland. “--Hogwash: Muslims and Arabs have since the middle ages (not always, not in every situation, but by and large) had a tribal dislike for Jews that is the common human response to propinquity of other ethnic groups: vide the English and the Irish, the Russians and the Chechens, the French and the Germans. This is about the Jews as an ethnic group, not a religious one, and the reflexive explanation invoking colonialism does not explain it: the Palestinians were colonized by the Turks for much longer.
And the Jews did not steal Palestinian land: they bought it from the Turks who were the Palestinian’s landlords when the Jews began arriving in 1880. The size of the influx of Jews after World War II created a different set of problems, but the Palestinians fled their land as much as had it stolen. And to Imran’s stacked deck question, “And only one of them has a monopoly of overwhelming force, including nuclear weapons. So now, tell me, which side should, or is in a position to, begin the compromise?” (talk about self righteousness) I pose an oppositely stacked deck: “And only one of them is willing to send suicide bombers and gunment dressed as civilians into people’s homes, businesses, and villages. So now, tell me, which side should, or is a position to, begin the compromise?”
Posted by Mitch on Sep 7, 2006 at 9:10 PM Mitch,
I don’t know the history but you tell me: did the terror bombings begin in earnest before or after the 1967 occupation of Arab land?—did they begin before or after the settlements began to take a large land toll?Even if Palestinians were raised to love Israelis above all other ethnic groups—once they begin moving in on _sovereign_ Palestinian territory, brutally bulldozing them aside and making life hard for them whenever they can in the hope that there will always be less of them—they are going to hate you and resist with whatever moral or immoral means they can (they don’t own any fighter planes or anti-tank helicopters.) The brutal occupation of Arab land is a sufficient condition for their terror bombing Israel; no racial hatred is necessary—think about it.
I’ve known lots of racist members of all ethnic groups (after spending 62 years in N.Y.C., Chicago and S.F.) and that does not lead racist whites for instance to bomb blacks except in the rarest cases (we are probably all thinking of the same examples). The occupation kids who blow themselves up in Israeli markets and buses don’t fit the crazy skinhead image—but the overstressed by oppression picture.
Last I heard Menachem Begin invented the car bomb—not to mention he personally blew up a hotel killing 98 British soldiers during WWII. A “Smart Jew” (whom you don’t take for the messiah) said, “Many are called but few are chosen.” Human selfishness abounds in all groups. Speaking of selfishness: “What function do the settlements play in defending against terrorist—is that their only function?”
Or are we now back to our unprecedented “historic rights” from thousands of years ago to land that no international law ever heard of? Bottom line: the current occupation of Arab lands seems infinitely more brutal and painful than the original creation of modern Israel—that’s why it has to stop.
Posted by denis drew on Sep 8, 2006 at 9:34 AM Mitch:
“..the Palestinians fled their land as much as had it stolen.” Just listen to yourself. You sound like every ethnic cleanser in history, whitewashing the murder and expulsion of the indigenous population. For a brief summary of Israeli terrorism, by Israel’s noble “founding fathers,” that produced your Palestinian “fleeing,” see:
http://www.counterpunch.org/martin05132004.html
Imran
Posted by Imran on Sep 8, 2006 at 9:34 AM >>>For the record, the PLO has supported a 2-state solution since 1988.<<<
If I remember correctly it was 1974. Apologists for Israel have an issue with the truth.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 8, 2006 at 12:59 PM Latest spin (headline?) on the Gaza-Lebanon invasions:
ISRAEL BLOWS AWAY TWO COUNTRIES OVER A PARKING SPACE!
IOW, over nothing anybody normal would fight over—this is going to look especially undeniable once Israel gets its precious three POWs back.
Posted by denis drew on Sep 8, 2006 at 3:42 PM This is why I consider liberals as the scummy enemy.
“I’m a Leftist, But ... “
The Liberals’ War on Lebanon
By URI AVNERYI once saw a nice sketch in a political cabaret: on the stage several people were speaking in unconnected sentences, all of which ended with the word “but”. For example: “Some of my best friends are Jews, but”, “I have nothing against blacks, but”, “I really detest racism, but”
During the recent war, I frequently heard similar phrases: “I am a leftist, but” These words were invariably - but invariably! - followed by a rightist statement.
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery09082006.html
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 8, 2006 at 9:15 PM Maybe when the discussion stoops to direct and indirect name calling ("ethnic cleanser”; “scummy") it is time to calm down. And maybe glib smugness ("Apologists for Israel have an issue with the truth”: yes, and apologists for those who think deliberately bombing weddings and confirmation ceremonies is a legitiamate political tactic have an issue with reality - so there!) is not likely to change anyone’s mind.
Nobody has a lock on the truth here. Both sides of this argument have for decades chosen to ignore some inconvenient truths: that both sides have engaged in terrorism, and long before the settlements came into play, in fact long before 1948; that both the Israelis and the Palestinians made former terrorists their leaders; that the 1967 war in which the Israelis occupied the West Bank was not a war the Israelis started, and that by historical standards, they were under no obligation to give it back; that the establishment of the settlements was provocative and as much military as social; that public declarations by politicians and leaders have only an exiguous relationship to what they really believe; etc. etc.
Both Israelis and Palestinians have behaved in bad faith in the past, but spitting past each other about who has been the most evil is never going to get this discussion past the self-righteous stage. And it is the self-righteousness that keeps the middle east in turmoil.
Just as a parting shot, Spinoza, I went to CounterPunch and was amused that you would accept Alexander Cockburn’s word on anything as constituting facts without taking a ton of salt. And amazed that you would think someone (me) who obviously disagrees with you ideologically might be persuaded by as tendentious a source as his website. Cockburn often has an interesting and revealing interpretation of things, but he is a polemicist, not a journalist, and therefore feels no obligation to present facts counter to his ideological faith. Begin’s terrorism was not the first to take place in Palestine, and the article seems (I only scanned it) to make no attempt to establish context.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 9, 2006 at 2:37 PM Nobody has a lock on the truth here.
One thing I can agree with but it is a universal generalization.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 9, 2006 at 3:03 PM Mitch,
Allow me to find a lock on the truth here. Israel was established in a much less dense area. The West Bank and Gaza are much more densely populated meaning their orginal residents have much less to “share” with “outsiders”—making the settlements much more painful than even the orginal establishment of Israel at Arab expense.The flip side is that Israel’s need the occupied Arab lands is much less critical than was—shall we say—Israel’s orginial need to exist in the first place.
Much more pain to others for much less need for yourself: you don’t do it.
As far as Israel having no obligation to give the occupied Arab lands back: strictly speaking Israel might have the obligation to give all of Israel proper back—the Arabs who attacked in 1967 were just trying to reclaim recently lost Arab land. Besides that, the Geneva Convention prohibits settling your people in conqured lands.
Posted by denis drew on Sep 9, 2006 at 4:40 PM Denis (sorry I misspelled your name previously),
I’ll give you the lock on the truth about density; I assume that’s true. But “Israel’s need [for] the occupied Arab lands is much less critical than was...Israel’s original need to exist in the first place” is an opinion, possible true, but without a lock. Israel’s military need for a buffer, which would justify keeping control of that land, if not the settlements, is arguable either way. Its truth can’t be locked, I would posit. And I didn’t know that about the Geneva convention and wonder if that provision has ever been enforced.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 9, 2006 at 7:05 PM Mitch,
On the military side, I have just received a copy of Military Technology’s annual “World Defense Almanac”. Israel is shown to possess about 3000 tanks—all of which can be manned by active or reserve troops I presume; none mothballed—which equates to about 12 American armored divisions—which may be about twice as many as America has at the present—all deployed in the mid-eastern country of Israel. Get the picture.Israel could reduce the Syrian army to scrap metal in hours.
Syria is the only seriously armed nation left that poses any war like intentions toward Israel—Egypt having made peace long ago, along with Egypt’s cousin Jordan.
In 1973, Israel was attacked by surprise by all three armies—and THEY (the Arabs) had the high tech weapons that time around (anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles). Before the Gulf wars you had to study the 1973 war to understand the large scale use of battlefield missiles—it was the only example. Israel beat all three with “old fashioned” weapons. Now Israel faces only one of those armies (and not Egypt thank God) and it has American weapons while its opponent has the Russian weapons that served Iraq “so well” in both Gulf wars.
Israel faces no credible outside military threat whatsoever—none! Especially since it has the Middle East monopoly on nuclear weapons. Before it loses that monopoly to some possibly fanatic future enemy it had better make normal peace with its neighbors—which can only mean completely clearing out of the occupied Arab territory that the world told the Palestinians they could keep—which return to normalcy the whole world (outside the underinformed and misled USA) is fervently waiting for Israel to arrive at.
Posted by denis drew on Sep 10, 2006 at 10:04 AM Denis,
If we are going to change the nature of the argument from who is the bigger evil into Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a question of whether Israel is justified in keeping a large armed forces, let me ask you, since you have the data and I don’t, how Iran’s armed forces compare to Israel’s. Iran is going to emerge from the current period as the dominant military, diplomatic, and possibly cultural force in the mideast and they seem less than friendly toward Israel and have cooperated with Syria in supporting Hezbollah. I have some doubt that Israel feels confident, as you seem to, that it “faces no credible outside military threat whatsoever,” particularly if Arab and Persian nations were to act in concert. But then I don’t have the numbers in front of me.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 10, 2006 at 12:02 PM I am not saying Iran is not a potential threat—not very likely to launch a land invasion of Israel in my opinion; for what? I am not saying that Israel should not keep a large armed force either—just that it is under no immediate threat that justifies keeping the West Bank; not from it’s immediate neighbors in other words. Any invasion from afar would give mucho warning time for the Israeli army to deploy in the West Bank or wherever.
Jews were not satisfied just to move into Palestine in the 40s and live there as individuals—they yearned for their own land. Palestinians cannot be expected to live under the Israeli yoke in what is left of their own land, the West Bank and Gaza, by the same token.
Again; the suffering caused the Arabs by the creation Israel was justified in many Western minds by the Jews overweaning desire for their own homeland. The significantly greater suffering that Israel is inflicting today upon the occupied Arab territories is hardly justified by the desire of Jews to develop extra neighborhoods.
The even more extreme suffering now being deliberately caused in Gaza would never have been condoned by the Western world even to create Israel proper in the first place—and Jews don’t even want to live in Gaza anymore—what gives? Can you see how irrational Israel’s whole position is—even in terms of its own good? Time for Israel to wake up and put an end to the only too real causis belli: its unjustifiable aggression.
Why should we feel any special empathy for the settlers who would not be ejected from most their own land like the Palestinians in the 40s with not much of anywhere left to go—the illegal settlers would only be sent back to the much more properous country they say they belong in. They are lucky nobody is asking them to pay reparations.
Posted by denis drew on Sep 10, 2006 at 2:53 PM Are Israel and the USA the enemy of mankind? I think so.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Sep2006/herman0906.html
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 11, 2006 at 2:10 AM Aha, Spinoza750 is back: the return of The League of the Self-Righteous. I am more inclined to believe that sloppy thinking, gullibility, self-righteousness, and bad grammar are the enemies of mankind. But then, I am akin to an ethnic cleanser, so what do i know.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 11, 2006 at 5:19 AM Mitch:
While I applaud your newfound recognition that “both sides have engaged in terrorism,” there is no moral equivalence between the violent taker of land and those from whom it is taken.
Nor is there any equivalence between the side that uses its overwhelming military superiority to inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the suicide bomber who kills a few dozen.
It’s the moral equivalence of heavily armed thieves complaining that the lightly or unarmed victim is fighting back. But, hey, “they’re both using violence.” Thank God you were not around when the French Resistance was fighting their guerilla war against the Nazi’s.
It simply won’t wash to say let’s let bygones be bygones while Israel continues its occupation of the land that is the basis of this conflict. If it ever wants peace, Israel will have to part with the land that they have stolen with our assistance (our hands are not clean either). Regarding U.S. machinations in the creation and recognition of Israel, see:
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105017.htm
This is one of the reasons we are hated throughout the Middle East and why we have an obligation to fix the mess we helped create.
Posted by Imran on Sep 11, 2006 at 2:21 PM Mitch:
What sane person would say “...the Jews fled Germany as much as were expelled?” That sort of ignores the Nazi pogroms that encouraged them to “flee,” doesn’t it? You wouldn’t think twice about calling that person an anti-semite and a supporter of ethnic cleansing.
The questionable contention that you lack “sloppy thinking, gullibility, self-righteousness, and/or bad grammar” does not absolve you of justifying ethnic cleansing with statements like “..the Palestinians fled their land as much as had it stolen.” Sorry, but the shoe seems to fit.
Posted by Imran on Sep 11, 2006 at 4:09 PM Imran,
I never claimed I lacked sloppy think, gullibility, or self-righteousness (my grammar is pretty good, though), so you are going to have to stop projecting your own lack of self-awareness onto others. And it is frankly offensive (and a sign of sloppy thinking) to draw a parallel between the Holocaust and the Palestinian/Israeli war.
Your seeming assumption that the Palestinians are and always have been a peaceful, pastoral, passive, and helpless people, besides condescending to them, simply ignores history. You and I differ in that the analogy I would draw is not of the armed thief and his unarmed victor, but of the violent and bigoted homeowner, who when a member of a despised racial group buys a house in the neighborhood, firebombs the new neighbor’s house and then cries “I’m a victim” when that neighbor fights back. You seem to think that all history prior to 1948 doesn’t count; that is an arguable position, but one you will never convince me to subscribe to.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 11, 2006 at 4:57 PM Mitch:
Pre-1948 History? Oh yes, the 19th and early 20th century Zionists who wanted to create a Jewish state in a land where the overwhelming majority of the people were not Jewish. How does one do that without finding a way to “displace” or “transfer” the natives? Are you truly not familiar with the verbal gymnastics the Zionists engaged in concerning the ethnic cleansing that would be necessary to bring about such a state?
Does that sound like one who is simply “buying a house” in your neighborhood? Does that make the native who sees and hears the goals of Zionism in his country, and then fights back, the “bigoted homeowner?”
Feigned offense notwithstanding, the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population, in order to create a racially-pure (or religiously-pure) state, is ideologically the same crime, be it Nazis, Serbs or Zionists, the only difference being the scale of the crime and its tactics.
Posted by Imran on Sep 12, 2006 at 4:24 PM Imran,
One does that by emigrating in small numbers over a period of decades, buying up land at fair market value from those who owned it (generally, not Palestinians at the time, for the Turks had colonized the land) to work as farms. That is not ethnic cleansing, as much as you favor the term; that is the natural ebb and flow of culture and history. And the notion that two things can be “ideologically the same crime” is the sort of academic and ahistorical claptrap that keeps the left the the domain of poseurs and bloviators. “Ideological crimes” are what the Soviets and the Chinese under Mao put people they didn’t like into gulags for. It is a totalitarian concept.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 12, 2006 at 8:38 PM “emigrating in small numbers over a period of decades, buying up land at fair market value”
Is that what the Israelis do in the occupied Arab territories?
Posted by denis drew on Sep 13, 2006 at 9:26 AM Look, Denis, try to stay on track. I wasn’t arguing that the Israelis are currently buying up parcels of land in the West Bank; I was discussing the history of Jewish settlement in Palestine in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There is no reason to assume that I was attempting to justify one with the other or that one is in anyway related to the other. The histories, cultures, and circumstances of the peoples involved were very different
Posted by Mitch on Sep 13, 2006 at 2:15 PM Mitch:
I understand that these Zionist myths are essential for peace of mind. But they’re not true, and conceal a horrible crime. Let’s take them one at a time.
Pre-1948 Land purchases. There were three periods of land acquisition by Zionists and Jews. While Jews in 1922 owned 3 percent of the land of Palestine, the additional land purchased by 1947 raised the total owned by the immigrant Jews to 7 percent of the whole area of the country. That’s a long way from buying up the whole country.
Pre-1948 population. Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country. By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent, a large percentage of whom were illegal immigrants encouraged and financed by the Zionists. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third of its total inhabitants.
And we’ve already discussed the “activities” of Israel’s noble “founding fathers” in the late 1940’s, that created your Palestinian “fleeing” (700,000+) necessary to make up the difference.
Myths aside, this Zionist “utopia” was created by the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and that crime continue to this day, aided and abeted by those who continue to justify it. At least some Zionists are honest about it. See:
http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm
Posted by Imran on Sep 13, 2006 at 4:45 PM >>>>I understand that these Zionist myths are essential for peace of mind. But they’re not true and conceal a horrible crime<<<<
The problem with all right wing positions is the disregard for truth, --- fact reason, logic. Until right wingers acknowledge truth they should be ignored or shot depending on the case at hand.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 16, 2006 at 4:47 PM Ah, Spinoza750, a man of logic and reason calling for people who disagree with him to be shot, and, who, fortunately for all those who agree with him, knows without a scintilla of doubt what the truth is, in all circumstances, regardless of his knowledge of the facts and regardless of the ultimate truth that “facts” all too often are merely opinion and often depend on one’s perspective.
But keep up the good fight, 750. Keep spewing that vitriol that you mistake for knowlege of the truth, keep telling yourself that because you are so angry, you must be right.
The problem with all left-wing positions is that they depend on passion, rather than reason, to be sustained.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 16, 2006 at 6:04 PM And the problem with the banality of right wing ideology is their only passion is to harm others.
There is not much more evil in the world than ordinary Eichmann characters such as yourself.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 17, 2006 at 7:55 PM If you were any more of a jackass, you would be unable to work a keyboard. Eichmann?? Get over yourself, Spinoza. If you have nothing more than extremism, ignorance, intolerance, and simple-minded insults to contribute to the discussion, find something else to do with your time, and stop wasting others’. Eichmannn...really. A new low in stupidity.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 17, 2006 at 11:57 PM Spin -
Baruch Spinoza was a Jewish intellectual, philosopher, rationalist, and ethicist, and was one of the world’s greatest thinkers.
You have taken his name, but you are anti-Jewish, anti-intellectual, irrational, and unethical, and your capacity for coherent thought is somewhere south of a turnip.
So, what gives? Are you being sarcastic? Deceptive? Provocative? Do you feign ignorance, or is it for real? Some people who pretend to be smart, are not, but I never heard of anyone pretending to be stupid, except in self-defense. Perhaps you are being stupid in self-offense. So, what gives?
Posted by scorp on Sep 18, 2006 at 6:43 PM Spinoza was a rationalist, a radical who opposed shallow thinking. He was a precursor to the Enlightenment if you will ---and proposed that evidence as augmented by logic and reason could be a basis for a rational ethics. Neither he nor I countenance shallow immoral reactionaries such as Mitch.
Where the fuck did you get the idea that I am anti Jewish? I am Jewish if not proud of it because of the fascistic way many Jews are behaving lately but still a large number of Jews are still on the left and have repudiated the Likudnik NeoCon Fascist ideology that has captured much of Judaism.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 20, 2006 at 3:44 AM Wow, Spinoza, you can tell I’m immoral based on these posts. You should be billing yourself as the Great Kreskin750.
So, let me get this right: you use the word “fascist” in that knee-jerk leftist way to mean “things I don’t like”; your notion of progress hies back to a 17th-18th century dead-white male European philosphy whose legacy includes the French Terror and the Soviet Union; you think, I gather, that reactionaries are only on the right; you think being Jewish makes it impossible for you to be antisemitic; you have yet to admit to any possibility that your interpretation of things might be in any way askew; you think “evidence” is transparent---and yet you call ME a shallow reactionary.
Your every post evinces an approach to this issue oozing anger, intransigence, and an unwillingness to look at any facts or interpretations that would challenge your own perspective. You admit to a certain shame at your Jewishness, even if politically grounded. Spinoza must be doing a 360, if not a 750, in his grave.
Posted by Mitch on Sep 20, 2006 at 6:21 AM Spin -
I am sure you are Jewish, hence the Spinoza.
But I don’t give a shit if you are the Queen of the May, you are still anti-Jewish, anti-intellectual, irrational, and unethical, and your capacity for coherent thought is somewhere south of a turnip.
Posted by scorp on Sep 20, 2006 at 7:54 AM Good News, I went to an organizing meeting for the world cantwait.net and there are still a lot of Jews on the left who reject the ideology of disrespecting Arabs and Muslims and who believe in fair play.
I trust many will be out demonstrating on Oct 5th. all over the country. Fight against the Likudnik, Bushite thieves.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Sep 21, 2006 at 1:23 AM Poor article by Zizek
Pobre y simplista analisis nos hace Slavoj Zizek.
Lo cierto es que me impresiona. Zizek parece prisionero de un antijudaĂsmo mal disfrazado de contra-sionismo.
No hacer diferencia entre las Reglas de Enfretamiento de Hezbollah y los israelĂes. Asumir una suerte de paridad moral, con pedazos de verdades, con el fin de mostrar lo equivocado de Israel, no es algo que le quede bien hecho a Zizek.
Sabemos que a él le gusta ese estilo polémico. Muchos lo leemos por eso. Sin embargo en esta ocasión (como en otras) su estilo de trinchera no resiste mayor analisis y por el contrario desmerece lo justo de la lucha palestina.
Zizek, zikek, th, th, th, Âżque haremos los progresistas con progresisitas como tu?
Jorge
Posted by maki on Jun 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM Hello Jorge, sorry but my Spanish is not good enough to converse with you. I suppose you are happy that the reactionary prevailed in Mexico but I think it only a tempory victory. We will see. History moves backwards and forwards but eventually progress prevails.
Eventually fascism will be defeated.
Posted by Spinoza750 on Jun 4, 2007 at 5:09 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- The Audacity of Rhetoric
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism? - China’s Valley of Tears
Is authoritarian capitalism the future? - The Disturbing Sounds of the Turkish March
The true problem with "militaristic humanism" resides not in "militaristic," but in "humanism," in the way a military intervention is presented as humanitarian aid - The Dreams of Others
By tying the drama to a mere personal whim, The Lives of Others fails to capture the true horror of the GDR - In You More Than Yourself
The revolutionary potential of the Internet is far from self-evident
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
