Israel & Palestine

[Michael]

Well, it looks like the Israelis are going to have another go at shooting themselves in the foot. I guess they need to shoot both feet to achieve some balance.

Is there a single person on the planet that actually believes that Hamas can be 'defeated' in Gaza with Israeli airstrikes?

Does Israel not realize that to attack Hamas or Hezbollah and not succeed in wiping them out is categorized as a Hamas or Hezbollah victory by everyone except Israel and USA? It is to be noted that politicians in Israel and USA are both politically required to deny that reality and pretend otherwise. No one else regularly drinks this brand of koolaid.

So what could Israel possibly hope to achieve with this act? All previous incidents of this type have failed or backfired on Israel - but conversely, acting tough but stupid is the best way to be rewarded in Israeli elections (with their bizarre legislature loaded with dozens of micro-sized parties of the extremist variety).

Is Israel becoming politically more like the USA where nationalist-driven chest-thumping over a parade of patriotic 'war-porn' on the 6 o'clock news is an easy way to electoral victory - and a substitute for actual policy?

Indeed, some commentators are suggesting that the renewal of Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel was a gesture to get Obama's attention. By the same token, Israel's testosterone driven response serves exactly the same purpose. Clearly the Israelis and the Palestinians know that their issue will be made or broken in Washington D.C. Most objective observers have long noted that it is the US Government that has always been the greatest barrier to any resolution of the Israel vs Palestine issue. No matter what propaganda Washington tries to push on this issue, the reality is that Israel cannot act unilaterally and belligerently without 100% support for that policy from Washington (which it always has gotten). US Government has long paired up 'calls for peace' with 100% support (military, financial and political) for Israeli aggression. Thus, the game goes on and on.

And now the Israelis and Hamas are demanding US attention - on their own terms at a time of their choosing.

Is there any player here who doesn't look very weak? Israel is acting like a cornered rat, seeking to 'act tough' so people don't notice how weak their position is. Hamas is getting desperate with the deterioration of the Gaza situation. And the USA has its military and political hands full dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan as well as an economy that is suffering the worst recession in a half century - and a serious shortage of international political capital and/or credibility - and a new leader who can only be described as an untested neophyte on foreign affairs.

Just looking at this debacle reminds me of two 'punch-drunk' boxers (Israel and Palestine) throwing useless punches at each other - while both have one eye on the referee (the USA) begging him to step in and end the fight (that neither of them can) - and declare the other side the loser. Utterly pathetic given that the referee has been the coach/manager/trainer of one side in the fight - so much so that it has lost all perspective to see the issue rationally.

Is Obama up for this? Doesn't matter - its on his plate now. Make the wrong move and his whole 1st term will be a mess of scrambling to react to the agendas of others.

Btw, if any American wants to try and argue that this issue has nothing to do with the USA and that the US ought to just stay out of it... I have only one thing to say. You know those Israeli airplanes delivering the airstrikes on Gaza? They were bought and paid for (including the ordinance) by the US taxpayer.

[andrewl]

Israel refuses to create either a pluralistic singular state or a fully contiguous Palestinian state side by side with Israel. They refuse to accept the reality that peace means less power for them and more power for palestinians. So all they can do is keep the status quo of tit for tat mass murder every few months or so.

Andrew

[Michael]

I'm beginning to think that Israel has a 'hammer' problem.

When the only tool one has is a 'hammer' and it is a beautiful and much admired hammer, then the Palestinian issue (Gaza and the West Bank) as well as the Lebanese problem all just look like nails.

Fact is, Israel is going ballistic attempting to remove Hamas from power (legal democratic power), after Israel and the USA were the ones who worked so hard to destroy/subvert Fatah. Israel is only reaping the results of her own political games here.

Israel (and the USA) seemed to operate under the bizarre delusion that one only had to eliminate the evil Arafat and Fatah, and the Palestinians would turn to some imaginary 'pro-Israeli, pro-American' leadership.

The damage to Fatah just got Hamas elected instead. So now Israel and the USA have the bizarre delusion that one only has to eliminate Hamas (or Hezbollah) and the Palestinians (and Lebanese) will magically turn to some imaginary 'pro-Israeli, pro-American' leadership.

Do you think there might be a flaw in this plan?

[Donkey]

I, for one, am really discouraged by the way the American news media portrays the issue. Since I don't have TV I get most of my day-to-day news from the BBC website. Since I've been home for break I've been reading the articles on the conflict in Gaza in the local newspaper (the largest in Ohio, so not peanuts) and shaking my head and saying "well that's just not right." on a lot of the things said. For example, a time-line of the last few years completely omitted the election of Hamas.

I have several good friends in the Cleveland Palestinian community, so I do get a lot of rhetorical bias from them. I of course see the other side, and being a pacifist, am not a huge fan of Hamas at all, but I was disappointed that I was unable to make it to either of the protests held so far.

I think there is a very deep problem in the United States regarding how we see Muslims...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7809193.stm

[partofme]

I, for one, am really discouraged by the way the American news media portrays the issue. Since I don't have TV I get most of my day-to-day news from the BBC website. Since I've been home for break I've been reading the articles on the conflict in Gaza in the local newspaper (the largest in Ohio, so not peanuts) and shaking my head and saying "well that's just not right." on a lot of the things said. For example, a time-line of the last few years completely omitted the election of Hamas.

I have several good friends in the Cleveland Palestinian community, so I do get a lot of rhetorical bias from them. I of course see the other side, and being a pacifist, am not a huge fan of Hamas at all, but I was disappointed that I was unable to make it to either of the protests held so far.

I think there is a very deep problem in the United States regarding how we see Muslims...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7809193.stm

Look at how things are being played out over at the other site. I know it's mainly because it's inhabited by mostly middle aged white people but they act like Israel is a sweet old lady being mugged, beaten, and raped by the crazy coked out gangster.

My dad looks at it much the same way actually. He has gotten pretty religious in his old age and he sees them as God's chosen people even though they don't except Jesus and we should be on their side in the end. This is what influences many views of the situation in this country. I told him I have no sympathy for either side but it really bothers me that civilians on both sides have to suffer because of it.

[Donkey]

Look at how things are being played out over at the other site. I know it's mainly because it's inhabited by mostly middle aged white people but they act like Israel is a sweet old lady being mugged, beaten, and raped by the crazy coked out gangster.

My dad looks at it much the same way actually. He has gotten pretty religious in his old age and he sees them as God's chosen people even though they don't except Jesus and we should be on their side in the end. This is what influences many views of the situation in this country. I told him I have no sympathy for either side but it really bothers me that civilians on both sides have to suffer because of it.
In my hiatus (I was off celebrating the new year at school and sinning and whatnot.) I also didn't check up up on that site.

About to take the plunge.

[Michael]

I, for one, am really discouraged by the way the American news media portrays the issue.
The US media seems to operate like a giant US Government propaganda machine at times like this.

Remember the run up to the invasion of Iraq? Opinion polls showed that 70% of Americans were convinced that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11.

I had an argument with an American at a party last night - discussing the Gaza situation. He said "why don't we [USA] just ignore this issue - it has NOTHING to do with the USA". The ignorance of that statement is astounding. I asked him if he knew where all the money was coming from that paid for the Israeli Air Force?

(Btw, Israel's Air Force is ranked in the top four largest in the world, yet Israel's population is equal to that of the state of Minnestota, or about half the population of Belgium. There is no way in the world a nation the size of Israel could afford that large an airforce - they'd have to run 100% tax rates to do that).

So it is that every Israeli plane flying over Gaza and every bomb dropped (on Lebanon or Gaza) was bought and paid for by the US taxpayer. Americans may not be generally aware of this but you can be sure that ALL of the Arabs and most of the Europeans know this common fact.

For all intents and purposes, that's the US government bombing Gaza right now.

[Americano]

The US media seems to operate like a giant US Government propaganda machine at times like this.

Remember the run up to the invasion of Iraq? Opinion polls showed that 70% of Americans were convinced that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11.

I had an argument with an American at a party last night - discussing the Gaza situation. He said "why don't we [USA] just ignore this issue - it has NOTHING to do with the USA". The ignorance of that statement is astounding. I asked him if he knew where all the money was coming from that paid for the Israeli Air Force?

(Btw, Israel's Air Force is ranked in the top four largest in the world, yet Israel's population is equal to that of the state of Minnestota, or about half the population of Belgium. There is no way in the world a nation the size of Israel could afford that large an airforce - they'd have to run 100% tax rates to do that).

So it is that every Israeli plane flying over Gaza and every bomb dropped (on Lebanon or Gaza) was bought and paid for by the US taxpayer. Americans may not be generally aware of this but you can be sure that ALL of the Arabs and most of the Europeans know this common fact.

For all intents and purposes, that's the US government bombing Gaza right now.

I've read public forum responses to this particular topic and the number of Americans and Israelis who believe the US has no horse in this race is astounding. A partial explanation for those opinions could be we're not seeing the news reports of the US military airlifting in expendable supplies we did during the recent Lebanon action. Iraq is slow, which to me means the US did the supply thing before the action started. Think it'll end after the election?

[Greendruid]

A good friend of mine raised as an Orthodox Jew but who is not practicing of any religion suggested that Jerusalem should become the headquarters of the UN and that all of the "holy" structures (i.e. the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock, etc.) would become the property of the world in a giant UN compound. This would be defended presumably by UN forces with the interest of maintaining world peace. I thought this was a decent idea but it may be about 60 years too late. Michael, I think you were in on this very conversation when Jason came to Hamilton when we were up for a conference in Buffalo. However, I can't remember your comments on the idea.

[Michael]

I've read public forum responses to this particular topic and the number of Americans and Israelis who believe the US has no horse in this race is astounding. A partial explanation for those opinions could be we're not seeing the news reports of the US military airlifting in expendable supplies we did during the recent Lebanon action. Iraq is slow, which to me means the US did the supply thing before the action started.
The US government cash subsidy to Israel is equal to the entire cost of operating the Israeli Air Force (about $10 billion a year). This sum of money exceeds the entire defense budgets of about half the members of NATO.

Think it'll end after the election?
One can't help but to see the Israeli warmongering in Gaza as little more than a Kadima election ploy trying to 'play to the right' in Israeli politics.

Apparently 'war-porn' on tv is as popular and supportive of rightwing electoral politics in Israel as much as it is in the USA.

[Americano]

The US government has long used 'loans' to Israel on top of the billions of dollars of formal military and economic aid, conveniently forgiving that debt as it comes due.

[Michael]

Longtime State Department Middle East specialist Aaron David Miller...

In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity--including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions--does to the peacemaking process.
source (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/04/obamas_middle_east_burden--and/)

This speaks volumes about the quality of policy decisions coming out of the US government.

If anyone ever wondered how the US could have such an ugly mess of a foreign policy - 'studied ignorance' has to be a major contributing factor.

Why am I reminded here of the fact that even five years after the US invasion of Iraq, most senior US politicians (including the chair of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee) still didn't know about the distinction between Shia and Sunni?

No doubt about it - if you load the government up with a bunch of half-educated idiots, it is no surprise that they make idiotic policy decisions.

[Donkey]

"Over there" I was just told to read my Bible in order to understand current Middle East politics.

*head desk*

[Americano]

"Over there" I was just told to read my Bible in order to understand current Middle East politics.

*head desk*

The big book of myths? Sounds right for that forum. No suggestion of being a bad American if you disagree with pick any US aggression or support of Israel?

[Michael]

"Over there" I was just told to read my Bible in order to understand current Middle East politics.

*head desk*
Priceless.

Bible better explains American politics where a majority are Christians. But Christians are a really rare minority in the Middle East and the Bible doesn't get much play in those parts.

Btw, it makes perfect sense that the Israelis are trying to bring on Armageddon and the 2nd coming of Christ - keeping in mind that Jews are just as much 'rapture-bait' as any atheist. One would think that Christians might try to make a bit of sense sometimes - just for a change of pace.

[partofme]

Priceless.

Bible better explains American politics where a majority are Christians. But Christians are a really rare minority in the Middle East and the Bible doesn't get much play in those parts.

Btw, it makes perfect sense that the Israelis are trying to bring on Armageddon and the 2nd coming of Christ - keeping in mind that Jews are just as much 'rapture-bait' as any atheist. One would think that Christians might try to make a bit of sense sometimes - just for a change of pace.

It's funny how you have all these Christian organizations in the U.S. that stand behind Israel and many Zionists welcome the support. I guess they don't consider that Christians think will happen to them there once Jesus comes back.

[Americano]

It's funny how you have all these Christian organizations in the U.S. that stand behind Israel and many Zionists welcome the support. I guess they don't consider that Christians think will happen to them there once Jesus comes back.

My wife, a Jew, is amazed at the number of Christian sponsored tours with Israel as a destination site (we live in a redneck Christian area with the nearest temple 35-miles away and it's not by any stretch of the imagination orthodox). In her words 'what's there now for them?'

[partofme]

My wife, a Jew, is amazed at the number of Christian sponsored tours with Israel as a destination site (we live in a redneck Christian area with the nearest temple 35-miles away and it's not by any stretch of the imagination orthodox). In her words 'what's there now for them?'

The closest temple I know of is 50 miles away and it isn't that big. I have actually only known about a half dozen Jews that live in my area in my life time.

[Americano]

There are impressive fund raisers for Zionist causes by wealthy and powerful American Jews in many major US cities. $10k/plate dinners are not uncommon and of course politics and commerce have to become involved at that level of wealth. Do you as a greedy Christian support the guy you need to maintain your lifestyle, even if it includes oppression of another country, or throw an ideological fit? It's approved by the government, so why not?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Is there a single person on the planet that actually believes that Hamas can be 'defeated' in Gaza with Israeli airstrikes?

Well, they're sending in ground troops now. But they're not going to "defeat' Hamas... just take away a few staging points and round up a few of their low-level guys. There will be no end to this war short of genocide, and I think Israel and Palestine are both fully aware of this.

The problem is, Palestine is incapable of winning, and Israel would lose American support if they tried. There is no real peace process, because this war is convenient for the patrons of both sides.

Btw, if any American wants to try and argue that this issue has nothing to do with the USA and that the US ought to just stay out of it... I have only one thing to say. You know those Israeli airplanes delivering the airstrikes on Gaza? They were bought and paid for (including the ordinance) by the US taxpayer.

You know, some people would consider that a better argument for the USA to refuse to get involved-- they'd just prefer that we also stop supporting the Israeli military. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the status quo; of the two nations, I prefer Israel, and as long as the rest of the region is pouring military aid into Palestine they're not capable of effectively standing up to us.

Then again, if Israel finally manages to take all of the land, the war will likely come to an end one way or the other. Then we'll have to figure out some other means of keeping the Middle East under thumb.

Israel refuses to create either a pluralistic singular state or a fully contiguous Palestinian state side by side with Israel.

Of course they do. Neither option is good for them, and I think it is long past time that the rest of the world realizes that. A pluralistic State would turn against them in a heartbeat, and a fully contiguous Palestinian State would be capable of waging war against them much more effectively. Both of those "solutions" would be the end of the state of Israel and a grave danger to the Jewish citizens of Israel.

They refuse to accept the reality that peace means less power for them and more power for Palestinians. So all they can do is keep the status quo of tit for tat mass murder every few months or so.

It's a good status quo for them. After all, their territories are expanding every year and the Palestinians' are diminishing. Few more decades and they'll control the whole deal-- leaving the Palestinians no choice but to either assimilate or flee.

It's funny how you have all these Christian organizations in the U.S. that stand behind Israel and many Zionists welcome the support. I guess they don't consider that Christians think will happen to them there once Jesus comes back.

Heh. Why should they fear the consequences of something they believe will never happen?

Far as the Zionists are concerned, it's free money.

[andrewl]

Of course they do. Neither option is good for them, and I think it is long past time that the rest of the world realizes that. A pluralistic State would turn against them in a heartbeat, and a fully contiguous Palestinian State would be capable of waging war against them much more effectively. Both of those "solutions" would be the end of the state of Israel and a grave danger to the Jewish citizens of Israel.

A pluralistic sate would just mean an israel that does not have a jewish character. It does not mean that all the muslims will just turn on the jews. I.e., all the blacks did not turn on the whites in south africa. The process to full normalization might take decades but so what.

A fully sovereign state of palestine might be able to make war more easily on Israel, but that creates a new balance of power. It means the state of israel will not be able to create war as effectively on palestinians. This might be the most sustainable solution. And it allows israel to be mostly 'jewish'.

I reject the framing of this issue in existential terms for israel. That only allows people to justify the elimination of all palestinians from the land. Im not denying there are some elements in palestine that want to see the end of israel - but their influence can quite easily be marginalized over time if the rest of palestine senses that all of their demands will be met in some way that both sides agree to.

Theri influence will only grow the more israel is perceived as the violent aggressor (rightly or wrongly).


It's a good status quo for them. After all, their territories are expanding every year and the Palestinians' are diminishing. Few more decades and they'll control the whole deal-- leaving the Palestinians no choice but to either assimilate or flee.


Their land shrinks but their population grows faster than that of the israelis. As does the influence of iran. The staus quo will just see more palestinians and more pressure from the rest of the arab and muslim world on israel.

Andrew

[Americano]

Israel is not going to give up those Palestinian aquifers.

[Greendruid]

As of about 8:00 AST tonight the "score" of dead is:

Palestinians: 500
Israelis: 9 (4 of which were from friendly fire incidents)

Clearly the Palesinians aggression MUST be stopped!!!

[Michael]

Clearly the Palesinians aggression MUST be stopped!!!
According to what I've heard, Israeli civilian deaths from Hamas rocket attacks since 2002 is 4.

Palestinians killed by IDF (Gaza & Israeli occupied West Bank) since 2002 is over 3000.

Indeed, Palestinian agression is destroying Israel and must be stopped immediately!

[Donkey]

Well, they're sending in ground troops now. But they're not going to "defeat' Hamas... just take away a few staging points and round up a few of their low-level guys. There will be no end to this war short of genocide, and I think Israel and Palestine are both fully aware of this. I honestly believe that that is not true. There is an end in site, but it will take some heavy handed action from outside forces (the US) to put the screws into Israel. I'm trying (and failing) to find an article titled "The Peace of the Powerful" which discusses the difficutlies of actual peace when one side is so much more capable than the other.


The problem is, Palestine is incapable of winning, and Israel would lose American support if they tried. There is no real peace process, because this war is convenient for the patrons of both sides.
Hopefully Israel will lose American support sooner or later, one way or another.


You know, some people would consider that a better argument for the USA to refuse to get involved-- they'd just prefer that we also stop supporting the Israeli military. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the status quo; of the two nations, I prefer Israel, and as long as the rest of the region is pouring military aid into Palestine they're not capable of effectively standing up to us.[quote] No. A status quo of violence is never acceptable. No matter how intractable the conflict, you continue working for peace even in the face of greatest adversity until you achieve it.

[quote]

Then again, if Israel finally manages to take all of the land, the war will likely come to an end one way or the other. Then we'll have to figure out some other means of keeping the Middle East under thumb.
Why does it have to be kept under thumb? I would say that that is one of the greater problems in the first place.


Of course they do. Neither option is good for them, and I think it is long past time that the rest of the world realizes that. A pluralistic State would turn against them in a heartbeat, and a fully contiguous Palestinian State would be capable of waging war against them much more effectively. Both of those "solutions" would be the end of the state of Israel and a grave danger to the Jewish citizens of Israel.
See the "tally" posted by greendruid?


It's a good status quo for them. After all, their territories are expanding every year and the Palestinians' are diminishing. Few more decades and they'll control the whole deal-- leaving the Palestinians no choice but to either assimilate or flee.



Heh. Why should they fear the consequences of something they believe will never happen?

Far as the Zionists are concerned, it's free money.
Thus the onus is on us to broker peace, since we've had such a great hand in preventing it.

[partofme]

According to what I've heard, Israeli civilian deaths from Hamas rocket attacks since 2002 is 4.

Palestinians killed by IDF (Gaza & Israeli occupied West Bank) since 2002 is over 3000.

Indeed, Palestinian agression is destroying Israel and must be stopped immediately!

I wonder why Hamas even bothers firing any rockets at all really. They are not effective at all and only provokes Israel (who I'm not defending at all for the record). All the time, effort, and resources on killing so few. It makes no sense other than them wanting a war and then Israel gives them exactly what they want every time.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Hopefully Israel will lose American support sooner or later, one way or another.

I see no reason to hope for this. I would prefer that Israel retains control of the territories it currently holds, and that it continue to come out on top in their conflict with Palestine. I have no objections to the money America is spending to ensure this occurs.

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with the status quo...

No. A status quo of violence is never acceptable. No matter how intractable the conflict, you continue working for peace even in the face of greatest adversity until you achieve it.

Why not?

What is so desirable about peace that we should seek to impose it upon third parties who are still perfectly willing and ready to continue waging war upon each other? Why should we force people upon people who do not want it?

There will be peace when one side or the other is tired of fighting, and I would argue that there can be no peace until this is achieved. All our "peace process" is doing is limiting the fighting, so that neither side is capable of exerting themselves enough to grow weary.

Thus the onus is on us to broker peace, since we've had such a great hand in preventing it.

In order to declare us responsible for brokering peace, you first must establish why peace must be brokered-- when it is clear that the primary combatants do not desire it, and while much of the world is quite happily supporting the war.

[andrewl]

I wonder why Hamas even bothers firing any rockets at all really. They are not effective at all and only provokes Israel (who I'm not defending at all for the record). All the time, effort, and resources on killing so few. It makes no sense other than them wanting a war and then Israel gives them exactly what they want every time.


Keep in mind that after the june cease fire the amount of rockets being fired trickled down from hundreds to just about a dozen per month. It seems to me as though Hamas did try to stop the rockets in return for the opening of border crossings. But i doubt Hamas has control over every militant wanting to 'destroy' israel, hence there was some rockets being foresd throught the cease fire.

Then on Nov 05th, Israel did a raid on a smuggling tunnel and killed 6 palestinians. There rockets ratcheted up again after that.

As the cease fire deadline approached Hamas offered a 10 year cease fire in exchange for the opening of the border crossings.

Not good enough for israel. Hamas ended the cease fire and israel launched a massacre.

Andrew

[Michael]

I wonder why Hamas even bothers firing any rockets at all really.
Principle.

If Hamas didn't do that, they wouldn't have the popularity/support of the Palestinian people. Indeed, they'd become the toadies that the Israelis want. Thus, it will never happen. Palestinian rockets will fly until the last one is dead. Israel created and fosters this dynamic.

And the Palestinian people are not stupid. They know that their only hope is to draw the Israelis out. So that is what they are doing. They appear quite ready and willing to die to keep up the fight. Only proper of course - Israel is playing to destroy Palestine - thus, Palestinians are playing for their lives. There is no retreat for Palestine so long as Israel occupies Palestine and makes never ending war upon it.

If anything, I'm surprised the Palestinians are as docile towards the Israelis as they are. I'd expect more suicide bombers. Israel has certainly earned the right to be a terrorist target a hundred times over.

They are not effective at all and only provokes Israel (who I'm not defending at all for the record). All the time, effort, and resources on killing so few. It makes no sense other than them wanting a war and then Israel gives them exactly what they want every time.
Israel is the occuping power here. They are the ones playing imperial-colonialist games of oppression. The Palestinians are on the defense here and are fighting to reclaim their own lands that the Israelis evicted them from. That's a life or death struggle. For the Palestinians, one fights Israelis or dies trying. That's honorable. There is no honor here for Israel.

[Michael]

I see no reason to hope for this. I would prefer that Israel retains control of the territories it currently holds, and that it continue to come out on top in their conflict with Palestine. I have no objections to the money America is spending to ensure this occurs.
What profit is permanent war in the Middle East?

Israel presently is illegally occupying Palestinian territory on the West Bank. Israel is creating aggressive war in an attempt to militarily expand her own borders.

USA is the prime sponsor of an illegal aggressive war in the Middle East. It is only US money and massive political support to Israel that makes this possible.

Israel is in no danger of losing Israel. Israel is not fighting to defend Israel right now. Israel is fighting to expand Israeli territory. That's imperialist warmongering of the Nazi variety.

Why not?

What is so desirable about peace that we should seek to impose it upon third parties who are still perfectly willing and ready to continue waging war upon each other? Why should we force people upon people who do not want it?
What third party? There is only one country that makes this war possible and that's the USA. USA must give permission for such wars to occur. No US permission to Israel, no war. Thus, if Israel makes war, that is because they have permission and support from Washington.

US taxpayers are paying for the ordinance that is killing Palestinian civilians.

The US is not some obscure 3rd party here. They are a major player in the action, if not a direct combatant (by traditional rules of war, the US is an allied combatant to Israel here).

There will be peace when one side or the other is tired of fighting, and I would argue that there can be no peace until this is achieved. All our "peace process" is doing is limiting the fighting, so that neither side is capable of exerting themselves enough to grow weary.
No. There will be peace when the USA orders it and not a moment before that time.

USA spends billions making war in the Middle East. War in the Middle East is US foreign policy. That's why there is no peace and will never be peace in the Middle East. Peace in the Middle East doesn't suit US geo-strategic interests.

In order to declare us responsible for brokering peace, you first must establish why peace must be brokered-- when it is clear that the primary combatants do not desire it, and while much of the world is quite happily supporting the war.
There is only one country on the planet is supporting the present war in Gaza and that is the USA. Without US support, no war in Gaza.

[Americano]

I've asked supporters of Israeli real estate policies to wear Palestinian shoes, what if their home had been taken, family killed, and never receive any answer other than 'that won't happen in the US and Israel is our ally'.

[dilettante]

If anything, I'm surprised the Palestinians are as docile towards the Israelis as they are. I'd expect more suicide bombers. Israel has certainly earned the right to be a terrorist target a hundred times over.

I'd be loathe to assert that any people has "earned the right" to have their civilians target for random killings (which is the general use of suicide bombers).

I think the real question here, and maybe what partofme meant, is not why they offer armed resistance, but why they have chosen such a pointless, impotent, and historically ineffectual means of armed resistance.

Kidnapping soldiers, targeting infrastructure and the like effectively demonstrate resistance to the oppressor and make the occupation less pleasant for the occupier. But randomly firing dozens (or hundreds) of rockets into Israel is just stupid. It has a no effect on Israel's ability to fight, encourages the citizenry to elect more radical "defenders," and (on the off chance that the rockets actually hit anyone) serve to "justify" retaliation.

[Michael]

I'd be loathe to assert that any people has "earned the right" to have their civilians target for random killings (which is the general use of suicide bombers).
Yes, my phraseology here is poor. My usage of the term here is general - in the sense of a 'having right to expect' something.

I think the real question here, and maybe what partofme meant, is not why they offer armed resistance, but why they have chosen such a pointless, impotent, and historically ineffectual means of armed resistance.

Kidnapping soldiers, targeting infrastructure and the like effectively demonstrate resistance to the oppressor and make the occupation less pleasant for the occupier. But randomly firing dozens (or hundreds) of rockets into Israel is just stupid. It has a no effect on Israel's ability to fight, encourages the citizenry to elect more radical "defenders," and (on the off chance that the rockets actually hit anyone) serve to "justify" retaliation.
Your view of the tactics of warfare seems 'old-fashioned'. War since the mid-20th century has meant a war between 'nations'. Armed forces are only the point of the sword - it is the civilians that make/enable the war machine. Britain and USA pretty much established the 'new' standard in WW2, but they were by no means the first to treat civilians as targets in war.

Btw, the early 20th century Zionists used letterbombs for deadly effect in their terrorist war with the Brits in Palestine.

No doubt about it, a half dozen random civilian killings are worth way more military-political value in a modern guerilla war than a hundred soldiers killed, or blowing up bridges or trains or military bases.

The civilian situation is the real battlefield of 'post-modern' warfare. And especially so when it involves asymetrical opponents.

[Korimyr the Rat]

What profit is permanent war in the Middle East?

The war would not be permanent if the US were not too squeamish-- or too manipulative-- to allow Israel to bring an end to it. I think that we are supporting Israel not because we value Israel, but because our government finds this war profitable.

And I think I've already addressed why this war would be profitable.

Israel presently is illegally occupying Palestinian territory on the West Bank. Israel is creating aggressive war in an attempt to militarily expand her own borders.

And what is wrong with that? That is how our nation was founded, before the war that divided us into two countries; it is how both of those countries expanded to reach the Pacific Ocean. If it were not for aggressive wars of conquest, we would be economically, politically, and militarily insignificant.

USA is the prime sponsor of an illegal aggressive war in the Middle East. It is only US money and massive political support to Israel that makes this possible.

Israel is in no danger of losing Israel. Israel is not fighting to defend Israel right now. Israel is fighting to expand Israeli territory. That's imperialist warmongering of the Nazi variety.

Israel is always in danger of losing Israel. Do you think, without the United States, that Iran and Syria would not assist Hamas and Hezbollah directly?

I've asked supporters of Israeli real estate policies to wear Palestinian shoes, what if their home had been taken, family killed, and never receive any answer other than 'that won't happen in the US and Israel is our ally'.

I know all too well that it could happen in the US. Not at the hands of some foreign power, but at the hands of our own government-- I've seen how damnably close the ignorant, cowardly cattle of this country have come to being willing to hand their entire lives over to the first tinpot dictator to offer them the slightest measure of extra comfort in their security.

Put me in the shoes of a Palestinian, and I would fire rockets into Israel.

I do not blame them for their situation any more than I blame Israel for forcing them into it. I have merely decided which side I would prefer to see win.

[dilettante]

Your view of the tactics of warfare seems 'old-fashioned'. War since the mid-20th century has meant a war between 'nations'. Armed forces are only the point of the sword - it is the civilians that make/enable the war machine. Britain and USA pretty much established the 'new' standard in WW2, but they were by no means the first to treat civilians as targets in war.

Btw, the early 20th century Zionists used letterbombs for deadly effect in their terrorist war with the Brits in Palestine.

No doubt about it, a half dozen random civilian killings are worth way more military-political value in a modern guerilla war than a hundred soldiers killed, or blowing up bridges or trains or military bases.

The civilian situation is the real battlefield of 'post-modern' warfare. And especially so when it involves asymetrical opponents.

Well, my field is 18th-century history; "old fashion" is what I do. :)

But more seriously, I agree that "a half dozen random civilian killings" are more meaningful than the killing of soldiers or the destruction of infrastructure; it's just that, in this case, their meaning works directly against the people shooting the rockets.

To be worth-while, armed Palestinian resistance should accomplish at least one of the following:
(1) Decrease Israel's ability to inflict suffering on Palestine.
(2) Decrease the Israeli peoples' willingness to inflict suffering on Palestine.
or (3) Encourage other nations to come to Palestine's aid.

Sending an endless stream of rockets out of Gaza achieves none of these objectives. It does zilch to limit Israel's capability, it actually makes the Israeli people more likely to support tough retaliatory measures and less likely to accept co-existence, and it does nothing to encourage international support (in fact, the luckier they get the rockets the less support they have).

Hamas is like a person trapped by a grizzly bear. They need to either take the bear down (unlikely), convince it to be friendly, or persuade someone to rescue them. Mindlessly firing rockets into Israel is like poking the bear with a stick; all it achieves is an angry bear.

[Michael]

Well, my field is 18th-century history; "old fashion" is what I do. :)

But more seriously, I agree that "a half dozen random civilian killings" are more meaningful than the killing of soldiers or the destruction of infrastructure; it's just that, in this case, their meaning works directly against the people shooting the rockets.
They are the weaker party in asymetrical warfare. Everything works against them no matter what.

Therefore, pick the strategy that annoys the enemy the most. Every strategy is going to bring harm to Palestinians, so that's moot. Besides, stoic martyrdom is honorable.

To be worth-while, armed Palestinian resistance should accomplish at least one of the following:
(1) Decrease Israel's ability to inflict suffering on Palestine.
(2) Decrease the Israeli peoples' willingness to inflict suffering on Palestine.
or (3) Encourage other nations to come to Palestine's aid.
First of all, that is measuring war by 19th century metrics. 21st century asymetrical warfare is entirely different.

According to your metrics, the USA won in Vietnam. Yet that wasn't actually the reality.

And the Palestinians are indeed in the process of achieving their goals if you really pay close attention to the issue and ignore US media reports on it. Actual evidence on the ground inside Israel suggests that the Palestinians are closer to thier goal (Palestinian statehood) now than they have ever been. That's massive progress - and only in the last ten years has this progress become visible.

Don't forget that the reactionaries always look the strongest just before they fail. The reactionary Israeli oldguard are fighting against public opinion in Israel, public opinion in Europe and against the Palestinians. They are cornered and they are acting like they know it.

Rational analysis of Israel's incursion into Gaza suggests that Israel knows they are losing and can't do anything about it but beg for a face-saving solution to be imposed by the international community. Forcing such crisises as the present one is a good way to achieve the backdown that Israeli politics makes impossible, but Israel knows is necessary.

Sending an endless stream of rockets out of Gaza achieves none of these objectives. It does zilch to limit Israel's capability, it actually makes the Israeli people more likely to support tough retaliatory measures and less likely to accept co-existence, and it does nothing to encourage international support (in fact, the luckier they get the rockets the less support they have).

Hamas is like a person trapped by a grizzly bear. They need to either take the bear down (unlikely), convince it to be friendly, or persuade someone to rescue them. Mindlessly firing rockets into Israel is like poking the bear with a stick; all it achieves is an angry bear.
Have you forgotten Hezbollah's stand in Lebanan just a year ago?

One doesn't have to defeat the IDF and invade Isreal to achieve a major propaganda victory over Israel. And one doesn't even need much outside help either. All it takes is to survive Israels barrage of bombs and propaganda. It was the IDF that headed home from Lebanon with their tails between their legs.

Fact is, Israel is the one that has declared that Hamas must be wiped out. Ergo, any action of Israel that leaves Hamas alive is a failure of Israeli policy and a victory for Hamas. That's the reality the Israelis are having a hard time coming to grips with. Apparently the enemy won't play by Israel's rules and that annoys Israel.

And Israel has already retreated from Gaza before. Israel is good at invading and apparently weak at holding (they have been forced to withdrawl from Lebanon and Gaza previously). Its only a matter of time before they are forced to withdraw from the West Bank too.

Indeed, one only has to look at the demographic data. I predicted a peaceful resolution in Ireland according to demographic data and I'm going to predict Palestinian success based on the same theory. Same theory brought down the South African apartied regime. Simple demographic trends are all running against Israel. Because of this, Israel ultimately can't win the war. They are just playing rear-guard actions now without even a decent strategy that has a remote chance for victory.

Bottom line is that Israel's medium term trend here is retreat. Palestine's medium term trend here is increasing strength. That's the real trend and Israel is fighting like hell to deny it. That's what's going on in Gaza right now.

Many commentators have also suggested that both Hamas and Israel know the real score here. Both are addicted to hardline violence to each other by their own electoral domestic politics. Neither can break the cycle. All they can do is create a crisis of opportunity for outsiders to 'force' them to do something in order to 'save face'. USA has ignored every crisis so far, but eventually, the USA will have to address the mess they've created. Israel and Palestine are locked into a death-match that neither can step back from. They are apparently begging for others to solve their problem for them.

[Donkey]

I see no reason to hope for this. I would prefer that Israel retains control of the territories it currently holds, and that it continue to come out on top in their conflict with Palestine. I have no objections to the money America is spending to ensure this occurs.


Why?


Why not?

What is so desirable about peace that we should seek to impose it upon third parties who are still perfectly willing and ready to continue waging war upon each other? Why should we force people upon people who do not want it? No people wants war. Well, I'll say that no people who have experienced war want it. A people might prioritize their sense of justice over peace, and therefore be willing to go to war to get what they want in lieu of a peaceful solution, but no people wants war. A government might, and in this case, a government does.

I posit that if the Palestinians had the capability of submitting the Israeli people to the suffering that Israel puts upon the Palestinians, it would greatly hasten the peace process.



There will be peace when one side or the other is tired of fighting, and I would argue that there can be no peace until this is achieved. All our "peace process" is doing is limiting the fighting, so that neither side is capable of exerting themselves enough to grow weary.
From what I can see plenty of people there are tired of fighting. They are also tired of being in a state of siege, however. Palestinians will tire of fighting when they have some semblance of justice. Israel will tire of fighting when the result is not so very one sided.



In order to declare us responsible for brokering peace, you first must establish why peace must be brokered-- when it is clear that the primary combatants do not desire it, and while much of the world is quite happily supporting the war.
Because violence is, in and of itself, an evil.

[Michael]

I spent the morning at a lecture organized by GWU's outstanding Homeland Security Policy Institute's Ambassador's Roundtable Series featuring Israel's Ambassador to the United States Sallai Meridor. It was a profoundly dismaying experience. Because if Ambassador Meridor is taken at his word, then Israel has no strategy in Gaza.

Asked three times by audience members, Meridor simply could not offer any plausible explanation as to how its military campaign in Gaza would achieve its stated goals. Indeed, he at times seemed to offer this absence of strategy as a virtue, as evidence that the war had been forced upon Israel rather than chosen: "we have no grand political scheme... we were forced to defend ourselves to provide better security, period."
Emphasis added by me.

The goal, he explained, was to create "a better, more secure situation for us and the Palestinians" by degrading Hamas's capabilities and by re-establishing the credibility of its deterrence.

But how, exactly? After he failed to respond to an initial question about the end-state Israel hoped to achieve, I asked him directly about his government's strategic logic. How, precisely did Israel's government expect its military campaign to achieve its goals? His answer tellingly focused almost exclusively on body counts and targets hit: over 1000 Hamas targets hit ("not a small number"), many headquarters and tunnels and rocket production facilities destroyed. Tactics over strategy.

In short, Meridor quite literally offered no strategy beyond hitting Gaza hard and hoping for the best. "In terms of creating damage we are certainly on the right path," noted the Ambassador.
Source (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/node/14942)

No surprises here - just a bit of evidence of how deep the rot is. The Israeli Ambassador to the USA can't actually explain what Israel is doing in Gaza right now other than "causing damage". Apparently 'causing damage' is the entire goal of the operation.

And that goal is not a surprise either - there just isn't a decent, rational or logical explanation for Israel's actions here. Unbiased analysis of Israel's actions suggests that Israel is shooting itself in the foot here and that there is zero upside to this operation for Israel - exactly the same as last summer's Israeli invasion of Lebanon - zero upside.

Israel has no coherent policy here. They are just killing Palestinian people out of frustration with the failures of their own policies.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Why?

Because I like them better.

No people wants war. Well, I'll say that no people who have experienced war want it. A people might prioritize their sense of justice over peace, and therefore be willing to go to war to get what they want...

Justice? The "sense of justice" you speak of is the excuse given for one nation taking what it wants from another. Justice is the excuse given for people who want war-- so that they continue to sleep at night, telling themselves that they did not want the war and that it's all their enemies' fault.

Better to admit that you just want to take what belongs to someone else-- for the moment-- than to delude yourself into believing that war is either justifiable... or that it requires justification in the first place.

I posit that if the Palestinians had the capability of submitting the Israeli people to the suffering that Israel puts upon the Palestinians, it would greatly hasten the peace process.

I do not believe that would be the case. I believe that it would only lead to much higher casualties on both sides as the war got even bloodier.

Not that I am particularly opposed to this, either, except that I prefer that Israel wins eventually.

Palestinians will tire of fighting when they have some semblance of justice.

In other words, when they have gotten what they want, and have been given back out of pity what they were unable to defend by force. How long do you think that peace will last, before someone decides to try grabbing the whole thing again?

Two tribes cannot share one land.

Because violence is, in and of itself, an evil.

Personally, I think that is a load of crap. It's the kind of pseudo-moral nonsense that people use to justify their own use of violence and demonize everyone else. If people truly believed this, there would be no war.

No... I still maintain that violence is a human need, as essential to our wellbeing as food, companionship, or sex. War is just a larger expression of that need, because it has been denied to most of us on the individual level.

[dilettante]

No... I still maintain that violence is a human need, as essential to our wellbeing as food, companionship, or sex. War is just a larger expression of that need, because it has been denied to most of us on the individual level.

Personally, I doubt that violence is a human need on that level. But even if it were, that wouldn't justify war any more than the fact that sex is a human need justifies rape. There are good and bad ways to fulfill the need for food, companionship and sex; productive ways that lead to happiness and destructive ways that lead to suffering.

If you really think that violence is a human need, just encourage people to play more rugby...

[andrewl]

No... I still maintain that violence is a human need, as essential to our wellbeing as food, companionship, or sex. War is just a larger expression of that need, because it has been denied to most of us on the individual level.


That is a very interesting statement. I wonder how you would qualify that though. Im more inclined to think that violence (beyond the violence required to kill and eat animals) is more cultural than biologic in origin.

Most of us can get along just fine without violence, i personally experience no need for violence. I do experience emotions that can potentially lead to violence, but i never need violence like i need sex or food.

Andrew

[partofme]

That is a very interesting statement. I wonder how you would qualify that though. Im more inclined to think that violence (beyond the violence required to kill and eat animals) is more cultural than biologic in origin.

Most of us can get along just fine without violence, i personally experience no need for violence. I do experience emotions that can potentially lead to violence, but i never need violence like i need sex or food.

Andrew

Same here. I would say I have had two huge tests on that front. I had to run a business in which my life was at the mercy of people that had serious emotional and at times addiction issues for almost seven years and now I have two kids in diapers that almost always need something and will never give me more than five minutes of free time which tests my patients and temperament. As much as those things pushed me I absolutely have never resorted to violence or given it any serious consideration other than maybe a temporary rage that never led to anything. Other than a few minor scuffles in school I have never been in a serious fight and have no desire to. Other than people with a serious emotional problem I don't know anybody that seems to need violence other than those that had a violent upbringing.

[andrewl]

Same here. I would say I have had two huge tests on that front. I had to run a business in which my life was at the mercy of people that had serious emotional and at times addiction issues for almost seven years and now I have two kids in diapers that almost always need something and will never give me more than five minutes of free time which tests my patients and temperament. As much as those things pushed me I absolutely have never resorted to violence or given it any serious consideration other than maybe a temporary rage that never led to anything. Other than a few minor scuffles in school I have never been in a serious fight and have no desire to. Other than people with a serious emotional problem I don't know anybody that seems to need violence other than those that had a violent upbringing.


Exactly. And most of the violence in our culture is a result of child abuse. People who beat their kids were typically beaten themselves as kids. This is obviously cultural in origin, as it is quite evident that people who grow up in non-abusive households tend not to be violent people.

The violence we see in Israel/Palestine has a clear cultural origin as well, and that is the clash of two competing religions who happen to both think that bit of land has deep religious significance. Humans might have a biological need for religion, but that is not the same thing as a need for violence.

Andrew

[Donkey]

I was just telling my girlfriend yesterday that sometimes I get tired of being nonviolent all the time... which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the indoor soccer league at my school.

I concede that people might need the occasional physical/violent outlet (not all people...), but the idea that a people has need to be at war is ludicrous to me.

[SMadsen]

I was just telling my girlfriend yesterday that sometimes I get tired of being nonviolent all the time... which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the indoor soccer league at my school.

I concede that people might need the occasional physical/violent outlet (not all people...), but the idea that a people has need to be at war is ludicrous to me.
Excellent point with a reference to sports.

That we have an innate tendency to behave aggressively shows nothing about a need for causing physical harm. Sports also show that we can be perfectly content with a formalized expression of aggression.

[partofme]

I was just telling my girlfriend yesterday that sometimes I get tired of being nonviolent all the time... which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the indoor soccer league at my school.

I concede that people might need the occasional physical/violent outlet (not all people...), but the idea that a people has need to be at war is ludicrous to me.

Certainly. If people had a need to be at war you wouldn't have had so many protesters burning their draft cards in the 60s and moving to Canada. I sure as hell have no desire to ever be in combat.

[andrewl]

I was just telling my girlfriend yesterday that sometimes I get tired of being nonviolent all the time... which is one of the reasons I'm excited about the indoor soccer league at my school.

I concede that people might need the occasional physical/violent outlet (not all people...), but the idea that a people has need to be at war is ludicrous to me.

There might be something to that though. War does excite people and offers some meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives....

But to me this would just mean we need meaning, and we often find it in war.

Andrew

[partofme]

There might be something to that though. War does excite people and offers some meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives....

But to me this would just mean we need meaning, and we often find it in war.

Andrew

I have also heard that being in war gives people a good feeling because they are always focused on the moment. Instead of letting their minds wonder they have to be paying attention to their surroundings at all times which is similar to the Buddhist ideas of mindfulness. Still doesn't make it about the violence itself.

[Korimyr the Rat]

That is a very interesting statement. I wonder how you would qualify that though. Im more inclined to think that violence (beyond the violence required to kill and eat animals) is more cultural than biologic in origin.

We are not the only species that wages war, however-- our closest relative, the chimpanzee, also engages in tribal warfare. Something interesting in chimpanzee warfare is the fact that warring chimps fight differently than chimps engaging in dominance struggles. Warring chimps attack their enemies more akin to how they hunt for food-- they attack them like non-chimps-- and often continue to display aggression by mutilating corpses.

The fact that violence and warfare occur universally in all human cultures-- though it is admittedly rarer in some-- indicates to me that it is not a cultural phenomenon.

On a different point, you mention the violence necessary for eating meat. But in our society, how many people actually get to engage in that violence? Aside from professionals and dedicated hunters, very few people have a hand in stalking, killing, or dressing their own meat.

Combine that with widespread cultural prohibitions against fighting-- even non-lethal fighting with fists-- and the fact that, upon reaching adulthood, most people only watch sports, you have millions and millions of people with almost no experience with or outlet for their natural violent impulses.

Most of us can get along just fine without violence, i personally experience no need for violence. I do experience emotions that can potentially lead to violence, but i never need violence like i need sex or food.

Do you not need it, or do you suppress your need for it in the same fashion that Catholic priests suppress their need for sex, and then deny that it is a human need?

[dilettante]

Combine that with widespread cultural prohibitions against fighting-- even non-lethal fighting with fists-- and the fact that, upon reaching adulthood, most people only watch sports, you have millions and millions of people with almost no experience with or outlet for their natural violent impulses.
...
Do you not need it, or do you suppress your need for it in the same fashion that Catholic priests suppress their need for sex, and then deny that it is a human need?

The validity of this depends on how you're defining "violence." People may (and probably do) need an outlet for aggression and frustration. But I can't see any reason why that outlet must involve inflicting suffering or death on another person, much less the mass chaos of warfare.
In fact, in these days of ballistic missiles and remote-controlled aircraft, not only can one exorcise their aggressive impulses without resorting to warfare (or even harming another person), but one can also engage in warfare in a passionless, entirely non-cathartic fashion.

[partofme]

Do you not need it, or do you suppress your need for it in the same fashion that Catholic priests suppress their need for sex, and then deny that it is a human need?

I completely understand the need for sex and I'm well aware of it. In no way to I have any sort of impulse like that for violence.

[andrewl]

We are not the only species that wages war, however-- our closest relative, the chimpanzee, also engages in tribal warfare. Something interesting in chimpanzee warfare is the fact that warring chimps fight differently than chimps engaging in dominance struggles. Warring chimps attack their enemies more akin to how they hunt for food-- they attack them like non-chimps-- and often continue to display aggression by mutilating corpses.

But perhaps the pressures that cause warfare amongst any species are not intrinsic to the species itself. The pressures are varied, from cultural to environmental, to perhaps a defect in an individual of the species, i.e. mental retardation.

The fact that violence and warfare occur universally in all human cultures-- though it is admittedly rarer in some-- indicates to me that it is not a cultural phenomenon.

It seems to me that people go to war for other needs, violence is simply the by product. Do you have any examples of wars that were fought solely to fulfill a need for violence?


On a different point, you mention the violence necessary for eating meat. But in our society, how many people actually get to engage in that violence? Aside from professionals and dedicated hunters, very few people have a hand in stalking, killing, or dressing their own meat.


Sadly that is true. I think we are lacking something special and spiritual by not killing our own meat, but still, i don't believe it is about the violence. Any hunter i have conversed with does not do it for the violence. They do it for the camaraderie, the food, the connection with nature, etc... I.e., I had a friend that loved hunting in the NWT specifically for the auraura borealis. Yes, there is a 'rush' involved, but that same rush is and can be achieved through many non-violent activities.


Combine that with widespread cultural prohibitions against fighting-- even non-lethal fighting with fists-- and the fact that, upon reaching adulthood, most people only watch sports, you have millions and millions of people with almost no experience with or outlet for their natural violent impulses.

I agree with you to a certain extent on this point. Natural aggressive impulses have been suppressed in our culture, no doubt. But i do not believe these impulses are about violence, i beleive the 'need' is about using our bodies in physical and exhilerating ways. I.e., last summer i got into kite surfing. This fulfills a real need that you are talking about.


Do you not need it, or do you suppress your need for it in the same fashion that Catholic priests suppress their need for sex, and then deny that it is a human need?

There is something supressed in our culture. But the supression is more likely to manifest itself in senseless violence, rather than just violene itself being what is supressed.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

It seems to me that people go to war for other needs, violence is simply the by product. Do you have any examples of wars that were fought solely to fulfill a need for violence?
There ya go. And well put, too.

At the root of any conflict there is aggression. However, conflict doesn't even need to be the result of aggression. It's one of many potential products of aggression. Moreover, only one of many potential products of conflict is violence. So violence is but one potential result of a chain of events following aggression. It's a by-product of a situation, not an inherent need.

[Michael]

It seems to me that people go to war for other needs, violence is simply the by product. Do you have any examples of wars that were fought solely to fulfill a need for violence?
Seems to me that US invasion of Iraq falls precisely into this category.

I remember the '9/12' atmosphere in the USA - there was a very specific desire to 'kick ass'. Apparently the proposed NATO invasion of Afghanistan wasn't considered sufficient (didn't have enough targets to bomb).

Back in 2002/03, there was no doubt at all to anyone observing the US political-media landscape. The US citizenry wanted some heads to roll as punishment for 9/11 and they weren't very picky about who's heads should be chosen (as long as SOME heads were rolling).

All this leads me to believe that humans do in fact take a great deal of pleasure in violence. Seems very common.

[partofme]

Seems to me that US invasion of Iraq falls precisely into this category.

I remember the '9/12' atmosphere in the USA - there was a very specific desire to 'kick ass'. Apparently the proposed NATO invasion of Afghanistan wasn't considered sufficient (didn't have enough targets to bomb).

Back in 2002/03, there was no doubt at all to anyone observing the US political-media landscape. The US citizenry wanted some heads to roll as punishment for 9/11 and they weren't very picky about who's heads should be chosen (as long as SOME heads were rolling).

All this leads me to believe that humans do in fact take a great deal of pleasure in violence. Seems very common.

It wasn't a fundamental need though. It isn't like everybody was itching for violence before they had something to react to.

[andrewl]

Seems to me that US invasion of Iraq falls precisely into this category.

I remember the '9/12' atmosphere in the USA - there was a very specific desire to 'kick ass'. Apparently the proposed NATO invasion of Afghanistan wasn't considered sufficient (didn't have enough targets to bomb).

Back in 2002/03, there was no doubt at all to anyone observing the US political-media landscape. The US citizenry wanted some heads to roll as punishment for 9/11 and they weren't very picky about who's heads should be chosen (as long as SOME heads were rolling).

All this leads me to believe that humans do in fact take a great deal of pleasure in violence. Seems very common.

I think that was more about wanting justice/revenge.

I understand you point but i don't think that is why the war happened. I maintain to this day that the war was mainly about long term strategic objectives centered around access to and control of oil. Not about fulfilling a need for violence.

Andrew

[Michael]

I think that was more about wanting justice/revenge.

I understand you point but i don't think that is why the war happened. I maintain to this day that the war was mainly about long term strategic objectives centered around access to and control of oil. Not about fulfilling a need for violence.

Andrew
Justice/revenge is absurd in that context since the chosen target for the violence wasn't involved in the 9/11 attack.

Iraq was chosen because it was a convenient target for the desire for institutionalized violence.

The key here is that the 'desire for institutionalized violence' was there before the target was chosen/assigned. Any target could serve the purpose. There is no justice or revenge in that at all - just a will to violence and bloodshed. Didn't seem to matter whose blood.

[Michael]

I wasn't the first person to assert that Israel's future has to choose between imperialism and democracy.

Looks like the Israeli State is making its choice already...

Israel bans Arab parties from running in upcoming elections

The Central Elections Committee on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.

Source (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html)

Why am I not surprised?

I guess the only surprise is that Israel appears to be far more gone than I realized. I didn't think they were this close already.

Looks like Israel is choosing 'permanent imperialist war' as the defining mantra of the state.

Are they wearing jackboots yet? Do they do the straight arm salute?

[Donkey]

We are not the only species that wages war, however-- our closest relative, the chimpanzee, also engages in tribal warfare. Something interesting in chimpanzee warfare is the fact that warring chimps fight differently than chimps engaging in dominance struggles. Warring chimps attack their enemies more akin to how they hunt for food-- they attack them like non-chimps-- and often continue to display aggression by mutilating corpses.
I think this only proves that chimps can be shitty too. I tend to think that, because of our intellectual capabilities, we are (potentially) better than chimps.
There ya go. And well put, too.

At the root of any conflict there is aggression. However, conflict doesn't even need to be the result of aggression. It's one of many potential products of aggression. Moreover, only one of many potential products of conflict is violence. So violence is but one potential result of a chain of events following aggression. It's a by-product of a situation, not an inherent need.
I very much agree with this.

Violence is exhilarating, no doubt, otherwise we wouldn't watch (and enjoy, I'll admit) "war porn" in movies and the like. There are all kinds of way to get your need for physicality and injury worked out without going to war, be it cage fighting or other more simple things. For instance, I went sledding yesterday, and about half way through the evening I started standing up on my way down, almost exclusively because of the inevitable violent crash.

[Donkey]

I wasn't the first person to assert that Israel's future has to choose between imperialism and democracy.

Looks like the Israeli State is making its choice already...



Source (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html)

Why am I not surprised?

I guess the only surprise is that Israel appears to be far more gone than I realized. I didn't think they were this close already.

Looks like Israel is choosing 'permanent imperialist war' as the defining mantra of the state.

Are they wearing jackboots yet? Do they do the straight arm salute?
What the hell? I can only hope that sooner or later they push something to far, domestically or internationally, and get an (appropriate) backlash.

I also wonder if Israel pushing into the real urban areas of Gaza isn't a pretty dangerous move.

[andrewl]

Justice/revenge is absurd in that context since the chosen target for the violence wasn't involved in the 9/11 attack.

IIRC, 90% of americans believed sincerely that Saddam was involved. Thanks to the efforts of the Bush admin, of course.

Iraq was chosen because it was a convenient target for the desire for institutionalized violence.Iraq was chosen because it was the easiest target (it could not fight back and it had the best spoils). The purpose was not violence though, the ultimate purpose from a neoconservative perspective (besides the obvious geo-strategic benefits) was imposing american will on the entire planet, iraq was to be an example. Its much like an abusive relationship. A man who beats his wife and kids does not have violence as his ultimate purpose, his purpose is to get them to submit to how he beleives they should behave. This is how israel is treating palestinians is the gaza strip, they believe that they are going to change the behavior of hamas....

The key here is that the 'desire for institutionalized violence' was there before the target was chosen/assigned. Any target could serve the purpose. There is no justice or revenge in that at all - just a will to violence and bloodshed. Didn't seem to matter whose blood.I know and you know there is no justice or revenge in that, but i believe that most americans perceive that there is.

Andrew

[Michael]

Olmert brags about making G.W. Bush his bitch!

In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.

“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”

Source (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/olmert_claims_to_control_us_foreign_policy.php)

Now this doesn't surprise anyone I'm sure. The point is, this is the act of a very desperate politician.

Question is, what do all those American rightwingers who love to bluster about American strength and Israeli friendship think about this? They are nothing more than Israel's toadies now that we know who REALLY calls the shots in the Tel Aviv-Washington relationship.

Does Bush call Olmert "sir" when he answers him? Inquiring minds want to know!

[SMadsen]

Violence is exhilarating, no doubt, otherwise we wouldn't watch (and enjoy, I'll admit) "war porn" in movies and the like. There are all kinds of way to get your need for physicality and injury worked out without going to war, be it cage fighting or other more simple things. For instance, I went sledding yesterday, and about half way through the evening I started standing up on my way down, almost exclusively because of the inevitable violent crash.
That's a need for endocrine satisfaction, not a need for violence.

It may sound paradoxical but the adrenaline rush you experience when you stand up on a fastmoving sleight actually aims to get out of the situation that it also got you into. That's because it's the endorphine rush you do it for, not the adrenaline, not the crash and certainly not any kind of violent outcome.

On the contrary. Endorphines will only get released if you do good, - that is, if you manage to get out of the situation in one piece.

It's the same with "war porn", horror movies, games of violence and so on. It puts you in a staged situation of anxiety that you then aim to escape unharmed in order to get the reward, namely the shot of endorphines.

Usually, the staging in movies is achieved by making you identify with particular characters. However, with computer games came the opportunity to skip the identification process and that's basically what carries the success of first-shooter games and other kinds of first person simulations. It has nothing to do with a need to do harm, neither to other persons, characters nor things. It has to do with escaping situations yourself. That's the need.

It's also why conveying violence in movies, games or even the news has virtually no measurable effect as to spurring an alleged need for violence. Conveying totalitarian, destructive ideologies has much more harmful effects.


Anyhow, sorry for using up bandwith in this thread. I have nothing really to say about the ME conclict but it's certainly not my intention to steer it off topic.

[Michael]

That's a need for endocrine satisfaction, not a need for violence.

It may sound paradoxical but the adrenaline rush you experience when you stand up on a fastmoving sleight actually aims to get out of the situation that it also got you into. That's because it's the endorphine rush you do it for, not the adrenaline, not the crash and certainly not any kind of violent outcome.

On the contrary. Endorphines will only get released if you do good, - that is, if you manage to get out of the situation in one piece.

It's the same with "war porn", horror movies, games of violence and so on. It puts you in a staged situation of anxiety that you then aim to escape unharmed in order to get the reward, namely the shot of endorphines.

Usually, the staging in movies is achieved by making you identify with particular characters. However, with computer games came the opportunity to skip the identification process and that's basically what carries the success of first-shooter games and other kinds of first person simulations. It has nothing to do with a need to do harm, neither to other persons, characters nor things. It has to do with escaping situations yourself. That's the need.

It's also why conveying violence in movies, games or even the news has virtually no measurable effect as to spurring an alleged need for violence. Conveying totalitarian, destructive ideologies has much more harmful effects.


Anyhow, sorry for using up bandwith in this thread. I have nothing really to say about the ME conclict but it's certainly not my intention to steer it off topic.
I don't think this is 'off-topic' at all. And a damn good post it is! :hatoff:

Excellent description about the 'real' nature of our apparent human passion for violence and the excitement of war.

[Greendruid]

Getting back to the conflict at hand, if any of you are interested in signing this web petition or looking into Avaaz at all, here are some interesting links:

http://www.avaaz.org/

http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/

I think this could easily escalate to involve Iran. If it does, we will doubtless have WWIII on our hands. Poor economy in the West, conflict in a place that has something the West wants, governments that are fundamentally different from the way the West runs things, all the elements are there. Thoughts on this?

[SMadsen]

I don't think this is 'off-topic' at all. And a damn good post it is! :hatoff:

Excellent description about the 'real' nature of our apparent human passion for violence and the excitement of war.
Thanks, Michael.

Getting back to the conflict at hand, if any of you are interested in signing this web petition or looking into Avaaz at all, here are some interesting links:

http://www.avaaz.org/

http://www.avaaz.org/en/gaza_time_for_peace/

I think this could easily escalate to involve Iran. If it does, we will doubtless have WWIII on our hands. Poor economy in the West, conflict in a place that has something the West wants, governments that are fundamentally different from the way the West runs things, all the elements are there. Thoughts on this?
What makes you cast away all doubt as to a WWIII?

Arabs have their hang-ups but they're in as little a position to instigate a WW scenario as any African country or league is. What the West (and East) wants, the Arab countries also need the West (and East) to want. They're still totally dependent on the West (and East) and if that dependency breaks, the good ole tribal system awaits.



.. oh shit, I sound like a republican American :erm:

[The Drunk Guy]

Thanks, Michael.


What makes you cast away all doubt as to a WWIII?

Arabs have their hang-ups but they're in as little a position to instigate a WW scenario as any African country or league is. What the West (and East) wants, the Arab countries also need the West (and East) to want. They're still totally dependent on the West (and East) and if that dependency breaks, the good ole tribal system awaits.I, too, doubt we would see a global (or even continental) war come out of this. However, with the American economy in the dumps, any multinational conflict could be disastrous for us.



.. oh shit, I sound like a republican American :erm:

Kill yourself. :eek:

[partofme]

Looks like Israel just announced a cease fire.

[Americano]

Israel only, no withdrawal of troops is what I'm reading.

[partofme]

Israel only, no withdrawal of troops is what I'm reading.

Hamas has signed on now.

[Americano]

And now the UK has offered sea power to stop 'arms smuggling' into Palestine. It's like Warsaw 1938 receiving a short reprieve. Israeli and US attitudes towards Palestinians make me want to throw up.

[Michael]

And now the UK has offered sea power to stop 'arms smuggling' into Palestine. It's like Warsaw 1938 receiving a short reprieve. Israeli and US attitudes towards Palestinians make me want to throw up.
This would only be the latest chapter in Britain's long history of fucking up the issue.

The Brits have either 'wrong-footed' the issue or made significant mistakes every step of the way going back for over a century now. Brits are normally known for 1st class diplomacy. Palestine is a big black hole for them it seems.

The fact that 99% of arms smuggled to the Palestinians probably don't come in by sea seems like mere 'quibbling' at this point.

[Americano]

This would only be the latest chapter in Britain's long history of fucking up the issue.

The Brits have either 'wrong-footed' the issue or made significant mistakes every step of the way going back for over a century now. Brits are normally known for 1st class diplomacy. Palestine is a big black hole for them it seems.

The fact that 99% of arms smuggled to the Palestinians probably don't come in by sea seems like mere 'quibbling' at this point.

Considering the 'rockets' Israel used as rationalization for the latest round of genocide are built in garages/homes with few skills and seem to have destructive power equivalent to an M-80 firecracker, the Brits seem to be a long ways from reality.

[Greendruid]

Considering the 'rockets' Israel used as rationalization for the latest round of genocide are built in garages/homes with few skills and seem to have destructive power equivalent to an M-80 firecracker, the Brits seem to be a long ways from reality.

I think you meant the Palestinians here, not the Israelis. Nonetheless, it does seem to be the case that the Brits are operating as an over-exuberant cheerleader to the US here. Maybe a fat cheerleader who isn't watching where he/she is going.

[Michael]

I think you meant the Palestinians here, not the Israelis. Nonetheless, it does seem to be the case that the Brits are operating as an over-exuberant cheerleader to the US here. Maybe a fat cheerleader who isn't watching where he/she is going.
This is positively bizarre from a UK domestic politics angle. Seems like Brown is in more trouble than I previously thought - given that he's now playing Blair-like games of appealing across the aisle for support. I can't imagine the Labour Party supporting this kind of endeavour in any measure. They fought like hell against Blair's support for Iraq.

In other words, this is the kind of policy that Brown can pass in Parliament (with some Labour support, some LibDem support and LOTS of Conservative party support). That kind of policy won't help the Labour Party win an election (or help Brown keep his job).

[Americano]

I think you meant the Palestinians here, not the Israelis. Nonetheless, it does seem to be the case that the Brits are operating as an over-exuberant cheerleader to the US here. Maybe a fat cheerleader who isn't watching where he/she is going.

I did mean Palestinians.

[Michael]

Apparently the Goldstone Report has been made public - and it is very damning of the Israelis (and Hamas too!).

US is now working hard to get the Report buried and ignored.

FP-Article (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/02/deep_sixing_the_goldstone_report)

Another FP-Article (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/04/pa_paying_the_price)

Obama's Cairo speech is looking rather foolish now.

The only thing worse than doing nothing and supporting the status quo is talking a big game and then doing nothing by supporting the status quo.

Its beginning to look like Obama's term is going to be a very long four years.

All the Democrats had to do is give some good (quiet) competent government and avoid controversy and they would have an easy mid-term and re-election in 2012. But no, that's apparently way too much to ask for. :shrug:

[Donkey]

Democrats? Competent?

[Zarquon]

Democrats? Competent?
I wish:sad:
They have neither the focus nor the discipline so abundant amongst the GOP, but they do have coherent policy which, the GOP does not, and that perhaps sums up the sad state of American politics.

[partofme]

Apparently the Goldstone Report has been made public - and it is very damning of the Israelis (and Hamas too!).

US is now working hard to get the Report buried and ignored.

FP-Article (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/02/deep_sixing_the_goldstone_report)

Another FP-Article (http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/04/pa_paying_the_price)

Obama's Cairo speech is looking rather foolish now.

The only thing worse than doing nothing and supporting the status quo is talking a big game and then doing nothing by supporting the status quo.

Its beginning to look like Obama's term is going to be a very long four years.

All the Democrats had to do is give some good (quiet) competent government and avoid controversy and they would have an easy mid-term and re-election in 2012. But no, that's apparently way too much to ask for. :shrug:

I've almost had it with following politics lately. Part of it is working so much but the other part is that what passes for democracy here is so frustrating. I'm amazed that the G.O.P. can do well acting like total pricks yet the democrats are somehow seen as bad guys when they get slightly upset. The republicans are amazing at getting the public to simply take what they say as facts and make them suspicious of anything not on their agenda.

[Michael]

...I'm amazed that the G.O.P. can do well acting like total pricks yet the democrats are somehow seen as bad guys when they get slightly upset. The republicans are amazing at getting the public to simply take what they say as facts and make them suspicious of anything not on their agenda.
It is called the US mass media and the Washington Establishment. They are all so far in the tank for the Republicans and have been for so long people just think this is normal and natural.

Don't forget that the biggest propagator of anti-Clinton slime attacks during the 1990s was the New York Times. Liberal media my ass.

[Americano]

It is called the US mass media and the Washington Establishment. They are all so far in the tank for the Republicans and have been for so long people just think this is normal and natural.

What direction would anyone think the MIC will take regarding Israel? 'Defense' spending dominates the Washington Establishment, both parties and the advertising dependent media. If one includes spending outside DoD tucked into other budgets it's a huge gravy train.

Don't forget that the biggest propagator of anti-Clinton slime attacks during the 1990s was the New York Times. Liberal media my ass.

Print media was still a valid business plan in that era.

[Michael]

What direction would anyone think the MIC will take regarding Israel? 'Defense' spending dominates the Washington Establishment, both parties and the advertising dependent media. If one includes spending outside DoD tucked into other budgets it's a huge gravy train.
It is true that the Defense spending gravy train is generally supported on both sides of the aisle and always has been.

However, there is a notable difference in kind here. The Democrats do tend to support the Defense establishment, but the Republicans give them a blank check. The MIC thus can survive a Democratic Administration, but they much prefer the 'blank check' approach of the Republicans.

Likewise, both parties have a long history of supporting and covering up corruption in the Defense establishment. But it is to be noted that the only attempts to put limits on this has historically come from the Democrats. There are no limits when the Republicans control the purse-strings for defense.

As such, there is a significant material difference in financial support for the MIC between Republicans and Democrats in the Whitehouse. MIC has corrupted both parties, but the greater profits come from Republican Administrations and thus the MIC and their mass media allies much prefer Republican Administrations.

[Michael]

I'm thinking that we should just close this thread now and wait until Obama is out of office. As it stands, reporting on Obama's endless pandering to the Israeli hardright and backtracking his own words, over and over again, gets rather boring.

Fact is, Israel has a full green light from Washington to just keep bulldozing & building settlements.

US can't even admit that this activity is illegal by every known standard (except Israel's own).

It is rather pathetic to watch Obama grovel to the Israel lobby. Does Obama have any clue how much damage he's doing here?

I'll say it first OBAMA'S WORD AIN'T WORTH NOTHING. His principles apparently just blow with the political winds.

Remember the Cairo speech? Well, Obama has decided to pretend that it never happened. Either that or he really likes shovelling bullshit in public.

The Palestinian issue is on hold - again - waiting for non-spineless President for the Oval Office. Issue on hold untill 2012 (again).

Seriously, I knew Obama was going to be a huge disappointment as a clueless rookie, but I didn't think he'd make such a big stink about his principles, make huge public speeches about them and then cave in like every other Washington politician. I can deal with spineless, corrupt idiots in office - but I really fucking hate hypocrits!

Obama is worse than GW Bush on this issue. At least GW Bush was honest about where he stood. Can't say the same about that Obama character.

[Michael]

Looks like the fragile (and unofficial) ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is about to come to an end. Rumor has it that Israel just assassinated a Hamas leader and Hamas has vowed revenge for the murder.

Suffice it to say that Israel's policy of assassination is the number one reason I consider Israel to be a rogue nation that deserves every bit of punishment it gets. Zero sympathy from me for Israel - they are long past being 'victims' in the Middle East and are the primary aggressors there now (and have been for the last 30 years).

[Americano]

Looks like the fragile (and unofficial) ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is about to come to an end. Rumor has it that Israel just assassinated a Hamas leader and Hamas has vowed revenge for the murder.

Suffice it to say that Israel's policy of assassination is the number one reason I consider Israel to be a rogue nation that deserves every bit of punishment it gets. Zero sympathy from me for Israel - they are long past being 'victims' in the Middle East and are the primary aggressors there now (and have been for the last 30 years).

The US's Middle East paid for gunslinger.

[Michael]

The US's Middle East paid for gunslinger.

It is tricky sometimes trying to figure out which is 'the dog' and which is 'the tail'. The wagging is plainly obvious for all to see.

[Michael]

Here's a handy little graphic that shows what's going on the ancient land of Palestine.

This graphic sure makes it look like some 'ethnic clensing' is going on here...

http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/israel-palestine-map.jpg

Israeli apartheid is well on its way to becoming reality.

How long before the Jews start talking about getting rid of the 'Palestinian' problem? I am horrified by this development and see nothing but serious long term trouble and fascist ugliness from Israel.

Btw, Palestinians in Israel outnumber Jews by a significant margin. You wouldn't know it from looking at that last map now would you?

Obviously Israeli policy isn't complete yet since there is still some green on the map. Give Israel some more time, they will deal with that 'problem'.

The two-state solution is dead in the water. The status quo is the future. And this has 100% full support from the US government.

[Donkey]

Time is on the side of the Palestinians, and they will eventually breed enough, in stated Jewish territory, that denial of their rights as citizens will become impractical.

[Michael]

Time is on the side of the Palestinians, and they will eventually breed enough, in stated Jewish territory, that denial of their rights as citizens will become impractical.

True, but it took almost half a century for the South African blacks to rectify the situation despite the fact that they had a clear majority all along.

I'm sure the Israeli police state can keep an apartheid system going for a couple of decades at least.

Besides, the 'revenge of the womb' is only a viable weapon if you have the vote. I can't see the Israelis giving Palestinians the vote.

[Michael]

Here's an interesting statement....

In the period between the end of World War Two and Marshall's meeting with Truman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had issued no less than sixteen (by my count) papers on the Palestine issue. The most important of these was issued on March 31, 1948 and entitled "Force Requirements for Palestine."In that paper, the JCS predicted that "the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives." The JCS speculated that these objectives included: initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine, acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration, the extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine and the expansion of "Eretz Israel" into Transjordan and into portions of Lebanon and Syria.This was not the only time the JCS expressed this worry. In late 1947, the JCS had written that "A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East" to the point that "United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force." That is to say, the concern of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not with the security of Israel- but with the security of American lives.

Source (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/01/petraeus_wasnt_the_first)

Indeed. My opinion of General Marshal just went up ten points. That 1948 JCS paper was indeed quite precient.

And General Marshal was branded an 'anti-semite' because of his realistic assessment of what recognizing Israel was going to have on US security interests - the same issue (and same conclusion) that General Petreus addressed in January 2010.

About the only thing one can be sure of here is that any criticism of Israel, not matter how justified or realistic is a guarenteed way to be permanently branded as an "anti-semite" in US media circles.

And people wonder why Israel is hated so much. :shrug:

US is well on its way to finding out just how much Israel is hated around the world. Some of that is now rubbing off on the USA and one can only rationally expect that the future will hold much more of this.

US has no excuse either. That JCS paper from 1948 lays out the danger to US national security pretty clearly - and accurately predicted Jewish policy maximization.

One has to be fairly ignorant about world politics to ignore the fact that Israel represents one of the largest and most aggressive dangers to world peace. And US complicity is written all over Israeli policy and everyone knows this (except apparently US voters).

[Non Sequitur]

About the only thing one can be sure of here is that any criticism of Israel, not matter how justified or realistic is a guarenteed way to be permanently branded as an "anti-semite" in US media circles.

just playing devils advocate here, but considering the history of anti-semitism in the West, maybe erring on the other side isn't all that bad. Again, just playing devils advocate
Here's an interesting statement....

Indeed. My opinion of General Marshal just went up ten points. That 1948 JCS paper was indeed quite precient.

And General Marshal was branded an 'anti-semite' because of his realistic assessment of what recognizing Israel was going to have on US security interests - the same issue (and same conclusion) that General Petreus addressed in January 2010.

About the only thing one can be sure of here is that any criticism of Israel, not matter how justified or realistic is a guarenteed way to be permanently branded as an "anti-semite" in US media circles.

And people wonder why Israel is hated so much. :shrug:

US is well on its way to finding out just how much Israel is hated around the world. Some of that is now rubbing off on the USA and one can only rationally expect that the future will hold much more of this.

US has no excuse either. That JCS paper from 1948 lays out the danger to US national security pretty clearly - and accurately predicted Jewish policy maximization.

One has to be fairly ignorant about world politics to ignore the fact that Israel represents one of the largest and most aggressive dangers to world peace. And US complicity is written all over Israeli policy and everyone knows this (except apparently US voters).

it seems to me that the cycle was fairly predictable. You displace a lot of people for new people (who don't have a great history of getting along anyway) and suddenly new people need military aid. old residents and friends of old residents get angry at new people and friends of new people and suddenly Ta-Da you have the makings of an international crisis.

EDIT: the real issue here is that Israel doesn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. Whether or not it is true in reality, the government believes that its actions are necessary for the survival of the state. Effectively they are saying to the rest of the world "F*** off!!" Since the International community is proven to be ineffectual most times and the US acts a shield that Israel can hide behind, the status quo will remain.

This is not to say that Israel is the sole person to blame in this mess.

[Michael]

just playing devils advocate here, but considering the history of anti-semitism in the West, maybe erring on the other side isn't all that bad. Again, just playing devils advocate
I don't buy it.

Critique of Obama isn't racism - and anyone who suggests that it is, is a race-monger.

On that basis, criticism of Israeli policy isn't anti-semitism - and anyone who suggests that it is trolling - using the term as an offensive weapon to shut down debate.

Indeed, there is a reason that black activists stopped screaming "racism" at everything they encountered - because doing so just turns the term into something meaningless. The Israeli political regime is well on its way to making 'anti-semitism' seem respectable, since only respectable and rational people get accused of it.

So, if rational critique of Israeli policy, or rational critique of US policy that impacts Israel is the new definition of anti-semetism, then so be it. The Israelis have only themselves (and their obnoxious NAZI-like policies to thank for it).

I have ZERO tolerance of Israeli bullshit and Israeli support for NAZI policies.

I guess run of the mill anti-semitism isn't good enough any more - the Israeli government seems to dedicated to creating a whole new category of them. :shrug:

it seems to me that the cycle was fairly predictable. You displace a lot of people for new people (who don't have a great history of getting along anyway) and suddenly new people need military aid. old residents and friends of old residents get angry at new people and friends of new people and suddenly Ta-Da you have the makings of an international crisis.

EDIT: the real issue here is that Israel doesn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. Whether or not it is true in reality, the government believes that its actions are necessary for the survival of the state. Effectively they are saying to the rest of the world "F*** off!!" Since the International community is proven to be ineffectual most times and the US acts a shield that Israel can hide behind, the status quo will remain.

This is not to say that Israel is the sole person to blame in this mess.
Yes, Israeli attitude problem - created by US guarentees - is a huge problem. They are like the little kid on the playground acting like a bully because his big-brother is there to back him up. Fucking pathetic that is from a moral perspective.

That being said, the JCS report from 1948 raises a whole new issue that is never addressed. That is the way the Israeli state was going to keep pushing for more and more - and this was seen as predictable by the Joint Chiefs back in 1948.

That's exactly the case. That makes a mockery of all Israeli arguments about how their actions are driven 'in reaction' to the Palestinians - fact is, it was obvious to the Joint Chiefs back in 1948 that Jews were playing a political game - not just to get a piece of Palestine given to them, but that even 1948 the Jews were planning on seizing/conquering the whole of the Palestinian Mandate territory (which is exactly what they have done).

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Israel is the number one threat to world peace. They've been that way for a long time and they are just getting more and more obnoxious about it. The only question now is, how much long-term and irrepairable damage are they going to do to the USA in the process?

[Donkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8614908.stm

More fascism from the Israeli state.

[Greendruid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8614908.stm

More fascism from the Israeli state.

What will it take for the rest of the UN to do something about this? What a huge problem that's been created with the Israeli state. If only I had a time machine!

[Michael]

What will it take for the rest of the UN to do something about this? What a huge problem that's been created with the Israeli state. If only I had a time machine!

Simple answer for simple questions:

When the US chooses to abstain instead using its veto.

Every UNSC resolution that criticizes Israel receives a US veto automatically, regardless of merit.

* * *

Btw, a JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) report from 1948 predicted with un-erring accuracy the 'evolution' of Israeli state demands and the attending demands upon the US military because of it.

Anyone who is surprised by how the Israeli state is acting hasn't been paying attention. They've been seeking to control the whole of the British Mandate territory (includes all of Palestine and Jordan) since the late 19th century.

[Michael]

Many have asserted that in order to maintain present occupational policies, Israel must choose between democracy and apartheid.

It looks like Israel has made their choice. Apartheid it is going to be (and I'm being very generous and kind with my choice of words here).

IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank

A new military order aimed at preventing infiltration will come into force this week, enabling the deportation of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, or their indictment on charges carrying prison terms of up to seven years.

When the order comes into effect, tens of thousands of Palestinians will automatically become criminal offenders liable to be severely punished.

Given the security authorities' actions over the past decade, the first Palestinians likely to be targeted under the new rules will be those whose ID cards bear home addresses in the Gaza Strip - people born in Gaza and their West Bank-born children - or those born in the West Bank or abroad who for various reasons lost their residency status. Also likely to be targeted are foreign-born spouses of Palestinians.

Source (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162075.html)

Btw, the Palestinians are calling this "ethnic clensing" - and rightly so.

Source (http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/10183/pid/2254)

Things are not going well in the Middle East. Forget Iran - Israel is the real threat to peace here.

[Michael]

Lots of disturbing noises coming out of Jordan and Syria over the weekend.

Another Israeli War in the Middle East appears to be heating up for late summer...

[Donkey]

What sort of noises? And what sort of war? Nobody in the region can really hope to beat Israel and her corner-countries (aka USA) in a symmetrical war...

[Michael]

What sort of noises? And what sort of war? Nobody in the region can really hope to beat Israel and her corner-countries (aka USA) in a symmetrical war...

War in the Middle East generally takes the form of Israel attacking someone.

[Michael]

I've just read a very interesting article in Foreign Policy magazine by long time US Middle East negotiator, analyst and author Aaron David Miller.

(for some strange reason, copies of this magazine are now arriving in my mailbox addressed to me - could be some cross-promotion from the Economist mailing list, but the address tag is slightly different) :ummm:

Anyway, here is a link to the article online...False Religion of Mideast Peace (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/19/the_false_religion_of_mideast_peace?page=full)

Here's the wikipage for Aaron David Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_David_Miller)

Very interesting (fairly long) article where the author explains why he is giving up on the idea that a 'peace deal' between Israel and Palestine is possible (or at least in the short-medium term - I'm not sure). He cites a dozen arguments in defense of his analysis of the situation.

Miller does make a rather impressive argument that the only 'successful' negotiations between Israel and any Arab state have come with America playing the peacemaker role. He further argues that present political conditions at this time (in USA, in Israel and in Palestine) make this all pretty much impossible anyway.

Overall, a very good article that takes a large ('official' American-centric) view of US interests in the Middle East and comes to some fairly decent 'realist' conclusions. I think I do agree that things really have changed so much in the Middle East over the last twenty years or so that the idea of a comprehensive peace plan ever resolving the Israel-Palestine issue is just not realistic. It is just too complicated now and none of the three players (Israel, Palestine & USA) have the visionary leaders with the political strength to even approach these hotly disputed issues. Obama is by far the best of the bunch, but he's a bit of a rookie and politically weakened due to US circumstances. Israel's politics is seriously fractured and the Palestinians are split (politically and geographically) between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank.

I'm not happy about this analysis at all (though I don't dispute it). I don't like the idea of rewarding the Israelis with the 'status quo' that they've been able to aggressively establish to their own liking. It is all so lopsided. :shrug:

Bottom line is that Obama isn't going to get it done all by himself (even though he has assembled a damn good foreign policy team dedicated to the task) no matter how nice is oratory skills are. There has to be some political good will available for the issue and none of the three key players have that at all. A sorry state of affairs all around.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Israel and Palestine will not resolve as long as Liberman and like him are in Israeli government (and Liberman will be there as long as Russian diaspora will vote for him, and they will, why not, he is their guy); and Hamas and such control the Palestinian side. As long as they are both ruled by extremists and nationalists, nothing can happen.

[Michael]

Looks like Israeli poll numbers on their Palestinian citizens looks a lot like American poll numbers on their Hispanic immigrants. Reactionary views are on the rise and have majority support of the electorate.

The good news is that American Jewish opinion is becoming more moderate and less extremist/reactionary. You won't notice this from AIPAC or the Jewish lobby in Congress though - they take their orders from Tel Aviv and that means reactionary politics is the order of the day. AIPAC serves the intersts of Israel, not the USA. For AIPAC, USA is only a tool to be manipulated.

Source (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false)

[Non Sequitur]

Looks like Israeli poll numbers on their Palestinian citizens looks a lot like American poll numbers on their Hispanic immigrants. Reactionary views are on the rise and have majority support of the electorate.

The good news is that American Jewish opinion is becoming more moderate and less extremist/reactionary. You won't notice this from AIPAC or the Jewish lobby in Congress though - they take their orders from Tel Aviv and that means reactionary politics is the order of the day. AIPAC serves the intersts of Israel, not the USA. For AIPAC, USA is only a tool to be manipulated.

Source (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false)

I tend to look at it this way: both sides manipulate each other and get certain benefits for this manipulation that are deemed "necessary." The US is fully aware that the Israeli lobby is manipulative, but we get an ally in the region. Israel gets military support and we get to manipulate them into playing the "bad cop" role. It's a relationship that both are aware of and both want (albeit for mistaken reasons).

[Michael]

I tend to look at it this way: both sides manipulate each other and get certain benefits for this manipulation that are deemed "necessary." The US is fully aware that the Israeli lobby is manipulative, but we get an ally in the region. Israel gets military support and we get to manipulate them into playing the "bad cop" role. It's a relationship that both are aware of and both want (albeit for mistaken reasons).

US gets Israel as an ally no matter what. Israel has ZERO allies on the planet since the fall of Aparthied South Africa.

Israel needs the US a hundred times more than the US needs Israel. That's just political reality.

This is why US subservience to Israel seems so odd - especially since the Israeli alliance really doesn't serve US geostrategic/politicals interests very well at all (and may in fact cause significant problems for US policy goals).

[Michael]

In case anyone is curious, there is apparently yet another round of 'peace-theater' going on Washington.

The whole set up seems to be predicated on the US and Israeli domestic political need to be seen as not entirely warmongering and screwing Palestine.

Nothing of course is going to change. Both the USA and Israel are going to continue to screw Palestine forever (because there is some really big political money there to permanently support this policy). But they need to pretend otherwise and that's what 'peace theater' is all about.

I can't be bothered addressing any of the bullshit they are serving up. Suffice it to say that the new plan is identical to the old plan. Nothing is happening. The situation is getting worse by the day and Obama is playing the fiddle while Palestine burns. Nothing new here. Nothing to see.

(Of all the policy portfolios out there that Obama has fucked up, this one is by far the worst - he looks like a total incompetent rookie with his walk-back on settlements, his airy-fairy Cairo speech and then his walk-back on Palestine - all adds up to comedy if it wasn't so pathetic)

[Michael]

In case anyone is curious, there is apparently yet another round of 'peace-theater' going on Washington.

The whole set up seems to be predicated on the US and Israeli domestic political need to be seen as not entirely warmongering and screwing Palestine.

Nothing of course is going to change. Both the USA and Israel are going to continue to screw Palestine forever (because there is some really big political money there to permanently support this policy). But they need to pretend otherwise and that's what 'peace theater' is all about.

I can't be bothered addressing any of the bullshit they are serving up. Suffice it to say that the new plan is identical to the old plan. Nothing is happening. The situation is getting worse by the day and Obama is playing the fiddle while Palestine burns. Nothing new here. Nothing to see.

(Of all the policy portfolios out there that Obama has fucked up, this one is by far the worst - he looks like a total incompetent rookie with his walk-back on settlements, his airy-fairy Cairo speech and then his walk-back on Palestine - all adds up to comedy if it wasn't so pathetic)

Well, this one is now considered a major failure (surprise, surprise). US officials are now searching for a way to 'save face' over this debacle.

The pseudo-ban on new permits for Israeli construction of settlements on Israeli-occupied Palestinian land has run out this week and Israel has decided to reject all calls for a continuation of the moratorium and instead is pushing full steam ahead (as if to make up for all the lost time).

A continuation of that moratorium is pretty much the ground floor for the ability to even have a discussion between Israel and Palestine. Israel doesn't appear to be even remotely interested in trying to appaear interested in the topic.

Methinks a certain artwork outside the Italian Stock Exchange represents the essential Israeli view of the peace process and Palestinian rights. :rolleyes:

Anyway, American officials look like fools right now, taken for yet another ride by Israel.

How many times can Israel punk the US Government and get away with it? That's what I want to know.

As far as I'm concerned, US Government "owns" this issue completely now. Israeli intransience is defacto US policy. Perception is reality - no one outside the Beltway cares for US logic chopping about US responsibility on this issue. Washington holds all the cards here and is letting Israel cheat the process (repeatedly) with the US sitting there with a fat thumb on the scales of justice running blocker for Israel. That's how this issue is perceived outside of USA and Israel - regardless of reality. And this policy leads directly to the creation of apartheid in Israel and the end of Israeli democracy.

Its going to get ugly over the next decade on the West Bank and blame for that is going to honestly be laid at the doorstep of the White House.