A week ago the members of the Israeli armed forces stormed aboard a Turkish flagged ship attempting to bring ashore supplies to Gaza in defiance of an Israeli blockade. This blockade has been in place since 2008 when Israel sent troops and tanks into Gaza in search of military armaments and those who would use them on Israel.
This blockade, though, in addition to seeking to prevent military equipment or the rudiments to make military equipment from reaching the Hamas-lead 'government' in Gaza or any rebels in Gaza, also has sought to prevent basic humanitarian supplies, such as building supplies needed to repair homes destroyed by the Israeli invasion, or food necessary to feed the populace. The idea has been that such things as dates or drywall could in fact be traded on the black market for armaments. In this, they (the Israelis) may not be wrong.
However, in Turkey, Israel has had its strongest Muslim ally for many years. In Turkey, with US support, Israel has avoided taking on a Muslim nation fully capable of meeting Israel on more than equal military terms. Frankly, from a 10,000 foot view, their air forces seem to be near peers, while the Turkish army and navy are far more than a match for Israel's counterpart. While Turkey would have to go through Syria (and Lebanon) to get to Israel by land, it is not too remote a possibility Syria might allow it. Lebanon has no ability to resist or object.
In the past, Turkey has been a broker of compromise between Syria and Israel. In the past, Turkey has been much more secular as well. However, during the Bush years, Turkey was routinely snubbed by the US after they declined to be more supportive of Bush's invasion of Iraq. As well, that invasion helped to launch a pro-Islamic fundamentalist government which took power in 2008. On Sunday, Turkey issued the first of what are likely to be many changes to this relationship when they rescinded their offer to provide military protection for Israel.
In truth, I don't believe the Turkish government was looking for this outcome. Creating an unstable middle-east situation is not beneficial to Turkey's desire to become part of the European Union. They are seen as a key player in keeping that tenuous situation from devolving further. However, I do believe that they felt the oft-inhumane nature of the Israeli blockade needed to be illustrated for the world and I do believe they wanted to provide a challenge to it, albeit almost certainly with a more peaceful outcome than was seen.
What this points to is the law of unintended consequences on all sides when we start being intractable, rather than responsible, namely:
George Bush, as colossal a screw-up on the world stage as we've seen in a very VERY long time, was so interested in invading Iraq, that he trampled on relationships which had other, very meaningful uses and the destruction of which had other, very serious (and negative) consequences.
The US (under Bush), in an attempt to help deal with Hamas and Hezbollah, invaded Iraq, in part to help protect Israel. The effect of that invasion has had the exact OPPOSITE effect. Iran is more powerful, and Hamas at least is certainly more politically protected as a result of the ill-advised invasion of Lebanon Israel undertook in 2006.
Turkey, in an attempt by the fundamentalists to expose the plight of Palestinians, kicked a tiger (Israel) - so profoundly ready to engage in military action that military action is mostly all they know, and probably Turkey was surprised by the virulent nature of the Israeli reply.
Israel, due to xenophobic, extremist (totalitarian) right-wing governments (one after another), reacted exactly wrongly to the challenge. Rather than waiting until any relief vessels were in Israeli waters, and rather than simply impounding the boats and releasing any supplies they could while justifying those they couldn't, decided, as they have for 30 years, that massive retaliation was justified. There was a French village exterminated in WWII when a German general was killed by the French resistance. That act was deemed a war crime, and those who perpetrated it were prosecuted after the end of the war. When Israel takes this kind of action today, such as invading Gaza and knocking down buildings because rockets which did minimal damage fell on Israel, the interpretation by the rest of the world is that Israel is using hammers to kill ants. We find such conduct to be unethical when it is done by governments we don't like, why would we, for that matter given Israel's origin, why would Israel, want to be seen as the brutal, dictatorial state?
The winner in all this truly is Hamas and organizations like them - meaning pro-Islamic fundamentalist movements. They are looking to mouse-trap Israel, and in part Turkey, into a confrontation. They maneuvered Turkey into confronting Israel, and have a government which will support them now after Israel's stupidity. We may be in a position where Turkey will confront Israel militarily. Such a confrontation would be disastrous for Israel certainly. It would also be disastrous for the United States, we would be made to look the fools for backing a nation which cannot/will not conduct itself in a humane way - an utter irony given the treatment many of their oldest generation suffered.
If we are to be Israel's closest friend, its best ally, we must give them some hard and straight advice. A good friend doesn't tell a friend they don't have warts ever, they tell them about their warts and help them to manage them. We do no favors for Israel when we fail to remind them that in 50 years they have to face the problems they create today. We do them no favors by not telling them that military solutions to political problems are virtually guaranteed to fail. Israel must start planning today for a world in which their neighbors have nuclear weapons, more military might, and more economic might than they have. If they continue down the path of thinking only about next week, then they will have been mouse-trapped by clever, determined foes (like Hamas) into slitting their own throat. Hamas will simply have given them the knife. They won't even need to wield it.
Greetings! With regard to: "George Bush, as colossal a screw-up on the world stage as we've seen in a very VERY long time...", let's let a little more history pass by before making such judgments. Here's a piece of the flotilla affair written by a man who I believe is the finiest columnist in the country. I envy his knowledge and his skill. http://bit.ly/aNTNFL
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteI'd be willing to wait a while IF I could see anyone in the past 50 years who created anything close to such a mess.
In Iraq, we wasted $500B on a war against a nation which was secular, allowing fundamentalist Shiites sponsored by Iran to take over. Our only positive is that we gained some control of their oil, but that positive is nebulous and potentially capricious.
On the negative side, we pissed off nearly the entire world.
In Afghanistan, we let the Taliban take back over because we, through neglect, allowed the corrupt government which preceded the Taliban, the government in fact that the natives PREFERRED the Taliban to, take back over.
In Turkey, and many, MANY other relationships, we pretty well spit in the eye of our allies, discounted their advice, etc..all the while attempting to maintain our economic status through military expenditures.
I'm happy to wait, but I suspect history will judge him FAR more harshly than we do today. History will ascertain (rightly imho) that his actions against terrorism were eye-wash, ineffective, and opportunistic.
Regardless, this is about Israel - we are not acting as their friend by turning a blind-eye to their excesses. A good friend would help them prepare a sustainable environment. We aren't doing that, or at least weren't under Bush, and Obama is barely better.
"Regardless, this is about Israel - we are not acting as their friend by turning a blind-eye to their excesses. " I appreciate your point. However, some folks use your phrasing as code to criticize and dictate to Israel, as if using the 'friend' approach makes the spear softer. Yes, we give them a fortune each yr, as we do with Egypt and others. How much latitude do you extend to us to criticize Israel? I am sure that you appreciate the stakes they face every day. The U.S. is aiming to protect its interest. Israel aims to exist.
ReplyDeleteIsrael has a right to exist. It doesn't have a right to be a bully. This behavior by Israel, while probably looked at by the Israelis in hindsight as a blunder, leads only to providing more recruiting for Hammas and Hezbollah, and fodder for sermons by Islamic fundamentalists who see nothing but Zionist thugs murdering people who were aiming only to stop a blockade that the world has fairly universally condemned.
ReplyDeleteIsrael needs to have a wake-up call from one of its few friends left in the world. Unfortunately, I don't think they will listen, but the United States owes to its ally in the Middle East to take Israel aside, and explain forcefully and clearly, in terms they can understand, that continuing this type of behavior will create for them a situation their children will have to solve, and that their children may be less equipped than they are today.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI am not focusing on the US' interests, not even slightly. I AM concerning myself with Israel's future. They will have a bleak future if they continue down the 'military first' path, especially one which fundamentally violates basic ethical tenets.
They attacked an unarmed vessel in international waters - that the civilians on board resisted is not material. They have attempted to interdict what can reasonably be classified as appropriate, non-military aid. Whether we can conceive of a good reason for this is the next closest thing to immaterial, the WORLD at large does NOT conceive of it. Moreover, Turkey doesn't. Isreal's continuing existence is dependent upon the forebearance of Turkey, among others, not just ours.
Also, without trying to pick at words, this isn't, just flatly ISN'T about Isreal's continuing existence. They are not under threat of destruction, not today, not in 5 years. They WERE, in 1967, 1956, and 1973. But that time is past. No matter what terrorists due, short of acquiring a nuclear device, Isreal is far stronger than its neighbors and is at no risk of being 'stamped out' or driven into the sea, certainly not by Iran, Hezzbolah, Hamas or any combination of the three.
Isreal must recognize it is continually losing the political fight which is FAR more impactful than the actual military realities on the ground, but Isreal doesn't get that. With regard to our expenditures, we give more money to Isreal than any other nation (iirc) - but the issue isn't money, it's the promise of military support should they need it, which has existed really since 1976 (or so). That reality is going to change, and Isreal must prepare for that day.
We do them no favors by allowing a virulently aggressive government in Netenyahu or some other ultra-conservative, feel they are safe to yank the sabre from the sheath at a whim, and then they proceed to do so.
With respect to, "Israel has a right to exist. It doesn't have a right to be a bully", and with respect in general, I take issue with this complex. While I understand the view, I believe it lacks from proper context. Israel is surrounded by countries that have laughable civil and human rights, and yet often escape international opprobrium. Let's remember that Hamas is defined as a terrorist organization by our own government and others. It does not recognize Israel's right to exist. It does not renounce violence. It will not honor prior agreements. It will not release Gilat Shalit who is being wrongly imprisoned. Hamas is being nourished by another paragon of human virtue - Iran. With Gaza on Israel's border and the origin of thousands of rockets that have been launched into Israel, and all of the other above points, do you really feel at ease referring to Israel as a 'bully'? I hope that you will reflect on this point and consider a broader context of a complex set of issues. You are also aware that Egypt blockades Gaza, but they manage to escape criticism for this. I am not suggesting that I approve of how the flotilla was handled. By I will not simply view that event in isoloation and then pass judgment.
ReplyDeleteBriefly now to my friend Penigma, I do not agree with your comments, particularly your optimistic forecast of Israel's continued guarantee of existence. Are we reading the same newspapers?
ReplyDeleteAs far as determining what is in Israel's interests, do you suggest that we can do this better than they? Best, MK
Michael,
ReplyDeleteNo one questions whether Hamas is a violent organization, but so has Israel been violent. The point is, Israel is getting outfoxed by Hamas.
Further, comparing yourself to a terrorist organization is hardly a good bar to get over. I have a saying for situations like this, "Comparing yourself to Satan, hardly makes you a saint."
Israel has to find a way to extract itself from a constant cycle of over-the-top violence in reaction to violence. It leads to a lot of blind people, but more, it leads to Israel being a nation at risk of having the US turn its back on them, much as they have started down the path of getting Turkey to act that way through ineptitude.
Bluntly, blustering pompous and belicose may feel good, but it's no way to run an airline. NO ONE is perfect, and each side as elements of good. Israel is losing this battle, they need to change before they lose the war.
Your topic sentence in your last comment suggests an equivalency between Israel and Hamas that I cannot accept. I understand, I think, much of the world's view of the Israeli situation; can you fathom these issues from an Israeli perspective, particularly in the context of Jewish history and the surrounding geopolitical realities? Thanks for your repsonse.
ReplyDeleteI'm quite familiar with Jewish history. I've written at piece on it here for Penigma, and intend to follow up with it at a later date. In the meantime, let's look at those geopolitical realities you mention.
ReplyDeleteIsrael, other than being the site of the some of the most sacred places on the planet for the Abrahamic faith tradition, has few natural resources. The only reason for anyone to want this rather barren stretch of land on the east end of the Mediterranean sea is or the communication i.e. trade routes and for the sacred sites.
The geopolitical reality for Israel is that eventually, even the patience of the US may wear thin to the point where Israel can no longer depend on the US to defend it against its neighbors. At the moment, Israel's immediate neighbors aren't inclined to attack it. However, Israel isn't helping itself by these attacks, and the point of Penigma's argument is that it doesn't appear to be able to realize this.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that Israel doesn't have a right to live in peace. However, they also must abide by international law and the wishes of the international community if they wish to wear the mantle of respectability. They have shown little sign of paying attention to international concerns, and their right wing, knee-jerk reactions are precisely what the terrorist organizations planned on.
Going toe to TOE. Regarding: "The only reason for anyone to want this rather barren stretch of land on the east end of the Mediterranean sea is or the communication i.e. trade routes and for the sacred sites."
ReplyDeleteDo you really think this is the only reason why so much of the world is hostile to Israel?
I have to agree with Michael here. The Islamic countries in the area do not want peace they want Israel off the map. Mein Kampf is a bestseller or close in several countries in the region and has been since WWII. Jordan had plenty of land that was also part of what the Palestinians claimed as theirs but Jordan kicked them out and forced them into the West Bank and Gaza strip.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the boat thing I will find some links to the videos I saw. The first few soldiers down were armed with paintball guns. I believe they were filled with pepper spray paintballs, uncomfortable but not fatal. The people on the boats just happened to have clubs and knives ready and attacked. The other part most of the news of this ignores is that an unlimited amout of food or medical supplies can be taken into Gaza through the United Nations. They search for weapons and let the stuff in. There was no reason to try and run a blockade to get food and medical supplies in, they were just trying to provoke. Well if you poke a stick in the face of a tiger you might get hurt, the key is to be smarter than the tiger and not poke it with a stick. So before everyone jumps on Isreal for defending themselves think about this. What if the mexican army was launching rockets into El Paso 3 times a week for 5,6,7 yrs? Even if they only managed to kill someone once or twice a yr how long do you really think the launches would keep going before you saw US troops just flat take over Mexico?
Dr. Kirsch:
ReplyDeleteNope. I'm aware of a multitude of reasons for a number of countries to be hostile to Israel. Including that they weren't consulted prior to the UN allowing Israel to take over Palestine, and since then, decades of hostility between the two sides. The reasons for this conflict go back centuries, not merely decades.
To the extent that it appeared that I was claiming that there were few reasons for the hostilities, I was not and did not intend it that way.
Regardless of the deep seated reasons for the hostilities, Israel's actions will not make things better. They will and have served to pour gasoline on an already blazing oil spill. Did the Israelis intend this? I hope not, but based on past conduct, one starts to wonder.
Michael, I know a bit about Israel and its history. I've been to Israel. I have followed Israeli politics somewhat over the years, both their internal politics and their international relationships.
ReplyDeleteWhile I really DO appreciate that there are countries around Israel that would like to wipe it off the map, I also recognize that the smartest single move the country ever made was to make a lasting peace with Egypt. Israel has a working relationship with Jordan, if not a great relationship. I have no doubt from the time I spent in Israel that the countries which want Israel gone are using the Palestinians as part of their strategy.
However I would dispute with you that an unlimited amount of food and medical supplies are allowed in. Nor are schools, hospitals or government offices operational, nor has the basic fundamental infrastructure of water, sewers, electricity, or housing. This is unacceptable and inhumane.
Do I think that others can better determine what is best for Israel than Israel can for itself?
Sometimes, yes. They are no more infallible as a nation than we are or any other country.
I notice Michael,Tuck, that neither of you has addressed the subject of Israel maintaining a second class of citizens. I hope you will find a few moments to address this subject and how it reflects on the current problems with the Palestinians.
This doesn't sound to me like there is sufficient food or other supplies: "Uphill battle to supply prosthetics to Gaza war injured "
ReplyDeleteand
"The World Health Organization (WHO) is concerned by rising malnutrition indicators - increased cases of stunting, wasting and underweight children - and continuing high rates of anaemia among children and pregnant women."
and
"A poverty survey conducted by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) shows that the number of Palestine refugees unable to access food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationery and safe drinking water, has tripled since the imposition of the blockade in June 2007."
Hello to all. First, regarding: "However I would dispute with you that an unlimited amount of food and medical supplies are allowed in." I don't recall that I suggested this in my comments. Recall that Israel accepted the UN's partition plan in 1947, which was rejected by the Arab countries. Had they agreed, then there would be a larger and more prosperous Palestine than will come to be. Remember Oslo? The Wye Agreement? Etc, etc. Yasir Arafat should have been the George Washington of Palestine, but he and his minions never really wanted an agreement. I agree that the peace treaty with Egypt has served the region well, although it has been a rather cold peace. Israel, in effect, gave up Gaza to the Palestinan Authority (until these moderates were thrown out by Hamas)and what did Israel receive in return? Rockets! I know that the Palestian people are suffering greatly and all decent people are pained over this. Who's fault is it? I think it is simplistic to brand Israel as the occupying aggressor who is the proximate cause of this. If there existed a true peace partner - one who acknowledged Israel's right to exist, renounced violence, etc. - then the Palestinian people would enjoy the lives they deserve. They have been the victims of self-serving leadership who use the plight of the populace for their own gains. You are aware of the refugee camps in Jordan, Syrian and elsewhere. Why haven't these nations incorportated these folks into their populations? Why do they keep them in camps for generations? Do you think Israel would maintain a refugee camp of Ethiopian or Russian Jews for decades? The pain of the Palestinians is real. The dispute is who is responsible. Best wishes to all.
ReplyDeleteFears of pan-Arabian Anti-Semitism are not without merit, but remember that Semite means truly anyone from Sumeria. This means that up until the recent past, ethnically, culturally Judaism and Arabic Islam were very closely tied. What has changed is the advent of Israel, much of the Arab world (not the Muslim world) has become rabidly anti-Israel, and with it, anti-Jewish, but that is a recent change. The question is why? In part "Zionism", the advent of Jewish population resettling to Palestine following WWI and moreso after WWII - leading to the displacement of Bedouin nomads - including through civil war - and in part, honestly, through the repressive conduct of Israel since 1980. Attempting to say that the issue is simple anti-semitism and that the whole Arab world wants to "wipe Israel off the map" is both too simplistic in the case of the former, and untrue in the case of the latter. There may well be resentments, even some animosity among many Arabs toward Israel, but it is a long way from that to open aggression.
ReplyDeleteIsrael's greatest danger at this point militarily is Israel's beligerence creating enemies it does not need to have (like Turkey). There is currently no practical military threat to Israel other than Turkey.
Tuck wrote thiThe people on the boats just happened to have clubs and knives ready and attacked. The other part most of the news of this ignores is that an unlimited amout of food or medical supplies can be taken into Gaza through the United Nations. They search for weapons and let the stuff in. There was no reason to try and run a blockade to get food and medical supplies in, they were just trying to provoke. "
ReplyDeleteTuck, other than SOME people in Israel making the claim there is no crisis in Gaza, there seems to be a pretty large agreement that there IS in fact, a serious and long-standing humanitarian crisis.
Did those people on the boats have guns to resist the Israelis? NO. The resistanc was so disproportionate that it would have been laughable if it hadn't been so tragic. The actual events are confused at best, as there appears to be conflicting video - if you watch BOTH sides.
Imho - the smartest thing that Israel could do right now, politically, and practically, would be to eat whatever crow they have to eat with Turkey to make amends, and to seek Turkey's help in resolving the political problems and in policing and rebuilding Gaza so as to make the humanitarian issues more humane and to have an islamic force - preferably with the cooperation of Jordan and Egypt, and if necessary the UN and the US, handle the prevention of further rocket attacks or other assaults like suicide bombers against Egypt.
Time for them to reinvent the Marshall plan that we used after WW II. Time, after such a long time as an embattled nation, to think outside the box, to consider using their strengths other than military towards peace - like their economic and diplomatic connections. I would suggest, respectfully, that Israel could do more to appeal to and incorporate moderates - both Israeli and various islamic people - by working with them not against them.
There is a lot of past water over the dam to overcome, but stranger things have happened - Egypt is the proof it can happen. If people want it to and are determined to do it.
Here are a couple links about Mein Kampf
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388161/Mein-Kampf-for-sale-in-Arabic.html
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006690.html
They are older than I remember, one from 2002 and one from 2005, but one is about how popular the book is in the Arab world and the palestinian terratories in particular, the other is about its rising popularity in Turkey.
I was in Israel in 1998 and yes Arab Israelis are treated as second class citizens. Now the law in Israel is that they are full citizens just like anyone else. The only special treatment for Jews under the citizenship laws have to do with the Law of Return and make it easier for Jews to become citizens but non-Jews can become citizens under laws similar to other liberal democracies. Something that is rather interesting is that at the time I was there 90% of arabs living inside Jerusalem are Christian. They do not want Jerusalem to be a palestinian capital. The Israelis may treat them as second class citizens but they allow them to vote, there is no sharia law, and they can go to whatever church, synagogue or place of worship they choose. If the Arabs from the territories controlled the city that would end. Outside of Jerusalem the arabs are about 90% Muslim. They want to impose rules like in Saudi Arabia where they are not allowed to build any place of worship other than a mosque. Even in Jerusalem now the Palestinian Authority runs the area around the big mosque where Mohammed met an angel or went up to heaven or something. You are not allowed to have a bible, cross, crucifix, star of david, or any religious symbol visible anywhere on the grounds. Not just inside the mosque but anywhere on the grounds outside. Now the guards were very polite but still armed guards who would tell you to put anything visible back in your pocket. Tolerance goes both ways, when Muslim countries treat women like people instead of slaves and I see a christian church built in Saudi Arabia then I will believe Muslims are tolerant.
Looking at the whole of the history of interactions between Islam and Christianity and Jews, Islam has been much more tolerant than Christianity. Under the caliphate, Jews were subject to taxes, but were allowed to worship as they pleased otherwise. In many European countries at the same time period, Jews were forcibly converted... or if they refused, often found themselves accused of witchcraft or other excuses to extract property and often their life. Antisemitism was not invented by Islam, which treats the Jewish faith as an older Abrahamic tradition than their own.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this post, though, as I understand it, was to point out the blunder by Israel in over-reacting to this incident, by responding violently, when other methods of dealing with the shipment would have been equally effective, and would not have risked a crucial alliance with one of their major trading partners - Turkey.
Pen,
ReplyDeleteYou have hit the nail on the head. Israel has been acting like this for decades. And that sort of behavior is not reserved for its middle-east neighbors.
Israel treats the United States (a friend) the very same way. For example, the USS Liberty was attacked in international waters by (unmarked) planes of the Israeli air forces (June 8, 1967) They killed 34 Americans and wounded 174. It was ostensibly a "mistake," but it was a darned convenient one at that. The Liberty was monitoring Israel's other illegal activities on Gaza at the time (See the Six Day War). At the time, the United States covered up the true nature of the attack.
It's about time this rogue nation is held accountable for its behavior.
Leslie, scary stuff. Rogue nation? C'mon. It's okay to take shots at Israel, but leave aside our relations with Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc. Of course, Israel has erred over it's history, but orders of magnitude less than it has been victimized. I criticize you for selectively targeting it and not providing context or justifying our relations with other 'rogue states'.
ReplyDeleteFor all of the thoughtful comments here on Penigma on this post, I have yet to see a good defense from our conservative commenters that the Israeli actions were a good response, a 'smart thing to do'.
ReplyDeleteI also am noting the glaring ommision of any response at all to Israel maintaining first class citizens and second class citizens - an action by our support that we also approve and condone.
This is not a question which is going away any time soon, dear commenters.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSuggesting that Israel is less egregious than China isn't, unfortuanately, entirely germane to the problem.
Israel is being (rightly imho) criticized for oppressing Gaza beyond any humanitarian definition. What some other nation does neither excuses nor allows Israel to violate internationa law.
Regardless, Israel is operating counter to its long-term interest. Any evaluation of what is likely to be the long-term political and therefore international policy impact is that their actions are going to only harm themselves. They must stop being addicted to violent response, they must stop justifying injustice/unjust responses. They are killing themselves.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe original post was about Israel, not other rogue states. It was not my intention to widen this conversation to the entire world.
Gentlemen - specifically, Michael, and Tuck - but any of our readers and commenters:
ReplyDeletethere has been a great big echoing silence on the subject of first and second class citizens in Israel.
It would seem to be at the core of the issues involved in this discussion.
Please address.
Leslie, of course it was not your intent to widen the discussion; this was my point precisely. Regarding the '2nd class' of citizenship in Israel, I don't think that we can solve this problem on this blog. We have many similar circumstances here in the U.S., which we cannot solve. I can only say that I wish it were different. My understanding is that these '2nd classers' enjoy more freedom and a higher standard of living than many of their brethren in surrounding countries.
ReplyDeleteI would very respectfully disagree with you Michael about the 2 classes of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteIt goes to the core of the problem, that Palestinians will never be as fully citizens at in Israel as immigrants from other places who are Jewish. They are given favor and preference at the expense of all others. This engenders resentment, anger, rebellion as much, maybe more than religion. Religion becomes the pretext, but I would disagree that it ultimately is what drives the conflict.
Israel could become an unparalleled power in every respect, AND have peace, imho - or at least considerably more peace than it has now - if it altered the us vs everyone else premise on which they operate, which is a very large part of the 2 classes of citizen status quo.
The Jews aren't going to go away, nor should they. I emphatically support the US support for that.
The Palestinians aren't going to go away either, nor should they have to; this was as much their home as the Jews.
Now, it really comes down to -- both sides can deal fairly with each other with respect as full equals, and deal with the fact that neither party is going away.
OR, they can continue killing each other, and living in fear. But if anyone should be cognizant of the price this conflict is exacting, you would think it would be the people involved....and yet they continue fighting. So apparently they don't appreciate the situation yet. Affluence is important, but not as important as security and equality, nor should they be mutually exclusive.
When I was in Israel, some years ago now, I was not in some ways a typical tourist. Among other things, I spent a night in a kibbutz on the Golon Heights. There were rockets coming over from Lebanon - about a quarter of a mile away from where I slept. It is the only time in my life that a nights sleep was conditional on knowing how to find my way to a bunker for safety during a rocket attack, or on knowing what areas were unsafe to traverse because they were mined.
It left a vivid impression on me of what rocket attacks are like. It is something I would not wish on either side -- and both sides ahve been on the receiving end of them.
@DG, with equal respect, I am not sure that we disagree. I wish there weren't an underclass in Israel or in our own country. We have always had the problem here, despite everyone's hope to remedy it. I suspect every country has a similar circumstance, except, perhaps, for N. Korea, which today's New York Times reports has only an underclass. I certainly wish that all citizens of Israel enjoyed equal opportunity for success and prosperity. You imply that it is Israel's fault, and I am not certain of this. We are not occupying land here in the U.S., and yet we still have class issues. Finally, I have been told during my trips to Israel, that Israeli Arabs live in relative freedom and prosperity, compared to Arabs elsewhere, as I have previously stated.
ReplyDeleteMichael, after we finally removed the Jim Crow laws of some parts of our country, legally we all have the same rights and privileges under the law.
ReplyDeleteI am addressing specifically the way that Israel grants rights and privileges legally, including but not limited to serving in their military, taxes, and where people are allowed to live.
The relative affluence of at least some of the surrounding countries has improved compared to Israel from where they were. Affluence is important, but so is political equality.
Are you serious Tuck?
ReplyDeleteDo your homework on this.
Since 1949, there have been 63 Palestinians in the Knesset - I'm assuming you are familiar with the knesset?
Of that number, aprox. 14Palestinians are currently serving in the Knesset, out of 120 which I think you will agree is not proportionate or representative of the population demographics. One of those Palestinian Knesset members was on the flotilla btw.
Both the president and prime minister are elected from the Knesset. Seriously Tuck, are you suggesting it is possible for a Palestinian to be elected to the highest offices of Israel?
If not......are these citizens really equal? I can go on further about the differences in being a citizen if you are interested.
And it is not like this is the only respect in which that is not true.
I respectfully suggest you should revisit revisit your ideas about citizenship in Israel.
Just curious - you have been to the country Tuck.
How many Israelis did you speak with in any depth? How many of those were Palestinian and how many were Jews?
I'm interested in knowing how well you accessed the experiences of both sides of this conflict.
DG,
ReplyDeleteI don't think Tuck's visit to Israel is germane. There are plenty of sources he can read, plenty of voices to be heard. I have never supported the idea that someone needs to be of a race, or in the place, to become expert in the field.
With respect to the Knesset, 14 of 120 is rougly 11%. Arabs make up roughly 15% of the nation as I recall. I wouldn't say they are disproportionately under-represented. Though, clearly, they will never hold the PM's slot - but then again, nor will the Kurds in Iraq hold the PM's slot anytime soon. However, just like the Kurds in Iraq, if the Palestinian Knesset members someday hold a vital swing vote, it is in fact possible, but highly unlikely.
All that said, this is far afield from the point - and the question back to you Tuck - do you feel Isreal is in imminent danger of being "wiped off the map" by its neighbors? If so, which ones? If not, then their reaction was terribly destructive to their own interests, and they were hood-winked (is that word hyphenated?) into doing something destructive to their reputation and also in violation of international law. Supporting that conduct is like giving a cocaine addict more coke, THEY may like it, but its eventually going to kill them.
Your point is a good one Pen that there are many ways to learn about a subject.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in my experience in traveling to Israel, there was a heavy propgandizing pro-Jewish position, and it was not easy to hear the other side.
Hearing the other side, including how they were governmentally represented, of the Palestinian Israelis, how they were and were not included in the military, and so on, was instructive.
I am not suggesting this kind of contact is the only source for information, but wondering what formed Tuck's ideas while he was in the country.
As long as I'm asking, I'm also curious how much effort Tuck has made to see both sides, including what he has done to see the Palestinian AND the Jewish side of this conflict.
I think it is a fair question.
Pen, per wikipedia - not great research, but handy - Palestinians comprise just over 20% of the Israeli population, and is increasing.
ReplyDeleteBy your calculation of 11% of representation, that makes Palestinians roughly under-represented by half.
Wiki also has an entry on Palestinian Knesset representation btw., current and historical.
I agree with Tuck and don't feel that the comments following his were directly responsive. Tuck offered a wider context of the issue, rather than simply circumscribing Israeli discrimination, as if this issue should be considered in isolation.
ReplyDeleteAnd to my friend Penigma who refers to 60 yrs in a refugee camp, kindly explain to me why the host countries of these camps permit and encourage these camps to exist? I posed this query earlier, but rec'd no response.
Best wishes to all.
The Palestinian representation in the Knesset is not relevant to this discussion, and only serves to distract from the point of this discussion here.
ReplyDeleteSomething I sometimes say to clients is "No, you're not paranoid. Paranoia is the irrational belief that everyone (or someone) is out to get you. In your case, everyone IS out to get you, and so its not paranoia". That used to apply to Israel, and to some extent, it still does. However, the situation with Israel is that Israel holds a gigantic piece of the puzzle of peace in this region.
Israel (and the Palestinians) have a right to live in peace, free from terrorist attacks. When Israel over-reacts, they give further propaganda and recruiting ammunition to groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Neither of these groups are strong enough to meet Israel on the battlefield.
Israel has a history of over-reacting to situations, and the United States needs to explain that they have gone too far, that as their friend, they need to face some sobering facts. If they truly wish to live in peace, they have to make good faith efforts to foster that peace. The recent Israeli moves on that front have been conspicuously counter productive.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe host countries allow the camps to continue for one principal reason, they don't desire to assimilate the Palestinians. They don't desire to because they too are rather xenophobic and untrusting of the Palestinians. In the case of Jordan, you could argue they have some reason to be mistrustful.
Yet, there is a second reason, the Palestinians are poster children for continuing to hate/put pressure on Israel to act as their neighbors (chiefly Syria) WANT to have Israel behave.
That said, that is not the question at hand - the question is what will assure Israels continuance, it is NOT being brutal toward Palestinians, if anything THAT will assure they do not survive.
Tuck, spot on!
ReplyDeletePenigma, regarding your comment, "That said, that is not the question at hand - " I disagree. There are many other questions and issues at hand. I am surprised that you offer no vitriolic denunciation of the refugee camps in several Arab countries and locations. Imagine is these camp were in Israel...
In addition, not a whisper from the internat'l community, or from commenters here, re Egypt's blockade of Gaza. I wonder why.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteYou are going from absolute condemnation to silence in your estimation of what the reactions should be/are to the conduct of Hamas. I can condemn Hamas, but not be as strident as you would like, but still not be silent.
By contrast, I can condemn Israel, without offering absolute condemnation, yet what I feel I see from you (and other conservatives) is relative silence. Certainly, at least, you do not seem to reject their over-reaction and over-use of military force. Rather, at worst you seem to say they are perhaps over-reacting, but justified. That is an oxymoron, you cannot over-react justifiably. If you are justified, your reaction isn't "over" anything.
Contrastingly (Michael), we aren't talking about Jordan or Syria here. I don't defend Syria, but the point is that it is ISRAEL, not Syria which is putting itself at risk, which is assuring its own destruction. Israel is the most powerful military force in the region, it has the ability to dominate the Palestinians and its immediate neighbors. Its conduct toward the Palestinian refugees is worse, though not by much, than the treatment the Palestinians have gotten in Syria and Lebanon - but that treatment (in Syria or Lebanon) won't cost the Israelis world support. The question is "why not?" and the simple answer is, because justifying your behavior based on the bad behavior of others is no justification at all.
Whether the world stage/nations have a chip on their shoulder about Israel is in no dispute, in fact it IS the point. Israel is like Bill Clinton in the 1990s, he knew the Republicans were out to smear him, so he needed to be smart and avoide Lewinski. Instead, despite being smart, he acted immorally, and we spent 6 years on witch hunts in attempts to destroy his ability to govern through innuendo and salacious allegation - allegations which HE helped enable.
Israel HAS to consider what its neighbors are going to think of it in 20 years, let alone 50. The fact is the US is not going to be able to secure Israel's future in a couple more decades, we're bankrupting ourselves pushing money up to the top - and so Isreal must consider whether it wants friends on its borders or enemies. Whether Syria treated the Palestinians poorly will not matter to Saudi Arabia - they will judge Israel based on ITS conduct - not on Syria's. The same is true for Egypt, the same is true for Turkey. Israel's conduct is NOT justified by the relatively low intensity war it has with Hamas - Israel's overreaction makes it look like a militaristic, totalitarian state - and this has been the case since Rabin was assassinated. Sharon STARTED the intefedah (sic) - by restarting construction on the West Bank. Israel has been overly beligerent, unnecessarily caustic, it has been saying "I'm going to do whatever teh HELL I want to and if you don't like it, I'll squish you." to the Palestinians for almost 20 years now. The conduct of Hamas is not justification for genocide. Neither is the conduct of Syria, and attempting to deflect the conversation TO their conduct is attempting to justify genocide by OTHER genocide.
Penigma, you have expressed your views well. I disagree with them. I reject the semblance of equivalency you suggest between the excesses of Hamas and Israel. While I understand that you argue that it is not germane to focus on other flawed nation practices, I do not agree with this. This violates, in my view, principles of justice and fairness. To ignore or diminish the relevancy of Egypt's blockade of Hamas, is not fair. Similarly, but much less important, you describe Bill Clinton as a stalked victim by the GOP, which is not the only legitimate angle to view the situation from.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me greatly is that if thoughtful and reasonable people like you view Israel as you do, then what might others think? In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive or hold a job without permission from a male guardian. Syria rules with an Iron fist. Egypt blockades the same border that Israel is being vilified over blockading. Etc. etc. Dialogue is difficult if someone magnifies Israel's conduct while ignoring others'behaviors and actions.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI have been a promoter of the interests of Israel for a very long time, which is why I am very unhappy now.
Since the advent of Netenyahou, Israel has fallen off into a pattern of oppression. It had some problems prior to Netenyahou, but it is much worse now.
The point of not focusing on Syria or Egypt is that they both aren't our staunchest ally, and aren't in danger of destroying themselves.
You ask me to defend my position about Syria or Egypt, and I have, so then I ask for the same from you. You seem ready to excuse Israel's conduct, moreover, to avoid the subject of whether this has a meaningful effect on the future of Israel. So I ask again, what do you think will come of Israel continually attacking the Palestinians. That they aren't as bad as the Palestinians is no excuse. That Syria does bad things, is no excuse - in fact that IS the essence of the justice you seem to be asserting I am avoiding. Namely, that you are not allowed, no matter the provocation, to become unjust. You are judged (meaning Israel, not you Michael) on your own actions. Israel has stepped far over the line.
And yet, you hit upon the EXACT point of the post overall, if I, a supporter of Israel, see their conduct as far in excess of what is necessary, as dangerous to their future, then you can be certain that the average person in Egypt or Saudi Arabia sees their conduct as FAR more eggregious than I do. That they do is the danger - that they do is the point. If Israel does not change, it does not matter what Syria may do to the Palestinians, it does not matter what Hamas does or doesn't do in terms of leadership inside Palestine, if Israel does not change, their neighbors will become their enemies, and they will destroy them.
Justice cannot be achieved through overreaction, nor can safety.
To Penigma, I think that we have both aired our views sufficiently. I understand your points, but don't frame the issue as you do. I feel that Israel is begin unfairly and selectively targeted, and you fee that this is not germane, even if true. You believe that Israel's policies are against her own interest, and we disagree who should be deciding what is in Israel's interest.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, how would you deal with Hamas, a terrorist organization as defined by our own government and others, who does not recognize Israel or renounce the use of violence? Do you regard them as 'freedom fighters', perhaps?
My daughter on a plane now, bound for Holy Land.
Michael, neither Pen nor I have ever suggested that Israel should not be determining what is in its own interests. We are arguing - if I may presume to speak for both of us here - that Israel is making a mistake in assessing that interest.
ReplyDeleteI do not see Hamas as freedom fighters; I see them as terrorists. I do not however believe that Gazans are particularly unified behind Hamas, but rather that Hamas has gained power in part because Israel has been heavy handed contributing to the Gaza Palestinians resisting and reacting to it.
I think it would benefit both Israel AND Gaza to get rid of Hamas. I just don't particularly believe that Israel is being as wise as they could be, nor do I believe that without help from Israel in positive directions, that Gazans will be able to oust Hamas and move forward. Israel has the greater power, ideally it should be Israel that leads both sides away from violence.
I hope your daughter has a wonderful time, and is safe during her visit. Israel is an amazing country. She will be in my prayers while she is away from your protective arms. I will be watching the news from that part of the world with special interest, and fingers crossed until you let us know she is safely home again.
I agree that we both see Israel as deciding her course of action, I don't and didn't say that other's shouldn't, that was your choice of words to suggest I feel that way.
ReplyDeleteOnly Israel, her citizens and her leaders, will change Israel. We can counsel, and we should. The question is, what should we counsel? Changing that subject into something about WHO should decide rather than WHAT should be decided, takes the convesation into an arena which isn't relevant because I don't believe it and it avoids the issue.
Put simply, do you think it is wise for Israel to rely, seemingly everytime at this point, on a military response first, and pick up the pieces second. You claimed I felt that we should only be worried about Israel while ignoring the conduct of her neighbors, yet you know I don't feel that way now, so I want to redirect you back to the point at hand. Once upon a time, you complimented me on not being an 'ideologue' because I didn't believe something you felt would make me such. I have to now return the serve, do you believe Israel's conduct is beyond question simply because we aren't Israeli? That would be being nothing short of being an ideologue to me. No questions allowed because we aren't them..
They claim they MUST react forcefully because they are in such danger, but those claims are false on their face and I believe you've recognized it. They ARE in danger, but not of the type which will "drive them into the sea." They know, as we know, Iran will never be allowed to "drive them into the sea, drive-thru, or golf range" so such hyperbole is not realistic.
To me has been and continues to be, what counsel do we give them, do we tell them to decide as they like, but if they use violence too freely, we cut off aid? If not, why not? WE, not they, get to chose where to apply our military support, WE, not they, get to decide what is militarily and politically prudent for another state FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. Your argument would suggest that we should NEVER qeustion the conduct of an ally, we should simply accept whatever they say, because, after all, they know best for themselves. I have not claimed we get to decide FOR them, but we DO get to decide for ourselves. WE can say to them, "You will have no future if you keep on." There's nothing dictatorial about it, and it is the act of a friend. They are addicted to ONE solution, the fiction that being "tough" will solve everything. When all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail, and you tell your friend to put down the hammer if that's what they need to hear. Whether they do will decide their future.
@dg, prayers appreciated.
ReplyDelete@penigma, comments reviewed. I do not share your optimism that a nuclear armed Iran would threaten Israel's life. Look who's running that country. Perhaps, the next leader will be worse. I am sure that Israel herself is struggling with same issues and tactics that we are parrying back and forth here. I presume that our disagreement is not strategic, but only tactical. You point out the current Israeli policy has not brought peace to the region. I agree. You suggest, I believe, that the outcome might be different if the Israeli's adopted a new policy. What would you advocate and what would the risk be of your recommendation?
obvious (I hope typo) in my last comment:
ReplyDeletethat a nuclear armed Iran would NOT threaten Israel's life.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou asked a couple of excellent questions -
First, do I think a nuclear armed Iran is an imminent threat to Isreal - no, not directly. Iran is a beligerent, but not expansionist, state. They fund Hamas, but suggesting they want to exterminate everyone in Iran, including all of their own children, all of their friends, everyone they know, is a phenomenal stretch. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked for 40 years for a reason, that reason is that which I've given above. It takes many more than just one person to initiate a nuclear attack - it takes soldiers, colonels, generals, etc.. who will ALSO have to agree to kill their own kids.
That said, would I prefer the nuclear club be small, and stay small, absolutely. Iran IS a beligerent state, it MIGHT make a mistake in judgment which leads to some sort of exchange which we would never want to see, but I suspect it would be Israel, rather than Iran, starting such an exchange - due to some direct provocation by Iran.
Second question, wouild Israel be better served by a different policy, imho, yes - no differently than I have an opinion China would be benefited by a different policy toward Taiwan.
Boiled down, the Palestinians are a hostile, but occupied population. Those on the West Bank are MUCH more peaceful. The long and short of what to do to begin making a better place is you, just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq, have to get their people to work - get them jobs, get them security.
I would turn over security for Gaza either to Turkey or Egypt - make them take responsibility to keep rockets from being launched into Israel - pay them for it, and subsidize the creation of factories or other productivity in Gaza and the West Bank.
The ONLY way, EVER, to successfully end rebellion is to get the people working again, making them feel their kids have a future, making sure they FEEL secure themselves. Whatever animosity, and obviously there is an enormous amount, the Palestinians feel, they obviously know (at least those who have any idea of reality which is a fair number) the know they CANNOT eliminate Israel. If they have to violate the trust of the Turks and/or the Egyptians to attack Israel - then certainly they will ahve some serious consequences if they do. This takes away the ability of the Arab world to complain about Israeli treatment of Palestinians, because it means the Isrealis no longer CAN/will be responsible for the treatment of Palestinians.
Now, the other thing, the Israelis have to agree to cease construction in the West Bank. We can talk all we want about 'wipe off the face of the earth' and terrorism, but Israel, without question, was defacto expansionistic in occupying both the West Bank and Golan as long as they have, especially once they started constructing settlements and EVEN moreso when they continued/restarted doing so after the Oslo Accords were executed. They, not the Palestinians, broke that peace. They, not the Palestinians, have to be the ones to take the gesture toward peace again on this issue.
For their part, the Palestinian Authority would have to a. agree isreal has the right to exist b. agree to halt any attacks and enforce it as a requirement to allowing Turkey to oversea Gaza.
Appreciate response.
ReplyDeleteIs your comment, "Oslo Accords were executed. They, not the Palestinians, broke that peace...", a fact or an opinion? As far as Egypt monitoring Gaza, there's not enough $$$ in the universe to persuade them to do this. Egypt has it's own 'Hamas' to worry about. Similarly, Jordan (a Palestinian state) has walked away from the West Bank. Israel relinquished day to day control of Gaza, and withdrew settlements and troops. They de-occupied this land but rec'd no peace. These folks want 'their land' and Israel proper for their state. While the moderates in the WB are pursuing a 2 state sol'n, Abbas is weak. While the current strategy is not working, Israel and many of us would need to be persuaded that a softer approach would be more likely to bring about the desired result. If a new direction ends up only weakening Israel and strengthening Iran and Hamas, et al. then it was the wrong move. Just because the status isn't ideal, doesn't mean it can't get worse. Best regards.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that Egypt wouldn't, Turkey might. Even so, it's worth the effort.
Just an follow-up, do you think Israel's course, long-term, serves it well or ill?
Do you agree that Iran isn't likely (as in almost assuredly not) to overtly attack Israel, and nearly-iron-clad gaurantee not, with nuclear weapons if the response is the destruction of their country?
The point to me being, we worry overmuch about the threat, and let it dictate our reply, when the threat isn't real.
BTW, yes, the intefadah (sic) which started in the West Bank in 1999 (iirc) started when Netenyahou restarted construction of settlements on a holy site which the Oslo Accords prohibited - this was following the assassination of Rabin. Israel, like the US, has suffered from myopic militarism since the advent of pro-military reactionaries like Netenyahou. As a friend of mine (an Israeli expatriot) said, "It's not that Israel grew less moderate, it's that the moderates have left Israel - they were chased out, out of politics, and out of the country." Israel, imho, is not better off without them. They were moving ahead under the likes of Rabin, and have moved backward since.
There needs to be a real, better solution to the Palestinian refugee problems. That there is real, serious, and significant harm is clear:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-update-140610
Without that kind of solution, the problems will continue without improvement.
I think that a nuked up Iran scares every country in the region I imagine that when Israel took out the Iraqi reactor in 1981, that they were thanked by many in private.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the world thanked Israel for the attack upon Iraq, however, those were different times - it was only 3 years removed from the most recent invasion.
That does not apply directly to Iran - Iran is not as beligerent toward Israel as Iraq was in 1976. As well, the fear that Iran would USE a nuclear weapon is effectively unfounded - it is not real enough to dictate US policy and should not be, imho, driving Israeli policy. Israel is in far greater danger from alienating it's allies than it is in being attacked. Iran's leaders have said as much (as I recall).
However, with respect, you haven't answered my question - do you believe Israel's current course of action, such as boarding a Turkish vessel in international waters and denying Gazans the ability to repair/rebuild destroyed homes, is likely to be good or bad for Israel?
I have already expressed the self-evident view that Israel fumbled the flotilla, even though these were provocateurs and not humanitarians. Israel should have disabled the boat in some other way, although they claim there was none. Hard to believe. I also agree that the human suffering on the Palestinian side from Israeli security policies, indifference from the Arab world, and their own failed leadership is awful. True, Israel gets a disproportinate share of the blame. I admit that Israel has made mistakes and that her image has been tarnished. But, they are an isolated democracy and face stakes unknown by almost every nation in the world. Imagine the outcome if Israel lost a war?
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that Israel needs a different strategy -- under Geneva, for example, it would be perfectly lawful to reply to a missile launch with, say, an immediate Battery Six, while the missiles are still rising; obviously proportionate to the military objective, and likely to be more effective than this peacemeal stuff.
ReplyDeleteJoel,
ReplyDeleteFrankly, replying with massive retaliation has been a major part of Israel's problem.
I get that you think the 'solution'
here (or it seems you think) is to act like the Nazis did in France, but in truth, it isn't. If the retaliation isn't seen as proportionate to the act, it's not in Israel's long-term interest - not by a darned site.
Frankly, as a former artillery man, a single battery volley is hardly likely (especially in an urban environment) to be effective in putting an end to the missile launches. Further, since radar counter-battery fire isn't entirely precise AND the GC calls for care when firing into urban environments (or most correctly into any environment where civilian casualties are probable) - simple counter-battery fire isn't recommended AND probably in fact DOES violate GC.
This morning Israel announced that it will be allowing the types of materials the outside world asked for it to allow - namely, building materials to replace the homes destroyed by the Israeli attacks (justified attacks - don't get me wrong) from three years ago.
Israel effectively gave in on this point due to world pressure. In effect then, it did what it should have done before, but was forced to by political pressure after 9 people were killed. This is the exact issue, these kinds of over-reactions by Isreal (attacking a Turkish flagged ship in international waters) may feel good, but they harm Israel in the long term.
BTW Joel -
ReplyDeleteWelcome (back) to Penigma - I'm very pleased to have you comment here. I consider you to be one of the most reasonable conservative voices I know of and would be very happy to have you comment at any time.
Pen
I would like to extend my welcome as well, Joel.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment.
Frankly, replying with massive retaliation has been a major part of Israel's problem.
ReplyDeleteI get that you think the 'solution' here (or it seems you think) is to act like the Nazis did in France, but in truth, it isn't. If the retaliation isn't seen as proportionate to the act, it's not in Israel's long-term interest - not by a darned site.
Well, no. The Nazis responded to attacks by combatants by murdering noncombatants; I'm advocating that the IDF respond to the combatants with force proportionate to the military objective of shutting down the launches, in light of the Geneva Convention's clear statement that the presence of noncombatants does not give immunity to combatants. (Short form: don't use hospitals as launch sites; that makes the hospitals legitimately collateral damage.)
As a former military man, you should know that modern counterbattery radar -- at least the stuff the IDF has used at least since the Fatah War -- gives modern howitzers a remarkably small CEP, making a single Battery Six more than likely to kill the launcher.
Joel, Pen - I do NOT have the specialized knowledge about Israeli weaponry that has informed your comments.
ReplyDeleteBut I would ask you both this question, to elaborate --- IF the Israelis COULD use this kind of precision to good effect, why haven't they? Is it possible thsoe launching the missiles move too quickly to effectively target them, and to effectively stop the missile launches from continuing?
Thank you both in advance for your elaboration.
Back during Peace for Galilee, IDF counterbattery fire was accurate enough to take out mobile artillery; it hasn't gotten any less accurate since. What it's not accurate enough to do is take out missiles in the air.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't the missiles, it's the guys who are shooting them off, and the well-armed folks around them (all around them), who instead of hauling out their AKs and blasting at the guys setting up launchers in the streets of Gaza, stand by and shout "Allahu Akbar" or whatever.
As to why Israel doesn't do this, well, that's easy -- look at all the hassles they got from shooting at the folks attacking the IDF boarding the blockadge runner the other day.
Eventually, though, they'll simply have to give up on protecting the Arab population from the consequences of harboring active terrorists in their midst. In the interim, the use in Gaza of human body armor can be expected to rise. (Remember that the Gazans responded to "knocking on roofs" by sending women and kids up to the roof, frex.)
I'm not entirely convinced that the Gazans are so welcoming of Hamas any longer, or that they have much in the way of resources to get rid of them.
ReplyDeleteIs going onto a roof being a human shield, or just avoiding being underneath the rubble if an attack lands, when there is no where that is safe to take shelter?
I don't like Hamas or these terrorist actions aainst Israel any more than anyone else. But I think this blockade / modern day seige is a failure.
Time to find other solutions, other strategies and tactics. Possibly time to make it someone else's role to stop Hamas violence.
Gaza is taking disproportionate damage compared to Israel, and over time, given the disproportionate resources, that is not going to look like Israel is the good guy.
The ONLY long term solution that will work, at least has the greatest possible hope for long term peace, is to resolve the problem of palestinian refugees in a more constructive and positive way.
That, and maintain a more secular, less jewish preferential democracy that genuinely represents the entire population fairly without regard to religions.
Is going onto a roof being a human shield, or just avoiding being underneath the rubble if an attack lands, when there is no where that is safe to take shelter?
ReplyDeleteThe former, which is why the Hamas folks send the women and kids up, and stay in the building. The safeest place to be, given the accuracy of the IAF, is as far away as one can run.
DG wrote:"Is going onto a roof being a human shield, or just avoiding being underneath the rubble if an attack lands, when there is no where that is safe to take shelter?"
ReplyDeleteJoel wrote:
"The former, which is why the Hamas folks send the women and kids up, and stay in the building. The safeest place to be, given the accuracy of the IAF, is as far away as one can run." (my emphasis added)
But if there are no bomb shelters, effectively, and if you are trapped like rats, walled in to the very small area of Gaza - there IS no place to run Joel! That is the essence of my point.
Added to which if you DO run, and get hurt in an attack, there are no effective hospitals AND you may find yourself cut off from your family and extended family/friends.
Respectfully, there is no 'getting away', there is nowhere safe, nowhere that will not be subject to attack. So, running is not much of a choice.
Even in psyche studies, if you keep lab rats contained in a small space, and zap them or otherwise place them under stress and under 'attack' to which they can offer no effective response, they stop doing anything, shut down, just freeze where they are. Humans and other species behave similarly.
I am less convinced that all of these Gazans want to be victims versus have few other options or better choices. I am not convinced they want to die or be injured.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteFirst, the term "Battery Six" is a needless reference to a six gun battery firing a round per tube. As there are batteries which may have 8 or 4 guns (or less as I recall for MRLS) - it's really simply a reference to firing a battery salvo. I don't think there is any special magic in such activity.
Second, the question isn't CEP, a term really more applicable to missiles than artillery, but I get the idea fine - the issue is area of effect. A 155mm batter area of effect is 6 hexagonally placed 80 meter radius circles, with concentric overlap at the middle, meaning, generally, that you'll kill everyting in a 120m (rough) hexagon (with rounded edges). I don't think killing everyting in a 120m hex is 'precise' - not in the least.
Your comment further indicates you feel it is approprate to inflict civilian casualties not only as collateral damage but to 'encourage' those civilians to act out against Hamas. Bluntly, that's absolutely counter to GC, and a violation of international law. The responsibility to fight a force is yours, not the surrounding population's. Further punitive action against the civilians as a dissincentive to allowing 'rebelion' is EXACTLY what the Nazis were doing, and is expressly prohibited.
Finally, the impression I have is that you believe the Israelis suffer from being handcufffed by concerns, internally and internationally, about civilian casualties. The world community, and MANY Israelis see the problem as exactly the opposite, namely, that indisciriminate casualties only FURTHER the war - not degrade it. IN short, an eye for an eye sounds good, but you get a lot of blind people.
The botttom line here is, just like in Iraq, the only path to victory is to destroy the legitimacy of Hamas' appeal by giving Gaza an economic choice and jobs to the Gazans. Until then, each bomb only makes the situation more dire, more resentful, and MORE likely, not less to create new terrorists.
In closing, a battery salvo or a Maaverick missile or a Hellfire, none make much difference in employment - the Israelis have LONG had the ability to counter-fire missile launches and routinely have done so - hellfire or something similar has the enormous advantage of not killing kids just standing 50 yards away, and while GC DOES say you cannot make warfare from a Hospital or the Hospital is forfiet it's normal protection, it doesn't say you get to blow the hospital up, or the school up, because someone is firing a missile from teh street in front of it, and you solution would do EXACTLY that - it would land rounds inside the school. In short, your solution is hardly a solution, nor is it some sort of magic bullet - if it could have worked, it would have been used. What makes you think the Israelis dont' routinely drop 500lb bombs on missile launch sites (btw, they do.).
Joel,
ReplyDeleteIn support of DG's comments, we know very well from both Israeli and Gazan accounts, the Israelis gave the civilians little if anywhere to run to for saftety.
Where would you have a civilian flee to, another building where they are just as likely to be killed by shrapnel from artillery, or remain in the building and die when the Israelis drop a bomb on it?
Would you suggest instead that they run out toward the Israelis? Would that likely lead to them being welcomed, or even taken prisoner? I think you know well enough it would lead to them being shot, just as running from the city would lead to them being shot.
You leave the Gazans no where to be safe.
The responsibility to fight a force is yours, not the surrounding population's. Further punitive action against the civilians as a dissincentive to allowing 'rebelion' is EXACTLY what the Nazis were doing, and is expressly prohibited.
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah -- that's what they were doing. Civilians are not, however, protected by the GC by consequences of responses to military action.
If you doubt that, you could ask some of the German civilians who lived near to various Nazi military and industrial establishments.
Where would you have a civilian flee to, another building where they are just as likely to be killed by shrapnel from artillery, or remain in the building and die when the Israelis drop a bomb on it?
ReplyDeleteYours, and DG's, comments suggest that Gaza is about the size of a city block. Actually, it's four kilometers across at its narrowest (and just short of 140 square miles), and somebody looking to escape from a "roof knocked" building will have at the very least something in excess of sixteen kilometers in which to flee.
I've seen the photos Joel, there is so much rubble, that fleeing is problematic at best.
ReplyDeleteGiven the frequency and intensity of some of the bombing, and the density of the population figures, that 16 klick area is not as much of an option as you represent.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteTolerance of collateral casualties is not considered a license to use weapons of any size/sort to effectuate a military objective. Frankly, GCIII following WWII (iirc), pretty well condemned our bombing of cities like Dresden, though not directly, for its imprecision, overreach and unnecessary impact upon the civilian population.
Current law, including treaties we've agreed to, requires that we take care in use of weapons to not unduly impact the civilians (if any) in the area. In short, you are not given liberty to use a nuclear bomb to kill a cat. On a more serious note, you're not allowed to carpet bomb a city to root out a house full of rebels.
The generalized concept that civilians aren't protected when in a war zone is counter-balanced by the fact that military action IS REQUIRED to be planful and careful about not inflicting civilian casualties needlessly. If a handgrenade can do the job, you aren't at liberty to use a 2000 lb bomb.
The further point being, Israel has used disproportionate force, including using soldiers to storm aboard a boat not in its waters. A boat under the flag of its ally, and aboard which, there were NO firearms (apparently) yet, they killed 9 people. Whether those people opposed the boarding by non-lethal means is immaterial - they were civilians in international waters and were fully legal in defending themselves from an open act of PIRACY under the law.
You're quite right about how civilian casualties aren't to be inflicted needlessly -- but when Hamas commits the war crime of using human shields, it's no longer "needless" to, regretfully or otherwise, remember and act on the GC that makes it clear that the presence of civilians does not immunize combatants.
ReplyDeleteThe force must be proportionate to the military goal; demonstrably, the force that Israel has used, to date, is not proportionate to the goal, as it's been insufficient to reach the goal of shutting down the missile launches.
It's really not complicated.
Oh -- and you might want to check out the San Remo manual on blockade. There's no exemption for neutral-flagged ships, or prohibition against enforcement on the high seas.
ReplyDeleteThe law is a shield, not a sword; just as one can't use human body armor for military purposes, neither can you run a blockade by flagging a ship with any given flag.
DG -- the 16 klicks is a direction, not an area. As to Gaza being suboptimal for fleeing, sure -- and until Hamas either stops launching missiles from the suboptimal areas (I can point to several open areas where the danger of civilian casualties when the IAF pulverized them would be zero; Hamas, for whatever reason, elects to hide behind the women and kids, instead) or just stops altogether, that shouldn't be Israel's problem; one is, after all, allowed to take one's combatants as they choose for one to find them.
ReplyDeleteThe graphic at http://markhumphrys.com/Bitmaps/palestinian.way.of.war.gif sums it up pretty neatly. Yup; both babies are in danger of being shot and killed, but only one combatant is using the kid as HBA.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI understand you feel the military solution hasn't yet been sufficient to fix the problem, but what I believe you also understand is that conflating the allowance of a military to use a force proportionate to the need is not a strategic equation. The comment that they haven't yet been allowed (or used) an attack sufficient to curtail/end Hamas' attack suggests such an attack a. exists, and b. is proportionate simply because the strategic goal is to end the conflict.
By that measure, ANY attack of any size and with any weapon, which succeeded in the strategic goal, would be allowed. I think you understand that such is not the case - but if you do not, let me please elaborate. The military may engage in a tactical response to a tactical threat - it is not supposed to engage in carpet bombing of city (or vast shelling of a neighborhood) in an attempt to 'win' a strategic victory. In short, you're responding to the tactical element with a strategic response. While I understand you can say the missiles are part of a strategy (and clearly they are), and your response follows a strategy, that doesn't mean you are given liberty to obliterate neighborhoods full of non-combatants because your STRATEGY is to kill the guys in the house on the corner who fired an AK or RPG at you. The line of argument you are using suggests that you think ANY response is allowed, when I think you know it is not so. You are arguing that Israel's response has been too restrained, when evaluation under international law would almost certainly disagree. You aren't allowed to simply chose to blow up a city to accomplish a 'strategic' goal. Further, such conduct would be seen as unnecessarily inflicting civilian casualties when they could have easily been avoided.
Joel Rosenberg said...
ReplyDelete"DG -- the 16 klicks is a direction, not an area. As to Gaza being suboptimal for fleeing, sure "
Suboptimal????
How about nearly impossible, especially during an attack?
Perhaps I am using the term wrong, I understood 'klicks' to be an expression for kilometers, a measure of distance. There is no apprecialbe area of distance as measured by kilometers which provides a possible, reasonable escape to safety. There IS no safety in Gaza for anyone.
continued...
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate point being, it appears you feel that this has a military solution, that if only Israel uses a big enough hammer, the problem will be resolved. The first problem with this is, there is no justification to kill civilians indiscriminately in pursuit of a strategic goal, the second being that if this had a military solution, it would have already, in 60 years, been used.
It seems that you think the challenge is that Israel's hands are TOO tied, that it is being TOO restrained. Please understand that some pretty wise minds about how to fight an insurgency don't agree with you, among them, David Patreaus vis a vis his change in conduct in Iraq. Prior to Patreaus, the US Army, and especially private security forces, took an attitude that civilian casualties were acceptable if the military goal was achieved. Patreaus rightly advised that the military and civilian goals are inseparable. Solution to insurgency/rebellion is to make the local leadership want to support you, not kill it off until someone finally acquieses.
Thanks for the reference to the San Remos Manual which Israel cites as justification. I haven't fully thought through what Israel is claiming, but on first blush, this was a vessel which clearly said it was going to break the blockade BUT which had not yet attempted to. Nonetheless, my read of it suggests that since it claimed it was going to, it conceivably could be boarded - yet, it was not in 'neutral' waters (by definition waters belonging to a neutral state) but rather in unowned waters.
Regardless, the quotation of the San Remos agreement is a CLAIM by Israel. Ultimately, the 'protection' they might get by that agreement is really going to be Turkey's call. So far, Turkey seems unlikely to agree that Israel was right or justified.
The point of that being, perception is reality - and that was the point of the post all along. While you or I may disagree about the proportionality of Isreal's actions, the rest of the world doesn't - including some very rational, very fair nations in Israel's immediate vicinity. If they continue to antagnonize those nations (and the world), they may win the Gaza 'battles' but they most assuredly will lose the war. I do not believe you are legal or moral in paying no heed to human casualties. Hamas is using the Gazan civilian population to screen itself to be sure, but that then means you have to find them and attack THEM, not blow up the neighborhood. To do less is not allowed under international law, because to do less is to be cavallier about civilian deaths.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteLet me put this to you another way.
Our strategic goal is to end terrorism, much of which hails from the middle-east. As such, it can be claimed (using WT Sherman's comments on total war) that the middle-eastern populations are harboring and allowing terrorism. By your recommendation and view, we are entitled to use nuclear weapons to obliterate all of the cities in the middle-east where we have good evidence attackers have hailed from - for are they not in and of themselves a form of a weapon when strapping on a suicide bomb?
Yup, in a remarkably different situation, Petraeus recommended -- and carried out -- a remarkably different strategy.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that the Pallie habit of using human body armor is awkward and unfortunate for much of the human body armor. The best way to stop that awkwardness would be for them to stop, rather than counting on handwringers in the West to urge increasingly greater precision by the IDF, while increasing the sophistication in deployment of human body armor.
We're not all that far from Hamas "activists" (I believe that's the politically correct term) donning infant vests while shooting at IDF soldiers, expecting that people who worry about "disproportionate" response will blame Israel if, when soldiers shoot back at the "activists" the baby gets shot.
(In fact, some of the "activists" did something very similar during Cast Lead -- grabbing hold of a child and dragging him or her around the streets as HBA.)
But, again, we get back to the basics: the presence of civilians does not confer immunity on combatants. Really, it doesn't.
And, by the way, it's worth noting that the appeasement process has, overall, been a dramatic failure -- whether it's Camp David, Oslo, the withdrawal from Gaza or whatever.
ReplyDeleteBut there are those who insist, for some reason, that it's just a matter of more appeasement. Unfortunately, the question in Israel is whether, a la Likud, the appeasement should be significant and further dependent on results, or, a la Labor, whether it should be huge, and further not really dependent on results.
No, Joel, I have no interest or support for a policy of appeasement.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would think that a country founded by a group of people that experienced the original horrors of burghettos / ghettos
and who experienced the terrible tragedies of history like what the Germans did to Poland - specifically Warsaw for an example - in WW II, would not perpetuate such violence and deprivation on another civilian population.
I do not argue for appeasement. I argue for a serious, permanent addressing of the situation of displaced palestinians - those still in Israel, and those in surrounding countries - as part of any chance for Israel to live in peace.
The eternal exchange of untold varieties ammo in ingenious ways by both sides doesn't appear to be very healthful or add to the happiness of either side.
And as tragic as it is for both sides in the Gaza - Israel conflict, it is like so many other conflicts in history, it does not stay confined to those original parties, but instead spreads out to involve the rest of us - which I see as giving us an interest
I'm certainly not suggesting that you think you're arguing for appeasement, just that you are arguing for appeasement. Let me point out that you're not arguing for reparations to Jews displaced from Arab countries, or Poles and Germans and whatever displaced during WWII, or, for that matter, the descendants of the Jews displaced from Medina. There is a special pleading for the Pallies, and it's not based on any particular justice, or possible resolution, but merely because they have been so consistently violent -- as opposed to, say, the Tea Partiers who have been only consistently noisy, and whose grievances you do not advocate for the redress of.
ReplyDeleteThat said, if giving additional compensation to the arabs of Gaza, Judea, Samaria or Israel would somehow lead to peace, those who wish to try that are certainly free to do so. Perhaps you could let the rest of us know how well it's working.
ROFL, I certainly will not argue for appeasement or reparations to Tea Partiers, Joel, nor do I see them as having legitimate grievances. They are part of a viable system of elections, they each get one vote, the same as I do. I will have more respect for their politics when they stop coming up with nonsense like 'death panels' where there are none, or claims that our existing health system is the best in the worlds as-is, despite all evidence to the contrary - for example, follow the Democratic Underground link to this story:
ReplyDeleteUK health system is top on 'efficiency', says report
Source: BBC News
The UK's health care system is the most efficient, says a study of seven industrialised countries.
The Commonwealth Fund report looked at five areas of performance - quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and healthy lives.
The US came last in the overall rankings, which also included data from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
I want to see a lasting peace, and the current strategy is heading in the opposite direction from that. Walling people in, periodically shooting or shelling them like fish in a barrel, denying them housing, basic sanitation, electricity, food, etc. is not humane treatment for the Gazans, and is therefore wrong... and ultimately self-defeating for Israel.
I don't want to appease the Palestinians, I don't want to pay them reparations either. I DO want to see them have full, equal and appropriate represntation politically in Israel, which they do not (see my comment on the percentage of Israel's citizens who are Palestinians versus represntation in the Knesset (not Pallie's any more than Pakistanis are 'Pakies').
Joel, I am pleased that you have continued the point of view that I expressed in my multiple comments earlier on this post. It's easy to be seduced that one is right, if not righteous, if there is no reasonable opposing view offered. I understand the bloggers' points of views - all well meaning folks -but I am partial to yours. The double and triple standards applied to Israel, lack of context and hipocrisy are all there. Expect Israel to do what no other nation should do, and ignore far worse abuses committed by others.
ReplyDeleteTo DG, my daughter still in Israel for another week, so I hope you will continue to pray for her safe return. Best wishes to all.
Ah, Michael - Thank you for the update on your daughter's travels! I will indeed continue to keep her in my prayers until her safe return; I think about her safety and well-being daily.
ReplyDeleteIn my occasional and self-appointed role as Penigma social director (so long as no one else wants the job that I just made up, LOL) Joel, meet Dr. Michael Kirsch of MD Whistleblower, one of our esteemed guest authors and conservative commenters along with TTucker.
If I might gently remonstrate with you Michael when you write " The double and triple standards applied to Israel, lack of context and hipocrisy are all there. Expect Israel to do what no other nation should do, and ignore far worse abuses committed by others."
Um....no, dear sir. I will freely admit that Israel does on occasion do things that are pretty amazing, overcoming challenges that I don't think many other nations - if any - could do.
I would disagree about the double and triple standards, hypocrisy, or ignoring worse abuses by others.
Pen wrote about Israel using excessive force - which I believe has on occasion been an accusation from within Israel itself, and about Israel being politically outmaneuvered into taking the bait of boarding this ship.......which seems to be more or less the conclusion of some preliminary investigations (under the heading of bad intel).
When Pen or ToE, or you, or I - heck, I'll even extend an invitation here for an opposing contribution to Joel on this subject - write a post critical of the excesses and abuses and general bad actions of the Palestinians, I shall be happy to apply equal criticism to their actions. I do not condone them EITHER.
But focusing on an eye for an eye, who did the worst or most recent aggression doesn't really move either side towards the kind of peaceful co-existence and cooperation that Israel has shown it could achieve with another country as it did with Egypt. Which is the kind of peace I pray that Israel will achieve with its neighbors outside and within its borders. So the Israelis -- all of them Jewish and Palestinian - can live safely, and prosperously in a less volatile middle east.
Thanks for that gracious intro and the prayers.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your comment: "write a post critical of the excesses and abuses and general bad actions of the Palestinians, I shall be happy to apply equal criticism to their actions."
Conservatives and moderates (I regard myself as the latter, although on this blog I am a far right wacko!), do not like to imply any equivalency between Israelis and their 'adversaries'. While Israel has committed excesses and flubbed the flotilla, they have not directly targeted schools, markets, etc. to directly and deliberately murder civilians. You point out that there is criticism within Israel of Israeli policies. This is evidence of a functioning democracy, not necessarily of flawed governmental policy. There are no protests in Syria or Egypt. I doubt this means that the population is in complete accord with their leadership. Be careful about presenting a point/counterpoint, suggesting equivalency of positions. Would it be reasonable to have a televised debate between the west and Al Qaeda?
I dunno. Maybe Al Qaeda / the Vandals and Visigoths / immediately post-Weimar Germany, etc. would be amenable to living in peace if only their demands were met. And it's possible, of course, that in the wake of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Empire could have been brought to the bargaining table and settled for having their dignity respected, or whatever.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not the way to bet.
Oh, and Michael: please add my good wishes for your daughter; I hope she doesn't run into any "peace activists" or Palestinian "heroes".
ReplyDeleteI would disagree about the double and triple standards, hypocrisy, or ignoring worse abuses by others.
ReplyDeleteExcept you do precisely that, when you argue that there's something inappropriate about Israel at times not deferring to the use of human body armor. Penigma did it when he argued that the enforcement of the blockade was illegal, despite the enforcement being precisely in line with international law on the subject (short form: it can't be a "paper" blockade enforced only to seize valuables, and it can't take place in the territorial water of neutrals).
The issue isn't that, say, you think that Hamas firing missiles at kindergartens is okay -- you clearly don't -- but your special rules for the IAF taking out the launchers. (It's not like Hamas doesn't have the option of trying to launch missiles at schools at arrival and dismissal times; I could easily point to several locations in Gaza that are far enough away from civilians that the IAF could smash them without endangering the civilians. They use the HBA -- a war crime -- in order to try to assure that the smashing takes as many civilians along with them as possible.)
Pen goes further, and compares it to the Nazi habit of rounding up civilians and murdering them in response to partisan activities. For the closest analogue to those partisan activities, Israel has done nothing of the kind -- they've struck at military targets, and built both the Gaza and western fences, to keep the self-detonating shahids out. (I may have missed yours and Penigma's applause of the walls, as an alternative to preemption and other strikes against Hamas military targets, of course.)
Joel Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteI dunno. Maybe Al Qaeda / the Vandals and Visigoths / immediately post-Weimar Germany, etc. would be amenable to living in peace if only their demands were met. And it's possible, of course, that in the wake of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Empire could have been brought to the bargaining table and settled for having their dignity respected, or whatever.
But that's not the way to bet."
And yet, I'm going to 'bet' that was NOT the approach Begin and Sadat took to establish the 30 year peace between Israel and Egypt. Egypt at one time was as eager as Hamas is now to continue attacking Israel.
Nor am I suggesting all of Gazas demands be met, but rather that a better way towards peace might be human decency in allowing their living conditions to improve.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/09/95621/israeli-document-gaza-blockade.html
Pen and I disagree on this point, but I am not certain that in the current chaos and deprivation, that the Gazans can get rid of Hamas; the question in my mind is do they or do they not WANT to get rid of them?
Actually, if your real concern is giving the Gazans the possibility of their living conditions improving (they're already above average for the non-oil part of the Arab world, although, granted, less than those of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria and much less than those of the Arabs of Israel), the most urgent need is to remove Hamas, not increase, say, the importation of cement and steel. (We've seen that those don't get used for the sewers that the Gazans so terribly need, but the fuhrerbunkers that their Hamas masters so desparately want.)
ReplyDeleteAs to whether they can remove Hamas, of course they can. Not easily or other than bloodily -- but that's the choice that they made when they voted Hamas in.
As to Camp David, you're still thinking that that was a victory for peace. Among other more serious problems, it's worsened the situation in Gaza. (Absent Egyptian control of the border, there wouldn't be the smuggling tunnels.) It was the triumph of hope; hope, in the long run, lost.
Joel, if I might draw what I think is a better analogy - Gaza is in a similar situation, although possibly not to a similar degree, to Japan after Hiroshima, but before Nagasaki.
ReplyDeleteThere was some dispute as to the necessity of droppng a second atomic bomb, and no apparent need for all six or seven that were in production to be dropped. I appreciate the necessity of dropping the first, less so the necessity of dropping the second to cause Japan to surrender, from the vantage of 20/20 hindsight in history.