General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsi've never been less convinced by the Israeli argument for war
the arguments are very similar, and I'm listening to them now as I always do, whether it's liberals or right-wingers making the arguments. I never totally reject them, they do strike a chord with me.
But this time, way less than previously. I'm not sure why. Is this round of assaults different, did they come about in a different way? Or is it all the same and my thinking is just changing.
Anyway, I'm hearing the arguments and they just seem like the weakest thing I've ever heard. I was listening to Dennis Prager this morning and instead of mentally answering his arguments like I might normally do, this time i just thought, "is that all they've got?"
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)As the far right in Israel gains more power they are getting bolder and more capricious. That anyone here on DU would defend people from Likud betrays immense ignorance or outs them as a right winger.
enid602
(8,620 posts)Unfortunately, blaming the situation just on the Israeli Right does not give the complete picture. The Religious Right and Evangelicals here in the US have expedited the rise of the right in Israel. Those 'On Wings of Eagles' programs we would always see on religious channels here in the US while channel surfing were meant to send Jews from foreign countries to Israel. The effect of this effort was to send hundreds of thousands of Jews from the former Soviet Union to Israel. More conservative and orthodox than the more secular and educated Israelis, the newcomers were more likely to set up illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and voted Likud. They did not fit in easily in Israel's high tech economy, and have been more radical in their thinking. Did you notice that while Obama and Kerry were scrambling trying to arrange a ceasefire, Netanyahu called into a Religious Right confab here in the States.
As an American, I wish we could blame this impossible situation on the Israelis. But our name is all over it.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)Western influence and esp the religious right are important aspects of this and shouldn't be understated.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Every time right wingers seize control of a country war follows.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is insane. Backing right wingers is insane.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)I think the warmongers and authoritarians also love the right-wing Israeli politicians because they get to do what the right wing here wishes they could do.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)This is not the first time. The gruesome images of decapitated children’s bodies and stolen innocence on Gaza’s shores are a dreadful repeat of Israel’s assault on Gaza in November 2012 and winter 2008–09. Not only are the military tactics the same but so too are the public relations efforts and the faulty legal arguments that underpin the attacks. Mainstream media news anchors are inexplicably accepting these arguments as fact.
Enrique
(27,461 posts) Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Here's how it goes: Israel announces they're expanding settlments in the West Bank (in flagrant violation of international law, let's remember). Hamas launch a rocket attack after the announcement. Israel then announce massive and disproportionate retaliation against Gaza (the death toll from all of the Palestinian rocket attacks since 2001? 28); Israel's "crack a walnut with a sledgehammer" approach only serves to create new "martyrs" and convince more Palestinians that violent resistance is the only option; the Israelis withdraw having made their point, and there's quiet for a bit...and then they announce yet another round of settlement expansions, rinse and repeat.
And yet somehow through all of this it's Israel that's the victim, in their own eyes and those of their American supporters.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)settlements, land. All that beach front property. Israel needs it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and the actions of insurgents, rebels and others engaged in asymmetric warfare as unjustified. Our own history is rife with blatant oppression and destruction of indigenous cultures, and since we think of ourselves as the "good guys" we have internalized the belief that such behavior is, at worse, "regrettable but necessary."
The Israelis are the "good guys" in American's internalized narrative, so whatever they do is likewise justified.
Struggling against oppression is, ironically, very un-American.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is a tragedy that so many cannot (or refuse) to see it.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ask almost anyone if he or she would knowingly kill a child for whatever cause, religion, country, and most will say no. Or, they will produce rationalizations or hypothetical situations to justify it.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)The right wing influence in Israel will never permit the citizens of Gaza to live in anything but poverty and hopelessness, conditions that breed extremism, which in turn increases support for the right wing government. Ultimately they want the land for settlements, and will take their time and gin-up excuses based on the actions of extremists to gradually take over and colonize the land.
clarice
(5,504 posts)
malaise
(269,065 posts)with lots of good posts
Rec
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)You haven't been on the receiving end of 2200 missiles fired by Hamas who has sworn to kill every Jew worldwide.
Minor technicality.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Hamas's official offer of a truce with Israel from Ahmed Yousef:
By AHMED YOUSEF
Originally Published: November 1, 2006 in the New York Times
"Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya."
"HERE in Gaza, few dream of peace. For now, most dare only to dream of a lack of war. It is for this reason that Hamas proposes a long-term truce during which the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can try to negotiate a lasting peace.
A truce is referred to in Arabic as a ''hudna.'' Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences. The Koran finds great merit in such efforts at promoting understanding among different people. Whereas war dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill, a hudna affords the opportunity to humanize one's opponents and understand their position with the goal of resolving the intertribal or international dispute.
Such a concept -- a period of nonwar but only partial resolution of a conflict -- is foreign to the West and has been greeted with much suspicion. Many Westerners I speak to wonder how one can stop the violence without ending the conflict.
I would argue, however, that this concept is not as foreign as it might seem. After all, the Irish Republican Army agreed to halt its military struggle to free Northern Ireland from British rule without recognizing British sovereignty. Irish Republicans continue to aspire to a united Ireland free of British rule, but rely upon peaceful methods. Had the I.R.A. been forced to renounce its vision of reuniting Ireland before negotiations could occur, peace would never have prevailed. Why should more be demanded of the Palestinians, particularly when the spirit of our people will never permit it?
When Hamas gives its word to an international agreement, it does so in the name of God and will therefore keep its word. Hamas has honored its previous cease-fires, as Israelis grudgingly note with the oft-heard words, ''At least with Hamas they mean what they say.''
This offer of hudna is no ruse, as some assert, to strengthen our military machine, to buy time to organize better or to consolidate our hold on the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, faith-based political movements in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Turkey and Yemen have used hudna-like strategies to avoid expanding conflict. Hamas will conduct itself just as wisely and honorably.
We Palestinians are prepared to enter into a hudna to bring about an immediate end to the occupation and to initiate a period of peaceful coexistence during which both sides would refrain from any form of military aggression or provocation. During this period of calm and negotiation we can address the important issues like the right of return and the release of prisoners. If the negotiations fail to achieve a durable settlement, the next generation of Palestinians and Israelis will have to decide whether or not to renew the hudna and the search for a negotiated peace.
There can be no comprehensive solution of the conflict today, this week, this month, or even this year. A conflict that has festered for so long may, however, be resolved through a decade of peaceful coexistence and negotiations. This is the only sensible alternative to the current situation. A hudna will lead to an end to the occupation and create the space and the calm necessary to resolve all outstanding issues.
Few in Gaza dream. For most of the past six months it's been difficult to even sleep. Yet hope is not dead. And when we dare to hope, this is what we see: a 10-year hudna during which, inshallah (God willing), we will learn again to dream of peace.
Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya. "
_______________________
And these comments regarding Hamas from Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami:
"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.
And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.
Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible. "
link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...is that iron dome has effectively neutered the threat posed by these rockets. This is why you're here trying to make hay over "rockets fired," instead of "Israelis killed."
Your argument amounts to justifying the killing of over eight hundred people to salve bruised pride.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)that are perfectly capable of being wrong on their own. We saw it before our unprovoked war against Iraq. Many people are perfectly capable of falling for transparent bullshit and passing it on as fact, without being part of an organization or conspiracy.
JI7
(89,252 posts)the contrast in their rhetoric when talking about how horrible the danger is of being wiped out by enemies all around.
and when there was the temporary suspension of airlines they started going on about how safe it travel there .
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)of their aggression and lack of good will.
Israel, since it's inception, has never accepted Palestine and has always intended to stealth their real estate.
JI7
(89,252 posts)years ago.
but this is something that is continuing today and the palestinians lack freedom. some people bring up native americans but it's not a good comparison because while there are some reservations native americans are still free to leave them and have every right that the rest of the country has. the comparison would only work if native americans were not allowed to leave the reservations while at the same time non natives were still building settlements on those reservations.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And turn it over to the Palestinians. Because they want to steal their land.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Not to worry, they stole other land for those that needed to be relocated to build the big cage of starvation for those lesser than human. No squatters were harmed in the process, only the animals, rejoice!! It was a success.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As occupying power, Israel is obligated to provide security and infrastructure to the people it occupies. of course Israel has been trying to avoid doing this for generations now. The only reason israel bothered in Gaza at all was because "real people" - Jews - lived there. Being primarily lower-income and staunchly religious communities, the Israeli settlements in Gaza didn't make the cut in a cost-benefit analysis. it was cheaper to relocate them into the west bank, than it was to keep things going in Gaza.
So Israel "pulled out" of Gaza - sort of, really what it did is removed internal security and smashed all the infrastructure it could in the timeframe, all while maintaining absolute control of borders, sea, and air - and is now pretending Gaza is an "independent and unoccupied" territory that Israel has no obligations toward, but every right to blow up every time Likud finds itself in a political pickle.
Only problem is, Gaza nad west bank are not separate entities, so israel can't claim it is only occupying hte one (especially as its continued control over gaza clearly desmonstrates occupation of that part of Palestine as well).
Israel "withdrew" from Gaza to cut costs internally, and in an attempt to abandon its legal obligations as occupying power. More ht former than the latter because really, Israel hasn't given a shit about International Law since May 31, 1967 - and even then it was iffy.
