1. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    14 Aug '14 13:471 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Here's what I posted in an abandoned thread on the topic (it was ignored that time so I expect the same again)
    Israel wants quiet, wants the Palestinians to be nice and quiet and nonviolent, the way Nicholas Kristof urges. And then what will Israel do? We don’t have to guess. It’s what they have been doing, and they’ll continue, as long as there’s n ...[text shortened]... hey’ll continue doing, just as they have been, as long as the United States supports it.
    I completely echo what SG said, but just for kicks...

    ===Israel wants quiet, wants the Palestinians to be nice and quiet and nonviolent===

    Yes! Correct!

    ===What they’re doing is, briefly, taking over whatever they want, whatever they see as of value in the West Bank,===

    Not really. Other than expansion of existing communities by building houses to accommodate natural growth, settlement of the WB is pretty much done.

    === leaving Palestinians in essentially unviable cantons, pretty much imprisoned;====

    No, not really.All non-settlement territory in the WB is contiguous.

    === separating the West Bank from Gaza in violation of the solemn commitments of the Oslo Accords;===

    It would sure be nice if both sides followed the spirit and letter of Oslo. Yeah. That would be nice.

    === keeping Gaza under siege and on a diet; ===

    Diet implies food shortage, of which there is none (except perhaps in some areas in times of conflict). Siege, perhaps, by both Israel AND Egypt, an unfortunate necessity given the major import and export of Hamas.

    ===meanwhile, incidentally, taking over the Golan Heights, already annexed in violation of explicit Security Council orders;===

    Already done a long time ago. In any case, the Golan is between Israel and Syria, though I think Syria has more important things to worry about just now.

    === vastly expanding Jerusalem way beyond any historical size,===

    Yes. Cities expand. I hear New York now goes north of Wall Street unlike in 1624.

    === huge infrastructure projects, which make it possible for people living in the nice hills of the West Bank to get to Tel Aviv in a few minutes without seeing any Arabs. ===

    Plenty of Arabs live in Jerusalem. If you don't want to see any Arabs in Jerusalem, I suggest you not get into a cab or enter a store or walk on a street.

    ===That’s what they’ll continue doing, just as they have been, as long as the United States supports it.===

    The United States could and should push Israel harder for peace. But the lack of a viable peace partner (Abbas too weak and Hamas too uninterested) makes things difficult.
  2. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Aug '14 18:21
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    I think a post like that gets ignored, like so many posts from either side of this debate, for all that it leaves out, for being so one sided. For one thing, it leaves out that we also do not have to guess what Hamas will do. Briefly, they will keep trying to kill Israelis. No matter what concessions or compromise they get from Israel, they will keep tr ...[text shortened]... ly situation, but if it comes down to choosing a side, and it does, then I hope Israel prevails.
    1, 2 and 4 are hardly contentious though some blockheads still contend from ignorance. 3, is unrealistic and missing much of the point to what is happening.

    Why do you think it might be "too uncomfortable" to note objections to Hamas actions and policies? I supplied a journalist's commentary on the rockets earlier which, you may note, came out against them. One can argue with Hamas on moral, legal, political and military grounds. Many Palestinians do, while others still support them. I am not sure what the outcome would be of a new election in Gaza. I am not especially interested in Hamas and have nothing of great note to say about the "nature / culture of the beast."

    You see you are framing this conflict on dubious lines, which lead you into an untenable position. Hamas are not the Palestinian people and not even the people of Gaza, though they do appear to be Palestinian people belonging to Gaza and not (as RJHines for example has suggested a few times) imports from another place.

    More importantly, Hamas are not the threat to Israel that is alleged to be the reason for this current conflict. They are the pretext. Israel has an ongoing, expansionist "Greater Israel" project which was clearly proclaimed in the Israeli election by Likud and its coalition partners. If Hamas did not exist, they would have to be invented.

    This matters when you proclaim that "it comes down to choosing a side" which "will defeat the other" side. The IDF are not engaged in a sick game of soccer with Hamas. Rather, the state of Israel is persisting in expansionist policies to the detriment of the Palestinian people and in breach of the decisions of the UN and the Oslo agreements. When you say of this conflict that there are two sides, let us identify correctly what the two sides might be:

    On one side, Israel has international recognition and UN support for its peaceful existence within the defined (1967) borders while the Palestinians have the right to their own territory on the West Bank and in Gaza.

    On the other side is a Greater Israel project in which the Palestinians have no viable future.

    I hope the first side wins. I favour law over violence and justice over genocide.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Aug '14 19:41
    Originally posted by finnegan to SleepyGuy
    1, 2 and 4 are hardly contentious though some blockheads still contend from ignorance. 3, is unrealistic and missing much of the point to what is happening.

    Why do you think it might be "too uncomfortable" to note objections to Hamas actions and policies? I supplied a journalist's commentary on the rockets earlier which, you may note, came ...[text shortened]... le future.

    I hope the first side wins. I favour law over violence and justice over genocide.
    "If Hamas did not exist, they would have to be invented (by Israel for propaganda purposes)."
    --Finnegan

    Again, Israel initially *quietly supported* Hamas against the secular PLO
    because it aimed to weaken the PLO above all and was hoped (with some
    success) to provoke discord and conflict among the Palestinians. I note
    that the supporters of Israel who like to cry 'Hamas!' as an all-purpose
    'justification' for everything done (including before Hamas existed!) by
    Israel against the Palestinians prefer to ignore the fact that Israel has
    *not always* opposed Hamas unconditionally.

    I suspect that most, if not about all, supporters of Israel don't care about
    historical context or international law. (I note with disdain that they tend
    to have no inhibitions about reiterating anti-historical pro-Israeli myths.)
    These people tend to perceive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a subset of
    a cataclysmic great conflict between the Judeo-Christian West and Islam,
    and their allegiance is tribal. They support Israel (led by Ashkenazi Jews)
    for being a perceived member of the same tribe, standing against the Other.
Back to Top