Go Israel, Go!

[Kshartle]

lol @ "Dust" - I like it! 

Whooops, I always read it as Dustalow 

[moda0306]

lol @ "Dust" - I like it! 

Whooops, I always read it as Dustalow 

No wonder you think public school teachers are gangsters and pollution is not initiating force.  You're all mixed up .

[Mountaineer]

lol @ "Dust" - I like it! 

Whooops, I always read it as Dustalow 

I thought you were being creative DUalSTow 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I'm against all violence that isn't self defense

Do you eat meat, poultry, or fish (I won't even get into violence on plant life)?    JK, trying to lighten up an impossible situation.

... Mountaineer

Why do you think it's impossible?

Too much baggage and honor at stake in an honor culture (Arabs) vs. law culture (Israel).  Oil and water with no obvious emulsifying agent at hand.

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

Guest: How can Israel defend itself without accusations of disproportionality?

The images of destruction after the battle between the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas that began July 20 in the Shajaiya neighborhood in the Gaza Strip have caused many to declare, in a now-frequent refrain, that the IDF is behaving “disproportionately.”? Some commentators are simply dressing up in sophisticated language their belief that Israel is using excessive force, but others clearly mean to accuse Israel of violating the laws of war — specifically, of violating the doctrine of proportionality. These accusations have no merit.

Shajaiya was not just another neighborhood in Gaza, but rather a crown jewel of Hamas’ effort to intertwine civilians and terrorists to complicate Israel’s ability to defend itself.
...
Israel had three choices in how to deal with Shajaiya. First, it could have decided that it had every right to use overwhelming force to neutralize the neighborhood with air power, ignoring the question of collateral damage to civilians, much like the Allied bombing campaigns of World War II,
...
Second, looking at how Hamas had embedded its military capabilities within civilian neighborhoods, Israel could have decided there was nothing it could do, thus allowing Hamas to strike at Israeli population centers with impunity.
...
Finally, there was the decision that Israel ultimately made: Separate, as much as possible, the civilian population from the Hamas fighters and arms in their midst.
...
It should be recalled that proportionality in international law has a very specific meaning: It refers to the calculation a military commander must make as to whether the military advantage to be gained by the use of force is greater than the probable harm that may be inflicted on the surrounding civilian population. Anyone who complains about “disproportionality”? must explain exactly what the IDF should have done to neutralize the terrorist threat from Shajaiya while causing less destruction than what occurred.

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/20 ... 06xml.html

[Pointedstick]

All force is disproportionate, except in the rare cases of staged and highly regulated sporting events, where the proportionality of force exerted by the combatants is what makes the match exciting. In violent conflicts, the pertinent question is never whether disproportionate force was used (of course it was, duh); the pertinent question is whether this use of force was moral or not. One of the biggest mistakes that liberal-minded people make when it comes to analyzing violence is assuming that the side wielding disproportionate force--and this goes for nation-states as well as people engaged in self-defense--is automatically the aggressor or has lost the moral high ground. BZZT! Wrong.

[dualstow]

Very well said.
I think the only way Israel could really please Britain, Europe, the UN, the world would be to just bend over and take the rockets and tunnels.
Not an option.

[moda0306]

PS,

One could argue there is a fundamental difference between an individual practicing self-defense, and risking being "too harsh" compared to the intentions of an attacker, and a government agent killing civilians in its attempt to kill combatants.  In fact, I'm surprised this isn't your more natural state.  To me, on a base-fundamental level, as soon as ANYONE kills an innocent person to defend themselves against an attacker, they've essentially bitten from the forbidden fruit of initiation of force.

Obviously, in the real world of states, this is a reality that we have to deal with and be pragmatic about if our role is to manage state activities, but if my Muslim neighbor started lobbing grenades at my Jewish neighbor, and the Jewish neighbor killed them and a couple other Muslim neighbors that had no hand in the attack, one wouldn't easily forgive the Jewish neighbor.  And further, those other Muslim neighbors have obtained what most would agree to be a "natural right" to "defend themselves" from the Jewish neighbor.

This is where I kind of have to agree with Kshartle.  We're essentially trying to rewrite the rules of human conduct by look at this as "Israel" vs "Palestine," even though both of these societies identify with their "plight" for the most part, "societies" don't aggress against others.  Individuals do.

Very well said.
I think the only way Israel could really please Britain, Europe, the UN, the world would be to just bend over and take the rockets and tunnels.
Not an option.

Leaving would be another option.  Just leave.  Why live on disputed land in the middle of the desert? 

Oh for religious purposes you say?  As part of your plan to live an eternity in heaven while your enemy suffers an eternity in hell?

Fine... but then don't ask those of us who believe we only have ONE life to maximize our happiness to help.


I'm amazed at how much libertarians or close-to can look at things through statist eyes, and not just for pragmatic purposes, but actually putting emotional and philosophical weight behind how we talk about these things.  "Britain" can't be pleased, as it doesn't exist as an entity that  can feel pleasure.  Nor can "Europe."  Israel cannot please anything consciously, as it doesn't exist as a conscious entity.  Only individuals act.  Obviously, in social contexts, and often state-based contexts, but 1) none of this is forced upon them, directly, and 2) there are plenty of people in Britain, Europe, and the U.S. that just wish people would stop killing people over and/or occupying disputed land like they have a natural right to it.  Individuals might feel "pleasure" by the conscious acts of individual Israelis and individual Palestinians, but that means we have to judge their actions on their individual merits... not through some sort of statist lense.

So what some British politician asks of "Israel" (ie, Netanyahu) is irrelevant to an Israeli's position to 1) occupy (socially/individually, not "legally") disputed land, and 2) kill non-combatant individuals who pray to a different God to defend that claim... rather than just leave.  What Jewish-Americans ask of Palestinian terrorists is irrelevant to a Palestinian family's choice of whether to be violent, or to choose to be peaceful (the former obviously not getting anyone any marginal benefit).

Members of both sides are sealing their fate by either 1) occupying individually disputed lands defended by the "evil state", and 2) killing others to defend that occupation.  It's sad that not more can come from this, but the only thing that can lead to the success for people that deserve it most is to ask INDIVIDUALS to make choices that may be uncomfortable at first to maximize their dedication to peace and happiness.  Let the statists, murderers, and religious zealots hash out anything they are motivated to, while peace-loving individuals find a new place to call home.  It's "easy for me to say," but that is because I haven't clung to the impossible... I look at reality, and base, fundamental morality... And I have only limited patience and respect for those who refuse to.

[Pointedstick]

Moda, I don't really disagree with any of what you've said. I just don't think the anarchist perspective is very useful for looking at history. Basically everything governments have ever done has boiled down to "the initiation of force." It stops serving as a useful observation and tends to muddle things, IMHO. The history of basically every region of the world involves people killing the existing inhabitants and taking their land, or else killing foreigners and taking their stuff, or both. Boiling virtually the sum total of human history down to "people unjustly initiated force against innocents and induced blowback" may be true, but it also removes all the color, vibrancy, and interest from the subject of history itself. Just because people initiated force against one another, in my mind, that doesn't put a full stop on the sentence and remove the need to try to understand just what is exactly going on.

And IMHO it also doesn't help anyone try to sort out the current consequences of such initiations of force in the recent past. Clearly the Israelis and Palestinians aren't going to just get up and leave. There's nowhere else for either of them to go and have their own governments (which each of them clearly wants). All of the land on planet earth is already claimed by some existing government or other.

[dualstow]

(ds to ps:)Very well said.
I think the only way Israel could really please Britain, Europe, the UN, the world would be to just bend over and take the rockets and tunnels.
Not an option.

Leaving would be another option.  Just leave.  Why live on disputed land in the middle of the desert? 

No, why should they leave? Should you leave the United States? They worked very hard to turn that poor quality land into something habitable, for over a century now. They paid dearly for it both in legal purchases and in blood, defending themselves from Arab marauders. How many history books have you read on the subject? I think I'm on my fifth this year, including Palestinian writers.

Oh for religious purposes you say?

No, I do not say. I categorically do not say that, Moda. And as I have written before, the original zionists were not even religious. 

* * *
Some more interesting notes from this year's read, the same one referenced above:
Within a few short years of the founding of Israel, the Arab world emptied itself of its Jews. In some countries the process took a year or two, elsewhere it took a decade. The Jewish community of Yemen had been in place since the days of King Solomon, some 2,950 years ago
...
The next oldest, in Iraq, was at least 2,700 years old and had been the undisputed center of the Jewish world for perhaps 2,000 years. In the whole of humanity, there are ony a few communities that can boast of 2,700 yearss of creative existence, through war, conquest, destruction, famine, and pestilence. And then it was suddenly gone.

The book briefly mentions how war and conquest creates refugees. The partition of India and the creation of Pakistan; the Chinese who left the mainland in '49; the Cuban revolution; the attempted Hungarian revolution; China's taking of Tibet; the Korean War; the pre-Wall flight of East Germans to West Germany...

Back to the Jewish refugees flowing out of Arab lands, Lozowick writes,
What happened next was to complicate severely the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict for many generations: Israel gave the Jewish refugees homes, while the Arabs gave the Palestianians permanent camps.

[Reub]

Is some (a lot) of the anti-Israel talk and protest that has been around recently just
anti-semitism rising to the surface?

[Pointedstick]

Is some (a lot) of the anti-Israel talk and protest that has been around recently just
anti-semitism rising to the surface?

I don't think so. I mostly attribute it to ahistorical and liberal patterns of thought. You know, support the underdog, disproportionate force is bad, Israel is colonialist, etc. No anti-semitism is required to believe any of those things and conclude that the Israelis are basically the ones in the wrong on everything.

[Xan]

http://nypost.com/2014/08/04/europes-ne ... s-the-old/

In France, protesters have stormed synagogues yelling “Hitler was right!”? and “Death to the Jews!”? — apparently forgetting in the heat of the moment that what they’re supposed to be upset by is disproportionate Israeli attacks in Gaza, not that Adolf Hitler didn’t finish the job.

You don’t have to be a German speaker to sense the ugliness in the chant, “Jude, Jude feiges Schwein! Komm heraus und kämpf allein!”? That was the verbal calling card of protesters in Berlin a few weeks ago. Translation: “Jew, Jew, cowardly swine, come out and fight on your own!”?

[Pointedstick]

They've been doing that for years, though. It doesn't seem like it's anything new. And wasn't this ugliness in fact part of the reason why the Europeans were so happy for all their Jews packing up and leaving for a patch of desert halfway around the world?

[Kshartle]

They've been doing that for years, though. It doesn't seem like it's anything new. And wasn't this ugliness in fact part of the reason why the Europeans were so happy for all their Jews packing up and leaving for a patch of desert halfway around the world?

The actions of the Israeli government contribute to the missplaced haterd of Jews all over the world. The Israeli government is probably their worst enemy just like the worst enemy of any people is the government officials that claim to represent them.

Do you guys really think the Pals have better propaganda? There is a reason they have easily won this PR battle. I think the extent of the victory is being concealed from the Americans because the media is strongly pro-Israeli. The lopsided nature of the fighting and justification for the attack has made it impossible for the TV news stations to ignore the suffering of the Pals. It's been impossible for them to ignore the anti-Israeli demostrations worldwide. Even the US politicians who get money and support from AIPAC have been critical. It's quite remarkable and a first as far as I can remember.

The true success of the attacks will I guess be measured in the reelection rates for the Israeli politicians.

[Kshartle]

Is some (a lot) of the anti-Israel talk and protest that has been around recently just
anti-semitism rising to the surface?

I think Reub it has to do with 2k dead civillans including lots of children huddling is makeshift shelters, all at the hands of a professional Army. Hundreds of thousands fleeing their shattered homes is a contributor also.

Of course they are only need to do this 500 more times to reach the US total in Iraq.

Good thing Democracies are so awesome.

[dualstow]

Is some (a lot) of the anti-Israel talk and protest that has been around recently just
anti-semitism rising to the surface?

Some, Reub. There's nothing inherently antisemitic about criticizing Israel, & it should go without saying. Just like criticizing Russia doesn't mean one hates Russians. But lets face the facts. People around the world hate Jews, and when they see the bloody dead and dying Palestinian innocents -- never mind that Jews find it tragic along with everyone else -- they're going to glom on.

You won't find them protesting in the streets against the Syrian civil war, I'll tell you that.

KShartle wrote:
The actions of the Israeli government contribute to the missplaced haterd of Jews all over the world.

That is superficially true, but A) Israel is one of the greatest things that happened to Jews all over the world because it somehow absorbed all those (surviving)Jews fleeing Europe and Arab lands, doubling its size (like pasta!) in the process. B) It really is misplaced hatred, but not just because of the disconnect between Jews outside Israel and Israel's government. No, it is because Israel's government did what it needed to do, and all that hatred created out of the death of those kids should be directed at Hamas.
----

Do you guys really think the Pals have better propaganda?

I think that too many people, especially millennials, are too stupid and lazy to look beyond photos and youtube to find out what's going on. You see bloody kids on the beach, you know Israel fired the missiles, you know Israel doesn't have many casualties, seems like an open and shut case. No time, energy or brain power can be spared for a 12 Angry Men type analysis.

[Kshartle]

Do you guys really think the Pals have better propaganda?

I think that too many people, especially millennials, are too stupid and lazy to look beyond photos and youtube to find out what's going on. You see bloody kids on the beach, you know Israel fired the missiles, you know Israel doesn't have many casualties, seems like an open and shut case. No time, energy or brain power can be spared for a 12 Angry Men type analysis.

So it begs the question dualstow.......how are these offensives going to help the Israeli government in the long run? There is widespread support for them in Israel but my God does anyone think the Israelis is better off or worse off now? What about Hamas?

Israel will have to give in at some point and make major concessions if there is ever going to be peace. I think that seems obvious. The alternative will be to slaughter and drive out all the Pals but the world will not allow that. As time goes on the international pressure will put the Israeli government in a worse position. Better to work towards it now on their own terms than have it forced. I don't think the people will hold them accountable any time soon.

Anyway, it's a very sad affair all around. I am optomistic that if they can get a few generations of relative peace and get economic trade going and more prosperity in Gaza then in the very long run, long after we're dead.......there will be peace.

[dualstow]

So it begs the question dualstow.......how are these offensives going to help the Israeli government in the long run?

Actually, it invites the question, as begging the question is a little different but I won't quibble.    Patrick Tyler repeats the same error in 'Fortress Israel.' I'll let you call me Dusty if you allow me that little nitpick.

The answer is of course that these offensives are not going to help the government in the long run. All the more reason to believe that they didn't want this war. But, the other choice was to leave the tunnels as they were and let Hamas massacre Israelis and do Zod knows what over there. Better to save Israeli lives than futilely cling to what little popularity they have left around the world.

It is a sad affair all around- I definitely agree with you.
Looking at the future, well, I think I agree with this guy:
http://is.gd/KA0fA3 ( 'Israel's Bind' at Slate )

[Benko]

The answer is of course that these offensives are not going to help the government in the long run.

Counterpoint:

August 5, 2014 4:00 AM
A Stronger Israel?
Elite opinion believes Israel will lose “long-term”? whatever happens in the next weeks. Not necessarily.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Don't know where the original comes from buy posted here:http://forum.dansimmons.com/ubbthreads/ ... Post156609

[moda0306]

Moda, I don't really disagree with any of what you've said. I just don't think the anarchist perspective is very useful for looking at history. Basically everything governments have ever done has boiled down to "the initiation of force." It stops serving as a useful observation and tends to muddle things, IMHO. The history of basically every region of the world involves people killing the existing inhabitants and taking their land, or else killing foreigners and taking their stuff, or both. Boiling virtually the sum total of human history down to "people unjustly initiated force against innocents and induced blowback" may be true, but it also removes all the color, vibrancy, and interest from the subject of history itself. Just because people initiated force against one another, in my mind, that doesn't put a full stop on the sentence and remove the need to try to understand just what is exactly going on.

And IMHO it also doesn't help anyone try to sort out the current consequences of such initiations of force in the recent past. Clearly the Israelis and Palestinians aren't going to just get up and leave. There's nowhere else for either of them to go and have their own governments (which each of them clearly wants). All of the land on planet earth is already claimed by some existing government or other.

When dealing with the pragmatism involved in dealing with public policy in the U.S., Europe, etc, you definitely are probably shooting yourself in the foot to look at things from an ultra-individualist perspective.

Israel & Palestine are different.  There is no reasonable solution that I can see at a state-level.  If I was a policy-maker for either state, I'd be dumbfounded.

Which means that people... individuals... are now having to make a decision based on an unwinnable situation if they stay.  So I think looking at this from an ultra-individualist perspective is really the ONLY way to look at it.  The state-based perspective offers no solutions.  We have to move from that.  There's an unwinnable situation if any party stays and fights, and therefore we're dealing with people willing to die/kill/vote-for-others-to-kill for a piece of disputed land rights, which I think those people have to take some ownership of that choice, and move to a more peaceful, avoidant solution for them and their families.  And anyone left over, while still tragic, is simply too stubborn to avoid violence, so our moral obligation to "worry" about them drops considerably... similar to the guy who parks his car with the engine running for 6 hours in the ghetto.  He doesn't DESERVE to have it stolen, but he certainly isn't going to get sympathy from me.

Now if you think the situation isn't hopeless on some level, I'd love to hear your ideas... but if you agree with me that it's pretty hopeless, now we've lost all "pragmatism" by looking at things at  a state/societal level, and we have to acknowledge it from the individualist perspective...

At least that's the way I'm kind of seeing it.

[dualstow]

The answer is of course that these offensives are not going to help the government in the long run.

Counterpoint:

August 5, 2014 4:00 AM
A Stronger Israel?
Elite opinion believes Israel will lose “long-term”? whatever happens in the next weeks. Not necessarily.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Don't know where the original comes from buy posted here:http://forum.dansimmons.com/ubbthreads/ ... Post156609

National Review

[Pointedstick]

When dealing with the pragmatism involved in dealing with public policy in the U.S., Europe, etc, you definitely are probably shooting yourself in the foot to look at things from an ultra-individualist perspective.

Israel & Palestine are different.  There is no reasonable solution that I can see at a state-level.  If I was a policy-maker for either state, I'd be dumbfounded.

This is perhaps where we disagree. I actually see plenty of good solutions.

Possibly good solutions from the Israeli perspective:
1. Immediately pull out of Gaza and end the blockade. Tell them they can have their own state and will be treated accordingly. If they lob rockets at Israel, it will be considered an act of war and met with retaliatory airstrikes or invasions.

2. Immediately pull of of the unoccupied portions of the West Bank and give them the same deal. Keep territory that is full of settlers. Offer a treaty forever recognizing the new West Bank state and not interfering in its affairs in exchange for keeping the existing settlement territory.


Possibly good solutions from the Palestinian perspective:
1. Unconditionally recognize Israel's right to exist and control the territory that is not occupied/in dispute.

2. Offer to fully dismantle all the weapons infrastructure and agree to Israeli/international/U.N/whatever inspections to confirm this.

3. Give up the Right of Return forever. It's gone. They're going to have to live with what territory they already have. Israel doesn't want a bunch more Arabs in Israel.

4. In exchange for 1, 2, and 3, demand the independence of the territory they already control. That means Gaza and the un-Israeli-settled parts of the West Bank. Be content with this because it's way better than nothing, and at least they will have their own government and won't have to live under the thumb of military rule by people they hate.

[Mountaineer]

Sounds reasonable.  However, it will happen only when the snowball does not melt in that place doodle refuses to acknowledge. 

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

Sounds reasonable.  However, it will happen only when the snowball does not melt in that place doodle refuses to acknowledge. 

... Mountaineer

Right now they are choosing violence over reasonablness. The rest of the world will probably impose this once the US becomes completely impotent.