Hamas rejects yet another ceasefire. (July 26, 19:00 EST)
It’s not surprising since it gives them a chance to have more “murdered” innocents displayed on the news.
If Hamas accepted the ceasefire or stopped launching/stowing its missiles in civilian areas, they’d lose the media war and not just the ‘real’ war.
Does Hamas stash its weapons among civilians? What do you think?
Wait a minute . . . late breaking news: Israel will unilaterally honour the ceasefire. Hamas must be disappointed.
So now the palestinans don’t really love their children enough? :rolleyes:
Denmark had an empire
So did the USA- Philippines finally freed in 1946.
Britain stole its empire from highly populated areas and freed them eventually allowing them to be Independent countries. In the US they stole the barely populated land from Native Americans, herded them into reservations and continue to occupy the stolen lands.
But seriously, given how evil all countries have been in the past, perhaps we should base assessments on current practice.
I recently read Farley Mowat’s book about arctic exploration, Ordeal by Ice. He mentioned in passing that the Danish colonizers of Greenland set up missionary posts to distribute food to Inuit in case the Inuit starved, effectively setting up the welfare state that exists in Greenland to this day. IOW, it’s hard to get too outraged about their colonial practices.
Missed the edit: I just noticed the slave trading on your wiki link. I would concede that slave trading is worthy of outrage.
I hope you are not excusing the slave trading in the Danish West Indies.
Sorry, saw your reply too late.
Actually, he called them war criminals and fools. Which phrasing, while a rather fair description of the Nazis, is a rather broader category than “moral equivalent of the Nazis.”
Also, he called for an arms embargo on Israel.
I’m not sure he’s right, objectively, but I guess I partly agree with him. (Not that my ignorant opinion means anything.)
The dominant party in Israel’s government is still Likud. Likud (as far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong here) still seeks in its charter and as part of its premise the annexation of Judea & Samaria (a.k.a. “the West Bank”), and of Gaza (still?), and unification of the “Whole Country of Israel” under one ethnically Jewish state capitaled in Jerusalem.
If the government is pursuing that as a matter of policy, that conflicts with maintaining a large Palestinian population in those areas. So far they seem to offer some concessions to a Labor-negotiated Two-State Solution, because that’s politics. But it’s not consistent with their constituents’ definition of what Israel is supposed to be.
So, let me suggest that Likud has a point. A One-State Solution would leave Israel with a better geopolitical position than would the official treaty borders they don’t stay in now anyway. (I’m leaving aside appeals to a mythic divine grant to ancient Israel that may not be supported for this particular bunch of sons of Israel by the relevant divinity at our point in history assuming such divinity even exists.) But they’re not moving toward that. In order to remove the Palestinian “threat” one of three kinds of approach is necessary:
Elimination of enough of the Palestinian electorate to keep them from power. That* would *be comparable to Hitler’s plans, and can be of the following four subforms:
_ a. General disenfranchisement; Palestinians could live in the country, but neither vote nor own property. Probably seen as too dangerous.
_ b. Enslavement. May as well go whole hog, right? Probably would be too intolerable for everyone involved.
_ c. Extermination (somehow). Yeah, that’s going to go over well…
_ d. Imprisonment of much of the Palestinian population (somehow).
Repatriation of the Palestinians, which can further be divided into two approaches:
_ a. Compensated repatriation, on the theory that if the state takes your land and livelihood through no fault of your own, it owes you fair value.
_ b. Uncompensated repatriation–which went over so well the last time! :rolleyes:
Somehow converting/reëducating the Palestinians into “good Israelis,” either by
_ a. Mass proselytization! (Yeah, sure, as if.)
_ b. Redefining “good Israeli” such that a Gentile can be one. This has been seriously proposed by various Israeli leftists. One way was to build Israeli identity around the Hebrew language. (Kind of the opposite of what’s happening lately, though.)
.
My ideal solution would be 2a—compensated repatriation. It would not be easy, but it would be sane.
I think the USA would have to fund it. We already spend ~$3 bilion/yr on Israel, much of which actually goes directly to USA munitions companies. I’m one of those reckless progressives who’s willing to cut off the corrupt kickbacks to folks who manufacture high explosives,[sup]*[/sup] but failing that, fine, let’s spend ~$10 billion/yr for a little while instead. We’re that rich, whatever.
First, we should pay families displaced in the Nakba for their lost livelihoods (this would be outrageous as a lump sum, but we can arrange installments over a decade or two). Palestinians are just clannish enough that it’s actually reasonable to identify present day families with those displaced in the 1940’s. (Yay for patrilineal inheritance and cousin marriage?)
Then, we should offer a generous bonus to anyone leaving and resettling somewhere. As much as I would love (dearly, dearly love) to strongarm some Gulf emirates into granting full citizenship to a few million Palestinians, a lot of this is going to have to be to Egypt, Jordan, and various Western countries. (I think there’s a modestly large Palestinian community in Chile now.)
Insanely expensive? Well, let’s estimate a half-million households getting a million dollars apiece–that’s about $500 billion-- spread out over thirty years, that’s $16 billion/yr. Yeah, we can actually swing that.
And Likud can get the “Whole Land of Israel” relatively nicely and peaceably. A few malcontents will fight it, and be forcibly exiled, imprisoned or killed.
.
Now, what’s actually going on now is a sort of 1d—imprisonment in the interest of disenfranchisement, mixed with a None of the Above—Two-State Solution. And in its present form, the Jewish/Israeli people aren’t getting to use Gaza either, and it’s falling apart. Right now, according to one report I read, the populace of Gaza is using an aquifer that’ll be functionally gone in 2016. And they’re blockaded. So they’re desperate.
The Israeli response is puzzling to me. (Or rather, it’s not that puzzling, because I’m a giant cynic who expects people to be often stupid and sometimes malicious. But it still is a puzzle.)
First, the Israelis are “punishing” Gaza for voting the wrong way, even though turning the screws only makes the Palestinians angrier at Israel (not only in Gaza but in the West Bank and in exile). So Gaza doesn’t get enough water for its people, and its farmland is taken away. And yet, no repatriation, no movement out, instead blockade. What are they thinking?
(What I’m most reminded of is the way Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti rerouted the Tigris and Euphrates and destroyed most of the delta marshes. This was ostensibly meant as modernization, but he was accused of doing to hurt those who opposed him in that region. Of course, nothing the Israelis have done in Gaza since pulling out has the modernization excuse.)
Now, a few fringe militants (who may not be part of the government or ruling party) fire a few rockets. Some kids are murdered (by someone). The Israeli government blames the Gaza government, decides to respond with its own rockets first, kills a few hundred Palestinians for every Jew. The rationality of this is not immediately obvious. Only then does it send in a ground invasion.
The end result? Israel’s government is now seen internationally as the party of disproportionate response and of strafing children on beaches. There are of course already conspiracy theories that Mossad agents murdered the Israeli kids to trump up a casus belli. And given how “truthers” are, and the apparent disregard for human rights in the recent engagement, in a little while more people around the world will believe that than whatever the truth is.
Likud has some explaining to do.
Of course their apologists will say that this is necessary, yada yada yada, but it seems like either a serious of silly strategic missteps or, um, Captain Amazing’s straw man has a point.
Um… In closing, Vote Labor?
.
[sup]*[/sup] I don’t have kids, and I’m past my own youth enough to fear assassination less. What are they going to do, poison my sister’s kids?
Is it the Baha’i? I hear there are Baha’i in Israel. Maybe Samaritans? Communists? Who?
Because it’s not Likud and it’s not Hamas, either if neither of them are the worst bad guys in the current mess.
And this is based on your deep understanding of the local situation?
Or are you starting an “ignorant guys’ opinions” betting pool? If so, what’s my minimum bet, and do I have to pick a single year for total collapse of the present order, or can it be a three-year range?
Which doesn’t say anything about whether or not any proportion of Jewish people are in fact at least slightly “more loyal” to the state of Israel than to the United Kingdom (and I have no idea on what the proportion is there, but the Crown is a Christian by law, so probably non-neglible).
Nor what “more loyal” means.
It’s a silly leading question designed to make anti-Jewish sentiment look larger than it is. Most Jews, historically, are not completely invested in the nationalism of Christian kingdoms. Yes, of course some Jews will identify with their cultural identity over their country of residence. So what?
So a hypothetical Jewish Brit’s loyalty to the UK might be 45%, while his loyalty to Jewry as a people might be 88%, his “loyalty” (or affinity, considering he’s not actively a settler) to Israel might be a mostly theoretical 57%, and his loyalty to the faction running Israel’s government might be 0%. And political disagreements with that faction might drop his practical allegiance/affinity to Israel’s present course of action to 33%.
None of this makes him a “despicable foreigner” except to chauvinistic loons, and supposing that more than a small fraction of Jews are at 57% affinity instead of 33% affinity does not make the person supposing an “anti-Semite.”
Good grief. Nice low bar for “anti-Semitism” you set there. Clearly if I guess (however rightly or wrongly) that many black people are pan-Africanists or Obama voters I am an anti-Black. If I guess that many women are feminists I am a misogynist.
e_e (I miss the old rolleyes gif.)
Well, ‘good’ is a term with arguably little meaning in this context, but I find it bizarre that anyone would draw any sort of moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Consider for a moment what would happen if either side had a ‘Perfect’ weapon; that is to say, a weapon which did no damage to infrastructure and killed only those the owner wanted dead, no collateral damage. How would the Israelis use it? Who would die if they did? Well, we can safely say that the upper echelons of Hamas would definitely go, as would any terrorist financiers, recruiters, and militants actively preparing for martyrdom. How about anybody else? Would the Israelis use the weapon to deliberately target innocent non-combatants? Can anyone realistically visualise this? I certainly can’t. After all, the Israelis have the power to kill everyone in Gaza with the touch of a button. Indeed, they’ve had that power for years, but they’ve never exercised it. We can safely say that Israeli use of the perfect weapon would be remarkable only in it’s specificity.
Now, how about the Palestinians? How would they use it? Well, as luck would have it, we already know the answer to this question. From the official charter of Hamas:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."
This quote, originally from the Hadith, is an explicit exhortation to genocide, and it is in no way out of keeping with the rest of the charter. It follows that Palestinian use of the ‘Perfect’ weapon would be somewhat less discriminating, especially in light of the fact that Palestinian militant tactics hinge on the targeting of civilians, and such methods have a high degree of popular support among ordinary Palestinians.
Ergo, while neither side can be described as ‘good’, given the long history of this conflict, the Israelis are, by any popular definition, better.
Sometimes the best answer to a rocket is something other than 1000x more rockets. It’s not like Israel doesn’t have tanks on the border. I don’t know what the strategic and tactical necessities were in this case, but the optics (strafing children, and as usual demolishing homes) are hurting the Israeli government’s reputation.
That would be lovely. And maybe a coup-not-called-a-coup to remove the parts of Hamas that actually buy into the “All Jews are evil” line. It worked in Egypt, yes? [This paragraph probably reads sarcastic, so I note that I am entirely serious.]
Malacandra, you’re a nice old Martian, but I think Guin is Irish-American. You may have lost the Britain hijack.
I guess USA radio media is using that line?
…I’ve been reading up (a little) on this war, and I have no idea what exactly is going on with that.
I suppose they could be. But I’ve also seen claims that the first rockets could have been some other self-declared militia and not the government. There’s a lot of noise out there, and I’m taking most of it with a grain of salt for now.
Doctor_Why_Bother, can we please not hold entire ethnic categories of people responsible for the behavior of parties and governments? Hamas is the ruling party in the smaller part of Palestine, not the same as all Palestinians. Likud is the ruling party in Israel, and not the same as all Israelis. Can we maybe talk about the actual organizations?
I’m guilty of using national-group shorthand too, but your words kind of went “racial generalization” just there, and that’s part of the problem.
To clarify, it was just intended as shorthand. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
Some Jewish guy in Britain does a YouTube video and it’s supposed to provoke a dramatic reassessment of Israel v. Palestine.
Polling has shown that more than half of Britons support a return of the death penalty.
What about those Brave Britons?
Calling a Jewish MP, probably in the top ten most known Jews, some Jewish guy is amusing.
There may be a small majority in favour of judicial killing, but they fail to elect enough MPs to legislate this as we are a representative, not direct democracy.
Of course if we did enact such a law, we would be in breach of a treaty obligation of some seventy or so years to abide by the European Convention; if we chose to do this it would lead to a massive financial crisis. Even Russia is forced to comply to these rules!
The cool voice of reason?
People who agree with you - reasonable.
People who disagree with you - unreasonable.
That word… I do not think it means what you think it means.
You think it reasonable to threaten death to a pop star expressing an opinion?
No. But neither do I see some kiddie star’s tweeting as being “the cool voice of reason”.
This is not the hairstyle of wisdom.
I’m shocked by the reaction Zayn Malik got. The pro Israeli bias in the UK must be deep indeed, if it can overcome the characteristically calm and level-headed demeanor of One Direction fans.
/Zayn%20Malik/zayn-malik-1a.jpg){kind=link}