Michael C. Moynihan | January 12, 2009
Over at Harvard's Olin Center Middle East Strategy blog, Brookings Institution scholar Daniel Byman is puzzled by Israel's endgame strategy (if one exists) in its ground operation in the Gaza Strip. Amongst most mainstream commenters, there is little doubt as to whether or not Israel is morally justified in defending its citizens from Hamas rockets attacks—there is the issue of proportionality, of course, and more on that below—but it's an open issue as to whether or not its military response will further radicalize and already radical population. As Byman says, "Part of Israel's lesson from its war in Lebanon in 2006 and its withdrawals from Gaza in 2005 and before that in Lebanon in 2000 was that it did not hit back hard enough when provoked. Israel seeks to restore fear in its deterrent capabilities."
It is undeniable that as civilian casualties mount, Hamas, whose leadership frequently explains to those listening that it "loves death more than Israel loves life," understands that a steady stream of gruesome news footage will likely translate into even more support (hence the launching of rockets from civilian areas, the wiring of schools with explosives, etc). As one Gaza resident told Dutch radio, the people are, at this point, pretty united in their support of Hamas because "[Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas only talks, but does not take any initiative. Hamas is now the leader in opposition to Israel." As Byman points out, "If the world and most Palestinians come away convinced that Hamas won, then Hamas will simply recruit more, and its overall stature will increase. In addition, a perceived Hamas victory would further weaken the stature of moderates like Abbas and Fayyad, who look feckless as Israeli bombs kill Palestinians. This could ultimately lead to exactly the result that Israelis fear most: a Hamas take-over in the West Bank."
But back to the issue of a proportional response, which has been debated far and wide since the beginning (or, I should say, the latest phase) of the Hamas-Israel conflict, so there is little point in revisiting the arguments here. But just yesterday, the ubiquitous and omniscient lefty blogger Matt Yglesias decided to break it down for his readers using this simple analogy:
One time when I was riding my bike, someone threw a smallish rock at me from a housing project across the street. As it happens, the kid didn't hit me and everything was fine. But I suppose if he'd hit me in just the right way I could have been knocked down and injured. And depending on what the cars on the road were doing, it's conceivable that I could have wound up being run over and terribly injured. Long story short, it was a pretty terrible thing for the thrower to be doing. And this has been a sporadic problem in the city for a while. But obviously it wouldn't have bene (sic) right for me to stop, get off my bike, pull a bazooka out of my bag, and blow the houses from which the rock emanated to smithereens while shouting "self-defense!" and "double-effect!" And had I done so, and killed some innocent people in the course of things, and then I'd tried to say that the real blame for the deaths lay with the rock-thrower who'd started it everyone would look at me like I was crazy.
Now, having visited Sderot last year (where, incidentally, I spent the day with an Israeli peacenik), I have an enormous amount of sympathy for those hyperventilating bicyclists of Southern Israel, and I am obviously quite hostile to an illiberal political movement that hates dancing, gays, and dancing gays. But leaving that aside, lets fine-tune Yglesias's analogy: Imagine if Matt rode his bike by this project every day—and was attacked with rocks everyday. And imagine that the rock thrower was attempting to obtain bigger and more deadly rocks to target him and his Dalton School classmates. And imagine if the rock-thrower organized everyone in his project to, say, write a charter that demanded the liquidation of Dalton and its students. And one day, rather than tossing the requisite rock, the young project-dweller decided to kidnap Matt for a few years. And so on.
But I'm making a spurious argument, after all, because as Yglesias explains in the same post, he doesn't "believe in analogies, so don't read that as one." We won't.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
But leaving that aside, lets fine-tune Yglesias's analogy:
Imagine if Matt rode his bike by this project everyday-and was
attacked with rocks everyday. And imagine that the rock thrower was
attempting to obtain bigger and more deadly rocks to target him and
his Dalton School classmates. And imagine if the rock-thrower
organized everyone in his project to, say, write a charter that
demanded the liquidation of Dalton and its students. And one day,
rather than tossing the requisite rock, the young project-dweller
decided to kidnap Matt for a few years. And so on.
Well, then, obviously, it would be appropriate for Yglesias to fire
bazooka rounds into the apartment complex, regardless of the
civilians deaths.
Can we make this even more like the Gaza operation, and postulate
that even more rocks start flying out once the bazooka fire
begins?
The problem isn't that Abbas only talks it's that he doesn't get anything in exchange for talking. Quick question: In which area did Israel pull out their settlements and give relative autonomy? Abbas' West Bank or Hamas' Gaza. Which wheel is getting the grease, squeaky Hamas or quiet Abbas? In other words, if Israel wants the relatively peaceful Abbas to gain stature, it's going to need to give him some carrot while it gives Hamas the stick, otherwise the Palestinians will see that only violence gets you anything.
The Palestinians are in a situation where a government is allowed to do things to them (Israel) but they have no say over it. Their own "government" is completely nonviable - there is no Palestinian state in any sense of the word. And every year, their territory gets smaller, they get poorer, and random lunatics from Israel steal various plots of land in illegal settlements that the Israeli government rarely if ever addresses. Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian civilian. What's the endgame?
Hamas is not a little kid throwing rocks at passing cyclists. Hamas is a grown man throwing rocks at passing cyclists. Morever, Hama is a grown man throwing rocks from behind the cover of his wife and kids. While pulling out a bazooka is still not a proportional response, it's clear that such men are not the type to listen to diplomacy.
Everyday:
Main Entry: ev·ery·day
Pronunciation: \ˈev-rē-ˌdā, ˌev-re-ˈ\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1623
: encountered or used routinely or typically : ordinary
I'm looking forward to a rational discussion that avoids all hyperbole and resolves the issue once and for all.
Israel seeks to restore fear in its deterrent
capabilities.
[Nods in agreement]
I have decreed that ONLY Jesse Walker is permitted to make mention of the Middle East.
oh come on now! Someone decided to be ultra-insidery and write "Wilhuff" instead of "Grand Moff". I know we are a bunch of nerds, but we do have company from time to time...
Every fucking analogy should be banned in relation to the Middle
East.
Your not explaining a black hole and the space-time continuum.
Humans have been hacking and smashing each other forever - IT AINT
FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE.
Used in a sentence
"Unlike my mother who uses her silver cutlery, I use everyday
utensils even on Thanksgiving and Christmas."
vs.
"I love beans, hey hey hey!
I love beans every day!
Beans are an excellent source of protein.
I love beans, dinky-doo! "
PS: Thank you for fixing one of the two offenses.
Every fucking analogy should be banned in relation to the
Middle East...IT AINT FUCKING ROCKET SCIENCE.
Ooh.
Unfortunate choice of words. Should have taken your own advice with
that one.
Someone should write a really detailed analogy in which none of the kids are allowed to leave the block, the children's grandparents used to live in the bicyclist's house, and the playground is split into preadolescent factions that hate each other more than they hate the bicyclists.
Wait, I'm still parsing the analogy from a guy who doesn't
believe in analogies. WTF am I supposed to read it as, a simile? A
metaphor? Or can I just continuing dismissing Yglesias as an
overeducated underthinking tool and go about my day?
Yeah, that last one works. No analogies necessary, either.
Hollywood is run by bicyclists who hate Christianity and love anal sex.
"And imagine if the rock-thrower organized everyone in his
project to, say, write a charter that demanded the liquidation of
Dalton and its students."
But, see, this is where your analogy (or whatever you want to call
it) fails, Michael. "Everyone in the project" didn't sign any
charter, and even if they did, it was nothing more than meaningless
posturing. The rock-throwers are guilty of rock throwing; their
friends and families and neighbors are not. Unless you think the
people of a region can collectively be held responsible for the
violence of its nominal leaders, in which case I'd like to hear
your revised opinion on 9/11.
Attempting to parse individual guilt in these matters is a
fool's errand, Mike. I think we have too strong a tendency to judge
people based on legal guilt rather than moral guilt. If the
"friends, neighbors and family members" passively or actively aided
the ones launching rockets, then moral guilt is appropriate.
I want it noted that I am not advocating that a military response
of this nature is appropriate, just pointing out that being
parsimonious in matters of war is pretty weak sauce.
"Attempting to parse individual guilt in these matters is a
fool's errand, Mike."
Nonsense. Everyone's guilty and nobody is?
"I think we have too strong a tendency to judge people based on
legal guilt rather than moral guilt. If the "friends, neighbors and
family members" passively or actively aided the ones launching
rockets, then moral guilt is appropriate."
Moral guilt, maybe. But moral guilt does not constitute a
justification for killing someone. That would have to be a rights
violation. Waving a big flag and hating Israelis is not a rights
violation, even if is it ignorant.
Nonsense. Everyone's guilty and nobody is?
Well, no, not exactly, but short of capturing every potential
combatant and having a trial with full due process of the courts,
what would you suggest?
And I agree that it should not be a justification for killing
someone and I think that the military response here is
inappropriate and a strategic error, but if Israel is, in fact,
justified in going after Hamas "root and branch", I am hard-pressed
to see how they are going to do that and still ponder whether the
group of people from whom a rocket originated were all involved
with the launching of said rocket.
Imagine if the bicyclist had previously seized other apartments owned by the rock thrower and occupied them, leaving him with only one unit (the smallest and crappiest of course). To add insult to injury, the cyclist carefully controls the delivery of necessities to that apartment, cutting them off whenever the mood suites. And controls who else may enter or leave the apartment, and proclaims that ownership remaining apartment is "disputed" and our rock thrower may have to settle for a portion that depends on the good will of the cyclist. I guess that's why the 2nd Ammendment was put into the Constitution.
"Well, no, not exactly, but short of capturing every potential
combatant and having a trial with full due process of the courts,
what would you suggest?"
Why does it have to be short of that? I'm not even sure *that*
would be justified if they don't have sufficient evidence up
front.
"And I agree that it should not be a justification for killing
someone and I think that the military response here is
inappropriate and a strategic error, but if Israel is, in fact,
justified in going after Hamas "root and branch", I am hard-pressed
to see how they are going to do that and still ponder whether the
group of people from whom a rocket originated were all involved
with the launching of said rocket."
There's a difference between being having a justifiable goal
(eliminating Hamas) and using justifiable means (say, not murdering
innocent people). If your justifiable goal can only be accomplished
through unjust means, I think you have to abandon your goal. Israel
has no right to use the lives of innocent Palestinians to eliminate
Hamas, deplorable as Hamas may be.
"Can we make this even more like the Gaza operation, and
postulate that even more rocks start flying out once the bazooka
fire begins?"
Eventually the rocks do stop -- viz. Germany, May, 1945.
Plus the question is factually incorrect on two grounds: 1. Fewer
rockets (rocks) are fired as each day of the operation passes and
2. As a thought experiment envision the situation if no rockets
ever flew?
I'm all for criticizing Yglesias, but this article takes
Yglesias' rather lame analogy and makes it far worse. There's a
reason why Yglesias can make glib analogies while you cannot; it's
called a death toll. Justifying the deaths of scores of civilians
by analogy (particularly incorrect analogy) is stupid and callous.
If you think it's ok to wipe out Gaza because "the rock-thrower
organized everyone in his project", that's fine, but realize that
you sound like Charles Krauthammer off his meds.
In addition, trying to score cheap points by bringing up Dalton
school is weak tea. We can't all be Amherst men, either.
"The towers were supposed to be filled with supporters of the
economical powers of the United States who are abusing the
world.
Those who talk about civilians should change their stand and
reconsider their position. We are treating them like they treated
us."
Bin Laden goes on to justify his entire terror campaign. "There are
two types of terror, good and bad. What we are practising is good
terror. We will not stop killing them and whoever supports
them."
He directly threatens the lives of President Bush and Mr Blair.
"Bush and Blair don't understand anything but the power of force.
Every time they kill us, we kill them, so the balance of terror can
be achieved."
Mark,
Do they?
It's always the same people who talk about Red Dawn, who assert
that the other guy is just going to get beaten down and get
tired.
How do you yell "Wolverines!" in Arabic?
ooh, I didn't know that OBL was a Star
Trek Fan.
Wonder how come he's never at the conventions...
1. Fewer rockets (rocks) are fired as each day of the
operation passes Really? Are they down to where they were
before the invasion began?
and 2. As a thought experiment envision the situation if no
rockets ever flew?
Funny how different people set the beginning of this fight at
different point. Should "rockets" include all of those launched by
Israel into Palestinian territories? Because, IIRC, the first
rockets flew in the 1970s. Before that, it was artillery, bullets,
and tank rounds.
"He started it" gets us nowhere.
muzzies are some of the most uncivilized savages on our planet and deserved to be killed when the raise their ugly heads.there is no west bank that is a name made up by pedophile mohammadans it's real name is Judea and Samaria.there are no palistians they are the same as those murdering fanatics in egypt or jordan which is a good place for them to go.i hope isreal kicks the muzzies out of gaza and judea.
oh come on now! Someone decided to be ultra-insidery and
write "Wilhuff" instead of "Grand Moff". I know we are a bunch of
nerds, but we do have company from time to time...
[Shakes head in disagreement]
bruce:
2/10. bonus points for the bad grammar. now go away and let the
grownups talk a bit.
"Associate Editor Michael C. Moynihan is traveling though Israel
on a program sponsored by the American Israel Education Fund, a
travel program for journalists sponsored by the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee."
Moynihan should be required to post this disclaimer every time he
writes about Israel.
Hamas is not a little kid throwing rocks at passing cyclists. Hamas is a grown man throwing rocks at passing cyclists. Morever, Hama is a grown man throwing rocks from behind the cover of his wife and kids. While pulling out a bazooka is still not a proportional response, it's clear that such men are not the type to listen to diplomacy.
Well, yes. A smart response would then be not to deal with the crazy rock thrower, but with his neighbors, who are not lunatics. They know who the guy is, and can put an end to his rock throwing if they like.
However, if you fire a bazooka into the housing complex and kill a few innocent people, you're not going to engender much support for your campaign to end the rock throwing from the people you need to get it to stop.
In other words, the only way to put an end to Hamas is to put an end to Palestinian support for Hamas. Is this military campaign going to do that? No? Then it's horrific and pointless waste of life.
I don't understand why Yglesias used a kid rather than a warm, fuzzy puppy in his non-analogy.
The error here is to compare rock throwing with bazookas, when
Hamas is not throwing rocks, they're firing explosive
rockets. It is 100% appropropriate to respond to deadly force
with deadly force. In fact, it is imperative to respond with
deadlier force. Is it wrong to shoot somebody who is
beating you with his fists, on the basis that it would be
"disproportionate"? "Proportional response" is the cry of the
morally bankrupt and the hypocrite.
As for alleged civilian deaths,
a) Letting combatants use your house to launch attacks, plan
attacks, or take refuge, giving them material support of any kind,
or interposing yourself in front of them, makes you a combatant,
not a civilian, whether you are an adult or are armed
b) Since Hamas operatives intentionally eschew uniforms, you have
no reason to suppose that what you see are in fact civilians
c) How can you trust the same people that are pushing doctored and
staged photographs on the newswires to give you truthful casualty
statistics?
What the head poster and the eliminationist anti-Semites among
us don't realize is that hamas firing those rockets into Israel is
a war crime.
Also, Hamas hiding behind civilians and firing from them is also
war crime.
While one creature says we should not ask who started it, at least
Ayn Rand (whom the Libertarians parasitize off of) recognizes the
difference between the initiator or force and those who don't want
to be killed or beaten upon and take actions to stop it.
The head poster, Michael Monyihan, does not understand what
proportionality means and none of them understand Israel is
entitled under International Law to hit military targets even if
they use civilians to hide behind.
In another article, Reason Magazine snickered that Joe the Plumber
was going to be a journalist over in the Mid East. He would
certainly do a better job than a Libertarian movement that was
exposed by Objectivist Peter Schwarz as hating Israel and
supporting its destruction.
After Peter Schwarz published his landmark article on
Lbertarianism, he noted that "Reason" magazine tried to soft pedal
the lunatic views of the Libertarian party; e.g., child
molestation, destruction of Israel -- but that is not the way to do
it. One should repudiate the evil crazies in your midst. Something
"Reason" magazine lacks the morality to do.
Joooooish atrocities in Gaza:
1.
Israeli Jews kill giant Jew eating rabbit
2. This is added to the earlier horror of the Israeli Jews murdering
Farfour (a Hamas Mickey Mouse rip off). See 3.40 min into the
video
3. But before the Jews murdered Farfour (a Hamas Mickey Mouse
ripoff) the
Jews ate his homework, getting the Hamas Mickey Mouse ripoff in
trouble in school before his peers
Correction, here is third hyperlink of the Jewish atrocity of Jews eating the Hamas Mickey Mouse ripoff's homework
I'm just waiting for Underzog to tear into someone like Max Boot
for not being supportive enough of Israel's actions. Come to think
about it, Underzog never answered my earlier
query concerning David Rothkopf and Daniel Drezner.
(Full disclosure: I plugged this
recent post by Mr. Boot in an earlier
comment.)
"a) Letting combatants use your house to launch attacks, plan
attacks, or take refuge, giving them material support of any kind,
or interposing yourself in front of them, makes you a combatant,
not a civilian, whether you are an adult or are armed"
Children are supposed to exert control over how their houses are
used? Really??
"b) Since Hamas operatives intentionally eschew uniforms, you have
no reason to suppose that what you see are in fact civilians"
Since Hamas has been known to infiltrate Israel, you also have no
reason to suppose that any random Israeli is not actually Hamas.
Sounds like suspicion enough to me!
"c) How can you trust the same people that are pushing doctored and
staged photographs on the newswires to give you truthful casualty
statistics?"
No one's asking you to trust anyone. You realize that there are
more than, like, 4 people in Gaza right?
"This year [5767] Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays
overlapped for 10 days. Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94
terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews
worked on their 159th Nobel Prize"
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
Letting combatants use your house to launch attacks, plan attacks, or take refuge, giving them material support of any kind, or interposing yourself in front of them, makes you a combatant, not a civilian, whether you are an adult or are armed
Urban combat. We're not talking about houses surrounded by flowing
30 acre lawns. We're talking about squalid flats where one room may
be occupied by a sniper, and three doors down, you have a family of
four.
And if the guy with the machine gun wants to use YOUR flat, what do
you say?
Since Hamas operatives intentionally eschew uniforms, you have no reason to suppose that what you see are in fact civilians
So kill them all. God will know his own.
How can you trust the same people that are pushing doctored and staged photographs on the newswires to give you truthful casualty statistics?
All evidence that makes me look bad is a lie.
This year [5767] Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days. Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize
I wasn't aware that it took several million people to win a Nobel
prize.
In any case, this sounds like something you'd see on any white
separatist site, except it would be talking about how white people
invented penicillin or the transistor while black people have an
HIV infection rate that is twice the national average.
You get the impression that it's a way for people who are failures
as individuals to feel a little better about themselves - taking a
little credit for things they never did, disparaging others.
Even if Israel were killing the civilians as the anti-Semites
say the are, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Don't all these savages say they want to be shahids (martyrs) who
when they die get their 72 white raisins, virgins (whatever)?
Isn't death groovy like drinking coca cola to these creeps?
What are they complaining about?
Since they're such a deathcult, they should be thanking the
Israelis for any of these deathcult savages that they do happen to
kill (snicker).
Incidentally, Israel should not withdraw or give land to these
deathcult savages. They'll only get death rockets in return. All of
this is simple rationality and logic, but "Reason magazine" is
obscenly misnamed and this periodical will just not get it.
Israel's endgame is stage 4, full military occupation and destruction of Hamas sovereignty. I think that Olmert has had this goal in mind the whole time and is easing the world into this path.
Already fighting too much with friends and family over this Gaza massacre so I'll just ask, "Who's seen this?"
Incidentally, Israel should not withdraw or give land to these deathcult savages. They'll only get death rockets in return. All of this is simple rationality and logic, but "Reason magazine" is obscenly misnamed and this periodical will just not get it.
Dammit, I'm drunk enough already.
"They're savages. They stole our oil and try to murder us with
it."
Ayn Rand's comments in her last appearance on the Phil Donahue show
in reference to the Iranian hostage crises
I already knew Liberals think like children, but apparently a
good portion of liberterians choice to turn of their minds as
well:
Hamas is responsible for 100% of civilian causalities in this
conflict, since they started it, and can easily end it tomorrow if
they agree to stop attacking Israel. There are few wars this
simple. Don't let them manipulate you emotionally.
The Palestinians had a choice in Gaza: build a civilized country or
fire rockets into their neighbor. Hamas chose the later. Since the
population is brainwashed with hate-propaganda, most accept this
absurd behavior. This conflict has an aggressors and a victim, this
is not changed by the fact that the aggressor is less advanced than
the victim. One party wants peace, one want to destroy the
other.
Proportionality does not mean someone stronger that is wrongfully
attacked has to accept it. America destroyed Japan and Germany in
WWII, even though only a few thousand American civilians were
killed. If you hit a person the state does not respond
"proportionally" and slap you back, they threw you in prison, and
if you resist use all necessary force.
Furthermore, The islamists are clearly abusing western sensitivity
to civilian causalities. If we allow them to do this by rewarding
them it only encourages the behavior. Why can't so many readers of
a magazine called Reason apply logic?
Smug Idiots like Yglesias clearly do not understand concepts like
incentives or time inconsistency. Do the disciples of Adam
Smith?
I would be curious to know what liberals/estrogen-libertarians
suggest Israel do. Negotiate with Hamas, who has the destruction of
Israel as it's only purpose? For example why not split it down the
middle, and destroy half of Israel? Remove the settlements from
Gaza? (oh, I forgot). For the UN to Give Hamas more advanced
weaponry to murder Israeli civilians in order to level the playing
field?
Those Israelis sure seem edgy, huh? from the article:
Mark Regev, an Israeli spokesman, said he hoped that calm would be restored and that a resumption of hostilities could be avoided. "This operation was in response to a Hamas intrusion of the quiet and we hope we won't see an escalation here," he said.
Israeli military intelligence had issued warnings for weeks of plans by extremists to kidnap Israelis, either along the Gaza border or elsewhere in the world, in response to the assassination of a Hezbollah militant leader this year, which the Lebanese rebel organisation blamed on Israel.
And, what exactly is an "intrusion of the quiet?" Does that mean I
can shoot my neighbor when he plays that awful music late at
night?
Peace, Tino? Hahahahaha!
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid babe, I don't think you've stained your
mouth the right shade yet.
"I would be curious to know what liberals/estrogen-libertarians
suggest Israel do."
Stop killing innocent people. It's pretty simple. Slaughter Hamas
all you want, I don't care, but don't punish people for the crime
of living next door to killers.
FWIW, I also think all the debate over "proportionality" is silly and misguided. I don't much care how proportional a response is to Hamas. It also seems like a sadistic way to justify murdering more innocents. "They killed 30 civilians, so as long as we only kill 29, we're the good guys!"
"Stop killing innocent people...."
The above is an example Joseph Goebbels turnspeak propaganda
(enhanced into a "greater artform" by the Muslims).
Turnspeak propaganda is the art of accusing your opposition of the
odious things that you yourself are doing. The Arab/Muslim
terrorists kill civilians, Jewish (their own also by stationing
their war weapons amongst their population) and they have the
chutzpah to accuse the Jews of the evil things they're doing to
them.
Still, one must look at the bright side of all the hatred of the
Jews today (especially in the various "peace marches" where
eliminationis anti-Semitic slogans are shouted and people are
attacked).
Anti-Semites go into a reall tizzy when Jews fight back. Maybe we
can set their foam-at-the-mouth hysteria and set it to music.
"The above is an example Joseph Goebbels turnspeak propaganda
(enhanced into a "greater artform" by the Muslims).
Turnspeak propaganda is the art of accusing your opposition of the
odious things that you yourself are doing. The Arab/Muslim
terrorists kill civilians, Jewish (their own also by stationing
their war weapons amongst their population) and they have the
chutzpah to accuse the Jews of the evil things they're doing to
them.
Still, one must look at the bright side of all the hatred of the
Jews today (especially in the various "peace marches" where
eliminationis anti-Semitic slogans are shouted and people are
attacked).
Anti-Semites go into a reall tizzy when Jews fight back. Maybe we
can set their foam-at-the-mouth hysteria and set it to
music."
What on earth are you rambling on about? I've never killed anyone.
You want me to acknowledge that Hamas is awful? I think I've made
that pretty clear throughout this thread, but sure, for your sake:
Hamas sucks. They are a bunch of thugs and murderers, and Israel or
anyone else had the right to stop them, using deadly force if
necessary. But they still don't have the right to bombard Gaza in
the hope that somehow, somewhere, some bad people will be killed in
all the chaos.
I'm not sure where the anti-Semitism accusations came from, since I
don't think I've mentioned religion except for acknowledging that
Hamas is anti-Semitic.
Hamas is responsible for 100% of civilian causalities in this conflict, since they started it, and can easily end it tomorrow if they agree to stop attacking Israel. There are few wars this simple. Don't let them manipulate you emotionally.
You seem to be unaware that Israel has been blockading Gaza since
Hamas was elected. A blockade is most assuredly an act of war, and
I guarantee that if a foreign nation blockaded the US, we would do
a lot more than lob a few rockets.
There's nothing simple about the middle east, just your
reasoning.
Why can't so many readers of a magazine called Reason apply logic?
Because I have to drink everytime you say that. Rules are
rules!
I would be curious to know what liberals/estrogen-libertarians suggest Israel do. Negotiate with Hamas, who has the destruction of Israel as it's only purpose? For example why not split it down the middle, and destroy half of Israel? Remove the settlements from Gaza? (oh, I forgot). For the UN to Give Hamas more advanced weaponry to murder Israeli civilians in order to level the playing field?
How about this. The US should stop supplying financial, military
and political support to Israel. Be neutral and let Israel take
care of itself.
To quote Washington in his farewell address:
"Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an
imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest
exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays
the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the
latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also
to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to
others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the
concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been
retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to
retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are
withheld."
Just read the whole damn thing:
http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html
Hey Taco, Islam is not a race it's a deathcult.
Bigots are bigots. How many Nobel prizes have you won recently?
"What on earth are you rambling on about? I've never killed
anyone. You want me to acknowledge that Hamas is awful? I think
I've made that pretty clear throughout this thread, but sure, for
your sake: Hamas sucks. They are a bunch of thugs and murderers,
and Israel or anyone else had the right to stop them, using deadly
force if necessary. But they still don't have the right to bombard
Gaza in the hope that somehow, somewhere, some bad people will be
killed in all the chaos.
"
I wouldn't believe anything you said about yourself anyway. I don't
know you and certainly don't trust you.
Incidentally, before you stupidly mouth off about Israel hitting
Hamas targets instead of marching peacefully to gas chambers or
rockets, learn some international law:
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to
render certain points or areas immune from military
operations.
Geneva Convention (1949)
I'm not sure where the anti-Semitism accusations came from, since I don't think I've mentioned religion except for acknowledging that Hamas is anti-Semitic.
Bigots inevitably read bigotry into the actions of others.
"I wouldn't believe anything you said about yourself anyway. I
don't know you and certainly don't trust you."
Heh. You better watch out!
"Incidentally, before you stupidly mouth off about Israel hitting
Hamas targets instead of marching peacefully to gas chambers or
rockets, learn some international law:
Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to
render certain points or areas immune from military
operations.
Geneva Convention (1949)"
Oh, like I give a fuck.
"Bigots inevitably read bigotry into the actions of
others."
More turnspeak propaganda. Eliminationist anti-Semites accusing
their targets, victims and, potential victims of the odious traits
they themselves have; e.g., such as eliminationist bigotry.
Incidentally, here is a website that explains Turnspeak
Propaganda. It comes from a website that is run by us
descendants of apes and pigs, but we don't lie as Muslims do
(taqqiyah) so maybe you'll forgive
...but we don't lie as Muslims do (taqqiyah) so maybe you'll forgive
So because some Shia have concealed their faith to avoid
persecution from Sunnis over the centuries, all muslims are liars,
and it's propaganda to think otherwise, Jewhater.
"So because some Shia have concealed their faith to avoid
persecution from Sunnis over the centuries, all muslims are liars,
and it's propaganda to think otherwise, Jewhater."
Stop turnspeaking, turnspeaker.
Oh, like I give a fuck.I agree you don't care about
international law and neither does any other supporter of Muslim
terrorists.
Incidentally, there are plenty of attacks by Muslims on Jewish
synagogues outside of Israel. Debbie
Schlussel: Muslim kristallnacht Chicago 2008: Reader David's
synagogue (and four others!)attacked (obviously by
Muslims).
"Reason Magazine's" Hit and Run does not mention these attacks.
They probably don't mention it to whitewash the crimes of the
Islamists. Just as they hardly mentioned when John Muhammed shot
and nearly killed one of their own.
"I agree you don't care about international law and neither does
any other supporter of Muslim terrorists."
International law doesn't *enable* violence, you numskull. The
Geneva convention can't magically turn wrong into right.
Also, I know you're probably just trolling, but what part of "I
hate Hamas" was unclear to you? I don't support Hamas, for most of
the same reasons I don't support the Israeli government. Do you
really think that criticizing one is equivalent to supporting the
other?
""Reason Magazine's" Hit and Run does not mention these attacks.
They probably don't mention it to whitewash the crimes of the
Islamists. Just as they hardly mentioned when John Muhammed shot
and nearly killed one of their own."
Reason doesn't mention these attacks because they are largely
irrelevant to the debate at hand. We are talking about Israel and
Gaza. Unless you are making some bizarre tribalistic connection
between the actions of the Israeli government and crimes committed
against any Jews anywhere in the world, I can't see how the two are
related, except superficially.
Thank Zeus! A situation where my professional competence is
useful in clarifying what is going on.
Not that I know more than the next commenter about Israel -- I'm
just a philosophy professor. But I can explain why Yglesias is
right that he wasn't offering an analogy.
He was giving a counterexample to a premise of the other side's
argument. It's an important distinction.
joe is right about this Yglesias is right too. Reason misses the mark just blaming it on israel. the real culprit is the capitalist system.
You be fair to me, nobody u know...
in my posts numbered 7:51 p.m. and 7:53 p.m., I detail Jewish
atrocities in Hamastan jess to show that I am even handed.
I want to be like everyone else in this "Hit and Run" blog and I'm
working hard to do it, too.
Now pass me the bong pipe and the cocaine.
Children are supposed to exert control over how their houses
are used? Really??
Their parents are. If children suffer for their parent's sins, so
what? This is especially true when I see interviews with mothers
who are orgasmic at the idea their children will die in order to
kill infidels. So no, I have no problem at all with killing
children who are in the way of killing our enemy. If the
Palestinians don't like it, they can execute Hamas themselves. We
all know that won't happen, because they fully support the goals
and methods of Hamas.
Urban combat. We're not talking about houses surrounded by
flowing 30 acre lawns. We're talking about squalid flats where one
room may be occupied by a sniper, and three doors down, you have a
family of four.
So what? It doesn't matter whether the human shields are there
voluntarily, you can't let combatants off scott free. Furthermore,
this is Palestine, where the population put Hamas in power. Let the
Palestinians suffer for their choices. Aid the enemy, die with
them.
So kill them all. God will know his own.
So many people are pointing to dead bodies and saying "what about
these dead civilians". My point was "why are you presuming all the
dead people are civilians and not dead terrorists?" As for "kill
them all", when the "civilians" support the terrorists, "kill them
all" is OK by me.
So no, I have no problem at all with killing children who are in the way of killing our enemy.
Hey Moynihan, bet you get a flush of pride just reading that.
"Slaughter Hamas all you want, I don't care, but don't punish
people for the crime of living next door to killers."-Mike
How does one go about that with any degree of certainity? It would
be really nice if you can, but I don't think warfare against an
enemy like Hamas makes that kind of fastidiousness possible. A
substantial, perhaps even majority, percentage of the Gazan
civilian population is pro-Hamas and actively helping them. Also,
the Israelis are not getting a guidebook of which Palestinian is
which. The Gazan government wanted war. They got what they wanted,
and wars are messy, chaotic happenings. It is not reasonable to
pretend that they can be conducted in an orderly fashion.
You generously grant that Israel has a right to defend itself but
put so many conditions and caveats on them that if they followed
your proscriptions they would be paralyzed against doing anything
in response to Hamas' attacks.
Tacos:
I find it very amusing that you first claim to be using logic, and
proceed to answer my question: "what should Israel do" with "How
about this. The US should stop supplying financial, military and
political support to Israel. Be neutral and let Israel take care of
itself."
I have no problem with the US stopping aid to Israel (and Egypt and
other arab nations, of course). I asked what ISRAEL should do. You
clearly do not have an answer.
Reason indeed.
Mike: Innocent people are dying, because Hamas
is hiding among civilians and insisting in shooting rockets at
Israel. If they didn't do that Israel would have no interest in
killing anyone. You, and everyone else here, knows this, and should
be able to use the chain of logic to place moral blame where it
belongs. Instead you childishly let yourself be manipulated by
Hamas propaganda.
In response to my question: "what should
Israel do" you answered "stop fighting". OK, lets' say they do. Are
you aware that Hamas plans to continue firing rockets into Israel?
And are you aware that Hamas will not accept the existence of
Israel? So what should Israel do? Accept destruction? Simply allow
their civilians to be killed indefinitely by Hamas?
Do you understand cause and effect, that Hamas was firing rockets
into Israel BEFORE the invasion, so that this war was caused by
Hamas activities, and that Hamas has make clear that they indent to
continue firing rockets into Israel, just as they did before the
war?
Hamas does not have any reasonable demands. There are no
settlements on Gaza that can be moved, or any other rightfull
grievance (the existence of Israel is not a reasonable grievance to
me).
Regarding sanctions it's clear that Hamas is importing weapons.
Should Israel not only accept destruction, but also arm the people
who want to butcher it? Are you honestly calling intercepting
illegal Iranian arm shipments "an act of war"?
I ask again. Given that Hamas want to destroy Israel, given that
the people of Gaza largely support this, given that Israel has
already removed it's settlements, how should they stop them from
firing rockets in order to murder Israelis?
And please think through your answers.
Personally I don't think "accept the rockets, build shelters,
accept that Palestinians in Gaza prefer killing a few Israelis to
building a nation" is an completely illogical answer, but than you
better freaking understand the moral implications, even if Israel
chooses to accept the attacks they have the RIGHT to defend
themselves. Being more advanced, richer and more powerful does not
make you a legitimate target for hateful underdeveloped people with
a crazed ideology.
Last logic lesson: If Israel could surgically kill only Hamas
fighters they obviously would. Hamas is the one that is causing the
civilian deaths by using civilian sites as places of war (despite
this most of the death are not civilians, proving the point that
Israel has no wish to kill children, unlike Hamas).
Writing "Slaughter Hamas all you want, I don't care, but don't
punish people for the crime of living next door to killers"
illustrates my point: you are being childish in your thinking.
Since Hamas tactics make a war without civilian collateral damage
impossible, your demand is that Israel (and I suppose every other
civilized country) surrender to anyone who uses civilians shields.
In effect you want to reward the murder of innocent people, while
making any defensive action by lawful nations against war criminals
impossible.
By the way, following your "logic", what if the arabs next putt
hostages in tanks and drive into Israel? Are we allowed to fight
back (if this sounds insane, this idea was contemplated by Saddam
during the Gulf war).
Be responsible, and think like adults.
"Hey Moynihan, bet you get a flush of pride just reading
that."
These Islamic terrorist supporters -- more turnspeak.
Hamas kills Jewish civilians with rockets and Hamas kills Hamastan
civilians by stationing them as shields (another war crime) and
anti Semitic idiots blame the Jews.
Mr. Monyihan, if people make posts about you like the one I'm
quoting, I apologize for any hurt feelings I may have caused you in
my earliest posts.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
Tino's efforts are noble, quixotic at best.
The foam-at-the-mouth hatred against the Jews is not logical, it's
primal (as in primal scream).
One can no more reason with them than one can with Hamas. I don't
really talk to them, I just hope that Israel keeps going and I can
comment on their screaming and their logical fallacy of appealing
to emotion (as Taco did to Mr. Monyihan -- quoted in my previous
post).
It is so bad that even a philosophy major enshrines building a
strawman as an argument that Jews should lay down their arms and
die.
Hey Moynihan, bet you get a flush of pride just reading
that.
Please proudly explain why allowing your enemy to dictate
when you're allowed to shoot at him constitutes sound operational
doctrine.
Everyone!
Let's feel sorry for the Hamas terrorists and their thuggish
nation.
Afterall, the kid who kills his parents and then asks for sympathy
because he is an orphan is an important philosophical principle,
isn't it?
Typical attempt to reduce highly complex issues down into some
ridiculous simplistic little tale of woe. Just like saying the
solution to the Great Depression was the New Deal, or that the
worldwide economic meltdown is a result of sub prime
mortgages.
The war in Gaza is not simply about Isreal protecting itself from a
bunch of Palistinians with no army. No matter what happens, they
have the full right to not allow anyone at anytime to threaten and
harm their sovereign state. Does not matter who wants to deny the
sovereignty..it EXISTS, and the Isrealis live there and have a
functioning international government. But the Hamas faction is a
surrigate for the Iran and fundamentalist Islamists that want to
show their power and strength to allow them to recruit others to
their cause of religios world wide domination...no matter how
infantile and stupid that might be, that is there wish, along with
domination of the Middle East. The Gaza war is merely a showcase
for their cause, and the Isrealis are just being used as scapegoats
and propaganda. If every single Palistinian were wiped out in the
process, Hamas would not care at all about the humanity. They want
world opinion on their side, so the more that "innocents" are
killed and maimed, the better. Proportionality discussions are just
simplistic mental masturbation exercises. Recognize, that like
World War II, it is not about Duke Ferdinand getting killed....that
was merely an excuse to do what others wanted to do. Hamas and
other terrorists are expert in manipulating the weak minded ideolog
public activists, and in using their horrors to make themselves
appear the victims. The discussions about the "poor children" may
make you feel good and righteous, but they are a canard in the
conflict. The Islamists EXPECT to have children killed...they do
not care...they do not respect weak women and children...they are
dominated by radical power mongers who wish to jam their belief
system down the throats of the world, and they will use every means
to gain support for that cause, including shooting their own
citizens if they refuse to cooperate in the manipulative propaganda
and suicide missions. Enough drivel and tearing of garments
already.
"Let's feel sorry for the Hamas terrorists and their thuggish
nation.
Afterall, the kid who kills his parents and then asks for sympathy
because he is an orphan is an important philosophical principle,
isn't it?"
After reading through some of your recent comments, I'm not
entirely sure you're a sane person.
I also think a lot of the confusion in this thread derives from the feudalistic notion that the civilians in Gaza somehow "belong" to Hamas (and similarly that the civilians in Israel "belong" to Israel).
"including shooting their own citizens if they refuse to
cooperate in the manipulative propaganda and suicide
missions."
This is what I was talking about.
"The Islamists EXPECT to have children killed...they do not
care..."
The children probably care, though.
Incidentally, here is a website that explains Turnspeak
Propaganda.
You've clearly learned well. You use Hitlerian language about
Muslims and openly wish for their mass slaughter, than accuse
anyone who looks at you funny of anti-Semitism.
Are you really so dense that you don't think anybody will
notice?
"You've clearly learned well. You use Hitlerian language about
Muslims and openly wish for their mass slaughter, than accuse
anyone who looks at you funny of anti-Semitism."
ZOMG STOP TURNSPEEKING!!
to pretend that Israel was doing nothing while Hamas lobbed
rockets is B.S.
a. Israel was blockading Gaza.
b. Israel continued confiscating Palestinian houses and build new
settlements in the west bank and east Jerusalem.
c. Israel continued killing Palestinians.
All of this was happening during the ceasefire.
a,
Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I should point out that none of
your points justifies Hamas firing rockets indiscriminately into
Israel.
Hmmm just to get to my reoccuring point about global (not so
much the USA) condemnation of Israel
I would say that the occupation of Gaza and the West bank is wrong
but how come no one made any furore about the Syrian occupation of
Lebanon?
www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26cnd-lebanon.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1114574400&en=ca0e80e08eb9c430&ei=5094&partner=homepage
I was just watchin a sky news interview with a Syrian minister
saying that Hamas missle strikes on Israel are justified because of
the Israeli occupation.
I don't know how she would reconcile that with the Syrian
occupation of Lebanon
other than my usual critique that if a Jew does something its
wrong, if an Arab does something it doesn't matter.
Someone should write a really detailed analogy in which none
of the kids are allowed to leave the block, the children's
grandparents used to live in the bicyclist's house, and the
playground is split into preadolescent factions that hate each
other more than they hate the bicyclists.
Would that analogy include Yglesias' dad refusing to allow the
pizza delivery man, or the family doctor, or the milkman, from
making deliveries of food, or providing basic services? Would it
include him controlling when, (or if) the water and gas were turned
on? Would it include Yglesias' dad preventing anybody in the
project from making an honest living?
""The Islamists EXPECT to have children killed...they do not
care..."
Mike: "The children probably care, though."
The children, at least the one in the video, are smart enough to
know whom to blame. Why don't you understand that, anti-Semite? Are
you putting words into the mouths of children that don't share your
Jews-should-lay-down-and-die sentiments?
Maybe they don't want to be shahids and get those 72 white raisins
in paradise.
Palestinian
girl blames Hamas for the war
"The children, at least the one in the video, are smart enough
to know whom to blame. Why don't you understand that, anti-Semite?
Are you putting words into the mouths of children that don't share
your Jews-should-lay-down-and-die sentiments?"
I don't know why I should be surprised that your rationalization
for killing innocent people keeps changing, since it's a morally
indefensible position.
PS. Seriously, stop calling me an anti-Semite.
"He started it" gets us nowhere.
I agree. We should concern ourselves with who will finish it, and
how.
And, frankly, I don't see Hamas as being part of any resolution
that we would care to be party to.
The fundamental problem is that Israel, to this day, has no one to
reach a negotiated settlement with. Hamas is certainly not a
legitimate negotiating partner, sworn as they are to the
destruction of Israel and with a seemingly unshakable addiction to
terror and war crimes.
Until that changes, there will be violence. Full stop. The Israelis
seem to be acting on the belief that step one of reaching a
sustainable resolution would appear to be: get rid of Hamas.
Why is anyone wasting time arguing with Underzog? I didn't expect the Hit & Run crowd to give in to the taunts of some partisan name-caller. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with his position will be labeled and no serious discussion will follow.
I would say that the occupation of Gaza and the West bank is wrong but how come no one made any furore about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon?
Why does Tibet get attention that Sri Lanka doesn't?
Some conflicts just get more attention, just like some crimes make
the national headlines, and some never leave the local paper.
Why is anyone wasting time arguing with Underzog? I didn't expect the Hit & Run crowd to give in to the taunts of some partisan name-caller. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with his position will be labeled and no serious discussion will follow.
Because he makes the side he supports look bad, and the more he
talks, the worse it looks. Kind of like a heckler at a Sarah Palin
rally, he does more damage to the positions he supports than his
opposition ever could.
Or, he could just be pretending, in which case he's a national
treasure of trolling, and it's worth responding just to watch him
ply his trade.
But the Hamas faction is a surrigate for the Iran and fundamentalist Islamists that want to show their power and strength to allow them to recruit others to their cause of religios world wide domination...no matter how infantile and stupid that might be, that is there wish, along with domination of the Middle East.
No, Hamas is a Sunni religious party, related to
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. You're confusing it with Hezbollah,
which is a Shia political party in
Lebanon that has the support of Iran.
If you don't know even this much, that you could have gotten of of
Wikipedia, the rest of your analysis is substantially
discredited.
Please proudly explain why allowing your enemy to dictate when you're allowed to shoot at him constitutes sound operational doctrine.
Because a tactical victory obtained at strategic cost is no victory
at all. It is possible to win a dozen battles and still lose that
war, and Israel is heading down this road.
I have no problem with the US stopping aid to Israel (and Egypt and other arab nations, of course). I asked what ISRAEL should do. You clearly do not have an answer.
What should Israel do? Give up on a fantasy of ethnic Jewsish
purity and allow the Palestians to resettle in the land they fled
and/or were pushed out of during the 6 day war.
A state that defines itself by ethnicity is an anachronism, and in
realistic terms, Israel is a colony started by Europeans in the
middle east against the wishes of their neighbors. An experiment
like that is never going to end successfully, and Israel will cease
to be a Jewish majority state due to reproductive disparities
sometime this century, even if nothing else happens.
States and empires rise and fall. I don't shed any tears either
way.
But the Hamas faction is a surrigate for the Iran and
fundamentalist Islamists that want to show their power and strength
to allow them to recruit others to their cause of religios world
wide domination...no matter how infantile and stupid that might be,
that is there wish, along with domination of the Middle East.
No, Hamas is a Sunni religious party, related to Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood. You're confusing it with Hezbollah, which is a Shia
political party in Lebanon that has the support of Iran.
Actually, the Iranian Shias have shown themselves to be fully
capable of supporting Sunnis, and in fact they do support Hamas. As
the New York Times reported, umm,
today:
But Hamas, a pariah to Egypt and Jordan, has received money and
training from Iran, while the group has provided Iran with a
powerful surrogate to undermine American and Israeli interests in
the region. While Iran is the primary patron of Hamas, the two do
not enjoy the same seamless relationship that Iran has with
Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia and political organization
that Tehran helped to form.
Just keeping the record straight, is all.
When Yglesias says he's not using an analogy, you either call
him a liar and explain why or you agree.
This post is a helping of
Reading FAIL.
Underzog,
There certainly is much anti-Semitism on the anti-Israel side.
Several French synogogues where attacked with home made explosives
these past two weeks, and there where other attacks against Jewish
grave yards and buildings throughout Europe. However, I don't think
anti-Semitism is a big factor in the criticism of Israel on Reason.
I think it's just a matter of ignorace, since the main stream media
just reports death tolls without much detail.
Filling in the gaps for those readers is the best way to nullfy
media bias. For example, I'm sure most readers would rethink their
position if they knew that Israel tries to minimize civilian
casualties by dropping pamphlets with warnings the day before a
bombing campaign in a neighborhood and by calling the residents of
a targetted house 15 minutes before droping a bomb so that they
have a chance to evacuate. They probably aren't aware that Israel
bombs the houses not out of punishment, but because the houses are
used to smuggle and store the kasam rockets that Hamas fires on
Israelis. They might also want to know that Israel halts fighting
for 3 hours each day to allow humanitarian aid to come through, and
that Hamas attacks aid convoys during these halts, sometimes
stealing the aid and selling it to the highest bidder. Sticking to
tangible facts is more productive than questioning the opposing
side's motives.
Underzog,
Please be aware that there is a wide range of views towards Israel
within the Muslim world. Kosovo is pro-Israel. Turkey is an ally of
Israel, although the relationship is strained this past month.
There is a cold peace with Egypt and a peace treaty with Jordan.
Mauritania is the third Arab country to open an embassy and have
official diplomatic ties with Israel. Qatar refuses to open an
embassy with Israel, but it has an Israeli trade office. Kuwait
doesn't like Israel, but has no love for Gazans who cheered for
Sadam during Gulf War I. Syria threatens Israel, but has started
low level negotiations for peace with Israel in the past couple of
years. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. So there you have it.
There is quite a spectrum from Kosovo, which sides with both
America and Israel, and Iran, which calls America "Big Satan" and
Israel "Little Satan".
Wow, Moynihan is certainly a big tool, that's for sure. Gotta
keep those right wing fans happy, wouldn't want to threaten that
with some consistent libertarianism...In his world entire groups of
people can be killed, have their basic human and economic rights
deprived, because an abstract concept like a "nation" is attacked
by some people within that group.
David Luban's post here (Is the Gaza War Legal?) does a good job of
discussing the matter in a non-toolish fashion:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/
joe nailed MM on this one too. If the kid threw a pebble (it
would have to be a pebble since Israel, as a nation, is supposed to
be the cycler, and Hamas attacks have not even the potential to be
more threatening to the nation of Israel than a pebble would to a
person) and had a pact to destroy the cycler it would still be
crazy to say it is justified to pull out a bazooka and flatten the
apartment complex the kid lived in.
MM's slipperiness is in how he shifts around in his analogy from
one level to another (kidnapping a handful of Israeli's compared to
kidnapping the cycler, who is supposed to be the nation of Israel
[and who mentions how many Palestinians are kidnapped, I mean
"arrested" by the IDF during that time?]) and his false parts of
the analogy (rocks every day? they were just under a cease-fire not
too long ago), everyone in his projects? a majority of Gazans did
NOT vote for Hamas in 2006, etc).
Israel has hundreds and hundreds of Palestinians in its jails, many of them administrative detainees (no trial). That's kidnapping for you, and Hamas has not come close to such an egregious number. Moynihan conviently ignores that.
Jtuf,
The Qu'ran itself says make war against people of the book
(Christians and Jews). Also, all those eliminationist anti-Semitic
demonstrations in Europe and America
This one in New York had people saying Hitler didn't do a good job
(in killing enough Jews)and Jews did 9/11 make me realize what
Islam is about.
Mubarak is going to die soon and who will take over Egypt after
him? The Muslim Brotherhood? Quite possibly.
Also, as much as the Arab states hate Israel (Egypt has a hit song
about it), it is Iran they fear; hence the muted response of the
Arab states to this Hamastan war.
However, the responses from a great many Hit and Run people here
are more hostile than Egypt, Jordan, or even the PA
authority.
And that's scary!
I realize there is a large stream within Islam with an irrational and murderous hate for Israel and all non-Muslims. However, there is also a courageous minority that speaks for peace and coexistance with Israel. It's important to distinguish between Muslims who cheer for Hamas, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand, and Muslims that want to live in peace with Israel, India, the Phillipines and the West on the other hand.
One last thing Jtuf. You talk about educating them? I gave them
this hyperlink that I think is quite inclusive: The History and Geography of Israel
and Palestine
Have any of them even looked at it? I doubt it. There are other
important websites to look at. Faithfreedom.org.
No offense to you, but I'm really not here to educate them myself.
The knowledge is there for them to look at. I fear they're just in
denial about it :(
When you get married you don't know the history of your spouse's
relationship with family and wisely you stay out of it.
While it is interesting to observe Palestinian-Israeli
relationship, it is foolhardy to engage in it. Non-interventionism
isn't a bad policy. Thatis not to say you aren't ignorant of
it.
Underzog
You are assuming they read the Koran. They most likely do that in a
fraction to reading online content of whatever suits their
fancy.
Via www.jpost.com this morning, Israel wants to treat wounded
Gazans in Israeli hospitals, but Hamas won't let patients cross the
border. So, Israelis are cosidering setting up a field hospital in
Gaza.
Until Hamas changes its mind, "we are looking for ways to ameliorate the situation...Therefore, I first and foremost ask the WMA and other international bodies to use their power and authority to call upon Hamas to allow the transfer and treatment of these wounded in Israeli hospitals, as needed.
"However, if Hamas does not heed this call, I ask you and any other body to advance the establishment of a field facility, and I am convinced that the necessary help will be offered by Israel's Health Ministry to facilitate the establishment of this facility," Blachar declared.
Thanks for the two links Underzog. I've got them in my favorites and with read them over the next several days.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245