Israel

Ed Krayewski Talking Israel-Hamas Conflict on The Alan Nathan Show

|

background radio
flickrlickr

I'll be on the Alan Nathan Show in just a few minutes, in the 6p.m. hour, talking about the continuing conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Nathan is interested in the question of why some consider the Palestinians more "righteous" in the conflict because they have more casualties. As I told him (the interview's pre-recorded), I'm not interested in those kinds of questions. Nevertheless, the Israeli government's response to Hamas' haphazard lobbing of rockets into its territory—largely intercepted by the Iron Dome if they're actually headed anywhere where there's a risk—doesn't seem an appropriate one if the goal is to minimize the security threat posed by Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza.

As to the rockets and the Israeli government's response, I repeated a point I made in a column earlier this week:

In the U.S., every time an incidence of "gun violence" makes the national news, certain political groups call for an immediate widespread curtailment of Second Amendment rights to combat the threat. Feelings of terror, however they are generated, can be powerful motivators for reactionary politics. The effort to curtail gun rights often fails in the U.S. because the intended victims of the rights-deprivation are a part of the political process and enjoy broad support despite a vocal, almost hysterical, opposition. The Gazans have no say in Israeli politics—their opinion on being bombed is irrelevant. And they have little say in Palestinian politics, either, when their leaders can't agree on elections, stake their survival in escalating conflict with Israel, all while propagandized their population with the same anti-Israeli hatred that animates their politics.

The Israeli government, of course, doesn't need approval from the U.N. or the U.S. or anyone else to respond or react in any way it chooses, only from enough people to make it through the next election. The only relevant question to U.S. policy is whether we should be subsidizing it

Toward the end, I suggested the Israeli government may, in reviewing the operation after it ends, find that its approach caused it to miss opportunities. I identified the right prime minister, Ehud Olmert, though not by name, under which the Winograd Commission happened but may have mentioned it was after a conflict with Hamas not Hezbollah. On a semi-related note, earlier in the segment Nathan asked why Hezbollah and Hamas were repairing ties when a Sunni-Shi'a conflict is brewing across the region. You'll have to tune in for my answer.

NEXT: Excuses for Police Militarization: 'You can't put a price tag on keeping someone safe'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hamas fire rockets into Isreal
    Israel kicks Hamas’s teeth in while doing more than any other country in the history of warfare to not harm civilians.
    Hamas whines about Israel kicking their teeth in.
    People think there is a question about who’s in the right?

  2. the Israeli government’s response to Hamas’ haphazard lobbing of rockets into its territory?largely intercepted by the Iron Dome if they’re actually headed anywhere where there’s a risk?doesn’t seem an appropriate one if the goal is to minimize the security threat posed by Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza.

    You’re absolutely right Ed. Israel’s lack of commitment to Total War and its extreme leniency to the belligerents and those who supported them in 2009, 2012, and again today ensures this will keep happening. Only total victory by any means necessary-Sherman, Dresden, Hiroshima-is the morally upright response that will ensure peace.

    1. How exactly is Israel supposed to go Hiroshima on Gaza without killing large numbers of their own citizens? You also seem to have a strange idea of what Sherman actually did if you’re comparing it to Dresden or Hiroshima

      1. I’m pretty sure Cytotoxic was using broad examples of take-no-prisoner responses, and didn’t literally mean dropping a nuclear bomb or marching troops, cavalry and wagon trains with torches through the area. But I could be mistaken.

        1. ACtually, cyto is a Objectivist jihadist, and when he sounds like he’s talking about murdering millions in a collectivist pogrom, it’s not hyperbole.

          He’s written that there are no innocents, just allies who should altruistically welcome death in a just cause, and enemies (anybody who isn’t an ally) who deserve death.

          Plop him in waziristan, and he’d be throwing acid in school-girls’ faces… while blaming them for making them do it.

          Fortunately, his sad religion really only attracts pathetic losers, so they tend to sit around bitching about how nobody listens to their superior, rational suggestions.

          1. Fortunately, his sad religion really only attracts pathetic losers, so they tend to sit around bitching about how nobody listens to their superior, rational suggestions.

            Christ, the projection…my God…

            Tarran just bitter that he’s never ever ever fisked my arguments and that Rand pwnd all his heroes of yesteryear. That’s why he mumbles incohorent nonsense about Jihadists and altruism that he doesn’t understand anymore than we do.

            If nuking Gaza is necessary to ending the aggression upon Israel in the least costly way, then the Israeli government is morally obligated to do so. I don’t think we’re at that point, but Israel’s perverse habit of protecting Palestinians at the expense of its citizens is immoral.

          2. Plop him in waziristan, and he’d be throwing acid in school-girls’ faces… while blaming them for making them do it.,

            Do you just not care if the things you say make any sense? Are you retarded tarran? Do you get off on your own soaring rhetoric?

            1. “Do you just not care if the things you say make any sense? Are you retarded tarran? Do you get off on your own soaring rhetoric?”

              Based upon what I’ve read here, I would go with option 2.

              Why is it when someone wants to accuse Objectivists of being insane, they can only do so by acting bat shit crazy?

              You want crazy? The idea that Israel must spare the lives of terrorists or people who voted for terrorists, even if that means sacrificing their own citizens to a horrific death – that’s crazy. Peaceniks always want to redistribute death, and then pretend that no one died.

              Of course, for much of the world, when Jews die, no one really died.

              1. Your post brings me peace.

                Peaceniks always want to redistribute death, and then pretend that no one died.

                Death redistribution. I’m using that. You’re awesome.

        2. Coming from anyone else I would agree. For the reasons tarran states, he’s an exception.

      2. I as merely illustrating a range of options. You’re right unfortunately about the Hiroshima option.

    2. Ed is idiot propagandist. He should have been fired a long, long time ago. The guy is just not learned or intelligent. Fact free and stupid is what Reason wants, I guess.

  3. You (meaning us) can only make a fucked-up situation even worse by ignoring the Palestinian vote and only working with Fatah, who lost the election to Hamas.

    1. ^^ This.

      “Okay people! We’ve brought you Democracy! Which is awesome! You get to finally pick your own leaders! GO!

      Oh. Uh. Well, we didn’t really mean *those* guys. We have some other guys we’d rather you voted for . . . “

      1. Elections have consequences.

    2. They not only lost the election, they also got their guys assassinated by Hamas.

  4. The only relevant question to U.S. policy is whether we should be subsidizing it.

    Agreed, but it’s distasteful to ignore the fact that the approximately 458 million we gave the Palestinians last year bought more than a few rockets as well.

    1. Not to mention money through the UNRWA

      1. If you’re not familiar with Mudar Zahran, you should be.

        1. “Temporary”
          Strange how that word pops up in various pity-party organizations.

        2. I read this, and wasn’t very impressed. A number of the things he said need qualification, sometimes a shit-load of it.

          I have been living in the Middle East, and currently in Jordan, for almost a decade, and his description of the Palestinian situation here had some general truth to it, but the truth is far more complicated. Also, describing “Palestinians” as 70% of the population is terribly misleading. A sizable chunk of those have completely integrated into the country, have a passport, can vote, live in areas that have equal representation (unlike the camps, like the one he mentions Baqa’a), and consider themselves Jordanian, not Palestinian. This would include almost 100% of 1948 refugees and their families, and some of the more fortunate ’67’s.

          Yes, the problems with the way those living inside most of the “camps” (they’re all normal, albeit low-quality, neighborhoods) are real, and they are discriminated against. The problem is that Jordan is using a very similar logic to the problem as Israel: If we give them the same identity (or in the case of Israel, let them return) as those actually from Jordan, native Jordanians will lose their political voice completely.

          There are other problems similar to this, but I’ve already written way too much, and don’t have the time. But as far as I’m concerned, this is a big part of the problem with any discussion on the issue

          1. and I should add, mainly to your post below, that I don’t disagree with the general argument of perverse incentives that the UN, not just UNHRWA, or whatever the actual letters are, provides various sides all over the world, and none more than in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

            And, yes, I’ll buy a period.

    2. Agreed, but it’s distasteful to ignore the fact that the approximately 458 million we gave the Palestinians last year bought more than a few rockets as well.

      The justification for all the aid the US Govt gives is that it purchases stability.

      I am of the opinion that it really doesn’t purchase stability; rather it kicks various conflicts down the road and gives more people a reason to hate the US. For example, if it weren’t for the aid from well meaning (ha!) foreign governments, Hamas would be bounced out on their ear ages ago: they use the money to dole out favors and entrench their position while preventing the local economy from functioning.

      Similarly, without US aid, I doubt the Israeli government would be interested in the expense and problems caused by settling the occupied territories.

      I think foreign aid is enabling bad actors to fuck around more.

      1. Sure. Perverse incentives abound. And like the Zahran article, I linked to, it’s not limited to the US. There are hundreds of UN agencies filled with diplomats, bureaucrats, and “peacekeepers” who directly profit from prolonging human misery all across the globe.

        1. More conflict means more peacekeepers which means more chances for the UN to rape children, so it’s all good for them!

      2. if it weren’t for the aid from well meaning (ha!) foreign governments, Hamas would be bounced out on their ear ages ago: they use the money to dole out favors and entrench their position while preventing the local economy from functioning

        As proven by how the hard hand of the market and glorious work of the citizenry booted the Bolsheviks out of power just as soon as they’d come into it. Or by how quickly Fatah was removed as the supporter of Palestinian nationalism, despite initial support for the group among nation-states being nil.

        without US aid, I doubt the Israeli government would be interested in the expense and problems caused by settling the occupied territories

        Eh, plenty of counter-examples abound in this case: pre-WWI, the Prussian government seemed to find the costs of occupying Polish-speaking parts of Europe and Prussianizing them to be worth it, even without US subsidy. Indeed, without the strings attached by US aid (implicit and explicit), Israel could come up with all sorts of ways to reduce those costs. I’ve heard kicking the residents off their lands, expropriating their property, and forcing them onto the lands of your immediate neighbors is a pretty cheap way to do just that (at least, short-term). I imagine that some variant of this tack might have been tried in the 70s if not for US intervention.

      3. American aid has many strings attached. When Israel delays response to aggression (from anywhere in the middle east) in deference to American objectives (Iraq, etc.), this deference is directly tied to our aid.

        Also, some (I don’t know how much) of the US military aid to Israel is spent on military equipment that Israelis don’t need, but are “required” to purchase. In effect, a transfer of $ from American taxpayers to U.S. companies.

        “I think foreign aid is enabling bad actors to fuck around more.”

        There are no conditions under which Israel can ignore Arab aggression, unless she wants to bury her own.

        1. Ding! American aid is good for Israeli politicians bad for Israelis.

  5. Dude does not seem to know what the deal is over there.

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.