Anthony Fisher Talking Gaza and More on Huffpost Live

|

I'll be appearing on Huffpost Live today at 5p ET for their "Cocktail Chatter" segment wheresubjects ranging from collective punishment in Gaza to the whitewashing of characters in movies set in ancient Egypt will be discussed. And yes, there will be booze. 

Also scheduled to appear are host Josh ZeppsElizabeth Plank of PolicyMic and comic Nadia Manzoor.

Full segment will be posted later this evening. 

UPDATE: Full segment can be viewed below:

Advertisement

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Glenn Reynolds on Government Liars, Americans Hate Everyone, Amash Goes Ballistic, Smokers Banned in Arizona, Cops Steal Rock Band's Photos, Plus More Enemies of Freedom!

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. I’ll be appearing on Huffpost Live today at 5p ET for their “Cocktail Chatter” segment

    ^SEE^

  2. collective punishment in Gaza

    Israel kills innocents and it is “collective punishment” but when the Islamist does it to Jews it isn’t?

    Will the HuffPo show exhibit the same type of intellectual rigor? Almost certainly.

    1. Jews have all the power, therefore killing them isn’t wrong.

    2. War is a collective exercise on both sides, of killing people and destroying things.

      Labelling war damage and casualties as “collective punishment” seems . . . problematic. At least for any non-propaganda purpose.

      1. Why is it problematic to label it what it is? I imagine one reason why libertarians have traditionally been comparatively anti-war is because we recognize the collective nature of it.

        1. …because war is not a form of “punishment”, especially not war of a defensive nature? Clausewitz is far more informative on the subject than Chomsky, regardless of what libertarians have or have not “traditionally” been in favor of.

          1. War nearly always involves the punishment of innocents not involved in aggression.

            1. Annnnddd…?

              1. It is a pretty common place libertarian value, you might say a fundamental one, that harming people who have committed no aggression against you is wrong, and that such actions can’t be casually justified with some utilitarian calculus (because people aren’t indistinguishable units).

                1. I’m not sure utilitarianism is always bad when contemplating war. For example, what if killing 10 innocents saves 100 innocents? I agree that you can’t trade one anonymous person’s life for another, but at some point, it seems like you must fight back, and collateral damage tends to be inevitable.

                  I think you can be a pacifist in 99% of situations and still understand that you can’t let an attack on your country go unpunished.

            2. War involves damage to innocents, not punishment as 1) punishment is in response to a specific action or offense (which does not describe most collateral damage), and 2) is intentional in nature, which most collateral is not. Such damage may be unavoidable, but it is rarely a goal of foreign policy except in the most barbaric cases.

              1. “…rarely a goal of foreign policy except in the most barbaric cases.”

                Yes, such as when HAMAS deliberately targets innocents on both sides.

              2. Are you kidding? Take just an embargo and apply your two pronged test. Then move on to Hiroshima.

                1. The problem is that you don’t know what collective punishment actually is, and just assume that it means any military action which has severe adverse effects on the civilian population. That’s not what it means. The German policy of killing 10 Herero civilians for each German soldier killed by insurgents was a textbook example of collective punishment; ditto Sherman’s policy towards civilian populations in his march to the sea. The bombing of Dresden is probably the best-known form of such on the Allied side in WWII.

                  In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the targets were very legitimate in a military sense as was the goal of the bombing, seeing as how they harbored the bulk of Japan’s remaining army and navy, respectively and it was the easiest way to eliminate such without killing millions of Americans and Japanese alike. They were not a form of collective punishment — ditto the Israeli blockade, which is not justified on collective punishment grounds but rather on the grounds that without it, Hamas gets lots of weapons. It is the exact same rationale that is used in the embargo of N Korea and other states which we consider a danger to ourselves. These may be objectionable actions for other reasons, but they are not forms of collective punishment.

                  (By the bye, wasn’t a decades-long blockade of Japan what you suggested as an alternative to the nukes? Just sayin’.)

                  1. I don’t think the march to the sea was collective punishment. It was intended to destroy the confederacy’s ability to wage war, and it was policy not to kill civilians who were unarmed or not resisting.

                    1. As John said, collective punishment is when you punish an entire population for the acts of either an insurgency or standing army. Sherman’s policy IIRC was to spare cities where there was no resistance, but to be ruthless against the population of cities where regiments were being raised or where the governing authorities did not surrender in good order.

                      It did help to win the war and was not malicious, but it was a form of collective punishment. If Israel were rounding up and killing 10 Gazans for every dead IDF soldier or bombing a school for no other reason than that a Gazan rocketeer graduated from it, that would be collective punishment. I don’t see any evidence that current operations or the blockade are a form of punishment rather than a way to try to eliminate the threat from Gaza to their citizens for at least a time (whether the actions are effective in that purpose is another question).

                    2. “I don’t see any evidence that current operations or the blockade are a form of punishment rather than a way to try to eliminate the threat from Gaza to their citizens”

                      The blockade which started not in answer to rocket attacks but when Hamas took over in Gaza?

                    3. Bo do you not see how a terrorist organization dedicated to your country’s destruction and committing ongoing attacks against your citizens taking over a neighboring territory might prompt such a response? If al-Qaeda took over Baja California, what do you think the US would/should do?

                    4. The policy wasn’t ruthless against the population I the same way that Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the nazi actions were, which (for better or worse) were mass slaughters. I don’t think it belongs as a comparable example IMO

                    5. *in

                  2. “In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the targets were very legitimate in a military sense as was the goal of the bombing”

                    Hilarious stuff, the target was quite knowingly entire cities.

                    1. And, even if there were military targets within the city targeting the entire city is really an act of terrorism (designed to awe the Japanese into giving up).

                    2. And, even if there were military targets within the city targeting the entire city is really an act of terrorism (designed to awe the Japanese into giving up).

                      You attempt to apply principles and morality to the unprincipled and immoral act of war. War is immoral…always. You are killing people without due process. It is also, sometimes necessary.

                      You don’t know fuck all about the LOAC. Educate yourself. Military targets don’t cease to become targets simply because they are amongst a civilian population. We carpet bombed entire cities in Germany to take out military industrial facilities.

                      You are, once again, talking out of your ass.

                    3. Do you even know how Japanese industry is configured? Did you know that much industrial work was parceled out to shops contained in people’s homes even in the 1990s? To destroy an industry in Japan, you can’t just destroy the big factories, because a significant amount of the work is piece work given out to home shops.

                    4. Apparently you are stupid as well as being unable to read English.

                      Of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki are cities, just as many of Israel’s targets are schools or mosques. This is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not this makes them military targets, and in fact they were. Since military targets can contain non-combatants within them, it is specious to maintain that the presence of non-combatants is evidence that the target is not a legitimate military target, which Hiroshima and Nagasaki were and would be, regardless of whether or not they were nuked, firebombed, or captured by the US army in a full-scale invasion involving millions of deaths.

                      In either case, not a form of collective punishment since the US motivation was not to “punish” Japan but rather to achieve war aims.

                    5. Many youngsters and people ignorant of history seem to think that bombing cities in WWII was some sort of crude anti-civilian action. While cities always have had civilians, back then they were also centers of manufacturing, headquarters for military units, and so on.

                      And, of course, weaponry at that time did not allow surgical strikes, so to attack a manufacturing plant or military HQ, everything within a mile of it was likely to be bombed.

                      So, no, neither the US nor Israel is engaging in “collective punishment.”

    3. You might want to wait and see what is talked about under that heading before jumping to conclusions.

      1. Sorry, Bo, but I don’t remember a single time when someone pulled out the “collective punishment” meme that they applied it to both sides.

        But there is always a first time.

        1. I think that’s largely because the other side has been pretty incapable of inflicting much collective punishment on Israel (we’ve helped see to that with billions of dollars of US taxpayer paid for military assistance), though of course it does happen (the murder of the three teenagers recently could be said to be a form of collective punishment) and should be condemned when it does.

          1. No, it’s because Jews aren’t people and the Holocaust didn’t happen!

          2. I’d say launching 3000+ rockets at Israeli civilians counts as collective punishment as much as anything Israel has done the other way

            1. I think you could say that Hamas intends collective punishment by doing that, and some occurs (having to hide in shelters for example), but the relative death counts certainly make my original point.

              1. Might that be because the Israeli government tries to protect Israelis from being killed, while Hamas tries to get Gazans killed?

          3. that’s largely because the other side has been pretty incapable of inflicting much collective punishment on Israel

            Well, its only 28 killed and 1900 injured by rocket attacks. I’m sure there’s more with bombs and shootings. but, really who cares? They were only Jews, and even if they were real people that’s not enough to count as collective punishment.

            So, yeah, nothing to see here. Move along! The Pro- Hamas demonstration is down there, just past the swastikas.

            http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014…..-for-gaza/

            1. “that’s not enough to count as collective punishment.”

              I like how at some level you realize the truism that when people think something is bad they tend to focus more attention on the more egregious (in terms of effect) examples of it, but then you quickly go for the ‘anti-Semite’ race card playing as the only conceivable reason why that might occur.

              1. Sometimes it is appropriate. I don’t think there is a more appropriate case.

                1. I like how the entire first half of my comment just flew over your head there (course with your head that far in the sand…)

                  1. I think he’s saying that normally you’re correct, but not in this case. Which I disagree with for the record.

                    1. Yes, I’m commenting on his ‘can’t think of a more appropriate case,’ because of course any other reason for the alleged disparate focus is inconceivable ( even though I just gave one in the very post he replied too).

          4. Launching rockets into Israel is collective punishment of Israelis by Hamas. The purpose is to kill and terrorize Israeli civilians.

            I do not understand why you and others give them a pass just because they don’t actually manage to kill many people.

      2. “Collective punishment” is, indeed, a term used consistently in criticisms/attacks on Israel. I never remember seeing it used against the Palis.

        It is applied to collateral damage inflicted by the Israelis, and it is applied to “civilian” damage done by the Israelis, regardless of whether Hamas had made a (formerly) civilian facility a legitimate military target.

        1. Actually, I’ve heard the term most often used in regards to things like bulldozing the family houses of suspected terrorists and the embargo. If they are not ‘collective punishment’ what is?

          1. The Nazi examples cited above are. Bulldozing the “family house” of a terrorist isn’t quite, because it is his house. Yes, the rest of the family suffers, but the family of a felon also suffers when he goes to prison. That doesn’t make it “collective punishment.”

            The embargo is a defensive action: they don’t want rockets etc. shipped into Gaza.

            1. How is bulldozing the house not collective punishment? That’s not at all comparable to the emotional/financial harm that comes to a family as a consequence of imprisonment of a family member. Would you be ok with the government here bulldozing the family home of everyone suspected or convicted of murder?

  3. Can we please do away with the “criticizing Israel means you are anti-Semitic” meme that’s become increasingly prevalent here? I’ve disagreed with a lot of what Bo and the pro-Palestinian crowd in general has said on the subject, but disagreeing with Israeli actions or disliking Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t make you anti-Semitic any more than despising and disagreeing with Barack Obama makes you racist against black people. Considering how much leftists get (rightly) called out here for making such accusations, it’s pretty hypocritical to engage in the same sort of behavior.

    1. It’s just their version of principals over principles Calidissident.

    2. Anti-Israel protestors are attacking synagogues and Jews in Europe. It’s not a meme you idiot.

      1. So, if some anti-Israel protestors are doing these bad things then all anti-Israel protestors are guilty of it, in fact all people who criticize Israel are.

        You just made Calidissident’s point there.

        1. No I didn’t. It’s a fucking fact that some anti-Israel protestors are attacking synagogues and Jews, and calling Jews names.

          Nobody is fucking saying all people who disagree with Israel are anti-semites. Cali though wants people to pretend that thousands of people don’t hate Jews, but just hate Israel. That’s madness and stupidity. It’s not surprising you’re as stupid as Cali.

          God damn you’re an idiot man.

          1. You are an unhinged moron. Please quote where I said that nobody who is anti-Israel is anti-Semitic? You have terrible reading comprehension and then have the nerve to attack others for misconstruing your words, which in context heavily imply what Bo and I thought you meant. Your comment is completely irrelevant if you weren’t saying that “anti-Israel = anti-Semitic” because I never said or implied that someone can’t be both.

      2. That’s like saying “anti-Obama people are saying and doing racist things” to prove the argument that all Obama critics are racist. I never said that there aren’t any Israel critics who actually are anti- Semitic. Clearly there are. That doesn’t mean anyone who criticizes Israel hates Jews. There are plenty of pro-Israel people who hate Arabs and/or Muslims, does that make it ok to call all pro-Israeli people bigots?

        1. Calidissident, ever notice the ones who do it the most are our ‘right leaning’ libertarians? That likely explains some of it, the two Teams love the same tactics, just different targets

          1. And with that aspersion about the dreaded SOCONz and eeeeeeeevil “right-leaning” libertarians out of the way, I’ve just won BO Bingo. Drink, everybody!

            1. You’re not a right leaning libertarian, in fact you’re self acknowledged as not a libertarian at all.

              1. Damn right. What’s your point? Am I part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy destroying all that is good and holy in the libertarian world, or aren’t I? And is the set of “right-leaning libertarians” and “people who think Bo is a schmuck” equivalent, or is there some leeway for me to think you’re a shitstain without morphing into the ghost of Russell Kirk?

        2. Who the fuck is saying that if you criticize Israel that you hate Jews? Who you fucking imbecile?

          There people attacking synagogues and killing Jews for being Jews.

          1. Did you read my fucking comment asshole? Where did I say that no Israel critics are anti-Semitic? And if you read through this thread, you would see that multiple people accused Bo and other Israel critics of being anti-Semitic, based on nothing more than disagreement with Israeli policy.

            1. Cali,
              I don’t disagree that the anti-semite accusation is tossed around entirely to casually.
              As regards Bo, I really can’t tell. The guy is either so in love with sophomoric ‘argument’, inventing reasons to dislike Jews for adolescent amusement, or an outright anti-semite.

              1. Based on Bo’s personality, I’m quite confident that it’s his argumentative nature. He’s made a ton of posts on the subject, and I haven’t see one that could be seen as anti- Semitic and not just anti-Israeli policy. In my experience, it’s pretty difficult for actual anti-Semites to talk about this subject without very quickly giving away the fact that they are blatantly anti-Semitic.

                1. If you only apply standards to Israel, you are anti semetic. Show me where you or Bo ever apply an even standard to both sides.

                  1. John, I didn’t even criticize Israel in this thread. See my comment below.

                  2. “If you only apply standards to Israel, you are anti semetic”

                    See, I addressed that at the start, but what people actually write is irrelevant for people that want to play a race card, whatever Team they are on.

                2. …”I haven’t see one that could be seen as anti- Semitic and not just anti-Israeli policy.”

                  I’ll disagree.

                  1. Perhaps he has, and I just haven’t seen it. Do you have an example?

                    1. Any fucking chance that being called on inconsistency about this issue does not “heavily imply in context” jack shit? You are at least as good as Bo at putting words in other people’s mouths which they did not say.

                      When I posted hours ago, I didn’t even consider antisemitism. “Inconsistent” was the word I used.

                      But again, in your eternal wisdom you gleaned the “truth” out of the “context and heavy implications”?

                      What a pair of fucking turds.

                    2. Um, Marshall are you Lyle? I wasn’t fucking replying to you, your post came out of left field. Wtf?

                    3. He doesn’t, of course. The race card game is played via innuendo

                    4. Calidissident|8.6.14 @ 9:48PM|#
                      “Perhaps he has, and I just haven’t seen it. Do you have an example?”

                      Pretty much everything he’s posted is either sophistry or anti-semitism.

                    5. Agreed on the sophistry. Again, I haven’t noticed any obvious anti-semitism. Maybe his position regarding Israel-Palestine is due to anti-semitism but I haven’t seen anything that seems like a giveaway that that’s the reason.

                    6. I don’t think it’s anti-semitism with Bo as much as an extension of his desperate need to bolster his own ego via moral posturing. It’s a lot of what he does here in a nutshell. His lack of appreciation for the grimy details of the shit-sandwich that is the Israel-Palestinian situation are no obstacle to his picking a side and preening himself in front of his monitor at the thought of how much wiser he is and how more moral a person he is than all of us. I don’t think that the people of Gaza or Israel are much more real to him than they are to Cyto. Just counters in an game of Look at Me.

    3. Bibi is a cunt. Israel’s government sucks and is a mutant hellspawn borne of socialist economics and stupid UN bullshit. Bulldozing was a shit policy and probably does in fact qualify for the term “collective punishment”.

      And yet, there is a reason that no “pro-Palestinian” argument is anything close to an argument that an actual Palestinian living in or supporting the governments or insurgencies of the Occupied Territories would make. There is a reason for this: those governments and insurgencies, far from flawed, are batshit insane that would make a straightforward defense of their aims and tactics obviously repellent to someone of a pro-West viewpoint. The Israeli government and its conduct is not the best from the libertarian standpoint but it can be defended without sounding like a demented space alien who also believes in Allah, which is why an ulterior motive for describing oneself as “pro-Palestinian” is usually invoked: a Westerner finds it easier to believe that you are affected by leftist solidarity or an irrational spate of anti-Semitism than that you sincerely believe in the Palestinian cause as a Palestinian would see it.

      1. I don’t disagree with your main points. I do not consider myself pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. The only point I was making is that criticizing Israeli actions (which does not even necessarily mean you are pro-Palestine) does not mean you hate Jews (though obviously anti-Semites tend to be very anti-Israel). Nonetheless, that charge is often hurled by many conservatives, libertarians, and other defenders of Israel over the slightest hint of someone not being totally pro-Israel (much like how many leftists accuse others of being racist for little to no reason). Witness John ITT calling me anti-Semitic just for making this argument, which isn’t even saying anything about the morality of either side of the conflict.

        1. Naturally, I agree that the constant Jew-baiting is tedious and unnecessary. I’m just explaining why it happens; it is far more likely that being “pro-Palestine” is a pose than any legitimate sense of acceptance or understanding of the Palestinian position. Especially on the left, it resembles the gyrations made on behalf of the black and latino American communities in its psychodrama:understanding ratio.

          1. I totally agree regarding the lack of understanding, I’m just saying (which you agree with) that there are explanations besides anti-semitism, and the knee jerk accusations get annoying.

          2. Here IT is what, four posts in on this point without acknowledging that no one here is being pro-Palestinian but rather are talking about being critical of Israel.

            I’m critical of many US WOT actions, but that doesn’t mean I hate America or am pro-AQ (interestingly enough this analogous thinking is found commonly on the right, where most of the people doing the same thing here ‘lean’)

            1. I don’t think IT was specifically making his comments about posters on this website.

            2. Since my comment was general in nature and applies primarily to members of the left who self-describe as such, I don’t see how that could possibly have been relevant to my comment. Is there anything you specifically disagree with in my comment as it was written, or are you just trying to make this comment thread longer?

              FFS, I’m not writing the Lord of the Rings here. Maybe for the future I’ll include dissembling disclaimers in the Reason appendices, so that people who don’t enjoy a free-flowing comments section can torture themselves with every stray thought and ode to Bo’s itchy vagina that I can think of in the minute I spend writing a comment.

  4. Collective punishment is an actual term of art with an actual meaning. Since Bo and Caldisdent are both prog concern trolls and both ignorant half wits, it is not surprising neither of them know what it means. Collective punishment is when an occupying power punishes an entire population for the acts of an insurgency. For example, cutting off the electricity to an entire town after someone there takes a shot at a soldier is collective punishment.

    It is not waging war or acting in self defense, which is what Israel is doing. The idiotic application of the term comes from a New Yorker article that argues, and I am not kidding, that Israel’s refusal to let Ha as have a state and wage war against them is collective punishment of all the west bank.

    It is complete nonsense and the kind of shit I would expect our resident prog concern trolls to buy into. And Caldissdent, the day you show any concern over the atrocities of Israel’s enemies, is theday you can deny being an Anti Semite.

    1. If you had read my comments in previous threads on this subject, you would know that I have unambiguously condemned Hamas and declared them the biggest roadblock to peace in the area. As long as they have the power they do in Gaza, I think the Israeli blockade is justified. I also don’t think Israel is wrong for undergoing this operation, although I haven’t agreed with all of their actions in doing so. Shit, in my first comment in this thread I explicitly stated that I had disagreed with much of what Bo and other pro-Palestinian people have argued.

      You have actually gone beyond what I initially criticized. Now, not only is criticizing Israeli policy anti-Semitic, criticizing people for labeling such criticism as inherently anti-Semitic makes you an anti-Semite. You are just as pathetic as the left wingers who think that anyone who disagrees with their politics is racist.

      1. Okay then you don’t. Good for you.

      2. John is acknowledged as not a libertarian and as a conservative Republican, so when he calls people here progs you know ‘what’s up.’

        It’s really interesting when the same people here upset about criticism of so cons and Palin make the same arguments you’d hear on the Weekly Standard about this and then accuse those taking the more usual libertarian line if being biased. I suggest it says something about their own biased, or maybe where they get their news and rhetoric from

  5. Normally Tyson is a statist d-bag…

    but this is pretty awesome:

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/84241436/

  6. Netanyahy is a fucking traitor. His ongoing enablement of Hamas and other Jihadists in the name of self-sacrificing ‘humanitarian concerns’ and kissing the USG’s ass is treasonous. He should arrested and replaced with a real leader that will end Hamas and pacify Gaza. Permanently.

    1. See, here’s where I’m going to ask:

      How do you propose he does that? Morally, it is unethical to evict a civilian population from their homes and properties en masse with no evidence of wrong-doing. Moreover, Israel tried doing this in a limited way after the ’48 war of independence and did not reap the benefits they thought they would. The other alternatives would seem to be a semi-permanent military occupation (also tried during the 70s; didn’t work), imposition of a client government (arguably tried during certain periods), or a federalized Israeli state (essentially national suicide if you’re enfranchising the same people who empowered Hamas and Fatah).

      I have my own ideas on what could be done, but I am curious.

      1. Anything and everything necessary. I’m not a fan of evictions. I’m more into Dresden/Hiroshima if need be followed by total ground war. If Gaza will only be peaceful as a glass parking lot, then turn it into a glass parking lot with Israeli troops to kill any surviving Jihadists.

        1. Saying “genocide” would have been much more concise.

          1. “What Hamas is doing” if concision isn’t necessary.

            1. Because clearly if you oppose turning Gaza into a glass parking lot, you must think Hamas is totally ok.

        2. That is extreme, especially when less extreme alternatives can be conceived of which might be effective. My preference would be for Israel to annex small parts of Gazan territory as reprisal for hostility; since sovereignty is not a natural right of any government, the Gazan government surely has no right to govern the land. The inhabitants would then be handled like immigrants and their children would be given the opportunity to become Israeli citizens, should they accept it, with one exception:

          Should they aggress against an Israeli citizen or a member of IDF without cause, they will be expelled following a fair and just trial (this will be the difficult part). Any other country may accept them as migrants, but they must leave Israel proper (which will include the annexed territory).

          Not perfect, but potentially more likely to succeed than what you propose, as well as being more just IMO.

          1. Not a whole lot of land in Gaza to take, and what happens when you run out of land to annex?

            1. Why, you push them into the sea, a line those who throw around the anti-Semite charge in defense of everything IDF are ironically familiar with

              1. Hamas shouldn’t go the way of the Nazis? Was it genocide to destroy Nazi Germany?

                I dare you to say yes man.

                1. Hamas shouldn’t go the way of the Nazis? Was it genocide to destroy Nazi Germany?

                  I dare you to say yes man.

                  Yes the fire bombing of Dresden was genocide.

                  1. “Yes the fire bombing of Dresden was genocide.”

                    It was nothing of the sort. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    1. “Yes the fire bombing of Dresden was genocide.”

                      It was nothing of the sort. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                      Factory workers were intentionally targeted. The number is from 20 to 25 thousand killed.

                      Seriously they used fire bombs. It was meant to kill a shit load of German civilians.

                      That is genocide in my book.

                2. Lyle, seriously just stop. You are really showing lack of reading comprehension. Unless you think turning a place into glass would just kill members of Hamas and magically wouldn’t kill millions of civilians

            2. Not a whole lot of land in Gaza to take

              That’s fine. Annexation should be more to jog the Palestinians along the merry path of getting a somewhat decent government, rather than for its real estate value. The amount of land to be annexed should be based on how many Gazans Israel can realistically and justly police and educate at a given time, rather than its value to Israelis.

              what happens when you run out of land to annex

              Then there is no bellicose state for Israel to war against, the violent criminals in the Gazan population have been exiled, and the non-violent Palestinians have either become Israeli citizens or have children who are on their way to becoming Westernized citizens — problem solved, at least in theory.

              While no part of my plan requires the elimination of a Gazan state, it certainly doesn’t require it — which I consider a plus on both counts, btw.

              1. My point regarding the small amount of land is that there’s not much space for to operate and you can run out quickly. Where are these exiled Palestinians going to be after you’ve annexed all the land? I don’t think the idea is practical at all, though it sounds nice in theory.

                1. I’ll admit that my plan would hypothetically work better in the West Bank than in Gaza.

                  Still, settlements evidently existed within Gaza despite the small size of the area and relative urbanization; this would indicate that it is possible to conserve sovereignty within small areas in Gaza indefinitely.

                  The bigger problem would be what to do with Gaza City.

                  I agree that my idea is more of theory than it is a solid proposal, but it is preferable and arguably less idealistic than either waiting for the magical moment when Gaza gets a decent government (a moment which will probably never come), glassing a largely civilian population, or simply allowing a terrorist state to emerge as a recognized nation-state without any clue about how that state will interact with Israel (which would seem to be a very bad outcome for Israel).

                  1. I came to believe a 20km wide free-fire zone surrounding Israel made up 50-50 from the territory of both sides in conflict would be the only permanent solution to this problem years ago and nothing that has happened since the Clinton administration has dissuaded me from it yet.

                    Not a DMZ, a no-man’s land.

                    1. Dances, Gaza is itself only about 10 Km wide. Your plan would quite literally eliminate Gaza, both as a territory and place of residence, and would place you on the extreme right of the Israel-Palestine debate.

                    2. Yes.

                      Extreme “right”? Not really, and I don’t even know how extreme it is given the alternative. Call it acceptance of the reality of the situation. They need to be separated or people just need to get over the vapors they get when these bouts of bloodletting occur. Because until they are separated or the Palis are absorbed into the surrounding kingdoms it will continue. Forever.

                    3. I suppose also that the Islamic Martin Luther could appear and the religion could undergo a sea-level change in how it relates to non-believers in general and Jews in particular leading to rainbow and unicorns all around but given how resistant to structural change Islam is I’m not holding my breath.

                    4. With the Israel-Palestine conflict, it’s more complicated than religion. It’s not just about hating Jews, many Palestinians feel that all the land of Israel/Palestine belongs to them, and a good number of Israeli Jews believe the opposite. Hamas is the biggest roadblock but not the only one. Even among non-extremists, issues like the settlements in the West Bank, the right of return, and the fate of Jerusalem are all very divisive issues that are not easy to solve or form an agreement palatable to both sides.

                    5. It is much more than religion, but the religious aspect is the thing that makes the situation so intractable. I think that it is what is stopping any real progress from being made on so many of these issues.

                      A not insignificant number of Muslims think that killing Jews is part of their religious duty and they are not nearly marginalized enough by their co-religionists where they are marginalized at all. That’s the ugly, uncomfortable, and difficult truth of the matter. It’s frankly depressing as hell to think about.

                    6. In my opinion, both factors make the situation currently intractable. Remember that in the early decades of the conflict, Arab nationalism was a stronger force in the conflict than radical Islam. Sirhan sirhan was a Palestinian Christian. Radical Islam has unfortunately become a large factor, but the hatred of Jews is about more than religion at this point. Hamas and their cohorts could all vanish tomorrow and a permanent solution would still be very difficult to reach.

        3. I’m more into Dresden/Hiroshima if need be followed by total ground war.

          Disbanding Israel and all the Jews move to the US is less extreme.

          Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you?

          How do you go from a little war with maybe a couple thousand deaths, mostly military/humas fighters, to 100’s of thousands of dead civilians as a solution?

          1. It’s Cytotoxic, what else would you expect on this subject besides some sort of Final Solution?

            1. Seriously did not think he was that bloodthirsty until now.

          2. Hmm…looking at wikipedia the death toll of Dresden was max 25,000.

            I always thought it was Hiroshima sized.

            “90,000?166,000 killed in Hiroshima” this is also smaller then i remember hearing.

            Still 10s of thousands up to 160 thousand murder of civilians is bat shit insane.

            1. “Still 10s of thousands up to 160 thousand murder of civilians is bat shit insane.”

              Check “Downfall” (Frank) for honest numbers; those sound high.
              Regardless, let’s travel back in time: What options were available to end the war in the Pacific?
              We could have blockaded Japan, and I’m sure not more than several million Japanese would have died, along with the ~100,000 Asian non-combatants dying per month under Japanese rule. Sounds ‘way more humanitarian, right?
              We could have invaded with roughly the same sort of death totals.
              So, Corning, what alternative suits your fancy? I’m waiting.

              1. So, Corning, what alternative suits your fancy? I’m waiting.

                I will say I am more sympathetic to the US and Britain in regards to Dresden and Hiroshima that both were executed at the butt end of a protracted bloody costly war then I am for a god damn bloodthirsty neocon Canadian who wants to turn the ground in Gaza to glass.

                Not here to argue over the reasoning of World War 2…I am here arguing that turning the Israel-Hamas war into World War 2 is bat shit insane.

                1. “Not here to argue over the reasoning of World War 2.”

                  OK, but I’d ask you to be careful tossing around terms like ‘murdering civilians’ when you lack knowledge of the circumstance. As far as I’m concerned, the Japanese owe the US a celebration of deliverance on 8/6 to commemorate the millions of Japanese that didn’t die as a result.
                  Sorry, but I’ve had to deal with self-righteous (ignorant) moralists over the issue entirely too often.

                  1. careful tossing around terms like ‘murdering civilians’

                    Go read what Cytotoxic is saying what should be done in Gaza.

                    “murdering civilians” is actually a tame way to describe it.

                2. And I’ll mention that Cyto and I get ‘into it’ often enough; s/he seems to get a war woodie real quick.

                3. Bombing of Dresden is fundamentally different from Hiroshima/Nagasaki. At least in my reading, Hiroshima/Nagasaki were legitimate war targets which the US military would have needed to get ahold of one way or another before war’s end; firebombing was the likely alternative if not for the bomb and would have resulted in more casualties. Invasion of the Home Islands by Marines/Army was possible and judging by the battle of Manila, would have also incurred more casualties on both sides than nukes did. Bo and a couple of others have suggested a blockade as the “humane” response, but having read about famines at the time I can say that there is nothing humane about imposing one on an enemy population, and that estimates of the death toll would have been much costlier on the civilian population and possibly resulted in something like the N Korean situation (where the military regime survives by getting the lion’s share of the food).

                  Dresden was OTOH unnecessary and did not involve particularly important war targets.

    1. Wasn’t “Native” a word invented and/or appropriated to replace racist words?

      Is “indigenous” going to be the next word to be called racist?

      1. Corning,
        Check above; I’m waiting for an answer.

  7. …(though obviously anti-Semites tend to be very anti-Israel).

    Except, of course, for those people who are pro-Israel because they want “those people” living over there instead of here.

  8. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it. Thats all dude.

    http://www.AnonGalaxy.tk

  9. The stupid was flowing fast and thick in that discussion, particularly in the film review / cultural critique at the end. It was racist and sexist to have a white guy as the protagonist and a black guy as a (one of many) bad guys? The good guys included a black woman in green makeup, a racoon and a tree for crying out loud. But it has to be racism and sexism?

    It is one thing to wish for more movies with black or female action heroes, but hanging that as a badge of shame around every movie that gets made? Particularly when the main competition for this movie is a sci-fi action flick starring Scarlett Johansson. At least Fisher pointed out that Will Smith filled the role of roguish action hero for quite a few years in Hollywood.

    It was just an insipid conversation that threatened to go full Jezebel at any moment. And that wasn’t even the dumb part – that title was taken by the host’s insistence that making movies was a social responsibility and should be done in a way that respects his culture-shaping preferences. Just painful to watch.

    I suppose respect is due to Mr. Fisher for being able to maintain an amiable smile and affable demeanor that said “hey guys, I’m one of you!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.