Palistan Jihadis know they're historical interlopers, and their whole psychological posture reflects this. Not a tree planted, not a road paved, not a house finished. The future does not exist. Everything is predicated on what can be stolen today.

Does Hamas or Fatah receive the royalties from the huge natural gas deposits off the Gaza coast that British Gas is pumping?

to invent stories about administration choices

There's an interesting consistency to the way these things work. There are few if any exceptions:

At first, people like Pollak absolutely deny what's going on. They sneer at the "inventions" of the people actually reporting on reality.

As the decades go by, memoirs come out, government documents are released, historians write books.

Finally, when there's no alternative, people like Pollak will admit that the "inventions" actually were quite real. Yes, the US government did overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was trumped up. Yes, the US was illegally supporting the contras.

But of course at that point, Pollak will say: Those events are old history. Why are we talking about them? The important thing is these outrageous people inventing stories about administration choices right now!

See you in 2038, Noah.

"Does Yglesias believe that with the old kleptocrat finally gone, the United States and the massive alliance of nations and organizations committed to Palestinian democracy shouldn't have pushed the PA to finally, after a decade, hold elections?"

So, they should push for an election (knowing full well who the main opposition is) and than impose crippling sanctions on the territory after the outcome?

I agree with Yglesias here, this is a policy run by morons, which however awful it is to hear, is better than the Peretz line that Arabs are just naturally violent.

If the "Bushies" were morons, it is because they assumed the Palestinians, given the chance to choose their leadership democratically, would NOT choose those whose goals will NECESSARILY prolong and intensify the suffering of the Palestinians.

Morons, indeed.

Finally, when there's no alternative, people like Pollak will admit that the "inventions" actually were quite real. Yes, the US government did overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was trumped up. Yes, the US was illegally supporting the contras.

Yes, the US did overthrow Mossadeq in 1953, and yes it was probably a bad move. But to blame all of the subsequent insane "Death to America" Iranian behavior on one coup from a half a century ago is to absolve the Iranians of any blame for what they've done since 1981. Meanwhile, why aren't the Vietnamese foaming at the mouth in hatred for the US-- we certainly screwed up their country far worse than we did Iran.

The US screwed a lot of countries, yet none have held a half-century-long grudge like the Iranians have. And in any event, a lot of countries have screwed over the United States, yet you don't find us screaching "death to this" and "death to that" a half century after the fact.

Stop making pathetic excuses for despicable behavior. Using your logic, maybe the Germans were right to embark on WWII, after all, the Versaille Treaty was unfair!

Does Hamas or Fatah receive the royalties from the huge natural gas deposits off the Gaza coast that British Gas is pumping?

That's a great question, Alphie. Because imagine how much more arms the Palestinians could purchase if they had access to hundreds of millions of more dollars!

Nothing like contributing an appropo comment!

TG: the Peretz line that Arabs are just naturally violent.

That's not what he said. Gaza is an extraordinarily violent and unstable place right now regardless of what the administration does or doesn't do.

Contrary to popular belief, George W. Bush is not the center of the universe.

Hence my question, Zak.

Which side is getting the money from Gaza's huge natural gas reserves?

Do you know?

Since the Bushies came in to power, they have generally avoided making the same foreign policy decisions as did the Clinton admin. regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. And last I checked, everybody was blamming the Bushies for not being "enganged" enough, ignoring the fact that engagement has nothing to do with movement towards peace.

Bottom line: Palestinians, as a whole, are simply not ready to make peace with Israel. Nobody else is to blame for this except for the Palestinians. Period.

It never ceases to astound me - no matter what the Islamists do - from flying planes into buildings, to blowing up Israelis, to butchering innocent Iraqis, to slaughtering Palestinians, to using Lebanese as human shields, to chopping off the heads of journalists... it is NEVER their fault... and somehow George Bush, or some Jew somewhere is to blame....

Zak, I note that you completely missed my point. Would you like to give it another shot?

In the meantime, you are so right about the way we've been screwed over by other countries. Our elected government's been overthrown and replaced by a brutal dictatorship so many times I can't even keep track. And when you consider the way other countries have helped Saddam Hussein invade the U.S. and use chemical weapons against us -- well, it's amazing how forgiving we've been.

I have no clue Alphie, and it's a question that doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand. I have a feeling it's merely a set up for one of your snarky comments.

Or maybe it has everything to do with the topic at hand, Zak.

Look at all the strife oil royalty distribution is causing in Iraq.

British Gas probably hands the monthly royalty check over to whichever Palestinian group the British government tells them to.

How do you decide something like that?

jrs,

Your entire sarcastic (or perhaps it was serious) comment completely ignores the fact that the USA, despite its faults, is a liberal democracy and therefore an entire different creature than a regime like Saddam's. Excuse me for ignoring the vast differences between a liberal democracy and a fascist dictatorship.

True, nobody has overthrown our government, but it doesn't mean other countries haven't played dirty rotten tricks on us. And as a society and political system we don't act like many Iranians and Arabs have acted because of imagined or actual rights or wrongs done against us.

the USA, despite its faults, is a liberal democracy and therefore an entire different creature than a regime like Saddam's. Excuse me for ignoring the vast differences between a liberal democracy and a fascist dictatorship.

Yes...I suspect the nature of Saddam's regime is one of the reasons the Iranians found our support for his invasion and use of chemical weapons against them so upsetting.

Fortunately, as you point out, if someone had helped Saddam use chemical weapons against us, we would behave completely differently. Our forgiveness would be immediate and complete. Indeed, I believe in 2003 George Bush decided to launch some massive, preemptive forgiveness against anyone who'd try that.

And as a society and political system we don't act like many Iranians and Arabs have acted because of imagined or actual rights or wrongs done against us.

This is also a good point. Certainly the dominant reaction of the U.S. government to the 9/11 attacks has been non-violent forgiveness. In this we've truly been an example for those screeching Arabs.

Your excuses won't wash, JRS. Kurds in Iraq tell me over and over again that the US screwed them over 8 times in the last 100 years, but that they are grateful we are helping them now. They are our staunchest allies in the region.

If the Kurds can get over our past support for Saddam, so can the Iranians. (Most Iranian civilians have gotten over it, and even Achmadinejad thanked the US for getting rid of that bastard.)

I nevertheless agree that Iranians have a right to be angry at what the US did in the past. And...we have a right to be angry about what Iran is doing right now. So it works out for everyone, doesn't it?

If/when the Iranian government is replaced or reformed and they decide to stop being our enemy, I will have hold no grudge against Iran whatsoever. I will not need to wait a half century to get over it. I expect the same from others and do not ask any more than I am willing to give in return.

I try to be reasonable, and I expect others to be reasonable in return. I will not excuse people who hate me for what happened before I was born. If I couldn't hold myself to that standard I would be bigoted against Germans and Japanese, and that's just for starters. But I'm not because that is just stupid.

JRS: non-violent forgiveness

Would be an absolutely idiotic response on September 12.

If I murder your sister and threaten to murder your mother, will you respond with non-violent forgiveness, or would you at least call the police?

Yglesias is worse than a second-guesser, he's a second guesser who contradicts his own self. LOL. Who's the moron now.

Yglesias has already said he supported the elections. End of story. And if Yglesias thinks we're going to fund Hamas terrorism just because they were elected by the dumbest people on earth, then he's even dumber than they are.

Would be an absolutely idiotic response on September 12.

Well, don't argue with me. Argue with Zak -- he's the one who's talking about this amazing American forgiveness.

Meanwhile, I'm sure there are many Iranians right now talking about how nonviolent forgiveness would be an absolutely idiotic response to the terrorism we're sponsoring inside Iran.

jrs,

Iran gets to taste its own medicine. What's the specific problem you have with that?

Iran gets to taste its own medicine.

Whoa, don't tell Zak about this!

Well we are supposed to be fighting a Global War Against Terrorism, red.

Are we supposed to attack ourselves if we are sponsoring terrorists?

Catch-22 had a funny chapter on this very topic, IIRC.

jrs,

I'm asking you. What's your specific problem with American support for a Baluchi state? I take it you have no problem with Iranian support for a Jihadistani state inside Israel and Lebanon.

alphie,

You'd be surprised, but I have no problem with terrorism and terrorists. And I also have no problem with killing every men woman and child associated with terrorists.

Right now in Tehran, redaktor's long-lost twin is angrily saying to someone:

I'm asking you. What's your specific problem with Iranian support for a Shia state in Lebanon? I take it you have no problem with American support for a Baluchi state inside Iran.

I very much hope that someday redaktor can meet this twin of his.

jrs,

Answer the question.

redaktor's long-lost twin, who always dreamed about joining the Revolutionary Guard but had been rejected nine times, looks angrily across the table and says:

Answer the question.

No. Again,

Iran gets to taste its own medicine. What's the specific problem you have with that, jrs?

You'd be surprised, but I have no problem with terrorism and terrorists.

Speaking for myself, I'm not surprised at all.

jrs,

You people are treading on a thin ice. Our patience with you people is not limitless.

I really like Matt Yglesias - although obviously I do not agree with him very often on Israel-related issues.

I do think there is something to the notion that recent U.S. and Israeli policy have contributed to the post-Hamas electoral victory internercine violence, especially as of late with public decisions to back Fatah with $$, weapons and the Egyptian-coordinated training program.

BUT - that ignores a long history of inter-factional fighting in Gaza, from fairly nasty crackdowns by Preventative Security Service chiefs against Islamists and just random shootouts - that date back to well before disengagement.

Here's a Washington Post article from July 2004 that can jog people's memory - much of what's happening now has precedent, was foreshadowed and well predicted:

Factional Fighting Clouds Gaza's Future

By Robin Shulman Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 5, 2004; Page A12

GAZA CITY -- Dozens of security men filed into the garage, Kalashnikovs slapping at their thighs. Over steaming platters of lamb and rice, members of the Palestinian Authority's military intelligence and armed forces gathered to reconcile after a traffic dispute had escalated into an hour-long shootout in the street.

"We are brothers," said Maj. Gen. Moussa Arafat, head of the authority's military intelligence agency in the Gaza Strip, who called the meeting at his house June 14. "When such small issues come up, I implore you to resolve them through dialogue."

Despite the welcoming words, his men ate standing up, and many rested one hand on their weapons. Reconciliation is routinely brokered here, and just as routinely broken.

Since the Palestinian uprising began in September 2000, a handful of armed groups fighting Israel have also fought one another for dominance in the 138-square-mile Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority, given responsibility for governing Gaza a decade ago, runs a dozen security agencies whose members shoot at rivals -- and each other -- every few weeks. The armed branches of organizations such as the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, and Islamic Jihad assert their power and increasingly are beyond the Palestinian Authority's control. Independent armed gangs also roam the streets, imposing their will.

At the same time, the deadlocked Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the strong military measures Israel has taken in the occupied territories have eroded the power of political institutions, Palestinian legislators say. In the resulting vacuum, "the military wings of all these political parties decide what they're going to do vis-a-vis political decisions," said Marwan Kanafani, a Gaza representative to the Palestinian Legislative Council.

The most powerful force in Gaza has been the Israeli army, which has thousands of troops stationed here. But as Israel contemplates a unilateral withdrawal of troops and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, Palestinians, Israelis and foreign observers have voiced fears that such a move would spark a civil war among Palestinians, permit a takeover by Islamic militia forces or simply dissolve into total chaos.

"When the Israelis leave Gaza it is going to cause us a very, very, very big problem," said Sami Abu Samhadaneh, who is head of the Special Office of the Palestinian Authority's security services, a branch charged with gathering intelligence on the other security agencies. He is also connected to a militia made up of defectors from some of the dominant Palestinian factions.

Efforts to avoid upheaval have focused on stabilizing the security situation and forging some sort of accord among factions that would bring about cooperation rather than chaos. Egypt has offered to take a leading role in the effort; Israel, the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations have expressed support.

To succeed, however, Egyptian negotiators must engineer compromises among armed groups that have been empowered by the volatile security situation; some of the groups may see more benefit than risk in greater chaos, observers say.

"Hamas and the warlords are the ones who will decide what will happen," said Palestinian pollster and analyst Khalil Shikaki.

In Gaza City, armed men sit on stoops and lean in doorways, surveying, smoking, telling jokes. Many of them work for the Palestinian Authority's security services, which combined are the largest employer in Gaza, providing 30,000 jobs, according to security agency chiefs. A search is underway to find a new structure to organize the often-chaotic forces.

(Con't in next post)

As the night goes on, redaktor's long lost twin grows ever more frustrated. It's a very simple question -- what's the specific problem this guy has with the Jews getting to taste their own medicine?

redaktor's twin feels very strongly about this. Why doesn't everyone understand the Jews need to punished for their theft of Palestine? Why didn't everyone feel the same thrill as redaktor's twin when the bomb went off in the pizzeria in Jerusalem?

redaktor's twin talks on and on, not noticing that most people are beginning to edge away from him.

(Con't from last post - several graphs cut out because the article is really long - click on the link in the above post to read it all).

Important part bolded below:

But in a year when overtures to peace have shown halting progress, the violence they are intended to overcome has scarcely paused. Palestinian armed groups have attacked one another with such frequency that the incidents rarely make headlines. One exception was in February, when five men shot their way out of police headquarters in Gaza City, killing one policeman and injuring 10. The attackers were members of a preventive security squad formed in the 1990s to pursue militants fighting Israel.

Abu Samhadaneh, the Palestinian Special Office chief, said too many institutions were created because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have thrived during the current uprising. As useful as they have been in the fight against Israeli occupation, he said, their continued existence helps keep the Gaza Strip volatile.

"We need an enemy to fight against," he said. "Struggle is something clean. Politics is dirty."

This is Gaza. People somehow forget how messed up it was before, because it's so bad now. As the Post article indicates, a lot of the in-fighting was just never reported, so most people just don't know about it.

Point is, there is likely somewhat of an "assist" from U.S. policy contributing to the current level of violence in Gaza - but such violence and infighting long predates the current Bush policy and even the 2006 Hamas electoral victory.

MJT,

jrs is engaged in slander. Could you please remove his ability to post here.

redaktor's twin is furious! He didn't even believe it at first, but it's true -- someone has compared his mentality to that of the Zionist terrorists...and even the Great Satan's cowardly deathmongers!

redaktor's twin is stunned at the blindness and moral degradation of this. What would be more obvious than that the strikes against the Jews consist of defensive jihad, responding to the aggressive Zionist murder of women and children?

It's nothing less than slander against redaktor's twin. And not innocent slander, either -- no one could honestly be this mistaken about something this black and white.

At that moment redaktor's twin realizes with utter clarity that there's only one explanation for this: this person is on the Jews' payroll! Or could he even be...redaktor looks at his face in the darkness...a Jew himself?

jrs,

Playing the old Jihadi moral equivalence game by equating pirates to the royal navy is not going help you, and is not going to fool anybody.

==

MJT,

I leave this Jihadi troll for you to deal with, as you fit.

..as you ^see fit.

This process was started, and most forcefully pushed forward, by the Clinton administration

I believe the process was started by George Schulz in the closing days of the Reagan administration when the decision was made to recognize Arafat, then living in Tunisia. It seemed like a good idea to me at the time, but I was naive and, as events have shown, quite mistaken. Not that there was much in the way of serious media analysis available. The media were quite taken by the First Intifada and that template continues to shape their reporting from the area and, it seems to me, that template together with the one from Vietnam has shaped some of the reporting from Iraq as well. There's no profession quite so fusty as journalism.

As to Yglesias, enough said. IIRC, you defended his intelligence and remarked his Harvard degree last time I disparaged him.

JRS: Or could he even be...redaktor looks at his face in the darkness...a Jew himself?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I haven't banned anyone in a while, but you're on my short list. People who show up for the first time around here and introduce themselves as axe-grinding idiots and possible racists don't last very long.

Having Hamas in the government may not have been the intended effect of the U.S. policy, but was the best thing that could have happened. Now the Palestinian Authority is accountable for the actions and statements of Hamas. This is far preferrable to the old Laurel and Hardy routine, where Hamas struck and the PA issued meaningless condemnations and did nothing.

I second the motion that JRS be banned. His pointless, belligerent, and now racist sarcasm certainly places him well within the troll category.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

You really can't understand that? Even after redaktor's reference to me as a "Jihadi troll"?

the old Jihadi moral equivalence game by equating pirates to the royal navy

I'd never realized St. Augustine was a jihadist. Well, you learn something new every day.

Look, there's no question that Palestinian society has extremely violent characteristics -- but "immutable" is a very tough thing to say about any person or society.

Moreover, nothwithstanding Yglesias's naivete, this fact doesn't mean that the Bush administration isn't responsible for this situation. It's part of their job to move situations like this in a positive direction or at least manage them. They've failed to do so.

And he's right, they are morons. Everything they've touched has turned to shit. The US has faced many tougher challenges in the past, and always our leadership has risen to the occasion. This crowd manifestly hasn't. They don't have what it takes.

Sorry, JRS. You are banned for failure to comply with the adult and civilized standards of my comments section. I am not going to argue with you about this or anything else. Any future comments by you will be deleted.

redaktor,

The last group America funded to destabilize a government was the Taliban.

That turned out real good, didnt it?

The last group America funded to destabilize a government was the Taliban.

Actually the last jihadis we funded were the paleos in Gaza and the West Bank. That turned out real good!

alphie,

taliban =/ alqaeda
taliban = pakis
alqaeda = arabs

Careful, red.

"Pakis" is a racist term.

And Michael is banning racists today.

According to who, Alphie? You?

Maybe it's true, butI've never heard that, and I doubt redaktor has either.

Can I moderate my own blog now? Thanks.

Some people want to vote you off the island, and I suggest you take that into account and act accordingly if that's possible.

Long-time contributers in good standing get some slack because they've earned it, but you are not in that category.

This sheds a bit of doubt on your "racist" accusation, Alphie.

You're on my short list, as well.

This point is debated on the urban dictionary.

Paki

1. A slang term to describe a Pakistani or one of Pakistani descent - used in an intentionally harmless manner if it's between non-Pakistanis or Pakistanis themselves.

2. The short version for the term 'pakistani'. Before anybody says anything, it is NOT a racist term, as calling a pakistani a paki is no different to calling someone from Britain a Brit.

3. Can be referred as derogatory, offensive and racist.

Alphie said:

The last group America funded to destabilize a government was the Taliban.

Wrong. The United States, largely using the Pakistani intelligence agency as a conduit, funded a coalition of Afghan guerilla groups to destabilize the Soviet proxy government in Afghanistan and drive out the Soviet army. When this had been accomplished the various mujahideen warlords went to war amongst themselves for control and out of the abyss rose the Taliban.
The United States might be held to account for allowing this to happen, but by neglect - not support. I realize this is has strayed off-topic, but nevertheless false statements have no place in a forum for reasonable debate.

Rommel is correct.

The Taliban was created by Pakistan's intelligence agencies with Saudi money. The United States had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The United States destroyed the Taliban government, which was only recognized by three governments in the entire world. The US wasn't one of them, but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were two of them.

It is astonishing how many people get this wrong and yet are so self-righteous while making the error.

Alphie, this is a serious forum for informed adults. You might do better elsewhere. You gave it a shot, but I think it's time you moved on now.

Are you guys really trying to say the U.S. is blameless in the creation of the Taliban?

We funded hard core Islamic schools along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, trained and equipped the students of those schools to fight the Soviets...then walked away when the job was done.

So our hands are clean?

Yep.

What happened after the Soviets and Americans left was Afghans fighting other Afghans over various bits of Afghanistan, which has been going on for as long as there have been Afghans. Any impressions you may have to the contrary can be corrected by reading any of the relevant history books.

.....

It may make people feel better to blame others for things that are their own fault, but it doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem.

Even though the guys we trained took over, ros?

How could we ever imagine that some of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims we turned into holy warriors would actually take their religious training seriously?

That's cold.

If the tribes of al Anbar that we are currently training and equipping happen to topple the Iraqi government we leave behind, that won't be our fault either, I suppose?

"Which side is getting the money from Gaza's huge natural gas reserves?"

Call me a socialist in this regard, if you will; but I have always believed that the money from a huge natural reserve of some resource should go to the people who produced whatever good uses the resource and the people who have worked to extract the resource, NOT the people who claim ownership of the land the resource was found on.

I.e. an oil reserve should make the following people rich:

a) The people who invent and build cars that use oil and thus make a stinking slimey bit of nature useful to us.

b) The people who invent and use oil rigs and other oil drilling equipment and thus produce the oil from the planet.

But not:

c) Whoever happens to claim ownership of the land the oil was found on.

Alphie appears to be somewhat of a reactionary.

I managed to track down the answer to my own question and wrote a small post about it, Andrew.

Turns out that...Israel is gonna buy the Palestinian's natural gas. But they're trying to pay the Palestinians with goods instead of cash.

Wacky world, eh?

I thought this comments area was slightly more informed than a bunch of first-degree armchair analysts blasting away at each other.

First of all, one can't always systematically apply the cause-and-effect process to any 30-year development. One example of it is "CIA funded guerilla to stop USSR. Therefore Taliban was created by CIA". In 30 years many many things happen, most of them unforseen. Take the Germans vs the French in 1945, then in 1975. Slight difference. You could state then that because the Germans and French slaughtered each other from 1870 to 1945, it made them friends later on. That's what created the EU! War is good! Kind of like "as war advances, peace is closer".

Another missed point from those who haven't lived it, is that "WAR IS SHIT". Anything can and will happen in war. Often due to emotional and therefore irrational behavior.
Take for example the Lebanese war, circa 1979. Christian militias were manning a newly-erected checkpoint. Passing through was their most hated enemy, Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt. They caught him. First thing the acting commander did was call up his superiors to notify them of this huge catch. What did the superiors say? "Release him right now! Apologize and let him go!"
(my source is the guy who was manning the checkpoint)

When someone says "X is supporting Y against Z", I ask "How long has it been, and for how long? Who did X support yesterday?"

The "fact" that the US is in "open" confrontation with Iran today means simply that it's probably doing something in the background FOR Iran as well.

And so on and so forth. So temper your enthusiasm for black and white.

I had always assumed "Paki" was a racist term, that's way it seems to be used in Britain. At least in the 80s it was considered a nasty thing to say, maybe things have changed. Rather ironic people being chucked off for racism when Yglesias' real beef with Peretz for years is that Marty is an anti-Arab racist.

Peretz blames the situation on the immutably violent characteristics of Palestinian society -- a culture, he emphasizes, in which genuine nationalist sentiments do not actually exist...

I've never understood why this is considered a meaningful argument. Who is to say what "genuine" nationalist sentiments are? So what if there was no Palestine nationality 70 years ago - today the crucible of refugee camps, years of violence, and even Arab discrimination has certainly created such a thing. Historically this is the way most "nations" have been created - through pressure from outside. "France" became a nation because of years of war with England, most German historians feel that a cohesive German identity only emerged after Napoleon invaded the German princedoms, there was no "Turkish" national identity until 1918 when the Ottoman Empire fell apart and Ataturk essentially created it while fighting off the Greeks, etc. etc. For better or for ill the Palestinian national identity exists, and trying to deny that, as Peretz continues to do, is ridiculous.

When someone says "X is supporting Y against Z", I ask "How long has it been, and for how long? Who did X support yesterday?"

Indeed. Jumblatt is a particularly good example of this- today, he's considered one of the pro-democracy guys in Lebanon.

It was not always this way. Back in the 80s he was on Syria's side (or, more accurately, he was on the Druze side and thought the best place for the Druze to be was standing next to Assad Sr). Due to some attacks on American positions, the USN decided to use Druze (and Syrian) positions for some target practice- and I don't mean "symbolic airstrikes", I mean "The USS New Jersey opens up with the 16-inchers".

Jumblatt might be friendly today, but there was a time- not that long ago, either- when his death would have been considered good news.

Several things:

'Paki' may not be racist in the U.S. or elsewhere, but calling an Asian a Paki here in the U.K. is a good way to get the crap knocked out of you.

Yglesias:

At which point the United States embarked upon a campaign of funneling all monies away from the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government and directly into the hands of Fatah-run security services. Shockingly, this has tended to fuel rather than constrain intra-Palestinian fighting.

Since when does the U.S. have a responsibility to constrain Fatah-Hamas fighting?

Yglesias is less wrong than we might like. The election of Hamas to government made a showdown with Fatah more likely, since all of a sudden there was something tangible - money, ministries, voters - to fight over.

Fatah is being propped up just enough for it to not tear itself apart, but not nearly enough to actually defeat Hamas. In fact, neither the U.S. or Israel are apparently trying to defeat Hamas.

Rather than support a quick joint Israel-Fatah blitz of Hamas that might yield some long term results, the U.S. (plus Israel, Egypt and others) are pushing a policy that at best occasionally pauses the day-to-day factional killing. It is basically the same policy the U.S. has applied to the Israel-P.A. conflict: fragile ceasefires, arm both sides, push for talks even though they will be quickly overtaken by events.

In that respect, Yglesias is right (even though he doesn't know it). American Middle East policy bleeds both 'enemy' and 'friend' without solving any of the (yes, already existing) problems.

Jumblatt is scum. It would be a blow to the pro-democracy movement in Lebanon if the Syrians killed him, but it wouldn't exactly be sad:

Back in 2003, after insurgent rockets missed then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz in Baghdad, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt famously said: "We hope that next time the rockets will be more accurate and effective in getting rid of this virus and his like, who wreak corruption in Arab lands."

In early 2004, he noted: "We are all happy when U.S. soldiers are killed [in Iraq] week in and week out. The killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is legitimate and obligatory." He said he felt "great joy" at the 2002 space shuttle disaster because an Israeli astronaut died in it.

He has also said that the real axis of evil is one of "oil and Jews," and called President Bush a "mad emperor."

"The oil axis is present in most of the U.S. administration, beginning with its president, vice president, and top advisers, including [Condoleezza] Rice . . . . while the axis of Jews is present with Paul Wolfowitz ," he continued.

Jumblatt had been denied a visa a couple years ago on the grounds that he endorsed terrorism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202095_2.html

vanya,

Certainly, calling someone who is not a Paki, a Paki, would not be a compliment; Unless you can argue that there's something worthy of a compliment in being a Paki.

Who is responsible (for the fighting) in Gaza?

Two names comes to mind. Mohammed Dahlan who is a client of Elliot Abrams.

http://www.momentnews.com is a Bahrain's finest English-language daily online newspaper. You can Read Live RSS Feeds From Across the World, Including GCC Countries, Bahrain, UAE,KSA Iraq ,Jordan ,Lebanon, Qatar, Yemen, UK, USA .And also You can find news About War, Oil& Gas, Technology ,Finance, Fashion ,Ladies, Stocks, Entrepreneur, Advertising around the world.Just click and go to this url..http://www.momentnews.com , it's Cool web site.

How could we ever imagine that some of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims we turned into holy warriors would actually take their religious training seriously?

Alphie,

Are you taking about Afghanistan? or palestine. No difference between the two though. In fact funding anti-Soviet jihadis makes a lot more sense than funding anti-Israeli ones.

vanya,

Jihadism is not genuine nationalist sentiment.

A Reuters story: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23382251.htm

I quote:
""Palestinians have always been the weakest link in Lebanon, the scapegoat for the country's problems," said Abdel Ghani."

What the hell are these people smoking? Yeah, Palestinians are a weak link in Lebanon, a scapegoat. They never had a state within a state, never tried to take control of Lebanon after first failing to take control of Jordan and then being kicked out, never did anything but be poor refugees without weapons or money.

Hell, by 1975 they had so much petrodollar money it dwarfed by orders of magnitude that of the Lebanese state, same with weapons. Remember 1973 when the Army chief Iskandar Ghanem requested of the government that he go in and clean the camps from the armed elements that threatened stability. In 1973 he got his hands tied up with a big NO from the politicians. I don't even know if he could have done it with the firepower he had at the time, compared to the PLO's firepower.

These sorts of arguments are always good for a laugh. Each of these authors appear correct in some statements, but these few correct statements get magically turned into a whole series of leaps of logic, inference and downright silliness. Anyone who thinks that the US (not the Bush Administration, but the US over the past several decades) has no responsibility as to the situation in the Middle East are simply deluded. Our actions in Iran, Suadi Arabia, USSR controlled Afghanistan, Iraq etc etc etc all have an impact on the behavior of people in that region. Certainly the US isn't the ONLY cause, or likely even the Major Cause... it's simply yet another contributing cause (one among many).

We can have a whole list of causes for the current problems:
1. Palestinians are forcibly removed from the land that they considered home to make way for a nation that had been dead for nearly 2000 years. This was due to a crazy German and his insane views of the Jewish race. The German came to power because the Germans were desperate. They were desperate because the nations that won WWI, forced them into a very badly designed treaty. Who is at fault? America, Germany, Most of the Allies (in WWI and later WWII)... the Romans for burning Jerusalem in 70 CE? Or some bizarre combination of these groups?

2. The Palestinians were poorly treated for some time after the foundation of the Jewish state (no surprise since the Jews were struggling to survive against the Arab Nations). This led the the first Intifada. The one that was actually a grassroots movement, run by leaders of the local communities and based on useful 4th generation warfare tactics. This is why the first intifada used rocks, not bombs and showed kids facing soldiers, rather than masked men brandishing AK-47's. This move actually went quite well until Arafat got involved again and tried to swap from civilian revolt to terrorism. Who's at fault here? The Jewish state for not foreseeing the friction from a group that's treated as less than everyone else? The community leaders for starting the First Intifada, or Arafat for turning a relatively bloodless revolt into a hotbed of terrorist activity?

We can continue down this sort of path for almost every major touch point in the Middle East. It isn't Bush's fault, or the US's fault or Islam's fault or Bin Laden's... its the fault of many, many bad decisions by many, many individuals over a period of decades and quite possibly centuries (when looking at some specific topics). Trying to tie the hell of the Middle East to A person, or A cause seems not only silly, but dishonest or at least myopic. Cause and Effect may be fine for physics, but in sociology we find causes that cause effects which act as causes for further effects. To try to make a single cause blameless or hold it as THE CAUSE simply doesn't fit with reality.

This administration has made some bad decisions in their ME policy. Israel has made some bad decisions in their policies. The leadership of the Palis have also made some damn stupid decisions.

After bad decisions all around, we get a nice slice of hell on earth.

After bad decisions all around, we get a nice slice of hell on earth.

Yes, but that is incomplete. Even good decisions can result in bad results. For instance, playing Hamas and Fatah against one another is a good decision. But now Hamas is taking on Israel and Fatah at the same time. There is every chance both Israel and Fatah will blink before Hamas does (bad decisions), or do something to boost Fatah like release Marwan Barghouti (another bad decision).

Frequently, the problem isn't the broad strategy, but the unwillingness to do what is required to achieve it. For instance: Germany was starved just enough to make Germans think another war was a good idea, but not nearly enough to prevent them from launching that war. Versailles wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't nearly harsh enough to work.

I think the American term is "sh*t or get off the pot".

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Ah, no.

Versailles was harsh enough to prevent the Germans from launching another war.

The problem is that after the bloodbath of WW1, the French were unwilling to enforce it and the British were unable (one W. Churchill wrote extensively about how Her Majesty's Military was planning as if there would not be a major conflict in the next 20 years).

Totten,
I can't believe you banned jrs yet tolerate redaktor's posts. Talk about measuring things with your thumb on the scales.
You just look silly and fragile.
I'm sorry but someone needs to take you aside and tell it to you straight.

Northern Observer,

What's wrong with my posts?

"Turns out that...Israel is gonna buy the Palestinian's natural gas. But they're trying to pay the Palestinians with goods instead of cash."

What would they do with cash? Buy weapons and try to kill Jews. I can understand why Israel wouldn't want to give them cash. It would be irresponsible.

So, apparently, the people in Gaza are getting free stuff in exchange for nothing. They didn't make the gas, it just happens to be in territory that Israel captured from Egypt and then gave to the people in Gaza.

Great work, Noah. Thank you.

they're trying to pay the Palestinians with goods instead of cash."

Cash which the paleos would use to buy goods anyway. So Israel is just cutting out the middle man, minus the guns and explosives used to kill Jews (as Andrew so shrewdly observed).

All the comments about the in-out fighting in Gaza can be reduced to a single statement........"follow the trail of the money.....the one that pays for amunition.......not the one that pays for food, God forbid.............

Tosk,

a worthy post. Yet sometimes the only decision is a bad decision when doing nothing is worse.

Moreover, I don't pay no never mind to hindsight and second guessing. The wisdom of a choice is viewed at the time the choice was made, with the information available at the time. That is the standard recognized in both business and law.

Both the internationalist left and neoconservative right (as well as their liberal hawk fellow travelers) fail to grasp basic and essential realities of the post-Cold War world.

Palestinian identity (not unlike Iraqi or Yugoslav identity) is a twentieth century fiction manufactured largely in contradistinction to the existence of Israel, and in the context of an age of eroding national borders and the diminishing primacy of central governments nation-states created in the last century without the benefit of a strong middle class are more likely to see fractitious, civil war, and ultimately partition when granted the opportunity to choose their leaders.

America, the UN, the EU, and every other international institution is probably powerless to resist these forces (even if the most probable outcome - the dissolution of most Arab and Central Asian nation-states along sectarian lines, open borders, and a kind of regional union - is in the interest of American Empire [divide and conquer and all that]), but if America and the West generally had any interest in preventing the ongoing ugliness in Palestine Washington would be working tirelessly to improve living standards in the territories (it is a misnomer to say that Israel ever really withdrew from Gaza; it remains garrisoned by land, air, and sea). Nearly 3/4 of Palestinians live in abject poverty and many lack access to basic humanitarian resources let alone the prospect of good jobs and trade; this has everything to do with the occupation.

Ratatosk,

It's Jihadism that formed their identity and actions then. And it's Jihadism that forms their identity and actions now. If blame is to be assigned, it is to be on Jihadism.

rosignol,

I agree. What I should have written was:

Versailles wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't enforced nearly harsh enough to work.

Linus,

it is a misnomer to say that Israel ever really withdrew from Gaza; it remains garrisoned by land, air, and sea

1. Israel has no forces stationed or civilians living in Gaza.

2. 'Garrisoned by air and sea'? What does that even mean? Gaza is not a state, and therefore has no corresponding claim to airspace above or sea adjacent to it.

This reasoning is similar to the whine that Gaza's borders are controlled by other parties. No. Any state has the right to close its border crossings. The PA can do that at any time.

..Small correction. I think the last sentence of the post should read

But it is too enjoyable to draw the conclusion that here, Yglesias is calling himself names.

--
Also: there's something too sweeping about calling the whole 14 year process that started with Oslo a failure. I agree with Noah re. where most of the blame goes for what's gone wrong, but it's important to separate two questions: i. how will the Palestinians act and ii. is it good for Israel, in the long term, to be an occupying power? The answer to ii. is "no" even now. I don't know what the solution is--I wish the Egyptians wanted Gaza and the Jordanians wanted the West Bank--but the point is that there's something positive about the desire in oneself not to be an Occupying power. It can't be the only thought one has, of course. One has to consider what will happen in one's absence. But the desire itself, the attempt to find a better way, is noble.

Carlos,

Yet sometimes the only decision is a bad decision when doing nothing is worse.

Moreover, I don't pay no never mind to hindsight and second guessing. The wisdom of a choice is viewed at the time the choice was made, with the information available at the time. That is the standard recognized in both business and law.

Indeed. What seems best at the time, may not end like we expect (but its better than sitting on our thumbs... maybe). Israel's war on Hez was surely the best bet that they had, at the time... however, in hindsight, the implementation was not well done. It's much like our situation in Iraq. If we give the administration the benefit of the doubt about Intelligence (which is debatable but beside the point), then invasion was the best option at the time... however, the actual implementation was done poorly and left us with a mess. However, all of this talk is useful only in trying to unravel potential ways to fix the problem now... trying to use hindisght to assign blame is a waste.

It's Jihadism that formed their identity and actions then. And it's Jihadism that forms their identity and actions now. If blame is to be assigned, it is to be on Jihadism.

redaktor,

Rarely is reality that easy. I recommend you read more than whatever crackheaded books gave you that impression. The First Intifada had very little to do with jihadism. In fact, one of the major aspects of the First Intifada was that the leaders stressed NOT killing the enemy. They could have attacked with bombs and guns, but they were following 4GW tactics which meant winning the minds of TV viewers (who saw kids with rocks facing Israeli Soldiers with Guns). Jihadism is what turned the First Intifada into a later mess(thanks to Arafat). However, to assign the entire situation to a single cause belies ignorance of reality. A good start to better understanding of the situation may be found in "The Sling and The Stone" by Thomas X. Hammes (Marine Col.). The main focus of the book is a discussion of the rise of Insurgent tactics as 4th Gen Warfare, but his detailed examination of the First and Second Intifada. There's a lot more at play than jihadism.

"2. 'Garrisoned by air and sea'? What does that even mean? Gaza is not a state, and therefore has no corresponding claim to airspace above or sea adjacent to it."

It means that Gaza remains under siege by Israel.

"The skies of Gaza are full of aircraft, including combat aircraft and intelligence-gathering aircraft. All are Israeli. By these and other means, Israel can monitor the activity on the ground and interfere with all TV and radio transmissions broadcasted from Gaza . Israel 's complete control also enables it to attack targets whenever it wants, a capability it uses frequently."

"While there is no fence along Gaza 's coastline, residents do not have open access to the sea. Palestinians wanting to go to sea need to request a permit from Israel . Those who obtain a permit are not allowed to sail far from shore. Anyone who violates the prohibition puts his life at risk: in the past, Israeli patrol boats have fired at boats that exceeded the maximum distance allowed. Israel 's Navy patrols the waters and thwarts attempts to enter or leave Gaza by sea.

In the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO as part of the Oslo peace process, Israel undertook to allow fishing boats from Gaza to go some twenty nautical miles (about thirty-seven kilometers) from the coastline (except for a few areas, to which they were prohibited entry). However, Israel did not in fact issue permits to all applicants, and allowed fishing up to a distance of no more than ten nautical miles. Following implementation of the disengagement plan, Israel reduced the fishing area even more, and since the abduction of Cpl. Shalit, on 25 June 2006, fishermen have not been allowed to go further than three nautical miles from shore. As a result, the fishing sector in Gaza , which provides a livelihood to many Gazan families and is an important source of food for Gazans, suffered a harsh blow."

Noah Pollak runs through about 2000 words and four or five mitigating or contextual factors about the Bush admin's decisions to hold elections in Gaza and then pretends that this somehow negates Matt's point. It doesn't.

Whatever pre-existing trends you want to point to, whatever unrelated justifications there are, if you put Noah Pollak on a witness stand and asked,

"Did the election of Hamas to legislative power in the PA elections of 2006 contribute to greater fighting between Hamas and Fatah, or did it not?"

I doubt he'd deny that it did. I could be wrong, in which case, I'd consider him blinkered. You could put up a nice bar graph of the Palestinian deaths from factional fighting and observe the spike after Hamas gained the legislature. It's not a coincidence.

That doesn't mean that the policy of sponsoring elections was wrong in itself. What was wrong was the Bushies' deluded expectations that Hamas wouldn't win, and therefore their apparent failure to have a plan B for Hamas winning. Their eventual settling on "isolate and wait for a counter-coup" can be predictably traced to a Palestinian downward spiral.

Not that it's not the Palestinians' fault, to an extent, it's more like a) Peretz develops the argument with the sodden banality of a damp sponge and b) the actions of other actors are contributing negatively.

Pollak gives a better try, but fails to genuinely dispute, making for a somewhat hollow and snarky column. He could do better talking less smack and genuinely exploring both sides of the argument.

Mr Totten, Thank you very much for a great article. It kinda looks like maybe this was Sharon's master plan all along:

1.)The HAMAS and Al Fatah have shown the world they can't manage a car wash - let alone a 'state'

2.) The 'Land 4 Peace' groups have pretty much forsaken that mantra and outlook.

3.) Palestinian Sympathy Fatigue is growing exponentially among younger Americans especially, and in the West generally.

Final point - Arab despots are likely to point to Gaza and remind their subjects that all this democracy jazz isn't worth it. They are most likely supporting one or both sides in the civil war.

You didn't really understand jrs, Mike. He didn't really try and explain himself, but he was comparing redaktor to a nutbag in Iran, and the Jew stuff was continuing the satirical comparison of anti-arab racists in your blog space to anti-jewish racists in the Middle East. Not, in fact, anti-Jewish slurs for their own sake, as it were.

Still, perhaps, unwise of him.

Banning alphie would be a stupid mistake. He makes logical arguments, represents an alternative point of view, and does nothing like systematically harass you or other commenters. The worst you can say is that he doesn't take scorn from jerks lying down.

If he's a little jaded about who you ban and who you don't ban, so am I. A little sarcasm about that is something you ought to be able to tolerate. To be blunt, get a thicker skin. Better yet, take some time off and re-evaluate your actions. Who you ban and who you tolerate isn't something we should have to line up and agree with you about. Lord knows, your anti-arab agitators don't hesitate to work the referee.

I agree with Alphie, by the way, in substance. Whether or not we specifically funded an organization that was calling itself the Taliban at the time, we funded a various jihadists groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan for a decade: we, along with the Soviets, created the raw materials that were then used to construct the temple of murder that was the Taliban empire. That decision can be defended, but our actions played a role in shaping the results: and when the Taliban came to power, they visited the U.S. to sign oil and gas deals. If not for 9/11, the Bush Admin might have run a pipeline through there and become our friends in the Fight Against Iran.

There is something incredibly ironic when those who advocate for the Palestinians, or find excuses for the jihadists, insist on maintaining the outrageously paternalistic attitude that they have no control over their own actions.

Every thing they do wrong occurs because someone else, essentially, made them do it.

Why is it, according to these islamist sympathisers, that only westerners have free will?

Courtney,

If 18 months is a sufficient amount of time to determine whether a country can govern itself, why is America still in Iraq after 4 + years?

For the record, even though I think my typical reaction to Pollak's columns will be to make a decent attempt at skinning them alive and eating them, I like having them here, Mike. They add a degree of meat and abstract analysis that wasn't always available in the quantity I want in a mild blog obsession.

Readers might be surprised to hear -- Mr. Yglesias probably among them -- that less than a year ago, Yglesias wrote the following: "I happen to think the White House made the right call on the question of Palestinian elections -- even in retrospect, even knowing that Hamas won." A couple of days ago, he called these administration officials "morons" for having supported the very same elections that he now condemns. I know it’s best to just hurry past the contradictions, especially when they involve the reshuffling of positions in order to condemn the Bush administration. But it is too enjoyable to avoid the conclusion that here, Yglesias is calling himself names.

I think this paragraph misses the point of why Yglesias called Bushies morons. Yglesias hasn't 'shuffled' his position, nor is he calling anyone who supported the Palestinian elections a moron. He's merely pointing out that if you push for elections, and a party gets elected that you don't like, it looks a little ridiculous to start calling that newly-elected party undemocratic. And if the Administration only realized after the election that Hamas could get elected, well, then they're morons.

Ratatosk,

I don't find Jihadism that complicated to understand, and therefore I don't find the reality within which Jihadists operate that complicated to follow. I also don't buy into the argument that Jihadis have been played. It's much more the case that we have been played by Jihadis.

"There is something incredibly ironic when those who advocate for the Palestinians, or find excuses for the jihadists, insist on maintaining the outrageously paternalistic attitude that they have no control over their own actions."

Is what you're suggesting that those who condemn the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the continued siege of Gaza but do not condemn suicide bombers and lone gunmen immoral and ironic, or that it isn't even possible in your mind to defend the essential humanity of Palestinian civilians against Israeli occupation without defending suicide bombers and lone gunmen?

That there is no Palestinian Gandhi is a tragedy for the Palestinian people, but the absence of a Palestinian Gandhi doesn't justify the continued - illegal - Israeli occupation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza, and its disastrous humanitarian and economic consequences for Palestinian civilians.

Ratatosk,

There's also a lot more to blue skies than blue skies. But it's irrelevant for the purpose of our description.

why is America still in Iraq after 4 + years?

Why is America still in Korea after 50+ years? Because there's a need, that's why. Similarly in Iraq. So you can stop pretending 4 years is a long time now. It isn't. Our national commitments are decades-long, not measured in hours like you're used to seeing in Hollywood movies. Get off the ipod.

You can't have it both ways, Carlos.

If you want America to keep pumping $100 billion and 800+ lives a year into the Iraq project, then the only description you can apply to the troubles in Gaza is..."birth pangs."

Is what you're suggesting that those who condemn the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the continued siege of Gaza but do not condemn suicide bombers and lone gunmen immoral and ironic, or that it isn't even possible in your mind to defend the essential humanity of Palestinian civilians against Israeli occupation without defending suicide bombers and lone gunmen?

Wow. That's such a long question, I'd just be guessing at what you're trying to ask. But there is no need to defend the "humanity" of the Palestinian civilians. As far as I can tell, the majority of Israelis have far more respect for that than the Palestinian's Hamas leadership.

"While there is no fence along Gaza 's coastline, residents do not have open access to the sea.

Fence schmence. Gazans have just as much or little access through Egypt as they do Israel, yet I never hear the whiners complaining about the Egyptians; only Israel. Why not? The answer is simple-- because it's always the JOOOS!!!1!!!!!

Linus,

Of course it's your prerogative to choose the Jihadi narrative, but just so you know, Jews lived in Judea/Israel for two millennia prior, and always considered anyone else living in Judea/Israel as foreign occupiers. What I want to ask you is this: Why should arab Jihadi conquests be maintained as sacrosanct and not be allowed reversal? What is it about Jihadism and Jihadists that you find intrinsically redeeming?

If you want America to keep pumping $100 billion and 800+ lives a year into the Iraq project, then the only description you can apply to the troubles in Gaza is..."birth pangs."

Alphie,

fair enough. But you can'have it both ways either, now can you. And yet there's a difference between the two, and the difference doesn't favor you.

You see, the Baghdad government likes us. It's our ally. While your Hamas buddies despise us and everything we represent. They want us dead. They cheer for our enemies. Why should we fund them? We shouldn't, and it has nothing to do with "birth pangs." Birth pangs we can tolerate, but not their open emnity.

The paleos are the next Osama bin Laden as far as I'm concerned. We fund them to help them out (as we did the mujahedin in Afghanistan), but they'll turn on us in good time, just you watch. Just like in Afghanistan.

To phrase the question you guys have been trying to answer more relevantly:

Would, in the absence of (list of American foreign policy actions), there not be Muslim terrorists intent on killing Americans?

I think the answer is certainly yes, and thus the recriminations over Mossadegh or whatever are largely moot. The idea that not overthrowing Mossadegh or not doing this or that would translate into - what, exactly? Just what would not doing those things have gained us today? Some ephemeral good will amongst the general Arab populace? They already have a list as long as my arm of things that have nothing to do with our foreign policy. And not even mentioning Israel. If you support the right to national self-determination, you support the right of Israel to exist. If you support the right of
Israel to exist, you pretty much set yourself up for conflict with some Muslims.

Is it blowback if it was going to happen anyway?

Is that the "Sally Fields" school of foreign policy, Carlos?

You like me! You really like me!

While your Hamas buddies despise us and everything we represent. They want us dead. They cheer for our enemies. Why should we fund them?

It has to be pointed out that the US has offered to fund Hamas. It is not, as many seem to be trying to suggest, a case of simply turning on them as soon as elected.

In fact, to receive billions of dollars in funding they don't have to actually DO anything. They simply have to renounce terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, and accept in principle agreements already made by the Palestinian government.

The fact that they would rather let their own people starve, and rot in hell, than agree to these basic commitments highlights who the real morons are in this scenario.

Re Michael Totten's comment "Alphie, this is a serious forum for informed adults"
---------
Actually, it seems to be a construct which misleading masquerades as a policy discussion but which Totten shapes in order to obtain a foregone conclusion by eliminating anyone who disagrees with his beliefs.

A propaganda broadcast, in other words.

"I think this paragraph misses the point of why Yglesias called Bushies morons. Yglesias hasn't 'shuffled' his position, nor is he calling anyone who supported the Palestinian elections a moron. He's merely pointing out that if you push for elections, and a party gets elected that you don't like, it looks a little ridiculous to start calling that newly-elected party undemocratic. And if the Administration only realized after the election that Hamas could get elected, well, then they're morons."

If that is truly Yglesias' point and you and he both believe it, then perhaps "morons" is an appropriate label. Not for the Administration, though.

I wonder if you would have something different to say if the, say, "Nazi Party" had just been "elected" in "Germany" in the first "German national elections" ever and this "Nazi Party" had, say, a policy of, oh, I don't know, going after "lebensraum" and generally acting in a way not considered to be the way a ruling party governs in a "democracy."

That a party is elected through the democratic process somehow immediately entitles it to engagement and support is patently absurd. If the people of Nation X voted Party X which advocates killing all children under the age of 5 into power, would you sit there prattling about people looking like morons for supporting the process but not the result Mitch? Funny, isn't that kind of what the losing side does in every democracy? Just what law can you point me to that says that democratic governments must have friendly relations and are obligated to support one another? Funny, I don't remember France in 2003 behaving according to this standard that you apparently believe the Bush Administration must behave by.

What's the use though really - people who hold such obtuse ideas aren't worth wasting the time it took to write that.

You like me! You really like me!

LOL. Good one. Then I'll put it in terms you can't pretent to ignore. We'll tolerate the birth pangs in Baghdad because we share a common interest with that government. We don't share SQUAT with Hamas. The sooner they dissapear, the better for everybody involved. Capice?

Now it's YOUR turn to explain why YOU want it both ways-- i.e., fund your Gaza terrorists, but not the government in Bahdad. Go for it. This should be fun!

Carlos,

A majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have signed a petition asking America to leave their country.

And I suspect even al Maliki is fakin' it.

Northern Observer,

Since I suspect you are, in fact, the banned JRS, you will cease at once to annoy me or be banned also.

I could be wrong, in which case you can very easily retain posting rights by (at the least) not telling me how to run my blog less than 24 hours after arriving for the first time.

Commenters with a long history here get more slack than someone who just showed up. If you don't like it and choose to write even one sentence in protest of this policy, you will be instantly banned and all your comments will be deleted. I have ZERO tolerance for new trolls.

mertel,

re free will: you should ask a different question.

since there is no free will -- everything that happens is allah's will -- doesn't that mean that what israel is doing to the arabs is his will too?
and, if so, why do they blame the pigs and want to throw them into the see?

Re "They [the Muslims] already have a list as long as my arm of things that have nothing to do with our foreign policy"
---------
1) This is not true. In 1997-1998 interviews with US TV networks, Bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he would declare jihad on the USA:
a) US government had killed 600,000 Iraqi children by bombing Iraq water plants and then blocking import of water purification chemicals, cause pandemics of cholera,etc
b) US government had propped up the Saudi kleptocracy for decades, so that Houston could steal the oil wealth of the Saudi people
c) US government had supported the Israeli killing of Muslim Palestians by giving the Isreali government advanced weapons like the F16 fighter jets.

2) The way to have dealth with Al Qaeda was to have addressed the real grievances of the Islamic world --so that they would tell us where the Al Qaeda hard core are. Instead, Bush put out the Big Lie (that Sept 11 happened because "they hate our freedom"), COndi Rice ordered the TV networks to not broadcast Bin Laden's words (so the American people wouldn't find out the truth) and the 911 Commission continued the coverup by refusing to address the question of what caused Sept 11.

A majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have signed a petition asking America to leave their country.

In other words they don't like us anymore? Thank you Sally Fields!

Now how bout you address my challenge to you. I've been doing this long enough to recognize a red herring when I see one. I'm waiting.

Linus,

The Oslo Accords?

Seriously?

The PLO declares open war on Israel, sends suicide bombers to Israeli cities... And you believe Israel should still consider itself bound by agreements from a 'peace process' no serious person thinks still exists?

Oh, B'Tselem. Makes sense now.

In fact, to receive billions of dollars in funding they don't have to actually DO anything. They simply have to renounce terrorism, accept Israel's right to exist, and accept in principle agreements already made by the Palestinian government.

Yep. Fatah renounced terrorism, whilst conducting terrorism; accepted Israel's right to exist, whilst inciting the destruction of Israel; and accepted agreements made with Israel, whilst violating them constantly.

Glasnost, I don't like anti-Arab comments either. I tolerate them to an extent (while often arguing with those who make them) IF the person in question has something else constructive to add, which is sometimes the case.

If anyone comes in here and just pisses on Arabs, I ban them. I've done it before and will do it again.

And, like I said, long-time commenters with a respectable track record get slack. You are in that category yourself.

Fresh trolls get no slack whatsoever. Anyone who introduces himself with a "Fuck You" shouldn't expect to last very long, especially if some racist bullshit (against anyone including Arabs) follows.

Yep. Fatah renounced terrorism, whilst conducting terrorism; accepted Israel's right to exist, whilst inciting the destruction of Israel; and accepted agreements made with Israel, whilst violating them constantly

Exactly. That's how low the bar has been set for Hamas, and they can't even hobble over that...

Well, that's it for Yglesias. Stick a fork in the moron, he's well done.

Certainly, we can now all walk by Yglesias in much the same way we walk around a babbling homeless man.

Look away and walk fast.

But I'm never against America supplying food, clean water and medical supplies to a country, Carlos. No matter what the politics of its government is.

Between 1962 and 2005, America has given the West Bank and Gaza a grand total of $1.7 billion in aid (in constant 2005 dollars).

That's less than a week's worth of military expenditures in Iraq.

Don Williams: it seems to be a construct which misleading masquerades as a policy discussion but which Totten shapes in order to obtain a foregone conclusion by eliminating anyone who disagrees with his beliefs.

How about I eliminate you then?

I'm serious. One more peep out of you about this and you will be instantly banned.

This thread is full of people who disagree with me who are not banned (including Alphie), and if you're so stupid you can't figure that out, then you need to go somewhere else.

My tolerance for new trolls isn't precisely zero, but it is at about 0.1 right now. Introduce yourself with something other than a Fuck You and we'll talk.

There's no nice way of saying this, so I won't bother to try: Gaza is a tragedy in a classic sense, of sins coming home to roost on both the guilty and their families.

There will be 'way too many babies born today into that irredeemable violent squalor, and not one of them deserves it. But, except for the ones who die young, they will all grow up in that increasingly squalid and violent patch of ground. The days when Gaza could export labor across the Green Line and Gazans could, by and large, feed their families are gone with the Fence . . . and won't come back.

Sucks to be them.

And, in the classic mode of the Malthusian tragedy, everything done in an attempt to ameliorate the situation will worsen it . . . save for the political impossibility of their loving Arab brothers opening their hearts, their arms, and their lands to these more than a million people shooting themselves up over and in a small plot of land that could barely serve as home for five percent of their numbers.

So: let Yglesias blame the Bush administration. He's wrong, but it doesn't much matter; there is no solving the problem of Gaza.

The notion, perhaps a very foolish one, that we shouldbring democracy to he world dates back to Wilson, and Bush, though I think he jumped at the notion to cover for the failed WMD gambit in Iraq, tried to offer Democracy. Yes. Hamas won. Why blame a rather silly president? The Palestinians choose Hmas because Fatah had stolen them blind and Hamas, they felt, had a social wing that helped those in need. A lefty view: Palestians, without statehood, act in irrational manner because of their needs; a more realistic view (?) there has never been a sovereign state in the region for them and they simpy do not know how o conduct business other than in tribal warfare manner. The Arab League, too, to blame. Why not simpy recognize Israel's right to exist, and tellpalestinains to do so or no further aid forthcoming. And that would give them statehood and perhaps curb much of the madness.

redaktor ,

I don't find Jihadism that complicated to understand, and therefore I don't find the reality within which Jihadists operate that complicated to follow. I also don't buy into the argument that Jihadis have been played. It's much more the case that we have been played by Jihadis.

Do you realize that you haven't actually made any point here, except perhaps your unwillingness to understand what is actually happening and prefer to make up a world where the problems are simple to understand?

There's also a lot more to blue skies than blue skies. But it's irrelevant for the purpose of our description.

If you're describing it to a child, you're absolutely right... if you're describing it for the purpose of a story, a poem or something of that nature, then blue skys are a fine descriptor. However, if you're trying to learn about the atmosphere, how it works, why the sky appears blue to humans and how the atmosphere affects us (now and in the future)... then you need to know a heck of a lot more than "The Sky Is Blue". The same can be said for jihadism, if you actually want to learn about it, how its come into play, the effects we can expect etc. then you need to know more than a buzzword.

Ratatosk

Between 1962 and 2005, America has given the West Bank and Gaza a grand total of $1.7 billion in aid (in constant 2005 dollars)

What, you mean they were giving aid to Jordan and Egypt? (I think you mean from 1993...)

I thought you wanted US aid to go to those children dying of Malaria in Africa, Alphie? You do realise that the Palestinians are the highest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world? How much more should the US be giving them?

"The PLO declares open war on Israel, sends suicide bombers to Israeli cities... And you believe Israel should still consider itself bound by agreements from a 'peace process' no serious person thinks still exists?"

You're changing the terms of the debate. The question was whether there remains an Israeli blockade of Gaza by air, land, and sea not whether there are elements of Palestinian society devoted to the stated destruction of Israel.

You can say that Israel's "right to self-defense" permits that country's security apparatus to suffocate the Palestinian people from meeting their own economic and humanitarian needs, but I don't think you can say that Israel is not maintaining a de facto blockade of Gaza, and that that blockade of Gaza as well as Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank is not in contravention of Oslo, multiple UN resolutions, and international law.

I don't approve of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians but I also don't approve of Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians, and the civilian casualties on the Palestinian side continue to be disproportionately high.

Alphie,

The U.S., Europe, and the Arab world have been funding the palestinians for decades. Do you really think their problem is money? It's not. It hasn't helped. It never does. As I've said before, prosperity follows peace and stability, not handouts. We are trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq, and likewise in palestine. But no amount of money will solve their problems if we fail in that regard.

Do you believe Hamas is a force for peace and stability in that region? C'mon, even you wouldn't make that claim. You know very well that their agenda is only war. They themselves make that claim. Yet I do believe the Baghdad government is that country's last best hope. That's why I favor supporting one, and not the other. So please explain your upside down worldview and desire to have it both ways.

The United States had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

That's just wrong, you might want to read "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll.

Oh, and 'Paki', if used by white people to describe either Pakistanis or more generally non-white people, is a derogatory term in the UK, there is no question about it.

Ratatosk,

Yep, we need to intellectualize the situation into a dizzy, so we can remain motionless observing the Jihadi cosmos ad infinitum. Meanwhile, our infinitely complex Jihadists have half the world under their sword and wanting for more.

redaktor,

Your inane exaggeration does nothing but make your lame argument even more silly. There is a huge gulf between ignoring reality, trying to understand reality and simply standing still.

Look at the comments I've made. Nowhere have I said that we should 'remain motionless'. Nowhere have I said we should intellectualize (unless you are labeling "learning" as intellectualizing... in which case, I hope to be learning/intellectualizing every day of my life).

You can rail against jihadism and swing blindly at your straw man. I'd personally prefer to put a single well placed bullet through the heart of the actual issues.

But, go ahead and do as thou will...

Thanks, Noah. Thanks for remembering and putting it together.

Don Williams,

Do you know what all the grievances of the muslim world are? Before you buy their propaganda lock stock and barrel I suggest you develop a critical, independently thinking intellect, educate yourself on islam and islamism, before you clutter space with this nonsense.

here's the oslo accord for linus:

http://www.meforum.org/article/605

As far as I can tell from the British Gas website, the only drilling so far has been exploratory, and the gas field has not yet become commercialized and producing.

So no check goes to anyone, as far as I can tell, as there is not yet any commercially-viable gas flowing.

Linus,

To have a discussion about the a-i conflict a basic requirement is to have some ability to think based on evidence. I suggest you get some.

Your "multicultural" crap doesn't cut it. You can deplore violence on both sides till you come blue in the face, but as long as you don't understand the differences between in goals and means of the two sides -- which you don't -- you won't be taken seriously.

My guess is that you sit in some remote armchair and pontificate on you high values without a clue as to what really has happened on the ground for the last 60 years. You probably get all your information from the MSM and the net.

Linus, Israeli aircraft flying over Gaza do not amount to an air blockade, "choking off" any economic activity. Gaza is not a state, its "government" has no claim to its air space, and its economy does not depend on open skies.

Israel's government's only responsibility is to the safety of Israeli citizens. Given the Palestinians' behavior, close observation from the air and interdiction of boat traffic are all perfectly reasonable responses. If the Arabs wanted open sea lanes and an air space free of Israeli surveillance craft, all they had to do is not use those sea lanes to smuggle weapons and stage attacks from their territory. They chose "resistance" -- in the form of wanton murder of defenseless people -- and the Israelis have to prevent it.

References to "international law" are irrelevant -- it's not equivalent to binding national laws, no matter how much internationalists would like to pretend otherwise. References to UN proclamations are even more irrelevant, since General Assembly resolutions aren't "legally binding" even by UN's own (already non-binding) rules. But it's your reference to the Oslo Accords that are most absurd, considering that one of the main tenets of the Accords was that West Bank and Gaza Arabs would cease violence against Israel. They haven't, which means they broke the Accords, which in turn means that Israel isn't obligated to abide by the (now broken) Accords.

Finally, there's your lament that "the civilian casualties on the Palestinian side continue to be disproportionately high." I'm curious as to what you mean by "disproportionally": just what would be a proper ratio of Jewish-to-Arab deaths? Frankly, all I can see from the higher numbers of dead Palestinians is that they aren't much better at running a war than they are at keeping the peace -- but they sure seem to prefer war. Insofar as it means they are unsuccessful at killing Israelis, I'm personally thrilled that the Palestinian death toll has been so "disproportionate."

"here's the oslo accord for linus:

http://www.meforum.org/article/605"

That isn't a text of the accord but a polemic strongly biased in favor of the Israeli government's position.

You can read the actual provision to which my earlier link is referring here. (It is Article XI, 1, a, (2).)

ratatosk,

you mean ONLY the plestinians were mistreated? there are NO grievances on the other side? Does it mean that when anybody screams grievance, they are true and we must appease them? what do you know about the arab culture of shame and honor, about its failures and about its tendency to blame everybody but itself for those? can you tell us what serious sources about the conflict have you read to base your position on?

I suggest you educate yourself on the subject before you accuse others of doing what actually you do -- spout nonsense.

"Linus, Israeli aircraft flying over Gaza do not amount to an air blockade, "choking off" any economic activity"

I don't disagree with this statement. However you apparently didn't read the article to which I linked above. Preventing Palestinian civilians from flying (which includes Palestinian civilians flying for commercial and economic purposes) does amount to a blockade by air.

"Israel prevents the people of Gaza from flying. Under the Oslo Agreements Israel retained full control over Gaza 's airspace, but nevertheless consented to permit the Palestinians to build an airport. The Gaza airport, which opened in 1998, provided a limited number of weekly flights to Arab countries. Passengers leaving from this airport were transported by bus to Rafah Crossing, where they were checked by Israel in the same manner as those leaving for Egypt by land, before being taken back to the airport."

linus,

suuuuuuure.

you can read the provisions until you become blue in the face.

what we're talking about are the DECLARED INTENTIONS of Arafat and his colleagues. if you don't understand the distinction, how do you want to be taken seriously?

what is your basis for the claim that it's a biased polemic, given that it is a highly footnoted by a serious scholar which quotes the palestinians own statements?

the only reason you dismiss it is because it is counter to your positions which are based on ignorance and channeling of paletinian propaganda.

the civilian casualties on the Palestinian side continue to be disproportionately high.

What this means is that the very things that Linus complains so bitterly about (border security, etc) are preventing Israeli civilians from dying.

What's really disproportionate is the number of innocent civilians that the Palestinians would like to kill if no-one was stopping them.

you m
ean ONLY the plestinians were mistreated? there are NO grievances on the other side?

I didn't say anything of the sort... what type of hallucinogens are you taking?

Does it mean that when anybody screams grievance, they are true and we must appease them?

Hell no. Are you confusing my comments with someone elses, or are you simply making things up and accusing me of saying them? If its the former, no worries, its easy to misattribute statements... if its the latter I recommend taking a class on reading and reading comprehension.

ALL that I have said is that there exists no single cause, no single person or group that is responsible for the mess in the ME. The US bears some responsibility (not just this administration), the Israelis bear some responsibility, the Palestinians bear some responsibility, the Islamic extremists bear some responsibility. The largest responsibility obviously must lie with those who allow the others actions to dictate theirs... that is, the Palis are ultimately responsible for their own behavior, no matter what crap has been shoveled on them (by others, or themselves). I don't know how you confuse that with appeasement, or considering the Palis as blameless. Hopefully, you were just confused, as opposed to tripping.

e. nough,

the only way that israel will satisfy all these armchair moralists without any serious knowledge of the ME history and cultures is to disappear.

the world never liked the jews when they were going to their death peacefully and they don't like them when they fight for their lives.

the only good jews are dead jews, so that you can later deny that they were ever hated and killed.

if it weren't you who made the 1, 2 points about the mistreatment of the palestinians, then i am sorry, my mistake.

if you did, then it created a different impression on me than you suggest. but it's not that critical to go back to it.

so let's my questions stand for all those to whom they apply.

Linus,

You're changing the terms of the debate. The question was whether there remains an Israeli blockade of Gaza by air, land, and sea not whether there are elements of Palestinian society devoted to the stated destruction of Israel.

Fair enough. If you'll allow me another diversion, it isn't splitting hairs to dispute your statement "elements of Palestinian society" being at war with Israel. The fact is that the elements that aren't supportive of war with Israel are the exception rather than the rule, and excludes virtually all elected governments, militias, security forces and political parties.

You accuse me of shifting the terms of the debate. I did no such thing. I disputed your claim that Gazan territory is both 'garrisoned' and 'occupied' by Israel. That B'Tselem link makes no such claim, nor provides evidence of it.

I moved on to describe the presence of Israeli aircraft above Gaza and restrictions on the Gaza coast as reasonable for several reasons:

1. Gaza is not a state. Thus, it does not have a state's claim to the skies above or seas adjacent to it. Gaza's legal situation is tricky, since Israel foolishly did not annex it.

2. Even if you dispute that, you surely do not dispute that Gaza (whatever its legal status) is effectively in a state of war with Israel. It's government, political parties, militias, security forces and terrorist groups are hostile to Israel. Therefore, Israel is limiting access to the sea for obvious reasons.

I don't think you can say that Israel is not maintaining a de facto blockade of Gaza, and that that blockade of Gaza as well as Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank is not in contravention of Oslo, multiple UN resolutions, and international law.

Why would you bring up the Oslo accords? That is like complaining that World War II was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles. There was a treaty, but the parties are now at war. It is irrelevant.

The United Nations is so overtly hostile to Israel and Israeli interests that it is tempting to lump the violation of UN resolutions in with violations of the Oslo accords. Why would Israel be bound by the demands of a hostile power?

International law? Most countries promote 'international law' until it contradicts their interests, particularly in wartime. Israel is no different. If anything, it is very restrained in those violations.

the civilian casualties on the Palestinian side continue to be disproportionately high.

I never know what to make of this comment. What do you expect, exactly? Israel is a militarily advanced, fairly wealthy state fighting against a guerilla/terrorist network embedded in a civilian population. That makes the imbalance in civilian casualties inevitable, and does not prove Israel has done anything particularly bad.

linus,

is there any REASON, you think, that the israelis are doing what they're doing? do they do it arbitrarily, just to oppress the palestinians?

do you have any idea what would happen if israel did NOT do those things? which you can see examples of whenever israel did not do them.

mattw,

you're wasting your time. there is not enough intellect and knowledge there to digest what we're saying.

novakant: 'Paki', if used by white people to describe either Pakistanis or more generally non-white people, is a derogatory term in the UK, there is no question about it.

Yes, it would seem so. News to me, but I have only spent three days total in the UK in my life. Since only 1.6 percent of the people who read my blog live in the UK (according to Site Meter), I'll assume most people who comment here, like me, were not aware of this.

if it weren't you who made the 1, 2 points about the mistreatment of the palestinians, then i am sorry, my mistake.

No, I posted 2 examples of the complexity of the situation... that is I mentioned two major contributing factors to the current mess and pointed out that none of them were solely the fault of a single entity. It was colossal fuckups all around that put us where we are today. My point was not that Palis weren't to blame, but that trying to assign the balme to a single individual/group or cause was foolish. In fact, I stated in a number of places that Arafat, in particular bore heavy responsibility for the violence after the First Intifada (which was not a jihadist sort of thing until after Arafat tried to take control of it). In that post I pointed out that there were many groups that shared the blame for the state of affairs.

However, it does seem frighteningly common for anyone that says 'Hey this is bigger than just "the Arabs are teh EVILLL"' gets tarred as an appeaser, an anti-semite and an intellectualizer. I hope you weren't falling into that dogmatic trap.

if you did, then it created a different impression on me than you suggest. but it's not that critical to go back to it.

Well miscommunication can happen in this medium, lets just chalk it up to that :)

Carlos,

There are different levels of support.

I think it was a mistake to work to destroy Hamas' government the moment they won the election.

People can surprise you.

Would would have imagined that members of the Irgun would turn out to be pretty good at running a country after they did all this:

http://tinyurl.com/bf4wt

ratatosk,

it is, however, imperative to recognize that there are more spurious accusationg against ths israelis than agianst the palestinians, while the reality about responsibility is just the opposite. the claim that the jews are the new nazis is much more frequent than the bad arabs.

and there are reasons why the arabs behave the way they do which have to do with their culture and religion. as long as you recognize that those play a dominant role in the conflict, I would have no problem.

Don Williams wrote:
Bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he would declare jihad on the USA:
a) US government had killed 600,000 Iraqi children by bombing Iraq water plants and then blocking import of water purification chemicals,
b) US government had propped up the Saudi kleptocracy for decades, so that Houston could steal the oil wealth of the Saudi people
c) US government had supported the Israeli killing of Muslim Palestians by giving the Isreali government advanced weapons like the F16 fighter jets.

2) The way to have dealth with Al Qaeda was to have addressed the real grievances of the Islamic world --so that they would tell us where the Al Qaeda hard core are. Instead, Bush put out the Big Lie (that Sept 11 happened because "they hate our freedom"), COndi Rice ordered the TV networks to not broadcast Bin Laden's words (so the American people wouldn't find out the truth) and the 911 Commission continued the coverup by refusing to address the question of what caused Sept 11.

This is a coverup? Because someone used wording that isn't that precise in your estimation? Taking one sentence out of context does not a coverup make. the fact is they hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we're infidels, they hate us because they are trying to install a caliphate in that part of the world. They hate us for our decadence. They hate us because we haven't submitted to Islam and yet remain the great power of the world.

But fundamental to your solution to dealing with Bin Laden and co is this noxious idea that somehow their grievances are genuine and that we need to capitulate to them to make them happy or its our fault if they then start killing people. If the goal of an organization is to kill all Jews, and you stand in their way and protect jews from being killed by them, it may be a grievance, but unless you're saying we should let them kill jews to keep everything copacetic, then you have to question the validity of their grievance. And you seem to be suggesting that Osama's grievances should be heeded otherwise we, and the rest of the world he's at war with, deserve what they get.

To go through your grievances one by one, you mention bombing of water plants in Iraq. This occured because we needed to contain Iraq. The containment also required that we maintain troops in Saudi Arabia, which was one of the primary reasons that OBL was angry with us. But to go back to our present situation in Iraq, the antiwar side has been arguing for the longest that we didn't need to go to war with Iraq because containment and because of containment Sadaam wasn't a threat. So then containment led to 9/11 correct? The anti war crowd argue that war has led to an escalation in terrorism therefore we shoudln't have gone to war, but then what were the options? We'd have to continue containment no? Woudn't that entail keeping IRaq in a box, maintaining troops in the region, and where needed sanctions and or military action to keep Iraq in line? OBL then has a grievance if we go to war with Iraq, or if we contain Iraq. Iraq going into Kuwait requires some action on our part, and my guess is whatever our actions it would piss of OBL and his ilk, unless we went along with his desires and made his job easy. But why would we do that? Are we looking to make the world into a caliphate, and force women to wear burkhas around the world, and kill off the jews and destroy the great satan? So then any action we took that wasn't in line with OBL would be a grievance for which he would hate us for.

Then you mention how we propped up the Saudis for generations so that Houston could steal the oil wealth of the Saudis. As if OBL has offered any such wealth redistribution to the Saudi people. In particular he was outraged that Saudi Arabia allowed American troops on Saudi soil and in addition felt that Saudi Arabia if can be believed, wasn't Islamic enough. Now, why not being a diplomat for SA, not being a signatory for any treaty with the US or SA for that matter, why would his grievance matter? He's not the govt. of Saudi Arabia. Whether he feels Saudi Arabia is too decadent or that we shoudlnt have troops there, why should his opinion matter? As already stated, we had troops there because we needed to contain Iraq. You can't on the one hand damn Bush for being a warmonger and driving us to war when containment was working so well, and then say, that OBL has genuine grievances because of our containment policies and the mechanisms by which containment is implemented. Well you could, but you'd be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. But in any case, OBL's grievance doesn't matter anyway. If Saudi Arabia allows us there why would his grievance outweight Saudi Arabia's agreement to allow us there. Or why would his grievance that we were bombing Iraq outweigh Kuwaits desire to have us assist them in expelling Iraq from their country. Why is the grievance of us assisting Kuwait more valid than the invitation by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to allow us to assist them? If we do one it will piss off OBL, if we do the other it will piss off the Kuwaitis. Then in either case you could say our policies cause them to hate us. But who are they, and what are the policies?

Finally you mention his anger at us assisting Israel in killing palestinians. Of course the grievance there has a built in bias doesn't it. We assist Israel because its our ally. Just as nearly every muslim country has been funneling money into whatever Palestinian organization is in charge who use the money to get weapons to kill Israelis. So then OBL's true grievance is not that we're funneling money to buy weapons to kill people, but rather that we aren't funneling money to the side that he wants to win. Notwithstanding the fact that the US and European countries have been and had been pumping millions into the Palestinians for aid, not to mention trying to broker numberous peace deals with a bunch of savages, thugs and warmongers (the PLO and Hamas) who wanted nothing to do with peace of any kind with Israel. Why is his grievance valid? And why then isn't Israel's grievance that every muslim country is sending in money and paying suicide bombers to carry out attacks in their country valid. Again, OBL isn't even a citizen in Israel, nor is he a palestinian so why would his grievance be more relevant than say an Israelis grievance that foreign countries are waging proxy wars against it and paying terrorists to blow up their citizens in pizza parlors?

I'm so sick of this grievance game. It's just a shorthand to blame america, because someone somewhere is pissed off at us. Well so what? Why is only america bound by the grievance clause? (ok, israel apparently is bound by the clause too). Only America cannot have grievances against other countries. Only america can have imperialistic policies or be warlike. All the otehr players are mere reactors to us. But for our actions in the region, they woudl be in suspended animation and time would stand still, or alternatively, they would otherwise be building utopias, but for our interventions.But in either case, they don't have foreign policies of their own and can't act from motivations of their own. THey can only REACT to us and our policies.

"The fact is that the elements that aren't supportive of war with Israel are the exception rather than the rule, and excludes virtually all elected governments, militias, security forces and political parties."

So therefore I guess most civilians are actually combatants; that's the only thing one can infer from your statement.

I think you'll find that most Palestinians are simply trying to keep themselves and their families fed, housed, and safe from violence under very difficult circumstances.

Would would have imagined that members of the Irgun would turn out to be pretty good at running a country after they did all this?

People mistake adopting terrorism (a tactic) for being politically/culturally backwards. The fact is that terrorism (ie, the targeting of civilians) is a very traditional means of waging war.

The Irgun's terrorism was a tactic adopted by well-educated, ethical people in an ugly war. After the war, they demonstrated this by leading decent, productive lives.

Given the state of Arab countries, it is hard to say that - if it weren't for this war - Ismail Haniyeh or Mahmoud Abbas could run a successful, advanced democracy. One of the few things that makes those men different from (say) Assad or Mubarak is that the Syrian and Egyptian regimes have a monopoly of force. If they didn't, chances are their countries would look like Iraq or the P.A.

It is tiresome to read people stating as fact things that they would have no idea if they are true or not, nor do they cite evidence.

Alphie (the above is not for you specifically),

It is clear to me that w/o American (Abrams) support of the Fatah factions in Gaza, the government would have not collapsed at this juncture. The relevant question is, would this have been a good thing? A complex and perhaps unknowable answer, but I wonder if indeed there could have been a peace agreement (long-term) between Israel and PA w/ Islamicist elements in the PA government. I guess Abrams (and certain Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence agents) don't think so.

It's my understanding Hamas is backed by Iranian funds. I think the Quartet is thinking their funding (and Saudi) could have replaced that.

How could we ever imagine that some of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims we turned into holy warriors would actually take their religious training seriously?

We turned them into warriors (or at least better-supplied and better-trained warriors). The 'holy' part was none of our doing and outside of our control, besides. That they would subsequently ramp up the religious zealotry might or might not have been predictable, but even if it was and we had, there's little we could have done to prevent it. And it would still mean only that we failed to prevent it, not that we caused it.

The real cause of terrorism is global warming. Osama said one of the reasons they attacked us was our destruction of the enviorment and refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty. Vote Gore in '08 and end terrorism.

it is, however, imperative to recognize that there are more spurious accusationg against ths israelis than agianst the palestinians, while the reality about responsibility is just the opposite. the claim that the jews are the new nazis is much more frequent than the bad arabs.

Yes, and sadly many individuals seem to have a knee jerk reaction to any statement that doesn't make Israel look like innocent lambs.

and there are reasons why the arabs behave the way they do which have to do with their culture and religion. as long as you recognize that those play a dominant role in the conflict, I would have no problem.

I personally have never said anything about the arabs or their religion being innocent (my views lean much more toward all dogmatic belief systems as being fundamentally bad... Islam being a prime example of why). Some of the reasons for this conflict are absolutely related to the Arab mindset and the Arab belief system. Of course, some are related to bad decisions on the part of the Israelis, bad decisions on the part of the US and bad decisions on the part of a number of Mid Eastern and Western nations. To place all the blame on OMG JIHADISTS!!! seems as useless in a discussion as blaming the JOOOS. The facts indicate that this situation came about through a very complex and chaotic series of events which map all over the place.

I hold no love for the Palis over the Jews or the Jews over the Palis, or Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any of the other nations over there. They are all completely nuts. Nuts in their politics, nuts in their societies, nuts in their beliefs. I'm still not quite sure how the nation of Israel got back where it was, or who thought that it would be a good idea. The Jews and Arabs have not had a good relationship for a few thousand years... dropping them back in the middle of it just seems to beg for violence. Maybe they could have given Montana to Israel... Or Idaho or somewhere that wasn't likely to be directly hostile and might actually be friendly. I'm not against a Jewish State (I don't care one way or the other actually), but a Jewish State in the one location on the planet that was more opposed to them than Nazi Germany seems a very bad idea.

Me:

"The fact is that the elements that aren't supportive of war with Israel are the exception rather than the rule, and excludes virtually all elected governments, militias, security forces and political parties."

Linus:

So therefore I guess most civilians are actually combatants; that's the only thing one can infer from your statement.

No, that's the only thing you can infer from my statement.

What you should have inferred is that those civilians are hostile and broadly supportive of the war waged against Israel. They should not expect anything pleasant from Israel.

There's nothing controversial about this. Israeli civilians do not expect anything pleasant from the Arabs.

My point is this: hostile civilians should not expect to be treated like friendly civilians. There is nothing in the history of warfare to suggest anything different.

I'm personally sick of people who want to re-write the 'rules' of war, starting with Israel. Last year, a Human Rights Watch official wrote in the Jerusalem Post that Israel should not consider a Lebanese or Palestinian civilian life as more important than an Israeli civilian. In 2005, a well-known British journalist whined that, if the Gaza evacuees were Arabs, they'd be shot at (rather than tear-gassed and beaten).

None of these learned people are aware that a state's first responsibility is to its own citizenry. Hence, the 'point' that more Palestinians have died than Israelis. If Israel were treating Palestinian civilians like they were Israelis, then a similar number would have died on both sides.

"do you have any idea what would happen if israel did NOT do those things? "

At the very least Israel, America, and the international community have a moral obligation to provide for the humanitarian and economic development needs of the Palestinian people. A thriving Palestinian middle class also happens to be in the best interest of Israel. Countries with a strong middle class tend to elect more responsible leaders, and tend not to disintegrate into sectarian strife.

"is there any REASON, you think, that the israelis are doing what they're doing?"

Part of the reason Israel does what it does is that America and the international community let it happen. Domestic politics inveighs against even a rhetorical stand against occupation and blockade, let alone a change in policy. The Arabs have their own reasons for stoking the issue (not least their own survival). The Europeans don't especially care.

The conventional wisdom is that the Palestinians or Iran or both are some kind of ticking time bomb threatening the very existence of Israel. But what if the ticking time bomb - fused by a national zeigeist romantacizing the historical struggle of the Jewish people and enabled by a docile elite and press corp in Washington - is actually Israel? I don't think the possibility that Israel - overestimating the tolerance of the American people in an age of Islamic terror - does something truly horrible in the face of some actual or perceived threat, or in response to some act of violence against Israeli civilians in the next couple of decades can be ruled out. The indiscrimiante bombing of Lebanese civilians last year may be just the prelude of something much more afwul to come.

cb,

Fatah funding is mostly from international aid and the Arab states, though less from the Gulf since Arafat supported Saddam in 1990.

Hamas is funded by the Muslim Brotherhood, its own charities and criminal enterprises, Iran and the Gulf states.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are interesting cases. Iran has made overt moves towards dominating Hamas funding. Interestingly, this started even while Iran was effectively buying up al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade and Fatah Tanzim. As well as the de facto owning of Islamic Jihad by Iran, the mullahs have their fingers in every pie.

Saudi Arabia was previously a big fan of Hamas and less of a friend to Arafat. But with the shift of Hamas in to the Iranian axis, the Saudis seem torn between trying to buy back Hamas favour and support Fatah in defeating them.

The point of the US pressing elections wasn't to get a decent, honest government in 2006. The point, which is still quite valid, is to start aligning palestinian political consciousness with reality instead of the la-la land it obviously has been in up to now. The Hamas government is a democratic government. The fact that it is democratic does not entitle it to subsidy. Its willingness to bargain away its maximalist claims and forge a just peace would have been worthy of subsidy and I would have supported same. But that's not the road that Hamas chose. So the US declines to subsidize what should not be subsidized (violent maximalist claims) and we provide just enough of a lifeline to avoid a serious humanitarian tragedy all the while casting about to strengthen political factions that, in the next elections might form a government that will not continue to pursue violent maximalist claims and war with Israel.

Eventually palestinians will figure out that they have to change their behavior in order to get the funds and new rulesets they need to kickstart a functioning society. How many elections that process will take is up to them but the Bush administration starting the process was not a mistake and the blood in the streets is not their responsibility.

MattW,

Are you really saying it's okay to be a terrorist as long as you've got a Ph.D. and a kind heart?

Linus,

At the very least Israel, America, and the international community have a moral obligation to provide for the humanitarian and economic development needs of the Palestinian people.

LMAO! They've elected and supported terrorism against Israel, America and various members of the international community, even while those countries pour aid money down the drain in trying to buy their favour.

The conventional wisdom is that the Palestinians or Iran or both are some kind of ticking time bomb threatening the very existence of Israel. But what if the ticking time bomb - fused by a national zeigeist romantacizing the historical struggle of the Jewish people and enabled by a docile elite and press corp in Washington - is actually Israel? I don't think the possibility that Israel - overestimating the tolerance of the American people in an age of Islamic terror - does something truly horrible in the face of some actual or perceived threat, or in response to some act of violence against Israeli civilians in the next couple of decades can be ruled out. The indiscrimiante bombing of Lebanese civilians last year may be just the prelude of something much more afwul to come.

You needn't worry. In the 1960s, when bombs went off in Israeli cities, Israeli Jews would routinely beat the shit out of any Arabs in the vicinity. Not much like that happens these days.

For Israel to act in the manner you suggest, something either unusually brutal or incredibly destructive would have to happen to Israel or Jews. A half-dozen Beslans, a nuked city, a poisoned food supply, perhaps.

In that scenario, it isn't difficult to imagine a brutal response.

alphie,

Are you really saying it's okay to be a terrorist as long as you've got a Ph.D. and a kind heart?

Your point was that it was wrong to assume Hamas could not govern effectively on the grounds that they are terrorists. I agreed with that.

alphie,

I've been careful not to make moral judgements in this conversation. My point is that terrorism is often necessary. War is horrendous, but must be won. If it requires the targeting of civilians, than that is what must be done. War isn't about who is the most moral, but who wins.

Until the last few decades, the West fought by these rules. Since then, we haven't done nearly as well.

jrs writes: I suspect the nature of Saddam's regime is one of the reasons the Iranians found our support for his invasion and use of chemical weapons against them so upsetting.

I realize this is late, but jrs, if you're still around: do you recall why we tilted against the Iranians? Do you recall any specific events in, oh, 1980 or so that might have caused American foreign policy to support tacitly any other country that might cause the Iranian mullahocracy problems?

Any reason at all? I can think of 52 reasons.

Saddam was a nasty creature back then. We perceived the mullahs as worse (and today that still might be true). Sitting on the fence wasn't an option.

Linus' warped thinking is truly astounding:

The Palestinians commit an atrocity - that's a reflection of how badly they're treated

The Palestinians commit a really, really bad atrocity - they must have been treated really, really badly

The Israeli's act to prevent an atrocity - they are disproportionately preventing Israeli civilians from dying

The Islamists unashamedly preach genocide and hatred of Jews - those Jews must be up to something really "awful"

About those elections: perhaps Mr. Yglesias can explain why he thought the '06 elections were a good idea back then and an indictment of the Bush administration today.

The argument to and fro seems to ignore one clear point made by Noah Pollak: it wasn't just US policy to push for a Palestinian election, it was also the policy of the EU and the UN, it was a stipulated, agreed to part of the Oslo accords, and something that most people involved in the ME process would have said was a good idea.

And it was a good idea even knowing in advance, as most astute observers knew, that Hamas would win big. It was a good idea because there were two potential outcomes with a Hamas victory --

1) Hamas, given the responsibility to govern, would begin to do so, which would force them to tone down their terrorist inclinations. That would be good overall.

2) Hamas would fail to govern and push for more terrorism and conflict, which has been the current result.

Now if (1) had occurred, the situation in Gaza would be better today, the political climate would be better, and one could actually talk about a hand-over of all/most of the West Bank to the PA government.

Instead (and I think this is one of Noah's main points) we've been given a clear picture of the state of Palestinian political and ideological thought: it is, has been, and will always be death to the Jews. Goverance, stability, taking care of the people; all the things that matter to enlightened people in the West -- none of that matters to Hamas.

What matters to Hamas is raw power, and the application of that power to their final goal. And it's become increasingly clear to everyone. Mr. Yglesias can attempt to blame the Bush administration all he wants, but in the end it's Hamas, Fatah and the other umpteen splinter groups that drive the Palestinian conflict today. The Israelis need merely sit back and wait.

Mattw wrote:

Rather than support a quick joint Israel-Fatah blitz of Hamas that might yield some long term results, the U.S. (plus Israel, Egypt and others) are pushing a policy that at best occasionally pauses the day-to-day factional killing. It is basically the same policy the U.S. has applied to the Israel-P.A. conflict: fragile ceasefires, arm both sides, push for talks even though they will be quickly overtaken by events.

Perhaps somebody already addressed the above, so excuse me ... Anyway, what in the world makes you think that Fatah would be willing to cooperate with Israel to fight Hamas, Matt? The mere suggestion sort of shows you have very little understanding of the situation. You are making faulty assumptions and playing mental gymnastics in order to blame the deadlock in the peace process on the U.S., but there's Occams Razor, which says that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

So, here's why the peace process is moribund: Because the majority of Palestinians don't want peace with Israel!

What was Mr. Fitzgerald's now well-worn cliche about a first-rate intelligence?

It can be the case that radical Islamist preach hatred of the Jews and the destruction of Israel, and also be the case that Israeli politics continues - to its detriment in my estimation - to be animated by a romantic narrative of struggle, and that the near-absence of debate about policy toward Israel in America's mainstream press let alone the corridors of power in Washington is also to Israel's detriment, and that both of these things may lead Israel in the not-distant future to do something far more terrible than bomb a few thousand Lebanese civilians in response to some provocation.

Zak,

Elements of the Fatah security forces are alreading fighting Hamas. Perhaps if you read the news you would know that.

Linus: That there is no Palestinian Gandhi is a tragedy for the Palestinian people, but the absence of a Palestinian Gandhi doesn't justify the continued - illegal - Israeli occupation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza, and its disastrous humanitarian and economic consequences for Palestinian civilians.

The occupation is not illegal. That doesn't it mean it shouldn't end, but it's not illegal.

"near-absence of debate about policy toward Israel in America's mainstream press let alone the corridors of power in Washington"

Really? How would you know? Why don't you quit it with the stupid comments.

Zak,

So, here's why the peace process is moribund: Because the majority of Palestinians don't want peace with Israel!

I agree with that, but the problem is that none of the parties (Israel, U.S., etc) have acted accordingly. They haven't tried to destroy Hamas or Fatah, they haven't stopped selling electricity to Gaza, etc.

Anyway, what in the world makes you think that Fatah would be willing to cooperate with Israel to fight Hamas, Matt?

Who said anything about cooperating? I'd suggest killing Mahmoud Dahlan in a false-flag assassination by 'Hamas'. If that doesn't spark a major Fatah response, kill Abbas. The point isn't to co-opt Fatah, so much as use both sides to destroy each other. In an all-out war between Hamas and Fatah, some Fatah members would except discreet Israeli assistance.

You accuse me of blaming the U.S., rather than the Arabs, for a lack of progress in the 'peace process'. You apparently didn't read my entire comment, which finished:

American Middle East policy bleeds both 'enemy' and 'friend' without solving any of the (yes, already existing) problems.

Israeli politics continues - to its detriment in my estimation - to be animated by a romantic narrative of struggle,

Clearly, like many things, you know nothing about Israeli politics.

Like the fact that Olmert was elected on a platform to withdraw from the West Bank.

A proposal that was forced into oblivion by Hamas' and Hezbollah's campaigns of jihad and terror campaigns.

Having had all your other arguments systematically shot down, you proceed to a fantastical claim that Israel is about to unleash something "terrible" and "awful" on the world. You offer no support of this other than your "estimation". Such unsubstantiated fear-mongering is nothing short of malicious and and vindictive. It's the sort of rhetoric that belongs on right-wing hate sites.

ratatosk,

you seem to belabor under the illusion that lack of serious knowledge and understanding of the history and nature of the conflict allows you to be "objective", by blaming everybody and seeking for some "balance" of equal responsibility.

the reality is that you're operating from under the veil of ignorance, which is exactly what is causing you to apply some sort of "equivalence" and "balance". that's also what permits you to talk about the nonsense of "dropping the jews among the arabs".

if you want to discuss the subject intelligently, then educate yourself, by which i mean not just reading the media and the net propaganda and ignorance, but study the historical and social scholarship. until you do, you're grinding water and don't contribute anything of value.

i can suggest some sources, but my guess would be that you'll pass.

fp,

why don't you provide some sources? some of us are interested.

zak,

the third or fourth post on this thread has a link to an article that would help your understanding. that link also has several links to other sites that i subsequently bookmarked.

Linus,

I don't know how to say this without being accused of being offensive: you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're spewing idiocy. if i were you i would refrain from making it clear to everybody.

the only thing that is israel's detriment is that there are too many ignorami and idiots like you who, who can easily be taken in by propaganda.

spare us your crap.

You just don't get it, Noah.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. And it's always been Bush's fault.

Ratatosk: I'm still not quite sure how the nation of Israel got back where it was, or who thought that it would be a good idea.

Yeah, I think some of those Jews who survived the Holocaust and had nowhere to go thought an Israel might be a good idea. What a crazy idea!

"the only thing that is israel's detriment is that there are too many ignorami and idiots like you who, who can easily be taken in by propaganda."

I know. Linus is a poopy pants as well as a big jerk type.

fp,

I find your statements both rude and baseless. I seek not to simply share blame around, but rather was pointing out the bad plan of laying all the blame on a single cause. I understand that you seem to hold the position that its all the fault of the Palis. I disagree. I'd like to see your sources and compare them to mine... my guess is that yours will have a slightly different bent than mine and perhaps if we read each others... we'll both realize that the situation isn't simply cut and dried Teh ARaBS IS EvILs.

I don't discount the Arabs, but I'll put my studies in world and ME history against yours any day... when it comes to stuff related to the military... I'd probably double that wager.

Zak,

Elements of the Fatah security forces are alreading fighting Hamas. Perhaps if you read the news you would know that.

That wasn't my point. I was arguing that it is silly to think that Fatah will ALLY itself with Israel to fight their Hamas brothers.

zak,

I have enough experience with discussions about the conflict to know that very few of those who spew nonsense will bother with it; and those who talk sense already tend to know what's going on.

i have just listed some sources in several messages in this thread, people can check them out.

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/05/20/what-is-propaganda-questions-to-jeffb/#comments

"near-absence of debate about policy toward Israel in America's mainstream"

This is like complaing about the near-absence of debate about retracting the Emancipation Proclamation.

We defend Israel because it's the only liberal democracy in the Mideast, other the two we're trying to establish. The fact Arab kleptothugocracies want to destroy it doesn't mean we have to debate the idea.

ratatosk,

it's your prerogative to think what you want. i was just pointing out that you dk enough to claim what you do.

"there is enough blame to go around" is a trivial, mindless statement which does not contribute anything to the debate. of course. so what?

you don't even think logically. if somebody does not agree with your above statement does it mean that he believes there is no israeli responsibility?

i would be careful with wagers if i were you. i am a political scientist with 15 years experience in studying the subject, and i lived for 18 years in israel.

"This is like complaing about the near-absence of debate about retracting the Emancipation Proclamation."

I know, tolly. I like the part when Emancipation Proclamation took back over Mexico cause of illegal immigrant invasion, and lib Canada over socialized medicine sin. Lots of smoted libs, and Mexicans. That was good.

Also, where were you during Soviet invasion of Colorado in 1984? I was ten, brought Uzis on horsey to future War Heros Max Boot and Glenn Reynolds.

Linus, I can't think of anything "far more terrible" than "to bomb a few thousand civilians" in response to a mere "provocation." (Though I would note that from Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, there is no shortage of Arabs that seem generally OK with it...)

Of course, Israel did no such thing in Lebanon. They didn't bomb civilians, they bombed Hizbollah military assets, which were deliberately situated amongst civilians by Hizbollah. And the "provocation" in question was Lebanese invasion of sovereign Israeli territory, the killing and kidnapping of its soldiers. Such a "provocation" is known more generally as an act of war -- unless, that is, you are trying to obfuscate that fact with euphemism, in order to cover an already absurd reach.

On the other hand, organizing a terror network, obtaining weapons, and sending suicide bombers onto civilian buses and into pizza parlors, allegedly in response to the enemy's politician walking on your holy site -- that would fit precisely the definition of "bombing civilians in response to some provocation." And that proud record belongs, once again, to those poor downtrodden Palestinians.

Steve White,

Instead (and I think this is one of Noah's main points) we've been given a clear picture of the state of Palestinian political and ideological thought: it is, has been, and will always be death to the Jews. Goverance, stability, taking care of the people; all the things that matter to enlightened people in the West -- none of that matters to Hamas.

What matters to Hamas is raw power, and the application of that power to their final goal. And it's become increasingly clear to everyone. Mr. Yglesias can attempt to blame the Bush administration all he wants, but in the end it's Hamas, Fatah and the other umpteen splinter groups that drive the Palestinian conflict today. The Israelis need merely sit back and wait.

Ah, yes. Middle East policy based on point-scoring over leftists.

Rather than do what is well within our power to do and destroy Hamas and friends, we've dealt them a blow by making them look bad.

How anyone can sit back and think this is a respectable plan, rather than a demonstration of weakness, is beyond me. But apparently this is such a brilliant idea that even the Israelis (who are being shelled every day) can 'sit back and wait' in the knowledge that, even though Israeli towns are evacuating themselves, they're doing a little better on the PR front.

MattW, stopping Hamas from getting power at the hands of Palestinian voters is neither Bush's nor Israel's "responsibility." (I'm guessing that had they tried, progressives from Berkeley to Brussels would be tearing out their hair at such blatant democracy suppression!)

Short of outright genocide or the forcible transfer of Arabs out of Gaza and the West Bank, there isn't much more Israel or the West can do about Hamas. Any attempt to restore order would be temporary at best, and redirect Palestinians' guns at their would-be "rescuer."

Ultimately, it's up to the Palestinians themselves. They elected Hamas, and now they have to see and feel -- firsthand -- the consequences. The shelling and attacks came well before Hamas's election into power, and if anything attacks on Israel were far more bloody in the days of Arafat.

So at this point, the best option really is to seal off the Arabs, sit back, and watch them self-destruct. They are adults, and they have made their choices. The rocket attacks will eventually stop as materiel runs low and is required to fight rival factions. Once they get tired of it, the Palestinians might be more amenable to accepting their losses and trying to build a society out of whatever (and whoever) is left.

fp,

Yep, I'm only at 10 years in PolSci and History. You got me beat on years and I do it as a hobby, not a job.

I also apologize if I used a broad brush on your statements. My initial post was specifically in reference to the article MJT posted. My point was that all three of the pundits in question were engaging in stupidity because they were all seeking to blame one group. Yglesias wants to blame Bush (and the Bush Administration has pulled a couple boneheaded moves for which they do bear some responsibility). Peretz wants to blame only the evil Pali society (and certainly the mindset of the people plays a very large part). Pollak seems intent on blaming the overall evilness of Arabs (which also is true in some sense, as most stable Arab states are held together by a Strongman, rather than an elected democratic official). However, the situation is far more complex than any of that (though all of those are contributing factors).

My post wasn't meant to say that no one was responsible, or that everyone was precisely equally responsible... only that trying to assign blame to any single source for this is an effort in futility (or stupidity).

I'm sorry if you didn't understand my original post, but I don't think I'm uneducated on the topic and I certainly didn't mean to trivialize the issue of the violence... only trivialize the pundits self-wankery on the topic.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25603_Video-_Bloodshed_and_Anarchy_in_Gaza&only

israel makes them do it. particularly to the children.

and those israeli pigs: they oppress those hamas killers by treating them in their hospital.

Zak,
Yeah, I think some of those Jews who survived the Holocaust and had nowhere to go thought an Israel might be a good idea. What a crazy idea!

AN Israel definitely was a good idea. An Israel smack in the middle of an entire race that has hated Jews for 3000-3500 years... not so much. Which is what I said, as opposed to the single line you quoted.

Noah, If no one has yet pointed out that Hamas is well funded too [from Saudi Arabia, Persian Gulf oil emirates, Iran] then I will.

On one point I disagree with you. I believe that Arafat used Hamas, which had a lot of expertise in car bombs and suicide bombing, for example. It was reported in the Israeli press a few years ago that yasser was upset in early 2001 that the death ratios among his Arab following was much higher than among the Jews. So he deliberately encouraged the various terrorist groups, including Hamas, to get to work to improve the death or kill ratio in the Arabs' favor. It seems that he had read that "guerrillas" were supposed to kill many more of their enemies than the other way around. The bombings of various sorts were targeted against Israeli civilians of course. Women and children were favorite targets. A pregnant woman from my neighborhood was blown up after a visit to her gynecologist.

Eliyahu writes:

[Arafat] was upset in early 2001 that the death ratios among his Arab following was much higher than among the Jews.

It was disproportionate!

Ratatosk, perhaps you can draw upon your years of PoliSci to find an example of a nation that was not founded in the midst of people that hated its inhabitants. Isn't that why nations are founded to start with?

Come to think of it, when you say "an entire race that has hated Jews for 3000-3500 years", exactly which race are you referring to?

E. Nough,

Short of outright genocide or the forcible transfer of Arabs out of Gaza and the West Bank, there isn't much more Israel or the West can do about Hamas.

There are lots of things. First, rather than wait for them to hit Israel before attacking jihadi targets, hit all of them they know about now. Second, rather than let Hamas/Fatah/etc members walk around, kill them. Third, rather than discuss releasing prisoners, execute those proven to have been involved in lethal attacks. Fourth, switch off the power.

There are many, many things short of genocide or transfer that could be done, but are not.

The rocket attacks will eventually stop as materiel runs low and is required to fight rival factions.

Why would material run low? Gaza is open to Sinai, which is a regional arms trafficking hub.

There's a more general problem with that non-approach, too. In that scenario, the rockets stopped because of internal fighting and logistical problems, not because the price was too high.

Once they get tired of it, the Palestinians might be more amenable to accepting their losses and trying to build a society out of whatever (and whoever) is left.

I'm entirely in favour of Arab terrorists groups killing each other and generally make things miserable for themselves. But that's only as part of a strategy of making Palestinians beg for peace.

The alternative you outline is for limited retaliation for continuing terrorism, and hoping that the civil war is gruesome enough to make Palestinians wise up.

What you hint at here is that brutality (and fear of it) makes people change their outlook. This is obviously true, and it is convenient that Hamas and Fatah are willing to act in that manner. But what if their civil war ambles along like it has?

I'll repeat your comment for the sake of my rhetoric:

Once they get tired of it [brutal warfare], the Palestinians might be more amenable to accepting their losses and trying to build a society out of whatever (and whoever) is left.

Forcing an enemy state/polity in to that realisation is surely how wars are won. Outsourcing that isn't always possible.

MattW, stopping Hamas from getting power at the hands of Palestinian voters is neither Bush's nor Israel's "responsibility."

Nor is promoting elections in the Palestinian Authority, which is exactly what Israel and the U.S. did. In the context of the current Israeli and American strategy - dealing with 'moderate' Fatah' - offering any chance for a Hamas political victory is cleary stupid.

ratatosk,

i am not offended as easily as you.

i made those statements in all honesty and i stand behind them. there is a bunch of links i posted in several messages in the thread i linked to above. you would do well to study them.

i have not yet read pollack's article. US journalists, part. of the left, like yglesias have no clue about the conflict and project their american political crap on it.

the reality is that in a situation in which the arab side and the west's foolishness are mainly responsible for the disaster that is the ME (which was a disaster forever), the overwhelming trend is to blame and scapegoat israel. and in this kind of reality "there's plenty of blame to share" cannot be taken seriously.

"They didn't bomb civilians, they bombed Hizbollah military assets, which were deliberately situated amongst civilians by Hizbollah."

That's likely to be partially true. There are also a number of instances reported by credible news organizations from around the world of Israel knowingly targeting civilian areas (as well as at least one case of Israel targeting a UN post in southern Lebanon after being repeatedly warned about the nature of the target). For instance, the Israeli Ministry of Defense has admitted since the end of the 06 Lebanon war that there were "irregularities" in the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. There are plenty of other examples.

I speak and read MSArabic well, and studied it at King Abdul-Aziz Univ. in Jeddah when ObL was a student there. I was a pro-Palestinian Arabist for twenty-five years until 9/11. Israel and US policy may be occasionally, indeed often, lacking in perspective. Condi Rice misjudged that holding free elections last year might get Hamas elected. No one else foresaw that either.

BTW, Major Mike Totten was the Military Attache at the US Embassy in Jeddah when I was Pol Attache. We interfaced a lot. Any relation?

i wonder why nobody asks how zillions were dumped on the palestinians, they're "desperately impoverished", yet the terrorists never run out of arms and funds. this after there have been explicit acknowledgements by the palestinians that they dk where the funds went.

and yet the west and even us continues to pour funds down the drain of corruption and support of jihad. and then blame israel for the consequences.

daveinboca,

you are wrong that nobody foresaw it. both sharon and abbas warned the US not to let it happen, but the americans insisted.

the fact is that the US doesn't just "make mistakes". they are totally clueless about islam and the ME and go from blunder to blunder. this is particularly true of rice's delusions and illusions. she's utterly incompetent.

Condi Rice misjudged that holding free elections last year might get Hamas elected. No one else foresaw that either.

?!?!

Funny thing is when Sharon first announced the retreat from Gaza I prediced a full scale Palestinian Civil War. I blogged it.

Any maroon could have seen it coming:

I fully believe that in the short term the pull out from Gaza will be a disaster. The Palis will not be able to restrain themselves. Innocents will be killed. There will be at least two major gains from the withdrawal. First, militarily the gloves can come off. Second, the Pali civil war for control of Gaza will intensify.

from:

The Sharon Plan - My Take

If any one was to blame it was Sharon. I believe it was a military decision. Weaken Israel's enemies by getting them to fight among themselves.

M. Simon,

1. The gloves are still on. You and others made the mistake of thinking that the only reason Israel was wearing gloves was beacuse they were seen as the aggressor due to the 'occupation'. As we've seen, there are deeper reasons for those gloves.

2. Full scale civil war? We've been waiting nearly two years. Even now, the Gazans have only managed a couple of hundred in five months. And this is with things at their worst yet.

zak and ratatosk,

your argument have nothing to do with reality. if you want to know why read efraim karsh's pieces on the circumstances before and up to 1948.

Linus, Israel using cluster bombs in areas where there are civilians -- assuming it actually happened -- may have been poor judgement and inappropriate use of the weapons, but it is not the same as "bombing thousands of civilians." The target was still Hizbollah and its military assets.

Likewise for the UN base: the article you cite actually says there was "fierce fighting" in the area around it for six hours prior to the UN building taking a direct hit. Assuming that it wasn't UN's "unarmed peacekeepers" (!) doing the fighting, we have to conclude that Hizbollah fighters were operating in the vicinity of the base. (I wonder if the UN personnel called and asked them to go somewhere else...) Perhaps the UN can take up this conduct with the Lebanese authorities, but once again I fail to see how this supports your argument.

This is quite aside from the double mystery of why those UN staff were sitting there, unarmed, in the middle of a war zone, and why they thought that they were entitled to a "safe haven" in the middle of a battlefield.

"There are also a number of instances reported by credible news organizations from around the world of Israel knowingly targeting civilian areas (as well as at least one case of Israel targeting a UN post in southern Lebanon after being repeatedly warned about the nature of the target)."

How come nobody mentions this was done because Hezbollah was placing military assets including rockets aimed at Israeli civilians in 'civilian areas' in violation of international law? The idea that Israel just gets kicks out of targetting civilians is demonstrably false- Israel could wipe the entire population of southern lebanon off the face of the earth if they chose. The only argument you are making is that Israel should suffer further civilian casualties of their own to minimize the risk of Lebanese casualties, which stands the concept of self defense entirely on its head. Worse- such thinking is the REASON Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations use human shields.

"For instance, the Israeli Ministry of Defense has admitted since the end of the 06 Lebanon war that there were "irregularities" in the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. There are plenty of other examples."

Cluster bombs are the biggest red herring since depleted uranium. The alternative is to dump more individual bombs, which will disperse over the same area and have a similar if not worse effect. The objection to cluster bombs, again, reinforces the idea that war should be a wonderful magical affair where magic bullets can kill the bad guys and spare the innocent. People like Hezbollah INTENTIONALLY make that impossible. Were they not hiding amongst civilians illegally, what type of ordinance Israel used would be a moot point.

MattW at May 23, 2007 03:43 PM,

How anyone can sit back and think this is a respectable plan, rather than a demonstration of weakness, is beyond me. But apparently this is such a brilliant idea that even the Israelis (who are being shelled every day) can 'sit back and wait' in the knowledge that, even though Israeli towns are evacuating themselves, they're doing a little better on the PR front.

I don't see how preping the battle space is a demonstration of weakness. In fact retreats to a more advantageous position are a sign of strength. Had Lee understood that he might ahave avoided the Gettysburg debacle. However, his Army was anxious for a fight and he did not wish to disappoint them. That is weakness.

With Palestinians killing each other, Israel has a free hand. Politically and militarily. I thought it was the move of a military genius when it was announced. The fact that the Palis knew the Sharon plan a year in advance and were not able to turn the retreat to their advantage shows the genius of the plan. It was done in the open and still the Palis were powerless to affect the result.

I predict that this plan once it is understood by the world militaries will be a teaching opportunity for centuries.

Sharon is one of the greatest military geniuses of all time.

Simon,

the only moron is you.

let's assume that sharon's intentions were as you say. at that point were the palestinians compelled to satisfy him and kill each other?

and when the flower industry in gaza was bought for them when israel left and they destroyed it and turned it into qassem launching pads, was that sharon's intention too?

another example of the palestinians not having any choice in the matter -- israel makes them

Fair enough, MattW. All I can say in response is that I didn't think the American strategy of dealing with Fatah "because Hamas is worse" was particularly sound.

If nothing else, the current situation has one advantage: Palestinians have no one to blame but themselves. They are no longer "occupied" by Israel or governed by a corrupt despot installed by the Israelis out of ...let's just say misguided optimism. They chose Hamas freely, knowing what they are, and now reap the reward. It's justice, pure and simple.

As for Israel's tactical approach, I don't have an argument with you. More targeted assassinations, destruction of known (or even suspected) terrorist assets, cutting power, etc. -- fine by me in principle. What I don't want is a full-scale infantry incursion to "restore order," or yet another stupid Road Map-style appeasement plan. If the Arabs are bent on their orgy of violent self-destruction, there is no need to get in their way.

he may have been a military genius, but he was far from politically smart.

he did not leave gaza to take a chance on the self-destruction of palestinians. he did it for the same reason barak got out of lebanon: they were not willing to be as ruthless as required to win against inslamists. and they were paying the price.

With Palestinians killing each other, Israel has a free hand. Politically and militarily.

Rubbish. The same BS applies. Israel is a strong, wealthy, Western, Jewish state. The palestinians are poor, down-trodden, Third World victims. None of that is to do with the 'occupation', as demonstrated by the reaction to the bombing of Syria in 2003 and of Lebanon in 2006.

The country (America) that broadly supported Israeli self-defence pre-disengagement already did. The countries that didn't (everyone else) have not changed their minds. If anything, disengagement encouraged those countries to push for further withdrawals - negating the supposed political benefits.

Israel has not used that military 'free hand' effectively. There wasn't an airstrike in Gaza since December. The Sinai-Gaza border was abandoned, allowing a massive build-up of military hardware. Jihadis in Gaza are now equipped more like Hezbollah. Presumably this was also part of 'prepping the battlespace'.

And what exactly is it being prepped for? Allowing the enemy to train forces and equip themselves with advanced weapons doesn't lend itself to major ground assault.

What is the next phase of this remarkable plan? And will anyone still be living in Sderot when it starts?

MattW at May 23, 2007 04:51 PM has a couple of points.

1. The gloves are still on. You and others made the mistake of thinking that the only reason Israel was wearing gloves was beacuse they were seen as the aggressor due to the 'occupation'. As we've seen, there are deeper reasons for those gloves.

The deepest reason is Olmert who is an incompetent. The Israeli populace and arrmy are raring for a fight. In fact they forced Olmerts hand on this in just the last week.

To get some idea of just how bad Olmert is read:

Treachery

2. Full scale civil war? We've been waiting nearly two years. Even now, the Gazans have only managed a couple of hundred in five months. And this is with things at their worst yet.

I think a better description is "worst so far". Every time the Civil War erupts the body counts get higher than the last eruption.

BTW what is going on represents Sharon's transfer plan. Already 40% of Gazans would leave if they could.

Would would have imagined that members of the Irgun would turn out to be pretty good at running a country after they did all this:

Alphie,

the Irgun was destroyed by the Haganah because there was no longer any room for their brand of resistance (call it terror if you like) in the new order. The Irgun was not coddled, encouraged, funded, etc., they were DESTROYED as an organized force. Only then did some of its individual members contribute to building the new Jewish state. The same could also be true of individual members of Hamas, but not as long as Hamas continues to exist in its current form as a terrorist organization whose only imperative is war with Israel. Not a single penny to them as far as I'm concerned. So obvious a child could see it.

simon,

a vast majority of the palestinians do not want to live in a palestinian state, they want to go to the west.

E. Nough,

I agree with all of that.

My concern, though, is with this:

If the Arabs are bent on their orgy of violent self-destruction, there is no need to get in their way.

And if they're not?

Let's face it, Olmert isn't going to order Shin Bet to light the powderkeg by killing someone senior and blaming the other terror group.

fp at May 23, 2007 05:05 PM,

BTW I a Maroon. U Chicago. Just to set the record straight. In fact my #2 Son who will graduate from U Chicago in a couple of weeks is also a Maroon.

let's assume that sharon's intentions were as you say. at that point were the palestinians compelled to satisfy him and kill each other?

They were never compelled. Which is the genius of the plan. Sharon knew his enemy.

and when the flower industry in gaza was bought for them when israel left and they destroyed it and turned it into qassem launching pads, was that sharon's intention too?

Nothing like a casus belli to shift world public opinion which is now indifferent to Israeli strikes on the Palis. Another point of genius and which I predicted.

another example of the palestinians not having any choice in the matter -- israel makes them

Nope. Sharon set up the situation and now nature is taking its course. Pure genius. He KNEW the Palis would make bad choices for themselves and good choices for Israel. Pure genius.

fp at May 23, 2007 05:24 PM,

I was quoting a poll that was some months old. Glad to hear it has gotten worse for the Palis.

M. Simon,

The deepest reason is Olmert who is an incompetent. The Israeli populace and arrmy are raring for a fight. In fact they forced Olmerts hand on this in just the last week.

Well, true. It is hard to imagine a leader more incompetent than Ehud Olmert, and it is harder still to imagine why he is tolerated.

I think a better description is "worst so far". Every time the Civil War erupts the body counts get higher than the last eruption.

You avoided my snarky question: by the time the civil war becomes serious, will any Israelis be living in Sderot?

BTW what is going on represents Sharon's transfer plan. Already 40% of Gazans would leave if they could.

What is stopping them? The fact nobody wants to take them in - as was the case pre-disengagement. The only way to transfer them is to either drive them out by force, or have other countries agree to take them in.

Carlos,

the Irgun was destroyed by the Haganah because there was no longer any room for their brand of resistance (call it terror if you like) in the new order. The Irgun was not coddled, encouraged, funded, etc., they were DESTROYED as an organized force.

The Irgun was destroyed by Rabin and the Haganah beacuse they wanted to stop fighting while Irgun wanted to win a decisively. Even in the 30s and 40s, Haganah turned over members of the Irgun over to the British for imprisonment and execution. The way Haganah dealt with Irgun is nothing anyone should be proud of.

Nothing like a casus belli to shift world public opinion which is now indifferent to Israeli strikes on the Palis. Another point of genius and which I predicted.

'Indifferent'? The same people who opposed identical strikes pre-disengagement, oppose them now. The people who supported them, support them now.

Do you really not remember the howling over Israeli operations in Lebanon and Gaza (neither place occupied) in 2006?

You avoided my snarky question: by the time the civil war becomes serious, will any Israelis be living in Sderot?

Depends on how long the Israelis tolerate Olmert. It seems a vast majority knows what needs to be done (Bibi is calling for a total siege of Gaza. No Water. No electricity.)

Driving the Palis out by force will happen in time. The situation is not fully developed and Israel has the wrong government.

Linus,

As far as Israel allegedly bombing Lebanese civilians "indiscriminately", the IAF flew over 7,000 sorties during the war in Lebanon in 2006. Without knowing how many were civilians and how many were combatants for Hamas and other militias, it is claimed that ~ 1,100 Lebanese were killed. With all of its F-16 and Apache aircraft, smart bombs, and UAVs, if they were genuinely trying to kill Lebanese civilians, that's awfully poor shooting. Taking almost seven sorties to kill one Lebanese?

As mentioned above, the Palestinians are a modern political fiction. A Bizzaro world reflection of modern Zionism. Palestinian nationalism was created specifically to fight Zionism. Ironically, because it was the very existence and success of the Zionist enterprise that attracted many 'Palestinians' to the area. While it's often alleged that Israel's creation was a response to the Holocaust, the simple fact is that the Zionist enterprise was over a century old by the end of WWII.

Before the security wall, before the checkpoints, before the occupation, before the "naqba", the catastrophe of 1948, when the Jews allegedly dispossessed the indigenous Arabs, before all that, before the Holocaust, when the Mufti of Jerusalem helped raise the Handschar division of Muslim SS troops, before the Arab riots of the 1930s when hundreds of Jews were bombed and stabbed, before all that, there was Hebron in 1929, where 69 mostly elderly, non-Zionist and deeply religious Jews, were slaughtered by Arabs, eager to believe a false rumor that Jews had somehow slightly Muslim dignity.

So Linus, let me ask you. Just what were the Arabs in Hebrew in 1929 aggrieved about?

I'm sorry if the Palestinians are eating a shit sandwich now. They made it, they can eat it. Boo freakin' hoo.

Carlos,

the Irgun was destroyed by the Haganah because there was no longer any room for their brand of resistance (call it terror if you like) in the new order.

Heh. Until the early 1950s, when the Israeli army adopted it against Jordan.

The fact was, Haganah tried to destroy Irgun even when their terrorism was very necessary. It was about politics and power.

Matt W.,

In America at least the press is not so virulent against Israel's actions.

Carlos,

The Hamas government never had a chance to govern, beacuse its funds were cut off before it began.

That tactic may seem obvious to you, but I don't think it is to the rest of the (modern) world.

And the blame for the chaos is assigned accordingly.

In America at least the press is not so virulent against Israel's actions.

So that's the political 'free hand'? The New York Times eases off a bit?

Not exactly awe-inspiring.

" the Irgun was destroyed by the Haganah because there was no longer any room for their brand of resistance (call it terror if you like) in the new order. The Irgun was not coddled, encouraged, funded, etc., they were DESTROYED as an organized force. "
The Irgun was destroyed by Rabin and the Haganah beacuse they wanted to stop fighting while Irgun wanted to win a decisively. Even in the 30s and 40s, Haganah turned over members of the Irgun over to the British for imprisonment and execution. The way Haganah dealt with Irgun is nothing anyone should be proud of.

The Irgun was never destroyed by the Hagannah. On the day that Israel was declared a state, Menachem Begin got on the radio and disbanded the Irgun. He said that now that there was Jewish sovereignty the Irgun would dissolve as a fighting unit and join the political process.

Begin was a huge statesman. Considering that Ben Gurion had tried to kill him (see the Altalena) and the times mentioned when Hagannah officers turned in Irgun members to the British authorities, Begin had reasons to be vindictive, but he recognized the State of Israel as an epochal event and acted accordingly.

Johan Amedeus Metesky,

You're correct. I repeated 'destroyed' (as put by Carlos) more out of rhetoric than anything else. I'm tired...

i served in the army when sharon was still in active duty. i know the man. he was a brilliant soldier. but he was a lousy politician and he benefitted from the decay of israeli leadership. not in anybody wildest dreams did anybody envision he would ever become PM.

he ended up sobered up by israel's predicament with the occupation and fell into the usual illusion that he could escape just by getting out. and he managed it because of his reputation and lack of competitors.

it was he who chose olmert and peres as partners and kadima is a pathetic collection of incompetent, confused and gravitas-lacking nobodies. it's what he left behind. And so is the opposition.

may i suggest not to feed the trolls alphie and linus? if you don't, you won't see the end of the crap.

destroyed

Or disbanded. Fine. I had the shelling of the Altalena in mind when I used that term. Either way, the Haganah forced the Irgun to "disband". Semantics.

The Hamas government never had a chance to govern, beacuse its funds were cut off before it began.

Because they refused to renounce their raison d'etre-- i.e., to destroy Israel. Nobody's to blame here but Hamas itself (and the morons who elected them).

"So Linus, let me ask you. Just what were the Arabs in Hebrew in 1929 aggrieved about?"

Why stop there? Certain radical Islamists claim to be nursing grievances from the 12th century. Should I be perturbed that any number of my probable Thuringian and or Saxon kin were liable to have been slaughtered during a many-decades-long campaign of forcible conversion to Christianity?

I don't know when the original sin in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict may have taken place, or why that should matter. But as a leftist who is generally wary of the power of states - including those with elected governments - and who tries to be concerned with or at least aware of the suffering of ordinary people, there is much to be displeased with in the behavior of the government of Israel.

I choose to defend the basic rights and humanity of the Palestinian people because there are more than enough defenders of the Israeli government in this country. This thread is ample evidence of that fact.

Carlos,

So Hamas didn't cry uncle before they took over. Not a good enough reason to keep the money they needed to govern from them.

As we've seen, some terrorists turn into statesmen when they assume formal office.

A chance for peace missed, no matter how you try to rationalize it.

"Linus, Israel using cluster bombs in areas where there are civilians -- assuming it actually happened -- may have been poor judgement and inappropriate use of the weapons, but it is not the same as "bombing thousands of civilians." The target was still Hizbollah and its military assets."

Close to 1200 Lebanese civilians are reported to have been killed, and close to 4300 Lebanese civilians are reported to have been wounded. More than 5000 + the thousands more who were in the area but unharmed or whose injuries were never reported to government authorities qualifies as thousands of civilians bombed.

As we've seen, some terrorists turn into statesmen when they assume formal office.

But you've got that in the wrong order. It's usually ex-terrorists who become statesmen, not statesmen who become ex-terrorists.

You claim to want peace, but your buds themselves say they don't want it-- they want victory, not peace. It's why the Qassams don't stop. So why don't you stop apologizing for terrorists. Stop casting the blame everywhere but where it's most deserved. I know you like the paleos, but "like" has nothing to do with it, remember? Have a shred of integrity for crissakes.

Carlos,

After 60 years of fighting, why not give the new guys a chance to rule?

Maybe they would have surprised us all, eh?

Now we'll never know.

perhaps some realistic scholarly work is warranted, to counter all those who like to hear themselves talk without an iota of knowledge:

Who Ruined Gaza?
http://www.canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/10056.shtml

Nice try, Linus, but no. "Civilians being bombed" implies that civilians were deliberately targeted for bombing, the way Hizbollah did and Palestinians do.

The Lebanese civilians who became side casualties only did so because they were near Hizbollah military assets, which Hizbollah deliberately placed near them in the hope that Israel would either hesitate to fire on those assets, or else would take political flack for "bombing civilians." The plan worked, and plenty of fools now damn the Israelis for deaths that are the responsibility of Hizbollah.

Not only did Israel not "bomb civilians" (no matter how often you repeat that calumny), but regardless of your semantics, it doesn't stand to reason that they will do something "even more terrible."

The only mystery remaining is whether it's your anti-Israel bigotry that causes your inability to follow logic, or vice-versa.

MattW at May 23, 2007 05:47 PM,

So that's the political 'free hand'? The New York Times eases off a bit?

Not exactly awe-inspiring.

Given that America's support for Israel is the center of gravity for Israel it is awe-inspiring. Israel has shored up its relations with its #1 supporter.

alphie,

The Palestinian Civil War startrd not long after Arafat died. They already lost their chance before they were even given it.

Linus flaunts his "nobility":

I choose to defend the basic rights and humanity of the Palestinian people because there are more than enough defenders of the Israeli government in this country. This thread is ample evidence of that fact.

Ah yes, that reflexive twitch of the Left: defending the "weak," no matter how loathesome they happen to be.

Fear not, Linus: the Palestinians' humanity is not in question. But with humanity comes responsibility, and respect for their rights is contingent on their behaving like civilized human beings and not murdering grandmothers riding buses. The Palestinians failed every test of basic human decency (starting with, "don't strap bombs to your kids") and there seems to be no depth they are unwilling to plumb in the service of their grievances.

Yet the Israelis continue to search for "peace" with them, when most sane nations would have sent them into the Jordan River decades ago. The Palestinians' "rights" have been given far more regard than they deserve. Find a worthier cause.

Linus,

Were all 1,200 "civilians" civilians? Israel says at least 1/2 of those killed were fighters.

If you look at the age and sex of those killed it would tend to confirm the Israeli's estimate.

There are pox on all houses.

Linus obviously mistyped when he posted:

"Close to 1200 Lebanese civilians are reported
to have been killed... ^^^^^^^^^"

You need to do more research. It was a "reported"
1200 Lebanese killed in total. Not a single
Hezbollah member was killed by the IDF? You
are kidding us, aren't you?

Before that Linus said he supported the
Palestinians solely because "... there are
more than enough defenders of the Israeli
government in this country"

So you support a "government" consisting of
either kleptomaniac thugs or hardened criminal
terrorists because most Americans support a
Liberal Democracy?

You have to be a leftist anti-American to
think like that.

By your own words, right or wrong no longer
matters. The fact that the vast majority
of Americans believe one way makes you want
to support the other side.

You can wash your hands over and over tonight.

But your mindless support of Hamas and Fatah
means that the blood on them will never disappear.

So Hamas didn't cry uncle before they took over. Not a good enough reason to keep the money they needed to govern from them.

So let me ask. Why aren't their oil rich "eternal brothers" supporting them? Oh, wait. They are. The Saudis to the tune of $1 bn. And what are the Palis doing with the money? Buying weapons.

Why aren't they building sewers? I know. Because Palis LIKE living in an open sewer. Or at least their government has other priorities.

"So you support a "government" consisting of
either kleptomaniac thugs or hardened criminal
terrorists because most Americans support a
Liberal Democracy?"

I never said a kind word about the Hamas-led Palestinian government, or about Hezbollah. I expressed my support for the basic dignity and humanity of most Palestinian as well as most Lebanese people. As a general rule, I don't approve of the things governments do. Some are famously worse than others.

Well, ya gotta feed people M.

Poverty isn't a crime, btw.

Now that i read pollack's article, i find it generally accurate.

as I said many times here and elsewhere, the vast majority of US MSM and pundits have no knowledge of the history and nature of the conflict, and arab and islam cultures. they produce superficial nonsense based on what they read in their own MSM and on the net, most of which is equally shallow.

They have no basis on which to assess policy and they fluctuate in the wind. hence yglesias' pro and con writings: positive before the elections ("democracy" good) negative after (consequences bad). Had he known and understood the ME and the conflict, he would have known that the democratization notion was crap. All serious scholars of the ME said so.

In that sense the MSM and US government are the same: they are both ignorant and don't learn. They both acted the same for almost any ME policy, including Iraq, and always with the same disastruous consequences.

what's more, they still don't get it.

Nor is poverty a virtue, alphie. And spending money on weapons while civilians in your charge starve, lack hospital supplies, and live in open sewers -- that is a crime.

As is blowing up buses and restaurants, in case you missed it.

Several people have replied to Don Williams.  Let me add one more, quoting Bin Laden’s own words.  The fact that Osama bin Laden might have said something in an interview in the 90’s in no way restricts him from saying or penning something else at another time — and in his “Letter to the American people” from 2002 Bin Laden basically ripped America a new one over the very temerity of its people — having the unholy audacity to believe they have the right to make laws for themselves!  If that isn’t “hating us for our freedoms,” I don’t know what is.

As Osama Bin Laden wrote in that eye-opening document, which is well worth everyone’s closest attention; it can be read in its entirety here:

(1)  The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.  […]

(a)  The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).  […]  It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions.  […]  It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart.  It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme.  […]

(2)  The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a)  We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.  We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b)  It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i)  You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.  You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.  You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you:  How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii)  You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions.  Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury.  As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii)  You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants.  You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv)  You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom.  You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.  Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office?  After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he “made a mistake,” after which everything passed with no punishment.  Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

(v)  You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms.  The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi)  You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them.  You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins.  You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii)  You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly.  Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii)  And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past.  Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.  […]

Yes, we do “choose to invent [our] own laws as [we] will and desire” — horror of horrors!  As well as exercise all the other freedoms that Bin Laden obviously does hate and would extinguish if he could.

AIDS, by the way, despite all the rampant conspiracy theories, is not — and cannot be — an American or even human invention.  It’s quite clearly an invention of nature.

Given that America's support for Israel is the center of gravity for Israel it is awe-inspiring. Israel has shored up its relations with its #1 supporter.

Shored up support to do what? Pro-disengagement folks always talk about the political capital bought by retreating from Gaza, but what is it for? America wasn't about to abandon Israel, there was already support for it.

Unanswered from earlier:

And what exactly is [the battlespace] being prepped for? Allowing the enemy to train forces and equip themselves with advanced weapons doesn't lend itself to major ground assault.

"It means that Gaza remains under siege by Israel."

Of course. There is a war between Gaza and Israel. The Hamas-run government wanted that war.

You cannot blame Israel for fighting it. A blockade of enemy territory is a normal operation in a war and completely legal according to international law, even if Israel does it.

West-Berlin was one under a Russian blockade. But that never meant that the Russians had occupied West-Berlin.

(Trick question: If the Soviet Union had been Jewish, would the blockade during the cold war count as occupation?)

If the people in Gaza do not want their air space controlled by a foreign nation and do not want to be restricted in their movement, they will have to vote for a government that does not insist on fighting wars against more powerful nations.

fp,
the reality is that in a situation in which the arab side and the west's foolishness are mainly responsible for the disaster that is the ME (which was a disaster forever), the overwhelming trend is to blame and scapegoat israel. and in this kind of reality "there's plenty of blame to share" cannot be taken seriously.

The Arab side and the Wests foolishness, I agree do seem to hold the lion's share of blame. Nowhere have I tried to 'scapegoat' Israel. In fact, the only thing that I would fault Israel for was not having a good plan to deal with the Palis before the First Intifada. Once Arafat got back into power and suicide bombs started going off, Israel had to defend herself.

I still don't see how your statement I quoted above and mine don't meet, except you seem to desire NO responsibility on the part of Israel.

What am I missing?

1) I refuse to care about the fate of people who educate their children for the complete genocide of Israel's population. I refuse to care because to bvegin with the Blacks of Sudan who have never tried to make genocidiacl psychopaths of their children aren't getting a hundredth of the attention the Palestinans are getting

2) I refuse to care about people who have spent 59 years in refugees camps living from international aid instead of from their own work, who in addition burned the state of the art greenhouses donated by philanthropic israelis and now are again stretching their hand. I refuse to care about people who both in the caricatures affair and about aid being withdrawn thereatened us with suicide bombings. The Blcks of Sudan, teh Geeek Cypriots never got the same attention despite they didn't acyt as parasits.

3) I refuse to care about Pealestinians because the Arab countries have invariably torpedoed those of them who tried to live with dignity from their own work instead of as parasites in refugee camps. Just a few weeks ago Lybia expelled towards Gaza the Palestins living in it in order "they don't lose their identity". In English that translates: "keep them in misery and in frustration so they don't stop dreaming of genocide". In the same vein Saudi Arabia denies them nationality. To them and only to them. The Arab countries want to use the Palestians against Isreal then let have tem pay the bill. We should not pay one more cent. Money should go to people who really need it like the refugees of Darfur: I still have to see a hungry Palestinian child.

4) Number of victimls is over one hundred times higher in Sudan. Why so much sympathy for the Palestinains instead of Darfur and South Soudan? Because the victims in South Soudan are just niggers? Or the Palestinans are interesting because they want to kill Jews?

"Readers might be surprised to hear -- Mr. Yglesias probably among them -- that less than a year ago, Yglesias wrote the following: "I happen to think the White House made the right call on the question of Palestinian elections -- even in retrospect, even knowing that Hamas won." A couple of days ago, he called these administration officials "morons" for having supported the very same elections that he now condemns. I know it’s best to just hurry past the contradictions, especially when they involve the reshuffling of positions in order to condemn the Bush administration. But it is too enjoyable to avoid the conclusion that here, Yglesias is calling himself names."

ROFL!!!!

This bit of idiocy (or willful misreading of Yglesias, whichever) pretty much sums up Pollak's intellectual integrity.

Like Matt, I agree that elections were the right choice. And also like Matt, I agree that pushing for elections while apparently being blind to the reality that a likely winner was a group you intensely dislike, and whose win you're not going to honor, is moronic.

There's no contradiction there. And twisting Matt's words into a claim that he believes the election itself, stripped of that relevant context, was moronic, is intellectual BS. People who write this sort of thing don't deserve a place at the grownup table. But we appreciate their comic relief anyway.

A few years ago, when the second intifada was launched George Will said that there needs to be a long fence and a short war. This is the short war. The Palestinians are not ready for peace amongst themselves let alone for peace with outside countries like Israel. Even if Israel did not exist, these people would be fighting Egypt or Jordan. It is always a bit fantastic that some believe that the US or Israel causes all of these issues in the Arab world. I have always seen that as hooey, people make their own decisions and many make the wrong ones. As Eban said, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The only real question is , will Israel learn that to turn over land is a deadly mistake and not continue down that road?

Back on the original topic:

Perhaps I also have spent too much time at coffee shops and not enough time roughing it in the Middle East a la Peretz and Pollak, but I don't see how anyone could read this and think that Matt is criticizing the administration for supporting the elections. There were three ways America could have approached the Palestinian elections: 1). They could have opposed them altogether; 2). They could have supported them unreservedly; 3). They could have articulated support for the elections and then, when they found themselves displeased by the outcome, directly undermined the new leadership. They picked option three. Matt isn't criticizing the administration for supporting the election per se but for trying to sabotage the outcome of the election they'd once supported.

"I refuse to care about people who have spent 59 years in refugees camps living from international aid instead of from their own work, who in addition burned the state of the art greenhouses donated by philanthropic israelis and now are again stretching their hand."

The Palestinians are among the most well educated peoples in the world, but I'm not sure what you expect those who do not or cannot take their talents and skills elsewhere to do. As a practical matter, opportunities for middle class work are very limited, and speaking out against their corrupt, authoritarian government means the possibility of arrest or worse. And these people are not just Palestinians, they're sons, daughters, and parents. Whatever their political passions, taking care of their families comes first. In my experience this is true to an even more significant extent than it is true in America. Most people are not so selfish they will risk orphaning their children for some self-glorifying political act, and that is sadly what most small acts of protest amount to in this and many parts of the world.

I used to support a Palestinian state. Then there was Gaza. HAMAS could have finally become a functioning government, but instead they basically turned the area into a third-world abyss of corruption, violence, and poverty.

Until the palestinians actually come to the peace table in good faith, there will be war. They may well need to be defeated (as in Japan or Germany level) to convince them that peace with Israel is a good idea.

"They may well need to be defeated (as in Japan or Germany level) to convince them that peace with Israel is a good idea."

I'll say one last thing. Mr. Pollak may be correct in stating that Israel has largely been able to stem the flow of suicide bombers over its borders (although it may also be the case that that kind of tactic yields diminishing returns; one suspects that even among Palestinians there are a limited number of people willing to blow themselves up).

It's also the case that Hezbollah continues to lob rockets into northern Israel (as they've been doing since Israel withdrew from everywhere but the Shebaa Farms in 2000), and there continue to be attacks from within the Palestinian territories on Israel, and Israeli retaliation.

I don't believe that Israel can defeat its foes in surrounding countries and territories even as they continue to fortify their country and win battlefield victories. Nor do I think that the defunding of Hezbollah and Hamas will bring that victory for Israel.

I think the big picture here is sadly more rather than less likely to be an escalation in sectarian violence in the Arab world and Central Asia, and ultimately the partition of many of these states along sectarian lines (including Iraq, Afghanistan, and eventually Iran; few westerners are aware of the emerging Azeri nationalist movement in that country). In a certain sense it will become I think a kind of postmodern version of the premodern Ottoman Empire, with local governance, open borders, and a regional union (not unlike the EU) to manage things like trade and immigration policy.

What this means for Israel I think is that they may well eventually have to negotiate with some bad people (it was after all Nixon who went to China not Johnson; it may be Hamas who goes to Jerusalem). It's the same with Lebanon. I think we're likely to see a separate Shiite nation-state called Southern Lebanon (or something like that) and I think it's likely to be governed by remnants of Hezbollah; Israel will have to talk to them too.

I think that Israel will continue to be called Israel, but that it will have to become in substance a multi-ethnic, pluralistic democracy. Arabs are liable to be a plurality in the country by the middle of this century, and neither they nor the international community will tolerate another apartheid state. (This will mean among other things selling off a large portion of the land currently owned by the government, which is the better part of the country, as well as ensuring full equality under the law for non-Jews.)

But I also think that Israel will continue to be branded as a Jewish state. The country is liable to continue to rely on tourism as a major part of its economy, and the growing ranks of Christian evangelicals around the world will be crucial to that tourism economy; they won't want to hear that Israel is no longer a Jewish state (even if it really isn't).

Looked at from this perspective, you begin to get the sense that all this conflict and suffering is really for nothing. In the end the bottom line is still the bottom line: not the holy land, the holy dollar.

The Palestinians are among the most well educated peoples in the world, but I'm not sure what you expect those who do not or cannot take their talents and skills elsewhere to do.

Why do they need to go elsewhere? The fact is that the current restrictions on movement, trade, etc, are only 15-20 years old. They date back to the first intifada. In that period, they had twenty years to build institutions without (a) a corrupt, terrorist militia ruling them and (b) inconvenient and pervasive security measures from the Israelis. Even then, it was Israel who opened universities in the territories, allowed large numbers of Arabs to work in Israel, and (infrequent terrorism not withstanding) fostered an environment in which one of 'the most well educated peoples in the world' ought to have made something of themselves.

Except they didn't.

Whatever their political passions, taking care of their families comes first.

You'd think that such well educated people would notice a correlation between attacks on Palestinians attacks on Israel and Israeli attacks and crackdowns on Palestinians. You'd think they might reason that their political passions were leading their children in to a war that could not be won, but would certainly lead to greater suffering.

Except they don't.

Most people are not so selfish they will risk orphaning their children for some self-glorifying political act, and that is sadly what most small acts of protest amount to in this and many parts of the world.

Why is that sad? Would you prefer terrorists' sacrifices to have more favourable results?

These 'small acts of protests' that lead to the deaths of these well educated parents usually involve either bomb vests and buses, or taking on a vastly superior military force. Well educated people would realise they could not win, and would probably die if they got involved.

Those people are exactly that selfish.

1) In my opinion, it's deeply DISHONEST for Mary Peretz, Noah Pollak and Jonah Goldberg to address this subject and NOT discuss whether Israeli bombing of apartment buildings -- with US-made F16 jets bought with the $3 Billion in foreign aid that the US gives Israel every year -- might have helped Hamas gain political support.

2) One of those bombings killed 9 children. The Israeli leadership then lied to us by claiming they thought the apartment building was empty and only held a "terrorist".

But that's an insult to our intelligence -- Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth.

3) Plus does anyone recall that elderly man in the wheelchair -- the spiritual leader of Hamas --calling for a ceasefire and being blown out of his wheelchair by a US-made missile fired from a US-made helicopter flown by an Israeli pilot?

Or those Palestinans being killed as the Israelis fired more US-made missiles into Gaza intersections in hope of hitting Hamas cars?

4)Members of the Israel Lobby might have trouble understanding this, but real Americans are getting fed up with this deceitful debate.

Prior to Sept 11, Bin Laden cited US sales of weapons and planes to Israel -- and Israel's use of those weapons --as one of the three major justifications for an Islamic Jihad against the US.

In May 2002, Ariel Sharon used US-made F16s to bomb the Palestinians --causing an uproar in the Middle East and Europe but received with dead silence by the US news media. The State Department moved to protest to Israel but was halted by the WHite House. Bush then sold Sharon 52 more F16s in June 2001. Al Qaeda's order to execute Sept 11 was then issued in July 2001.

In a Nov 2001, Bin Laden reiterated his argument that US sales of weapons to Israel --and Israel's use of those weapons to kill Palestinian civilians --justified the Sept 11 attack.

I don't recall Marty Peretz informing his American readers of the above facts in The New Republic. Instead, I seem to recall a lot of ranting about "Islamofascists" and "they hate our freedom".

5) Someone who was concerned about the US national interest -- as opposed to defending Israel -- might ask just why we are being dragged into this fight. We get NOTHING of any value from Israel --we don't even have a major military base there.

Linus,

Here's a couple of points for you:

• Religious Israelis, typically right-wing voters, have a high birth rate. Soldiers who consider themselves 'national-religious' (ie, pro-settlement) are pluralities and majorities in IDF special forces units and other combat arms.

• Secular Israelis, more likely to be left-liberal voters, have a far lower birth rate. Many move to the Diaspora, and many are opting out of the army.

So by mid-century, the time you expect Israel to become an Arab country, most Israelis will be nationalist, religiously observant Jews, with an army dominated by similar people.

If you think those people will accept Eretz Yisrael becoming an Arab country... Well, that would fit with almost everything else you've said on this thread.

Looked at from this perspective, you begin to get the sense that all this conflict and suffering is really for nothing.

It certainly explains a lot, yes.

I don't believe that Israel can defeat its foes in surrounding countries and territories even as they continue to fortify their country and win battlefield victories. Nor do I think that the defunding of Hezbollah and Hamas will bring that victory for Israel.

Dare I ask for an explanation of this?

Why is it that Real Americans ™ have a similar outlook to foreign policy to spinless lefties?

Apparently, neither realists nor internationalists are aware that you cannot please everybody. And apparently both groups think that the people who attack your cities are the ones who should be supported, and the people who are allied to you should get f*cked over.

Or those Palestinans being killed as the Israelis fired more US-made missiles into Gaza intersections in hope of hitting Hamas cars?

If Israelis have to hope the missiles hit their target, surely that is down to crappy American manufacturing rather than Israeli malice.

Fortunately, most missiles hit their target.

ratatosk,

i did NOT say that YOU scapegoated israel. what I said was that in a reality where israel is overwhelmingly scapegoated due to the west ignorance and hypocrisy and the self-destructive and murderous genocidal arabs saying that there is blame all around is not contributing anything of value.

low-cyclist,

the core problem is that the us (MSM, govt and population) have this illusion that everybody is like them and inherently want freedom and democracy; and that democracy = elections. that is patently false in the arab/muslim world, and as long as the US's policies push this crap, they are committing suicide in the ME. neither the US govt nor yglesias did not know what they supported elections in either iraq or palestine. that's why they pushed elections first and did not know what to do about it after. and it's easy for yglesias to disassociate hinself from the consequences while he defended the policy, while the govt can't.

jweaver,

it's been known for a very long time that the only thing that unites the arabs is the hatred of israel. even with israel they are constantly bickering or at each other's throat. take israel away, stand back and watch. that's why all that laughable propaganda about pan-arabism and all that crap, to obscure their fractional nature. and it's the same for the islamists: take away dar-el-harb, and they descend into gazanistan and either takfir each other in the name of allah.

the west should exploit this, but instead they act in a way that unifies them against the west.

williams,

i must keep asking: when god distributed stupidity, how many times did you stand in line?

btw, the easiest thing in the world is to deceive americans. a vast majority of them have no clue or interest in what's happening and are gullible to the hilt. that's how they were manipulated on iraq and that's how they are manipulated on the a-i conflict. they think only in terms of "win" and "lose" and have no concept of long-term strategy, american/west interests, etc. the MSM "journalists" and the govt are rathe fair representatives of their society, and make sure that it stays that way.

There is something very consistent about governance in the Arab world. Among the Arab countries today in which there is a modicum of internal stability, each is controlled by an Arafat-type figure -- an anti-democratic strongman who is able to crush all challenges to his authority. ...

Seems like you're just avoiding the fact that the US called for elections and sent weapons when it didn't get the outcome it wanted. (This regardless of Hamas' actions.) That seems like Yglesias's main point. Your interpretation of "ruling the roost" or whatever doesn't really matter, he seems to have supported the elections, and I think he's right that the Bush administration has been basically clueless about Israeli affairs.

the self-destructive and murderous genocidal arabs

fp,

Are you saying all arabs are "self-destructive, murderous and genocidal?"

Or just a majority?

Or just a few?

"So by mid-century, the time you expect Israel to become an Arab country, most Israelis will be nationalist, religiously observant Jews, with an army dominated by similar people."

Over the past two and a half decades birth rates among American whites have been highest in the so-called red states and yet the Democrats have a high single digit advantage in party ID among people under 30. (And it isn't the case that every young generation leans Democratic. First wave "generation xers" have leaned Republican since their first election in 1980.) I'm not going to say anything further about this since it's off topic but even if this demographic is repelled by Bush/DeLay Republicanism centrist Republicans like Schwarzenegger have just as great an opening as Democrats.

The current growth rate of the Arab Israeli population is between 2 and 3 percent per year, and the current growth rate of the Jewish population in Israel (including immigration) is between 1 and 2 percent per year. The birth rate among Israeli Muslims is twice that of Israeli Jews and Israel is seeing diminishing returns in increasing its Jewish population through immigration.

Arabs need only become a sizeable minority in Israel before they might really begin to flex their demographic (as in political) muscle.

social generalizations inherently have exceptions, so much so that it is implicit in them when made seriously.

of course not all of them. but the arab/muslim culture has violent historical foundations and this is how they treat not just non-arabs/infidels, but each other. many problems are resolved by killing or maiming. and it's the more radical who dictate events in the arab world, and exploit violence to cull those who don't fall in line.

this violence becomes genocidal when it comes to israel and is rooted not just in islam, but the shame-honor nature of arab society.

oops, i did not realize i fed a troll. big mistake. gotta be more careful.

that troll questions my generalizations while making some ignorant ones of his own about israel. figures: to be consistent requires brains.

The arguments re future Israeli or Arab population growth rates overlooks one major constraint: Israel has a very limited water supply. As does much of the Middle East.

Plus global warning is not going to make the Middle East any more pleasant in the next 30 years.

Note that Saddam Hussein started supporting the Palestinans in part because Israel planned to take water from the headwaters of the Euphrates River via a deal with the Turks.

Most Americans are largely ignorant of such matters --of the desperate struggle for water -- because our news media promotes deceitful narratives rather than providing factual information.

The biggest evidence in support of Mearshimer and Walt's article about the Israel Lobby is the great amount that is NOT said in the New York Times.

"and siege of Gaza"

What siege of Gaza? Gaza is laying siege to Sderot. If you say black is white long enough, you start to believe it's true, or at least that it's a respectable argument.

Linus,

On the one hand, you think the real problem is paranoid Israelis doing horrible things in order to survive. On the other, you imagine those same Israelis resigning themselves to living in an Arab-ruled country.

That will not happen. Think 'Bosnia'. If Arabs were to try to take over control of Israel, they would be asked, told, then forced to leave.

Don Williams,

Water? Between desalinisation plants and irrigation, Israel need not go to war over water for a long time.

Arabs need only become a sizeable minority in Israel before they might really begin to flex their demographic (as in political) muscle.

This is, of course, as true in Europe as in Israel. But presumably, Linus, you do not subscribe to the idea of Western Europe becoming Islamic.

(Replacing 'Arabs' with 'Muslims', of course.)

I agree with Mr. Williams. I think conflicts over water and possibly other resources as well as a host of new (or at least in some sense rejiggered) social problems (having to do with the decline of traditional cultures and family structures, the loss of state supports, and the attendant rise of American-style economic inequality) in the region are liable to eclipse many of the present problems in the Arab world and Central Asia (including the Arab-Israeli conflict).

Without some kind of technological intervention (as in a cheap kind of desalination, maybe nanotech) could I think even be a sourced of armed conflict in the region, and overlap with border squabbles, tribal (and other sectish) squables, and troubles with trans-national crime and terror syndidicates. When anything becomes a precious commodity it becomes subject not only to politics and legitimate commerce, but the illegitimate kind as well.

I think transnational criminal networks will in a general sense play an increasingly prominent role in the non-west and west alike. (The evolution of LA street gangs into regional, trans-national criminal networks is a major and still largely uncovered story.)

Re MattW's comment: "Water? Between desalinisation plants and irrigation, Israel need not go to war over water for a long time. "
--------
That's what the Babylonians thought. Also the Mayans. Check out Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

Australia, for example, is in deep kimchi if the USA ever withdraws from its global empire. Australia has 20 million people, can support maybe 9 million in the long term, and is overshadowed by about 3 BILLION Asians to the North with a short island chain.

Of course, Australia has the world's largest uranium reserves --about 25% of the world's supply. That might make a difference.

Come to think of it, nuclear-powered desalinisation might be in Israel's future.

Maybe in Iran's if their president hears of it.

it is astounding how MSM is accused of not saying things negative about israel while it constantly whitewashes and fails to to reveal the negative reality about the arab/muslim world.

and how such discredited crap as walt and mearsheimer is cited as some sort of truth.

but then the ignorant tend to accuse others of ignorance and be oblivious of their own. like carter accusing bush of being the worst president.

the pot calling the kettle black.

Re fp's comment "it is astounding how MSM is accused of not saying things negative about israel "
--------
I suppose it's my "ignorance" that makes me ask why a Harvard Professor and a University of Chicago professor have to go to the UNITED KINGDOM in order to publish the most straightforward observations on the obvious influence of the Israel lobby.

I suppose that it's my "ignorance" that led me to look at FEC records and notice that deluge of AIPAC campaign contributions flying into a poor Southern black district from New York City after Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney made a few mild remarks about the Israel -Palestian issue?

I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to look at FEC records and notice that the biggest campaign campaign contributor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 was an Israeli Billionaire named Haim Saban --who chipped in almost $15 Million. To support good government, no doubt.

I suppose it's my ignorance that led me to notice that billionaire Haim Saban also funded the Saban Center on Middle East Policy and that Saban's "Director of Research" at that Center --Kenneth Pollack -- was telling US voters a lot of ghost stories in 2002 about how Saddam was feverishly rushing to make nuclear weapons, how Saddam was close to success, and how we needed to invade Iraq to stop him. See Pollack's bestselling book "The Threatening Storm" or look at his 2002 LA Times Op Ed. The voters may not all have gotten the message -- but the Democratic politicans who could be helped --or destroyed --by Saban's billions certainly did. Hence John Kerry inarticulate attempts to criticize the Iraq invasion in the 2004 debates without actually --you know -- criticizing the invasion.

I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to notice that Sharon came over here in 2002 and told Democratic Senators that the way to take care of the Palestinians was to destroy Saddam Hussein.

If you want to know more about Haim Saban --including his idea that it is the duty of every Jew to serve in the IDF, his gloating over how President Clinton fetched drinks for him in the WHite House, and his need to replace Bush with Hillary because Iran is a threat and Bush lacks the political capital to use US military forces to deal with Israel's enemy Iran --see this recent Haaretz article at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to notice that Billionaire S Daniel Abraham initially gave $5000 to Howard Dean's campaign --but then destroyed that campaign via a barrage of attacks ads in the IOWA primary after Dean told Joe Lieberman in debate that the US needed to be more even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian fight.

I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to notice that S Daniel Abraham also dumps a lot of money into politics (roughly $2 Million in 2000-2002) and into advocacy for Israel in US Politics.

I suppose it's my "ignorance" that leads me to wonder why the New York Times rarely if ever mentions the rich men behind US policy in the Middle East -- and why everyone in US politics refuses to address WHY the Sept 11 attack occurred. Including the 911 Commission.

matt,

in fact, if the palestiniana were not blinded so much by hatred towards israel as to not care about their own life, they would have realized that problems such as water or economic development could be solved by cooperation; and that such cooperation would make them as well the israelis better off. there is ample evidence for this from before the intifadas, when cooperation was only minimal.

as long as they fantasize about destroying israel and about 72 virgins, they'll deteriorate further and further. and any pumping of funds only propagates self-destructive behavior.

the greenhouses that israel left in gaza were purchased for them by some full rich men in the west, and the palestinians destroyed them and turned them into qassem launching pads. that should tell you all you need to know.

williams,

yes to all your points. and it's not just your ignorance, but your lack of intellect and ability to reason. and you have the known technique of dumping long nonsense and wearing people out in trying to counter it, to find only that you dumped more, without addressing their replies. I am thoroughly familiar with the technique.

1. I suppose it's my "ignorance" that makes me ask why a Harvard Professor and a University of Chicago professor have to go to the UNITED KINGDOM in order to publish the most straightforward observations on the obvious influence of the Israel lobby.

Yes. Because what is obvious is that their arguments were junk and you can publicize any junk in europe that is anti-semitic or anti-zionist. and you ignore the demolishing of their paper.

2. I suppose that it's my "ignorance" that led me to look at FEC records and notice that deluge of AIPAC campaign contributions flying into a poor Southern black district from New York City after Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney made a few mild remarks about the Israel -Palestian issue?

Yes. Because it is perfely legit to fund politicians who support one's cause. Did you ever express concerned about the tons of saudi money, by a nation that funds jihad and hatred against the US? or are you concerned only when the jewish do it?

3. I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to look at FEC records and notice that the biggest campaign campaign contributor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 was an Israeli Billionaire named Haim Saban --who chipped in almost $15 Million. To support good government, no doubt.

Yes, ditto. Are you also concerned that Soros funds anti-zionism? It may not occur to you, but not only jews consider support of Israel good government.

4. I suppose it's my ignorance that led me to notice that billionaire Haim Saban also funded the Saban Center on Middle East Policy and that Saban's "Director of Research" at that Center --Kenneth Pollack -- was telling US voters a lot of ghost stories in 2002 about how Saddam was feverishly rushing to make nuclear weapons, how Saddam was close to success, and how we needed to invade Iraq to stop him. See Pollack's bestselling book "The Threatening Storm" or look at his 2002 LA Times Op Ed. The voters may not all have gotten the message -- but the Democratic politicans who could be helped --or destroyed --by Saban's billions certainly did. Hence John Kerry inarticulate attempts to criticize the Iraq invasion in the 2004 debates without actually --you know -- criticizing the invasion.

Yes, ditto. Because it is obvious that you are utterly selective about your "fact finding mission" and ignore anything that does not fit your anti-israeli bias.

5. I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to notice that Sharon came over here in 2002 and told Democratic Senators that the way to take care of the Palestinians was to destroy Saddam Hussein.

Yes. Because the general opinion in Israel was that the problem was Iran, not Iraq. To the extent that Sharon said what you claim -- and you would have to produce reliable evidence to that effect -- it was just what the british did: they perceived that the decision to invade was made and they just went along because they could not stop it.

6. If you want to know more about Haim Saban --including his idea that it is the duty of every Jew to serve in the IDF, his gloating over how President Clinton fetched drinks for him in the WHite House, and his need to replace Bush with Hillary because Iran is a threat and Bush lacks the political capital to use US military forces to deal with Israel's enemy Iran --see this recent Haaretz article at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

You don't have to teach me about jews, I know more about them than you do. If you were as concerned about the counter sides doing much worse than Saban, you would have some tracking. But it is clear that you're obsessed with some success that the jews have to convince not just the politicians, but the US population that it is in their interest to support Israel and not abandon them to genocidal maniacs.

7. I suppose it's my "ignorance" that led me to notice that Billionaire S Daniel Abraham initially gave $5000 to Howard Dean's campaign --but then destroyed that campaign via a barrage of attacks ads in the IOWA primary after Dean told Joe Lieberman in debate that the US needed to be more even-handed in the Israel-Palestinian fight.

Yes. Because you did not make any effort to find out the anti-Israel funding, that overwhelms the jewish funding. You just picked whatever suits your fancy. And you still have not produced any evidence, just like W&M HOW EXACTLY this funding has funded policy AGAINST the US interest, which is the underlying claim.

And so on.

But why am I wasting my time with somebody who thinks that not being ignorant means tracking down facts that confirm his obvious bias, ignores any counter evidence, and fails to demonstrate his main hypothesis that supporting Israel is against the interests of the US, and that it is the money of the jews, regardless of all other things, that distort US policy several folds more than that.

Your arguments are typical anti-semitism: the cabal of rich jews. I am sure that you will immediately accuse me of invoking that for every criticism of Israel, but that's another known technique your ilk have perfected.

You are frustrated because US policies are not what you would like them to be (my guess lunatic left) and you need a scapegoat. And the jews since time immemorial were the scapegoat of choice. Here's my piece on W&M:

Quacking like a duck
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3433496.htm

Take your frustration up with your government and make sure that your side is more effective in funding than the jews. If that happens, my guess is that you will be the first to defend the consequences of such funding, because then you would agree with it.

So please spare us your ignorant crap.

Don Williams,

You aren't ignorant, so much as obsessed. You've apparently looked for a massive Zionist conspiracy to control American policy, and remarkably you've found it.

Does Clinton sending his campaign leadership to Israel to organise the Labor campaign in 1998 amount to an American attempt to control Israeli policy, and to steer Israeli democracy? Of course it does. Does European funding of far-left Israeli political parties and NGOs amount to disgraceful interference in the domestic politics of a foreign country? Yes, clearly.

Does that mean there is a Western conspiracy to control Israel? No.

Everyone tries to influence everyone else. Get over it.

matt,

we would have to agree to disagree. an obsession such as his is rooted in both ignorance as well as limited intellect.

he has very limited capacity but an oversized opinion of himself. that's not exactly un-american. (and i am referring to the failures of the US education system, which induces it).

By 'ignorant', I mean stupid. That's different (IMO) from wilfully stupid. We don't disagree much at all.

ignorance is lack of knowledge, stupidity is intellectual deficiency.

what we may agree on is that it takes stupidity to remain willfully ignorant, which is certainly true of williams, whose obsession is that.

while most people are not born stupid, their intellect and appreciation for knowledge and reason must be developed by education. that's not done in the US anymore.

Re fp's comment "And you still have not produced any evidence, just like W&M HOW EXACTLY this funding has funded policy AGAINST the US interest, which is the underlying claim "
----------
Actually, I did. You just refuse to see it.

1) We suffered 3000 dead and the loss of $1 Trillion on Sept 11 -- in part due to our blind, one-sided support of Israel.

Yet the influence of the Israel Lobby is such that that major fact was covered up.

2) The Zionist New York Times even published a NEWS article on Sept 23 "Israel as Flashpoint not Cause" that argued our support of Israel was not a motivation for Al Qaeda. Anyone who looked in the Times own archives knew that was not true.

3) Anyone who reviews the news coverage after Sept 11 knows that the American people were given a FALSE and partial picture. Condi Rice even went to the TV network CEOs and twisted their arms to not broadcast any more of Bin Ladin's statements --lest Americans learn the truth.

4) FORTUNE annually publishes a review of the most powerful lobbies in Washington -- and AIPAC is always near the top of the list. There is no Muslim lobby even on the list.

5) Given Sharon's behavior in late 2000 and early 2001 , we had NO reason to sell Israel 52 F16s.
The USA ,after all, gets NOTHING for its past support of Israel -- $92+ Billion in aid, $3 Billion/year in ongoing aid.

Bush did so because the close election of 2000 convinced him from day 1 to suck up to the billionaire supporters of Israel in hopes that they would desert the Democrats and move to the Republicans.

6) You deliberately ignore how Haim Saban's "Director of Research" help Bush lie this country into an unnecessary war that has cost us over 3000 more dead and will ultimately cost us $1 Trillion.

7) In my opinion, your refusal to see the damage that the Israel Lobby has helped cause tells me your loyalty lies with Israel, not with your fellow citizens in the United States.

We suffered 3000 dead and the loss of $1 Trillion on Sept 11 -- in part due to our blind, one-sided support of Israel.

Why are you 'realists' such fucking cowards?

If you really think that whoever bombs American cities is the guy who you should be listening to, that is exactly what you are.

Certainly, you give the impression that - were the U.S. to break ties with Israel - a few large bombings in the U.S. would be the best way for Israel to prompt a policy change. Maybe FARC should blow up a shopping mall or two to stop aid to Colombia? I wonder, what would be the best way to stop the U.S. supporting South Korea? Or Taiwan?

'Realists' suffer from the same idiocy afflicted upon 'internationalists', namely that the most powerful country on earth can operate without angering people.

Given Sharon's behavior in late 2000 and early 2001 , we had NO reason to sell Israel 52 F16s.

How about '$2 billion'? Military aid to Israel is on giant pork barrel. Blame your military industrial complex for that. The Israelis aren't the only countries happy to take free hardware Congress decides to pay for.

For what it is worth, I'd prefer Israel to build its own weapons. Not only because they are often superior to American alternatives, but so Israel isn't reliant on the U.S. for defence. The U.S. refused to sell helicopter-launched anti-tank missiles to Israel from 2000 until 9/11. Threats of arms embargo have been made several times by the State Department. That is not sustainable.

Besides, Israel isn't the welfare case it was 30 years ago. U.S. aid and loan guarantees makes up a tiny percentage of Israel's economy. It'd be far healthier for everyone if Israel ditched socialism.

If you want to know more about Haim Saban --including his idea that it is the duty of every Jew to serve in the IDF, his gloating over how President Clinton fetched drinks for him in the WHite House, and his need to replace Bush with Hillary because Iran is a threat and Bush lacks the political capital to use US military forces to deal with Israel's enemy Iran --see this recent Haaretz article at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

I just read it.

For the record, nowhere in that article does he say any of the things you attribute to him.

Re Marks' comment "Nowhere does he say any of the things you attribute to him"
---------

Well, let's look at the Haaretz article at
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

1) On page 2:
Haaretz:
"Do the Jews have a future in America?

Saban:
"Yes, certainly. It's a strong community, Hillel is active on college campuses. But there is also assimilation. Take me. Even though my wife is not Jewish, I did not assimilate. But my son will not have the same affinity for Israel that I have.
I would like to see him in uniform.

>>>I think it is the duty of every Jew to serve in the IDF.

>>>He wanted to enlist in the past, but he's not talking about that anymore."
-----------
2) From page 2 of the article:
Haaretz:
Is there a sense of power?
Saban:
"I don't think of it that way. I'm not after power. But I do not belittle the fact that I can go to Angela Merkel in the Chancellory and say, 'Hi, Angela, how are you?' And she replies, 'Haim, nice to see you.' I don't minimize that. That's a great pleasure.

>>>And that I sit with Clinton in the White House and he goes to the refrigerator and asks me if I want regular water or fizzy? Sometimes I tell myself that there's something a bit nutty here. He's the president of the United States. I sell cartoons. So he is going to serve me and ask if I want regular or fizzy water? >>> "

3) From page 1 of the article:
Saban:
"Yes, of course. When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."

Haaretz:
"You have a deep knowledge of the United States - will the U.S. take action to stop Iran?

Saban:
"President Bush has no capital. He doesn't have the political capital to take a drastic step. We know what the Chinese and the Russians think, and a move by the United States alone - I doubt it. And now, with the Democrats in control of both Houses? I don't believe it will happen."

4) So what is Saban's fix? From page 2 of the article:

Haaretz:
"And is America capable of electing a liberal woman?"
Saban:
"Yes. And she's not all that liberal, either. When it comes to security, she has taken a very centrist position."
Haaretz:
Will she be good for Israel?
Saban:
"I think so. Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us. We will get nowhere with them in direct negotiations. Only with billions, with pressure."

Haaretz:
Will President Hillary Clinton be capable of making tough decisions on Iran?

Saban:
"Her policy will be different. She believes, and I agree, that it's a mistake to conduct negotiations through the European envoys. As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran."

Haaretz:
And if she can't reach a political solution?

Saban:
"I don't think she knows, and I certainly don't know, and even if I knew I wouldn't tell you, with all due respect."

Haaretz:
"Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate? "

Saban:
"At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."

Haaretz:
"Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?"

Saban:
"You said it."

5) By the way, recent news articles indicate that Haim Saban has already raised $1 Million for Hillary Clinton's campaign. I guess she will have to be fetching a lot of soda water for him ... or maybe the 82th Airborne.

matt,

you should have realized by now that williams is a self-aggrandizing idiot. i have a term for those: vociferous ignoramus. they like to hear themselves talk, usually a lot. when you demonstrate errors, they dump more without addressing the criticism. it never ends unless you stop feeding them.

only somebody with his brains in his ass can believe that 9/11 was due to support of israel. and that's because he is so fixed on the jewish cabal that he is clueless about the real danger: islamism.

I wonder why he does not claim that saban is behind 9/11 -- after all the jews did not come to work that day.

the reality is that all these "realists" are scared, they are ignorant of what's going on and they're looking for scapegoats and easy solutions. and it is them who are bringing the US and the west down the drain.

Don Williams, take your Jewish Conspiracy Bullshit somewhere else.

You are no longer welcome to post here. Future comments by you will be deleted.

In fairness to the vociferous ignoramus, I didn't read (or even notice) Page 2 of that Ha'aretz article.

Fairwell, Don Williams. As we remember your wit, your eloquences and your heroism, we find ourselves comforted by the words of another American hero:

Shut up Kyle! Shut your Goddamn' Jew mouth! You're the reason that there's war in the Middle East!

Amen, Don Williams. Amen.

Y'know, it'd be nice if people were courteous enough to go set up their own blogs once they'd been informed that their contributions to another site were no longer welcome.

It's not like it costs anything to set up a personal blog these days.

unfortunately, there are lots of these truthers. and they genuinely believe in their own crap.

now as then. as always.

----Such unsubstantiated fear-mongering is nothing short of malicious and and vindictive. It's the sort of rhetoric that belongs on right-wing hate sites.---

Agreed, malicious and vindictive speech belongs where it is most commonly found, on left-wing hate sites.

"and that both of these things may lead Israel in the not-distant future to do something far more terrible than bomb a few thousand Lebanese civilians in response to some provocation"
Like destroy 80% of Gaza City as the Russians did with Grozny? Oh no! Think of the international pariah status that Russia suffered consequently!

Interesting read. Way over my head. You can argue back and forth to no avail. As a "simple" American, it seems we need to get back to basics. The Jews have every right to exist as a state. They have been demonized for centuries. Can't they exist on 1% of so called "Arab lands". What happened to that hospitality that Arabs are known for. Why don't the Arabs build up the Palestinian communnities with all their wealth. I guess pride got in the way. The Jews have a culture that works, and the Arabs don't. So you drag the whole region down into the gutter. It will always be a gutter until their is a change away from the hatred that is brewed into Arab children heads every waking day. I know little of Arab culture. But I know it's tribal ways were torn apart over the last century by the West. Maybe the invasion of Iraq and the coming war with Iran will be for the better. That is why Bush took the US into Iraq. Freedom of expression, the rule of law, equal rights and opportunity for all. These are noble things that are the foundation of decent, healthy societies. That is what the USA is striving for. Through free speech and the rule of law to back it up, people can freely express solutions to problems instead of ignorantly blowing up their societies, themselves, and their children.

steve d:
Idealism is a wonderful thing. Nice to know there is still a little out there someplace!

Unfortunately, history since the 7th century does not lead me to expect that a transformation is likely among peoples of the Middle East until Islam is reformed. The only means I can see whereby Islam could become compatible with a civilized society are to renounce its "prophet". Such a change is tantamount to destroying Islam and would hardly qualify as reformation.

The conclusions that agreement with the above leads one to are not pleasant.

Mastadon:
My realty agent Ahmed is a devout, Iranian born Muslim, and one of the most considerate, respectful, and professional people I have met in my life. His qualities are shaped through his Muslim faith. He was forced to fight in the Iran/Iraq war where a large part of his force was butchered. I can't imagine going through such a horrific experience and ending up the fine person he is today. There are many types of Muslims just as there are many variants of any religious leanings. I would not expect someone such as Ahmed to have to renounce his faith. Religions all spring from man's search for what is the right path in life. It is the glue that holds peoples and cultures together. They are inheritly good for societies. How can millions of Muslims function as good citizens of the world in America, but have so many problems in their birth places in Arab lands. The difference lies in the systems of governance that they have to deal with. In the history of this world, there has never been as much freedom, opportunity, innovation, sacrafice, and giving as has been created by the founding fathers of the United States of America. Yes, we have had many faults, but as a whole, we have been a truly great force of good in the world. This has all come about because of our system of democracy. Through a strong democratic society, the Ahmedes of the world will rise to the top. People will have the opportunity to make choises that will provide for societies that they can be proud of. Extremist will fall to the wayside, and the world will make a turn for the best. Yes, it will take several generations, but even democracy in the USA to many, many years to get it's act together.
Best,
Steve d

wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
魔兽代练
codeheart article
wow gold Aggramar
wow gold Aegwynn
wow gold Agamaggan
wow gold Akama
wow gold Alexstrasza
wow gold Alleria
wow gold Altar of Storms
wow gold Alterac Mountains
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold Aerie'peak

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
rolex replica
World of Warcraft Gold
rolex
beijing hotel
beijing hotel
china tour
china tour
great wall
great wall
beijing travel
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
窃听器
窃听器
手机窃听器
手机窃听器

翻译公司
机票
性病
尖锐湿疣
搬家公司
搬家公司
展览公司
中高年　転職
転職
派遣会社
アルバイト　求人情報
人材派遣
パチンコ　攻略
ダイエット
合宿免許
おなら
フランス語
婚約指輪
競馬
ブライダル
競馬　予想
お見合い
商务网
保洁公司
塑钢门窗
ups电源
心脏病
试管婴儿
试管婴儿
捐卵
捐卵
rolex replica
婚庆
婚庆公司
北京婚庆
北京婚庆公司
代孕
试管婴儿

wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wrath of the Lich King
wrath of the Lich King
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling

卫星电视上海卫星电视卫星电视安装安装卫星电视圣诞树网站建设google优化Google左侧优化google排名Google左侧排名GOOGE左侧优化排名 上海google优化google优化排名上海google左侧排名上海google排名上海google左侧优化google优化Google左侧优化短信群发短信群发器短信群发群发短信短信群发器小灵通群发器小灵通短信群发器短信群发软件手机短信群发软件短信群发设备手机短信群发设备手机短信群发器网站建设网站设计网站制作美女图片美女写真性感美女制服美腿西洋美女走光偷拍网友自拍包装印刷上海包装印刷免费电影免费下载电影免费在线电影上海印刷上海包装弯管弯管上海hp笔记本维修上海惠普笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修上海DELL笔记本维修上海联想笔记本维修上海东芝笔记本维修上海acer笔记本维修上海华硕笔记本维修上海索尼笔记本维修上海sony笔记本维修上海hp笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修弯管 弯管加工 路灯节能路灯监控 合同能源管理google优化google左侧优化google排名google左侧排名卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视安装卫星电视安装卫星电视卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视

货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
南京货架
上海货架
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
手推车
手推车
静音手推车
静音手推车
物流台车
物流台车
钢制料箱
钢制料箱
手动液压托盘搬运车
手动液压托盘搬运车