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.