No?
How about Costa Rica or Honduras?
One of the common themes on Daily Kos I-P is that while it may be true that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel also uses “terror” against innocent civilians, as expressed in this comment.
The truth is, of course, that if Israel is a “terrorist country,” for its invasion of Gaza during “Cast Lead,” this must mean that the United States is a far worse terrorist country for its invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, if the United States is a terrorist country than every country that helped it must also be considered a terrorist country.
The United Kingdom. Spain. Portugal. All terrorist countries.
Japan. South Korea. Singapore. All terrorist countries.
El Salvador. Colombia. Nicaragua. All terrorist countries.
It seems fairly obvious that by erasing the distinction between Hamas and Israel as terrorist organizations, then the very meaning of “terrorism” ceases to exist. In this way any group that sends suicide bombers into Tel Aviv (which, admittedly, has not happened in awhile) is no worse than Iceland, which provided support to the United States in its invasion of Iraq. In fact, given the level of carnage in Iraq, Iceland would actually have to be considered far worse than an organization like Hamas, which is responsible for far, far fewer deaths than the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
The tendency, among some on the left, to think of Israel as a terrorist country results in the elimination of “terrorism” as a viable concept. The elimination of terrorism as a viable concept, furthermore, results in its normalization.
I do not believe this is a road that the progressives should tread, but you can often find it among some on Daily Kos.
Posted by Karmafish
I think the new YouTube video of Pat Condell says it best, "apologists for evil." karma, I really think the thing with the left is that they basically see America and anything associated with it as the problem in the world. These types like to dress up in names like "anti-imperialist" or "post-colonialists." The catch being they are only these things with relation to the West or anything the US is aligned with.
ReplyDeleteThe far-leftists lack something one must have in life: that is MORAL CLARITY.
oh yea, but when other imperialist forces are abound, like Islamist imperialism, or Soviet Imperialism was, both which provide a lot less freedom to those affected, these types are SILENT.
ReplyDeleteWell, I would certainly agree that the "post-colonial" or "anti-Imperialist" critique of Israel represents a false view.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that this represents a false view is because for it to be true, Israel as a country, as well as the Yishuv as a community, would have to have been created in the interest in some foreign power seeking to project its power into another part of the world through repression of the indigenous population.
Needless to say, this is not how Israel was formed.
The issue is the definition of "terrorism." What you are talking about is the false moral equivalency of military actions that seek to reduce impact on civilian populations, and terrorism whose very purpose is to attack civilian populations.
ReplyDeleteThe people who refer to Israel as terrorism have never had to deal with sniper's shooting from hospitals, like Israel did in Lebanon, nor mortars being shot from schools like they did in Gaza. It becomes a moral impossibility.
Regards,
DKW
I agree there is a problem with moral equivalency there. But, you should be aware that one of the principal complaints from the other side" is that the so-called pro-I side excuses bad acts of Israel by constantly singing the chorus of - there are other people that are worse.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue is that you state "military actions that seek to reduce impact on civilian popualtions" is also a red flag since the actions, of a necessity impact the civilian populations (on both sides by the way, see the HRW report on rocket fire before the Israeli actions that broke the lull, and then after cast lead). The easiest way not get mortarred from a school or sniped at from a hopsital, it would seem, is to not invade.
I don;t say that you can't argue the details of these, but it comes across to the other 'side' as excusing Israel entirely for bad acts in the first, and in the second case excusing actions that inately impact civilian populations without exception regardless of safeuards (which many rightly or wrongly would insist are either not there or woefully inadequate.)
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your willingness to come here and sicuss this with us. You seem a rational fellow.
I do take issue with some of the things that you state, however. First, quoting HRW is absurd. As has been pointed out (although at Daily Kos they HR inconvenient facts) HRW is a tainted source. They actually fundraise in Muslim countries (most with awful human rights records themselves).
Second, you stae that the easiest thing is not to invade, but this is an absurd argument. The mortars weren't fired because Israel invaded, Insrael invaded because the mortars were being fired.
Whether people want to realize it or not, Israel is involved in a war. 15 years after Yassir Arafat got a nobel peace prize, and after ceding control over vast areas of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has Hamas ruling Gaza and according to the latest Fatah meeting, is still waiting for the Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist, despite this being the very first principal of the Oslo Accords.
No country is perfect and I don't think Israel is. Horrible things happen in war and the people involved should be held responsible when they go over the line. But knowing when that happens is impossible. The organizations that "rule" on these types of issues are horribly biased because of the influence of the Arab States.
In general, I would suggest to you that the debate is a poor debate because lines are too quickly drawn. Why should I ever criticize anything Israel does when there are hundreds of people frothing at the mouth to do so regardless of whether Israel does something wrong or not. Furthermore, these same people find a way to turn any situation around and blame Israel for it. Why should I go out of my way to critisize Israel when if anyone on "my side" of the debate posts about a bad thing done by a Palestinian the debate turns around to why I hate Palestinians and why it is all Israel's fault. What's good for the goose is never good for the gander at Daily Kos.
Finally, the debate is always about Israel. It is never about Palestinians. Israel is always the one expected to act for peace. No one ever questions why the Palestinians don't work for peace. I was teaching a seminar at the Peres Center for Peace when on the last day Peres himself showed up. He was asked by a young Palestinian buerocrat in the (then functioning PA) what his greatest disappointment was in the peace process and he said "the lack of development of a Palestinian left to push for peace as did the Israeli left."
I have said more than a mouthful.
Regards,
DKW
Thank for the reply.
ReplyDeleteI don't ask you to take HRW's opinions or analysis - just pointing towards a convenient source for what I hope we can agree is a tabulation of the rockets fired - you could just as easily go to the IFM numbers (which I think is the source for the HRW numbers?).
I wholeheartedly agree that it not your responsibility to criticize Israel - amen to that on both sides of the fence. our only responsibility is to state our opinions, have facts to back up those opinions and be open to more information that may or may not support our positions.
There is plenty to criticize the Palestinian "side" about as well. But as you say about the invasio, these things don't happen in a vacuum. The occupation and the blockade cause a lot of ill wll and the economic malaise means there are a lot of young men who have anger and a lot of time on their hands. Whether or not they are justified in taking thes actions is a moot point (in the classic sense, something to be discussed in a theoretical way), since the reality is that it is true. Whether we have the cart before the horse as the cause, it is reality that this situation breeds violence and it is also fundamentally true that Israel controls whether this is lifted even if we agree wth Peres' assessment as to the Palestinians not making enough, or the appropriate steps to makinhg the conditions possible for Israel to lift the blockade or what have you. It's just reality that however blameless or blameworthy Palestinians are, Israel controls the cards.
I think there is the possibility of a good dialog on what is going on with the Palestinians and what impedes the progress to peace from that side. But I think you will recognize that there are any number of things that can hijack that. First is anti-Arab bigotry. There are people who post over there who simply will not trust any Arab and to whom Arabs are simply and wholly evil. Second is that we really get sidetracked when accusing Hamas, who can be justly accused of all kinds of things, of things that are just factually not true. Thirdly, rightly or wrongly most people who argue for Palestinians feel quite strongly that the Palestinian people have the same right to the land that Israel does, and that it is not a favour that Israel extends (the Palestinians should take what is given them and....).
And fifth and maybe most important is to recognize that many (certainly not all) of the "pro P" people are actually Pro P as in Peace and who come to this point from wanting justice for the Palestinians (of course), but also peace for Israel and they believe (I would say recognize) that the policies and positions of Likud don't tend towards peace for Israel.
Thanks Steve. I am enjoying this discussion. It is nice to be able to discuss this without recriminations. I find it tough to do at Daily Kos although there are guys like Alec who you can have a good conversation with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that things don't happen in a vacuum, but they also don't happen only in the present. There is a long history here, dating back to 1948 and beyond. I have never thought that it is beneficial to talk about claims to the land. Both sides have legitimate historical claims to the land. Even if your opinion is that Israel "stole" the land from Palestinians, you would then be forced to acknowledge that the Palestinians were only in the land because it was stolen from the Jews. To me, this type of discussion leads nowhere. Historical claims to the land are invalid in my opinion because both sides have strong historical claims to the land.
You say that the situation breeds violence, and I say that violence breeds the situation. I think I have the stronger historical argument because Israel has embraced the concept of peace numerous times, starting in 1948, and the Palestinians never have. They have embraced the struggle for land, but never peace for the sake of peace. While Israel had a strong left pushing for peace, the Palestinians did not put the same pressure on the Palestinian leadership, leading to the failure at Camp David. When Arafat turned down that deal and resorted back to renewed violence, he really lost the Israeli left. For years they pushed their government to make a deal to make peace and when Israel made the most difficult decisions, it still was not enough. This is how guys like Benny Morris went from voices of the left to voices of defeat.
Perception is interesting. I have rarely seen what you call anti-Arab bigotry in the I/P debate. First of all, I have always rejected the Arab/Israel dichotomy. Many Israelis, those from Arab states, consider themselves Arab and plenty of Arabs consider themselves Israeli. The dispute is between Palestinians and Israelis. I think people can be accused of generalizations when they say things like "The Palestinians," but no more so than when people talk about "The Israelis" or "The Republicans." I have often said that the problem is not inherent with any peoples, the Palestinians are no different than any other people. They just want their kids to grow up with a future. The failure is with the leadership who need to keep their people impoverished in order to keep them radicalised in order to keep the struggle, and therefore, their power alive. I really do believe that maxim that there will be peace when the Palestinians want peace as much as they want land.
Again, I have said too much.
Regards,
DKW
I had to split my prior thoughts into 2 because it was too long. Here is the rest.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
DKW
Finally, I think the attacks on the likud government are absurd. Certainly there are aspects of the government that I don't like. Domestically, I don't like the catering to the religious parties, and I certainly think it is a mistake to have such a zeolot as foreign minister. At the same time, as someone who has studied and taught Israeli politics, I think most of the people at Daily Kos fundamentally misunderstand Netanyahu and the Israeli right.
I believe that only a right wing government can make peace with the Palestinians or the Syrians. It was the right that made peace with Egypt and the only peace the left ever made was with Jordan which is really a non-factor since Israel and Jordan had been practical allies since 1970. The first Netanyahu government was essential in forwarding the peace process. Netanyahu was the first right wing government to endorse the land for peace structure vis a vis the Palestinians when he signed the second Hebron agreement, the first agreement signed by a right wing government that was not negotiated by the Rabin government.
It was Netanyahu's signing of the Hebron Agreement that gave cover to Likudniks to endorse the land for peace structure. It lead the way to guys like Dan Meridor to support the peace process and was the birth of what would become the subsequent center parties, first, HaMerkaz and later, Sharon's Kadima.
A lot has changed since then. Most notably, there is no real Israeli left anymore. Labor is an afterthought and forget about the once proud Meretz party. Israelies just don't believe they have a partner for peace anymore.
I am not such a cynic. I have faith in Abbas. If he can unite the Palestinians, than I think he is a man who can negotiate a peace. However, I don't know how you do that unless Hamas and others who are unwilling to let Israel remain in the region, are reigned in.
just a quicky.
ReplyDelete1. Why is it that the validation thingee makes words that could fit on a star trek episode - this one is "Jim, the creature calls itself an Inablag"
2. playing the provenance of the land game is a loser. The logical way is to go via the resolution that is the international legal basis for Israel...wich Mandates the second state.
3. You my not recognize the anti-arab bigotry, but the pro P recognize it - every time someone comes up with a "why doesn't Egypt/Jordan/Syria..." as you say the problem is Palestinian/Israeli, not Arab Israeli. But t some, they are all Arabs so it doesn't matter that Palestine/Israel is their home.
3. I agree that most people at Kos don't understand Israeli politics, or for that matter any parliamentary system. But as long as Netanyahu has Avigodr Lieb. in there, it's hard to give him much credit. Further historically, I don't think you can give the credit to Bibi alone, he would never have gone as far as he did (laden with poison pills the whole way) without the political threat posed by the formerly robust labor. Likud still has deal breakers as its operational platform