At the end of a long rant on Gaza, Glenn Greenwald writes:
Especially in the American media, there is a constant focus on the effects on civilians from the rocket attacks on Southern Israelis — as well there should be, since that is an important part of the debate. But everyone should also be permitted to view the devastating effects on actual human beings from these Israeli bombing and artillery raids in Gaza. This truly horrific video — purportedly of a recent Israeli bombing of a civilian Gazan market — has been widely cited. I can't and don't vouch for its authenticity (UPDATE: there's good reason to believe it's not from an Israeli attack), but it's certainly reflective of the carnage in Gaza. It's much easier to undervalue the suffering imposed on The Other when you don't have to see it.
I guess Greenwald was too embarrassed to acknowledge present the full truth in his update, that it seems rather clear by now that the video was actually footage of the result of an accident at a Hamas weapons parade in 2005.* [UPDATE: Greenwald responds in the comments that "I made clear from the beginning that while that video was being widely cited, I had obvious doubts about its authenticity." I'm not at all persuaded that simply refusing to vouch for a video's authenticity, but posting it anyway as if it represents some important truth, constitutes "clear" evidence of "obvious doubts about its authenticity." But if there were such doubts, why post it to begin with until its authenticity was established? We all make mistakes, but usually not ones that are quite so ironic, not only in that it turns out that Hamas was behind the carnage in the video, but because Greenwald previously accused yours truly of engaging in "emotionally manipulative means of argumentation".]
It's a lot easier to pretend that Hamas's weapons (which are vastly more lethal now than in 2005) are somehow the equivalent of large firecrackers (an analogy that's been made by quite a few others, not Greenwald) when you haven't just seen footage of them blowing people in half.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, I don't want to make light of the suffering endured by those caught in Gaza. As readers of this blog are no doubt aware, I put the primary blame for this suffering on Hamas, which could have cut off the violence (and, for that matter, the economic boycott of Gaza) at any time before the current war started by announcing its intent to refrain from attacking Israel and sticking to it. But the fact that Hamas has brought this disaster on its own population, and in fact cares not a whit about the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza (as witnessed by its constant violent attacks (e.g.) on the crossings that allowed people and goods to cross between Gaza and Israel) does not make the human tragedy any less. Unfortunately, however, I'm not aware of any war, no matter how just, that hasn't resulted in the suffering of innocents, and the risk of the suffering of innocents can't be the only criterion for judging a war. This is especially true when one considers that sometimes the short-term suffering of a war prevents more suffering on both sides in the long-term. I hope Israel action in Gaza is the latter kind of war, but Israeli politicians' actions in the past don't give me much confidence that they know how to turn military victories into diplomatic achievements.
* I deleted a sentence that on further consideration I thought was a bit unfair.
Pick on someone your own size already. Greenwald is the Al Franken of the blogosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha
So Greenwald posts a video in attributes it incorrectly to the current attack, is corrected and then posts the correction. This proves what?
He made a mistake that we can all take into account the next time he posts a video. Excellent. Do you have any rebuttal to his substantive points about the fact that Israel's defenders pretty clearly consider the deaths of Arab women and children as less important than the deaths of Americans or Israelis?
It's like saying that the Lebanon war didn't happen because one photographer got lazy and photo shopped himself some more smoke. I understand that this is a big find for you pro-Israel bloggers fighting on the home front, but it doesn't address whether or not Israel's actions are doing any good in the long run.
I would also be interested to know if you think Israeli settlements should continue to be expanded in the West Bank? That issue isn't directly related to the Gaza Bombs for Rockets exchange, but it does impact the potential for long term peace with secular Palestinians. If Israel is going to continue to colonize the West Bank, then it doesn't really matter who runs Gaza, does it?
Like I said, I think all killing is wrong. I don't think more Jews or anyone should die. That's my problem, basing a war of off a threat that's non-existent. More people in Israel I'm sure died of the Flu than rocket attacks this December.
Nor do I know why you're implying that Israeli weapons are "American made smart bombs" are somehow worse than the Hamas rockets; the whole point of "smart bombs" is not that they're more lethal, but that they're more likely to hit their intended targets. Which is a good thing if one is worried about civilian casualties.
I've actually posted on this elsewhere:
Greenwald was purporting to show "the devastating effects on actual human beings from these Israeli bombing and artillery raids in Gaza," cited a video that didn't actually show that at all, and shrugged and said that even if it wasn't, "it's certainly reflective of the carnage in Gaza." He then went on to add, "It's much easier to undervalue the suffering imposed on The Other when you don't have to see it," which is rather odd since nobody "imposed" that on Gaza except Hamas, plus the comment could just as easily apply to his criticism of Israel.
This thought process has lead to countless deaths, and will continue to until we can stop it. I suggest that anyone who says such a silly thing be hit in the face or as close to physically as possible. If that means calling them a neo-Nazi well it's not the bloody nose they deserve.
I don't think it's necessary or within the scope of this website to really talk about military hardware, so what ever your belief is in the quality of their rockets, fine, I'll accept it. Perhaps we should let their service record speak for their quality.
I also don't think it's within this websites scope to write such political ideology on Israel (especially when there's only one guy writing about it), but that's not stopping anyone. Can we get back to analyzing law? It's not like anyone is wining arguments here.
Using the terms citizens and nation states gets pretty slippery in this situation, where Israel is killing people in what is still "occupied" land. Sure, as of last week there weren't Israeli tanks on every corner, but Israeli blockade of the land borders, sea, airspace, and all possible methods of trade and movement doesn't exactly make Gaza a nation-state.
This is almost as much a civil war between ethnic cantons as a traditional war between states.
Look, I like Israelis. I visited Tel Aviv for work and met many generous, smart, warm people. However, the young educated folks who wrote good code are only part of Israeli society. There is apparently a big chunk of society that believes that Israel has a God-given right to more land than the UN carved out for them, and are willing to die and kill to make that so. If these people are able to veto any peace process (just as Hamas does with it's rockets and bombs) I'm not sure what the future is for America's participation in this war.
So I ask again for a pointer to your opinion on the West Bank settlements. If these continue to grow, there will never be a deal. If the whole point of this war is to get Fatah back in control of Gaza, then it's important for Americans to figure out if a deal can be made when deciding how much to support this war. Right now we are taking a lot of indirect heat for Israel's actions, and it would be nice to see if there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Is there?
I do not know, and have not been aware, of anyone that seriously advocates such a counterfactual test in international relations.
If he advocates his solution in the sincere but mistaken belief that it will lead to a positive outcome, then I think it's fairly obvious that you are way out of line.
Israel does not administer any form of government in Gaza, and is certainly not an occupier.
Quite the opposite, you can't blockade an internal subdivision.
Agreed on the settlements in the WB though, Maale Adumim and Ariel are absolute travesties and ought to be dismantled.
Wow, a jerk on the Internet. Film at 11.
"It's much easier to undervalue the suffering imposed on The Other when you don't have to see it," which is rather odd since nobody "imposed" that on Gaza except Hamas, plus the comment could just as easily apply to his criticism of Israel.
I agree that "fake but accurate" should mean "unusable to make your point", but another part of Greenwald's argument is that Israel is using it's control of Gaza's borders to keep reporters from observing what's happening. This is clearly because seeing a couple hundred dead civilians will have a much greater impact on World opinion than reading that in dry text.
Do you dispute his main point about Israel's attempt to control the narrative by illegally (under Israel's law) keeping out reporters?
Oren, what would be the word to describe the US government from keeping all food and supplies out of, say, Nebraska, or better yet, Guam? Now search and replace "blockade" with that word. Does it change the point of the post or are you playing lawyer games?
No, I am not retarded. Thanks for asking!
The X caused Y caused Z argument is so much fun with Jews and Arabs, because people versed in the history of the Middle-East conflict can spend all day going back through cause and effect until you hit Old Testament stories and the Babylonian Captivity. At the right college campuses (actually, most of them) you could buy a pitcher of beer for a dozen Hillel and Muslim Student Assoc. members and listen to this fight for about 19 hours. Then shoot yourself.
Israel has a completely logical moral argument for responding to 6000 rockets with bombing Gaza and invading it. Hamas has a completely logical moral argument for responding to a starving, desperate populace through the only military means available (since they do not have the capacity to attack the blockade). Neither side is acting especially irrationally, if you accept their basic goals, and this blame game goes back to the Cro-Magnum era.
As an American who is tired of this conflict dominating our relationship with all of the countries in the area, including the ones we are trying to keep from going insane, I am mostly interested is whether this invasion will put us back on a path where things might work out. If the IDF completely crushes Hamas and somehow Fatah takes over, will it be possible to get back on track. If not, then this was might not be in *our* self-interest.
Self-interest, it's the prerogative of nation states, right? It would be nice to see some discussion of US self-interest that doesn't not magically assume that Israel's self-interest is identical.
No, he advocates a course of action that he sincerely believes will make Israel strong and secure in the long run. He might be mistaken, and national suicide might be the unintended consequences of his plan but that doesn't change his motivation.
You do understand that people disagree about the long-term consequences of particular actions?
If Hamas said tomorrow, "We're laying down our weapons; we realize we cannot accomplish anything violently, and we accept the two-state proposal, not merely as an interim step to weaken Israel, but as a permanent situation," it would accomplish more than all of those rockets combined ever did.
If NE was in armed insurrection against the government of the United States, I would say that the US was simply exercising its legal right to trade with whomever they saw fit. I wouldn't call it any particular word other than "exercise of sovereignty".
Somehow, I get the idea you've never visited Israel or talked to an Israeli about politics. Ask 3 Israelis their opinion on something, and you are likely to get at least 4 answers about what needs to be done about it.
When the United States began its "exercise of sovereignty" against the Confederacy, it created the "Blockade Strategy Board" to prevent trade between the Confederacy and the outside world. I've never heard any controversy over using the term "blockade" to describe this. And the U.S.'s claim over the South was surely much stronger than Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza.
I'm aware of a number of nominal "times of peace" that have resulted in the great suffering of innocents. Kampuchea comes to mind... and maybe that's not a bad basis for looking at Gaza, even if Hamas is "hugs and muffins" compared to the Khmer Rouge.
Isn't it true that the economic boycott of Gaza is an Israeli policy, and that Hamas controls neither the policies of Israel nor the calculations of Israeli politicians?
Just to be clear, I don't want to make light of the suffering endured by those caught in Gaza.
Good; then it sounds like you agree with the part of Greenwald's "rant" where he says: It's certainly possible to support the Israeli offensive despite the deaths of these civilians, to truly lament the suffering of innocent Palestinians but still find the war, on balance, to be justifiable.
Unfortunately, however, I'm not aware of any war, no matter how just, that hasn't resulted in the suffering of innocents, and the risk of the suffering of innocents can't be the only criterion for judging a war. This is especially true when one considers that sometimes the short-term suffering of a war prevents more suffering on both sides in the long-term. I hope Israel action in Gaza is the latter kind of war
Doesn't Goldfarb express a similar hope when he says that "wip[ing] out a man's entire family ... Perhaps ... will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel"? Do you agree with Goldfarb?
the risk of the suffering of innocents can't be the only criterion for judging a war.
Surely you are right, but do you really trust a state (and its politicians and military leaders) that deliberately tries to prevent its citizens - by restricting access by the press - from seeing the suffering of the innocents, which you concede ought to be one criterion for judging a war?
When purporting to quote what I wrote, you fundamentally altered the quotation by deleting the links I included in that passage. Most dishonestly, you erased the link I included to the very same Reddit comment that you yourself cited which explains what that video was and what it was not.
Your entire point -- that I somehow concealed the explanation for what that event in the video was -- was made only by your substantively changing my quote, to delete the citation I included that explained exactly what it was.
Even worse, you then linked to that same evidence -- that I cited -- as though it was your own, as though that's what I was trying to suppress. Is this the sort of fraudulent practice that's encouraged at George Mason Law School?
I made clear from the beginning that while that video was being widely cited, I had obvious doubts about its authenticity. As soon as someone pointed to evidence that it was fraudulent, I cited it. That's called being honest. Nonetheless, this is the sort of thing that happens when there's an invasion and the invading country refuses -- even in the face of an order from its own Supreme Court -- to allow journalists to see what it is doing.
While we're on the topic, why don't you tell all the nice people here how, over the weekend, you falsely accused a law professor in Australia of desiring the non-existence of Israel and failing to respond to pro-Hamas claims, only to be forced by a follow-up post from him to sheepishly appear in his comment section, acknowledge that what you said was false and apologize for them.
Don't you think that Volokh readers are far more interested in your own false accusations than in my caveat-filled and quickly-corrected citation to a fraudulent video? Why are you writing about my correction but keeping from your own readers what you did?
Then this:
But you posted it anyway. Enough said.
Not so. Egypt also has a border with Gaza and not only do they have it shut tight, but they shot at people trying to cross.
It seems to me that part of the debate over whether Israel's relationship (maybe not the right word?) with Gaza can be properly termed a "blockade" has something to do with the definition of a "blockade" by international law. I confess ignorance on the specifics, but if I understand correctly (and I stand to be corrected), the traditional definition of blockade means something like "the act of one nation-state restricting the trade of a nation-state against which it is warring." Maybe that definition, if it's still accepted, needs to be re-worked to account for situations like the "blockade" of Gaza.
To address the point about the Civil War, my understanding is that Lincoln's decision to try to blockade the CSA was one of the factors that aggravated the U.S.'s relationship with France and England because the U.S. could not fully enforce the blockade (at least not in the early stages of the Civil War), and an unenforceable blockade is "illegal" under international law. If I'm not mistaken, both France and England recognized the CSA as a legitimate belligerent (although they did not recognize the CSA's independence) and the question of the "legality" of the blockade came into play.
I might also add that during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy appears to have deliberately chosen to call his "blockade" of Cuba a "quarantine" in order to avoid appearing as if his actions were intended as an act of war against Cuba or the USSR.
I write all this only to note what Oren probably also wanted to note (although I apologize if I put words into his/her mouth), and that is that what counts as a "blockade" is not necessarily clear. But I should also say that some word has to be used, and "blockade" has more explanatory value than "exercise of sovereignty."
Israel doesn't have a blockage against Gaza because Gaza can always trade with Egypt. The fact that Gaza prefers to trade with Israel is just tough.
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
I've also wondered about that. Why does Egypt blockade the Palestinians in Gaza? Do they have some sort of hatred towards them?
How do you know he thinks it will lead to A? How do you know B isn't the objective and A is the cover?
After all, a reasonable amount of objectivity would tell him that, having accomplished B, doing it again will probably not accomplish A.
So he does it again, claiming A and you think A is the real objective.
Not a good plan.
The problem is that there are times when there are no alternatives. To everyone who simply plays the "carnage" card, I say state clearly what you think the alternative is, recognizing that you must deal with fact and not fiction. Assume for example, that Hamas believes what it publicly states over and over -- that it seeks the destruction of Israel. Don't just dismiss that as a merry prank. Assume that Israelis don't view the rocket attacks as mere fireworks. Then and only then can we look at the effects of the war as compared to something else.
Finally, I note something that Golda Meir said to those who are irrationally convinced that somehow Israel does not take seriously the loss of life on the other side. "We can forgive them for killing our children. What we cannot forgive is that they have forced us to kill their children."
True:
But it's OK, because the people who express this view are actually "anti-Zionist." How do I know? Because people on this blog say so (see also here), with a straight face.
I guess that means that the arab and Persian world occupy Israel (I refer to the antisemitic Leftist/Moslem boycott of Israel). And - as liberals believe - all resistance is legitimate; so Israel has every right to kill Arab children if that's part of their resistance to occupation.
To justify their Jew-hate the Leftists and Moslems come up with the stupidest arguments. But then they act surprised when those arguments turn out to be self-defeating. :-))) yay! We celebrate in the streets of Ramallah and San Francisco the killing of Jewish children - :-((( oh no, why are those mean Jews defending themselves.)
In Antwerp and Fort Lauderdale the Jews can't protect themselves from the bloodthirsty and subhuman liberals and Moslems - in Sderot they can. May G-d help Israel kick some Nazi=Moslem ass today.
There is no Egyptian blockade.
Next.
bernstein did all of the following things:
- omit the reddit link from greenwald's text
- present the reddit link as part of his own text
- say "Greenwald was too embarrassed to present the full truth in his update"
These acts, together, are misleading. That statement ("too embarrassed to present the full truth in his update") seems to indicate that greenwald failed to present the reddit link. And therefore bernstein is presenting it. Trouble is, greenwald did not fail to present the reddit link.
No one is claiming that bernstein needed to "load up [his] own site with all the irrelevant links embedded in the original quotation." The reddit link is hardly "irrelevant." You said yourself it's "the most important of the links in the quotation." Therefore bernstein should have left that link in the quotation, or use some other means to avoid creating the impression that he came up with the link independently. He didn't. The link was first provided by greenwald.
=========================
anon:
Boycott and blockade are both words that start with 'b,' but they don't mean the same thing.
There's no controversy at all among Civil War historians - it's widely known to have been a serious mistake. Lincoln could "close" ports in his own country. If he "blockades" them he has just admitted that they're ports of a foreign country. The war was, of course, being fought over that very question.
I regret that HAMAS is a terrorist organization. If it were not, then they wouldn't commit the war crimes that they commit, and the non-combatants would be protected.
Then the Israeli "blockade" can't be starving the Palestinians. In which case a major excuse (that I've been hearing) for the rocket attacks on Israel vanishes.
"No one is claiming that bernstein needed to 'load up [his] own site with all the irrelevant links embedded in the original quotation.'"
Glenn Greenwald wrote (6:27am):
"When purporting to quote what I wrote, you fundamentally altered the quotation by deleting the links I included in that passage."
It appears that GG is claiming precisely what jukeboxgrad claims that "No one is claiming".
That's harsh. Some of us like responding to db's posts.
Details
Look for my post entitled WorldPublicOpinion.org.
I suggested that Greenwald was confused; if I had it to do again, I would state the fact: Greenwald lied.
I can't get to Opinio Juris at the moment, looks like they're having some server trouble.
Morality -- the new black? Try it sometime &see.
Speaking for VC readers, no. I'm quite interested in understanding the Gaza war, which seems impossible without understanding the causes and effects of the spin from the Euro media and other folks (like GG) who advocate the Hamas view. We all know Bernstein's bias (because he admits it) and read through it quite easily.
Why is this? Unconditional Surrender comes after the losing side loses its collective will to continue the fight. I once heard someone say "If you are fighting an enemy that is willing to fight to the last man, to win you have to be willing to take that last man". Of course, historically, not all wars are fought at this emotional level, but I believe for Hamas, this is a description holds true.
This is a simplified way of saying that you have to beat someone so bad that their survival instinct overcomes their anger and hate. This is especially tricky for Israel. This type of all out warfare borders very closely on Genocide. Something that Israel is very sensitive about.
Right now, I don't get the impression that Israel would be willing to take the last man, if that is what it took to get peace. Therefore, I don't think this current battle will result in meaningful long term change.
Wouldn't this justify Hamas's attacks on Israeli citizens?
I don't think that's wuite fair. I think they do care about the suffering of the civilian population in Gaza. They care because they know the more the civilian population suffers, the better they can manipulate the world media. I was listening to NPR last night reporting about the poor refugees who had to leave their apartment building because, wait for it, Hamas has moved in and was using the building as a firebase.
I waited for the NPR person to mention that the civilized world considers moving your military operations into the midst of a bunch of civilians like that to be less than perfectly acceptable. (Which is a euphemism for "war crime.") I waited in vain.
Hamas wants to encourage civilian suffering. It furthers their goals, and it pays no price.
Please enlighten me, then. How can you starve a population in a small area by blockading only one section of the border, when rest of the border is open? What would keep food from coming in through Egypt?
For anyone who can shed light on the following incident, I have a question. I've seen news reports that Israel struck the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque in Beit Lahiya during evening prayers, apparently killing a number of civilians. I've seen mosque strikes justified on the basis that militants have used them to stockpile arms, which seems reasonable, but Islamic prayer times are pretty predictable and if the mosque was just a storage site it seems like it should have been possible to strike at a time when the mosque would have been less crowded with noncombatants. Is anyone aware of an explanation from the Israeli side for the timing of this strike?
2. There is no commercially viable cross-border grocery distribution business from Egypt into Gaza, nor is one likely to develop. Recall that when the Rafah crossing was blown up earlier this year, Gazans flooded into Egypt to buy food. The food did not run in the other direction.
If that group of Mexican nationals were actually agents of the Mexican government, in the military, militia or police role, how long would it be before we struck every target of military value throughout the entire width and bredth of that nation?
It would not take 6000 rockets launched, I assure you, before there would be a lot of dead Mexicans. The turnout for that fight would also not be limited to US Military and police organizations, especially on the Mexican border.
(Disclaimer: Mexico is used here to provide a reasonable proxy for Palistinian Hamas relative to Israel, and does not in any way imply that we will be at war over our border with Mexico or with Mexican nationals any time before the mid-term elections, following 2 years of observed weakness in US defense policy under the Obama administration. After that, maybe.)
earlier thislast year, Gazans flooded into Egypt to buy food.Time flies.
Wouldn't this justify Hamas's attacks on Israeli citizens?
Not to mention 9/11. International law however does not make the glib assumption that every civilian, including babies and small children, ratifies the decisions of the local government and may be shot or blown up accordingly.
Really, people. Imagine some Israeli settlers popping largely ineffective rockets into Jordan, with the occasional casualty and the gov't not working sufficiently hard to stop 'em, and then Jordan bombs the crap out of Jerusalem. *Then* tell me you'd really have the same attitude that Jordan was 100% justified in its action.
Recall that when the Rafah crossing was blown up earlier this year, Gazans flooded into Egypt to buy food. The food did not run in the other direction.
Huh?
You mean the Gazan's weren't allowed to buy food and bring it back? Or, that food doesn't, literally, run?
And, thank you for helping others understand that - in fact - there is a CLOSED border between Egypt and Gaza that could be open... a border that you and yours might want to spend some of your typing time trying to get open for the poor Gazan's... so they can see if food can be magically made to run in "the other direction".
I hope this helps.
ps. I'm still laughing at your line about "no viable cross-border grocery distribution business from Egypt into Gaza". I have to imagine you don't get out much; or have ever worked in an actual business. Cheers for your humoUr.
If this were to happen (Israelis regularly launching largely ineffective missiles across the Jordanian border), the Jordanians would be 100% justified in taking whatever military action they deemed necessary to halt the attacks.
'Oren, what would be the word to describe the US government from keeping all food and supplies out of, say, Nebraska, or better yet, Guam? Now search and replace "blockade" with that word. Does it change the point of the post or are you playing lawyer games?'
Since your other point has already been addressed, I'll tackle this one. I'm not aware that anyone seriously contends that Israel has an affirmative obligation to give away enough food to Gaza to keep it fed. The thrust of the complaints that I have heard is that Israel is blocking Gaza's access to food. But if there is access through Egypt, those complaints fall flat. Gazans are apparently heavily dependent on the UN and other relief organizations for food supplies. Why can't those supplies flow through Egypt?
This is all part of sovereignty. If you want to be a sovereign country, then you need to either stop your citizens from committing crimes against other countries, or take responsibility for those actions (say by paying compensation).
Greenwald puts up a video, explicitly notes that there are doubts to its authenticity even including a link to Reddit stating that it is from an accident at a "weapons parade" (whatever that is).
Mr. Bernstein clips Greenwalds text, omits the link to Reddit, and accuses Greenwald of inaccurately describing the video and, as evidence, links to the same Reddit post that Greenwald had already published.
When confronted with this, Mr. Bernstein says, "I didn't get the Reddit link from Greenwald."
Okay, so this would either mean one of two things 1) Mr. B didn't follow the links in the Greenwald post so he wasn't really interested in what Mr. G was saying; 2) Mr. B
followed the link in the Mr. G post, was aware of the Reddit post but intentionally omitted this information to make Mr. G look dishonest.
Neither of these two options reflects well on Mr. B's intellectual honesty.
Politics, for one.
Egypt confronts manifold issues in dealing with Hamas (via the Rafah border.) First, Hamas is now a soft proxy for Tehran, and Egypt doesn't want (Shia) Tehran influence running around in its backyard. None of the Sunni boys do. It already has enough headaches with the Muslim Bro'hood.
Secondly, Egypt doesn't want its US aid to vaporize, and it might to some degree if it were seen as yielding unnecessarily to Hamas' needs. This partaly explains why Israel can "tell" Egypt how to manage its side of the border (Israel=US authority.)
Third, it's never just food; the last time Gazans exited the "closed"-crossing, this past year, over half a million Palestinians rushed to Egypt. More than a few weren't buying meat and potatoes.
Finally, the food needs to traverse rugged parts of Sinai- the badlands where gunrunners, arms merchants, the black markets, Bedouin outlaws and Jihadists thrive in the shadows of obscurity.
Bottom line: it ain't like it's quick run to the local 7-11.
Oh, and Jordan would have to not "bomb the crap out of" Jerusalem, but target just government facilities.
Then it would be analogous.
In this thread, several people have brought up how evil the settlements are. How fanatic are their residents. How they are the root of the problem. How the US should not support Israel because of them.
Yet it is fascinating that the Israeli settlers have fired exactly -0- rockets into Gaza, Judea, Samaria, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon. This despite their evil and the near-daily (or more than daily in the case of Gaza) provocations. Why is that? If settlers / settlements are the problem and are just as radical as HAMAS, why aren't they shooting indiscriminately? It can't be that Israel is so strong that such a thing is impossible - Israel is not a police state. Or, if you believe (incorrectly) that Israel is a police state, how come they haven't acted as previous police states do against external enemies?
While we are talking about accuracy, please note that Kevin Jon Heller is not a "law professor in Australia" unless Auckland recently changed its location or I missed the news of the Australian invasion of New Zealand.
(Yes, a nitpick, but with antipodean roots, this oh too common error is to me a mortal sin)
So does that make your decision to elide over the link that was supplied by Mr. G better or worse?
That ain't English.
As condition of their total withdrawal from Gaza, Israeli settlers left behind and intact the greenhouses they were using to grow food in their communities. What did the Gazans do with this gift? Loot and strip it.
They had the means to do it themselves and rather than work towards using that gift to build and enrich their communities, they looted it for materials and then blamed Israel for their lack of food.
Since when does Israel own Gaza anything after 2005? Where is Egypt helping out so-called fellow Arabs in a region they once controlled? Not a peep. Sealed their border crossing. Where are the other Arabs trying to smuggle foods and medicine in to help their "brothers"? Not a peep. They're smuggling alright; it just isn't food.
I will not pretend to play moderate here. As far as I am concerned, Israel is free to do as it pleases to protect its citizens from armed attack. If private citizens of Gaza choose to sit among people shooting rockets at Israel as some form of defiance against the evil, aggressive Jews, so be it. Don't cry to the world when a 500lb bomb or artillery shell destroys your home and family.
Hamas started it. If Israel wanted to respond in kind to the "WW2 era rockets" Hamas is throwing at them, they'd carpet bomb an entire city block to get one launcher. That would be an proportionate response.
Or, you know, Israel started it by occupying Gaza, denying Gazans sovereignty over their own lands, etc.
This is a losing argument, no matter which side makes it.
It makes him morally responsible for B. This remains true even if said advocacy was entirely an honest mistake.
Really? I guess I missed the part where Israel left Gaza entirely in 2005 and let them run their affairs as they saw fit. So what exactly are they occupying again? Before the invasion over the weekend, there wasn't a single Israeli soldier anywhere on the ground in Gaza oppressing those poor, misunderstood, peace-loving people.
You quite miss the point.
This isn't about quoting conventions in the blogosphere.
Greenwald said a certain fact was disputed and posted a link to Reddit.
You criticized him and 1) omitted the link to Reddit from the quote and 2) then linked to Reddit blog as proof that he was incorrect.
In other words, Greenwald honestly and candidly stated that there was a dispute about something he posted and supplied the information to allow readers to assess the information.
I can see why you want to dismiss this as moot rather than fessing up.
I mean, the excerpt I included from you in the post above (that you did not address in your response) is simply incoherent. When someone isn't thinking rationally about a subject, they generally don't understand that they are not thinking rationally. You should take a break.
Any reasonable person can see the difference between writing, "there's good reason to believe it's not from an Israeli attack" and writing, "it now appears rather clear that the video is actually from a Hamas military parade gone awry," and understand why Greenwald, having trumpeted the video as evidence of civilian carnage caused by Israel, preferred to write the former rather than the latter.
This isn't about quoting conventions in the blogosphere.
Greenwald said a certain fact was disputed and posted a link to Reddit.
Actually I think you missed the point. GG posted a dubious video to make a visual statement about the lethal Israeli response and then adds a disclaimer to say he isn't sure it's authentic. If you have a to make the caveat about not being sure of it's authenticity then you shouldn't post it. Unless of course you're from the Dan Rather school of 'fake but accurate.'
It's fine to post things when you aren't sure of their accuracy, as long as you say so.
This is a general comment; all the specifics of this particular he-said-she-quoted are making my head spin.
Does the reader get to decide where to place those words now?
Actually, any reasonable person can see that you are so angry with Greenwald that you resorting to very questionable methods to score some points against him.
Again, Greenwald acknowledged from the outset that there were questions about the video. You then "trumpted" the fact that it was not what it seems by . . . [wait for it] . . . linking to the very same source that Greenwald had provided initially.
And did you notice the "trumpeted" in my post. That is a cheap rhetorical device that people use when they try to cast other people's statements in a particular light. It's kind of a shoddy tactic.
But let's pause here for a second and interject a tiny bit of reality into the discussion, shall we? Why do you seem to believe that that Mr. Greenwald needed to "trumpet" evidence of the civilian carnage in Gaza? Surely you are not disputing that scores if not hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in Gaza. Is that not carnage?
I am not aware of any dispute by any rational person about this fact.
Allegations of deceipt from the sock-puppet. What's next, accusations of corruption from Gov. Blago?
Of course, none of hte blame on Hamas gives Israel a full blank check. They can't for example, level the place and then claim self-defence. They are still required to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect Palestinians.
Also for political reasons, one of the things that needs to be seen is that the suffering of Gazans may make it more likely that extremists will be politically strengthened. This calculus becomes immensely more complex now that the ground operation is underway.
You, among others, seem to think that Arab hate for Israel is not already maxed out. IOW, some are sitting around doing the usual middle class thing when they see an Israeli attack and they decide right then and there to give up what passes for the suburban good life to blow up a nursery school.
What if the hate is already maxed out and all we see are excuses for use against Israel and the west, with the implication that, if this, or that, is addressed, things will be better? Not, of course, that there's any truth to it at all.
If the motoons or a bogus Koran-flushing story could spark rioting and murder, I don't see that there's any room in Arab hate for Israel to expand. They already hate to their full capacity.
As Churchill said, during WW II's dark days, about how he dealt with bad news, there is only so much water which can go through a three-inch pipe. Once that much water is going through the pipe, no additional water will have an effect. Hydraulic engineers, unable to understand metaphor, will no doubt have their tables out. But it appears likely that Arab hate for Israel is at or very closely approaching the maximum. Pretending that it can be alleviated or kept from increasing is a neato tactic, but not realistic.
Claiming that your predictions about the consequences of actions in a fairly complicated system are the only ones that can be objectively supported is the definition of being an ass. GG can have a reasonable, objective belief in an incorrect assessment of the situation.
Then the governments of Jordan and Egypt would have already been replaced by the Brotherhood (or similar).
That sure is a fine standard. Print it until someone else proves it's false.
Not this reasonable person. I can detect neither Professor Bernstein's motives nor his emotions. I won't say Greenwald's post is dishonest, although it might be. I will say it was a really counter productive argument. A video which is actually of a Hamas bomb factory blowing up rather undermines Greenwald's point that we should be more critical of Israel. Instead, it seems better proof that he should be much, much more critical of Hamas.
So, bobfromfresno, I won't call Greenwald shameful, because I don't know his motives or emotions either. But his post was a boneheaded mistake. I'm not sure why you would want to defend it.
Yours,
Wince
I assume you are joking with this part.
Hamas' founding charter documents state that their only reason for existence is the removal of Israel from the region, ENTIRELY. The whole occupation farce is just a cover for their religious justification of their actions. Israel must be governed by Islam sharia or Islam looks bad. Period. They care for their Palestinian "countrymen" as much as they do for Israeli civilians, which is to say nothing. All of this is easily verifiable. You can find their charter online and watch them on their own TV stations (which they know we don't see) explaining what they're about. Hate to be cliche but it's not rocket science.
You missed a part.
They have no grounds to object to an occupation, incorporation, whatever.
I thought the Arabs lost several. But that has nothing to do with my point, which is that simply because a group cries "Death to Israel" after decides of subjugation does not mean that they will continue to hold to that belief after such subjugation stops.
"But that has nothing to do with my point, which is that simply because a group cries "Death to Israel" after decides of subjugation does not mean that they will continue to hold to that belief after such subjugation stops."
They will continue to hold that belief as long as people like yourself and Greenwald make it effective for them to do so, no matter how you subtly dehumanize them in the process by denying them the full personhood you grant the Israelis and the criticism that comes along with it.
OK. Pointing out that people's views tend to change in response to a change of their situations is "subtly dehumanizing" them?
So? I don't care if it was written yesterday. My point was first, its a religious grievance they have against Israel and second, they DONT WANT PEACE WITH ISRAEL. They care nothing about Palestinians to the point where they create situations where collateral damage is bound to happen (by placing military targets in hospitals, mosques, densely populated neighborhoods, etc) with the hopes of getting Western sympathy so they can survive to fight another day. They're masters at staging photo ops of dead civilians at a moments notice. In short, they want Israel to not exist. In fact some of their senior members actually want Jews to resettle in Europe where they feel Jews should be after what was done to them during WWII. They value death - by their own admission - more than they value life. Unless ofcourse CNN is around for an interview.
Because their religion doesn't tell them to kill the Jews.
After all, our embargos of Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar and Iraq have been fantastically successful at empowring citizens to push for democratic transitions in those countries, while our policy of bringing China into the world trading community has only fuelled irresponsibility and aggression.
I vote for Israel to keep up the good work, indefinitely.
Plus, it helps to strengthen the Israeli state (not to mention all the great jobs in the US defense industry that come along with it)!
Why should the Israelis bother trading with the Gaza?
Why, indeed? Governments should make all decisions about whom their citizens can buy and sell to, and where they can travel. What did Adam Smith know about free trade and what wealth can do?
Libertarians are wrong - embargoes and the like are the best way to undercut tyrants, free oppressed people from their boot and to engender responsible local government.
I hope that the Israelis continue with their brilliantly successful stragegy.
If you think a dozen college students will give you a 19 hour argument for one pitcher of beer, you won't have to do the shooting.
Does anyone know why the Palestinians have such abominable choices for leaders? If I had to choose between voting for Hamas or Fatah...
What keeps the non-murderous lunatics from getting on the ballot? Fatah? Hamas? The Israelis? Thetans?
Yes because we know before the blockade there was nothing but peace and harmony among the free trading Israeli and Palestinian population.
All the non-murderous lunatics left years ago. Wouldn't you?
Does anyone know why Israel should bother trading with Gaza?
Do they prefer to starve so they'll have something to blame the Israelis for?
Yes, HD, and we all know that those embargoes I referred to earlier than have been brilliantly successful in weakening despots and engendering democracy pale in significance to the much more successful policies of refusing to trade with and quarantining your neighbor.
Does anyone know why Israel should bother trading with Gaza?
Um, Adam Smith thought that PEOPLE trade, not countries. But he was wrong - countries also trade: they buy and sell weapons, subsidize their farmers and then give the excess away free. Clearly this is not only a much more effective wealth-creation mechanism than free trade, but also does more to engender peace (while also creating jobs in government).
I'm glad that "Israel" has realized that the free trade policies that made it wealthy and that tie it to other important parts of the world community were wrong, and sees clearly that the best way to get help its neighbors to be responsible is to try to quarantine them.
why don't the Palestinians (non-Hamas) just import food and stuff? Do they prefer to starve so they'll have something to blame the Israelis for?
Harry, good questions, but are the Palestinians in Gaza (Hamas or non-Hamas) actually allowed to import or export anything? Can they trade by land, sea or air? My understanding is that Israel controls all such access, other than the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, who government sees fit to cooperate with Israel in promoting wealth, peace and responsible leadership in Gaza.
Harry, further to your questions, I let my fingers do a little walking and came up with the following.
recent:
Reuters
Bloomberg
post-Israel border closings; pre-Egypt border closing:
Observer
Times
The Times piece notes that the US, which provides $1.4 billion a year to Egypt, has pressed Egypt to maintain the blockade (another example of how trade by COUNTRIES, as opposed to people, creates wealth).
Correct. Both people and countries trade. Individuals trade with individuals, countries trade with individuals, and countries trade with coutries.
So, why should Israel(and Israelis) bother to trade with Gaza?
Why not food, medicine and fuel?
One would think that Palestinians themselves have other priorities than 'humanitarian concerns.'
Sort of the flip side of Confederates, who, when faced with a nearly complete blockade, imported silks instead of weapons.
Moslems really aren't like us.
Elliot, weren't Israelis trading with Gazan Palestinians before the Israeli government prohibited them? Why ever would they have done, unless it suited their own self-interests?
I believe that the democratic/free market/libertarian cant is people should be ALLOWED to engage in commercial transactions with whomever they want, and that free trade is not only a more effective wealth-creation mechanism than heavily regulated and protectionist trade, but that allowing trade does more to engender peace than do embargoes.
I'm glad to see that there is so much skepticism over such ridiculous notions here.
My mommy told me a million times not to exaggerate. Did yours, Harry?
Why not food, medicine and fuel?
Feel free to investigate yourself, of course; the links I provided above and a little cursory checking indicates that the Israeli blockade and Egyption border closing have had dramatic effects on all trade, so that virtually all trade (other than intermittent humanitarian supplies) has been via border tunnels, such trade including food, medicine, fuel and consumer goods.
One would think that Palestinians themselves have other priorities than 'humanitarian concerns.'
Moslems really aren't like us.
Sort of like peoples everywhere who have (or had) bad governments, but seem to become more like us when they become freer (Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Muslins in the US)?
But taking your view, the silver lining, I suppose, is that, as the US becomes more poorly governed we continue to close the gap with these other people around the world who "really aren't like us".
OK. Self-interest tells us why Israeli individuals might want to bother. Now, back to the original question. Why should the Israeli state bother opening borders to people who want to kill Israelis? Why should it indulge that Palestinian self-interest?
Agreed, but given the recount outcome in Minnesota, Al Franken is a might scary thing to be.
For those who have not seen real life examples of this, I recommend the classic Simpsons episode "Bart and the Bully."
Fortunately, governments not only always know better than their citizens but tend to have monopolies of power, which helps to make sure that wise policies (that coincidentally suit the self-interests of those in charge) continue.
Wise policies like embargoes that make our enemies love us and make them reject their own leaders.
Okay, me too. One of those instances when you and I manage to agree/
The other day a Hamas spokesman was interviewed on BBC. To show his even-handedness, the interviewer asked about the missiles into civilian areas of Israel, and was satisfied when the spokesman said the missiles would end as soon as the occupation ends.
The interviewer failed to notice that a few moments earlier, the spokesman referred to a missile that hit Beer Sheva as landing in "occupied territory." Beer sheva, of is, well within the green line, illustrating again that Hamas considers all of Israel to be illegally occupied (as perhaps does SteveH, judging from his posts). In other words, Hamas intends to stop the missiles if and when there is no more state of Israel, and not before.
That depends on the interest. I suspect keeping Israelis alive is in the interests of both Israelis and Israeli politicians. So, why should the Israeli state open ts borders to trade with people who have promised to destroy them?
Framing the question so there's only one reasonable answer says more than it asks. If the choice is really, as you framed it, i.e., trading with Hamas or closing the border, you get one very narrow set of answers. If the alternative to a closed border is trade with the Gaza residents of whatever their political description, the plausible answers are a lot broader.
So, why should the Israeli state open its borders to trade with Gaza?
I would think anyone with their eyes open can't miss the many cases where the use of military force and trade measures clearly are NOT in the best interests of citizens - even while such actions benefit weapons providers and economic interests protected from competition, as well as demagogues who urge them.
Yes, of course keeping Israelis alive is in the interests of both Israelis and their politicians, but the question is whether the embargo and military measures taken by the government is the best way to protect that (and other) interest.
If you cared to do any scratching at all, you could easily find lots of commentary, both among Israelis and supporters of Israel in the US and abroad, who disagree strongly that the Israeli government's current policies are in the long-term interests of Israel (much less the interests of the US).
You got two answers to your question, yet you repeat the question as if you got none.
Elliott, you've been kind enough to acknowledge that the Israeli people themselves would like to do business with the people that it's government is embargoing.
You might further recall that when I started commenting on this thread my clear intention was to point out in an ironic manner that lessons from other contexts tell us rather clearly that allowing Palestinians to trade with Israelis is a better way to empower Palestinians to insist on responsible behavior from their leaders than is the current policy (of crushing them in an embargo designed to drive them away from Gaza, refusing to deal with their elected leaders, preventing the flow of funds and materials needed for humanitarian relief, now extended to employing massive and indiscrimminate violence and destruction of infrastructure).
The state and those who run it and benefit from sweet deals with it have different interests. (This is easy enough to see in our own country - as we are turning ourselves into a Banana Republic on a mind-boggling scale, and prefer to squander trillions on making enemies.)
But Israeli leaders too might change their minds and decide to allow their citizens to trade more freely, when they have to face the consequences of their policies - the rising voices of their own citizens (and not simply when a few IDF soldiers get killed), the rising revulsion and pressure of Jews abroad, the turning of public opinion in Western countries, and a rising tide of unrest (and support for radicals) in the "moderate" (but autocratic) Muslim nations and in the West Bank.
I had hoped you might get the drift of these points sooner, this supposedly being a "libertarian" website and all, but how quickly do we all turn into lovers of violence and the state when our tribal passions are stirred. Have you noticed that?
Any more questions?
This is what demographer/geographer Arnon Soffer, whose "decades-long doomsaying about the danger the Palestinian womb posed to Israeli democracy" led to the construction of the walls and unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, had to say in 2004:
It seems that the Israeli government has not only deliberately implemented this insightful man's proposals, but even done him one better, by doing it's best not only to make the Palestinians suffer economically and to deny humanitarian relief, but to prevent their own people and the rest of the world from seeing what is happening. That the Israel Supreme Court finds the government's refusal to allow foreign media to enter Gaza to be illegal doesn't matter to the government in the slightest.
Whether a Jew in the diaspora supports or opposes any given action on the part of Israel, the bottom line is the same -- you are welcome to move to Israel and have a vote like any other Israeli citizen (including Arabs -- Israel was the first country in the middle east to allow Arab or Muslim women to vote). Until then, you are entitled to an opinion, but not a vote.
You might have added the increase in anti-Semitic assaults and arson in the US, the UK, France, Germany and Denmark, among other places. And I would have replied that those who want to do violence to Jews will always find one excuse or another. And added that these assaults disprove the old excuse "We are not against Jews, only against ISrael/Zionism."
As to barring journalists from the war zone, that just might have something to do with two recent incidents in which journalists reported troop movements even though told not to (See Melanie Phillipps at the Spectator for more details). Please recall that in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme court said that the location of troop transports in war time one example of information that justifies prior restraint on publication.
Can we boil that down to a contention that the Palestinians will want peace more if Israel trades with Gaza? I think that was your point earlier, but the irony and sarcasm made it a bit difficult to discern.
First, I would ask what wars you draw these lessons from? Second, are the motivations of Hamas, and the Palestinians who voted them into office, the same as the motivations of the folks in these other wars? Unless we know that, how can we presume the population will insist on responsible behavior? Perhaps the current behavior is exactly what their values and motivations demand.
I'd also note that many past wars have erupted when everybody was trading with everybody else.
Trade enhances economic well being, and economic well being paves the way for many other benefits. However, suppose one's motivations are religious. I don't see a reason to expect economic well being to dampen them.
The past behavior of the Palestinians indicates they will willingly trade away economic well being for war. They elected Hamas. Perhaps their values extend beyond money.
The question was:
You suggested that cost/benefit analysis be employed to answer the question. However, you didn't provide an answer. You provided an approach, and it is a very valid approach.
Replace that with:
"First, I would ask what contexts or wars you draw these lessons from?
"Why should the Israeli state open its borders to trade with Gaza?" is a loaded question. I unloaded it into its constituent parts:
1. "Should the Israeli state open its borders to trade with Gaza?" and
2. "Why?"
and answered them:
1. It depends
2. on the cost-benefit analysis sketched in my prior comment.
I don't have enough information to perform that analysis. I doubt many people making definitive statements about what Israel should or shouldn't do have it either. That's why I simply expressed the hope that the people making the decisions are taking those considerations into account.
If that wasn't an answer to your question, what would have been?
I hope they are, too.
I see now that I implied that you did ("get the Reddit link from Greenwald's piece"). That was sloppy writing on my part (because it's not important, and I have no way of knowing where you got the link). My mistake. But that (where you got the link) isn't the main issue. The main issue is that you implied that greenwald did not provide the link.
You're right that there isn't some clear norm. Every situation is different. In this situation, you should have avoided created the impression that greenwald omitted the reddit link. Providing the original embedded link would have been one method of avoiding this problem, but it's not the only method.
I agree that it would have been better for him to write it the other way. But issues in his work are not an excuse for issues in your work.
====================
weevil:
It appears that weevil is being obtuse. I already explained that the problem is not just that bernstein omitted the embedded link (from reddit). It's that bernstein provided that link (embedded in his own text), and implied that greenwald had not. Providing the original embedded link would have been one method of avoiding this problem, but it's not the only method.
Yankev, feel free to categorize and dismiss those who disapprove of the Israeli government's actions (whether Israeli themselves or Jewish or goy abroad) all you want (though it seems ridiculous to me, as I note by analogy there is plenty of principled conservative opposition to the Bush administration's policies).
...you are welcome to move to Israel and have a vote like any other Israeli citizen (including Arabs -- Israel was the first country in the middle east to allow Arab or Muslim women to vote). Until then, you are entitled to an opinion, but not a vote
My point is that whether they vote in Israel or not, their actions may influence both their own governments, opinion in their own countries (where they vote) and in Israel.
You might have added the increase in anti-Semitic assaults and arson in the US, the UK, France, Germany and Denmark, among other places. And I would have replied that those who want to do violence to Jews will always find one excuse or another.
You are right to point to the rise in anti-Semitism. Yes, humans are tribal so we will ALWAYS have to deal with issues of bigotry, racism, discrimmination, hatred and whatnot. The question is how we best deal with these issues, which arise from group identification.
The security fence (it is a wall for only short distances, where Arab snipers were shooting into Israeli homes, streets and businesses) was built to reduce suicide bombings and the stabbing and shooting of Israelis by Arabs who live on the West Bank.
Thanks for the clarification, by why does it merit calling my point nonsense? Is there no fence around Gaza? And did Soffer's points on demographics NOT influence the decisions on where to build walls and fences?
As to barring journalists from the war zone, that just might have something to do with two recent incidents in which journalists reported troop movements even though told not to
Thanks for ponying up this justification, which the Israeli Supreme Court rejected as insufficient. But might barring journalists also have something to do with the Israeli government's efforts to limit what its own citizens and people around the world see are the consequences of the "war"?
The government is clearly trying to control thought and to insulate itself from pressure from its own citizens and from foreigners. Is this what libertarians applaud?
I've noted before that our economic embargoes and other punitive policies have been singularly uneffective in helping citizens to throw off the yoke of their leaders. Rather, given group dynamics, it tends to provide greater support for the leaders, while undercutting dissenters.
Allow me to note further that war these days is almost unthinkable among countries that are closely economically integrated. Has Israel (with support for the US) expressly been building trade ties (IOW, allowing its citizens the freedom to trade) with Egypt, Jordan and others, for precisely this reason?
In a related context, Yankel scoffs at those Jews abroad who are "assimilated". But is it not precisely living, dealing with and building ties to others that both builds wealth and brings down violence?
The past behavior of the Palestinians indicates they will willingly trade away economic well being for war. They elected Hamas. Perhaps their values extend beyond money.
Of course the same can be said of the US, where the Bush administration (with complicity of Dems) continue to waste trillions on creating defense problems, not to mention bailing their buddies out on everything. Did you or I choose this or make these decisions?
Of course Palestinians' values extend beyond money, just like yours and mine. Most Palestinians are not terrorists, and they do not control the actions of the Hamas military arm - in the same way that Americans have little control over the actions of their own government. This is further aggravated by the fact that Israel has constantly acted in ways that discouraged the rise of responsible Palestinian leadership, preferring to deal with the Arafat and the PLO terrorists abroad (and the corrupt Fatah government they became) over the domestic Hamas, that built hospitals and social services. (Digust with Fatah's corruption was rather clearly the main reason why Hamas won a majority in the past election.)
The Israel government's refusal to deal with Hamas and the imposition of collective misery via the ongoing embargo surely play a role in the missile attacks and in feeding support for Hamas via increasing hopelessness and resentment against Israel.
In these dynamics, how does the embargo help Israel?
Israel does encourage trade with Jordan and Egypt. But we should note this trade did not start while Jordan, Egypt, and Israel were shooting rockets at each other. Peace came first. Egypt and Jordan do not have an avowed policy to desroy Israel. Trade is a two way street. It's not therapy. It's not affirmative action. Is it reasonable to allow open borders for trade in the hopes that the trading partner will stop shooting rockets and mortars?
In terms of other contexts where trade exists and encourages peaceful coexistence, how many partners started or continued to trade while one shoots rockets at the other?
Regarding the Palestinians record of rejecting economic opportunity in favor of war, it really doesn't matter what the US or Bush did. If Gaza wants Israel as a major trading partner, it would do well to emulate the way the US and every other country in the world deals with their major trading partners. They don't shoot at them.
So, your ideas probably deserve to be tried. But other contexts show there is a price to such trials. It is to stop shooting, and drop a policy of gaining strength through trade in order to destroy the potential trading partner.
Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have shown how this can be done.
The embargo helps Israel by ensuring that an enemy that has an avowed mission of destroying Israel remains weak. I'd suggest this is a good policy for any country to follow.
your position rests on the notion that the Gazans want to throw off the yoke of Hamas.
No; it rests on the notion that punishing Gazans generally makes hatred easier, and makes it harder for those who want peace.
Trade is .... not therapy. It's not affirmative action.
You're wrong; free-trade, by building a two-way street, is precisely that. Why did Nixon go to China, for Pete's sake? It's because Israel wants the benefit of peaceful neighbors that it encourages the growth of trade with them - growth and stability that this attack on Gaza is threatening.
Is it reasonable to allow open borders for trade in the hopes that the trading partner will stop shooting rockets and mortars?
This is precidely wrongly stated: After Hamas was elected, Israel deliberately disrupted free trade, gradually tightening the screws on all Gazans, and refused to reward months and months of responsible behavior when rocket attacks were stopped. Are these reasonable ways to invite more responsible behavior from Hamas?
In terms of other contexts where trade exists and encourages peaceful coexistence, how many partners started or continued to trade while one shoots rockets at the other?
There are always black markets when government act to choke off private transactions. Again, a reversed thinking is useful. Palestinians and Israelis have been trading for decades; why does Israel think that restricting trade and impoverishing Palestinians is a way to improve relations?
Regarding the Palestinians record of rejecting economic opportunity in favor of war
Rather counterfactual, I'd say, given that it's Israel that has been unilaterally choking off economic opportunity, as well as being the worst party in breaching cease fires.
it really doesn't matter what the US or Bush did.
Of course it does. We give Israel billions, provide PR, diplomatic and military support, and share the heat for the messes they create.
If Gaza wants Israel as a major trading partner, it would do well to emulate the way the US and every other country in the world deals with their major trading partners. They don't shoot at them.
Again, who's stopping trade? "Gaza" isn't stopping trade; Israel is. And Israel doesn't want trade even when Hamas isn't shooting. They seem to prefer increasing hatred and misery, all because they prefer corrupt Fatah over Hamas, and are determined to make Gaza ungovernable and a Palestinina state impossible.
The embargo helps Israel by ensuring that an enemy that has an avowed mission of destroying Israel remains weak. I'd suggest this is a good policy for any country to follow.
The embargo and the war treat all Palestinians as "enemies", sow dragons' teeth, and help only Israeli politicans, arms manufacturers, security consultants and our strategic adversaries. Who will govern Gaza if the succeed in destroying Hamas, on top of all of the infrastructure they have ruined? They are undermining Fatah even in the West Bank, and generating even more instability and pressure from below within their neighboring moderate but autocratic neighbors (plus Turkey).
It appears the hatred needs no kindling. Is the choice you offer hatred or more hatred? Absent evidence the Gazans want to throw off the yoke of Hamas, the hatred will prevail in whatever degree it achieves. The Gazans chose Hamas, knowing their goals of destroying Israel.
"You're wrong; free-trade, by building a two-way street, is precisely that. Why did Nixon go to China, for Pete's sake? It's because Israel wants the benefit of peaceful neighbors that it encourages the growth of trade with them - growth and stability that this attack on Gaza is threatening."
China was not shooting at the US when Nixon visited. Historical contexts demonstrate trade only exists when the rockets stop flying. I'm not aware of any example where free trade with a belligerant stopped the hot war.
"This is precidely wrongly stated: After Hamas was elected, Israel deliberately disrupted free trade, gradually tightening the screws on all Gazans, and refused to reward months and months of responsible behavior when rocket attacks were stopped. Are these reasonable ways to invite more responsible behavior from Hamas?"
No country has a right to demand free trade with any other. If Hamas fires rockets because it didn't get the reward it wanted, in the time frame it wanted, then it is not a candidate for free trade with Israel. Again, historical contexts demonstrate this. Consider how long the US and China had stopped shooting before Nixon ventured over there.
I recall how Palestinians started hijacking airlines around the world and killing people because they didn't think they were getting the attention they deserved. They apepar to still have this idea. I'd expect them to behave according to the historical context in which former enemies managed to initiate trade. Again, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have shown how it can be done.
"Palestinians and Israelis have been trading for decades; why does Israel think that restricting trade and impoverishing Palestinians is a way to improve relations?"
It doesn't improve relations. It limits Hamas' ability to carry out its avowed goal of destroying Israel. Gazans freely chose Hamas and its policies. Note Jordan and Egypt do not share that policy and engage in trade with Israel.
"Rather counterfactual, I'd say, given that it's Israel that has been unilaterally choking off economic opportunity, as well as being the worst party in breaching cease fires."
The first kill tells us nothing unless we know the context of the kill. Was a suicide bomber shot trying to blow up a border crossing? The first kill may simply indicate who had more guns available, not who attacked first.
"Of course it does. We give Israel billions, provide PR, diplomatic and military support, and share the heat for the messes they create."
Sorry. I thought you mentioned Bush and the US in an ironic effort to say both the US and Hamas have a record of rejecting trade in favor of war. I confess to having a difficult time sorting through your irony. Perhaps I am now seeing it where it isn't intended.
"Again, who's stopping trade? "Gaza" isn't stopping trade; Israel is. And Israel doesn't want trade even when Hamas isn't shooting. They seem to prefer increasing hatred and misery, all because they prefer corrupt Fatah over Hamas, and are determined to make Gaza ungovernable and a Palestinina state impossible."
We can observe Israel's willingness to trade with Jordan and Egypt. There is a historical context that provides a model. So, we can see that Israel will follow that model, and has successfully done so. We are waiting for Gaza to emulate Jordan and Egypt.
"The embargo and the war treat all Palestinians as "enemies", sow dragons' teeth, and help only Israeli politicans, arms manufacturers, security consultants and our strategic adversaries."
Actions against Gaza do treat them all the same. Historical contexts again show this unfortunate situation in armed struggles. I think the Gazans know this when they chose Hamas. Besides the people you mention, the general population of Israel benefits from keeping Hamas weak. This is similar to the benefits the general population receives from the walled sections of the West Bank. It keeps Palestinian snipers from shooting Israelis from the other side, but probably doesn't improve relations.
"Who will govern Gaza if the succeed in destroying Hamas, on top of all of the infrastructure they have ruined?"
I don't know. If they really do want to throw off the yoke of Hamas, I presume they will take the path many other peoples have taken and engage in self-organizing and form a government that values peace and free trade.
Yes, the Gazans chose Hamas, but it had a lot more to do with Fatah`s incompetence and corruption. Israel could have worked with Hamas if it wanted to. Does Israel want to choose Gazan`s leaders for them?
I'm not aware of any example where free trade with a belligerant stopped the hot war.
Israel`s 40+ year conflict with the other peoples who live in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is NOT a hot war. But there are plenty of cases the other way around, where trade prevented disagreements from flaring up into hostilities and hot wars. What`s trouble is that Israel knows this, and prefers hot war to trade - cutting off employment a few years ago and trade 1 1/2 years ago, and fencing in an abandoning Gaza, the better to be able to be free to take military action in the face of the hostility generated by destroying the Gazan economy.
Regarding the Palestinians record of rejecting economic opportunity in favor of war, it really doesn't matter what the US or Bush did.
Actually, my apologies; I didn`t follow your reference to my point, which was that in the US and elsewhere, "chosen" leaders are pretty darn good at doing what is good for them, regardless of the general public interest, whenever they can get away with it. "Crises" of various kinds are great for this. I think this is just as true for the Palestinians and Israelis as it is for us. Libertarians know this and understand that most citizens typically have very little influence on what leaders do, and understand the ways leaders manipulate their peoples.
No country has a right to demand free trade with any other. If Hamas fires rockets because it didn't get the reward it wanted, in the time frame it wanted, then it is not a candidate for free trade with Israel. ... We are waiting for Gaza to emulate Jordan and Egypt.
Nice theoretical construct, but in the present context, neither Gaza nor the West Bank is a country. Gaza`s economy was closely tied to the rest of the Israel/West Bank until Israel fenced them in and forced the door shut. Without an economy how can Gaza possibly emulate Jordan and Egypt?
Israel has apparently been far worse in breaking cease fires. Feel free to go through and argue with the study if you really want to disagree.
the general population of Israel benefits from keeping Hamas weak.
Unless Israel wants to "kill, kill, kill" as Soffer suggested, Israel also benefits from having a better self-government Gaza and West Bank. What it`s doing now certainly doesn`t help.
The Gazans did choose their own leaders. They chose Hamas. They made their own decisions for their own reasons. They chose the group that promised to destroy Israel. They put the yoke of Hamas on themselves.
"Israel`s 40+ year conflict with the other peoples who live in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza is NOT a hot war. But there are plenty of cases the other way around, where trade prevented disagreements from flaring up into hostilities and hot wars. What`s trouble is that Israel knows this, and prefers hot war to trade - cutting off employment a few years ago and trade 1 1/2 years ago, and fencing in an abandoning Gaza, the better to be able to be free to take military action in the face of the hostility generated by destroying the Gazan economy."
Israelis do trade with people in Israel.
Gaza ia a very hot war. Flying rockets are a hot war. I agree trade can prevent conflicts from erupting, but I have yet to see the initiation of trade stop a hot war. But the mission of Hamas is to destroy Israel. If they choose to follow the path of Jordan and Eqypt, they too, will be able to live in peace and trade with others.
Israel does cut itself off from Gazans who want to work in Israel. This keeps out people who want to cross into Israel to kill Israelis. It also keeps out the people who blew up bombs at the border crossings when they were open. The Gazans being kept out are the people who voted for Hamas and knew it intended to destroy Israel.
"Nice theoretical construct, but in the present context, neither Gaza nor the West Bank is a country. Gaza`s economy was closely tied to the rest of the Israel/West Bank until Israel fenced them in and forced the door shut. Without an economy how can Gaza possibly emulate Jordan and Egypt?"
I agree they are not countries, but they are populations with whom one can trade. Gaza's economy is no longer tied to Israel's because Gaza chose Hamas leadership and Hamas is trying to destroy Israel. So Israel broke the ties. The people of Gaza can throw off the yoke of Hamas, and then follow the example of Jordan and Egypt. To date, I see no indication they want to get rid of Hamas.
"Israel has apparently been far worse in breaking cease fires. Feel free to go through and argue with the study if you really want to disagree."
The study is based in first kill, not first to break the cease fire.
"Unless Israel wants to "kill, kill, kill" as Soffer suggested, Israel also benefits from having a better self-government Gaza and West Bank. What it`s doing now certainly doesn`t help."
I agree. What it is doing now could help if the Gazans really want to throw off the yoke of Hamas. But I have seen no evidence of that desire. So, I agree the current situation does not advance the cause of better self-government in Gaza. It advances the cause of keeping Israelis alive and safe from flying rockets and suicide bombers.
I think we`re both repeating ourselves, so it`s time for a break. Until we meet again, can I suggest you take a look at what thoughtful people like Daniel Levy, Brent Scowcroft, and at the Council on Foreign Relations. What Levy says in these pieces is particularly accessible and makes sense to me:
# Five comments on the Gaza crisis and what to do
# Rewrite the Script
# What next on Gaza/Israel and Why Americans Should Care
# Pursuing Peace Amid Pessimism
# A short path, from Gaza to Somalia
He has an interesting comment on settler extremism as well.
On trade, you might want to look at what Jeffrey Goldberg says about what a positive force it`s becoming on the West Bank.
I have no intention of being a "propagandist", as Yankel and Richard would have it, and am interested in becomiong better educated myself, so feel free to throw some links my way.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.