tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post9153827074910637365..comments2023-11-03T07:01:42.012-06:00Comments on The Underview: crushing spaceMatt J Stannardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16236787482565862733noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-86504209835455688612009-08-20T11:23:50.460-06:002009-08-20T11:23:50.460-06:00Douche here:
Detroit? Hello?Douche here:<br /><br />Detroit? Hello?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-65526638511515144182009-08-13T15:43:56.821-06:002009-08-13T15:43:56.821-06:00Detroit:
Douche here.
To clarify re: Egypt. I m...Detroit:<br /><br />Douche here.<br /><br />To clarify re: Egypt. I mean, are you willing to condemn Egypt for it's role in the "slow genocide" of the Gaza strip; considering they have a border with Gaza and are part of the infamous blockade?<br /><br />Glad to hear you condemn genocidal statements. This is good common ground. And, as I pointed out; the int'l law definition of "genocide" definitely includes the mental "intent" aspect.<br /><br />As far as Israel "reject[ing] progress toward peace in exchange for land in preference for keeping the land and water." Please provide examples. <br /><br />I have provided examples where they actually did give land for peace with Egypt and Jordan, and offered it in 2000-2001, and their withdrawl from Gaza in 2005, though seen by many as inadequate, seems to me like "progress toward peace in exchange for land."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-48682527435804499672009-08-13T13:01:08.517-06:002009-08-13T13:01:08.517-06:00What do the Mufti revelations prove that is releva...What do the Mufti revelations prove that is relevant to the situation today; that's the question I was getting at with my hyperbole.<br /><br />Your questions are easily answered.<br /><br />-Are you equally willing to include Egypt in your accusation of "slow genocide"?<br /><br />Not without a firmer grasp of what you see as Egypt's actions contributing to slow genocide (and I assume you mean of the Palestinian people). Murbarak is a tyrant.<br /><br />-Are you equally willing to condemn Palestinian "genocidal" statements?<br /><br />Sure, but with the caveat that statements are not as weighty as acts and that there are, as I have labored to describe, questions of scale, premeditation, and effectiveness that differentiate Palestinian and Israeli acts.<br /><br />-Are you equally willing to call for the Arab states and organizations to follow UNSC 242?<br /><br />Arabs states should follow 242 and other UNSC resolutions as should Israel. I understand your point, via Rostow, that "land for peace" is the exchange at the heart of 242. I think of 'no territory acquired by force' as the heart of 242 (and of international law more generally). Also, I believe that Israel has often rejected progress toward peace in exchange for land in preference for keeping the land and water.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-62523984362619675902009-08-12T23:58:37.910-06:002009-08-12T23:58:37.910-06:00Detroit:
Douche here. You wrote: "Please no...Detroit:<br /><br />Douche here. You wrote: "Please note I have not made and never make facile Nazi comparisons. You have been on the Mufti argument for years now without explaining why it justifies leaving some poor Palestinian child motherless."<br /><br />Noted. (Matt supported some other guy's comparison. And I said that it was way more valid to compare Palestinians--or at least that one--to Nazis; considering he was a Nazi collaborator, than the facile comparison to the Israeli gov't. <br /><br />Please note I never said that the Mufti's nasty associations justify "leaving some poor Palestinian child motherless."<br /><br />But about the evidence I presented, I was mainly curious for answers to the questions I asked: <br /><br />-Are you equally willing to include Egypt in your accusation of "slow genocide"?<br /><br />-Are you equally willing to condemn Palestinian "genocidal" statements?<br /><br />-Are you equally willing to call for the Arab states and organizations to follow UNSC 242?<br /><br />If you are, then we have actually found common ground!<br /><br />If not, why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-61978748877343610642009-08-12T21:56:00.491-06:002009-08-12T21:56:00.491-06:00Douche -
I believe I have made it plain that I am...Douche -<br /><br />I believe I have made it plain that I am very selective in I-P debates. They are messy, as you know. I have many obligations. There are other issues I believe merit my attention. When I choose to engage in I-P debates, I have very specific audiences and objectives in mind. Going around the mulberry bush for a 1001st time with you just is not that appealing. Sorry that disappoints. <br /><br />It is obvious you disagree with my arguments, fine, but I believe they are not beyond the pale; my rhetorically strongest argument is genocide. I do believe that claim based on the meaning of the word under international law. I also characterized this case as a form of slow genocide, which is precisely what it is, in my view. Please note I have not made and never make facile Nazi comparisons. You have been on the Mufti argument for years now without explaining why it justifies leaving some poor Palestinian child motherless.<br /><br />Fortunately for you, I guess, is the fact you are a lone wolf of sanity and truth beset on all sides by argument opponents. By your own description, you confront a target-rich environment. Work with them not me. <br /><br />Or take up the cause of the Tibetans, Kurds, or Armenians. The public sphere needs only one Regev.<br /><br />Best of luck.<br /><br />DetroitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-35495838939455629562009-08-12T13:19:09.184-06:002009-08-12T13:19:09.184-06:00Detroit:
Mr. Douche here. Thank you for agreeing...Detroit:<br /><br />Mr. Douche here. Thank you for agreeing that Israeli civilians do not deserve to die at the hands of Hamas' rockets.<br /><br />And thanks for acknowledging that anti-Semitism is a very real global problem. And, just so you know, I fully acknowledge that Palestinian terrorism is very effective; it evokes responses from Israeli, and every Palestinian death works as Palestinian propaganda against the "evil occupier".<br /><br />But, I find it very telling that you uttered not one word about the evidence I presented against your assertions. I mean, you said Israel is engaged in "genocide" and is "actively destroying" the Palestinians.<br /><br />However, if Israel was really engaged in "genocide" would they do the things I listed as "inconvenient truths"; such as invest in infrastructure, and raise the Palestinian's standards of living to some of the highest in the Arab world under their watch? Does that actually make sense to you? <br /><br />I wanted to hear your reaction to these "inconvenient truths", but you chose to ignore them utterly.<br /><br />As much as my statements here have been categorized as only "militant Pro-Israel"; I feel my first militant loyalty is to the truth, and so many falsehoods have become "received truths" about Israel and the Palestinians, by their constant repetition, in the press, in academia, and even in bodies such as the UN, that I feel I need to correct such misunderstandings, and that I am outnumbered significantly in this effort.<br /><br />So, to that end, I vehemently disagree with the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, the word "genocide" to describe Israeli policy, the idea that deliberately targeting civilians is legitimate resistance and feel that the Palestinian leadership have betrayed the people over and over by refusing offers of statehood, and responding with terrorism.<br /><br />Finally, I am critical of some Israeli policies, and firmly believe they should have withdrawn from Palestinian population centers after the 6-Day war, and should now end their settlements in the West Bank. But, at the same time, the Palestinians must give up the violence, accept not only the fact of, but the right of Israel to exist, without threats to its existence, give up the right of return, and stop once and for all any calls to destroy the nation.<br /><br />I remain skeptical it can ever come to pass, considering the powerful strain of Anti-Jew sentiment that runs thru Islam, from the Qu'ran itself onward, and, yes, even ideas on the Israeli side, such as that of "Greater Israel".<br /><br />Perhaps the groups Matt keeps on about are the best hope for peace. But, I can't help wonder what the area would be like today if Arafat had said "yes" at the Camp David negotiations in 2000-2001.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-49229248802533653022009-08-12T12:45:59.364-06:002009-08-12T12:45:59.364-06:00Matt:
You wrote "Distasteful, embarassing, s...Matt:<br /><br />You wrote "Distasteful, embarassing, self-effacing, most likely non-Jewish anonymous and unconditional defender of Israel:" <br /><br />I'm not sure if you think this is an improvement over "Douchbag", but considering you also added "anti-Semitic", I'll just stick with "Douche".<br /><br />I'm not sure how I've been distasteful, but I have noticed an interesting, if frustrating phenomenon:<br /><br />You support comparing the Israeli government to the Nazi regime, and think that's not anti-Semitic. <br /><br />However, when I point out where (the most prominent) Palestinian befriended and actually collaborated with Hitler, and expressed a desire to erect extermination camps in Palestine, I'm the one who gets labeled "anti-Semitic". <br /><br />Like I said before, these are "inconvenient truths", and it is absolutely true that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler had a mutual appreciation society going and both supported the"Final Solution", and both men thought that Islam and National Socialism shared many ideological similarities and were working toward the same goal.<br /><br />If pointing out such "distasteful" facts actually makes me distasteful, then so be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-66145365328172175942009-08-12T08:24:11.510-06:002009-08-12T08:24:11.510-06:00Douche -
Take you at your word that you want to s...Douche -<br /><br />Take you at your word that you want to support the Palestinian people (despite their views about destroying Israel, if your poll is believed). Couple of thoughts and then I am out. As I said, I have been over the Israel-Palestine debate with those taking an opposing view with such frequency that I have concluded my time is better spent in other ways.<br /><br />Palestinian leadership could/should be much better, less corrupt, more farsighted, more effective, and I believe less violent. I suppose it is more difficult for reasonable leaders to emerge while under siege and where almost anyone promising is assassinated or imprisoned.<br /><br />Unless one subscribes to conqueror's "justice", who a people back in a war, particularly in the context where the losers may have supported the Palestinian cause, seems an irrelevant issue to me; all the more so when diplomatic postures are not the result of a plebiscite. The Israeli state essentially created the Hamas movement, but that does not mean I think innocent Israelis deserve to die at the hands of their rockets.<br /><br />There a many national groups subject to state oppression who merit freedom. You mention several very strong cases that I too support. And always have. I would extend the same logic to many, many, other nations, including potentially many within the territory of the US, natives of Diego Garcia, etc., etc. Glen Morris estimated in the early 90s that fully 85% of the conflicts then underway in the world were of the nation vs. state variety. <br /><br />While I support their independence, you may underestimate the role of violence in the Kurdish struggle, especially in Turkey. Many, many, many, many more Turks have died at the hands of the PKK and like groups than Israelis at the hands of Fatah/PLO or Hamas. That is true, I suspect, even if we throw the body count from Israeli-Arab conflicts into the calculation. I haven't actually researched the issue but am rather confident of these conclusions.<br /><br />Why does the Palestinian cause receive more attention? Many possible reasons come to mind, including potentially a measure of anti-Semitism globally, a very real problem. But many others suggest themselves. Perhaps some of the support today is residue from the Cold War dynamic. Among the various comparable subject populations, the Palestinians have many very educated and accomplished and creative individuals. Despite their horrific circumstances, they remain the most educated of all Arabic peoples. They also have regional allies who (for their own reasons) have some global standing to make their case. Another possible explanation you should consider is that Palestinian violence is effective, however much we may choose to criticize it. <br /><br />Do you devote your time and advocacy to the causes of these other groups, or have you none left after your defense of Israeli policy? I mean, there is no shortage of people to defend Israeli policy, yet by your own description these other deserving folks lack an effective presence on the global stage. Why don't you let other pro-Israeli policy folks cover that beat for a spell while you labor to raise the profile of these neglected causes?<br /><br />Ask yourself this: Why does the US ignore the plight of these other peoples?<br /><br />A majority of Palestinians may support the destruction of a UN member state but that same state is actively destroying a non-state member of that same body. And there is no small number of Israelis who wish to kick out Israeli Arabs and occupy the entirety of the Gaza and West Bank. Doesn't mean I think Israel should be destroyed.<br /><br />Whatever else they are your links are most assuredly not random. They could not be less random.<br /><br />DetroitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-46357023561851563422009-08-12T08:13:55.342-06:002009-08-12T08:13:55.342-06:00P.S. The fact that the Vatican, the U.N., and the ...P.S. The fact that the Vatican, the U.N., and the E.U. are incapable of the kind of policies and philosophies that could achieve peace in the Middle East is the most politically useful thing you've ever said. Pity you don't seem to know why.Matt J Stannardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16236787482565862733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-57999161700216679942009-08-12T08:11:43.660-06:002009-08-12T08:11:43.660-06:00Distasteful, embarassing, self-effacing, most like...Distasteful, embarassing, self-effacing, most likely non-Jewish anonymous and unconditional defender of Israel:<br /><br />You're always already wasting your time with your approach, just as the equivalent version of you on the other side would be doing so (and I actually don't think Detroit has done so), at least on _this blog._ My kingdom is not of your paradigm. <br /><br />Yes, I called you a douchebag once. I've used the word more than I should, and I'll try to stop, folks, sorry!...and certainly I had no idea you'd adopt it as a title. Clever? Or obsessive?<br /><br />The fact that a people's leaders have betrayed them should invite you to examine, through whatever framework you wish, the appropriateness of another set of leaders' tactics towards innocents. The difference between intentional versus collatoral violence is _not_ a difference to the innocent. Your side has come to functionally, if not explicitly, believe there are no innocent Palestinians. <br /><br />Are you implying there's an anti-semitic conspiracy to prop up the Palestinians in the international media? I don't discount such barbarism outright, but why hasn't it worked? Why have the ruling classes of other Arab nations often turned their backs on the cause? The arms industry exists, and benefits from, exacerbating this conflict (perhaps you should invoice them). Hey I have an idea: do a comparative analysis of the so-called "Israel lobby" and the so-called "Palestinian lobby" and come back in six months with a full report. <br /><br />As far as all your "Tibetans have done this, Kurds have done that, while them dumb ol' Palestinians have done that" talk, well, there you go again with your essentialism. You just love judging people and making little hierarchies between nationalities, religions, etc. Do you have any clue what a useless, destructive form of political engagement that is? <br /><br />In the next couple of weeks I hope to have a couple of members of Parents' Circle, or a similar group composed of Israelis and Palestinians, on the show. The existence of such groups, and the frameworks that they co-construct, scares the crap out of your side. The possibility of sub-state solidarity threatens your entire endeavor, an endeavor which, as I've repeatedly said, will never, ever result in peace. <br /><br />If you had any real political life, though, you'd open a blog of your own.Matt J Stannardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16236787482565862733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-72382945111437631312009-08-12T01:50:08.348-06:002009-08-12T01:50:08.348-06:00Mr. Douche here: (Yep, I'm a man, and Matt cle...Mr. Douche here: (Yep, I'm a man, and Matt cleverly gave me this handle, when he responded to a comment of mine by addressing me as "anonymous douchebag").<br /><br />Believe it or not, I do support the Palestinian people. It's their leaders who have betrayed them and their cause, especially Arafat who turned down the best offer Israel will probably ever make.<br /><br />I also support the claims to statehood and independence of the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, the Chechens and the Turkish Armenians. Several of these stateless groups have far stronger claims than the Palestinians, yet, for whatever reason, these groups do not enjoy anywhere near the scale of positive international attention that the Palestinians have garnered. <br /><br />Just to focus on two of these groups, there are more stateless Kurds and Tibetans than Palestinians, and they have been treated far more brutally by their occupiers than the Palestinians have. There's even a state already that has a majority Palestinian population, but neither the Kurds nor Tibetans have any state of their own.<br /><br />Tibetans always have, and the Kurds primarily have, relied on lawful and legitimate means of seeking redress, whereas from the beginning Palestinians have committed crimes against humanity, targeting the most vulnerable civilians.<br /><br />The Palestinians have backed the losing side in virtually every war of the 20th Century, whereas the Tibetans and Kurds have not.<br /><br />Polls show the majority of Palestinians support the destruction of a UN member state, whereas neither the Kurds or Tibetans seek the destruction of any state.<br /><br />Yet despite the significantly more compelling claims by the Tibetans and the Kurds, neither group has ever received any recognition from the UN, the European community, the Vatican, or any other official body, and they have been largely ignored by "intellectuals" of both extreme left and right.<br /><br />Why is that?<br /><br />Finally, I do not believe the links I have posted thus far are "random"; and here's another one:<br /><br />http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/moslem_opinion.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-26438783343798951312009-08-11T19:02:47.548-06:002009-08-11T19:02:47.548-06:00Thanks, above anonymous. It's precisely the w...Thanks, above anonymous. It's precisely the way that anti-Palestinians* fail to recognize the dehumanizing nature of their language, or are smugly satisfied with it, that makes it difficult for this conversation to get to a higher level. <br /><br />I don't think I'm trying to impose a totalistic, Western-biased formula onto this conflict or its history. The only thing I've done thus far is (a) call for listening to peace groups and particularly peace groups containing both Israelis and Palestinians; and (b) suggested that there are class divisions on both sides that (certainly in their own unique way) "problematize" the identities of both sides. I suppose I am guilty of a "problem-solution" mindset, but I'm not going to pretend to try and escape that. <br /><br /><br />*The only _real_ anti-semitism on this thread...Matt J Stannardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16236787482565862733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-62833124267506792902009-08-11T15:52:56.776-06:002009-08-11T15:52:56.776-06:00What a messy and sad turn to a discussion that hel...What a messy and sad turn to a discussion that held promise…<br />Make no mistake – I am not an expert, and I have no firsthand account in the regions being discussed. From some of the information gathered in this discussion, however, I would be willing to bet that some of the other participants are as ill informed as I – garnering news from their favorite locals without having been an actual participant. And there is the heart of the matter.<br />Matt is not incorrect in his assertion that many have chosen sides, for a variety of reasons. Many of those who have taken up arms (verbally) in this debate have gathered their munitions from reports which are tainted by one’s political philosophy. This type of news gathering is necessary, to be sure, but it also allows people to otherizer the individuals to whom Matt is initially referring – the individuals who live in the middle of the conflict. Once we otherize the side we are not taking, it’s quite easy to find all sorts of journalism – both quality and not – to support the “side” one has chosen. <br />For instance, while Mr. Dousche (I’m assuming it’s a man – no woman would liken herself to the product or the name) argues that Israel should never be compared to Nazi Germany because (paraphrasing here) “they have not constructed extermination camps, taken Palestinians from their homes, transported them, or forced them to wear special clothing”, others might contend that the curfews, fences constructed to keep individuals in and out, identification documents and articles of clothing, and even the “murders” that Mr. Dousche talks about, have taken place. Additionally, one might argue that the Nazis didn’t start out with death camps – they started with segregation and verbal propaganda. This does have a familiar ring to it, especially in light of the posts by Mr. Dousche.<br />In fact, the militant (yes, you are militant) propaganda does more to lend sympathy to the group of people that Mr. Dousche seems so bent on accusing of wrong doing. This type of propaganda lends itself to martyring, which might defeat the purpose of the propaganda in the first place. It also makes him seem less and less intelligent with every random web link he may post.<br />Overall, the intent of Matt’s post is a good one – we should support people. We should try to see the perspectives of people. However, the notion that we should solve the plight of all of the peoples in the world is dangerous at worst, and (in your own words Matt) naive at best. The problem/solution mindset hasn’t proven effective in the past, and I don’t see how it can prove effective in this situation, which is riddled with religious overtones, political overtones, and cultural undertones. All three are human constructs, which lend themselves to ethnocentric policies and practices. In the end, those individuals you are trying to care for are the ones who will have to change the practices they dislike. As long as we look to political “solvency”, even from a third party, we give control over the individuals to that political party, and new “problems” arise (I know, how very Foucault of me…).<br />Finally (and it is an actual finally for me – I’ll not continue to engage), trying to “solve” from a third perspective doesn’t mean the solutions are without bias. It simply brings in a new set of biases – and if those biases are Western in nature, then sides have already been chosen to some degree. Helping people and seeing people doesn’t always call for policy change, intervention on an international scale, or providing for a particular group of people – that may be how this conflict started in the first place… Just a thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-37636650450736515632009-08-11T15:28:06.571-06:002009-08-11T15:28:06.571-06:00This seems like a relatively civil discussion. Th...This seems like a relatively civil discussion. The problem is that this issue is unsolvable politically until two things happen: Stop the settlements and stop the violence aimed at the state of Israel. Neither of things will happen in this generation because both sides are held hostage by the hardliners. This isn't politics it's a staring contest between idiots.chancelothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361519390345166451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-2019764471935838052009-08-11T12:33:01.747-06:002009-08-11T12:33:01.747-06:00(OOPS! Just for the record, obviously I messed up...(OOPS! Just for the record, obviously I messed up, and my first comment in response to "Detroit" contained the end of my post about genocide. My apologies.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-25954209442299149132009-08-11T12:31:00.868-06:002009-08-11T12:31:00.868-06:00#2 6-DAY WAR A DEFENSIVE WAR
Here again, we see &...#2 6-DAY WAR A DEFENSIVE WAR<br /><br />Here again, we see "Detroit" substitute bare assertions for anything resembling evidence. While I concur with "Detroit" that merely saying a war is defensive doesn't make it so, I firmly believe that the circumstances behind a war might actually make it defensive.<br /><br />A nice summary is found on Wikipedia: "In 1966-67, Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, began a pan-Arab campaign seeking unified support to conquer Israel and expel the Jews. Freshly armed with the latest in Soviet supplied planes, tanks, and other military stocks, Egypt felt, for the first time since 1948, that they were in a position to overrun Israel. Egyptian media began a relentless and supportive jingoist campaign whipping up a fervor of popular support for war. This enthusiasm spilled over to the other Arab capitals.<br /><br />On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. Likewise, armies in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan also mobilized, encircling Israel for an imminent coordinated attack. "<br /><br />I know Wikipedia has it's problems, but further evidence can be found in "Six Day War" by Michael Oren and the work of Bennie Morris.<br /><br /><br />#3 UBSC RES. 242 - ISRAELI COMPLIANCE/ARAB NON-COMPLIANCE<br /><br />242 calls for "belligerent parties" to "work for a just and lasting peace in which every state can live in security".<br /><br />To that end, Israel gave up every inch of land sought by Egypt when Egypt renounced belligerency, and Jordan has abandoned almost all of the claims to land now occupied by Israel. At the Camp David Accord, Israel offered to give up about 95% of the disputed land on the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip and to accept a Palestinian state. That offer surely constituted full compliance with the language of 242. But there has been no compliance with 242 by the rejectionist Arab states and organizations, which continue to hold states of belligerency against Israel.<br /><br />Is "Detroit" equally willing to call for these Arab states and organizations to comply with 242? If not, why not?<br /><br />According to Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of 242, the plain meaning of this resolution is that Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza is completely legal until a just and lasting peace is achieved.<br /><br />That should be enough for now (and considering the preponderance of evidence on my "side", the paucity on "Detroit's", for quite awhile).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-83751322525901272772009-08-11T12:30:25.073-06:002009-08-11T12:30:25.073-06:00"Detroit" is in error or engaging in dis..."Detroit" is in error or engaging in distortion on every point where we disagree:<br /><br />#1 GENOCIDE: <br /><br />I know the definition of "genocide" according to int'l law. There are 5 parts, and they must be "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" Of which part(s) is Israel guilty? Surely not the one about Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; considering the population tripling as I previously stated.. <br /><br />I bet "Detroit" mainly means "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", and I bet it's mainly about Gaza.<br /><br />First of all, my question is about the intentions of Israel. Are they imposing the blockade, etc, with the intention of "bringing about [Gaza]'s physical destruction"? Basic humanitarian supplies have been let in, and Israel supplies electrical power to Gaza, two things that seem to at least make me question whether Israel is truly trying to bring about it's physical destruction.<br /><br />Secondly, and I have posed this question to Matt: What about Egypt? They control Gaza's southern border, and therefore would be equally guilty of genocide, if the blockade is what "Detroit" meant. Would "Detroit" be equally willing to accuse Egypt of "genocide"? And if not, why not? (And why have no Gazan rockets been launched at Egypt, if Gazans were mainly upset about the blockade?<br /><br />Thirdly, how much of this is Hamas' fault? I mean, the blockade might not have happened in it's current form, if Hamas actually did stop shooting rockets at Israeli civilians. And how much deprivation is also due to Hamas' seemingly preferring to smuggle in weapons instead of food and medicine? Additionally, how much of Gazans' suffering is due to murderous clashes between Hamas and Fatah, and Hamas' imposition of strict sharia law?<br /><br />Finally, directly contradicting the claims of "genocide" are these inconvenient truths:<br /><br />-From late 1967 on, Israel invested in roads, sewage treatment plants, telephones, electricity, water, radio, sanitation, medical facilities and other infrastructure that brought the West Bank up to 20th century standards.<br /><br />-The GNP of the West Bank grew 7-13% every year over the next 25 years.<br /><br />-Under the Israelis, the Palestinians had the highest standard of living of any Arab country, except the oil states.<br /><br />-7 Universities grew up in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where only 3 small teacher-training colleges had existed before.<br /><br />-Perhaps most telling, under the Palestinian Authority from 1994 to present, these living standards eroded precipitously, with GNP sinking to one-tenth of what it was under Israeli control.<br /><br />(These inconvenient truths are backed up by, among others, the Arab Human Development reports of 2002 and 2005.)<br /><br />For a "occupier" engaging in "genocide", Israel certainly went about it ass-backwards!<br /><br />And just one last thing, Palestinian leadership has explicitly called, through their very charters as well as speeches and sermons, for the destruction of Israel. This undeniably meets the mental criteria for "genocide"; meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". They just haven't been in a militarily capable position to follow through.<br /><br />So, would "Detroit" be as willing to condemn the Palestinian authorities for these "genocidal" statements, as he/she apparently is to do in the case of Israel? If not, why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-61560095782577054202009-08-11T12:29:15.017-06:002009-08-11T12:29:15.017-06:00Douche here:
(Matt, I would love to honor your re...Douche here:<br /><br />(Matt, I would love to honor your request, but my single massive rebuttal to "Detroit" is too long, so I have to break it up into more manageable chunks.)<br /><br />"Detroit" seems to think that naked assertions and name-calling are valid substitutes for evidence and proof. About my claim of bias toward Palestinians, at least I actually quoted a study showing bias in a media outlet. "Detroit" merely denied it, calling it "laughable" and the people who ran the study as "tools." This may pass for argumentation in the academic world, but I like to see evidence, facts, studies, etc. Can "Detroit" prove the claim of pro-Israeli bias in the media, or am I simply to accept "Detroit"'s assertion as fact?<br /><br />sinking to one-tenth of what it was under Israeli control.<br /><br />(These inconvenient truths are backed up by, among others, the Arab Human Development reports of 2002 and 2005.)<br /><br />For a "occupier" engaging in "genocide", Israel certainly went about it ass-backwards!<br /><br />And just one last thing, Palestinian leadership has explicitly called, through their very charters as well as speeches and sermons, for the destruction of Israel. This undeniably meets the mental criteria for "genocide"; meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". They just haven't been in a militarily capable position to follow through.<br /><br />So, would "Detroit" be as willing to condemn the Palestinian authorities for these "genocidal" statements, as he/she apparently is to do in the case of Israel? If not, why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-11618551512412324612009-08-11T08:40:40.481-06:002009-08-11T08:40:40.481-06:00Douche here. I haven't read what Detroit has ...Douche here. I haven't read what Detroit has written yet, but wanted to add this:<br /><br />Matt, <br /><br />You wrote, "I have publicly embraced the work of Carlos Latuff and defended his claim that Israel replicates many of the actions and techniques of Nazi Germany in their war against the Palestinians, a position for which I have been charged with anti-Semitism."<br /><br />As it should be! This charge is the worst kind of double-think. Why is it always that Israelis are compared to Nazis and not, say, Soviet Communists?<br /><br />How, exactly, are Israelis like Nazis?<br /><br />Have they constructed extermination camps, filled them with Palestinians, and murdered them? NO!<br /><br />Have they taken Palestinians from their homes, packed them onto trains and transported them hundreds of miles to extermination camps? NO!<br /><br />Have they designed special clothing, and made Palestinians wear it, so they can be identified on sight? NO!<br /><br />Have they publicly declared that Palestinians should be obliterated? NO! (But Palestinians have said this about Israel and the Jews. "'Annihilating' Jews by Palestinians becoming suicide bombers and 'detonating' themselves in their midst, and by saving 'a bullet is order to stick it in a Jew's head,' are examples of the many calls for killing Jews in Palestinian sermons." http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2403)<br /><br />Have they published political cartoons with the worst kind of stereotyping and racist caricature of Palestinians? NO! (But Palestinians have and do publish such cartoons about Jews. http://www.pmw.org.il/latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b080206)<br /><br />In fact, if anyone can be compared to Nazis, it is the Palestinians. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met and collaborated with Hitler, applauded his goal of extermination of Jews and wanted extermination camps built in Palestine; at Nablus. Furthermore, the old saw "All Nazis were German, but all Germans weren't Nazis" isn't completely true; some Nazis were Arab (there was an SS unit of Arabs.)<br /><br />So, based on this, the comparison of Israelis to Nazis is shaky at best, and offensive Anti-Semitism at worst. If the label fits, wear it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-69560481413692522132009-08-11T07:21:22.167-06:002009-08-11T07:21:22.167-06:00I'm sure our pro-Israel anonymous will have an...I'm sure our pro-Israel anonymous will have answers to the points raised from the Motor City, and has every right to express them here. I am asking that he or she avoid the appearance of trolling and refrain from posting several things in a row in such a manic, reactionary fashion. And I want to cool off myself; comment discussions always threaten to bring out my already short temper (made shorter these days by not having enough time in my life to develop good points in comprehensive political discussions). <br /><br />It's not my intention to "false balance" but rather to clarify why no political program seems to have worked for the Palestinians. On the other hand, myopic supporters of Israel are guilty of the charge of ontological privileging I level in the original post; their treatment of Jewish dissidents, peace advocates, and their own IDF reservists demonstrates this, as does the continuing tendency to use the fact of Islamic extremism and the oppressive nature of fundamentalist interpretations of that religion as an excuse to shrug off international law and basic ethics. Behind all of this, of course, is class rule, and interclass conflict, like we see in internal Israeli politics and the U.S., but also in divisions within Palestinian rule itself. <br /><br />But the last thing I'll say is this: Aside from whatever else I might find wrong with the rabidly pro-Israel, essentialist anti-Islamic point of view, it simply doesn't work. It doesn't solve anything. It guarantees more violence, not less. It serves the interests of the military industrial complex and corporate arms manufacturers and hate-spewing spinmeisters, but it only guarantees more violence in the long run. The look in the eyes of children in Gaza, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and elsewhere compels me to reject that solution, that thinking. The search for alternatives to that kind of thinking is why I write, blog and podcast.Matt J Stannardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16236787482565862733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-76085682990922992152009-08-11T05:39:19.367-06:002009-08-11T05:39:19.367-06:00Hey Matt,
There is no need to argue with Douche. ...Hey Matt,<br /><br />There is no need to argue with Douche. Our breath and energy should be saved for persuadables.<br /><br />And why should I have your back? You argue well enough on your own and had plenty of time and energy to respond to me; presumably you have some time and energy to respond to Douche if you so desire.<br /><br />When I have some time perhaps I will do my best to respond out of respect for your efforts here, but truly I have no interest in engaging those who are rabidly pro-Israeli oppression (their advocacy does not merit description as "pro-Israel" because a continuation of Israeli policy unfortunately augurs the end of the state of Israel at some point). About a 1000 exchanges (you perhaps had the similar experiences) convinces me that every minute wasted with such people arguing about these issues is a minute not spent convincing people whose views can be influenced.<br /><br />Besides, if I am to ever receive tenure, I need to finish the dissertation.<br /><br />The short list:<br /><br />Douche doesn't understand the meanings of genocide under international law if he thinks high birth rates in cesspools is an answer.<br /><br />Douche is wrong about 242 for about these last 30 years.<br /><br />Douche is wrong about '67 being a defensive war. All partisans describe their aggression as defense. In a technical sense then, the claim by one side their war efforts are defensive is devoid of informational value; it is entirely predictable regardless of circumstances or facts. It may be justified, it may be reasonable, but claims of defense are on their own literally meaningless. More to the point, even if defensive in origins, occupation after the end of the shooting war is a crime.<br /><br />Moral reasoning requires precisely the kind of discernment that recognizes differences between high-impact planned military and other assaults on whole populations and largely ineffectual counter-responses by a subject population. That's ethics 101. Douche does not appear to appreciate the concepts of scale, systematicity, or proximate causes.<br /><br />The notion of pro-Palestinian bias in the news is laughable and hardly demonstrated by a Voice of America study Douche uses. NYT is not the whole media and a six-month study is too short for a longitudinal assessment. CAMERA is a bunch of tools.<br /><br />Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Sharon argued, would permit more effective oppression at lower cost to Israel via blockades and routine air and ground incursion. It was not a move expressing concern with humanity.<br /><br />Executing gays in Iran is a crime. Why it justifies Israeli oppression in Palestine is a mystery to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-73483926474018284222009-08-11T02:13:27.373-06:002009-08-11T02:13:27.373-06:00What the hell? One more from a militant pro-Israe...What the hell? One more from a militant pro-Israeli on journalistic bias toward Palestinians, this one from Honestreporting.com:<br /><br />"A six month study of the New York Times shows a bias toward the Palestinian narrative."<br /><br />http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/The_New_York_Times_Just_the_Facts.aspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-78295990546910412262009-08-11T01:59:02.054-06:002009-08-11T01:59:02.054-06:00Since I, anonymous douchnozzle am on a roll here, ...Since I, anonymous douchnozzle am on a roll here, here's one more about "Breaking the Silence" from CAMERA-Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting In America:<br /><br />"That is, [Breaking the Silence's] mission is not really about “demanding accountability,” as its Web site states, but about publicly demonizing Israel's military before allegations are investigated, as the group's co-director reveals.** And in this respect they have been hugely successful, thanks to an obliging foreign media willing to overlook the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics — which calls for “test[ing] the accuracy of information from all sources” — so that they can deliver a sensational story vilifying Israel."<br /><br />Lots more and link in the article, found at:<br /><br />http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=8&x_article=1697Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-38888211709881022752009-08-11T01:29:24.238-06:002009-08-11T01:29:24.238-06:00One more comment from anonymous douchnozzle, re: r...One more comment from anonymous douchnozzle, re: radical Islam.<br /><br />Why have Sunnis been killing Shias in Iraq? Is it because of the evil American occupation? Is that what motivates the rise of extremist, radical Islamists to kill other Muslims?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6417577.post-9187447644225672482009-08-11T01:27:40.279-06:002009-08-11T01:27:40.279-06:00Anonymous Douchenozzle here:
Some more "fals...Anonymous Douchenozzle here:<br /><br />Some more "falsehoods and crimes" this time from the West Bank. Enjoy!<br /><br />"Terror cells recruit West Bank students"<br /><br />http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/10/Terror-cells-recruit-West-Bank-students/UPI-58541249905665/<br /><br />"Fatah: We'll sacrifice victims until Jerusalem is ours "<br /><br />http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106050.html<br /><br />And here's (finally) some recognition of Hamas' criminal tactics:<br /><br />"Human Rights Watch Says Hamas Rocket Attacks Are War Crime"<br /><br />http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-08-06-voa12.cfm<br /><br />Yep, I asked Zunes. He said he still wanted to see what official investigations concluded, but that really was the last I heard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com