If A Terrorist Group of Mexicans

[jillian]

The analogy is speculative because the US has never annexed territory from Mexico so "retaliation" would clearly be illegal...oh, hang on........

countries don't win land in battle?

 

[jillian]

Jillian, it's been a good discussion even when it's been messy so you did good to start it. My take:

1. If there was a military or anti-terrorist solution to Gaza the Israelis would have done it by now. Remember Lebanon? I think the Israelis are just winging this one; they will do a sweep, remove a lot of weapon stashes, kill a number of Hamas fighters and innocent civilians and people who are in between, and then leave. Hamas will then return. Repeat in five years.

2. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor Israel recognize Hamas, so this is not a conflict between nations. If there was some way to bring Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority, they would probably be able to stop the attacks. But if Israel knew how to do that, they would have done it by now. See a pattern?

3. I don't see anything the United States can do to help that the Israelis and Palestinian Authority working together could not do better. So working out a deal to settle the larger issues is probably the only way to resolve Gaza in the next 100 years or so.

4. This would put the United States squarely in the middle of Israeli domestic politics, where America should not be.

I understand the frustration, but I really don't see much America can do to help. If America takes responsibility for resolving the situation in some military sense, how would it enforce that solution if either or both parties broke it? For example, say we got everyone to agree to allow a Palestinian Authority police force in Gaza to stop rocket attacks, the Palestinian Authority agreed to throw in the towel on those parts of the occupied territories on the Israeli side of the wall, and Israel agreed to treat the Palestinian Authority full recognition and to accord Palestinians living inside Israel full rights of citizenship (note that these conditions are anathema to the parties asked to bend on them). What do we do when Hamas manages to sneak a few rockets into Gaza and launch them? Or if Israel decides to expand its settlements program? Or both? I just don't see how America can act as a guarantor of a treaty in a military sense in this conflict.

OK, I'm done so everyone can resume the crossfire.

thanks for the complement. i purposely didn't place it in the israel/pal section so it wouldn't devolve into i hate jews//i hate muslims nonsense. plus, this isn't really about israel retaliating for being bombed. i think every nation has the right to send to kingdom come anyone lobbing missiles at it.

my main question is: why the obvious double standard as regards israel? i believe i know why. but i wanted to raise the subject and see what was said.

1. As to the military solution. There is. But Israel has complied with our wishes to be moderate. Clearly Israel could have flattened gaza. She hasn't. As for Lebanon, Bush II, made Israel back down and not finish the job against hezbollah. I think that was a huge mistake, personally, because it was the first time israel looked beatable.... hence what is going on now.

2. while fatah doesn't recognize hamas... hamas was elected in the gaza because bush II, again, thought it a good idea to force elections. and they will fight hamas internally, but they will never side with israel... the people of the west bank would toss them from power so fast their heads would spin.

3. the united states can do a lot. we have a lot of power in the UN, even if it is only veto. we have a lot of diplomatic muscle, too. plus, we can pressure egypt to pressure hamas b/c egypt likes our dollars and wants that loan i mentioned from the international monetary fund. we can also convene a camp david type gathering and make them sit there til they have a deal.
just to give you a little bit about the mentality of palestinians in terms of making a deal with israel, when arafat had the chance to sign on to an agreement that would have given the palestinians 98% of their demands, arafat said no, because if he cut a deal he "would be drinking tea with rabin".

4. where the US as a leader should be is standing behind our ally... and if we want to be a world leader, then we need to be there when the whatever starts to hit the fan.

 

[Toro]

... half of them would be late and none of them would work.










Kidding! Kidding! Me encanta México!

 

[jillian]

... half of them would be late and none of them would work.










Kidding! Kidding! Me encanta México!

 

[oldfart]

my main question is: why the obvious double standard as regards israel? i believe i know why. but i wanted to raise the subject and see what was said.

First of all, I am an American and neither pro-Israel or anti-Israel. If I seem to exhibit a double standard please explain it to me. If this is intended as a generic statement about some group other than myself, please make that clear. I'm not upset about anything, I just have enough trouble explaining myself and am loathe to take on responsibility for what other people say or do.

1. As to the military solution. There is. But Israel has complied with our wishes to be moderate. Clearly Israel could have flattened gaza. She hasn't.

So you think the solution is that Israel has not been allowed to use sufficient military force? If so how much force are you proposing using? And what case do you make for that being sufficient?

I've seen this genus of argument applied to a lot of situations over the years (most notably Vietnam) and I pose the same objection to it. Suppose you are not entitled to commit mass murder. What reason do you have to believe that an escalation of force will achieve your objectives? When one escalation fails, do you simply go to the next and kill more people? I'm not making a moral argument here, but a practical one. At some point, attempting a solution by force will invite third party intervention. This happened in 1956. But in the present circumstances I find it hard to believe that the intervention would be by the United States and I believe it would be a military rather than diplomatic intervention. If a regional war were to be the result and if Israel seemed to not be able to win or survive such a war, what would your solution be? American intervention? Is your ultimate position that America should give Israel a blank check to conduct military actions with assurance that America will intervene militarily on its side if events turn against it? Such a course of action is not consistent with American interests or American values.

American commitments to defend Israel do not extend to underwriting military adventurism. This is not a road any rational American wants to go down, so the best thing to do is not take that first step of condoning or encouraging military esclation.

[

3. the united states can do a lot. we have a lot of power in the UN, even if it is only veto. we have a lot of diplomatic muscle, too. plus, we can pressure egypt to pressure hamas b/c egypt likes our dollars and wants that loan i mentioned from the international monetary fund. we can also convene a camp david type gathering and make them sit there til they have a deal.

I wish your evaluation of American diplomatic power was correct, but I think you vastly overstate it. Are you suggesting we bring Jimmy Carter out of retirement to conduct a Mideast peace conference? You do realize his current thoughts on the Middle East do you not?

[

just to give you a little bit about the mentality of palestinians in terms of making a deal with israel, when arafat had the chance to sign on to an agreement that would have given the palestinians 98% of their demands, arafat said no, because if he cut a deal he "would be drinking tea with rabin".

I must confess that I cannot think of a reply to this that is not offensive or snarky. Perhaps if you reread your comment you will realize why I make that statement.

4. where the US as a leader should be is standing behind our ally... and if we want to be a world leader, then we need to be there when the whatever starts to hit the fan.

American policy should be to advance American interests and American values. What specifically are you proposing America do now that it has not done in the past and how would that have any conceivable effect in Gaza?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
but what do you think causes the double standard insofar as israel's right to defend itself?

Obviously the Arabs don't like the idea of Israel occupying their land

 

[jillian]

[
but what do you think causes the double standard insofar as israel's right to defend itself?

Obviously the Arabs don't like the idea of Israel occupying their land

it's not the Arab's land.

thanks for proving my point, though.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
but what do you think causes the double standard insofar as israel's right to defend itself?

Obviously the Arabs don't like the idea of Israel occupying their land

it's not the Arab's land.

thanks for proving my point, though.

then why do so many Arabs have keys to their old houses on the land and why does most of the world regard Israel as illegitimate??

 

[jillian]

Obviously the Arabs don't like the idea of Israel occupying their land

it's not the Arab's land.

thanks for proving my point, though.

then why do so many Arabs have keys to their old houses on the land and why does most of the world regard Israel as illegitimate??

i don't deal in lies. thanks. i'm sure there are at least a dozen threads in the israel/pal section that you can play on. i was kind of hoping to keep this one at least semi-cogent.

 

[Toro]

it's not the Arab's land.

thanks for proving my point, though.

then why do so many Arabs have keys to their old houses on the land and why does most of the world regard Israel as illegitimate??

i don't deal in lies. thanks. i'm sure there are at least a dozen threads in the israel/pal section that you can play on. i was kind of hoping to keep this one at least semi-cogent.

Yeah, and why do the Joos control the world banks, media and British monarchy too?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it's not the Arab's land.

thanks for proving my point, though.

then why do so many Arabs have keys to their old houses on the land and why does most of the world regard Israel as illegitimate??

i don't deal in lies. thanks. i'm sure there are at least a dozen threads in the israel/pal section that you can play on. i was kind of hoping to keep this one at least semi-cogent.

please say exactly what the lie is or admit you cant.

Are you saying no Arabs had their homes stolen by Israel? And, the world does think Israel is legitimate?????? Please tell us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama will burn with hellfire any Muslim country to a blackened crisp that launched an atomic attack against Israel.

Obama will rearm the armaments and munition bunkers and the warehouses and ship all the gunships, etc., the Israel expends.

Two-state solution, no right of return, no divided Jerusalem, the wall remains.

 

[jillian]

First of all, I am an American and neither pro-Israel or anti-Israel. If I seem to exhibit a double standard please explain it to me. If this is intended as a generic statement about some group other than myself, please make that clear. I'm not upset about anything, I just have enough trouble explaining myself and am loathe to take on responsibility for what other people say or do.

i wasn't referring to you applying a double standard. i was speaking generally. my o/p preceded any input from any individual person on this thread.

So you think the solution is that Israel has not been allowed to use sufficient military force? If so how much force are you proposing using? And what case do you make for that being sufficient?

i was responding to your statement that if there were a military solution, israel would have already found it.

do you really believe that israel is not capable of wiping out the gaza just by virtue of military superiority should it choose to do so?

I've seen this genus of argument applied to a lot of situations over the years (most notably Vietnam) and I pose the same objection to it. Suppose you are not entitled to commit mass murder. What reason do you have to believe that an escalation of force will achieve your objectives? When one escalation fails, do you simply go to the next and kill more people? I'm not making a moral argument here, but a practical one. At some point, attempting a solution by force will invite third party intervention. This happened in 1956. But in the present circumstances I find it hard to believe that the intervention would be by the United States and I believe it would be a military rather than diplomatic intervention. If a regional war were to be the result and if Israel seemed to not be able to win or survive such a war, what would your solution be? American intervention? Is your ultimate position that America should give Israel a blank check to conduct military actions with assurance that America will intervene militarily on its side if events turn against it? Such a course of action is not consistent with American interests or American values.

while i see your point about vietnam, this is a bit different because in vietnam, what was at issue was some vague question of what type of government they are going to live under. this is far deeper and is a survival issue as far as israel sees it.

American commitments to defend Israel do not extend to underwriting military adventurism. This is not a road any rational American wants to go down, so the best thing to do is not take that first step of condoning or encouraging military esclation.

it isn't adventurism to defend oneself from missile strikes. israel has every right to decimate hamas.

I wish your evaluation of American diplomatic power was correct, but I think you vastly overstate it. Are you suggesting we bring Jimmy Carter out of retirement to conduct a Mideast peace conference? You do realize his current thoughts on the Middle East do you not?

i don't like jimmy carter... but you have the right idea. i would choose a more honest broker.

I must confess that I cannot think of a reply to this that is not offensive or snarky. Perhaps if you reread your comment you will realize why I make that statement.

that statement was simply to illustrate the political difficulty anyone representing the palestinians would have in making a deal. it doesn't deserve a snarky response. and yes, i'm aware that rabin was killed by his own wacko... i never said there were no wackos on the other side. but that doesn't have a single thing to do with israel's right to defend against missile attacks.

American policy should be to advance American interests and American values. What specifically are you proposing America do now that it has not done in the past and how would that have any conceivable effect in Gaza?

it is in america's interest to stand by its allies.

and more than that, it's in america's interests to do the right thing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

do you really believe that israel is not capable of wiping out the gaza just by virtue of military superiority should it choose to do so?

they cant do it because they feel guilty, they are a moral people.

 

[oldfart]

do you really believe that israel is not capable of wiping out the gaza just by virtue of military superiority should it choose to do so?

I believe there is a deep political divide in Israel. A majority of Israeli's are not yet ready to deal with the consequences of either killing and expelling all Palestinians from Gaza or of trying to rule the area under a military government. What do you mean by "wiping out the Gaza"? It has a population of a bit over 1.7 million.

while i see your point about vietnam, this is a bit different because in vietnam

With all due respect, people who propose military escalation always say, "But this case is different". I gave the same set of questions that any thinking person would ask about a policy of escalation, and like advocates of escalation, you don't want to consider them hoping this time will be different. I suggest you find your answers to those questions before you buy into the game of escalato any further.

it isn't adventurism to defend oneself from missile strikes. israel has every right to decimate hamas.

I told you I was not making a moral argument but a practical one. Adventurism has nothing to do with morality. It is a policy of reckless military action without due regard for the consequences. Tell me what military action you are proposing and what train of thought leads you to believe it achieves your objectives.

I don't like jimmy carter... but you have the right idea. i would choose a more honest broker.

Ah, it's like deciding which of the mice will bell the cat.

it is in america's interest to stand by its allies.

The same argument has been made about Nationalist China, South Korea, South Vietnam, Germany, Greece and Turkey, Iraq,Afganistan,and international peacekeeping efforts in Yugoslavia and Somalia. Some times America stayed and sometimes America left. I would not like to defend the argument that in each case America should have "stayed the course".

and more than that, it's in america's interests to do the right thing.

Again I have not been making a moral argument, so I must concede this to you. In return I ask that you consider the proabble consequences of the course of action you are advocating.

There is a famous experiment in child development where a group of children in the age range of six to eight are asked how authorities shoud act if a citizen willfully disobeys and commits an offense such as jaywalking. Most children begin with the reasonable suggestion of an approrriate punishment. When asked what to do if this does not work. They reply to escalate the punishment. Ultimately many end up advocating capital punishment for jaywalking! This is how a theory of justice (or more precisely a sense of injustice) develops. The sense of injustice comes first. The nuance of the limits of punishment in achieving compliance and proportionality with the offense come later for some people and never for a few. You obviously have the intelligence andmoral compass to avoid that trap in looking a the situation in Gaza. My original answer was intended to ask the questions and apromptyou to use those graces to com to a less emotionally satisfying but more productive position.

All the best,

 

[uscitizen]

You know if we had been bulldozing down the Mexicans homes and taking their land they might have good reason to fire missles at us.

One cannot just look at one thing and draw a proper conclusion.

 

[syrenn]

Im all for Isreal kicking some butt! Get em'! I know they have the funds lol

I'm all for them kicking butt, too.

but what do you think causes the double standard insofar as israel's right to defend itself?

i have my own ideas about it. but i'm interested in hearing the opinions of people who don't have a horse in the race.

the double standard is becasue...

Its all about giving muslims a pass. No one wants to do the un PC thing and say the words to piss them off.

 

[Wiseacre]

Israel wants to peacefully co-exist. That's it. The palestinian people elected the head of a terrorist organization whose avowed purpose is the destruction of Israel. They've been firing missiles into civilian areas in Israel and sending in suicide bombers for years. Far as I'm concerned, Israel is more than justified in reducing Gaza to rubble.

 

[uscitizen]

Let each of them reduce each other to rubble. We should not be involved.

 

[jillian]

Im all for Isreal kicking some butt! Get em'! I know they have the funds lol

I'm all for them kicking butt, too.

but what do you think causes the double standard insofar as israel's right to defend itself?

i have my own ideas about it. but i'm interested in hearing the opinions of people who don't have a horse in the race.

the double standard is becasue...

Its all about giving muslims a pass. No one wants to do the un PC thing and say the words to piss them off.

i don't believe that's the reason. i think it's more complicated than that.