Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
What is going on now is an atrocity. Palestinians had their land taken away forcibly, and now, after fifty years in refugee camps and crowded into subhuman conditions in Gaza, they're being exterminated.
Why is Egypt keeping the Gazans in jail? Shouldn't they be allowed to freely go in and out of Egypt whenever they want to?
Paging Mr. LaRouche, paging Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Yes, it's very tough: using F-16s to bomb people without any air defenses at all, sending tanks in against rifles, using billions of other people's tax dollars (including mine) to "fight" the impoverished, all the while hiding behind the American veto in the Security Council. Very brave, those Israelis.
Ok, so Israeli want to show their military might and political force with much bravado. Congrats, you have won! The carnage I see in Gaza is devastating and tramatic to any decent humanbeing but, if this massacre would cause Israelis and Jews worldwide to stop playing "the greatest victim of the world" role, then the Gazans could be martyrs for many.
So which is it? Victim or Bully?
Quite simply: I don't, because I don't agree with you that we are doing that.
Then what are we doing?
No, I emphatically do not think that, and thanks for asking. I'm not suggesting unflinching support for Israel. I don't think that Israel is a blameless actor, anyone who does is a fool. I'm an atheist so I'm not expecting Jesus to rebuild the temple any time soon. I understand that there are right-wing fundamentalists in Israel who have holy-war agendas, and I'm against them, too.
I don't care about Israel. Do you or do you not think that US support for Israel is good for American interests and good for the security of the United States? Why?
There is, however, a middle ground between unflinching support, and complete abandonment.
The establishment isn't interested in any middle ground, it is full on 100% in support of all things Israel. That means supporting its war crimes. I make no apologies for refusing to try and find some middle ground where war crimes are considered civil and debatable. There is no debating things that are just wrong, like blockades engineered to punish civilians, a war crime, which the apologists ignore while crying "Hamas' Rockets are a War Crime".
Israel has the 4th largest military in the world and hundreds of illegal nuclear weapons. It uses its powerful military to rain bombs on an open air prison, to fight a resistance movement it grew and nurtured, all sponsored by a Government in the US that covers up crimes through UN Vetos, and you want to try and find a "middle ground"?
Furthermore, our support should give us leverage that we would not otherwise have, although I'll be the first to admit that our previous efforts have been sorely lacking in that regard.
Our support should give us a lot of things, but what do we get in return? Spies, false flags, condescending propaganda, undermining, contempt from our Stalwart Ally, and worldwide contempt towards our citizens.
Why is Egypt keeping the Gazans in jail? Shouldn't they be allowed to freely go in and out of Egypt whenever they want to?
And this is why I don't take you seriously, you fall back on the typical trite talking points of the Irsael-first propaganda troll army. This talking being a variation of "Look at Egypt! They are REALLY bad!".
You asked:
"Why did the Jewish population of Europe, when seeking a refuge and a county of their own, have to choose Jerusalem?"
Maybe it's because, out of all of the ethno-cultural groups historically residing in the Levant, the Jews were the one that was expelled from the region, and specifically expelled from Jerusalem- in approximately the year 135CE, by the Roman Empire that held sovereignty there at that time.
That's a data bit that's historically undeniable, and I think it's significant.
Oh man...I wasn't going to get into this discussion. I certainly can't claim to be entirely sorted out about it.
But it seems to me that there are a few things that need to be borne in mind.
One is that armed terrrorist action isn't to be measured simply from a casualty count. Terrorism is based on denial of public space. And random rocket fire is a terribly effective tactic to serve that goal.
Another problem is the Hobson's Choice that gets provided to the government of the nation receiving the rocket fire- allow it to persist, or shut it down with armed retaliation.
The fact that the rocket fire originates from civilian-populated areas rather than from, say, commando incursions or fortified military positions where no civilians are present provides some indications about both the armed group deciding to fire the rockets, and the civilian population that persists in offering the group their overwhelming support.
As far as the political goals purportedly being advanced by the people firing the rockets- my impression is that their grievances seem to shift, depending on the audience they address, between three different complaints: 1)lamentations about the undeniably terrible conditions in which they are living, in Gaza; 2) demanding the return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders; and 3) demanding the dissolution of the national entity of Israel, and its replacement with...(insert vague platitude here.)
Whether or not the Jewish population presently residing on the land will be invited to remain- and in what capacity- in whatever political entity would succeed Israel, is even less clear. It's left to the imagination, one might say. I get the distinct impression from people holding Left political ideals that they presume that a "one-state solution" would result in an secular, egalitarian social democracy. Perhaps if they could point to one nation with a Muslim majority that successfully functioned that way, they might have some rational foundation for believing that.
As if the hard-line Islamicists of Hamas had any more use for allowing secular democratic socialists to have a measure of political power than they would for Jews living under their vision of a reconstituted Palestine. The notion that they'd even be permitted a voice -or physical existence, except in dungeons- is questionable.
That said: I'm presently under the impression that only goal #3 will satisfy the militants of Hamas, and their supporters- whom, I'm given to understand, comprise the majority of the Palestinians living in Gaza (which I thought was part of Egypt prior to its 1967 annexation by Israel, but Egypt doesn't seem to want it any more.) Goal #3 is evidently all they go on about, when they're talking to audiences comprised entirely of their supporters. The other two goals are apparently put into play as appeals to the outside world, to pressure Israel to "negotiate."
You can't negotiate with a shell game.
Finally, a disclaimer- one that could hardly be called pre-emptive, in light of the accusatory presumptions that I've already seen hurled in recent discussions:
I am not of Jewish decent. Neither is my mother. Or my father.
I don't have a Jewish wife, fiance, or girlfriend. I don't even have any Jewish friends- at least, in terms of recent acquaintance.
I am not on the AIPAC payroll.
I do not work for the Mossad.
Neither am I being blackmailed or coerced by the Mossad.
And in regard to the rest of the massive array of controversies related to this issue, I haven't said what I haven't said.
I'll crack on the government of Israel's policies some other time. But the country is presently recurrently being shelled by rockets, hurled at them by people who seem to have no problem with locating their launching sites in the middle of areas occupied by noncombatants. From a territory where the Israelis government recently relinquished their annexation, over the protests of those who claimed that dong so would simply provide more staging areas for terror attacks.
If there's a third option or a fourth option available to Israel, would someone please tell me what it is?
(Admittedly, I suppose the Jews living in the present nation of Israel could all pack up and leave- and if that's someone's personal answer to this problem, it would be clarifying for the purposes of further discussion if the people holding that opinion made their views explicit.)
Other than that- let the verbo-brickbats fly.
Or- you could refrain from personal attacks, and instead specifically address my points and inform me of what I've said that's inaccurate. But it's your keyboard...
As for me, I'm returning to lurk mode. In fact, I'm not even going to be around for a while. I have too much else to do.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
