what to do about Israel/Palestine?

[mrocktor]

This is an invaluable opportunity given to Israel and America. The self-admitted terrorists of Hamas have taken Gaza by force and openly state that the destruction of Israel is their purpose.

Taking over by force dispells any alegation that they are a legitimate government with regard to "public opinion" (their disrespect for rights makes them illegitimate regardless but the "international community" does not recognize that). Isolating the takeover to the Gaza strip makes limited military action feasible (again, unlimited military action is warranted, but would be condemned). They have given Israel the perfect target.

Israel should storm Gaza with overwhelming force, destroy the infrastructure and buildings taken over by Hamas and publicly state that they will not tolerate a state bent on their destruction, calling on the people of Gaza to do better in selecting their next government. This would put the conflict in the rest of "Palestine" into perspective: that the existence of that government is contingent on it respecting Israel's right to exist and Israeli's rights to life, freedom and property.

[Robert J. Kolker]

After the Palestinian children are no longer being indoctrinated with hatred of Jews, peace will become more and more stable as they grow up. Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for peace, and it worked. I see no reason why, under the proper conditions, it couldn't work here too.

Yodah says: Hold not your breath, Young Moose, until rational become the Palestineans, else blue turn you will.

Bob Kolker

[D'kian]

What Israel should do is manipulate both sides to fight each other as harshly and savagely as they can. Once they grind each other down and one emerges "victorious," Israel should then attack and destroy the "winner."

It won't happen. Risks aside (and these are considerable), Israel lacks the will to defend herself.

[K-Mac]

It won't happen. Risks aside (and these are considerable), Israel lacks the will to defend herself.

That's what I find so scary about the Middle East and all its conflicts. The Israelis seem to have the most at stake, more than the US simply because of their geographical proximity to the problem nations/cultures, and if they are unwilling to fight and defend themselves, what can we expect of our own country and its so-called allies? Why has western civilization lost its nerve? I read the following article last week in the WSJ and it makes me wonder if this guy's not on to something...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118126697338428618.html

As the article suggests, could the problems in the Middle East be as simple as too many frustrated young men living in close proximity?

[The Wrath]

Yodah says: Hold not your breath, Young Moose, until rational become the Palestineans, else blue turn you will.

Bob Kolker

Once again, you show your utter lack of ability to use history in any meaningful discussion about current events. First of all, I never said that I expect Palestinian society to become rational. I merely outlined a process by which it could, conceivably, happen. If you need any proof that it is, in fact, possible...look at Japan. But, knowing you, you're going to come out with some tripe about how Arabs are genetically predispositioned to violence, or how no Muslim can possibly be a moderate who just wants to live and let live.

I don't appreciate the condescending tone of your post, implying that I am somehow too young and naive to understand what goes on in the world. I really, really wish you would quit posting here.

P.S.

What are "Palestineans?" Are those Mandean Iraqis who have immigrated to Gaza?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

Israel now has the justification that it needs to carpet bomb Gaza. They'll never do it with Olmert in office...especially now that that unbridled wimp, Ehud Barak, is Defense Minister. I really hope Netanyahu wins PM next election.

As a side-note, is there anyone who didn't expect Gaza to descend into chaos after Israel pulled out?

Edited June 18, 2007 by Moose

[Robert J. Kolker]

Once again, you show your utter lack of ability to use history in any meaningful discussion about current events. First of all, I never said that I expect Palestinian society to become rational. I merely outlined a process by which it could, conceivably, happen. If you need any proof that it is, in fact, possible...look at Japan. But, knowing you, you're going to come out with some tripe about how Arabs are genetically predispositioned to violence, or how no Muslim can possibly be a moderate who just wants to live and let live.

Japan is a bad counter example. The Japanese are Budhist and Shintoist, not Muslim.

The Palestineans are memetically predisposed to violence. Their religion makes them crazy. Its those Muslim Memes: Jihad and Martyrdom that makes Muslims dangerous to human life.

Moderate Muslims have Fatwahs issued for their destruction. Vide Salman Rushdie.

Destruction is the only solution, and the Israelis are disinclined (alas).

Bob Kolker

Edited June 18, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[The Wrath]

Japan is a bad counter example. The Japanese are Budhist and Shintoist, not Muslim.

The Palestineans are memetically predisposed to violence. Their religion makes them crazy. Its those Muslim Memes: Jihad and Martyrdom that makes Muslims dangerous to human life.

Moderate Muslims have Fatwahs issued for their destruction. Vide Salman Rushdie.

Destruction is the only solution, and the Israelis are disinclined (alas).

Bob Kolker

Japan is not a bad counter-example. Imperial Japan was a country built on military conquest and, in case you forgot, the Japanese were the original suicide bombers.

Yes, the current Islamic meme is quite violent. But you are absolutely, 100% wrong to say that it makes them "crazy." They aren't crazy, in the least bit. They are driven by their ideology, but there is nothing wrong with the way that their minds function.

And, no, "Muslims" are not dangerous to human life. Many Muslims are. But not all. Seriously...that's the sort of statement I'd expect from some Confederate flag-waving piece of trailer trash.

Yeah, moderate Muslims have fatwas issued against them. What's your point?

Destruction of what? All Muslims?

P.S.

It doesn't help your case that you can't even spell the name of the group whose genocide you are advocating.

[KendallJ]

I don't appreciate the condescending tone of your post, implying that I am somehow too young and naive to understand what goes on in the world. I really, really wish you would quit posting here.

1. I don't think he got your drift.

2. If you keep engaging him, he'll keep talking to you. That's how trolls work.

[The Wrath]

I don't think he's trolling. I just think he's an idiot and a bigot. And I wish the MODs would seriously consider banning him.

[The Guru Kid]

Right now, i don't think hamas has the time or resources to threaten Israel seriously. So Israel is probably just waiting for the two sides to destroy each other.

[The Wrath]

Hamas has never (yet) represented an existential threat to Israel, but they can sure make life hell for its inhabitants. I agree that Israel should just sit this out and let the 2 factions kill each other, until it looks like the fighting is done. If Fatah wins, Israel should issue some sort of ultimatum, making clear that they mean business. If Hamas wins...burninate.

Hizballah represents a much larger long-term threat...too bad Israel didn't take care of them last summer.

[The Guru Kid]

Just saw the new cox and forkum cartoon http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001134.html

Whether or not the two parties are different, should the US really be supporting any palestenian faction? Neither of them pose any danger to the US and if they do attack Israel, the aid should be directed towards Israel (if need be).

[D'kian]

That's what I find so scary about the Middle East and all its conflicts. The Israelis seem to have the most at stake, more than the US simply because of their geographical proximity to the problem nations/cultures, and if they are unwilling to fight and defend themselves, what can we expect of our own country and its so-called allies?

Israeli politics can be charitably described as "messy" in the best of times. Right now they're almost fouled up beyond recognition. after the disastrous war last August a rational parliamentary system would have spit Mr. olmert out. I'm still waiting, and wondering whether any Likudis can win (Netanyahu, pretty much), and if so whether they can do what's needed.

The good news is that an Israeli Prime Minister has much more discretion to act than, say, an American president. I know the Entebbe raid in the 70s was pulled off by executive decision (not even the full cabinet was informed until the planes were on the air). And I think the strike on Osirak was similarly carried through. So it's possible the next prime minister may simply strike Iran where it will do the most good. I hope so.

America has a clear-cut case for war against Iran, much stronger than the case for Iraq ever was. But between Bush's foul-ups (especially never articulating fully and explicitly who the enemy is and how he should be fought), and the Democrats pathological need to sacrifice everyone in sight to, literally, the lowest evil they can find, it would take major action by Iran to stir the US into much needed action.

If anyone, especially Bush, says Iran is developing nukes, the Democrats will demand blueprints. If Bush claims the Iranians are arming the Taliban, the Shiite militias and the Sunni and Al-Qaida insurgents, the Democrats will demand proof well beyond that which would satisfy the most skeptical of juries, as well as permission from the UN.

And even if Iran did something overtly hostile and bellicose, like kidnapping American soldiers or sailors, the democrats would do nothing but blame Bush for the next five years, then maybe they'd decide to talk to Iran for a couple of years.

We can't count on iran doing something massively stupid, like launching an armored assault to support their Shiite lackeys in Iraq. If they did, then American comanders in Iraq could lawfully follow them as far into Iran as they wanted. But, come on, the same army that struggled to keep Saddam from advancing for ten solid years won't even harbor the glimmer of a dream of a hope of doing any substantial dammage to the US Army, or even to the British Army.

Nor am I hopeful that Bush will make a leap of integration, and clarity, and explain why the shortest road out of Iraq runs through Tehran and Damascus. Or even of a major presidential candidate to advocate such a move.

What's left? Maybe Bush could, as a lame duck president on the way out, try a quick strike at Iran anytime from September through the end of his term. I'd be verysuprised if he did, though.

The one consolation is that Iran cannot destroy America. hurt her very badly, yes. But not destroy her. Yet, is it any help? If iran uses a nuke once, or even just tests one, would America have the fortitude of will to risk a limited nuclear exchange now rather than see the mullahs slowly but surely build an arsenal that could destroy America or the West? And what about Israel? I don't think she could withstand one well-placed strike.

If I sound bitter, it's because right now I am.

[DarkWaters]

Just saw the new cox and forkum cartoon http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001134.html

Whether or not the two parties are different, should the US really be supporting any palestenian faction? Neither of them pose any danger to the US and if they do attack Israel, the aid should be directed towards Israel (if need be).

I strongly disagree with the message of the cartoon. Hamas and Abbas' Fatah party are certainly not indistinguishable. Abbas' Fatah Party is certainly not an ideal government but they are overwhelmingly better than the nihilistic, barbaric and fanatical organization of Hamas.

Even if neither party poses a direct threat to the United States, it still is in the rational self-interest of many citizens of the United States to have a viable trading partner, such as Israel, kept alive and well. Furthermore, a victory for Israel in these conflicts is a defeat for Islamic Totalitarianism, an end that any rational United States citizen should desire.

If anyone, especially Bush, says Iran is developing nukes, the Democrats will demand blueprints. If Bush claims the Iranians are arming the Taliban, the Shiite militias and the Sunni and Al-Qaida insurgents, the Democrats will demand proof well beyond that which would satisfy the most skeptical of juries, as well as permission from the UN.

I presently perceive that a majority of the Democrats are taking such positions primarily to be contrarian to a Republican Whitehouse and not because they are unconvinced of a threat from radical Islam. Of course this is not true for every Democrat. I surmise Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark would take a much more assertive stance against Iran, Al Qaeda and the like if they were in office. John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples of Democrats who I think will never challenge Islamic Extremism unless if the United States suffers another devastating attack. It frustrates me. I am not convinced that Barack Obama would take a tough stance either.

Needless to say, refusing to erect a just opposition to the greatest enemy of civilization in the 21st century because of partisan politics is absolutely horrible. But Washington politics seems to be nothing more than a superficial pragmatic battle between Red versus Blue.

Edited June 19, 2007 by DarkWaters

[D'kian]

I strongly disagree with the message of the cartoon. Hamas and Abbas' Fatah party are certainly not indistinguishable. Abbas' Fatah Party is certainly not an ideal government but they are overwhelmingly better than the nihilistic, barbaric and fanatical organization of Hamas.

They are not indistinguishable indeed. Hamas is by far the most consistent.

Aside from that, though, they're both nihilistic, barbaric and fanatical organizations. Fatah might be better in the way that AIDS is better than Ebola (you live longer with AIDS), but I wouldn't call that overwhelmingly better.

I presently perceive that a majority of the Democrats are taking such positions primarily to be contrarian to a Republican Whitehouse and not because they are unconvinced of a threat from radical Islam.

I don't disagree. however, how bad is it to have a political party whose ide aof opposition is less sophisticated than a two year-old boy's?

Of course this is not true for every Democrat. I surmise Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark would take a much more assertive stance against Iran, Al Qaeda and the like if they were in office.

But enough to matter? Some of them, I'm sure, would favor more "dialogue" and sanctions that might or might not prove effective. Then they might go begging to the UN for permission to do something, then they'd have to figure out how to deal with an actual hostile nuclear power rather than a potential hostile nuclear power.

Against Al Qaida they would be tough enough to arrest those responsible for September 11th. Past that, Al Qaida could go on a bombing spree from Chihuahua to Tierra del Fuego, and from Madrid to Seoul, and no Democrat president would do anything about it.

John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples of Democrats who I think will never challenge Islamic Extremism unless if the United States suffers another devastating attack.

Kucinich and pelosi are more likely to offer to negotiate with Al Qaida if they attack us again. Edwards would faint for the remainder of his term should an attack take palce, and then we'd see how good the VP is. Oh, Pelosi might also ram the Kyoto treaty down the Senate's throat, because some hazy notion of climate change is far more dangerous than five kiloton warhead going off in Boston harbor. Why, such a bomb wouldn't even completely destroy Boston.

[The Wrath]

They are not indistinguishable indeed. Hamas is by far the most consistent.

Aside from that, though, they're both nihilistic, barbaric and fanatical organizations. Fatah might be better in the way that AIDS is better than Ebola (you live longer with AIDS), but I wouldn't call that overwhelmingly better.

I don't think that Fatah can rightly be described as "fanatical," since that's a word usually ascribed to religion. It is too often forgotten that there is also a secular threat against Israel...and Fatah is a secular group.

Against Al Qaida they would be tough enough to arrest those responsible for September 11th. Past that, Al Qaida could go on a bombing spree from Chihuahua to Tierra del Fuego, and from Madrid to Seoul, and no Democrat president would do anything about it.

Oh, plenty of Democrats would do something about it. Don't forget it was a Democrat that sent us to Kosovo...and Viet Nam.

[D'kian]

I don't think that Fatah can rightly be described as "fanatical," since that's a word usually ascribed to religion. It is too often forgotten that there is also a secular threat against Israel...and Fatah is a secular group.

You don't think strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up at a bus stop, a pizza parlor or a party requires some fanaticism?

Fanaticism can be related to religion, or it can be purely secular. Visit a Star Trek convention one day and see for yourself, even if those fans are harmless.

Oh, plenty of Democrats would do something about it.

They'd blame Bush. That's all they seem to know how to do. Maybe without Bush they'd just blame America, if they remember how.

Don't forget it was a Democrat that sent us to Kosovo...

Sure. but we had nothing at stake and it was a multinational affair.

and Viet Nam.

Are you calling Nixon a democrat? Don't you ahve any respect for absurdist revisionism?

[The Guru Kid]

Even if neither party poses a direct threat to the United States, it still is in the rational self-interest of many citizens of the United States to have a viable trading partner, such as Israel, kept alive and well. Furthermore, a victory for Israel in these conflicts is a defeat for Islamic Totalitarianism, an end that any rational United States citizen should desire.

When i said US i meant the federal government. The spending is not justified because it is in the financial interest of some Americans.

And if it is war against Islamic fundamentalism that you want, that is the worst way of doing it. If it poses a threat, destroy it. Don't go around helping factions which are the lesser of the two evils only to have it backfire.

Also, are you suggesting that Israel is too stupid to think or too weak to fend for itself?

[The Wrath]

You don't think strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up at a bus stop, a pizza parlor or a party requires some fanaticism?

Fanaticism can be related to religion, or it can be purely secular. Visit a Star Trek convention one day and see for yourself, even if those fans are harmless.

True, but to me "fanatic" usually conjures up images of religious nutcases.

Sure. but we had nothing at stake and it was a multinational affair.

And if they're willing to send us somewhere where we have no stake, surely they would send us somewhere where we do have a stake.

Are you calling Nixon a democrat? Don't you ahve any respect for absurdist revisionism?

I was thinking more along the lines of Kennedy and Johnson.

Also, are you suggesting that Israel is too stupid to think or too weak to fend for itself?

Judging by Olmert's term...absolutely.

[D'kian]

True, but to me "fanatic" usually conjures up images of religious nutcases.

Maybe, but your name isn't Webster as far as I know.

And if they're willing to send us somewhere where we have no stake, surely they would send us somewhere where we do have a stake.

Ha!

If Republicans barely stand up for America, I don't see a single Democrat doing so, except for Joe Lieberman.

Gotta go. More later (maybe)

[The Wrath]

I don't think they would "stand up for America." I was just pointing out that, when they're in power, they have no trouble taking military action.

[D'kian]

I was just pointing out that, when they're in power, they have no trouble taking military action.

As long as it doesn't benefit America in any way. They're also good at cut and run tactics (Clinton in Somalia).

[The Wrath]

Far be it from me to defend the Democrats, but I don't think that's totally true. Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad, and it was his administration that first came up with the official position that Saddam should be removed from power.

[D'kian]

Clinton ordered the bombing of Baghdad,

I don't say he was playing wag the dog, but even many other Democrats thought so and said so.

and it was his administration that first came up with the official position that Saddam should be removed from power.

And did absolutely nothing to bring it about. There are rare instances when innaction is just the thing to do, but removing Saddam wasn't one of them. besides, by now no democrat alive believes that removing Saddam was anyone's idea but Bush's, Chenney's and Rove's.

I will ammend my position: Democrats can be moved into military action so long as a) America has no stake in such action and/or there is a reasonable guarantee of zero or less American casualties.

At that they are better than isolationist Republicans (mostly) who cannot be moved to military action at all.

[DarkWaters]

They are not indistinguishable indeed. Hamas is by far the most consistent.

Aside from that, though, they're both nihilistic, barbaric and fanatical organizations. Fatah might be better in the way that AIDS is better than Ebola (you live longer with AIDS), but I wouldn't call that overwhelmingly better.

After reading this editorial in the Washington Post the other day, I started to question my usage of "overwhelmingly" as well. Specifically, the quote:

Most attacks against Israel since the elections were launched by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the unruly Fatah-affiliated militias, notwithstanding Abbas's repeated calls for them to stop.

fueled my doubts. There is no real use to Abbas' condemnations if he is too impotent to control the militant wing of his party.

I don't disagree. however, how bad is it to have a political party whose ide aof opposition is less sophisticated than a two year-old boy's?

It is absolutely terrible and it infuriates me. However, the Republicans are no better in this respect.

But enough to matter? Some of them, I'm sure, would favor more "dialogue" and sanctions that might or might not prove effective. Then they might go begging to the UN for permission to do something, then they'd have to figure out how to deal with an actual hostile nuclear power rather than a potential hostile nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are not getting results better than this.

When i said US i meant the federal government. The spending is not justified because it is in the financial interest of some Americans.

Leaving all discussions of protecting a trading partner aside (which I still think is legitimate spending in the present context of today), do you believe that forming a strategic alliance with another nation can ever be justified for the purposes of defense?

And if it is war against Islamic fundamentalism that you want, that is the worst way of doing it. If it poses a threat, destroy it. Don't go around helping factions which are the lesser of the two evils only to have it backfire.

I agree, just look at what Saddam did with all of the military assistance that the United States provided during the Iran-Iraq War.

Also, are you suggesting that Israel is too stupid to think or too weak to fend for itself?

Of course not. But these are not necessary conditions for one nation to assist another in a war of self-defense.

Edited June 21, 2007 by DarkWaters