Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology

https://gma.yahoo.com/virginia-shooting-suspect-vester-flanagan-did-leading-air-213449674--abc-news-topstories.html#

Like the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have written.

Although racial violence is still vastly disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions that are imperceptible to non-blacks.

I suppose there is a fixation in the American psyche (or human nature in general) about getting payback and taking matters into our own hands. If others have hurt you or those you associate with, how is it is "justice" to commit violence against totally unrelated people who just happen to be of the same broad, arbitrary social category or geography? When Hamas sends some rockets into Israel, why does the IDF bomb and bulldoze homes and hospitals full of women and kids who never touched a rocket? Does that make them feel better, or feel safer? Of the 45M blacks in the US, did Roof think that killing 9 would "set things right" for Obama being president and all the other terrible things blacks have done to whites? And then Flanagan killing 2 whites 300 miles away from SC somehow settles that score too? Obviously this lunacy never ends, so such beliefs should never materialize into action in the first place.

Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Hollow criticism by the right of the Iran nuclear deal

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iran-deal-obama-sees-validation-diplomatic-gamble/

And the FNC version: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-much-worse-than-experts-predicted.html

As Obama said to the conservatives, "What is their alternative?" I'm sure some of them would publicly or privately call for war, or at least stronger sanctions (I'll get to why that won't work in a bit). Maybe others like Trump think that Obama's team are amateur negotiators compared to the Iranians, and only he could outsmart them to a better deal (he did ghost-write "The Art of the Deal" after all!).

The goal is not to turn Iran into a model nation and have them cease all their questionable/negative activities - that's not going to happen for decades (no matter what leverage or violence we apply). The goal and scope were always limited: to stop or ideally reverse Iran's progress towards bomb capability (i.e. right now they could possibly get a working bomb in 3 months if they go all-out; let's make some changes so that time frame gets a lot longer), and enable the int'l community to detect whether they are cheating. To address some criticisms:

• Why take our foot off the gas with sanctions, they are crippling the Iranian economy and keeping them subdued?
• The goal of the int'l sanctions was always to force Iran to the bargaining table, not to stop the bomb or make the country suffer (which is what is happening - as usual the people are hurting more than the regime).
• If the talks fell apart with no deal, faith in the sanctions would dissolve (they did not accomplish their stated goal), and most nations would pull out except the US (because sanctions hurt other nations too besides Iran - especially energy-thirsty China).
• Since the GOP doesn't understand trade and economics, they think unilateral US sanctions are great - but actually they don't do anything but create missed opportunities for us. Iran will get what they need from the hundreds of other nations. Since we have a strong role in the global fin. system - maybe we could cause some havoc there, but again - it's not going to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

• Could Iran use the sanctions relief to invest in better weapons tech and more clandestine development activities?
• Maybe, but they take on a huge risk by doing so, and the chance of success is low. If they can build a new high-tech production facility without inspectors, spies, regulators, and satellites noticing - well that is kind of our fault then.
• It's possible that they will use their increased wealth to boost their unfavorable activities in the region (supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq, propping up Assad, etc.). But frankly those pains are secondary compared to a nuclear Iran and a certain attack by Israel. 

• Did Obama's team just negotiate poorly, and a better deal was possible?
• I'd like to hear how the GOP would have achieved a better outcome:
• Vast majority of centrifuges idled (not sure if destroyed, or idled)
• Vast majority of their fissile material confiscated
• Fairly good access by int'l inspectors
• Hard caps on enrichment far below weapons-grade
• No one died
• Iran's carrot was to greatly set back their bomb production, and the 5+1's carrot was lifting economic sanctions. It was a fair swap, like a prisoner exchange.
• In the GOP dreamworld, I am sure that they would hope to get 99% of what they want, while Iran settles for 1% of what they want. But unless you have hypnotism powers or a gun to their head, how do you get them to just fold and agree to your demands? A deal has to be mutually beneficial, and even if you are worried about benefiting your enemy, you accept a deal where the net gain to you is larger than no deal at all. And as I stated above, no deal was a bad situation.
• What else did critics want, a full regime change, recognition and peace with Israel, and renouncing of terrorism? If they want those things, then they'll have to pay for it (or at least build some relationship/trust first). So far, all they have given Iran is hate.
• They think Obama is weak and America shouldn't concede anything, we should just tell the world what's up and then they obey gratefully. Well the rest of the world isn't in awe of US "authority" like the GOP is, esp. after the War on Terror.  

• The Fox op-ed claims that Iran will exchange its partially enriched uranium for "raw" uranium that they can enrich in the future. There is no evidence that this will happen or the int'l community will accept this. And if you exchange the same mass of partially enriched U with 0% raw U, that will always make you further from a bomb. Fox needs to learn some math.
• Fox brought up more canards. The deal permits Iran to have some research centrifuges which could potentially improve enrichment. But there are so few of them that it can't make up for all the normal centrifuges that they have shuttered. So again, they are reaching for reasons to complain.
• I don't know much about the ballistic missile part of the deal. Maybe Fox is on to something there, but Iran's missiles can already reach Israel, Riyadh, and maybe Berlin. What does it matter if they can reach London too? They can't hit the US in the foreseeable future.
• Critics keep saying that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to get a bomb (a Bibi-ism). I just don't see any facts that support that claim. It's not a perfect deal, but no deal in the history of the world has been. If Iran can do all the sneaky things that critics claim to make a bomb, then they can do that without a deal too (and faster). Again, their argument is as well built as Bush's plan for post-war Iraq.
• And the GOP are some to talk: they haven't brokered a meaningful and legit int'l deal since Nixon went to China. And if Nixon tried something similar today, he would get skewered by the right. 
• But all of this might not matter if Congress has a veto-proof majority to scuttle the deal anyway! 

---

It still seems early for a lot of criticism, NPR interviewee didn't know how they were eliminating currently low enriched uranium as of a couple days ago.  So I imagine new info will keep coming.

The big concern that most have is that this does pave the way to a bomb, it is just a long way.  Over the next decade or so they get increased centrifuge numbers, more low enriched uranium stockpile allowed, etc.  The presumption is at some point between now and then Iran will have money and start to cheat.  And they will cheat for some amount of time before they get caught.  And at that time will the community bring back all the sanctions?  Will Iran have enough cash to not be limited?  So now instead of poor with a bomb they are rich with a bomb and more time and money spent on delivery of the bomb.

Personally I think that isn't right and the real alternative they are arguing is hold the line until they have to be bombed.  

I also think money and access to world markets will bring about a lot of westernization to Iran.  The web, foreign investors, generic trade, all tends to make the regular people richer which leads to a desire for personal freedoms.  Same thing happening in China right now.  Iran is much younger and better educated, on average, compared to China I believe.  

Also, no chance for Congress to block it anyways.  Obama vetoes anything he doesn't like.

---

Yeah I agree that the criticism seems premature - like they're predicting a divorce during the wedding reception. They could be right, but it would be just a lucky guess at this point.

I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.

The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?

Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).

Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).

Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.  

---

Netanyahu's Congressional address on the Iran nuclear deal

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/03/congress-netanyahu-speech

I don't want to get into the weeds about how poorly argued and substantiated his speech was (the guests in the interview above do that, but just to give you a sense, Bibi said that Iran is competing with ISIS for global domination). But I don't fault him for trying. Like in game theory, it's all about the payoffs and priorities of each player. And with the same set of facts, rational and smart people can come to wildly different conclusions. From their point of view, they're totally right based on their goals.

Re: Israel-Iran, obviously the priority of a conservative Zionist regime is the preservation of the Jewish State at all costs, and keeping pressure on their enemies in perpetuity. No other cost consideration comes close (some IDF soldiers killed - better than getting nuked, angering the Arab world - they can live with that, upsetting the US and UN - they don't really need us anymore, and there are still enough diehard pro-Israel folks here to almost guarantee indefinite US support). So they will do anything to prevent a nuclear Iran or anyone making concessions to Iran or other enemies (which includes breaking protocol to address Congress).

US presidents and Israeli PMs disagree on stuff, and it can cost the PM his job if the Israeli public perceives that the PM is endangering the US-Israeli special relationship. That contributed to Bibi's ouster the first time around, as he butted heads with Clinton one too many times. But currently, I think the Israeli public is so fearful of a nuclear Iran that US relations are a distant concern (or they take it for granted, hence the persistence on expanding West Bank settlements). Even liberal press in Israel support Bibi's view (but not necessarily his methods) that the US should not give an inch to Iran.

Even if Iran's leadership is more moderate now, and with the proposed controls it's highly unlikely that they can develop and test weapons covertly, Israel can't even tolerate a 0.1% chance. So they will bomb if they need to, which will trigger a regional war of course - which I bet they think they can win (might be right, but what about the consequences to other parties?). Or they will try to derail the current negotiations, which in their opinion won't curb the nuclear development, but will ease sanctions and enable Iran to get stronger. They're in the mindset that Israel's enemies are insane genocidal religious fanatics who can't be trusted under any circumstance. So there's no point to negotiate - you know, the typical justification between enemies.

The irony is that the hardliners in Tel Aviv and Tehran want the same thing - no detente, no talks, and just cold/hot war (it reminds me of the plot of Star Trek 6). The talks were kicked off by the moderate/reformist regime of Rouhani (secret overtures to the Obama admin.), but he is on a short leash and has rivals. The nuclear program is one of their few trump cards, and it's by far their best card. He banked his political survival on this, so the hawks want his efforts to fail so they can assume power again - and fight the infidels their way. That is not a great outcome for anyone, especially the Iranian people.

Apart from the hawks, I'm not really sure what Iran's priorities and goals are. I know they want to get their economy going, and the people want to be part of the global scene (and they want better relations with the US and West). I guess the gov't still wants to keep tight control and develop a nuclear program for their prestige/leverage. But I don't know what their official stance is on foreign policy. Are they truly imperialistic as Israel claims? I think the problem with diagnosing aggression is that it's often rooted in fear/defense. Very few regimes just want to conquer and kill everyone (ISIS may be an exception, but they're not a state with leaders who are held accountable to anyone). We ostensibly invaded Iraq to make the world safer. It's possible that Iran supports Hizbullah and other Shia militias because they fear the Sunni and Western enemies all around them, not because they want to dominate the region. And even if Iran wants to become the most prominent power in the Mideast, the goal could be regime preservation in the face of potential aggression against them, not necessarily continued global expansion. But to Iran's enemies, of course they want to assume the worst motives. I wonder what the Iranians think the US and Israel want.

For the US, obviously we have an interest in the strength and survival of Israel (and the defeat of Islamist groups), but we also want to broker a 2-state solution and have Arab/Persian-Israeli peace. Or at least the absence of war, which would be disruptive to energy markets and global stability. Yes, some factions in the US want war in the Holy Land to bring about Armageddon, but I am not sure how prevalent and influential they are. We don't want Iran to nuke anyone, but we have a little more faith in their restraint than Israel does (esp. with the right incentives and threats in place). So the payoff we get from taking a chance on negotiation is maybe worth it to avoid isolation and escalation to war (which seems inevitable as long as hardliners are in power in Israel and Iran). So where does that leave us?

(#s are guesses for demo purposes)

ISRAEL

Negotiate -3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) 5

Fight Now 1

IRAN MODERATES (currently in power)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -3

Fight Now -5

US (5+1 nations)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -1

Fight Now -5

I am not sure how officially involved Israel is in the talks, but their goal is probably to change the 5+1's payoffs so that Negotiate becomes the least favored option (hence the references to Hitler and whatnot). Bibi actually said we should "make a better deal" (better for Israel of course), but that means he wants us to be more of a hard-ass. Though we know Iran won't just cave (this is their best card to play as I said, and they expect top dollar); they may walk away if our demands are too extreme. That would sink Rouhani and the reformers, and lead to the hardline war-is-likely outcome that some parties want.

The aftermath of the Gaza war

Some perspectives on the aftermath of the current Gaza war:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21610312-pummelling-gaza-has-cost-israel-sympathy-not-just-europe-also-among-americans?fsrc=email_to_a_friend
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14552

Sorry for the long commentary below. It just kinda snowballed and I thought these articles made a lot of interesting points.

As before, sentiment in Europe is generally more anti-Israel than in America. This is possibly driven by the larger Muslim populations in the EU, as well as those gov'ts more dovish politics vs. America's. However, the pro-Israel camp is chalking this up to deeply-rooted European anti-Semitism (affecting as many as 165MM Europeans according to some of their think tanks - but then again, when you are a hammer, you see nails everywhere). Strange that the "anti-Semitism" only rears its ugly head when the IDF murders scores of Palestinian kids. I guess they only come out when the liberal, pro-Hamas media incite them? Obviously that is ridiculous, and I think most Europeans don't have a problem with Israel (or worldwide Jewry) when that country isn't breaking laws and hurting people. Unfortunately, there has been some real anti-Semitism too. I am not sure about the death/damage from hate crimes, but some Jewish establishments in the EU have closed as a precaution until the war blows over. Still, some hateful words at an overseas rally is different than a modern military destroying lives and property of poor people, and not compensating them for it (as usual, the international community will pay the tab of Gaza rebuilding - only to be leveled again in the next war).

Globescan took an average of 20 countries' opinions on whether certain nations had overall positive or negative influences on the world. GER, CAN, and UK lead the pack with about a 3:1 ratio of positive-to-negative. US and China are similar at 1:1 (way to be a zero, USA! USA!). Israel is in between Russia and N Korea, at about 1:2 negative (however they can still gloat that they are better than Iran, at over 1:3 negative). I know opinion polls have limited value, and I don't know how they selected respondents, but this seems to suggest that world opinion is generally negative on Israel. Hamas/Palestine was not part of the survey, but I can imagine their rating would be pretty low too. Israel might chalk this up to ignorance or anti-Semitism again, but this survey was about a country's impact on the world, and more Jews live outside of Israel than within it. I think it's a reflection of gov't policies.

In the US, non-Republicans and Americans under 50 tend to evaluate Israel's actions in Gaza as unjustified, while older folks and Republicans (who tend to be Evangelicals) take the opposite view. Regarding age, this is likely influenced by memory - folks over 50 may actually remember the Arab-Israeli wars (when it was an old-fashioned army vs. army fight, not occupying bully vs. poor resistor). So that clouds their perception of the current conflict, and like Fox News, they may only see Israel as the innocent victim surrounded by strong, evil enemies. This is likely how the Tel Aviv propaganda machine wants us to feel, even if it's incompatible with current realities.

The West is also seeing Israel become less Western. The Economist says that this could be driven by the 1990s influx of 1MM Eastern European Jews who were less educated than previous waves of emigres, and not accustomed to democracy and Western thinking (they may have lived under the Soviet regime). They are part of the "might makes right" camp, and may be more accepting of brutality to ensure a strong, secure Jewish State. This has manifested itself in internal media censorship, marginalization of the peace movement, more racism toward Palestinians, and possibly the rise of Likud over Kadima a few years ago. The West may have less in common culturally with Israel now, thereby reducing the likelihood that we will agree on policies, priorities, and tactics. Maybe that is why many in the West are outraged about the civilian casualties and expect the IDF to hold themselves to higher standards than that. Whereas the Israelis may take it less seriously, or prefer to focus on Hamas' role in the casualties - whether accurate or not (stop using them as human shields, if you didn't fire rockets we wouldn't have to invade in the first place, they don't accept our right to exist, etc.). Still, allies don't have to totally understand each other to have a fruitful relationship. However, what has the West really gotten out of its relations and investments in Israel? Israel would say that they are the front lines of the War on Terror (similar to Pakistan, but the difference is we fully acknowledge the problems associated with our partnership with Pakistan), and they keep madmen like Assad and Ahmadinejad in check. I don't buy that, because Sunni nations in the area can fill that role if Israel wasn't involved (and they would likely do it less belligerently). Israel obviously contributes a lot of good to the world in terms of science, commerce, and human capital - but I seriously question their value to US strategy/interests in the region (esp. for the price tag - both financial and perceptual).

Israel could be reacting to this souring Western sentiment in 2 ways, both of which are not helpful for the future. (1) If Europe and younger, non-Republican Americans are so anti-Semitic, we won't be able to count on them when times get tough. Therefore, let's just do what we want and not care about their opinions. Pro-Israel lobbying will make sure US aid will still flow and we'll prevail. (2) We need a PR offensive in the West. To counter all the pro-Palestinian lying voices on social media, let's shout louder and re-hash the IDF's talking points. Westerners are just being deceived; let's show them the truth.

Re: (1), it's never a good thing when a state is accountable to no one. It's not that Israel isn't reliant on other nations (not necessarily for survival, but they are not immune to sanctions either), but those partners are unlikely to administer the tough love if Israel oversteps its bounds. Or in other words, people may rather let Arabs/Palestinians suffer than dealing with the costs of disciplining Israel. Re: (2), it's sometime true that many people will believe a huge lie, but usually the public can sniff out BS. I say this time and time again, but if your side is so right, why do you need to bend over backward to convince people? It should be self-evident. Like no matter how many millions the Chinese spend on PR and what defaming things they say about the Dalai Lama, I think very few non-Chinese will side with them on the Tibet issue. 

---

Regarding the fragile ceasefire now and potential peace resolution, Norman Finkelstein (the DN link) has an interesting, and disconcerting take. The vast majority of Israelis support actions like the current Gaza war (because they feel it makes them safer, costs them little, and hurts their sworn enemy), and are not that serious about working hard for a two-state solution (little to gain from their perspective and potentially a lot to lose in terms of national pride/Zionism and security). Unfortunately, their history in Gaza has only reinforced this. After Sharon pulled the settlers out, Hamas took over and the rockets started to rain down. Israel was "forced" to invade at least 3 times. Maybe some in Israel feel that it was better when they outright controlled Gaza (now they are more like prison guards). So the land-for-peace model seemed to fall on its face, and Israelis may have less faith in it for the future.

So re: Gaza, some refer to it as "mowing the lawn." Every now and then, they have to blow stuff up, to keep them off balance for the next time Israel "has to" invade. So this current invasion is not about the 3 Israeli teens, not about the rockets, and not about the tunnels supposedly infiltrating Israel proper (you see how the gov't changed its premise for war mid-stream just like the Bushies?). Regarding the teens, there is no proof that Hamas was behind that, and some new evidence suggests the contrary. That was a tragedy, but not justification for a war. Regarding the rockets, the new Egyptian regime (that took over after Mubarak) destroyed most of the smuggling tunnels on that border, so it is very unlikely that Hamas is well stocked or equipped with newer "super rockets" from Iran that are supposedly deadlier. Regarding the tunnels into Israel - a tunnel has 2 openings, right? Why go through the effort of invading Gaza and killing thousands when Israel can just destroy the tunnel openings on their side any time they want (if such tunnels exist)? Also, attacking hospitals and a power plant have nothing to do with those stated goals. So this war is more and more looking like just mowing the lawn. They learned their lesson from the problemating Lebanon invasion. They don't want Hamas to "fortify" Gaza and make it harder for them if a serious invasion becomes necessary. Hamas is a lot weaker than Hezbollah, but they have been building tunnels and defenses within Gaza. That could help explain why the IDF death toll this year was around 60 soldiers, vs. 10 in their 2008 Cast Lead invasion. But they have spent this month destroying all that Hamas stuff. So clearly Gaza is not "independent" if Israel has this level of destructive influence on a whim.

Finkelstein thinks that the ceasefire will hold because Israel has finished mowing the lawn for now. Israel ends an invasion when (a) their objectives are met or (b) there are no more targets to attack except ones that would involve an unacceptable level of civilian or IDF deaths. Even the IDF realizes that if they went deeper into the most populated areas of Gaza, the death toll could be 5-10X higher, and then they might have real issues with the int'l community. Also, if they press on, they risk losing more soldiers - and being a conscript army, the Israeli public is very sensitive to losses. That's why they bomb targets to hell (in spite of collateral damage) before they put boots on the ground. But still, no more targets are available in Gaza without incurring higher risks. He also predicts that Hamas will agree to peace with the conditions that the blockade is lifted and Fatah polices the border crossings. That would essentially neutralize Hamas' ability to put up any meaningful resistance in the future, and I am not sure how many functional rockets/ammo they still have in storage. So in a sense, this lawn mowing strategy has worked for Israel. The rockets and small IDF losses were minor annoyances, but they eventually may get Hamas to disarm and fade out of relevance. If that plays out, it would set a scary precedent for Israel and other occupying powers. Take the hard-line approach but blame the resistance for the violence. You have the resources and staying power, so keep the pressure on and starve the resistance into irrelevance. This is pretty much what Syria, Sudan, and Russia did/are doing. So no one has to make a deal or make concessions for peace, you can beat the resistance into submission.

Is Israel's invasion of Gaza good for their interests?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/sean-hannity-russell-brand-response-geraldo_n_5637081.html

This is the only time I'll be referencing a Hannity video. :) When even the united front of FNC is fraying over Israel's conduct in Gaza, you know the conflict has turned a page. Geraldo, a self-proclaimed Zionist who "would die for Israel" and apparently has a Star of David tattoo, said that the excessive carnage caused by the IDF is counter-productive to the interests of the Jewish State. It's increasing anti-Semitism (or at least reducing support for Israel), and not getting any closer to their stated goal of disarming/destroying Hamas.

Israel has air superiority. Why can't they have gunships and drones circling 24-7 to shoot at potential missile sites BEFORE they launch? Returning fire on a site where fighters may have already vacated seems stupid - especially when that site is a humanitarian one. And shelling is the worst military response - lower accuracy and higher chance of collateral damage. That is the lazy man's approach (which also shows a lack of caring, especially when they have other options at their disposal). Bullets may also hit the wrong people, but at least it won't level buildings and crush kids. I am not sure if Hamas has surface-to-air missiles, but it seems to me that Israel is not making all reasonable efforts to minimize risk to noncombatants. This is possibly due to the perception among some in Israel that all Gazans are fair game because they dislike Israel and tolerate/support Hamas.  

But since the Torah gets invoked from time to time on this issue, take a look at Genesis 18. God would even spare all of Sodom if he could find 10 innocents living among the wicked. I am not a Bible expert, and it seems that Sodom got wiped out by fire and brimstone later (maybe no innocents were found? :P), but I think there are at least 10 innocents among the slain in Gaza. I wonder what the IDF rabbis would say to that. And Abraham is the PATRIARCH of the Jews, not some peacenik or Israel hater.

Abraham pleads for Sodom:

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him." 20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?" "If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it." 29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?" He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it." 30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?" He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." 31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?" He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it." 32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it." 33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Where are the consequences for Israel for Gaza?

A pretty good summary of the Palestinian's plight from Rashid Khalidi: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/collective-punishment-gaza

Maybe few people really care about the Palestinians' suffering, but I hope that these current atrocities at least make the Israelis disgusted enough with their gov't/military to demand some changes. If they follow the outside free press, Israelis can't be happy with the commentary (much less the actual actions carried out ostensibly for their protection). Possibly the int'l community could consider boycotts/sanctions/colder relations with Tel Aviv, because after all we did that to Apartheid South Africa, Cuba, and Iran - and those regimes were far less murderous. Someone has to be held accountable, but alas the US has veto power in the UN.

It may not make much difference anyway, when the US continues to support the Israeli machine. Major figures on the Hill (incl. "progressive" leaders) denounced the UN report of Israeli war crimes and reiterated their unwavering support. In Washington, no major figure made a statement after the UN school bombing left 15 kids dead (only Obama's WH press secretary said it was "indefensible"), but when reports surfaced that Hamas may have kidnapped ONE Israeli soldier, you'd think Pearl Harbor was bombed again. In light of the outrageous body counts this month, the deadlocked Congress was able to overwhelmingly approve $225MM for the Iron Dome (maybe that is just a "defensive" system, but the donation frees up funds for Israel to buy offensive weapons). No infrastructure bill, no jobs bill, no immigration bill (until today at least), and no progress on the multitude of other pressing issues. In light of all the spending cuts and austerity, we will continue to finance the killing of unarmed noncombatants. I don't get it.

Another good interview if you can't get enough misery and injustice: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us

Millennials are less supportive of Israel than older Americans: link

The Jewish identity and Birthright angle of the Israel-Palestine conflict

"...the rabbi spoke of those who hate Israel and hate the Jews, but did not speak of the Israeli army, which is burning children alive; did not condemn the hate of Israelis for Palestinians. He spoke of peace, but he spoke of peace as a thing to force on the Gaza strip, not a thing for both sides to work toward... I think no one can possibly be reading the Torah anymore because this is not what we were told to do, this is not how we were told to act, and if you believe Israel is yours because God says so, how can you ignore the rest of what he said?"

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/26/israel_is_not_my_birthright/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

"After the 2006 Lebanon war, Brandeis researchers found that Birthright alumni were more likely than other young American Jews to view Israel’s military conduct as justified... Initially, [American youth turned fallen IDF soldier Max Steinberg] didn’t want to go on the Birthright trip, but once he did, it changed him... It turns out that it’s not that hard to persuade young people to see the world a certain way and that Birthright is very good at doing it."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/max_steinberg_death_how_birthright_convinces_american_jews_to_embrace_israel.html

Israeli and Palestinian motivations for war and peace

As usual with Israel and the west bank, is there a good guy here?  From Israel's standpoint there doesn't seem to be a path to a "free" Palestine that doesn't threaten Israelis.  On the other hand this is an overwhelming force advantage for Israel that is killing civilians in large numbers.  

So while I agree perception of support can be tough in either case we are stuck with bad options and diplomatic dead ends.  

----

I am curious - how would a free Palestinian state actually threaten Israel more than the status quo (and the facts suggest that Jews are very safe in Israel today, just as most Americans are very safe from Jihadists)? That is of course contingent on Hamas being marginalized/under control and Fatah mostly running things, but even if a Pal. state was run by Hamas, they are not exactly ISIS. What could they do to Israel that they are not already doing now (i.e. what do they have to lose to give peace a chance)?

The settlements (populated by some of the most extremist elements of Jewish society) are provocative to Palestinians and frankly unsustainable for Israel. You get rid of them, and IMO the Palestinians have one less reason to fight. Same thing with the checkpoints, embargo, night raids, etc. I think Israel has the most to fear from the hardcore Zionists if they broker a peace accord. The zealots would try to overthrow the gov't (like our Tea Party on crack), feeling betrayed because all the land was promised to them by a 3K year old book (remember how some Zionists revolted when Sharon - who is far from a peacenik - had the IDF remove the settlers from Gaza?) Out of respect, I accept the Zionists' rights to their beliefs - but then they have to accept the costs that such beliefs impose. So to reiterate, I think the Israeli government's lack of interest in peace is not really driven by the Palestinian "threat", but a fear of the domestic repercussions. And maybe after such a long track record, I think it's fair to say that racism/bad blood/hubris are also a factor - the Israelis in power don't want to give the Palestinians (who they see as beneath them) the "victory" of peace and a self-governed homeland of their own. They may prefer to fight forever (and punish the Palestinians forever), because they know they can't lose and no one will stand in their way (apart from maybe a suicidal, nuclear Iran in a very unlikely scenario).

I think this is the 5th invasion of Gaza in 12 years. I don't think their objectives are purely security driven either. It's punitive and frankly mean/sadistic depending on your point of view. There's no strategic need to attack ambulances, hospitals, and international monitors/press. But that is what they do. Like what Efrati said about the Territories - some of what the IDF does is just to show everyone who's running things. That is not righteous, that is not defensive... it's bullying. And it's not just punishment for the Gazans choosing Hamas (as if they really had a choice), because the IDF is operating harshly (but obviously less harshly) in the W Bank too. IMO, all of it is punishment for the Palestinians refusing to fade away quietly into the night. They simply won't just die off or go away, and let the Jews enjoy their purely Jewish homeland. So the IDF and Israeli gov't are going to make their lives hell in perpetuity. Clearly it could be worse; it's not like the IDF is employing Boko Haram or North Korea tactics every day. The IDF/Israeli gov't have some decency/limits/respect for laws of course, but I feel that their disturbing actions/policies are permeated by this undercurrent of bigotry/bullying/resentment/what have you.

Maybe what I've said in this email is pretty controversial and offensive. I am sorry for that, but this is my assessment of the situation. I have to emphasize that my criticisms are focused on the Israeli military/gov't (run mostly by extremists) and the sectors of society that enable/profit from the Occupation/violence. I know that many Israelis are rational people who would love to give peace a chance. But like the Keret article, they may be under a lot of social/ethnic pressure to just toe the line and go along with what the Jewish State declares. And for the record, plenty of Israeli civilians and IDF reservists, active, or retired soldiers have spoken out against these tactics and/or refused to participate (sometime under physical threat from hawkish Jews).

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/24/amidst_brutal_operation_in_our_name
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=795070259362236467#editor/target=post;postID=6027526199283616770;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=78;src=postname
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/25/israel
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-07-24/anti-war-voices-israel-face-threats-and-violence

----

Clearly Israel isn't the categorical good guy.  Sort of my point.  But before Gaza or Palestine becomes independent, is there any other Islamic state (or ethnically middle eaten state) that either doesn't or hasn't wanted to destroy Israel?  Are there democracies anywhere near as free or open as Israel?  Compare Palestinian acceptance in Jerusalem to Jewish acceptance in Tehran or Dubai or Baghdad or pick a place.  

While you might argue it can't be worse and perhaps that is true the position of power Israel has over Palestine could never be accepted over a sovereign country.  And whether or not that is moral from the Israeli state's perspective it is better for security.  Unless you believe a free Palestine won't elect Hamas or be an enemy to Israel.

----

Well, Israel and Egypt have had a long-standing peace (mostly brokered and paid for by the US). Turkey is a big military trading partner with Israel. And I am fairly sure that Pakistan, Indonesia, and others don't want war with Israel any time soon. In fact, the 30K minority of Jews still living in Iran are generally not mistreated (it is the most Jew-friendly nation in the region outside of Israel, despite the stupid things that Ahmadinejad has said in the past). So in the Iranian case, it seems Persians justifiably dislike the actions/policies of the Israeli gov't, and do not wish harm on all Jews (dispelling another Israeli myth). I believe that is the case for many Arab-Muslim countries. A lot of countries don't like each other in the world, but they generally know how to coexist or at least refrain from violence. The other Arab-Muslim states have not attacked Israel for decades, if ever.

I think Israeli propaganda often exaggerates the hatred and "mortal dangers" they are under, when they are often the aggressor and clear economic-military power in the region (with strong US backing). Part of that may be intended to elicit Western sympathy, due to the emotional associations with past persecutions. Jews have not been treated well for most of history, but those bygone events do not really characterize the Jewish situation in 2014 (other peoples today are suffering much worse ethnic persecution with less ability to defend themselves - such as the south Sudanese, Syrian Sunnis, etc.).

Just because many of Israel's neighbors have a comparatively worse record on freedom, good governance, and tolerance - I'm not sure if that absolves Israel of its failings in those areas. Keep in mind that Israel doesn't really have a free press vis-a-vis Palestinian matters, Israeli Arabs are institutionally discriminated against, Jewish fundamentalists sometime terrorize moderates and non-Jews, and the Israeli gov't is responsible for more war crimes and civilian deaths than most of its neighbors (except for Saddam's Iraq and Syria recently). A growing % of Israelis openly chant "kill all Arabs" just like the converse (i.e. there is mutual hate and no side is "innocent").

I believe that an independent Palestine will not be a greater threat to Israel than the status quo of Palestinian abject poverty and armed resistance to occupation. Most peoples in the world do not want to live under a religious fundamentalist regime. Palestinians and Arabs might like/support groups like Hamas-Hezbollah because they are the only ones with the audacity to fight back against Israeli oppression (propaganda from their side glorifying the struggle and making them look like heroic martyrs). But in the absence of war/occupation, their status/raison-d'etre fades away, and they are exposed as horrible rulers that few people endorse (people generally prefer dancing and booze over burkhas and beards). So that is why I think it is highly unlikely that Hamas would come to lead an independent Palestine, much less rally the country to fight Israel state-to-state (which would be a sure victory for Israel).


Again, I think Israel's fear-mongering over the 2-state solution (or giving any concessions to Palestinians) is a propaganda play. Their reasoning is basically: why give Palestinians more rights/land/etc. when their only goal is the destruction of Israel? They assume (or want us to believe) that Palestinian violence is driven by unrelenting anti-Semitism and suicidal intolerance, when in fact it is mainly resistance to Israeli brutality/injustice. Hate obviously plays a role, but rarely in history have the oppressed not expressed hatred against their oppressors. And that may be one of the Palestinians' key strategic flaws - they didn't have the courage/discipline to stick to nonviolent resistance a la Mandela/Gandhi. But maybe they figured that approach would likely fail due to Western support/bias for Israel?

"Israel's other war" by E Keret

"We are faced with the false, anti-democratic equation that argues that aggression, racism, and lack of empathy mean love of the homeland, while any other opinion—especially one that does not encourage the use of power and the loss of soldiers’ lives—is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Israel as we know it."

Another quality op-ed from Keret, questioning why some people expect others to show love for country with such extreme hatred for the "enemy", and intolerance for any other opinion besides total unwavering support for war. His article also reminded me of America after 9/11, and sadly Germany between the wars too: the terrible right-wing nationalist rhetoric that the country would prevail if it wasn't for "the enemy within" subverting their efforts. If Israel wants to level Gaza to the ground, nothing can stop them - not dissidents, liberals, traitors, or Arab-lovers. Same thing with America in Iraq - we can destroy the whole country if we wanted to. But the question is: will that make us safer? Will our unrestrained violent actions prevent the enemy from ever returning? Of course the answer to the second question is "no" (if the IDF could magically wipe out Hamas, another org would take its place), and the answer to the first question is still a source of debate.

And as Jon Stewart said, showing concern for the gratuitous murder of women and kids in Gaza is not the same as supporting Hamas and being anti-Semitic. I thought the person who killed kids (or condoned others doing it) was the asshole. Now in Israel (and sometime in the US), it seems that the real asshole is the person expressing regret over child killings. Sometime we have to step back, take a deep breath, and recognize the insanity of our prejudices.

Furthermore, the intolerance of dissent from ostensibly free societies is really troubling. Disasters occur when people don't speak up and allow biases people to make rash decisions. If the hawks are so certain of the righteousness of their cause and soundness of their strategy, then why squelch debate? If I know that 2+2=4, what do I have to fear from the person claiming that the answer is 5? Maybe the hawks are worried that the disloyal, subversive cowards will convince the gullible populace that the answer is actually 5, and support will turn against them. If that is the case, then that exposes the utter contempt that the hawks have for the intelligence of the citizenry that they claim to be protecting.

Resistance Suppression and the IDF

A friend shared this video with me from a former IDF soldier (Eran Efrati) who was so troubled by his experiences in the Territories that he is now a spokesman for a group trying to spread the word to Israel proper and the outside world on the injustices and implications of the Occupation. It's 40 min, but worth it IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93hqlmrZKd8&sns=em

Some highlights:

-When Efrati was a boy, he remembered his grandma crying hysterically at night from PTSD from her Nazi death camp experience. It jarred him to the bone when he heard a Palestinian mother crying the same way after his unit killed her unarmed son.

-In Operation Cast Lead (the first Gaza invasion in 2008-9), the IDF ground troops were surprised with what they saw. They were pumped up to kick ass and do the urban fighting that they had been trained for, but by the time they set foot in Gaza, there was nothing left to fight. The navy and air force had already destroyed everything, and all they saw were rubble and corpses.

-While the US still gives Israel billions in aid (some of it military), Israel also has a billions-dollar war export industry. They have sold/currently sell resistance suppression tools/training to foreign governments - some of whom are terribly repressive and undemocratic (Pinochet's Chile, Mobutu's Congo/Zaire, Apartheid SA, the PRC). So they have a financial incentive to continue the Occupation, and even use the Territories as a "lab" to try out new innovations.

In the end, I think Efrati presented a good message for the US audience: we might not care about the Palestinians who are so far away, but we could be next - because US police are getting Israeli training to be more brutal and militaristic. If one day we have to protest our gov't, or we become the "enemy of the state", then we will be treated like the new Palestinians. Who in the world is going to help us, if we never bothered to help the Palestinians? I hope our laws and rights will protect us if that dark time comes, but clearly many people have had their rights violated by the cops (and gov't) during the War on Terror, OWS, and just crossing the street.

Bill Maher on the militarization of the US police (which seems to be enabled by resistance suppression training/tools tested in the Territories). Ironically, Maher spent the first half of the show crapping on the Palestinians and praising Israel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVywCqvmC0E

Peace in the Holy Land?

Vice News video series on the killed teens, rockets, and air strikes

Op-ed on the difference between wanting peace and being willing to compromise with your enemy

This is obviously not a new story, but I think Keret raises a good point regarding attitudes and conviction about the peace process in mainstream Israel. I think a lot of people on both sides would like "peace", but what they really mean is justice/vengeance/possibly genocide on the Palestinian side, and winning (or at least preserving their many advantages) on the Israeli side. But it's very scary if Israelis take a passive attitude towards peace, like it's not something that their hard work will achieve. It will either happen or it won't - or much worse - it can only come from Yaweh.

How about the people on both sides (especially decision makers) who are willing to give things up and help the other side for peace? Are they labeled as out-of-touch doves? Clearly peace benefits all parties except the bigots, zealots, and hawks on both sides. I really hope they are the minority, but unfortunately they have a lot of institutional power.

Let's dispel some myths though:

1) Israel is the only free society in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs do enjoy a much better quality of life and more rights than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but they are clearly 2nd class citizens. Do you think they would be treated fairly if they were on the verge of overtaking ethnic Jews in the voting base? Israeli actions in the West Bank are clearly undemocratic and actually illegal/war crimes in some cases.

2) Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Even if Hamas' primitive rockets and suicide bombers had murder rates on par with their "heyday" during early 2000's, it would take them 8,000 YEARS to kill just 1/3 of Israeli Jews (2M at a rate of 250/year). Yes, it is unacceptable for your neighbor to try to kill your people every chance they get, but security measures like the Wall, checkpoints, and now the Iron Dome (even with 15 sec smartphone alerts) are so effective that the chances a rocket kills someone or a suicide bombers gets through are almost nil. Obviously Israel should remain diligent and prevent Hamas from acquiring more powerful weapons, but they don't have to over-react to each murder which only exacerbates the violence cycle.

3) Israel has the moral high ground because its forces are less barbaric than Hamas. Clearly Israeli society is more developed and peaceful than the Palestinians', but we're not exactly comparing apples-to-apples. In an asymmetrical war, the disadvantaged side has no choice but to turn to barbarism. That doesn't absolve them of guilt, but it's a pretty weak argument for Israel to say, "At least we try to avoid killing civilians; that is Hamas' explicit goal." Their marketing materials here. Israel still has killed way more kids than Hamas could ever dream of. Maybe some of that is due to Hamas' human shield strategy, but still - no one forced the IDF to pull the trigger (and to their credit, sometime the IDF does abort missions if the civilian presence is too great). But they often value the chance of hitting their target greater than the kids who were in the way. And that is something that most civilized societies would discourage. Still, I think the world is immune to the images of grieving parents and charred remains. Apart from Amnesty Int'l and whatnot, no one is outraged by Palestinian deaths anymore. So both sides should abandon this futile approach.

---

I was thinking about the following proposal, and others have likely presented it already. Hamas is a big obstacle, or at least their military wing (i.e. the difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA), to a prolonged ceasefire. Israel can't defeat Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. militarily without breaking many laws, killing thousands, and isolating themselves internationally, so why don't they incentivize Palestinians to do it - hopefully peacefully? Israel has punished all of Gaza for their political choices, with a crippling (and illegal) embargo and occasional air strikes/invasions - causing terrible poverty/social problems on par with Afghanistan. Therefore, why can't Israel enter into a binding contract with the peaceful portion of Palestinian society:

Get Hamas to disarm/disband and have Gaza form a unity gov't with Fatah. Stop the weapons smuggling and dealings with Iran. Allow int'l inspectors to enforce that. If they do, then Israel will 100% lift the embargo, donate billions in development aid/jobs/services, and allow a partial return of West Bank property to Palestinians with legit claims. If the Palestinians violate the contract, then Israel has the right to go back to the status quo, and vice versa.

Both sides have reasons why they want/need to continue the killing: Israel to protect itself and defeat Hamas; Hamas and its supporters because they have nothing to lose - life is so shitty for them they might as well resist to the death. Take both of those reasons away, and then peace becomes the rational option. But as the Keret op-ed suggested, this will require both sides to take a risk and give up something that they hold dear (the right to resist for Palestinians, a military stranglehold for Israel). Of course this is 99% unlikely, since there is so much entrenched distrust/hatred, on top of the segments of their societies that actually like the status quo. Add to that the religious extremists who believe that their side has divine claim to all the land and a mandate to wipe out the other side.

The dangerous sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hezbollah-launching-offensive-profoundly-change-164121898.html

I haven't brought up Syria before because I am not well versed in the details, and frankly it's just depressing. But some recent turn of events have made things even more complicated and impactful.

- The civil war is about 2 years old, almost 100K Syrians (and some famous Western journalists) have died, and about 20% of the population is internally or externally displaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

- Israel has bombed a supposed weapons shipment to Hezbollah near the border. They may have also bombed a weapons facility in Damascus last month. We are used to thinking that Jihadi groups are also anti-government because most dictators in the Muslim World are kind of secular. But in Hezbollah's case ("The Party of God" formed to oppose the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon), they are explicit allies of Iran (a Shia theocracy and Shia majority nation) and Syria (neither of those). But Hezbollah is Shia and they support Assad against the rebels who are majority Sunni. So things are taking a nasty sectarian turn.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/

- The regime or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in combat, which would violate the "red line" established by Obama as a trigger for escalation. But it's doubtful. However, America's #1 concern there is probably the containment of those WMDs. Even if Assad is toppled, who will control and distribute his stockpile?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166580524/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-civil-war

- We know that Iran and Russia (and China sort-of) support Assad's regime because they are strategic/trade allies, and Assad as seen as a counter to Israel and US "domination" of the region. So they have blocked stronger EU-led actions against Assad in the UN, and continue to ship high tech weapons to Damascus in spite of global condemnation.

- The EU embargo on weapons trade with Syria just expired, so the UK and France are considering arming the rebels (but which rebels is a big question). The UN has opposed this, and the US doesn't want to go down that route for obvious reasons, but has likely provided advisers and non-lethal resources to some rebels. We are trying to prop up non-Jihadi, pro-Western rebels, because unfortunately some of the most powerful and effective rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are Sunni extremists who have recently allied themselves with Al Qaeda (and therefore got on the global terror list and cut off from Western aid). So clearly we don't want to arm them and help them win, but we also want Assad to fall. Of course rebel groups are fighting each other too, as we saw in Libya. The West is caught in a terrible spot: Assad is a jerk and supported by orgs and nations we don't get along with. He is slaughtering his people, but he is also keeping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood out of power there. It's like Egypt but compounded by WMD containment fears.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-syria/

- As if that wasn't bad enough, the top link from Yahoo describes how Hezbollah is now actively sending in fighters to Syria to defend Assad, a noteworthy escalation (Muslim fighters flocking to Syria, like Afghanistan and Iraq before). This may help Assad cling to power but turn the populace against Islamic groups, though most of them have already picked sides. The Shia Alawites are the ruling minority; wealthier, urban, and aligned with Assad. So Iran, some of Iraq, and Hezbollah obviously support that side, and Saudi, Israel, and Al Qaeda oppose them (interesting "allies" indeed). Al Qaeda leaders have also urged other Muslims to go to Syria and topple Assad. The poorer, oppressed majority are Sunnis, who want Assad out either because they are pro-reform or hate Shia/Alawites or follow Salafi-Jihadi fundamentalist Sunni Islam like Al Qaeda. As we've seen in Iraq, both sides may think of the other as heretics, and both have a history of ethnic cleansing (BTW the Syria conflict is also inflaming sectarian tension in fragile Iraq now too). So Assad and the Shia see this as an existential struggle, because they fear that if the Sunnis take over, they will be slaughtered.

- So who should the West back and arm? It's a confusing mess. Some have said we should intervene on a humanitarian basis and protect civilians. Enforce a no-fly zone maybe. A few problems with that (that completely escape folks like McCain): Syria's air defenses are much better than Libya's or Serbia's. Syria has WMDs and delivery systems for them, unlike Libya or Serbia. Syria is next door to our allies in Iraq and Israel, unlike Libya or Serbia. You get the picture. I am not sure what the "right thing to do" is, but if we intervene militarily, it's going to be ugly with a lot of consequences. What I also fear is an escalating multi-nation sectarian war. We know that various groups are financially and militarily backing or opposing the various Syrian forces. And those backers don't like each other: Iran, Saudi, Israel, the EU, Russia, China, US, and NGOs connected to Jihadi terrorism. This proxy war may eventually evolve into an overt war. And if that happens, Iraq will look tame in comparison.

6 former Shin Bet (Israeli FBI) heads speak out about Israeli occupation

"[Shin Bet leaders] are practical. ...They have used all the measures — in order to suppress any kind of terrorist activity. These are the guys... that have conducted targeted assassinations, tortured people in order to get intelligence ... and at the end of the day when they look at the Israeli society and they are saying in a loud and clear voice, 'Enough of the occupation. We cannot win this battle. We have to try to compromise. If we try to eat the whole cake and not share it we will lose.' And this fact surprised me completely, because you don't think this is what a security official will think." - Filmmaker and former IDF soldier Dror Moreh

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/28/172706218/the-gatekeepers-offer-candid-assessment-of-israels-security

Shin Bet is Israel's anti-terror national security agency. Their retired leaders are not leftists, but probably center-right. They are proud of and have no problem with the tough tactics they practiced in the name of protecting Israel. But use them when necessary, and as part of a larger intelligent strategy. They criticize the out-of-touch right-wing leadership that is misusing the security services and not making Israel safer in the long run.

Since the 1970's, they have had to investigate Jewish terrorists too - usually settler religious fanatics who want war to fulfill scripture (so they fight the peace process and do things to provoke the Palestinians to violence, which would justify Jewish reprisals). This culminated in the assassination of Rabin, which opened the flood gates to much more illegal settlement activity by Israel's fringe right wing (great idea to allow the most radical, uncompromising Jews to live in occupied lands among angry Palestinians, huh?). Every time there is talk of abandoning settlements and such, these extremists rise up and even burn mosques and kill Palestinians. Shin Bet found it difficult to investigate and punish them though (and many were released due to political pressure from pro-settlement leaders). They stopped a plan to bomb the Dome of the Rock (one of Islam's holiest sites) which would have incited a global religious war, only to watch the smiling perpetrators get released to cheering crowds (that did not represent the Israeli mainstream).

Former PM Sharon was the "father" of the Israeli settlement program, but as the more centrist Likud leader, he saw that they were now a liability and hurting Israel's future. He pulled Israel out of Gaza and wanted to do the same in the W Bank (as part of a larger peace deal), but suffered a stroke and his leaderless party lost. Then right wing Bibi took power and peace was off the agenda. Sharon had the credibility to broker the deal because of his former hardline rep, but actually the extreme right in Israel was the biggest roadblock. There were plots to kill Sharon (and not by Hamas), maybe even more than those against Rabin.

One of the Shin Bet leaders, Avraham Shalom, grew up in pre-WWII Austria. He was almost beaten to death by his Austrian classmates for being Jewish. Now in old age, he compared the IDF occupation of Palestine with the German occupation of Europe (not the Holocaust, but the military occupation). "We have become cruel." That means a lot coming from a Jew who experienced the worst racism and occupation. 

Israel's blockade of Gaza

"Despite claims of self-defense, Israel has not defined a definitive purpose for the blockade, the achievement of which would indicate its end. Official Israeli goals have ranged from limiting Hamas's access to weapons, to seeking retribution for the pain caused to Israeli civilians, and to compelling the Palestinian population to overthrow the Hamas government" - N Ekrat

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/when-will-the-economic-blockade-of-gaza-end/265452/#

I guess we have the ceasefire to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. But when the stronger, richer neighbor nation imposes a clearly illegal, definitely immoral, and seemingly endless economic embargo (not even a military embargo), I think Hamas and the 1.7M Palestinian Gazans (some of the poorest people on the planet per capita) have actually shown great RESTRAINT in not responding with violence more often. I am not justifying their actions (though violent resistance against an oppressor is sanctioned under the rules of law), but the choice almost seems rational: fire rockets now and then to try to get revenge and some international attention, or starve to death silently and slowly, while the developed world is preoccupied with other matters. The IDF has even been known to shoot at aid workers and emergency responders during their clashes in Gaza.

Like most cases in history, the oppressing party imposes sanctions in the hope that the people suffer and get so fed up with the gov't that they overthrow it (but we've tried that for decades with Cuba and Iran with no results). Instead, could Israel change the policy to something like: they lift the embargo and allow the Gazans to have some semblance of human life, if Hamas agrees to honor the ceasefire and not stockpile rockets. Then they appoint neutral Arab League or UN monitors to inspect and patrol the streets, and alert the IDF of any suspicious military activity. If they or other surveillance pick up anything fishy from Hamas, the IDF can bomb those suspected sites to the Stone Age. But leave the innocent people alone for F sakes.

Some rough estimates on the 8-day conflict:

Palestinian rockets fired into Israel: 900 (their air defenses intercepted 300)
IDF air strikes in Gaza: 1,500 (and mind you Gaza is just 20 miles long)
Palestinian casualties: 100 (with probably 10X wounded)
Israeli casualties: I had troubling finding info on this, but I think on NPR it was under 20 dead, not sure how many injured

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20391558

--------

As of Wednesday, the number of Palestinian deaths was over 140.  There are some grim photos of children from this latest attack.

As far as Israel hoping the Palestinian people overthrow their govt.:  didn't they just elect Hamas?  And, what government from Gaza would be favorable to Israel?  You think they'd elect Netanyahu?  I think that would be the only satisfactory govt. for Israel.

This whole thing is about a land grab, clearing beachfront property for people born and raised in Long Island.  They have a  right of return to land they never lived on.  Meanwhile, people born and raised there are never allowed to return to Palestine.

--------

Thanks, L. Yeah that sure seems like what is going on. Make life so miserable that they just give up and disappear. But where do they go? Jordan and Lebanon have been housing Palestinian refugees since the 1947 partition. They can't take any more, especially now that there are more Syrian and Iraqi refugees to absorb.

So what choice do the Gazans have but fight to the death, if they're going to starve to death anyway? That's why I find the Israel's blockade so infantile and un-strategic. There are better ways to protect their Gaza border and encourage the Palestinians to reject Hamas. They could have supported Abbas more, improved conditions in the West Bank, free prisoners, etc. to show Gaza "the carrots" that await them if they vote Hamas out. But they treat the Fatah Palestinians like shit too (though clearly much better than Gaza): increased settlement building, roadblocks, demolitions, etc. that even Israeli courts have declared illegal. So Hamas actually look like heroes as the only ones with the guts to stand up to Israeli oppression. And I guess you can see that manifest in the Arab world, with the Turkish and Egyptian leaders expressing support, criticizing Israel, and visiting Gaza during the siege, when before they probably wouldn't have been so bold.

Israel is legitimizing their arch enemy. But the cynical side of me thinks that is the plan all along. Israel doesn't want peace. There is no scenario where they can lose to Palestinians, and no Arab state will go to war vs. Israel in the foreseeable future (much less win). Iran is the only existential threat, and even that is way over-hyped and premature. They can't defeat Iran unless they use their own nukes, which is probably why they want to trick the US into fighting the war for them (they fire the first shot, and then we have to intervene to "assist our ally" and make sure the region doesn't implode).

But getting back to Gaza, it seems like a Gulf of Tonkin situation. They are not even that diligent about preventing rocket smuggling. Probably because they know that the rockets are not a real threat to them (very few strikes result in fatalities, and their Iron Dome defenses seem to be able to shoot down 1/3 of them). But fear over rockets is a great political lightning rod to get the Israelis behind military aggression. They prod and provoke Hamas into launching rockets now and then, so of course the IDF is then justified to bomb them to the Stone Age or even engage in a ground invasion (a way disproportional "defensive" response). They get to flex their muscles and weaken Hamas by destroying infrastructure and assassinating leaders (not to mention send signals to Iran and others), so that is worth a dozen or so Israelis dead from rockets. The US is fine with this too ("Israel has the right to defend itself"), because we dislike Hamas and then our Sec of State gets to go over there and broker a ceasefire, making us look relevant. I don't think the US is serious about the peace process either. We had our chance in the '90s and now it's gone. Obama is not kowtowing to Israel at least, but he's definitely not showing them the necessary tough love either (well, domestic pressures make that virtually impossible). 

---------

Just a disclaimer that these comments refer to the Israeli government and IDF, and are not a reflection on the Israeli/Jewish people as a whole. I realize that I have described their actions as "scheming" and "treacherous", which may play into some negative historical stereotypes about Jews. That is not my intention, but I call their gov'ts actions the way I see them. Actually I have a lot of respect for the risks taken by the peace movement in Israel, as well as the IDF deserters who refused their gov'ts illegal orders to bomb Gaza civilians or bulldoze West Bank homes.

Adelson's money affecting politics in Israel too

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/18/162816525/sheldon-adelson-shakes-up-israeli-newspaper-market

Adelson started a right-leaning daily in Israel in 2007 called Israel Hayom, ostensibly to challenge the established left-leaning Ha'aretz and centrist Ma'ariv. It's a similar theme to Berlusconi, Citizens United, and Murdoch I guess. Except Adelson undercut the competition by setting ad rates below market for Hayom, and also made it FREE for readers (I still don't know how Hayom balances its books with that structure though - it's not like it's online only). The paper actually has a decent staff, so it quickly became the most popular in Israel and crashed sales for the others. And like the traditional US journ. titans, Hayom's rivals have an old bloated cost structure (because they are in the business of news, not profits) and can't compete - especially vs. free.

I am not sure how the laws are in Israel, but there are actually employees at Hayom who are also paid a side salary by Bibi Netanyahu's government. Maybe they missed the memo that free press doesn't refer to the cost of the paper, but the objectivity of the journalists! Obviously Hayom overtly supports Bibi vs. his challengers, and is his personal Fox News. I wonder if Hayom's rise has anything to do with the recent shift to the right in mainstream Israel, and lack of appetite for a peace deal with the Palestinians. Bibi is expected to win the next election in a landslide.

Romney's disastrous foreign tour

MITT actually stands for "totally not presidential material." He might have some business smarts, but if his worldview, reasoning, and understanding of history are so out of whack, then he is probably a more dangerous candidate than a total business-economics novice with a better "personality" (for lack of a more descriptive term at the moment).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/mitt-romney-palestinians_n_1718496.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I seriously think that you or I would have more foreign policy credibility and competence. I can't imagine what he'll pull on his final leg of his foreign tour, "dumb Polack" jokes? And the sad part is his campaign chose the UK, Israel, and Poland precisely because they are totally uncontroversial pro-America (and pro-GOP values) states - low-hanging fruit for Romney to build up his foreign policy chops. Or maybe it was just an overseas donation tour overshadowed by the Olympics?

For him to make those Israeli-Palestinian comments without historical context (and context is not exactly one of his strong points) is lower than grade school. It's the opposite of the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" argument by Diamond, who did extensive research to disprove the telologists who suggested that Eurasians came to dominate the globe simply because they are superior races/cultures (in actuality, they had massive geographical and environmental advantages, i.e. luck). Romney totally doesn't get the thesis of the book, even though he cited it to support his bizarre claim (I doubt he read it, and I really doubt Diamond is going to vote for him). Diamond does refer to culture, but only in a later and less important chapter. He basically wrote that geniuses and visionaries are about evenly distributed among peoples, societies, and eras. But effective cultures have institutions and norms in place to allow those great people to reach their full potential (which obviously helps their societies), while other cultures squander such human capital for various reasons. Diamond didn't even talk about wealth gaps or median incomes. But when a culture is under foreign occupation, obviously that's a different story and it's hard for the Einsteins and Pasteurs to fulfill their destinies. Like I said before, would Romney be Romney if he grew up in inner-city Detroit instead of his parents' suburban palace?

You can't just look at the end result from a particular set of circumstances, then make an overall value judgment. Phelps did not with the 200 fly recently - does that mean he's not a very good swimmer? If the Israelis were poor, persecuted, and plagued by inept government, embargo, air strikes, infighting, and being used as a proxy war pawn for 60 years, and the Palestinians got massive Western support and diplomatic cover, their histories would be quite different. It's pretty sad that a presidential candidate doesn't already get this. Actually it's kind of an interesting reflection on our times that Obama and Romney are even presidential candidates. The fact that America would seriously consider, and even elect, a person of Obama's background is a credit to our open-mindedness and tolerance today (as well as major Bush and DC fatigue). We're not post-racial and harmonious, but it's at least improving in some ways. And the fact that the GOP would nominate a guy like Romney (plus he has a decent chance to win) is a travesty, and may be an indication of our economic desperation and Washington dysfunction. Also contributing to that is of course backlash from all the groups that feel threatened by Obama's rise. These two men would have been inconceivable as candidates just 10 years ago, for better and worse.   

-------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/mitt-romney-israel_b_1721396.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

To simpleton conservatives, the narrative is just so much cleaner and palatable if you try to explain the inequalities in the world as purely based on merit and just consequences. Of course poor minorities are doing worse because they are lazy, and of course WASP and Jewish people are rich and powerful because they are just superior people with superior culture and a superior god. Obama's disruptive, compelling narrative is obviously incompatible, which is maybe why they hate him so much. Race is part of that, but I think it's also about a sense of order of the world - their traditional unjust order. Some people realize that there are many causes of inequality, and several are due to foul play, so we may want to enact reforms to try to ameliorate those problems - but of course the establishment forces will push back and cry socialism and treason. Inequality is inevitable, and maybe it can be beneficial. I forget the actual source, but someone on the right recently went so far as to say that a big wealth gap is good and motivating because it gives the poor a "role model" in the super rich, to aspire to and emulate. Maybe that is what US capitalism is, but it is not a recipe for a healthy society. Inequality may have its benefits, but it should not be achieved through cheating and injustice. I think we learned that in kindergarten (and I know it is part of the Church of LDS teachings). But if these "winners" are just so genetically and culturally superior, and destined for greatness anyway, then why the need to cheat your way to the top and keep others down? Though for Romney types, I guess the ends justify the means and he won't "apologize" for his success. How about Saddam and Escobar - they were among the richest people in the world for a time. They don't have to apologize either? Romney made his TV rounds and accused Obama and the Dems of being envious of people like him, and therefore wanting to tarnish his business reputation. When a football player injures his opponent with a dirty play and the referee issues a penalty, I don't think he's doing it out of envy or vendetta (well, maybe for everyone but James Harrison). For the good of the game (and the safety of the players), there has to be some order, respect, and standards of conduct. But people like Mitt just can't understand that it's not always about him. 

The Republican nominee must feel perpetual temptation to stimulate white discomfort with Obama while subtly celebrating white superiority -- a message that surely appeals to a core segment of voters.

Obama's rise (which inspired and emboldened some marginalized groups: minorities, immigrants, and the youth), plus the recession and erosion of the American Dream for many whites, has really upset some Americans out there. They feel like the "wrong people" are getting ahead. They're right, but they should be targeting their ire at other folks. The Tea Party tended to attack greedy, corrupt business at first, but then when the movement got corporatized and backed by the Kochs and such, then of course it's the federal gov. and unions at the heart of all those problems - those poor Fortune 500 firms are just like Blue Collar Joe, under Obama's jackboot. And for all their hating on "welfare moms" and "nanny government", isn't it comically hypocritical that some conservatives whites have a sense of entitlement that only they are allowed to succeed in America?

This ties back to Romney's Israel-Palestine comments. He believes it's the system and culture that make societies succeed or fail. If so, then why do he and conservatives want to gut the modern US system that, despite its warts, has created unprecedented prosperity for millions, as well as huge technological and intellectual advances since WWII? Why does he espouse policies that will make it harder for more Americans to realize their potentials (I know he doesn't feel that way, but sorry it's still voodoo economics)? Culture and system are the key, yet Romney wants to make it tougher for regular people to afford college, wants to make it harder for average people to access critical social services that will enhance their productivity and contributions to society, and such. I really hope Obama, the Dems, and the press call him out on this blatant contradiction.