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.

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.

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

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.

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.

With friends like Israel, who need enemies?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100315/wl_afp/mideastisraelusdiplomacy

I am pleasantly surprised that the Obama administration isn't just letting this slide. Maybe Israel doesn't have limitless credit at our casino after all. If they keep sabotaging the peace process by provoking the Palestinians and making us look like illegitimate peace brokers, it will only hurt them in the end. They are acting like spoiled brats, and treated Biden (the #2 guy of the world's lone superpower) like a chump when he was supposed to be a guest of the state. It's tragic how all of Obama's hard work and overtures to the Muslim World were mostly erased by his Afghanistan escalation and a few new apartments in Jerusalem.

The settlement BS is undermining Mahmoud Abbas' credibility, who is supposedly Israel's preferred negotiations partner instead of Hamas. He only has the trust of 1/3-1/2 of Palestinians as it is, but if he doesn't deliver solid progress, they will kick him in favor of a more radical voice. So all of Israel's games and nonsense are actually increasing the likelihood of a new Intifada, when instead they could actually seize this moment of relative calm to work out something lasting with the PA. But that tells me that Likud are not concerned with peace. They just want to keep the Palestinians divided, poor, and suppressed, the US government spinning its wheels, and the American public cynical and apathetic about peace prospects. Actually they're probably hoping for Ahmadinejad to run his mouth again or some sort of other Iranian provocation, in order to augment support for tougher sanctions and shift the spotlight from the Two-State Solution. Israel is fixated on defeating their more formidable Iranian foe; the Palestinians are but a mere nuisance.

I expect this from Bibi and the Zionist hard-asses, but I think it's kind of sad that some polls show that many Israelis don't care about peace with the Palestinians anymore. They "won" already, so why the need to make concessions for peace? They built their Berlin Wall so terrorism is near zero, the Gazans are poor and powerless, America is compliant, and their economy is flourishing. Israelis and foreign tourists are going to the beach resorts again. Why mess all that up with peace talks?

Like after the Hamas hit job in Dubai, all but the most dovish Israelis praised it with much national pride (like it was an Olympic gold or something). The target, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was a Hamas operative working to obtain arms from Iran (allegedly). Apart from that indirect threat, he hasn't lifted a finger against Israel in decades, and in fact was held and released by Israeli authorities multiple times. Why let him go if he was such a bad guy? He supposedly orchestrated the kidnapping and killing of 2 Israeli soldiers in 1989. So Israel went though all that effort and nearly got caught in a major diplomatic row just for 20-year-old revenge. And they have the nerve to call Hamas the extremists? Well it takes one to know one. I don't think we can downplay how serious this could have been for Israel if things went worse, like at Watergate. The US took a lot of heat and Americans were generally outraged when we learned about Extraordinary Rendition, faulty Iraq WMD evidence, and the outing of Valerie Plame by Bush's people. But in Israel, a similar scandal was celebrated as a great victory.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/228840
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/19/israel-britain-dubai-killing

The PR war in Gaza

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/31/israel.youtube/index.html

Apparently the Israeli government is so desperate for PR cover for their Gaza war that they have turned to Twitter and YouTube as marketing vehicles. Certainly an academic tool like Twitter facilitates high-level discussion of such a challenging issue, for example one of the Israeli consulate's responses to a user question: "we R pro nego...we talk only w/ ppl who accept R rt 2 live".

They have even compiled footage from their bombing runs ("Shock and Awe: The IDF's greatest hits!" ... but what about the misses that kill kids?). As if favorable coverage by most major US TV news org's wasn't enough, I guess they wanted to connect to the plugged-in generation. Why bother really - since most young people are too busy or don't care about conflicts half the world away anyway. And apparently the bloodshed in eastern Congo is 10X more gruesome than Gaza. But John Travolta's son died - priorities!

From the BBC on the propaganda war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7809371.stm

Israel released video of an air attack on 28 December, which appeared to show rockets being loaded onto a truck. The truck and those close to it were then destroyed by a missile. This was clear evidence, the Israelis said, of how accurate their strikes were and how well justified. A special unit it has set up to coordinate its informational plan put the video onto YouTube as part of its effort to use modern means of communications to get Israel's case across. The YouTube video has a large caption on it saying "Grad missiles being loaded onto the Hamas vehicle." As of Saturday morning UK time, more than 260,000 people had watched it.

It turned out, however, that a 55-year-old Gaza resident named Ahmed Sanur, or Samur, claimed that the truck was his and that he and members of his family and his workers were moving oxygen cylinders from his workshop. This workshop had been damaged when a building next door was bombed by the Israelis and he was afraid of looters, he said. The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem put Mr Sanur's account on its website, together with a photograph of burned out oxygen cylinders. Mr Sanur said that eight people, one of them his son, had been killed. He subsequently told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: "These were not Hamas, they were our children... They were not Grad missiles.".

The Israeli response was that the "materiel" was being taken from a site that had stored weapons. The video remains on You Tube. But the incident shows how an apparently definitive piece of video can turn into something much more doubtful.

It is reminiscent of an event in the Nato war against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, a video taken from the air seemed to show a military convoy which was then attacked. On the ground however it was discovered that the "trucks" were in fact tractors towing cartloads of civilian refugees, many of whom were killed.
Major Avital Leibovich [of the IDF], said: "Quite a few [media] outlets are very favourable to Israel."

Israel has bolstered its approach by banning foreign correspondents from Gaza, despite a ruling from the Israeli Supreme Court. But the absence of reporters from major organisations has meant, for example, that Mr Samur's story has not been as widely told as it probably would have been, or his account subject to an on-the-spot examination.

Meanwhile Israel has received good coverage of the threats and damage to its own towns and communities.The problem is that foreign correspondents cannot get in to establish the exact situation for themselves.

----------
And below is a 2008 time line of the Gaza conflict, so you can see which side was more prone to violating the ceasefire. Hamas attacks on Israel are in red (not very many, though for the record the website is Iranian). As you can see, it wasn't much of a ceasefire at all, but the rockets did stop for much of the second half of 2008. And when rockets were fired, they were in response to an Israeli incursion and not spontaneous/unprovoked. The BBC said that while Hamas was generally standing down this fall, Israel maintained and even strengthened its blockade, so millions continued to starve within Gaza, with few foreign journalists permitted to enter and document the suffering. Yet a stipulation of the June truce was that Israel would ease its embargo to give the Gazans some relief! So who really violated the agreement? The Bush White House and much of the US media claim that Hamas "started" this war by re-launching rockets. But actually it was an Israeli military operation in Nov. to destroy a smuggling tunnel that set Hamas off. Whether that attack was justified is another story, but it's not like Hamas was eagerly waiting for the truce to expire and then launched all its rockets. Neither side is innocent.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=79964§ionid=3510304

June 19: An Egyptian mediated ceasefire begins between Hamas and Israel. The Palestinian movement agrees to stop firing rockets as Israel accepts to gradually ease its embargo on the Gaza Strip.

July 27: Israel kills Shihab al-Natsheh, a senior Hamas fighter, in his house in the West Bank city of al-Khalil.

August 2: Three Hamas police officers and six pro-Fatah gunmen are killed in factional fighting in the Gaza Strip, the worst of such since June 2007.

October 8: Israel prevents Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) from entering the embattled Gaza Strip.

November 5: Israel raids houses in the Hamas-controlled region and arrests seven Palestinians.

Israel attacks areas inside Gaza, killing at least six Palestinians. Ghassan el-Taramse, a nineteen-year-old Palestinian activist, is killed in an Israeli air raid in the northern parts of the coastal sliver.

Palestinians fire several dozen rockets and mortar shells at western Negev in Israel in retaliation. No casualties or property damage is caused, but three women are treated for shock.

November 8: Israel violates the ongoing truce as its tanks and bulldozers cross the southern border of the Gaza Strip.

November 14: Hamas fires a barrage of homemade rockets at the city of Ashkelon. Four rockets are also fired into western Negev after Israeli air strikes wounded two people in Gaza.

November 15: Israeli air strike kills two Palestinians in the town of Beit Hanoun in Gaza.

November 18: Israeli tanks backed by a bulldozer and a military jeep roll half a kilometer into Gaza. The Israeli army claims the incursion is "a routine operation to uncover explosive devices near the border fence in the southern Gaza Strip."

November 20: An Israeli tank fires shells, killing a Palestinian fighter east of Gaza City.

November 23: The Israeli army wounds two Palestinian residents while shelling homes in various cities in the strip.

November 28: Israeli forces backed by tanks enter the southern parts of the coastal region and kill two Palestinians.

November 29: Projectiles fired from the Gaza Strip wound eight Israeli soldiers in an army base in the town of Nahal Uz.

December 02: The Israeli army launches air strikes into southern Gaza and kills at least two civilians and wounding four others.

December 17: Five Qassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip injure two Israelis in the southern town of Sderot.

December 18: A Palestinian man is killed in Jabaliya as Israeli aircraft target metal workshops in the towns of Jabaliya and Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military claims the targets are used to manufacture rockets.

December 19: The six-month truce officially ends.

December 20: Israeli launches air strikes on the northern Gazan town of Beit Lahiya, killing one Palestinian and wounding two others.

December 21: Palestinian fighters fire rockets into Sderot and Negev and one Israeli is wounded.

December 22: A twenty-four hour truce is declared between Israel and armed Palestinian factions at the request of Egyptian mediators.

December 23: The twenty-four hour truce expires.

Clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian resistance fighters leave three members of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades dead along the border fence in northern Gaza.

Six Qassam rockets are fired into western Negev. The rocket attacks do not hit any targets in Israel.

December 24: Gaza fighters fire two dozen mortar shells at three different targets inside Israel.

An Israeli air raid kills a Palestinian and wounds two others in southern Gaza.

December 27: Israeli F16 bombers and apache helicopters carry out at least 30 simultaneous raids on various targets across the Gaza strip. The operation kills at least 230 and wounds hundreds of Palestinians.

Hamas responds with rocket fire from Gaza and kills one Israeli in the southern town of Netivot.

December 28: Israel begins a fresh wave of air strikes. Israel deploys tanks and troops along the Gaza border. Tunnels in and out of Gaza are bombed.

A Hamas missile strikes near the largest city in the south of the occupied lands, the deepest reach into Israel to the date.

Global protests against the Israeli attacks begin.

Palestinian death toll rises to 296; 900 are injured.

December 29: The third day of attacks on the strip brings the death toll to 340. At least 1,400 Palestinians are wounded.

Muslim world announces day of mourning.

Two more Israelis are killed and one is injured.

December 30: Israeli air operations continue as Tel Aviv declares the area around Gaza a 'closed military zone'.

Israeli floats the idea that a ground invasion of Gaza is imminent.

Palestinian casualties rise to 360 dead and 1,500 injured.

December 31: Israel continues tunnel attacks and civilian casualties increase.

Hamas says Gaza will be victorious.

The UN and Arab League find no solution to end the crisis.

Palestinian death toll rises to 400 with 1,600 injured.

January 1: Israeli bombardments continue; first senior Hamas official dies in air attacks.

Israel denies a 48-hour request for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza by rejecting an EU truce.

Hamas calls for Palestinian protests; it rockets hit several positions.

417 Palestinians and 6 Israelis dead.

January 2: Curfew imposed on West Bank and foreigners are told to leave Gaza.

Top Israeli ministers discuss ground invasion into the Gaza Strip. The United Nations condemns Israel and describes situation in Gaza as "appalling".

Kadima, Israel's ruling party, losses ground in polls ahead of elections.

Death toll continues to rise.

No silent nights in the Holy Land this winter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801657.stm

We know that Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza have been hostile for some time over cross-border rocket fire, embargo, and retaliatory attacks. Israel, the US, and Fatah have done all they can to oust Hamas, yet they doggedly continue to hold power (could it be that some suffering Gazans actually prefer them to the corrupt Western crony alternatives?). Tired of the bloodshed that seems to accomplish nothing, Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce in June that persisted more-or-less violence-free until December. But now hostilities have resumed, with Hamas firing dozens or hundreds of rockets into southwest Israel, and the IDF launching a devastating bombing campaign that will probably preceed a ground incursion.

As usual, Israeli casualties total a whopping 1 civilian, and Palestinian deaths are 225 (plus 700 wounded), including some women/children. Gaza is one of the most densely-populated areas in the world. Hamas compounds are situated near hospitals and apartments; there's no way around it. Unless you're using a scalpel, you are going to kill innocents when you strike. Israel knows this, but insisted on such heavy bombing. Aid workers say they haven't seen such carnage in Gaza since the 1967 War. But I suppose that hundreds of poor Muslim lives don't count as much as a single Israeli. Speaking of that, did you find it strange that during the Mumbai terror attacks, the 6 Jewish victims seemed to get 80% of the press coverage vs. the hundreds of South Asians that also died? Most US news outlets even listed them by name, paying more respect than is customary even to American soldiers who have died in Mideast combat. Fair and objective for sure.

As Arab states used the Yom Kippur holiday to mount a sneak attack on Israel, maybe now Israel has chosen this Christmastime to destroy Gaza, while the West is preoccupied with gift wrapping and doorbuster sales. Plus the transitioning US government (the few left who aren't on holiday) is too busy with the economy and administration succession to do anything. And we all know they would just diplomatically shield Israel anyway, Obama included. The double-standard exceeds even the most paranoid, anti-Zionist expectations. Just imagine if we punished Israeli aggression to even a fraction of how we routinely deal with Arab dictators! To show that he was tough on foreign policy, Clinton breached the UN mandate and bombed Baghdad after a supposed "plot to kill former president Bush" surfaced. Dozens died. A while ago Israel razed Lebanon to the Stone Age, last year they bombed an alleged Syrian "nuclear site" without imminent threat or evidence, and this week they are laying waste to an already starving and suffocating Gaza. All we get from Washington and the UN is a "plea for calm". Or if anything, they blame Hamas rockets for instigating the whole mess (Hamas is not innocent, but Israel does account for over 90% of deaths in this war). Basically, the official State Department stance is: there can only be peace when Hamas/Palestinians lay down their arms and agree to all Western conditions. To them, peace equals surrender - brilliant diplomacy as usual.

And this isn't really about Hamas rockets, anyway. If it was, there would be no point for the IDF to bomb Hamas political offices on the Mediterranean coast (the part of Gaza furthest from Israel and not cointaining rocket sites), which they are doing. Additionally, there is a huge election coming up in Israel next month. The current ruling party is trailing in the polls to the more hardline oppostion led by ultra-right hawk Benyamin Netanyahu. Some Israelis are demanding tougher action on the panic-driven rocket threat. Yet others worry that Israeli attacks can't stop the rockets anyway, and may even provoke harsher Hamas retaliation. And that is true; no matter how many buildings they bomb and how tightly they squeeze the Gaza border, somehow people will find a way to smuggle in and launch rockets, because they are that pissed off and fanatical (Israeli policies made it so). But regardless, the scandal-plagued Olmert regime is trying to do something desperate to deflate Netanyahu's charge. It's just sadistic that they choose to end hundreds of lives in order to score some political points. But being an American, who am I to talk?

Indefensible defense

Recent Israeli attacks in Gaza:

"With all due respect, nothing will prevent us from continuing operations to protect our citizens."
- Ehud Olmert, in response to international criticism over Israel's recent aggression in Gaza

Does this really help to protect Israelis? (in fact, it probably has the opposite effect)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7273444.stm

Children are among the victims in Gaza (BBC)

At least 54 Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers died on Saturday. Local doctors say at least 13 of the Palestinians were civilians, including eight children. Israeli operations began on Wednesday after a rocket fired by Hamas militants killed an Israeli student in the southern town of Sderot, the first such death in nine months. More than 80 Palestinians have been killed since then.

[So apparently one Israeli life is worth 80 Palestinians? Statistically, terrorist rockets are much less dangerous to them than traffic accidents or smoking. Are the Israelis bombing Raleigh-Durham every time one of them gets emphysema? Yet one random civilian hurt seems to be justification enough for the IDF to launch multi-million-dollar military operations in Gaza that kill dozens of people who had nothing to do with rocket attacks, and further cripple the already suffocated local economy. Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised, coming from a nation that destroyed Lebanon in retaliation for one soldier kidnapped by Hizbullah.]

The Security Council later voiced deep concern at the events but failed to condemn either side. "While recognising Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children," said [UN Secretary General] Mr Ban.

Israeli UN representative Daniel Carmon said Israel had a "duty" to defend itself under the UN charter. However, a recent opinion poll has indicated a majority of Israelis favour a truce with Hamas.

[Too bad they're not the ones in government! I just wish some of them would finally tire of this nonsense, and use their brains and their conscience to stop the vicious cycle. Islamists gain control of Gaza, so Israel chokes them off with an embargo (that stanches the flow of foreign aid to some of the poorest people on Earth). Frustrated terrorists launch rockets indiscriminately into Israel, so she responds with disproportionate and somewhat indiscriminate violence against Gazans, which infuriates them and encourages future rocket attacks, et cetera, et cetera.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html

----------

Abstract: If nations are serious about security and defense, then they should stick to the DEFENSE part and cut the BS. It is counter-productive and perilous to marginalize or provoke your enemy, which only encourages them to strike back at you – and a sound defense is supposed to prevent that from happening in the first place! In addition, don't insult our intelligence and mask your hostile actions under a national security/defense pretense. It's not fooling anyone (except Bush, Rice, and right wing talk radio). Please pardon my angry rambling and read on at your own risk!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7280026.stm (text below)

"[Human rights groups] say a battered, starved Gaza cannot be peace partner." -BBC (or maybe that's what Israel wants, in order to justify the continuation of hostilities)

This is what nonpartisan human rights groups have to say about Gaza. But of course it won't really matter, since the Israeli government is committed to making sure that Hamas utterly fails, not only in their resistance against Israeli occupation (via legitimate and criminal methods), but in every matter of peaceful governance as well. They don't care about the human costs. They froze Palestinian funds and aid so Hamas can't pay government workers. They closed the borders to choke off energy, commerce, and even basic necessities from reaching hundreds of thousands of desperately poor people. And let's not forget the periodic air strikes and ground incursions. How could anyone govern and maintain order under such conditions? They were outraged by the inclusion of Hamas in the peace process, and have set out to ruin them from day one. They hope that the suffering that they unjustly and illegally inflict upon the Palestinians will encourage Gazans to blame Hamas for their troubles and demand new leadership. I guess that is punishment for supporting and voting Hamas into power a few years ago. By all means, Hamas' short record of governance has been abysmal, but I really doubt the Gazans are going to switch sides and show gratitude to the Israelis (who starve and bomb them) by rejecting Hamas.

And here is where Israel's argument of national security and defense falls apart. Surely every nation or people have the right to protect themselves against REAL threats using SENSIBLE methods. But when you adopt the Bush/Israeli strategy of "pre-emptive defense", you become the aggressor and it's hard to justify yourself as the poor victim in the crosshairs, just doing whatever it takes to survive in the lion's den. During the Cold War, the West and the Soviet Bloc often regarded each other as mortal threats, as Israel may view Hamas/Iran/Hizbullah/etc. In rare cases, the sides were prepared to destroy each other (and themselves in the process). But in general, their national security actions were not too provocative, or mostly affecting their Third World proxies in the struggle to spread influence (I won't debate the merits of Cold War colonialism-counterinsurgency now, just stating that it happened). Sometimes the sides went too far and upset the hostility balance. For the US to place offensive nuclear weapons at Russia's underbelly in Turkey, and for the USSR to respond with covert nukes of their own in Cuba, the stakes were raised and it was no longer about defense. Now both sides (especially the US) wanted the luxury of first-strike capability in order to bring the enemy to his knees. That's being greedy, and it could (and did) really endanger the peace.

Of course a sound defense doesn't sit idly by as the enemy prepares to strike. Nations have to be diligent and anticipate threats. But a defense that crosses the line and jeopardizes the survival of the other side is no longer defense! You can protect yourself and neutralize your enemy without destroying him. In fact, it's usually preferable and easier to accomplish, but try telling that to the chicken-hawks. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to tell the difference between ambiguously aggressive and truly defensive actions at times. So if nations really care about their own security, they should take great caution in planning and executing their military actions (as the US and Israel failed to do in Iraq and Lebanon, respectively). Otherwise the other side may get the wrong idea, react poorly, and make a bad situation worse. When both sides feel that they are fighting tooth-and-nail for their very lives against an enemy who will stop at nothing, how can cooler heads prevail and peace materialize?

But even by the most remote stretch of the imagination, Israel's blockade and recurring invasions in Gaza cannot be construed as innocuous defensive precautions. They have made some non-threatening, reasonable actions such as mandating bomb shelters in new homes being built, setting up air raid notification systems, and more controversially, erecting their huge security barriers. More intrusively, they enforce curfews, detain suspects, and control traffic through checkpoints in the Occupied Territories. If I was the leader of Israel and I was concerned about the rockets, I would relocate my people at a sufficient safe distance from the Gaza border, or force border people to live in fortified structures only. Problem solved without having to kill anyone! The Qassam rockets are pop guns compared to standard Western hardware. It's not like Battle of Britain over there! Of course the Israeli residents may protest, but something has to give. Israel had no problem with its settlers evicting thousands of Palestinians from their legally-owned lands and turning them into refugees without recompense. Their troops even forced rebellious Gaza settlers to close up shop when Tel Aviv decided to evacuate Gaza.

Israel has the right to defend itself, so then defend already and don't get too greedy about it! They want to humiliate and abuse the Palestinians, in addition to blunting their meager attacks. How does consolidating East Jerusalem (at the fury of the Arabs) help their defense? How does bulldozing villages and redrawing Palestinian demographics in the West Bank help their defense? I have trouble answering those questions, because their actions resemble provocative imperialism a lot more. In fact, their audacious behavior is probably counter-productive, and turned a lot of moderate Palestinians towards Hamas or other extremist groups to seek retribution. Preventing your enemy from feeling secure (or even living with dignity) is a terrible threat in itself, and you only have yourself to blame. If you lean on your enemy so badly that they are unable to maintain even a minimal quality of life, then out of desperation they may lash out in unpredictable, damaging ways to attempt to restore equilibrium. How is that defensive if you insist on repeatedly aggravating an already wounded, defiant, and temperamental adversary? You shouldn't tease a confined animal, because some day he might escape and come after you (SF Zoo, Christmas 2007). It's no small matter than Israeli-Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi characterized the Occupied Territories as "The Iron CAGE".

Seeking out the destruction of your enemy is another matter. Nations do it all the time (since the beginning of time), so no need to be embarrassed about it. If that is Israel's goal against Hamas or the Palestinian people in general (as it appears by many indications), then fine – just admit it and go about your business. They are untouchable diplomatically and militarily, so they don't care about UN sanctions or international condemnation. But masking your aggression with defensive pretext is cowardly, sleazy, and dishonest. Anyway, no one but the Neocons believe their BS anymore. The Israeli government claims that their neighbors seek to wipe them off the map (and idiotic loudmouth Muslim leaders have somewhat confirmed this, even if they totally lack the tangible means of accomplishing it). So why not just say that Israel wishes Lebanese, Palestinians, and Iranians didn't exist either? Their world would be a simpler, safer place without them, right? Wishing your enemy's destruction but declining to act is one thing (as the US and USSR did during the Cold War). But punishing them with unjust policies and aggression (under the blanket excuse of national security) is actually carrying out the dirty deed. What difference does it make if it's outright genocide like in Somalia, or a nefariously slow, subtle bleed in Palestine? And in many cases, their fighting with neighbors has been anything but subtle. In a sense, the slow bleed is worse because it is less likely to be noticed. A pile of skulls in a field would hopefully get even the most intransigent members of the UN to act (yet they haven't on many occasions!). But a kid dismembered here and there, and a hundred thousand hungry bellies crying out to deaf ears (due to lack of media coverage or global interest), won't really compel any third parties into action.

---------

Gaza situation 'worst since 1967'

Gaza's humanitarian situation is the worst since 1967 when Israel occupied it, says a coalition of UK-based human rights and development groups.

They include Amnesty International, Save the Children, Cafod, Care International and Christian Aid. They criticise Israel's blockade on Gaza as illegal collective punishment which fails to deliver security. Israel says its military action and other measures are lawful and needed to stop rocket attacks from Gaza. The groups' report, Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion, says the blockade has dramatically worsened levels of poverty and unemployment, and has led to deterioration in education and health services.

'Disaster'

More than 1.1 million Gazans are dependent on food aid and of 110,000 workers previously employed in the private sector, 75,000 have now lost their jobs, the report says. "Unless the blockade ends now, it will be impossible to pull Gaza back from the brink of this disaster and any hopes for peace in the region will be dashed," said Geoffrey Dennis, of Care International UK.

Israel tightened its blockade on the strip, controlled by the Hamas militant group, in January. Last week Israeli forces launched a bloody and destructive raid in northern Gaza, in which more than 120 Palestinians - including many civilians - were killed. Israel says the measures are designed to stamp out frequent rocket fire by Palestinian militants. Recent rocket attacks have hit deeper into southern Israel, reaching Ashkelon, the closest large Israeli city to the Gaza Strip. [FYI, Ashkelon is only 15 miles away from Gaza, and their podunk rockets don't have much more range than that. In fact a good portion of Hamas rockets are duds or crash soon after liftoff. ]

Occupying power

The UK-based groups agree that Israel has the right and obligation to protect its citizens, urging both sides to cease unlawful attacks on civilians. But they call upon Israel to comply with its obligations, as the occupying power in Gaza, to ensure its inhabitants have access to food, clean water, electricity and medical care, which have been in short supply in the strip. "Punishing the entire Gazan population by denying them these basic human rights is utterly indefensible," said Amnesty UK Director Kate Allen. "The current situation is man-made and must be reversed."

Other recommendations from the groups include international engagement with the Hamas movement, which rejects Israel's legitimacy and has been shunned by Israel's allies, and the Fatah party of Palestinian West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas. "Gaza cannot become a partner for peace unless Israel, Fatah and the Quartet [the US and UN, Europe and Russia] engage with Hamas and give the people of Gaza a future," said Daleep Mukarji of Christian Aid.

---------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_attack

Of course these developments from the Palestinian side are terrible and won't give the Israeli government much peace of mind to tamp down its opposition to Hamas (though probably the gunmen were not Hamas affiliates, since they have a very meager presence in Jerusalem). But do you think this seminary would have been attacked had Israel not killed 100+ Palestinians over the weekend? This is PRECISELY what my last email was about. Stupid "defensive" measures that hurt/provoke the enemy just make him want to strike back as soon as possible, often in unacceptable ways. So what has your defense accomplished? Can Israel tolerate a few amateur rockets striking their soil now and then? Can they implement non-provocative countermeasures instead? Or if they are really committed to reducing rocket attacks to ZERO (nearly impossible), and they prefer to maintain their heavy-handed, in some cases cruel tactics, then they better accept the repercussions of their decisions. There will be angry Palestinians elsewhere who will indiscriminately target Jews in retaliation. Those people probably wouldn't have taken up arms had Israel treated Gazans more justly.

When questioned about the horrible humanitarian crisis in Gaza by BBC World Service, the Israeli minister for humanitarian/aid affairs basically said that the Palestinians brought the suffering on themselves because they were unable/unwilling to control Hamas rocket attacks and weapons smuggling across the Egyptian border. "They shot themselves in the foot," he said. Well if that is true, then I apply the same logic to the Israeli side. The blood of those dead seminarians are on the hands of the trigger-happy Israeli military that invaded Gaza.

It's clear that many on each side are not committed to the peace process enough to make it viable. Or maybe they'll never accept/desire peace. But look at the difference in media coverage. Just hours after the shooting, the AP was in there to interview many Israeli officials and Jewish witnesses to the crime. "Oh the blood, the bodies, it was horrible!" Yes that is true, but did we hear a peep from the Western press about the conditions inside Palestinian refugee camps/slums, or the reaction of Palestinians to recent Israeli invasions? The IDF prevents press access and international monitors. Only human rights groups can tell the tale after they have visited the aftermath, but by then it's just a body count. That is asymmetrical conflict for you.

7 die in shooting at Jerusalem seminary

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - Two gunmen infiltrated a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem and opened fire in a library Thursday night, killing at least seven people, police and rescue workers said. Channel 2 TV said police special forces killed the two infiltrators. Rescue workers said at least 10 people were wounded although Israeli media reported a larger number hurt.

Yitzhak Dadon, a student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building. "He came out of the library spraying automatic fire. ... The terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head," he said.

Medic Yaron Tzuker said he arrived as the gunfire was still going on. "They were still shooting when we got here," he told Channel 10 TV. "We took cover and the ambulance was hit. It's horrible inside — dead bodies and wounded — it's horrific."

Another witness told Israel TV that he heard both single shots and automatic gunfire from inside the building, and it lasted for about 10 minutes. The attack came a day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice persuaded moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to return to peace talks with Israel and on the same day Egyptian officials were trying to mediate a truce between Gaza militants and Israel. Abbas suspended the talks after Israel launched a military offensive against Gaza militants barraging southern Israel with rockets. Palestinian officials say more than 120 were killed in Gaza during the week-long operation. Four Israelis were also killed.

Earlier Thursday, Palestinian militants in Gaza set off a bomb on the Gaza border, blowing up an Israeli army jeep and killing a soldier. Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben Ruby said one of the gunmen who attacked the seminary was wearing what at first appeared to be an explosives vest but turned out to be a belt holding extra ammunition. "One or two terrorists infiltrated the Mercaz Harav seminary and opened fire in all directions," the police spokesman said. "One terrorist was killed in an exchange of fire, and apparently he had an explosives belt."

Hundreds of police surrounded the area and searched the campus as ambulances raced to the scene. Scores of seminary students spilled out onto the sidewalk and street outside after they were evacuated. "There are at least seven killed and 10 people wounded," said Eli Dein, director of Israel's rescue service.

An hour after the attack, medics began removing the dead from the building, taking them away in ambulances. The seminar is the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in the Kiryat Moshe quarter at the entrance of Jerusalem, a well-known center of Jewish studies identified with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement in the West Bank.

There were no attacks by Palestinian militants in Jerusalem during 2007, though police and the military claimed to have foiled many attempts. Between 2001 and 2004, at the height of Palestinian-Israeli fighting, Jerusalem was a frequent target of Palestinian attacks, including suicide bombings on buses. "It's very sad tonight in Jerusalem. Many people were killed in the heart of Jerusalem," Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski.

In Gaza City, residents went out into the streets and fired rifles in celebration in the air after hearing news of the attack on the seminary.