How many Americans even knew about the Israeli cordon and the resulting humanitarian crisis in Gaza? When I tuned into the morning news yesterday, the BBC was covering the Gaza strip. Fox News was teaching people how to make homemade butterscotch pudding.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Wasn't this the Egyptian wall that was destroyed?
The Israeli wall is causing considerable misery among the Palestinians, but their Arab neigbors are just as culpable, with considerably less cause.
How is it Israel's fault that Egypt built a border wall? The Egyptians don't suffer from Gazan suicide or rocket attacks, so they don't need a closed border like Israel does.
Articles like that are why people think the Guardian is anti-Israel. And to be honest, I'm a little disappointed in your framing of the issue as being the result of the "Israeli cordon" rather than the Egyptian one.
I can't speak for Fox, but it was all over the news I watched.
Granted, it did take a back seat to speculation about whether Heath Ledger's rolled up $20 bill was covered in drug residue.
Note that the Egyptians allowed the Palestinians to move across the border, until Israeli and American military pressure shut it down.
The Israeli government wants no movement in or out of Gaza until Hamas capitulates. This means a lot of civilian suffering. Whether or not you think this is justified, it really isn't in dispute. Over the last week or so, Israel has cut off fuel shipments into Gaza and tightened controls on the remaining few supply movements in order to pressure Hamas; now it is pressuring Egypt to help it maintain the embargo. This is not some figment of the Guardian's imagination; you can read all about it on Ha'aretz or Reuters.
Might the cause of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza be ... Hamas, not Israel's blockade?
I see no reason to blame Israel for not trading with (or more accurately, giving supplies to) the Gazan "government" (currently leading criminal/terrorist faction) so long as it is actively and openly hostile.
Likewise, for not allowing free transit while the Gazan government actively encourages suicide attacks. For that matter, I'd see no reason to blame them even if the Gazan government was only sneakily hostile in the shadows while talking peace, like in the old pre-fence West Bank days.
(There is, sadly, no way to achieve basic security in the face of a hostile Gazan government that does not harm those Gazan residents that are not particularly hostile to Israel.
And there is, likewise, no way to change the Gazan government from an implacably hostile one to one willing to coexist - in good faith, and for the long term - currently, without an invasion and endless screams of oppression and the like.
I can't decently blame Israel for washing their hands of the entire mess.
I can and do blame the UN and the various Arab states for something like 95% of the entire mess since 1948.)
Thank you, Megan for saying what needs to be said. There is the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd and the Israel-can-do-no-right crowd - the truth always lies somewhere in between. But on this issue, it is the Israelis who have turned Gaza into the biggest outdoor prison on Earth and triggered a humanitarian crisis in the process.
You're slightly understating what the Israeli government is doing. It is not merely itself refusing to trade/give supplies to Gaza; it is forbidding other people to do so as well. (Practically, since it controls the only distribution lines into Gaza, it's not clear how much difference this makes--but again, this is because the Israeli government wants it that way.)
But regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the point is, a) no one here seems to know about it and b) this is not some case of the Egptian government senselessly beating up the Gazans; they're beating up the Gazans because they are required to do so under agreements with Israel from which Israel is not releasing them.
Gaza and it's people are in the position of the poor guy who gets shot in the leg because he was waving a gun around and taking pot shots at passers by. The poor defenseless leg didn't do anything, after all. And just think, he could have been shot in the head! The head wasn't holding the gun either -- although perhaps a case could be made that the head, at least, could have exercised more control over the hand....
I don't recall much coverage in the American press of the results of blockading Germany during the wars, either. Nor have I noticed much coverage of the gazillions of people dying in Sudan or Zaire or Zimbabwe or wherever. The deaths of unfriendly or marginal foreigners don't fit my definition of news.
More idiosyncratically, I have no idea who this Heath person who died is, although my daughter had apparently heard of him.
A blockade is an act of war. So is firing rockets across your border at your sovereign neighbor.
My understanding is that the Gazans initiated the current hostilities. If so, it's their problem when the war they started doesn't go like they had hoped (see also: US in Iraq). Now if they were to sue unconditionally for peace and the Israelis continued the blockade, you'd have a point. But failing that, any suffering in Gaza is the Gazan's (and Hamas's) responsibility.
they're beating up the Gazans because they are required to do so under agreements with Israel from which Israel is not releasing them.
So, your problem is that the Egyptians are being expected to live up their word? What other treaties would you propose should be discarded when they actually come to be needed?
Maybe Gaza will become the next hot vacation destination. Move over, St. Bart's!
A blockade is an act of war.
A blockade is the closing of the sea lanes--it's an act of war because the seas are otherwise open to all. Closing a border isn't a blockade, it's an ordinary incident of sovereignty.
Gaza has a long coast with the Med. Is Israel blockading it?
it is the Israelis who have turned Gaza into the biggest outdoor prison on Earth and triggered a humanitarian crisis in the process.
What exactly is their alternative?
I think Megan should post a link so we can get the recipe for homemade butterscotch pudding. ;)
In all seriousness, while I’m hardly in the “Israel can do no wrong” camp, I have to say that if one of our neighbors were to call for the destruction of our country, the deaths of all of our people, and began firing rockets into our cities – an embargo would probably be the least of what we’d do to them.
MM,
maybe you'll get 'round to covering Mearsheimer & Walt's book:
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724
and help clear up some of the 'Information assymetry' that you're decrying here: "But regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the point is, a) no one here seems to know about it..."
Gaza and it's people are in the position of the poor guy who gets shot in the leg because he was waving a gun around and taking pot shots at passers by
You know I engage in this discussion so often that I think I will never get depressed by it, and yet somehow I still do. To call the Western understanding of the conflict biased is like calling Stalinist propaganda's attitudes towards Trotsky biased. The word just doesn't have the power to convey the level of misinformation and preconceived notions. I know from experience that there are generally intelligent people commenting on here, and then Israel comes up and its like reading Pravda.
I don't know why I'm responding to this at all, but I would like to point out the conveniently forgotten fact that out of 7 major wars in Israeli history, Israel has been the aggressor in 6.
I see no reason to blame Israel for not trading with (or more accurately, giving supplies to) the Gazan "government" (currently leading criminal/terrorist faction) so long as it is actively and openly hostile.
Perhaps if Israel were not annexing land acquired through military conquest (a direct violation of the Geneva conventions, of which Israel is a high contracting power, and is bound by treaty to uphold), the Gazans would have a functioning civil architecture and wouldn't need permission from an occupying power to engage in regular commerce. I mean the blindness here is incredible; the conditions in Gaza are the product of a brutal de facto occupation. The people are forced to subsist on humanitarian aid because they don't have control of their own borders.
I can and do blame the UN and the various Arab states for something like 95% of the entire mess since 1948
The standard line towards Israel writ large, I'm afraid. Any conclusion except that which implicates Israel morally in any sense.
So, your problem is that the Egyptians are being expected to live up their word? What other treaties would you propose should be discarded when they actually come to be needed?
Wow. Someone criticizing the idea of violating treaties as a way to defend Israel shows a kind of cognitive disonnace so powerful I can't sit still.
You're right Freddie. After the terrible war crime of letting Sharon visit the Temple Mount, suicide bombings were really the only rational choice.
out of 7 major wars in Israeli history, Israel has been the aggressor in 6
So was it the aggressor in 1948 or in 1973 (or in both)? Inquiring minds want to know.
You're right Freddie. After the terrible war crime of letting Sharon visit the Temple Mount, suicide bombings were really the only rational choice.
Common technique when defending Israel: moral equivalence. You criticize Israel; people critical of Israel attack with suicide bombs; therefore you are the equivalent of a suicide bomber.
Rational response: suicide bombings are terrible and those who defend them don't have a leg to stand on. The murder of civilians by the IDF is terrible and those that defend it don't have a leg to stand on. The difference is, no one defends the suicide bombings. Everyone, including without exception our national political leaders, and every major media personality working in America today, defends the murders by the IDF.
If you can't do better than "You criticize Israel, therefore you defend suicide bombings", why bother talking at all?
Rob,
I believe that Israel is impeding sea traffic to Gaza. They are also leaning on the Egyptians to restrict traffic to/from Gaza. My understanding is that "blockade" is a better description of what Israel is doing than simply "closing the border".
So was it the aggressor in 1948 or in 1973 (or in both)? Inquiring minds want to know.
The exception is 1967. Check the literature for who acted first in every other war. Go ahead. Look it up.
Walls coming down don't make US newscasts until Hasselhoff performs at them.
I saw the Gaza blockade/breakout into Egypt yesterday on Fox.
However, I did not see a recipe for butterscotch pudding.
no one defends the suicide bombings
You known this isn't true. Perhaps "no one of importance" is true.
Everyone, including without exception our national political leaders, and every major media personality working in America today, defends the murders by the IDF.
In what sense does the IDF commit "murders" which is not covered by the statement "The Eighth Air Force murdered thousands of Germans"? I'm not defending actual murders, but not all death is murder. War is, so I'm told, hell.
Note carefully: I never said you were defending suicide bombings; rather, you seemed to be ignoring them. The cordon around Gaza did not exist in its present form in 2000, when Sharon made his infamous visit. It still would not exist if it was not for suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
1973 was a surprise attack by the egyptians & syrians against israel on a religious holiday
israel was caught unprepared, and came very close to being destroyed
it is hard to conceive how Freddie thinks israel attacked first in that war, most of their soldiers having gone home for the holiday and all
According to Freddie, Israel was the aggressor in the Yom Kippur war. It is indeed like reading Pravda -- and take it from someone who HAD to read Pravda (the actual newspaper in Russian, not a figment of American imagination) quite regularly for 10 years of his life at the very least.
Closing a border isn't a blockade, it's an ordinary incident of sovereignty.
This is obviously correct. Megan's use of the term "blockade" is consistent with her comment that she hasn't really been following what's happening.
First, there are many American news stations which broadcast these events. I'm growing quite tired of people hand-wringing over the ineptitude of our coverage of world events, and the only example they ever give is the bottom of the barrel, Fox. I've been to Europe, and watched their news, and they have the same scope from self-absorbed pabulum to comprehensive world coverage. If anyone's ever tuned in to UK television, they'd know it's rife with banal trash that would rival our own cult of celebrity. And don't get me started on the Dutch! I'm not saying we are any better, but we are no worse.
Second, there is something I feel should be brought up, and that is the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, that was largely ignored and brushed aside by the Johnson administration. I'll probably be accused of being a conspiracy theorist by many on this thread, but I come from a family of Navy men, some of whom were intimately involved, and I am curious why this incident is not spoken of more today.
No one defends murder by the IDF. Lots of people probably defend civilians killed by the IDF while trying to fight terrorists who hide among civilians, launch rockets at civilian Israeli targets, and blow themselves up in cafes and on buses.
Lots of poeple defend the suicide bombers as being "resistance fighters" or "fighting oppression" or "defending themelves against Israeli attacks".
Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. It acts on this desire by attacking Israel with rockets and suicide bombers. Why should Israel support such a government.
The media loves to report on how the IDF broke a cease fire agreement by retaliating for a rocket attack or suicide bombing... it often fails to point out that the rocket attack or suicide bombing actually broke the cease fire.
If the Palestinians want peace and prosperity, they need to throw the terrorists out and stop trying to destroy Israel. I suspect that Israel would be happy to live peacefully with Palestinians who weren't trying to kill them all the time.
The racism inherent in the view that Israelis are supposed to be moral and self-sacrificing while Palestinians apparently can't help but blow themselves up and fire rockets at Israeli villages is staggering.
Israel could probably stop the rocket attacks from Gaza by bombing it into rubble. But it doesn't. It could, but it doesn't. What do you think Hamas would do if they had the opportunity to blow up an Israeli city?
Second, there is something I feel should be brought up, and that is the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, that was largely ignored and brushed aside by the Johnson administration. I'll probably be accused of being a conspiracy theorist by many on this thread, but I come from a family of Navy men, some of whom were intimately involved, and I am curious why this incident is not spoken of more today.
Posted by Peter | January 24, 2008 2:12 PM
Peter,
anyone calling you a 'conspiracy threorist', for speaking the verifiable truth, is, probably, a member of a conspiracy.
Rather than continue to engage you guys on the historical question of Israeli aggression, which is based on your current recollections of filtered news, I'd just suggest you read accounts of those wars by Israeli historians. You'll find they almost universally support what I'm telling you; Israeli "pre-emption" is a matter of conventional wisdom within Israel. Whether Israel was justified in acting aggressively in those instances is a separate discussion. But I'm afraid that the notion of Israel as a benevolent entity that has only ever acted in defense is just totally inconsistent with the truth.
In what sense does the IDF commit "murders" which is not covered by the statement "The Eighth Air Force murdered thousands of Germans"? I'm not defending actual murders, but not all death is murder. War is, so I'm told, hell.
It commits murders when it deliberately attacks civilians. According to the IDFs own numbers, since 1948 the Israelis have killed 3 times as many civilians as Israeli civilians have been killed. In their recent excursion into Lebanon, that figure was 10 times as many.
Shooting rockets into Israel is horrific and self-defeating. But tightening the noose is not the answer. Withdraw completely from Gaza and the West Bank. Create a corridor between them; take back an equal amount of land for Israel as is used in the corridor. Remove checkpoints and walls that divide communities in half, separate residential areas from potable water in a desert climate, and destroy the basic infrastructure of Palestinian life. (If Los Angeles was divided by checkpoints, walls and "security zones" the way the Palestinian territories are, the city would cease to function.) Give genuine control of the borders, both land and sea, to the Palestinians, a demand which the Israelis have never accepted. (It will come as quite a surprise to the IDF that Israel doesn't control Gaza's access to the coast, Rob.)
That's a solution that is accepted by much of the international community. And, despite what the drones will constantly tell you, it is accepted by most of the Palestinian people. It also has the benefit of being in accord with international law and several past treaties Israel has been violating.
Um, not to quibble, but my use of the term "blockade" is not consistent with anything, because I didn't use the word.
The bad thing is that 'way too many American Jews take any criticism of Israel about like they would being told that their mothers had bad taste in selecting barnyard animals to copulate with. This is because (at least IMO) for many of them, Israel has become a substitute for a religion they mainly don't practice any more, but don't want to admit to themselves that they've left behind.
I'm not defending what a lot of the Palestinians have done, but within context, it's understandable. Unfortunately, saying so is likely to draw accusations of "anti-Semitism" or being a "self-hating Jew."
Lots of poeple defend the suicide bombers as being "resistance fighters" or "fighting oppression" or "defending themelves against Israeli attacks".
Name a single prominent American media personality who does. Name a single powerful national political figure who does. Name a viable presidential candidate who has ever done so. Name them. Name the context.
Israel could probably stop the rocket attacks from Gaza by bombing it into rubble. But it doesn't. It could, but it doesn't. What do you think Hamas would do if they had the opportunity to blow up an Israeli city?
Once again, the argument from moral equivalence. How good or bad Hamas is is irrelevant to the question of Israel's moral responsibility. It is a matter of the most elementary morality-- the fact that some are worse than you doesn't make you good. A thief is not made moral by virtue of the fact that he is not a rapist. Israel's conduct can't be judged relatively. It has to be judged on its own merits. Yes, Hamas is a pack of assholes. I hate them. I am utterly baffled by people who think that a robust liberal democracy like Israel shouldn't be held to any higher standard than "Better than Hamas!" "Better than Hamas" doesn't cut it. Does it?
The racism inherent in the view that Israelis are supposed to be moral and self-sacrificing while Palestinians apparently can't help but blow themselves up and fire rockets at Israeli villages is staggering.
Yes, it certainly is. Who, do you suppose, perpetuates that idea? Me? Or my opponents? I haven't defended Hamas rockets. As far as Israeli self-sacrifice goes, I think that is an idea than can only be held by a mind with no perspective. Israel is an affluent country. The Palestinians live under the greatest poverty. To suggest that Israel is being asked to be self-sacrificing in this conflict is incredible to me. The standard of living for the average Israeli dwarfs that of the average Palestinian. I'm not asking Israel to give up security. I'm asking it to stop occupying land acquired through war and oppressing millions of people, in defiance of international law and against the wishes of the international consensus.
t commits murders when it deliberately attacks civilians. According to the IDFs own numbers, since 1948 the Israelis have killed 3 times as many civilians as Israeli civilians have been killed. In their recent excursion into Lebanon, that figure was 10 times as many.
These sentences are not logically related. The US killed vastly more German civilians than the Germans killed American civilians; that did not make the deaths murders. To the extent that the IDF is deliberately attacking civilians, it is committing war crimes, but the raw numbers tell us nothing.
It will come as quite a surprise to the IDF that Israel doesn't control Gaza's access to the coast, Rob.
I never said they didn't; I asked whether they did because it determines whether the action is properly called a blockade or not. And of course, "controlling access" is not the same as blockading; the law of the sea does permit the inspection of vessels for contraband and proper paperwork.
Give genuine control of the borders, both land and sea, to the Palestinians, a demand which the Israelis have never accepted.
Well, no, because the Palistinians don't seem all that interested in stopping suicide bombers from crossing into Israel, and because weapons shipments by sea are not unheard of. Hamas isn't exactly a good-faith partner in peace here.
Whether Israel was justified in acting aggressively in those instances is a separate discussion.
No it isn't. The term "aggression" carries normative as well as descriptive weight. If someone points a gun at my wife, and I shoot him, I suppose you could say I've acted "aggressively," but also entirely within my rights. For you to say that Israel was the "aggressor" doesn't just mean they crossed the border first, it means (or at least implies) you think they were wrong to do so.
I think your solution is a perfectly fine one, and possibly advisable, but I don't for a moment imagine that it would mean peace or the cessation of the international community's constant harping.
which is based on your current recollections of filtered news
...or on stories told over a glass of vodka by people who've actually BEEN then and there (1973 is not THAT far in the past, you know), but who's counting.
What are your "unfiltered" news, Freddie, that you're so proud of?
How good or bad Hamas is is irrelevant to the question of Israel's moral responsibility
Not it isn't. It is moral to do things in war that it is immoral to do outside of war. It would be grossly immoral land tens of thousands of armed men on French beaches because we're annoyed at EU farm policy; to defeat the Nazis, not so much. If Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction, and engages in constant acts of war against Israel, then Israel can morally respond to that activity in a way that they couldn't if they were just pissed about the last shipment of falafel.
And Freddie, while we're on the topic, have you ever READ Pravda? Even in English translation?
It would be grossly immoral land tens of thousands of armed men on French beaches because we're annoyed at EU farm policy
Especially in Normandy. Those beaches are no treat even if you're not weighted down with 50+ pounds of gear. The tens of thousands of armed men certainly won't appreciate such treatment.
http://english.pravda.ru/
And Freddie, while we're on the topic, have you ever READ Pravda? Even in English translation?
Posted by ...Max... | January 24, 2008 2:38 PM
Reference -- I reserve my right to laugh, but the question to Freddie still stands.
"I see no reason to blame Israel for not trading with (or more accurately, giving supplies to) the Gazan "government" (currently leading criminal/terrorist faction) so long as it is actively and openly hostile."
Perhaps if Israel were not annexing land acquired through military conquest....
True but irrelevant. There's a war on, and you can't ask just one side to stop. So long as the rocket attacks continue it's unreasonable to expect the blockade not to continue. If the Palestinians want the fighting to stop, all they have to do is stop fighting ... it's not like any of their efforts are actually accomplishing anything anyway, besides killing civilians.
Megan wrote:
Um, not to quibble, but my use of the term "blockade" is not consistent with anything, because I didn't use the word.
My apologies.
You wrote "the Israeli cordon and the resulting humanitarian crisis in Gaza". Referring to the sanctions as a "cordon" and talking about the "resulting" humanitarian crisis without reference to what has been happening on the border for the past months is consistent with your admission of not being too familiar with what's happening.
You know, I find Freddie kind of annoying. He keeps harping on "who acted first" while ignoring the quiet prepatory actions that were being taken by others in those cases.
(Not sure why the annoyance part was germane, but I can play by his standards...)
Not to quibble still further, but I didn't admit to not being too familiar with the situation. Moreover, the word "blockade" appears in such bastions of anti-Israel ignorance as Haaretz. "Cordon" is a commonly used term to describe the restriction of supply movement in and out of a territory through negotiated border closures and military enforcement; and the fact that there is a humanitarian crisis developing there due to the fact that there are no supplies moving in or out really isn't debatable. If you go read either JPost or Haaretz you will find both of them happily conceding that the Israeli government is putting pressure on Gaza by cutting off civilian supplies. I don't understand why every time the subject of Israel/Palestine comes up, the debaters joyfully get bogged down in stupid attempts to contest what really aren't controversial facts, as if conceding the truth of anything said by opponents were some form of craven surrender. I'm not even an opponent. I said a) there is a cordon and b) there is a developing humanitarian crisis caused by the fact that no supplies are moving in or out. Unless you have evidence that key supplies such as fuel oil have, in fact, been moving into Gaza, or that some entity other than the Israeli government issued the orders that stopped those supplies from moving into Gaza, then stop arguing with me.
I've been watching for years and never seen a good butterscotch pudding receipt on C-SPAN. Or ESPN. What am I missing?
Megan, better stick with the Entertainment Tonite circuit. Your lil brain ain't up to foreign affairs.
The EGYPTIANS were enforcing the blockade---your anti-Semitism doesn't allow your Jew-hatred to realize that---along with the Israelis because the Hamas government is a TERRORIST government. Do you realize what that means?
I was short-listed for the job of UNRWWA Chief in Gaza by the UN ten years ago. Thankfully, the job went to someone else. I am an Arabist former US diplomat who has lived in three Arab countries and subsequently visited Israel dozens of times. You aren't qualified to understand why Hamas and Hezbollah are far bigger threats to peace in the Middle East than Israel.
And your silly comment on Fox News demonstrates why you should stick with Heath Ledger level stuff.
You are too light in the loafers for serious commentary.
Addressing the point of Megan's post, I'm not sure it's such a sad commentary. Given the chronic and intractable nature of the troubles in that part of the world, I could argue that for anyone who doesn't live there, an exasperated sigh followed by changing the channel is the most rational use of one's time upon hearing yet more bad news.
I am an Arabist former US diplomat
Were you fired for your inability to communicate diplomatically?
Freddie: It is my belief that Israel would be willing to give the Palestinians a great deal, if only the attacks would stop, permanently. It is my belief, supported by their own statements, that Hamas will not stop attacks until Israel no longer exists. Apparently, you disagree. If Israel granted the concessions you favor, and attacks continued, what should their next step be?
"I'm asking it to stop occupying land acquired through war..."
What fraction of the world population does not occupy land acquired through war? And why should Israel give its land to descendants of Islamic conquerors, rather than the Canaanites?
'daveinboca' introduces us to the Obverse of the 'conspiracy theorist' Coin--the 'anti-semite'/ 'jew-hater' side of muzzling Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly.
good going 'dib'
And now you're shilling for genocide - your transition to the left looks complete.
Gaza is controlled by Hamas - they get what they deserve. Israel's constant problem has been that they actually care about world opinion and act in a civilised manner. Arab governments can slaughter and persecute Palestinians and no one cares, it's all about the JOOOOS.
Since the attacks won't stop, it's time for a 1 for 1 thousand strategy. Kill 1 000 Palestinians (and then Saudis) for every Israeli killed by terrorists. The problem inevitably solves itself.
I wasn't fired, Rob. I guess anyone who disagrees with the Jew-hatred [used to live in that part of the universe myself] prevalent on the left side of the blogosphere must be deficient. I believe that you and MEH and the hapless Megan just don't have the chops to deal with people who blow themselves up to make a point, or meet 72 houris. Or shoot rockets into civilian neighborhoods. What should we do, Rob-boy?
Siege is a standard tactic in warfare, perfectly permissible under the laws of war. There is no rational doubt that Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, is at war with Israel; thus any hardships on the people of Gaza are a normal incident of lawful warfare.
The Fourth Geneva Convention specifically provides for certain items to go through a siege. They are "consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians" and "essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases." Fuel oil is not an enumerated item, or electricity, or food for adults other than expecting mothers.
Hamas, of course, is not a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention. If it were, it would be its legal responsibility to arrange, with Israel, the removal of all "wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases," from the Gaza Strip to elsewhere. Interestingly, under the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention, since Hamas is not a party and is not adhering to the Convention, Israel is relieved of any responsibility to adhere to the Convention.
In any case, the two ways to lift a siege are force majeure and surrender. Since it is clear Hamas does not have force majeure to apply, and no prospect of acquiring such in the foreseeable future, it is the responsibility of Hamas to surrender to Israel in order to end the siege.
Whelp, that's the last straw. Megan's off my RSS reader. Kind of sad, I've been reading her since she was fetching coffee at ground zero, when I was amazed to find a yankee female with such clear principals. I guess that now she has spent so much time hanging around in the offices of elite East Coast media companies, her ideas would naturally "correct" to her environment.
Maybe she can get a co-blog with Sullivan.
Ciao!
It should also be pointed out that Israel has indeed allowed (given) limited supplies of fuel oil across the border in order for the lone Gazan power plant to continue running. Hamas has subsequently staged black-outs in order to garner international sympathy. Hamas also refused a shipment of gasoline with the complaint that the Israelis weren't giving them enough.
It's not that I disagree with you, dave (as you could see by reading my argument with Freddie), I just think you're an asshole with poor reading comprehension. And those with whom I have tangled around here will understand that I don't say that lightly.
It's not that I disagree with you, dave (as you could see by reading my argument with Freddie), I just think you're an asshole with poor reading comprehension. And those with whom I have tangled around here will understand that I don't say that lightly.
Posted by Rob Lyman | January 24, 2008 3:56 PM
I'll definately second that sentiment.
Oooh, that won't leave a mark from two bantamweights like MEH & Robby-boy. Projecting their asshole status onto people with some local knowledge---that's the liberals' usual mode of "thought."
And a bantamweight like Rob appears to say everything lightly, as his lack of gravitas is matched only by his ignorance.
The American media has never been interested in covering the plight of the Palestinian people.
Wow. This all reminds me of the debates. I follow politics to learn what candidate a and candidate b believe, why they believe it and what they will or will not do about it, then I vote. That's why I ignore the debates. The debate are about what candidate a feels about candidate b and vice-versa. I would listen to davinboca and meh and whoever else, but I honestly not only don't care what you think of one another. And frankly find it repulsive that you attack one another like pissed off pre-schoolers. I suppose that is what this 'blogosphere' is to a lot people (I'm relatively new here), but it really could be so much more. Lashing out from behind a keyboard is like pissing into a hurricane. Pointless and, really, the blowback is a bitch.
Wait. Am I now guilty of the same thing?
Naw, Luke. I just got my dander up when a silly-boy said I was "fired" from the State Dept. I really do think that the Middle East problem is underreported, but the situation has regressed because of my former pals and patrons, the Arabs, who turned away from the Clinton/Barak offer of 2000 & started a "Second Intifada" because Arafat couldn't swallow losing a lot of his authority over the PLO & the Palestinian people. Of course, he just caused another catastrophe in the long line of catastrophes that the Palestinians have largely brought upon themselves. Then Rice made Israel agree to include Hamas in the recent elections, with disastrous consequences. And Egypt & the rest of the Arab states [except Syria] have cooperated with Israel in blockading or whatever the terrorist government in Gaza. Read Jeffrey Goldberg's book Prisoners if you really want to get a sense of what's going on.
My friend Rashid Khalidi & I diagree on some of the issues, but I'm sure he'd agree that superficial twaddle like Megan's airhead observations on FOX recipes while praising the always pro-Arab BBC do not contribute to advancing anyone's understanding of the problem.
I do believe that especially in Europe, anti-Semitism is making a comeback and Megan is probably just going with the Upper West Side vibes, always invariably superficial and wrong on serious issues.
I never said you were fired, I asked if you were fired. And now we know why I have a dim view of your reading comprehension.
what about: "It's not that I disagree with you, dave", is difficult to understand?
Rob & MEH typify the specimens of human garbage that project their asshole status onto anyone who disagrees with them. [translation: your most prolific orifices are your backsides.]
Oooh, that won't leave a mark from two bantamweights like MEH & Robby-boy. Projecting their asshole status onto people with some local knowledge---that's the liberals' usual mode of "thought." And a bantamweight like Rob appears to say everything lightly, as his lack of gravitas is matched only by his ignorance.
Considering you just singled out two generally center-right commenters for engaging in "liberal" modes of "thought" (whatever "those" are), I think it's a little early to start throwing ignorance around. Especially after explaining your credentials as a diplomat and showing no tact whatsoever from your first post forward, then trying to claim that it was your knowledge, rather than lack of decorum, that they were protesting.
Now might be the time to plead the 5th Tequila as your defense, if you plan to do so.
Dave: I don't disagree with you.
RL,
maybe 'double-negative' are a sign of decadent liberal thoughtcrime?
double negative equals a positive. It is a truism of traditional grammar that double negatives combine to form an affirmative. Readers coming across a sentence like He cannot do nothing will therefore interpret it as an affirmative statement meaning “He must do something” unless they are prompted to view it as dialect or nonstandard speech. Readers will also assign an affirmative meaning to constructions that yoke not with an adjective or adverb that begins with a negative prefix such as in- or un-, as in a not infrequent visitor or a not unjust decision. In these expressions the double negative conveys a weaker affirmative than would be conveyed by the positive adjective or adverb by itself. Thus a not infrequent visitor seems likely to visit less frequently than a frequent visitor.
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/023.html
Megan, I think the problem is that, despite its name, Fox News doesn't provide any actual news.
Once they figure out how best to turn the Gaza crisis into pro-GOP propaganda, *then* they will talk about it.