Desicritics Comments on Israel's Gaza Offensive

Comment by commonsense

Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:10:09 EST

Guido: ""Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."" Excellent!! Two individuals, Clark and Fonda, tilted the balance!!! The vietnamese counter-part also told robert mcnamara, when they finally met: we were literally willing to fight and die until the last person. This in response to mcnamara's incredulous question:(paraphrase)"we assumed, that if we inflict enough casualities, the general popoulation would turn against the leadership and that would be the end of the war" (the same wrong assumption Israel is making now. The Vietnamese were fighting for their land and on their land. The american soldiers were no nationalists but career soldiers, were fighting thousands of miles away, and had no idea "why are we in Vietnam?", after the initial flush of testesterone had subsided. Alcoholism, drugs, post-traumatic disorder, confusion as to waht the fish they were doing in, as they saw it "gook land". Yes, the vietnam war also gave rise to "operations research" where mcnamara and others were busy showing charts and graphs of the numbers of vietnamese casualities to shwo they were "winning the war" and there was light at the end of the tunnel. Despite the initial casualities superior fire power can inflict initially, at the end of the day, wars are not fought only by superior arms. Limits to rational calculations. human factors, do kick in after a while. The thing about superior power and how is that it works best if it is used as a threat and never has to be actually used. Once you actually have to use it, it is a matter of "use it and lose it". Not always, but more often than not. Yes, there are exceptions. But Vietnam was the classic, tragic demonstration of this. For the million plus Vietnamese slaughtered, and the 54,000 hapless American soldiers slaughtered, plus the more than 54,000 veterans who died AFTER the war was over, due to post-traumatic stress disorder. But I digress, albeit not too much. Lebanon 2006. The limits to brute power alone are obvious to anyone who reflects on the social psychology of war. Hardware can go only that far, and yes it is efffective, but the limits are obvious, once hard calculations and computer simulations give way to real human beings either wielding the hardware or bearing the brunt of it.

Comment by commonsense

Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:57:03 EST

Guido: ""Hence people claiming to abhor violence, while tacitly or overtly condemning Israel and not Hamas, are insidiously (like or not) contributing to the suffering of those caught in the middle."" interesting, not even twisted "logic"!! a bit like those who condemn Hitler are indidiously (like it or not) contributing to the suffering of the Jews, the gypsies and the gays. [that is why I refuse to condemn Hitler? QED?]

Comment by soomro

Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:13:53 EST

the Palestinians should be angry at their Arab neighbors for not taming the Israelians decades ago. its sad that the only ones who are willing to give any tangible strategic support to Palestinian interests are Iran and Hezbollah. both of which are of course axis of evil. i think Iran should develop nukes soon and use it to create a balance of power in the ME that has been severely distorted because of the land-grabbing-ones. one threat of a nuclear strike can go a long way up their kosher asses.

Comment by commonsense

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:48:22 EST

Akiva Eldar, chief political columnist for the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, is co-author, with Idith Zertal, of _Lords of the Land: The War Over Israel's Settlements in the Occupied Territories, 1967-2007_ Excerpt: Translation from the Hebrew by Jessica Cohen "The mantra repeated ad nauseam these days by Israeli officials, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down to the last spokesperson, is "Show us a state that would practice restraint while rockets are continuously fired at civilian populations in its sovereign territory." For the benefit of provincial spectators like our American friends, the Israeli hasbara (Hebrew for "explanation" or "information"--a more euphemistic term than "propaganda") has produced a film that compares Israel's southern border to that of the United States. The question posed by the narrator: "Would the United States ignore rockets fired from Mexico into San Diego?" The requisite yet simplistic answer is, of course, absolutely not.But the correct answer, albeit the more complex one, is that the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip (and between Israel and the West Bank and the Golan Heights) is unlike any border in the world, including the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan ones. The fact that Israel pulled its army out of Gaza and even removed 8,000 settlers in 2005 does not alter the fact that Gaza is still, practically and according to international law, occupied territory. Israel controls the entrances and exits, as well as access to necessities such as power and water. Mexico has not spent the last three or more years under an American aerial and sea blockade. These arguments are not intended to justify Hamas's conduct or to defend its interests. Hamas is an enemy that refuses to recognize my national right, as a Jew, to live in my country. No one would be happier than I would to see it gone from the seat of power." Full article here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/eldar?rel=hp_currently

Comment by Ruvy

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:43:30 EST

Those pesky Americans can't seem to understand Anamika's simple to comprehend concepts. If, 60 years ago, the Jews had simply allowed the Arabs to murder them off, there would be no need for a Hamas, now. All the Jews would be dead, and Arab children could play happily in the sunshine of Jaffa, Gaza and Safad without those evil Jews to kill them! The problem is that attacked on all sides in 1948, the Jews survived, won, and created a viable nation. THAT WAS THEIR BIG SIN! THEY SURVIVED! Because they did, now good academics from ~~India~~ England have to explain to pesky Americans about Israeli ~~survival~~ aggression. A sad sight indeed....

Comment by kerty

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:38:01 EST

Anamika "I have NOT portrayed Hamas as the victim, but the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE as victims of Israeli expansionist, ethnic cleansing policies. Hamas is a symptom of 60 years of brutalisation, not an immutable condition or the cause. You can dismiss it with a facile "they are all terrorists" but the Hamas would not have come up had Israel adhered to the mandate provided by the UN and not kept expanding. But that just wont fit your good vs evil paradigm" As you make careful distinction between Hamas and Palestinian people, you deny the same when Israel aims its counter response which to deal with organizations and people connected with Hamas. If the other side uses its territory to wage wars on a sovereign state, than land they lose in a war is a fair game. It is not called expansionism. The wars revised the dated UN's mandate and Israeli map. Thanks you. "Hamas is a symptom of 60 years of brutalisation" "Hamas would not have come up had Israel adhered to the mandate provided by the UN" That sounds like portraying Hamas as victim to me. The very premise used by Hamas is same as your apologetics. "But that just wont fit your good vs evil paradigm so why bother, right?" As if you are following any different paradigm here? As if you have chosen no sides on this issue?

Comment by Guido

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:30:05 EST

Anamika #60, Lovely post, but what does it have to do with our previous discussion? "You can dismiss it with a facile "they are all terrorists"..." I would really appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, or using my quotes out of context. How about we end the discussion here. I concede all your points...whatever they are. Ciao, Guido

Comment by Slime_id

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:23:42 EST

Afganistan would be a good tourist stop once all this stupid nonsense ends. My message to the risk banker is to promote a) Taliban tourism b) Pakistan wild border sight seeing c) Opium fields tour Ever since Najibullah was executed by The Talibans, Afganistan has seens flips and flops. The strategic position of Afganistan has been exploited by powers near and far. Why can't wild tourism be part of this. How wonderful when the Talibs show us how to fire rockets into Pakistan for some dollars.

Comment by Anamika

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:07:24 EST

Guido, I have NOT portrayed Hamas as the victim, but the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE as victims of Israeli expansionist, ethnic cleansing policies. Hamas is a symptom of 60 years of brutalisation, not an immutable condition or the cause. You can dismiss it with a facile "they are all terrorists" but the Hamas would not have come up had Israel adhered to the mandate provided by the UN and not kept expanding. But that just wont fit your good vs evil paradigm so why bother, right?

Comment by Guido

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:37:55 EST

Anamika #56, "'Both [moral assistance from within and without] provide immeasurable support to bolster their activities and prove to their own people that the cause is just and worth fighting and dying for.'" Any combatant must have this support to sustain the war effort. "'That's one of many reasons I don't support Hamas on DC threads or in any other venue. To lend support, morally or otherwise is to aid and condone their efforts and tactics and ultimately the continuation of the conflict.'" Yes. Assuming the accepted premise, I understand any support I lend tacitly or otherwise will aid their cause and thus continue the conflict. "Your logic, your words. The lesson from Vietnam was not - according to YOUR words - that people will resist occupation even unto death but that they should not be allowed to think that their cause is "just and worth fighting and dying for."" The last seven words are mine, the context is your. My quote: "Both [again, moral assistance from within and without] provide immeasurable support to bolster their activities and prove to their own people that the cause is just and worth fighting and dying for. Vietnam is the classic example." Which is another example of the accepted premise: Any combatant must have this support to sustain the effort...hence the reference and example. "By that same "lesson" of Vietnam, you cannot critique Israel's actions because - heaven forbid - it might actually let Palestinians think that their cause is "just and worth fighting and dying for." Sorry, but your missing the point. I have considered both warring parties and support Israel's right to self defense and openly condemn the tactics of Hamas as stated in a post #41. That's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point is you cannot claim passivity if you are condemning Israel and not Hamas. Just as Jane Fonda can't honestly claim she's anti-war, when she is contributing to one side's vital ingredient for success in the form of moral support. The same concept applies on these boards. Portraying Hamas as the perpetual victim while ignoring their moral outrages emboldens them, which as mentioned, Hamas require to continue the effort. Without this support, they cannot sustain the war. "And for the record, NOBODY on DC has SUPPORTED Hamas. Critiqueing Israel is NOT tantamount to support for the Hamas." "...But that may be too complex for people who cant think past binaries." You may not like it, but my point is valid and denial and petty insults won't make it otherwise. Ciao, Guido

Comment by Ruvy

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:33:35 EST

Since Anamika has decided to resurrect Yoni Netanyahu, let's here from a real Israeli hero, instead of some schmechel who ruins off to London to blow his horn because he can't stand being a traitor in his own homeland. In the book Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu (1963-1976), Jonathan Netanyahu, the fallen hero of Entebbe and brother of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote (without realizing he was doing so) of such schmecklech like Gil'ad Atzmon: "I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, it it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish people is!"

Comment by kerty

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:23:04 EST

Anamika "All they had to do was to survive in the face of all brutality. Same with the Palestinians - all they have to do is continue to survive." That presumes that Israeli end game is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians which Israel has not professed as its goal. It is the other way around - Palestinian backers have openly professed that they will fight till the last Palestinian to wipe off Israel. So the argument is disingenious as it seeks to transpose its own motives upon Israel. The argument creates a strawman.

Comment by Anamika

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:08:52 EST

"Both provide immeasurable support to bolster their activities and prove to their own people that the cause is just and worth fighting and dying for." followed by: "That's one of many reasons I don't support Hamas on DC threads or in any other venue. To lend support, morally or otherwise is to aid and condone their efforts and tactics and ultimately the continuation of the conflict." Your logic, your words. The lesson from Vietnam was not - according to YOUR words - that people will resist occupation even unto death but that they should not be allowed to think that their cause is "just and worth fighting and dying for." By that same "lesson" of Vietnam, you cannot critique Israel's actions because - heaven forbid - it might actually let Palestinians think that their cause is "just and worth fighting and dying for." And for the record, NOBODY on DC has SUPPORTED Hamas. Critiqueing Israel is NOT tantamount to support for the Hamas. Nor is understanding why a population that is brutalised will back the only champions they have condoning the actions of Hamas. But that may be too complex for people who cant think past binaries.

Comment by Guido

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:40:25 EST

Correction. My last post should read: Anamika #53 Ciao, Guido

Comment by Guido

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:35:51 EST

Anamika #51, Apologies. I wrongly assumed you could engage in thoughtful debate. My mistake! Please pardon me while I go commit some mass murder and brutalize innocent Palestinians. Ciao, Guido

Comment by Anamika

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:10:53 EST

Guido: So by that logic, you endorsed the mass murder of the Vietnam people? Just as you endorse the murder of the Palestinian people now? The Vietnamese won at the end - despite the massive costs - because they held out against the forces of occupation. All they had to do was to survive in the face of all brutality. Same with the Palestinians - all they have to do is continue to survive. That was the addendum comment to the link. Obviously you missed it.

Comment by Guido

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:40:39 EST

Anamika #51, The lessons were learned long before Vietnam. Many of the proponents of early airpower, Billy Mitchell and Giulio Douht among them, advocated the use of strategic bombing alone to win wars. Of course that is not usually the case, and one of the unintended consequences was to strengthen the resolve of the civilian populous...if (and a big IF) the population still supported the regime in power. Otherwise, airpower is suffused with a major ground attack both strategically and tactically. The bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo conflict is the only standing example of a country capitulating to air strikes alone. But only after Milosevic lost public support. There is another very important component at play here. For the regime to maintain public support during the duress of bombing, it must gain sustained moral support...both from within and outside its borders. Inside the country, support can be coerced through force and/or early indoctrination. Outside its borders, it must rely on their allies in the press and those sympathetic to the cause. Both provide immeasurable support to bolster their activities and prove to their own people that the cause is just and worth fighting and dying for. Vietnam is the classic example. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's Army: "It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us." That's one of many reasons I don't support Hamas on DC threads or in any other venue. To lend support, morally or otherwise is to aid and condone their efforts and tactics and ultimately the continuation of the conflict. Hence people claiming to abhor violence, while tacitly or overtly condemning Israel and not Hamas, are insidiously (like or not) contributing to the suffering of those caught in the middle. Ciao, Guido

Comment by Anamika

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:51:25 EST

"There is another lesson here that the Israelis would have done well to learn before their onslaught on Lebanon in 2006 and certainly before their onslaught on Gaza in 2008-9. The lesson is that savage air attack by a foreign enemy does not break the nerve of a civilian population, but instead only stiffens its resolve not to give in." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5469051.ece I guess we could extend the Vietnam argument to pretty much all resistance movements to occupying armies - hasn't worked in Chechnya either.

Comment by Guido

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:50:14 EST

sarah islam, "The far right like you better not believe anything but the but the voices whispering in your ear" Excellent reply. Rational, clear, and full of commonsense. Well done! Ciao, Guido

Comment by mkw

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 03:17:07 EST

"The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years." Really? Article 13 of the Hamas charter makes it very explicit that its jihadism is incompatible with any peaceful settlement or negotiations: Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that...There is no solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavors. For Hamas, the *only* solution is the annihilation of Israel.

Comment by sarah islam

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:55:41 EST

Commonsense: "poor kabir das, turning in his (was be cremated or buried??)." Kabir was cremated. two disciples divided the flowers and two sheets between them. Raj Bir Sinha took his partion to Benares where he cremated it and buried the ashes at a spot what is now known as the Kabir Chaurg and the Nawab buried his portion of Maghar where a shrine was built in his memory. :-) Guido: "Let's see, am I going to believe the likes of Anamika and Professor Shlaim, or my lying eyes and ears." The far right like you better not believe anything but the but the voices whispering in your ear:-) ciao

Comment by commonsense

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:37:19 EST

Kaffir: ""You also forgot to mention Ledzius, Morris and Chandra - my fellow langotia yaars."" right you are (to some extent, see below for details) not just schizoid, ADD, but blessed with a weak memory too. Morris and Chandra are the archetypical fence-sitters, like you. (Caution: if you sit on the fence too long, it becomes a royal pain in the butt. if the fence is too sharp, the butt becomes schizoid, literally, not metaphorically, and all the world's horses and all the world's men, can never put it together again. it ALMOST happened to me once) Ledzius: well, he's for sure not a fence sitter. Depending on whether he produced a hinny or a mule with Kerty, he might be a mare or ass sitter. True, chane khao and mast raho. why get involved in discusions, that according to you, lead nowhere?? as if khaoing too much chane leads anywhere else except to the sandaas ghar. i suppose that's your idea of masti?? sitting in the toilet and reading kabir. poor kabir das, turning in his (was be cremated or buried??).

Comment by bob

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:34:15 EST

"israel's Gaza offensive"? more like "israel's Gaza killing field"

Comment by kaffir

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:08:28 EST

CS, your comments haven't failed to amuse me so far. You are quite a schizo joker, but then, I'm stating the obvious and something which you're already aware of. You also forgot to mention Ledzius, Morris and Chandra - my fellow langotia yaars. As I said before, right/left ideologues - both cut from the same cloth, mirror images of each other in how they behave yet criticizing each other, criticizing just for the sake of criticizing, criticizing Bush for "you're with us or against us" yet themselves indulging in the same game. Bhai tumko mubaarak yeh ideological egotistical games and intellectual armchair wars, ham chale chane khane. Jitna dekha-padha, bahut hai. You're correct, and thanks for the reminder, my friend - my time is better spent reading Kabir than the silly, self-aggrandizing games being played here.

Comment by commonsense

Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:35:50 EST

Kaffir # 40, I was sincerely bullshitting when i claimed that I was sincerely sorry about including it on the list. just testing your vanity, since nobody is immune to flattery. and also trying to trick you to relax your guard. you are firmly in the same group such as kerty, ruvy, sanjay. just pretending otherwise, but that veneer does not fool anyone. you might be better off if you actually practised what you preach: ie. chana khao, mast raho.