The Republic of Heaven

Body count up to 270 last I heard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7800985.stm

I don't think I'll venture my opinion at the moment but I'm sure some of you have interesting thoughts on this, and the Israeli-Palestinian/Israeli-Arab conflict at large...go wild.

Nothing good will come of it, but it was all likely to happen. I suppose only the scale is surprising. Honestly at this point it's hard to see any other outcome than twin propoganda victories for Hamas and the Israeli right, which won't be good for anyone.

*sighs*

Nothing good ever comes from violence and killing.

Nothing good ever comes from violence and killing.

You are Ambrose Bierce, and I claim my five pounds!

Terrible news. I pray reason will open the eyes of the partisans abroad who contribute most of the treasure but none of the blood to sustain the conflict. The moderates on both sides who would negotiate in good faith can't get to the table so long as wealthy chicken-hawks continue to squawk for the extremists. If there were a just god, every member of AIPAC would be damned to hell for this, and they'd be joined by their Muslim counterparts in the Gulf states.

Terrible news. I pray reason will open the eyes of the partisans abroad who contribute most of the treasure but none of the blood to sustain the conflict. The moderates on both sides who would negotiate in good faith can't get to the table so long as wealthy chicken-hawks continue to squawk for the extremists. If there were a just god, every member of AIPAC would be damned to hell for this, and they'd be joined by their Muslim counterparts in the Gulf states.

You are John Mearsheimer or Stephen Walt, and I claim my five pounds!

They were right in as much as the pro-likud lobby is too powerful, but the problem isn't them especially, just the absurd influence of lobbying on foreign policy in general. Any American administration would be massively pro-Israel anyway, but AIPAC have created a pretty disturbing atmosphere in American politics with regards to what you can and can't say. In conclusion, Jstreet ftw.

I've developed a new hobby in recent months. I call it "bias" spotting. When watching or reading pieces about contentious subjects, you watch for bits that will then be used by the confirmation bias brigade on their tedious websites to prove that blah blah blah etc. It's very amusing to see how predictable they all are, but also rather disheartening if you actually take it seriously. More seriously it's amusing how often a single example gets used by both sides in an argument.

Nothing good ever comes from violence and killing.

You are Ambrose Bierce, and I claim my five pounds!

Who zat? And do you take American currency???

Ambrose Bierce, Wikipedia (so its probably inaccurate but so what...)

I heard of these attacks on the Gaza. its only cos israel has the backing of the USA, so they have all the tech to declare war (and i thought that, being a jewish state, they would try and be peaceful-clearly, my religious studies have uneducated me).

although i do want to know whose idea it was to build up a jewish nation in the middle of the islamic regions. andy parsons said on Mock the Week once,

'If there is a God, why did he put the three major world religions within 200 miles of each other, and then put all the oil in the middle?'

Ambrose Bierce told us that those who resort to violence shall suffer from violence.

They were right in as much as the pro-likud lobby is too powerful, but the problem isn't them especially, just the absurd influence of lobbying on foreign policy in general. Any American administration would be massively pro-Israel anyway, but AIPAC have created a pretty disturbing atmosphere in American politics with regards to what you can and can't say.

Which is, of course, complete and utter dogs poo. Like that Loosechange guy, the very preponderance of untrammelled criticism of Israel in named media outlets disputes this claim.

AIPAC's influence can be considered uniquely iniquitous if and only if the operating assumption is that sympathy for Israel is inherently suspect. It can only be considered the gatekeeper of American Zionist Jewish opinion if and only if one considers Jews to be a single voice - even if they claim not to be. Nor is it the only or most entrenched lobby group at the Capitol: the House of Saud springs to mind.

The most repellent aspect of the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis is that they accept that Israel is under sustained attack from an abhorrent system, and advocate ditching her simply to sate its appetite. The lesson? Don't trust academics. They're the biggest bunch of duplicitous, self-aggrandizing backstabbers around.

The most repellent aspect of the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis is that they accept that Israel is under sustained attack from an abhorrent system, and advocate ditching her simply to sate its appetite.

Not sure we read the same paper, Alec. Is it unreasonable to demand that a country so eager for our support won't rely on it to pursue policies that are detrimental to our national security? Moreover, what incentive do the Israelis have to make concessions at the negotiating table if the most powerful country in the world has their backs no matter what? I think we should support our allies against threats to their security, but not with no strings attached. Quid pro quo. What do we get out of this?

Don't think for a minute that I have any special sympathy for the Palestinians, or that I have something against Israel. I wouldn't give a damn if the Israelis drove every Palestinian to Egypt, so long as they did it without our help. I just don't see the utility in spending $3 billion per year to stir up resentment against my country in an oil-free desert that would be totally insignificant to our national interest if we weren't involved in this ridiculous, asymmetrical fight over it.

As for the disproportionate influence of radical Zionists on American foreign policy, what makes it disproportionate is not that they're the only game in town -- you're right about that -- but the fact that they have no bargaining chips they seem willing to part with. They string us along, year after year. "For the low price of $3 billion, we'll make real progress toward peace!" How, by trying to kill every Palestinian? In a just world, we'd be well within our rights to tell them to go **** themselves by now. At least the Saudis reciprocate when we give them support.

Alec I really adore the way whenever you respond to me you tend to say absolutely nothing relating to what I said myself. It's quite cute.

edit: Although I would like to say before you launch into a predictable tirade against Matt, I don't really agree with anything he said, so y'know, leave me out of it.

Don't think for a minute that I have any special sympathy for the Palestinians, or that I have something against Israel. I wouldn't give a damn if the Israelis drove every Palestinian to Egypt, so long as they did it without our help. I just don't see the utility in spending $3 billion per year to stir up resentment against my country in an oil-free desert that would be totally insignificant to our national interest if we weren't involved in this ridiculous, asymmetrical fight over it.

You're anti-Palestine?

I will make a decision on the current situation in Gaza when the dust settles. Note, however, that not even Hamas is claiming that hundreds of civilians have died. If Matt can be sanguine about Abu Ghraib, I fail to see (reasonably) why not here.

Alec I really adore the way whenever you respond to me you tend to say absolutely nothing relating to what I said myself. It's quite cute.

You mean you didn't say:

They were right in as much as the pro-likud lobby is too powerful, but the problem isn't them especially, just the absurd influence of lobbying on foreign policy in general. Any American administration would be massively pro-Israel anyway, but AIPAC have created a pretty disturbing atmosphere in American politics with regards to what you can and can't say.

Where did you derive your thoughts on AIPAC if not from Mearsheimer and Walt?

edit: Although I would like to say before you launch into a predictable tirade against Matt, I don't really agree with anything he said, so y'know, leave me out of it.

Considering that he has just stated that Israel could have free reign in Gaza as long as American hands were kept clean; that reciprocation depends on how much oil is available (and not, say, the intellectual knowledge from researchers such as the Intel chip likely in his computer, or mobile 'phones; or even common humanity); repeated the line that American investment keeps the Israeli economy afloat which went out in the 1970s when Ford pulled the plug (just as with the idea of $3 billions being a lot of money); that the House of Saud of all actors (!) is a reliable ally, and not a sclerotic group of puritans which, more than any other single organizations, has been responsible for exporting the grotesque Wahabist Islam; I think any response he receives will be muted by comparison.

Reciprocation is this... I do not hold up named American policies as uniquely iniquitous not only because I don't believe they are, but also because anyone apart from the Greenlanders or Icelanders who issues moral fiats over Israel is setting themselves up for some major karmic rebound.

Where did you derive your thoughts on AIPAC if not from Mearsheimer and Walt?

I've not read anything by them in detail, although I'll confess I do own the book due to an essay I wrote about America and Israel, but I never used it. I had a book allowance at Uni...I own a lot of books I'll never read. All I know about AIPAC has come from reading around, mostly at the time that I took an interest in Jstreet. That and a few bits from around the kerfuffle over Obama's comments about Jerusalem.

Please tell me you're not a political scientist, Qu Klaani.

I'm a bum, but I have got a degree...

So do I. As much use as a chocolate fireguard.

If Matt can be sanguine about Abu Ghraib, I fail to see (reasonably) why not here.

I'm not making a moral argument against entanglement. I don't see (reasonably) how this is relevant.

As for the rest of your critique, please forgive me for feeling that you extrapolated a great deal without much consideration for my careful choice of words. The Israeli economy? Who brought that up? The $3 billion figure is defense aid, not private investment. And I'm not sure you and I have the same understanding of quid pro quo. Switzerland buys Israeli products too, but nobody is screaming "Death to Switzerland!" The only bit of your straw man that I accept as on-point is the first bit. The Israelis have free reign in Gaza now, and are making the most of it. Why should their folly be ours as well? Perhaps if the Israelis were fully exposed to the risk of their behavior they would show more restraint.

I'm sorry that the Israelis have to fear for their security and that the Palestinians don't have a state. I'm also sorry that more people have died in the Congo than in any conflict since WWII -- more than the entire population of Israel, I believe. Yet we're shipping F-16s to one battlefield and not to the other. What makes the Levant so special that intervention is worth inspiring terrorists to hate us?

You're clever Alec, but so far I'm the only one to stick out my neck with policy recommendations. Perhaps you have a better idea? And Qu Klaani, you've been happy to snipe at my realism a lot lately. How about you? I think it's about time I had a turn in the batting cage.

You're anti-Palestine?

No, don't mistake neutrality for antagonism.

You're anti-Palestine?

No, don't mistake neutrality for antagonism.

You can't exactly blame me for thinking you must have something against them when you say you don't care if innocent people get kicked out of their homes...