With the invasion of Gaza Israel has become the poster child of the modern terror state, occupying land and resources through a combination of integrated, coordinated manuvres in real and psychological space. The combination of Mind War with Ground War is the shibboleth of modern conflict. Just so we’re not confused. I let the news speak for itself –
Disenfranchisement
Kadima party decided Sunday to support a proposal to disqualify Israeli-Arab Balad party from the election race on February 10. In doing so Kadima joins Yisrael Beiteinu and other political parties who declared that because Balad rejects the idea of an Israeli state, it can thereforenot take part in the 18th Knesset. Link
Occupation
A group of former residents of the Gush Katif settlement bloc on Sunday implored the government to allow them to resettle Gaza, amid Israel's ongoing offensive against Hamas in the coastal territory. "Let us return home. We are ready at a day's notice to set up tents in the area, until permanent construction," the group said at a news conference at the Museum of Gush Katif in Jerusalem. Link
Israeli Dominion
The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word. Link
- Xenophon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Balad disenfranchisement
I find Balad's disenfranchisement particularly egregious. Balad's goal is to 'struggle to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens, irrespective of national or ethnic identity.' This often puts them on the side of the outside resistence movements. If the world was fair, Yisrael Beiteinu would be banned, also.
You know, the issue is always focused on Hamas and the Palestinians under the authority of the Palestinian authorities, but the true measure of how Israel plans to deal with those outside it's proper borders is how it deals with its own ethnic minorities. If they can't even treat their own Arab minorities with fairness, what kind of incentive is that for the Palestians outside the proper borders to negotiate with the Israeli government? Really, what is the point?
It is becoming very, very obvious if it hasn't been for decades that it will be much easier for those extremist Palestinian elements to come to grips with the existence of Jews in a future Israel, than for those extremist Jewish elements to come to grips with the fact that there is no way in this modern world that they can continue to justify a form of government and society built on an ethnic hegemony.
I really don't know why any fair-minded, democratically-inclined individual would be not just able, but willing, to justify a mandated Jewish state for Israel, or any state mandated to a particular ethnic group or religion (i.e. think of the exclusive Islamic states). That's why the "seperate but equal" two-state "solution" is not a possibility, nor can it ever be morally pushed as such by fair-minded friends of true democracy. Reality is quickly the one doing the mandating, and reality is demanding a plural democracy in the Levant.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Picayune?
Xenophon, I read most of your post with interest and attention, but the first part of your last sentence -- After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they [Israel] -- jumped out and left me questioning your presentation of that particular historical detail and fleeing to the internet for a record of fact.
All things considered in choosing to use Wikipedia for my research into the resolution of the 2006 Lebanon War, I found it ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire, see: Security Council resolution 1701.
While certainly many may argue at this point -- and they do and you might -- as to the myriad interpretations of victory and defeat and who "won" or "lost" the conflict in the region which may or may not have yet even "ended," there is an agreed-upon, officially accepted and legally documented resolution not subject to quibbling by the various interested parties involved, both in the region and out.
Thanks for your thought-provoking post, but I need to attend to some other work. Not intending to hit-and-run critique, I shall try to check for any response you may have when I get a chance.
And now as I wrap this up and preview, preview, preview...it's 11AM, and MSNBC's opening headline is about who won a film award in a show from last night. We're all losing, eh?
I've read several Israeli accounts
...that refer to Lebanon as a loss. Israeli public opinion turned horribly against the planners as it went on and there was no clear objective. Other Israelis believe that not only was the war poorly planned and executed but also that their government caved to international pressure to pull out before the job was done. Several analysts have cited the failure in Lebanon as part of the psychology and political impetus behind the current invasion of Gaza -- Tzipini and Barak (and their respective parties) want to 'prove' themselves before the upcoming Israeli elections. Particularly, they want to prove they are as tough as Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud Party.
PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!
Wiki - for current events - Really (even with the disclaimer)?
First, excuse me for not being more clear. Not my words - they are the lead paragraphs form the linked stories. I've added blockquotes beneath the bold to clear up any question of voice. I really hate paragraphs of italics.
Next, sometimes its good to get out of the echo chamber, even if it's only to esccape to another.
Finally, seeing as most folk here don't read Arabic, I thought it woudl be good to get perspective from the otherside of the issue. When reading about the middle east I try to temper the spin with spin. So, if you read the link you'll see that it is from a Muslim News Organization. So yes, they will call it a defeat. Try these on for size Haaretz and Gulfnews, also try Al-Jezera
How'd you do that?
Hey, I didn't get away yet but stopped and saw you got to reply to me [at least I presume it was to me] before I finished posting the comment.
To the Administrator: Have the rules changed? It used to be that one could "edit" the comment entry before it was replied to, indicated by the "edit" choice no longer being made available.
The first time I posted ["save"], it was in error -- I wasn't finished, but still trying to "preview," having hit the wrong button. "Edit" was still offered so I immediately chose that...but you had already replied, or so it seemed.
Also, why be sarcastic ["Really,..."]? It's a perfectly valid tool even for current events. I followed its miserable crumbs to more "authoritative" links for information and background, though none in Arabic. In addition, I have my own opinions formed after nearly 62 years on the planet -- one of them being that humanity's core problem is based upon the inevitable confusion and chaos of the historical evolution where we find ourselves at this moment in time -- that nobody is to blame but we are all responsible. I know, I know -- kinda aerie faerie Aquarian. Nonetheless, how do we -- you and me -- untangle this without just cutting the knots?
Thanks again.
The intertubes are complex and mysterious
Nothing has changed on commenting -- at least by design. The only think I can imagine happening is some functionality throttling off if the site is under heavy load. As it is now, in fact.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Whaleshaman
Sarcasm aside.
No, for current events, wikipedia cannot be trusted. For basic facts like location, names, dates and places, sure. For perspective? No. I'm from the old school thath thinks history can't be written concurrently with the event - for me that is five years or less. Newspapers are alwasy the first draft, then more substantial documents like death toll analysis, troop movement analysis, internal transcripts of hearings, minutes of parlimentary proceedings, corporate minutes, military assesments, accounting statements - things not really accesible on the web. Plus interviews and actually visiting the region. Plus, wiki's editorial policies make it far too easy for interested parties to skew the interpretation and control the spin. Wiki is great for math, science, some omputeer stuff and established historical narrative - but current events? No it's far to volatile and manipulable.
How do we untangle the nots (Aquarianism is fine by me)?
Collective action, focused intensely on a well defined outcome, sustained over a long period of time (think five to ten years).
Xenophon: 5 to 10 months my current personal limit
Not to belabor a maudlin point, 5 to 10 years stretches my corporeal capacity to the breaking point. At 62, my friends are dropping like flies and the top of my head collects a modicum of dust just pondering life -- both mine and that all around me.
I have a daughter so I have roots of concern reaching into the future, hopefully towards that well-defined outcome you write of.
To note: I have equal amounts of skeptical distrust for the current crop of "first drafters" as you do of the Wikis. I guess only as the years roll by can I gain enough experience with a variety of sources of "information" in order to know/feel which are more or less trustworthy -- including Corrente -- which is why, I guess, I surfaced to challenge your statement as an accurate presentation of accepted historical fact or fiction.
I welcome this opportunity to share these ideas with you, since it is to Corrente not Wikipedia where I come and go to hone perspective -- my own.
What do you think of The Guardian UK? Thanks to the complex and mysterious intertubes, it was there I read that the aluminum tubes so alarmingly touted by Rice and Powell were unfit for nuclear weaponry, where I could regularly read of Pinter's contempt for the United States' murderous foreign policy [read or listen to his 2005 Nobel Literature Prize lecture for a fuller understanding of its depth, and a thorough presentation of the nature of truth and lies and history and art or, as he put it: "There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false."], or get body slammed as Arundhati Roy pulled back the burial shroud to allow us a peek at the corpses of children -- where I first read the news of the Lancet report of 2004 but had to wait for what seemed years for the standard "page 12" US fare of so-called news deliverers.
Okay, I'm done for. I only have the dishes still to wash before I can turn in but I bet Lambert is still wrapping the crawlspace pipes in preparation for the deep freeze [we had an old pipe sprout a leak behind the kitchen cabinet 3 days before Christmas, so I have great empathy for those types of householder concerns]. Let's hope the mysteriously complex intertubes don't pop a gasket [I dunno -- do they even have gaskets?] before the decade can finish playing itself out! Lambert, can you wrap those, too?
Thanks again, Xenophon, for your sharpening passion if not your sarcasm so generously set aside for the moment. I shall remember your cautionary notes.
Xenophone
The best way to seperate language of your own from the quotes of others is the use of the blockquote code. I must admit, it was a bit difficult reading through your post than most others because of the lack of using the code.
BTW, I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed in how little discussion the proposed banishment of Balad from the Knesset (where it only has 3 seats, anyway, so this is simply adding insult to injury) has engendered here and in the MSM. If one is even to concede that the Israel/Hamas war is controversial, there wouldn't seem to be any controversial ground among progressives and liberals about condemning the banishment of Balad unless there is something I don't know about the party that I should know that would justify such a move.
Again, if even Israeli Arabs can't get a word in edgewise in their supposed non-discriminatory democracy, how in the world does that give Palestinian authorities any incentive to sit down and negotiate with the Israeli government? If Balad can't even argue for a pluralistic, inclusive, multi-ethnic democracy in their own country, what does that say about the prospects of peace with those outside the borders?
Really, I'd like to see a liberal throw down and make a solid case for an Israel (or any modern country, for that matter) based of ethnic hegemony as it currently is. I'd like to see a liberal make a solid case for a Jewish (or Islamic or Arab or any ethnic/religious) state. I'd like someone to tell me that a Druze or an Arab could ever realistically become Prime Minister of Israel.
You know, everyone wants to argue around these questions, and focus on individual actions by both sides, but at the end of the day, the fundamental issues to be solved are those with the very setup and structure of the society and the state. In these end, the question of the structure of the society and state is the only question that matters.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
An Arab POV in english
No need to read Arabic, al Jazeera handles the translation. The news network is only available on cable in a few areas (including DC). Apparently American "democracy" is too weak to allow widespread dissemination of alternative voices - kinda like Israel with Balad.