Matthew Yglesias (May 30, 2007) - Tit for Double-Tat (Foreign Policy)

As I had to point out to a school counselor many years ago, who was telling me not to fight back when bullied "because it just encourages them", refusing to fight back doesn't mean there's no fight, it just guarantees the other guy an easy win. In reality, nothing encourages a bully like a passive victim.

Agreed, Hamas doesn't much care about Palestinian casualties. However, they like Israeli casualties, and aren't going to stop "tat" just because there isn't any "tit" in return.

Given Hamas indifference to random Palestinian deaths, obviously the response has to be targeted. But there has to be a response.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 30, 2007 9:10 AM

Why wouldn't Israel respond by complying with resolutions 242 and 193; ending the occupation and resolving the refugee situation? What would be wrong with this course of action - could someone here explain it to me, please.

Posted by abb1 | May 30, 2007 9:18 AM

Arguing that the effective response to violence against civilians is equal violence against the other guy's civilians is just plain dumb. The far more plausible alternative is to go after the other guy's leaders, although you could argue Israel has done that plenty of times over the years and it hasn't helped so far. But yeah, the fish in a barrel which this post shoots are already long dead.

Posted by Steve | May 30, 2007 9:18 AM

@abb1
How is Israel supposed to resolve the refugee situation? There are no refugees in Israel. Lebanon has quite a few, and many are in Gaza and the West Bank.

But the West Bank, historically, was Jordanian territory. Should it be given back to the Jordanians? Do they want it?

Posted by wiredog | May 30, 2007 9:21 AM

Israel is supposed to resolve the refugee situation by granting the refugees the right of return. And if Israeli population is determined to maintain their racial purity, they can pay the refugees to forgo their right of return, it's that simple.

The West Bank needn't be given to anybody, all that's required is to withdraw the troops from the territories occupied in 1967 and, of course, to end the blockade of Gaza, that's all.

Why shouldn't this be the response to the rockets? That's what, it seems to me, the rockets are asking.

Posted by abb1 | May 30, 2007 9:42 AM

Can someone point me to where peretz advocates the indiscriminate killing of palestinian civillians in response to rocket attacks?

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 30, 2007 9:48 AM

Also, what Daniel Gilbert said.

Posted by jhupp | May 30, 2007 9:49 AM

One JEWISH life is worth a thousand of those SAND-N*GGERS !!!

And anyone who says otherwise is an ANTI-SEMITE!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a LIBERAL MAGAZINE TO RUN !!!

Posted by Farty Peretz | May 30, 2007 9:54 AM

Of course Israel has the right to respond by targeting the leaders of Hamas, blah blah blah.

The problem I have with Peretz in this instance is the narrow focus of the issue. Due to poor decisions over the last 40 years, Israel finds itself mired in this dead-end struggle, in which defending itself involves actions that further radicalize the Palestinians. There really seems no way out, at least in the short term.

But, here's the good news: its not our problem! In fact, there are probably at least a dozen other conflicts around the globe that are much worse than this one, that I'm blissfully unaware of. Due to geography, Israel is stuck there. We are not. Let's rid ourselves of the idea that its our problem, and just ignore it. I don't mean we completely ignore it. We can remain every bit as involved as, say, Finland is.

The bonus is that, if we stop subsidizing Israel's settlement of this land, and conflict with the Palestinians, then there will be less ill-will directed toward us from that region.

Posted by Jim W | May 30, 2007 10:16 AM

abb1:

"That's what, it seems to me, the rockets are asking."

Are you a rocket whisperer? I'm not, but considering that the rockets are fired by Hamas, and that Hamas's demands aren't a return to pre-1967 borders and a right of return of Palestinians who lived there (and their descendants), but the elimination of Israel, it seems unlikely Hamas would stop firing rockets if Israel did those things. It's worth remembering, as well, that Israel was fairly regularly attacked by Palestinian militants prior to 1967, when it was, of course, in pre-1967 borders.

Recent history also suggests that when Israel cedes land it tends to inspire more attacks against it, especially from the land it ceded (e.g., Southern Lebanon and Gaza). That suggests that ceding more land would result in more attacks, not fewer. Seems like kind of a stupid message the Palestinian rocket men are sending from Gaza, no?

Posted by Fred | May 30, 2007 10:49 AM

Jim W. has an interesting point. Along those lines, I would add we ought to phase out our foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan as well as Israel. Why get blamed by folks like the Muslim Brotherhood for propping up Mubarak?

Bernard Lewis has also made the point that excessive international attention to the Israel-Arab conflict has probably perpetuated it and made it more intractable. As an example, he mentioned how the far larger refugee problem after the partition of another former formerly British-controlled area (India-Pakistan) was resolved without as much international fanfare.

Posted by Fred | May 30, 2007 10:58 AM

This sure looks like it's gonna be a fun thread.

Posted by JP | May 30, 2007 11:20 AM

In reality, nothing encourages a bully like a passive victim.

Which is why, when the non-violence of the first Intifada failed, the Palestinians moved on to less passive forms of resistance.

Until the Israeli's leave the colonies and return to internationally-recognized borders the Resistance will continue.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | May 30, 2007 11:24 AM

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Fred's latest post. Cutting off (or severely reducing) our foreign aid to the region should be done on a proportional basis to all the countries. I also agree that the excessive attention from outside has probably exacerbated the situation.

During the cold war, I suppose it made a sense for us to back Israel more or less unilaterally as a counterbalance to the Soviets backing the other side. But now, what's the point (I mean, other than domestic politics)?

Posted by Jim W | May 30, 2007 11:31 AM

Part of the reason that Israel could use a less "pro-Israel" policy from the United States of America is that refusing to respond to provocations is one of the absolute hardest things for a democratic government to do. When something bad is happening to your citizens, the pressure to "do something" in response, whether or not that something will actually make things worse, is hard to withstand. A foreign patron leaning on you to resist the pressure can be very helpful.

Indeed. This is why the whole "BushCO is pro-Israel" talking point bugs me so. Because if they really had the long term interests of Israel at heart, they'd be the patron MY suggests we ought to be.

This is also why I'm irritated by the "let's get money and support from the fundies -- since we know their eschatology that motivates them is b.s., how can their anti-Semitic eschatology harm us?" But it does -- what Israel, a country whose very founding ideology is that we Jews are too cautious, not active enough, etc., needs is a patron whispering in their ear "be cautious". The influence of the fundies on Israel is very real and very dangerous -- they are trying to make their eschatology come to pass, and while many think that the fundies are just tools, it is the Israelis who think this way that are really being used as tools.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 11:40 AM

The bonus is that, if we stop subsidizing Israel's settlement of this land, and conflict with the Palestinians, then there will be less ill-will directed toward us from that region. - Jim W

It works the other way as well. If Israel is not seen so much as a tool of US "imperialism" but as just another country (the goal of Zionism is for Israel to be just another country -- a pretty un-Jewish goal, AFAIK, but Zionism is what it is) struggling to survive, it'll do a lot to improve Israel's standing in the international community as Israel will no longer be the whipping boy, "despised and rejected" for the sins of the U.S.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 11:45 AM

Israel is supposed to resolve the refugee situation by granting the refugees the right of return. And if Israeli population is determined to maintain their racial purity, they can pay the refugees to forgo their right of return, it's that simple.

What "right of return"? To expand on Fred's point (I can't believe I agree with Fred), a lot of refugees were created immediately post-WWII. The take-home lesson according to many from WWII was that if you wanna go about creating nation-states, you better move people into the bounderies created.

Indeed, Israel absorbed many refugees, and not just from Europe. Probably as many Arab Jewish refugees fled to Israel as Palestinian Arab refugees fled from Israel. And while the Arab countries have, in many cases, offerred a right of return, this right is meaningless: a Jew, a (former) citizen of the Zionist entity would be likely arrested as a spy at the first opportunity. And Arab nations have refused to compensate Israel even as, AFAIK, Israel has offered compensation to Palestinian refugees.

It has been pointed out that peace will not come to the Middle East until Israel faces the fact that its population of former victims was a population of victimizers from the very founding of the state. And that this is a bad thing (there is an element of Zionism that says: "if the world allows the goyim to be evil, why won't it allow the Jews to be so?" we Jews need to reject this un-Jewish moral relativism).

OTOH, in order for peace to exist, Palestinian "refugees" need to give up refugee status (and the Arab world and the international community need to make this possible). The Palestinians need to realize that they have no "right of return" (indeed, by international standards the sovereign nations should be allowed defensible borders and given the problems Israel has even with its current borders, the Palestinians should be lucky to even get Gaza and the West Bank -- after WWII, the constant border problems of central Europe were solved by massive population transfers -- except in Yugoslavia and we know how that turned out -- so why shouldn't Israel be allowed to solve its border problems in the same way? why the double standard? Anti-Semitism? It's the obvious answer ...) -- no more so than Muslims from what's now India, Hindus from what's now Pakistan, Poles from what's now Russia, Karelians from what's now Russia, etc.

And the Arab world needs to (perhaps with funding from rich petro-states, the U.S. and even Israel) needs to absorb refugees from those camps and into permanent housing, etc. If Israel is an apartheid state, so are Lebanon (and why doesn't Lebanon get the same criticism for its responses to violence that Israel does?), Jordan, etc. Yet, the obvious solution, e.g., to Lebanon's current situation -- just clearing those refugee camps and placing everyone (even if they may be terrorists) in decent housing and absorbing them into Lebanon is barely aired.

Until the "refugee problem" is solved, the Israel/Palestine conflict will endure. But the Palestinians need to realize (and the international community needs to stop being so disingenuous about this) that the way such problems are solved is for the host countries of refugees to absorb them.

The Israelis need to acknowledge that given the history of how the Palestinian people were kicked off their lands, etc., for Palestinians to even sit at the negotiating table is a huge compromise. However, the Palestinians need to acknowledge that, given how unprecidented their requests are (a "right of return" for descendents of refugees, territorial concessions in lands a country conquered as part of a defensive war, etc.), for the Israelis not to simply boot the Palestinians out of even the occupied territories is also a huge compromise.

Until each side come to the table realize the compromise made by the other side in even coming to the table, no peace will exist. However, such a show of understanding will go a long way ...

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Hamas doesn't much care about Palestinian casualties. - Brett Bellmore

If Hamas didn't care much about Palestinian casualties your point would be right on the money (and that so many liberals don't see it in general, and not just in this particular situation, is why we get labeled as wimps).

But the fact of the matter is that Hamas cares much about Palestinian casualties. While Hamas gains a lot of support amongst the Palestinians because they, unlike Fatah, et al., actually provide good governance and services for the people, etc., Hamas also has much to gain from Palestinian casualties -- the more martyrs, the more people are angry at Israel, and the better for Hamas!

So, Hamas would love, at least at some level, for Israel to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible. Which may be why they do what they do -- to provoke a response from Israel. So, Israel may very well be playing into the bully's hands, just as we played into the bully's hands in our responses to 9/11.

And is this what Israel really should be doing?

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 12:09 PM

Well, it may be that Hamas prefers a situtation where random Palestinians get killed along with random Israelis, to one where only random Israelis are being killed. That's only to say that Israel needs to be sure that it's not random Palestinians who get killed, but instead targets Hamas leaders for assasination. Rather than not responding at all.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 30, 2007 12:24 PM

DAS, whatever the Arab countries do or don't do, or whoever Israel absorbed or didn't absorb - it's completely irrelevant to the case. See UN resolution 194, it's not complicated at all.

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

That's all there is to it. Until it's done rockets will keep falling and the Israelis have no reason to complain about it, because whatever Hamas or any other group there does or doesn't do - it all must be viewed in this context.

Posted by abb1 | May 30, 2007 12:49 PM

instead targets Hamas leaders for assasination. Rather than not responding at all. - Brett Bellmore

Which targetting Israel will do hiding behind its superior technology and via airstrikes which would likely harm civilians as well.

I hate to be a chickenhawk (I wouldn't volunteer for such duty) about this, but better Israel should have special forces on the ground abduct these people and put them on trial. Targetting people from the air causes people to see Israelis as cowards. Abducting these folks alive would make the Israelis be seen as brave and willing to stand up to bullying -- and would thus send the message you want Israel to send.

Also, it's the Jewish way. If these leaders are actively pursuing someone to kill them (or doing the equivalent, actively ordering airstrikes, etc.), then under Jewish law you are obliged to use even deadly force to stop that pursuit. OTOH, unless these leaders fall under that category, to kill them outside of a due process of law is to take vengeance and prevent that due process of law from occurring -- both of which are grave sins in Judaism. In particular, if a person guilty of a capital crime does not have his case tried in court, calamity will befall the land. And by killing someone extra-judicially, you prevent them from being tried in a court of law.

So it's very sinful (and in Jewish lore inviting of further calamity to befall Israel) for Israel to engage in these targetted assassinations.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 1:19 PM

That's all there is to it. - abbl

No it isn't. Were there similar resolutions regarding other refugee problems existent in 1948?

If so, then why is Israel singled out when others ignored resolutions as well? If not, then why was Israel held to a more difficult to meet standard than other nations? Given this double standard, is it any wonder that neo-conservatism and other "thumb your nose at the international community" (which did nothing to prevent 6 million Jews from dying) ways of thinking have so much traction in the Jewish community.

As I said, a large part of the problem is the encouraging of a victim status for the Palestinians by the international community. Simply highlighting a double standard doesn't discount my argument, does it?

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 1:27 PM

Until it's done rockets will keep falling and the Israelis have no reason to complain about it, because whatever Hamas or any other group there does or doesn't do - it all must be viewed in this context. - abbl

So it'd be perfectly OK if Bihari Muslims, kept in wretched camps by Bengladesh following the Bengladeshi war for independence were to start launching rocket attacks against Bengladesh?

Heck, by your logic, if we were to arm some Karelians and Poles and they were to start launching rockets at Russia, the Russians would have no reason to complain about it, because whatever they do or don't due, it all must be viewed in this context.

Oh wait ... there was no magical UN resolution? And some of my fellow liberal internationalists wonder why some people think the UN is stupid and even malevolent?

If we ever want to have true and peaceful rule of law on the international scene, we need to start by having some form of equal protection under that law. While we can say that "Israel ought to know better" (with which argument, as a Jew, I am comfortable ... as we "chosen people" ought to know better ... but isn't this argument racist against other nations who are deemed not to know better?) or Israel gets US money or some such, the fact is that Israel is still getting singled out. And ya gotta wonder why that is -- ya gotta wonder, given the history of this wonderful international community, whether anti-Semitism is involved, etc. At the very least, there is no equal protection -- the lack of which, more than even any of the evil nose thumbing in which BushCO, the IMF/World Bank or whomever engages in, is a greater block to having a system of laws among the nations than anything else.

The very idea behind the UN is that you cannot truly have peace without equality before some form of international law and community standards. And yet, even from the get-go, the UN was flaunting that equality? And people wonder why the UN gets criticised?

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 1:36 PM

Israel is not getting singled out, it's quite the opposite. Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990, the UN declared war and liberated Kuwait by military means. And Iraq has been paying reparations ever since - to the Kuwaiti government and every individual who submitted a claim. Now, Iraq indeed could make a case that it's been singled out and point to Israel as a proof of that.

The Soviet-Finnish war and Poland happened before the WWII, so that's irrelevant; and I don't know about Bangladesh, but even if someone somewhere did manage to get away with ethnic cleansing, it doesn't mean that you should too; no matter how much you complain, you're not the victim there in Palestine, you're the perpetrator.

But this is all irrelevant, you obviously aren't even trying to be objective, coming up with all this insane lawyering, sophistry and basically any kind of nonsense to avoid answering the simple question I asked: why not comply with the UN resolutions 242 and 194? Why not end the occupation and resolve the refugees issue? What could be more obvious; everybody knows this is the only solution, why not just fucking do it? The only alternative is more bloodshed and further destabilization of the region.

Posted by abb1 | May 30, 2007 2:05 PM

why not comply with the UN resolutions 242 and 194? Why not end the occupation and resolve the refugees issue? - abbl

Well this gets to the fundamental question. If Israel complied with these resolutions as you would have it, it would no longer be a Jewish State. Is this ok? Or is it not? I dunno. But I don't see you asking the Czech Republic to threaten its existance as a Czech state by taking back in Sudeten refugees ...

I'm no Zionist. I personally wouldn't care if Israel is no longer a Jewish state, but for a few things.

(1) Would such a state really comply with the other parts of Resolution 194? Certainly, when Arab states occupied East Jerusalem, they didn't comply with that resolution. Would a Palestinian dominated state comply? I suspect not. Given that Ariel Sharon should not have visited the Temple Mount 'cause it was provocative for him to do so, what's next? Should I, as a liberal Jew, be blocked from visiting a Jewish holy site 'cause my liberalism and my Judaism both make me provocative to a conservative, Muslim majority?

(2) Would such a state continue the Jewish right of return to Israel? I know you'll say that right is racist, but, given the history of our people, how can you argue that it's not necessary we have such a right. While I generally agree with Arendt, her idea that a binational state in the Levant could be a homeland to Jews was daffy -- why should such a state grant Jews a right of return? And yet, why would you move to end that right?

(3) There is a very real fear of what would happen if Israel ceases to be a Jewish dominated state. Unlike in South Africa where one of the most radical figures, Nelson Mandela, was seen by any reasonable person as someone who would do whatever he could to ensure that a truly democratic South Africa would have an equal place for whites as well as blacks, you have even more moderate Palestinian "leaders" acting as if they still want to "drive the Jews into the sea". Is it fair to ask Israelis to give up their freedoms?

Anyway, speaking of sophistry and lawyering, how come all the lawyering and sophistry to avoid acknowledgement that what you and those who feel as you do (including most of the international community) are asking Israel to do is indeed rather un-precedented? Since when does any group get the kind of right of return the Palestinian side is insisting on?

Israel exists as a sovereign nation. It has a right to control its borders. It has a right to defensible borders. Your proposed solutions interfere with those national rights in un-precedented ways. Why the double standard?

*

Regarding Iraq and Kuwait: what's that have to do with things? How does Iraq, without provocation (even with a border dispute) invading Kuwait compare with Israel being the only country being asked to take back so many refugees and their descendents and being asked to return land they occupied following a war started by deliberate acts of war made by countries fighting against Israel?

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 2:30 PM

Recent history also suggests that when Israel cedes land it tends to inspire more attacks against it, especially from the land it ceded (e.g., Southern Lebanon and Gaza). That suggests that ceding more land would result in more attacks, not fewer. - Fred

Which is a fair enough response to abbl as to why Israel shouldn't end the occupation. OTOH, to be honest, Israel's been very disingenuous about its "withdrawals" and "cedings" of land, which does muddy the waters, which may be the whole point, in which case Israel's being not only immoral but also is being dangerous to us Jews by re-enforcing stereotypes about Jewish "cleverness" and "disingenuity".

The most charitable interpretation is, of course, that Israel is experimenting to see whether total withdrawal is feasible -- if its security is threatened by partial withdrawal, it won't do the whole thing. But that isn't the interpretation taken by many in Gaza and the West Bank itself who see even bona fide and highly justified Israeli reticense as disinginuity and respond accordingly.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 2:35 PM

Oh ... and Iraq and Kuwait is also a bad example to show the UN doesn't have double standards as Kuwait was only defended 'cause of its oil (and the oil of threatened Saudi Arabia) and the US interest in same.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 2:37 PM

being asked to return land they occupied following a war started by deliberate acts of war made by countries fighting against Israel?

Well, you've certainly reproduced Saddam's rhetoric regarding the invasion of Kuwait word for word. Good show.

Posted by ArgleBargle | May 30, 2007 2:38 PM

Targetting people from the air causes people to see Israelis as cowards.

and their vision of this is incorrect how, exactly?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | May 30, 2007 2:51 PM

DAS,

A river of words, as if it will have any effect. What a stereotypically Jewish response. And completely unnecessary. The salient point, that Fred made above, is that, since Hamas's goal is Israel's destruction, there's no reason to expect that they would stop launching rockets at Israel if Israel did everything abb1 suggests it do.

Posted by Julio | May 30, 2007 3:00 PM

Well, why should they stop launching rockets at Israel before Israel meets these fundamental demands - one 60 years old, the other 40 years old? I don't see any basis to tell them to stop. Indigenous people have the right to self-determination, it's their fundamental right, and they are entitled to use any means available to them to achieve it. If they are at the point where they feel that only launching rockets will help, that's their prerogative to launch rockets. As soon as they get what they are entitled to, we can start talking about the rockets.

Posted by abb1 | May 30, 2007 5:02 PM

Indigenous people have the right to self-determination, it's their fundamental right, and they are entitled to use any means available to them to achieve it. - abbl

Define "indigenous people"? Seems to me that Palestinians tend to be Arabs, who are not in general indigenous in the Levant. If they are as their name indicates (in English more typically rendered as "Philistines"), then why don't they go back to Asia Minor, Crete, etc? OTOH, while some of us (Ashkenazic) Jews are certainly 80+% nordic "aryans", there is ample genetic evidence of at least some Middle Eastern (and hence presumably Levantine) origin of many Jews ... even otherwise very white ones are (if only a small) part indigenous Israelis.

OTOH, does abbl support the ETA? If the Basques are indeed a subset of the Iberians and the Iberians are not originally from the Caucassus Mts., but are descended from the original megalithic peoples of Western Europe, you don't get much more indiginous than the Basques. So they should have a right to reclaim Spain by any means necessary, right?

Where do you live abbl? Are you an indigene? I trust if your not you'll be happy with the rockets directed your way?

The rights of indigenous people are around the world sadly overlooked. It's actually quite a horrid state which I somewhat regret treating so lightly here. But when suddenly the Palestinian cause gets so much press, sometimes some of us gotta wonder what's really going on.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but again -- why the double standard? Where is the outrage even regarding the other abuses of indigenes?

And anyway, why should the Palestinians be entitled to anything more than the Karelians, Hindus from western Punjab, Sudeten Germans, etc., are entitled to? Just as Israel needs to come to grips with what they've done to the Palestinians for peace to occur, the Palestinians need to give up their sense of entitlement.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 5:30 PM

abb1:

"Well, why should they stop launching rockets at Israel before Israel meets these fundamental demands"

Those aren't Hamas's demands; Hamas's demand is for Israel to disappear. Why is this so confusing for you? See if you can follow: Since Hamas is the group shooting the rockets, and Hamas's goal is for Israel to be replaced with an Islamic Palestinian state, it follows that Hamas will not be satisfied by any measures short of that by Israel (e.g., ceding Gaza).

"Indigenous people have the right to self-determination"

Jews are the indigenous people there. There were Jews living on that land before the births of Islam and Christianity. It's true that there weren't a lot of Jews living in what is now Israel in the 19th century, but neither were there a lot of Arabs. It was a barren and desolate land. Most of the Palestinians today are descendants of Arabs who came to Palestine after Jews made the improvements (draining swamps, introducing modern agriculture, expanding communications infrastructure such as harbors, etc.) that enabled the land to support more people (and created economic opportunities).

Posted by Julio | May 30, 2007 5:34 PM

Well, you've certainly reproduced Saddam's rhetoric regarding the invasion of Kuwait word for word. Good show. - ArgleBargle

While rhetoric can be telling (case in point how much the anti-gay marriage rhetoric resembles the racist, anti-miscegenation rhetoric of a half century ago), equivalence of rhetoric doesn't necessarily indicate a real equivalence.

Tell me about the hosts of Kuwaiti and Saudi troops amassed at the Iraqi border prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the blockage by Kuwaitis of a key shipping route into Iraq and then we'll talk about the equivalence of the situations.

Until then, just 'cause Saddam Hussein used the same rhetoric as Israel did in 1967 doesn't mean both his actions and Israel's were equally justified.

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 5:37 PM

Well, why should they stop launching rockets at Israel...I don't see any basis to tell them to stop. Indigenous people have the right to self-determination, it's their fundamental right, and they are entitled to use any means available to them to achieve it.

Where is this written, exactly?

It sure ain't in the UN Charter, or the Bible or al Q'aran. And it makes no particular sense. My neighbor the Lakota Sioux descendant has an absolute right to burn my house down because he's an indigene and I'm not?

abb1, I appreciate that you've chosen a side here, and it sounds like you're getting a little frustrated that you're being asked to justify your choices with logic instead of assertion, but, hey, blogging is tough.

I propose that the right of indigenous people to self-determination is one among many desirable things, and not the most important. Not murdering people, for example, is higher on the list. That's not a very controversial proposition. In fact, it's the basis for the concept of "war crime." Do you have some reason to think this is wrong?

I'll also propose that when you have two nations with rights to the same land, you can't just arbitrarily decree that one claim is superior. Israel is there, the Palestinians are there, and they're going to have to compromise. Unfortunately, the Palestinians haven't liked any compromise proposed by anybody. They rejected the Green Line the first time it was proposed, in 1948, and in their last election, they tossed out the party that was theoretically willing to compromise and replaced it with the one that wasn't. So your solution -- Israel unilaterally concedes a compromise that the other side isn't offering -- is not going to actually solve anything. Unless, of course, your idea of a solution is to give your precious indigenous people an easier time murdering a few million Jews so they won't have to compromise. If that wasn't what you had in mind, I'd be glad to hear how and why you think that isn't what your solution would accomplish.

Posted by trilobite | May 30, 2007 7:17 PM

DAS:

Tell me about the hosts of Kuwaiti and Saudi troops amassed at the Iraqi border prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the blockage by Kuwaitis of a key shipping route into Iraq and then we'll talk about the equivalence of the situations.

Actually, Saddam's "case" for preventative war with Kuwait is much closer to Israel's than you realize. He (accurately) said that the U.S. was aiding Iran, which until recently had had troops not just on the border with Iraq but inside Iraq and was also supporting separatist movements in both Iraq's north and south. At the same time the U.S. was backing Kuwait, and there's good reason to believe the U.S. was actively encouraging Kuwait to damage Iraq economically...much more so than the closure of the Straits of Tiran damaged Israel. (During that period 5% of Israel's trade passed through Eliat.)

No country attacks others without "reasons" (along with lots of rhetoric about how they had to do so to avoid being destroyed -- later disavowed as bullshit in more honest countries, like Israel). That's why international law doesn't pay attention to the always-existing "reasons," and instead focuses on who attacked who and forbidding acquiring territory by force. And that's why the world views(ed) both Israel's and Iraq's occupations as illegitimate.

tribolite:

Unfortunately, the Palestinians haven't liked any compromise proposed by anybody

Well, except for the compromise based on international law proposed by everyone on earth except for the U.S. and Israel. But given that only the U.S. and Israel exist, and the rest of the world is mere phantasms of our imagination, your point stands.

Posted by ArgleBargle | May 30, 2007 9:30 PM

That's why international law doesn't pay attention to the always-existing "reasons," and instead focuses on who attacked who and forbidding acquiring territory by force. And that's why the world views(ed) both Israel's and Iraq's occupations as illegitimate. ArgleBargle

What kind of law ignores the reasons why agent A attacked agent B? Certainly not domestic law when it comes to people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone pulls a gun on me and I'm legitamately armed with a gun myself, I don't need to wait for them to shoot me before I shoot them. And how did the Arab world not pull a gun on Israel by amassing forces as they did?

So why should international law be any different than domestic law in terms of allowed use of force? If it is different, than this international law which y'all so eloquently state requires Israel to withdrawal from the occupied territories is a crock -- and y'all wonder why people take issues with international law? I'm a pro-international law kinda guy, but international law needs to be a real system of law and not a silly system for it to work.

Anyway, when did this "forbidding acquiring territory by force" come into being? I should hope after the treaties ending WWII. 'Cause, pace abbl, AFAIK, the boundaries of Poland existing today were established after WWII, and they allowed the USSR to keep quite a bit of territory acquired by force. And while it says something bad about Israel to compare it to the USSR, why should Israel be held to a different standard by this so-called international law? Again, where is the equal protection?

The fact of the matter seems to be that there is one law for rich countries (especially the US), one law for poor countries, and since the poor countries can't force the rich countries to follow the same law, they pick on Israel -- 'cause it's perceived as the proxy of the US and we Jews are easy to pick on.

But let's not go appealing to international law when the international law involved is, by any reasonable notion of a legal system, an exceedingly silly crock. All y'all do is discredit international law per se as something silly and a crock. And, call me a nitwit one-worlder if you must but if we really do want to move toward a more peaceful world free of war, we need to move toward a system of international law that keeps law-breaking countries in line. That's the idea of the UN, nu? But alas, the practice has not merely fallen short of the ideal (which is inevitable) but is a perversion of that ideal. And to continue to back such a perversion as if it's the bees knees is a rather problematic position to take, nu?

Posted by DAS | May 30, 2007 10:41 PM

But let's not go appealing to international law when the international law involved is, by any reasonable notion of a legal system, an exceedingly silly crock.

Huh. Well, I'm sure you could get Khaled Mashal to vigorously agree with you on that. Ask him about GA Resolution 181 and he'll give you an earful.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything more to say here. If you think that international law is irredeemably flawed and that we need to revamp it so Israel and the US can deviate more from the general views of mankind, we've really passed beyond the bounds of useful discussion.

Posted by ArgleBargle | May 30, 2007 11:29 PM

Just to set the record straight, Israel has complied with 194. The UN recognized Israel's compliance with 194 when it admitted Israel to the UN almost 60 years ago. Not a single Arab country voted in favor of resolution 194 back in 1948 because they opposed a peaceful solution that acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

But I'm not sure what relevance this 60 year old non-binding resolution has anyway.

Posted by Ragout | May 31, 2007 1:29 AM

Back to the actual topic of Matt's post. Hamas is an elected government, and they ultimately do have to respond to the wishes of the Palestinians.

It seems to me that when the Palestinians get tired of suffering through Israel's retaliation for their attacks, they'll eventually agree to make peace. This seems to be Israel's strategy to some extent. On the other hand, Israel's actions are so restrained -- they continue to supply Gaza with water and electricity, for example -- that I'm not really sure what they're doing.

Posted by Ragout | May 31, 2007 1:36 AM

Trilobite,
see this, for example:

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

...Affirms once again its recognition of the legitimacy of the struggle of the peoples under colonial and alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal;

It's a commonly accepted principle.

DAS, if international law is, as you say, a crock, then Israel certainly has not reason whatsoever to be there and need to be disbanded immediately.

Julio,
Hamas's demand is for Israel to disappear.

It doesn't matter what Hamas' demand is. At the moment Hamas represents the victims of Israeli non-compliance; until this situation is resolved, I don't see any reason to examine Hamas' demands. First comply with the law, and only then you can complain that your former victims act unreasonably, if they do.

Jews are the indigenous people there.

You are insane.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 3:36 AM

Here, Julio, look at these pictures, educate yourself.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 3:40 AM

The trouble with most Israeli-Palestinian threads is that so many people are so extraordinarily ill-informed or thoughtless. Which is surprising, considering the very substantial role which Israel plays in U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

Firstly, the Palestinians in Palestine are the defeated people. They do not have an effectual armed force to defend themselves. They are deeply politically divided and there is constant foreign interference to keep them divided. The liberation movement which they all supported sold out to the enemy and collapsed from its own corruption and incompetence. It would be wonderful if under these circumstances they were able to sustain a liberal and sensible policy, but it would also be a miracle.

Secondly, the Israelis in Palestine are the victorious people. They have one of the most powerful militaries in the world and the unquestioning backing of the United States and Europe, who help fund them. They are in a position to make concessions, while the Palestinians are not.

The Israelis are not making concessions. That's the problem. The fact that some Palestinians are firing a few tiny short-range rockets out of Gaza is unimportant except that Israel uses this as an excuse for refusing to make concessions.

The idea that the Israelis should murder (or kidnap and imprison) a Palestinian leader every time an Israeli is killed by Palestinians is unappealing because of the above problem. More to the point, it has not worked when the Israelis did it hundreds of times in the past, and there is no sign that it will work in the future.

I don't believe that there is a decent solution. Either the Palestinians must be removed from Palestine (whether by forced removal or by extermination) or Israel must cease to exist.

Posted by MFB | May 31, 2007 3:52 AM

Well, MFB, this would've been true, say, a hundred years ago, before we got all these modern political inventions, like UN charter, international sanctions and so on. Kuwait was also defeated and without an armed force, but look at them now. These days slaughtering the other tribe typically is not the most preferred solution.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 6:56 AM

Despite what Abb1 believes, UN General Assembly resolutions aren't "international law," they're non-binding. In this case, GA resolution 194 called for negotiations between Israel and its enemies, so Abb1's demands that Israel comply without negotiations is particularly laughable.

Posted by Ragout | May 31, 2007 8:48 AM

UN General Assembly resolutions aren't "international law," they're non-binding

Surely you must understand this is not a point you want to emphasize.

Posted by ArgleBargle | May 31, 2007 9:11 AM

Resolution 194:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Here's how Israel was accepted to the UN (from wikipedia):

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 was passed on May 11, 1949 to admit the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations. This Resolution is often cited as making Israel's admission to the UN conditional upon implementation of Resolutions 181 of November 29, 1947 and 194 of December 11, 1948 (see paragraph 5 of the Resolution, below).

Apart from all this, how does one justify expelling hundreds of thousands of people from their homes in modern times? And if one choose to defend it, where does one get the nerve to complain about the rockets? You reap what you sow; expect more and bigger rockets in the upcoming years and decades.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 9:19 AM

Thanks for quoting the (part of) the resolution, which is obviously not the unconditional right-of-return for Palestinian refugees that you believe it to be. That's why every single Arab state voted against it, and failed to comply with its provisions urging negotiations and access of all to holy sites in Jerusalem.

Note that it doesn't only apply to Palestinian refugees or only to Israel. It's also a call for the Arab states to permit the Jews they expelled to return, or to compensate them. Note also that it only applies to refugees "wishing to...live at peace with their neighbors."

Posted by Ragout | May 31, 2007 9:33 AM

ArgleBargle,

You're projecting. GA resolution 194 tended to favor the Israeli position, so I wouldn't want to emphasize its non-binding character if I were dishonest. But I'm not a liar, so I see no reason to ignore the fact that GA resolutions are non-binding.

Posted by Ragout | May 31, 2007 9:49 AM

Arab states do accept 194 and 242, see the Saudi peace initiative.

Jews who came to Israel from the Arab countries typically don't consider themselves expelled and/or refugees, except for the Iraqi Jews who still blame Mossad for the terror campaign that led to their exodus. But those of them who do have claims definitely should submit them to the authorities responsible.

Posted by abb1 | May 31, 2007 9:49 AM

Apart from all this, how does one justify expelling hundreds of thousands of people from their homes in modern times? And if one choose to defend it, where does one get the nerve to complain about the rockets? - abb1

Define modern times? I'm not a Zionist (precisely because I find the position I'm about to express to be against Jewish morality -- however, it is a highly justified position), but I'll play one on this blog: funny how such mass population transfers were accepted as necessary to peace until the Jews did it.

Isn't this kinda like how certain political tricks are ignored entirely so long as the GOP does them but then once the Dems. do it, you need to bring out the fainting couches for the pundits all having the vapors over "partisan Dems"? Isn't this kinda like how we men can get away with certain things but as soon as a woman does it, it becomes "what's with society today?"?

I wanna know how come modern times gets defined so conveniently, eh?

So, abb1, as some of us have asked, are you an indigene? If not, how would you like it if the indigenes in your area were armed and shelling your house? You reap what you sow, eh? And anyway, in spite of your labeling one of us as insane, at least some Jews are, as far as these things go, indigenous to the Middle East. Do Mizrahi Jews in the West Bank or Gaza then have a right to launch rockets at Arab settlements which interfere with their independence?

Anyway, regarding Ragout's point, it's true the Arab states opposed it and, so long as they controlled East Jerusalem they did not comply with a key aspect of that resolution (again -- how come when Arabs block Jews from our Holy Sites, people shrug, but when Jews merely do things to learn more about the Holy Sites and possibly even preserve them better, the world is outraged that Israel might block Muslim access to a Muslim Holy Site?). However, as soon as Israel controlled East Jerusalem (so the Holy Site issue went away) and it became clear that appearing to comply with Resolution 194 would be politically expedient for the Arab world, IIRC, the Arab world did offer Jews a "right of return". The right would be meaningless (could you imagine the fate of a Jew who was a citizen of the hated Zionist entity who returned to an Arab land with no compensation for lost property or anything?) and no monetary compensation would be offerred. Israel's good at disingenuity -- perhaps Israel can make a similar offer to Palestinians? But oh the outcries you'd hear about those "disingenuous Zionists" ...

Posted by DAS | May 31, 2007 10:15 AM

I see no reason to ignore the fact that GA resolutions are non-binding.

I'm sorry, I can't possibly believe you're so ignorant that you don't understand what I meant.

Posted by ArgleBargle | May 31, 2007 10:35 AM

Jews who came to Israel from the Arab countries typically don't consider themselves expelled and/or refugees - abb1

But they were expelled and were refugees. That they don't consider themselves as such has more to do with Israel's integration of them into Israeli society (which integration actually is not what it should be -- alas, Israeli prejudice against Arabs isn't limitted to non-Jewish Arabs). That Palestinians still consider themselves refugees isn't Israel's fault: it's the fault of Arab societies for not absorbing them like other societies have absorbed refugees.

Anyway, as to the Saudi plan, it's a good starting point. But it actually doesn't really say anything concrete about even Palestinian refugees: only that a just solution will be found which won't effect the demographics of Israel. To me this sounds like a limitted right of return for some Palestinians and compensation for others. Which sounds fair enough, but the resolution must spell this out that way both sides no what they are getting. E.g., many, both in Israel and in the Arab world, take the wording to be a weasle wording that all Palestinian "refugees" will have a right of return with 'the demographic nature of Israel not being threatened' claims having as much weight as a promise to Congress by GW Bush.

And where does it say anything about Jewish refugees? Last I heard, the Arab world was allowing Jewish refugees to return, but was not offering any compensation for lost property in any way, shape or form. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the like are rich -- they can pay for this compensation on behalf of Egypt, Iraq, etc., if they really want peace.

But the real problems with this resolution are the return of the Golan Heights and Palestinian control of East Jerusalem. Unless the Golan Heights is turned into a strictly demilitarized zone, it's too strategic to give up. Also, unless the Palestinians actually intend to comply fully with Resolution 194 (and the history of Arab control of East Jerusalem casts doubt on this, as does the lack of mention of this, from what I can tell, in the Saudi peace plan), East Jerusalem being given up means I don't get to pray at the Western Wall when I finally do get to Israel. So the plan, as it stands, while not a non-starter for me and people like me, is currently a no-go.

Posted by DAS | May 31, 2007 10:43 AM

It's worth mentioning that Palestinians did have a limited right-of-return during the Oslo period. About 150,000 Arabs, over 5% of the Palestinian population, legally immigrated to Israel after 1993. Israel only stopped the inflow after several years of Palestinian violence.

And to ArgleBargle: I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Posted by Ragout | June 1, 2007 12:39 AM

rnzge ptdyfaxh naveiqh dcfotj ebmuhig ksxmlrqj fxqn

Posted by rzmivsxh ujagel | June 11, 2007 5:22 PM

Tit for Double-Tat

Comments (55)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories