Foreign Policy as Spite

John McCain: "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare."

As well as being kind of scumbaggy, this way of looking at the world reveals a seriously flawed foreign policy outlook. Consider Saddam Hussein. He's a bad dude. And which American president is his worst nightmare? Well, it's George W. Bush. Thanks to Bush, Saddam got booted from power and killed. Compared to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Dubya was a disaster for Saddam. But of course Dubya's Iraq policy has also been a disaster for the United States of America, whereas Clinton and Papa Bush ran policies that made us better off. International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it. Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't help Israel or the United States, any more than getting into a self-destructive conflict with Iran is a good idea just because it might make some bad Iranians suffer.

Comments

Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda.

Which is exactly how Hamas came into being -- let's remember that it was at first Israel's preferred alternative to the PLO. Israel at first covertly supported Hamas in its battles with the PLO, and yet now Israel (and the United States) is arming and supporting the PLO in its battles with Hamas.

Posted by Stefan | April 25, 2008 5:36 PM

I like the reference to Hamas AND Ortega. This implies that the Democrats are not only friends of the terrorists but also communists. It's never too late to imply that a Democrat is a commie from Dean Acheson's school of cowardly containment.

Posted by Unreal Veal | April 25, 2008 5:38 PM

99% of Americans don't give jack shit about who would be Hamas' worst nightmare. This is a very targeted appeal by McCain.

Posted by blah | April 25, 2008 5:40 PM

Unfortunately our idiot medio will interpret this as toughness, not as another example of how profoundly stupid this clown is.

And Ortega? Isn't it supposed to be our "enemy" Hugo sanchez.

Good comment, by the way, stefan.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:43 PM

Unfortunately our idiot media will interpret this as toughness, not as another example of how profoundly stupid this clown is.

And Ortega? Isn't it supposed to be our "enemy" Hugo sanchez.

Good comment, by the way, stefan.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:43 PM

Unfortunately our idiot media will interpret this as toughness, not as another example of how profoundly stupid this clown is.

And Ortega? Isn't it supposed to be our "enemy" Hugo Sanchez?

Good comment, by the way, stefan.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:44 PM

Unfortunately our idiot media will interpret this as toughness, not as another example of how profoundly stupid this clown is.

And Ortega? Isn't it supposed to be our "enemy" Hugo Sanchez?

Good comment, by the way, stefan.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:45 PM

Unfortunately our idiot media will interpret this as toughness, not as another example of how profoundly stupid this clown is.

And Ortega? Isn't it supposed to be our "enemy" Hugo Sanchez?

Good comment, by the way, stefan.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:45 PM

Unfortunately our idiot media will interpret this as toughness, not as another example of how profoundly stupid this clown is.

And Ortega? Isn't it supposed to be our "enemy" Hugo Sanchez?

Good comment, by the way, stefan.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:46 PM

That's why I think Obama would be the better Democrat on foreign policy, because Elton John prefers Hillary.

Posted by boilermaker | April 25, 2008 5:47 PM

sorry about the multiple posts. My browser got hung up.

Posted by Mark | April 25, 2008 5:49 PM

Hamas was elected into legitimacy as a direct result of GWB and McCain policy to bring "democracy" to the Middle East

McCain has PTSD--

Posted by alison | April 25, 2008 5:51 PM

On the other hand, Al Qaeda's expressed preference for Bush over Kerry really should have been a tip-off.

My snark on McCain's comment: McCain Refuses to Denounce McCain; Cites Unspecified 'Disagreements'.

Posted by Tom Hilton | April 25, 2008 5:53 PM

Doesn't our current policy towards Hamas consist of just not speaking/dealing with them? I wonder what McCain has in mind that would make him their "worst nightmare".

Posted by es | April 25, 2008 5:53 PM

Who knew that McCain and "Danny" Ortega were childhood friends?

Posted by Th | April 25, 2008 5:57 PM

Did McCain really call him "Danny" Ortega?

Posted by Glenn | April 25, 2008 5:57 PM

Why is McCain even mentioning Hamas? Hamas is not a threat to the USA.

Besides, McCain has the Republican nomination. So why is he shooting off his mouth when he has no opponent?

The only reason John McCain would mention Hamas is to signal to several billionaires that he too is an amoral whore who will sacrifice American kids for Israel -- for a price, of course.

Plus McCain hopes Obama will respond --because that will give Hillary the opportunity to tell ghost stories about how Obama will let Israel be destroyed. Hillary needs more money from the Israel Lobby and McCain is trying to help her raise it.

Posted by Don Williams | April 25, 2008 5:58 PM

WOOOHOOO!!!
McCain/Rambo '08!

Actually this is sort of disturbing... maybe he IS Rambo... perhaps that is why he says he can catch OBL right away cause he is gonna do it with his bare hands!!!

Man I thought Bush watching Billy Madison all the time made for a bad presidency... and Rambo is not nearly as good as Billy Madison.

Posted by AJ | April 25, 2008 6:06 PM

Besides, McCain has the Republican nomination. So why is he shooting off his mouth when he has no opponent?

Because he's running for President, not for Republican nominee.

Posted by right | April 25, 2008 6:08 PM

You should be aware that George Bush has been
the best possible president for Osama bin Laden and Bush couldn't have done more for him to help him to
escape from justice and recruit support for his jihad if he had been trying to. McCain plans to continue Bush's policies and is almost certainly Osama's choice.
Osama even sent a timely campaign commercial to
assist Bush in his reelection and will almost
certainly send McCain one as well.

Posted by David | April 25, 2008 6:10 PM

Good post, MY.

George W. was Saddam's biggest nightmare. Unfortunately, he is ours as well.

Posted by abject funk | April 25, 2008 6:18 PM

Re Don Williams

President McCain doesn't have to do anything except give the IDF the go-ahead to apply Hama Rules to the Gaza Strip. US troops will not be required.

Posted by SLC | April 25, 2008 6:36 PM

"I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States."

Holy crap, John McCain really is old and getting senile. He thinks we're going to run Carter against him!

Posted by Po-Mo Polymath | April 25, 2008 6:42 PM

I think McCain's utterance is stupid, but not necessarily harmful to his chances.

What proportion of the electorate in electing a President basically thinks of themselves as hiring a killer?

A third? A quarter?

And do people go to the polls in the Netherlands, or Spain, or New Zealand, thinking that way?

And does anyone under 50 even know who "Danny" Ortega is?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 25, 2008 6:44 PM

Incidentally, Mr. Don Williams hasn't commented yet on the case of Ben-Ami Kadish. am alleged Israeli spy in the US. Here's his chance to really go after those Zionist Jews he loves to hate. Let's go Mr. Williams, have at 'em.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/12801.htm

Posted by SLC | April 25, 2008 6:47 PM

John McCain believes we should allow terrorists to set America's policy agenda. First, we can't leave Iraq because AQ will declare "victory", whatever the f*** that's supposed to mean. Now Hamas gets to drive who should be our President?

When you're reasoning is essentially doing the opposite of whatever the guy you don't like does, you can be played for a fool pretty easily. Just ask George W. On second thought, don't. He'd never understand the question.

Posted by LFC | April 25, 2008 6:47 PM

Man I thought Bush watching Billy Madison all the time made for a bad presidency.

Based on the Ortega reference, it appears McCain's Netflix queue consists of Red Dawn, Red Dawn, and Red Dawn.

WOLVERINES!

Posted by Davis X. Machina | April 25, 2008 6:55 PM

"I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare."

This senile, lying clown as president is what Hamas prays for. Like his asshole buddy, Bush, he will show the rest of the world the limits of American power.

Posted by Econobuzz | April 25, 2008 7:09 PM

John McCain is just trying to discract everyone from the fact that he collaborated with Communists in Vietnam,

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/hero-john-mccain-as-phony-and-collaborator/

Johnny boy was a real "nightmare" for his Viet Cong captors when he was giving them information to use against U.S. soldiers.

Posted by John | April 25, 2008 7:15 PM

International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it.

True, but when the world's scumbags start lining up and saying they support Obama, or prefer to "work with him" like they preferred to work with Jimmy Carter flitting in with his suitcase - that is not a good thing for Obama in the elections.

I don't think there is anything to do to "help" Hamas other than let them fail. They are founded on, committed to exterminating every Israeli if that is what it takes to get rid of every Jew in the ME. They have turned Gaza into a hellhole, and they people that voted those terrorists into power are getting their just desserts 'till next election.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 25, 2008 7:36 PM

If you want to troll, SLC, get your own fucking blog.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 25, 2008 7:54 PM

Re John

The author of the piece to which Mr. John liked is Alexander Cockburn, an antisemitic lying cocksucking fucktard who helps run the extreme left wing counterpunch web site, the left wing equivalent of stormfront. Nothing he says has any credibility.

Re pseudonymous in nc

I wasn't aware that Mr. pseudonymous had been appointed the dictator of the world. It would seem that thats' Mr. Yglesias' call.

Re LFC

Mr. Don Williams wants his hero Osama bin Laden to set the American Policy Agenda by dumping the State of Israel. I guess that's OK.

Posted by SLC | April 25, 2008 8:16 PM

Yeah, and this comes from the administration who, by bungling Iraq, has handed the keys to the kingdom to Iran.

I just can't listen to anything any Republican says about foreign policy in the Middle East (or anywhere really) anymore. They have absolutely no credibility.

Posted by SMN | April 25, 2008 8:31 PM

But Matt, you have to admit, of the three candidates left, John McCain is the most qualified to yell at Hamas to get off of his lawn.

Posted by WinSmith | April 25, 2008 8:42 PM

Hey, shitfly (SLC),

What the fuck are you doing here? You're like a fucking lying little shitfly trying to annoy your betters with one shitass lie after another. LGF (LittleGreenFootballs) is your fucking crowd. There you can call the Palestinians "filthy shvatz goyim" to your heart's delight, shriek "anti-Semite!" and "Nazi!" at everyone even mildly critical of Israel, and claim that Steve Guttenberg is the James Cagney of our time. Feh, get-

Posted by Trevor | April 25, 2008 8:43 PM

I think that this is not just a disorder of conservative foreign policy thinking, but of much conservative thinking in general (foreign and domestic), and even some liberals, independents, etc (although most pronounced among conservatives). See Holbo's post on "Conservative Consistency Concluded."

Posted by Julian Elson | April 25, 2008 8:46 PM

SLC, what are you on? Cockburn may be anti-Zionist but he is no anti-Semite (there is a difference, you know) and Counterpunch is a fine site that features a lot of distinguished authors that are just as credible as any other media source. It is certainly leftist but come on, the left wing equivalent of stormfront? That is straight up ignorant and reductio ad of the highest degree. That sort of ad hominem crap carries absolutely no water at all. What drives people like you to keep parroting this tired old nonsense?

Posted by STC | April 25, 2008 8:55 PM

"If you want to troll, SLC, get your own fucking blog."

As I said in another comment, the use of 'troll' here is stupid.

I really don't have strong opinions on this issue...but a strong supporter of Israel seems pretty mainstream to me, thus not trollish.

SLC has, seems to me, a pretty mainstream position.

Myself--I don't get why the US cares so much about the Middle East really.

Fodder for SLC and Don Williams!

Posted by Andruw | April 25, 2008 8:59 PM

@WinSmith: +1

Posted by Shine | April 25, 2008 9:05 PM

Re STC's comment "Counterpunch is a fine site that features a lot of distinguished authors "
--------------
I agree. Look at this highly intelligent article that Counterpunch published on December 5, 2001:

http://www.counterpunch.org/dwilliams1.html

Posted by Don Williams | April 25, 2008 10:16 PM

I think everyone here, including Matthew (whom I greatly admire), misses the point. Neither Hamas nor Al Quaida gives a rat's ass who the next president is. Look at it this way, if Bin Laden or Haneyeh both drop dead (God willing), does anybody care who the next leader of Hamas or Al Quaida is? The real point is, from where they stand, it is the US itself that is the problem.

Joe5348

Posted by joe5348 | April 25, 2008 10:37 PM

“John McCain gets tax-free disability pension

The disclosure of the Navy benefit for injuries incurred as a Vietnam POW may raise fitness questions.

By Ralph Vartabedian

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 22, 2008

Sen. John McCain has long said he is in robust health and is strong enough to hike the Grand Canyon, but he also is receiving what his staff Monday termed a “disability pension” from the Navy.

When McCain released his tax return for 2007 on Friday, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.

On Monday, McCain’s staff identified the retirement benefit as a “disability pension” and said that McCain “was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW.”

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. “Tortured for his country — that is how he acquired his disability,” Salter said.

Certain types of military and veterans pensions are either partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the seriousness of the disability. In McCain’s case, the exemption is 100% . . .”

Posted by Michael Blaine | April 25, 2008 11:20 PM

it would make sense to come to Obama's defense on this issue if he was not touting the Business magazine endorsement of Hillary as guilt by association. What are Obama's principals? guilt by association for Hillary is OK but not for him?

Posted by rakesh | April 25, 2008 11:34 PM

The only reason John McCain would mention Hamas is to signal to several billionaires that he too is an amoral whore who will sacrifice American kids for Israel -- for a price, of course.

I think there's a big problem with saying that this is "for Israel".

Objectively, it is very hard to argue that American imperialism in the middle east has advanced Israeli interests - expanding Iran's sphere of influence is very bad for Israel from a power-politics perspective, and lending legitimacy to groups that view Israeli and Euro-American forces as imperial, exploitive forces has been bad for ordinary Israelis and for the state.

While SLC believes that escalation in Gaza and the West Bank is good for Israel, most American Jews disagree, and a large swath of Israelis do as well.

Conflating the desires of the Israeli right with "Israel" misrepresents both the objective interests of the state and the measurable desire of the people of Israel and Jews throughout the diaspora.

Posted by DivGuy | April 25, 2008 11:51 PM

I tend to agree with DivGuy, which is why I tend to specify "Zionists" when I bitch about Israel. But not always - I'm not a pedant.

One also gets irritated with "Israel" as the STATE of Israel rather than just the land and the population. It's valid to wish, as Ahmadinejad did, that the STATE of Israel be "wiped from the pages of time" (not "wiped off the map" - that was a bullshit translation.)

When one denounces "Israel" or "the United States", you can refer to the country or you can refer to the state. The two are not the same, but it's not convenient to always be specifying that in every sentence.

Also, there are frequently disturbing polls done of Israelis which make them seen considerably more hawkish than they should be, given the historical fact that if Israel continues along its present path it is absolutely doomed. I have nothing against the Israeli left who wish to deal with the Palestinians in a civil manner, rather than the jackbooted thugs of the Zionist Israeli right. But the reality is, if they can't regain control of Israel, they're all going to be the ones who pay for the mistakes of the right.

And the same is true in the United States.

Andruw meanwhile thinks SLC has a "mainstream position" - that is, he thinks advocating the extermination of the Palestinians - that is what SLC's continual reference to "Hama Rules" refers to - is a "mainstream position". Maybe for the Israeli right and the US AIPAC crowd it is, but it's not for the majority of world Jews or what I call "classical Zionists" like MJ Rosenberg who have that rose-colored view of what "Zionism" was supposed to be about. What "Zionism" is about TODAY is precisely the extermination of the Palestinians and the control of the Middle East.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 26, 2008 12:17 AM

and a large swath of Israelis do as well.

Remove the 20% of Arab Israelis and you have a vanishingly small swath. Given the entire history of the Knesset where the MKs build any possible coalition to exclude Arab parties that part means nothing from a governmental point of view.

There are still great people in Jewish Israel but an enormous amount have voted with their feet and they left in droves through the Begin years and they left in droves through the Sharon ascendency. They get replaced by the worst sorts of scum who like revisionist zionism and move there because it's attractive.

For the broader question, I don't think it has so much to do with advancing an Israeli agenda via Iraq but I think there may have been a fear of any whiff of sympathy of Arabs in general that scared our electorate and that fear has domestic roots but the idea that AIPAC might give you the skunk eye from their offices in the Dirksen building isn't crazy.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 26, 2008 12:22 AM

McCain is simply trying to point out that if Obama is elected then Hamas will most likely oust Fatah and stage an invasion of Israel, very possibly wiping it from the map. That's why Jimmy Carter is a bigot.
You're not dealing with morons here.

Posted by Jack | April 26, 2008 1:01 AM

Daniel Ortega is sort of a dated reference, isn't it? I know he's back in charge, but it's been a while since he was an object of much conservative obsession. (And I'm not so sure Republicans should want to relive that era, considering everything they warned us about in the '80s with regard to Nicaragua turned out to be wildly incorrect.)

Posted by ChuckE | April 26, 2008 1:16 AM

Al-Qaeda declares victory like Patrick Ewing guaranteed championships.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 26, 2008 1:52 AM

Who knew that McCain and "Danny" Ortega were childhood friends?

Well, Panama and Nicaragua aren't that far apart. Perhaps McCain considers Central America his true homeland and gives it special attention.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 26, 2008 5:01 AM

http://clintonista.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/as-for-the-symbolism-war-quod-erat-demonstrandum/

Posted by The Clintonista Post | April 26, 2008 6:28 AM

Re Michael Blaine

Maybe I missed something but weren't at least some of Senator McCains' injuries incurred when he was shot down and parachuted to the ground.

Re Don Williams

What's with Mr. Williams this morning? Is he getting soft in his old age? Still no rant about Ben-Ami Kadish. Come on, how can his miss this opportunity to really bash the International Zionist Conspiracy?

Posted by SLC | April 26, 2008 8:25 AM

"I really don't have strong opinions on this issue...but a strong supporter of Israel seems pretty mainstream to me, thus not trollish."

There's a big difference between backing Israel and supporting ethnic cleansing, which SLC does.

Part of me hopes McCain harps on this all the way through the campaign and keeps on talking about threats to Israel and old fogey commies no one cares about. The more he blabbers on about threats to a small country whose elites try to do things against our interests and about threats from the Reagan years, the more he shows how the Republicans have stopped caring about American national security and the world of today and more about Israel and trying to revive the 1980's.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 12:08 PM

The Ayatollah Khomeini preferred Reagan to Carter. And, as Dinesh D'Souza pointed out, the Christian Right has much more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than with Godless liberals. No informed spite-voter can go GOP.

Posted by Mike | April 26, 2008 12:18 PM

Re Reality Man

Mr. Reality Man is seriously in error in stating that I support ethnic cleansing. At no time have I advocated expelling Arabs from Israel or Fakestinians from the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.

Posted by SLC | April 26, 2008 12:22 PM

I'll be really sorry for asking this, but SLC: If your eager fantasies were indulged and the macho IDF were finally free to impose "Hama Rules" in the Gaza Strip, exactly how would 'ethnic cleansing' not follow? Or is this a question of terms, not a question of wiping out 20,000 - 40,000 people, bulldozing the infrastructure, and prompting a miss emigration?

And please, spare me the points about who lives there and what they are worth, you know I don't care in the slightest about your opinions in that matter.

I'm just slightly curious for odd reasons as to how you believe that an IDF destruction and mass slaughter in the Gaza Strip would not be coterminous with the depopulation of the area?

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 12:32 PM

"I'm just slightly curious for odd reasons as to how you believe that an IDF destruction and mass slaughter in the Gaza Strip would not be coterminous with the depopulation of the area?

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 12:32 PM"

Because Fakestinians don't exist in SLC world.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 1:12 PM

hmmmmm, last week mccain said something to the effect that nobody had been more supportive of bush's iraq policy than he has. now, mccain disses bush over katrina's aftermath, and he's dissing hamas, an organization that won the election that bush and condi strongly supported.

i'm confused.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 26, 2008 2:00 PM

SLC, you are a degenerate vile disgusting sick racist. Go to hell with your sick racism.

"Fakestinians"

Posted by Jennifer | April 26, 2008 2:04 PM

"Fakestinians"

SLC, you are the most degenerate sickening racist, to see your stinking name is to be ill you sick racist. I can only urge Matthew Yglesias to stop your degenerate racism. Vile slime monger! Rot in hell, you degenerate racist.

Posted by Jennifer | April 26, 2008 2:08 PM

Hey, whadyaknow, the Jen-bot appeared!

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 2:33 PM

Re El Cid

Mr. El Cid raises a good question, namely that application of Hama Rules might cause many Fakestinians to leave the area. This might be mitigated by applying the bombardment, at least initially, to those areas within Qassem distance of the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel. As the old saw goes, one cant make an omelet without breaking some egg shells.

Re Jennifer

Ms. Jennifer seems to have here panties in a twist. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by SLC | April 26, 2008 2:47 PM

SLC: I understand you have the capacity to be cute, and you think that your harsh rhetoric either thrills or offends those not as jonesing for the IDF action you do.

Surely you do not literally think I raised "a good question".

Surely you could not have advocated "Hama Rules" for the 10,000 times you have done so without simultaneously assuming that a military operations which wiped out 20-40,000 people (just following the literal "Hama Rules" without proportional population adjustment) and destroyed as many buildings etc. as possible would cause people in the area to leave.

That's either completely disingenuous or an astounding lack of basic thought on your part. Anyone using the phrase "Hama Rules" would probably infer that it had to do with a massive state military / repressive operation which ended either in 20 - 40,000 deaths (even without adjusting for population) and the destruction of some large percentage of structures.

Now, I'm going to ask again, for a literal answer -- no descent into heroics about Israeli toughness nor your own sense that you're being entertaining by your withering dismissals of Gaza residents.

(1) Do you consider that an application of "Hama Rules" to the Gaza Strip by the IDF would cause those current residents to leave?

(2) If so, does this fall under your judgment of the term "ethnic cleansing"?

It's okay if it doesn't, but please answer literally instead of giving some cute, withering sarcastic phrase intended to show how manly you are at dismissing the worthiness of those who would be fleeing.

This is not a question about endorsing or condemning the desirability of "Hama Rules" by the IDF in the Gaza strip. These questions could equally be answered by someone wildly in favor or wildly opposed to the notion.

(That "Jennifer" is not real, it is a fake commenter who appears in order to prompt discussion of an SLC or Chris Ford comment to which no one is paying much attention. It is always the same comment set with a limited vocabulary of repeated phrases.)

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 3:08 PM

Re El Cid

The current range of a qassem rocket is about 8 km. Therefore, carpet bombing + artillery bombardment of an area stretching from the fence inward 8 km would cause any residents of that area to evacuate to the part of the Gaza Strip outside the 8 km zone. The intent of the military action is to put a stop to the qassem bombardment of Sderot. If Mr. El Cid has another approach to accomplish this aim, other then the Government of Israel agreeing to go out of business which is the demand of the Hamas terrorists, I would like to hear it. Unfortunately, there are some regimes that only understand the mailed fist (e.g. Hitler). Trying to be nice to them is a waste of time.

Posted by SLC | April 26, 2008 3:58 PM

That's precisely what Hamas claims it is trying to do with it's crappy little bombardment and your response is basically anything you can do Jews can do better.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 26, 2008 4:11 PM

So, SLC, you would be in favor of any sort of action -- military or other -- which resulted in an 8 km buffer / demilitarized zone between (some geographical designation of) the Gaza Strip and Israel?

According to your summary, your concern appears to be the implementation of any action which can halt (in a manner in which you feel secure) the landing of rockets in Israel.

This is significant, because at times it is difficult to tell whether your repetition of "Hama Rules" indicates that you think that (a) the "Hama Rules" are a tactic which can lead to the result outlined above; or (b) an activity which is a purpose in and of itself and also something you would find viscerally satisfying in and of itself.

Now although (a) and (b) could be simultaneous, you can also have (b) without (a).

Interestingly, for much of its length, the Gaza Strip is 8km or less wide, so an 8km cleared or buffer zone would in one way or another result in the mass movement of some large proportion of 1,400,000 or so inhabitants.

The three directions they could physically move would be (1) into the sea; (2) north into Israel; (3) south into Egypt.

Unless the intended buffer zone was particularly outlined as being the northern Gaza Strip nearing Sderot, in which case Gaza City and Jabaliyah may be able to be a stopping border at the 8km radius.

In a massive bombardment and attack, the half-million large population of Gaza City (and the nearly equal population around it) would go somewhere, unless they were actually killed close to instantly from a truly massive bombardment.

Obviously whether the bedraggled survivors head toward Israel proper or toward Egypt, an instantaneous, chaotic, and partly armed refugee situation with hundreds of thousands or millions of people at the Israeli-Egypt border does not exactly sound like a great deal of stability for the Israeli population, either.

Particularly not if one of the consequences were the destabilization or even collapse of the Egyptian government as a result, perhaps even falling to the Islamic super-fundamentalists in their midst.

Sure, I have my own ideas on how movements toward a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute could feasibly be resolved, but since on numerous occasions you have declared each and every one to be akin to anti-Israeli surrender perspectives, I hardly see reason to focus on it.

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 4:22 PM

SLC is either disinterested in anything but posturing or an amoral monster or both, but the thing I've always wondered about was they they didn't have mortar tracking tech set up at the Gaza border. The tech is out there, there are mortars with tracking systems that can tell you instantly when a mortar is fired, work out the reverse azimuth and deliver fire and it works really, realy well.

They don't do this, they cross the border and pick fights and whine and periodically tell the Palestinians they are bringing down collective death on themselves by firing crappy homemade rockets mostly into the desert. I think maybe SLC picked up on the new eliminationist vibe and that's what's got him barking.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 26, 2008 4:33 PM

This post is awful, I'm sorry to say. It's just wrong that you're posting it.

It's wrong that there exist people -- namely John McCain -- who actually believe that our goal is to make our enemies cry over things like promoting peace. It's stupid and idiotic, and you should never have to write something like this to point that out because it should be so clear. This is currently my top issue in this country -- well, a part of it, anyway, not this particular thing with Hamas but the consideration of others in general -- and I just don't understand how most people, including on the left, just don't see things the way you do. Thank you for being a voice of reason, and I really do hope that what you say here becomes completely unnecessary to be said in a short time.

Posted by Mauro | April 26, 2008 4:42 PM

SLC, demonstrating once again that there's little difference between a Zionist and a Nazi: "As the old saw goes, one cant make an omelet without breaking some egg shells."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 26, 2008 5:10 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack is demonstrating that the 9 years he spent in Leavenworth Federal Prison for bank robbery has totally scrambled what few brains he had going in. This is amply proven by his previous admonitions to assassinate police officers. Mr. Hack is begging for a trip to Guantanamo where he can join the other terrorists.

Re Ed Marshall

1. The trouble with the system Mr. Marshall describes is that the qassems are fired by a group of at most 2 or 3 persons who vanish into populated areas as soon as the qassems leave the firing tube. The return fire merely wipes out the firing tube. Big deal, they can manufacture them much faster then the IDF can take them out by this procedure.

2. What the critics of Hama Rules fail to appreciate is how well that tactic worked in Syria when it was used on the City of Hama. The terrorists who were setting off bombs in Damascus ceased their activities after the Hama bombardment, either because they were dead or because they were scared shitless.

3. Mr. Marshall describes the rain of qassems as a crappy little bombardment. I suggest that Mr. Marshall might pay a visit to Sderot some time to see the effects of the "crappy little bombardment." Of course, if the "crappy little bombardment" was ending up in his back yard, he would be down at his local cop shop demanding that they put a stop to it and not caring how they went about it.

Posted by SLC | April 26, 2008 5:25 PM

SLC: If you'll note, the fetishistic invocation of the phrase "Hama Rules" did not scare me away.

Instead, I used what happened / was done in Hama and compared it to the situation in Israel / Gaza.

I pointed out that there is an actual, empirical, real-world situation in Gaza. These phenomenon do not go away simply because one points to what was done in Hama. It is not a magical incantation.

You cannot ignore the fact that there are real world situations and consequences of various actions simply because you assume that one such path of action would either kill or frighten those who are your targets. Nor can you simply assume without examining all the possible causal paths that things simply 'must' work out the way you wish.

(There were those who dismissed as impossible the possibility that objective measures of survivability and quality of life could be worse after Saddam Hussein than under him, yet, such has resulted. Others accept this reality but still conclude the situation was morally worth it.)

I rationally posited some likely consequences of the application of "Hama Rules" in the Gaza Strip. I did not feint away because I was afraid of your awesome moral power to invoke the model.

This being the real world, you have to think these things through from beginning to end, no matter how many times you label certain parties with certain names, nor how bold you perceive yourself nor how weak-willed you perceive your interlocutors.

What if, for example, the "Hama Rules" were applied in the military operation you wish, and after whatever time period is needed for both the operation to conclude and for the "Hama Rules" fans to finish their own private emotional stimulation, it somehow ended up with things being worse for Israeli Jews?

Is this simply impossible? I.e., there is simply no way whatsoever that such a "Hama Rules" operation can end in any way which is not better for Israeli civilians?

Or if such a worsened result is possible, is it still worthwhile because it is a fundamentally "morally" or ideologically valued operation?

In the ideological world, everywhere is a potential "Hama" in which once the same pattern is followed the same results occur.

In the real world, everywhere is quite different than "Hama", and given that, following the same pattern can produce wildly different results.

And all of this is true even before different individuals begin ranking their own moral and ideological priorities. For example, I don't consider any Israeli Jewish person's life to be inherently more valuable, worthy, or interesting than a Palestinian Arab person's life, nor vice versa. Similarly, the success and development of Israel is not to me inherently more valuable than other locations. Clearly other people have different views.

(I note this in other situations, for example, Colombia, where some people appear to consider violence by left-wing guerrillas as inherently more shocking and immoral than violence by right-wing gov't-linked paramilitaries, a perspective I find morally bizarre but which (for entirely tactical and power-related reasons) makes up the underlying assumptions of both Colombian and U.S. policy.)

You repeat the phrase "Hama Rules" often enough that I begin to wonder whether you believe the analogical imagery is enough to cause any reasoned questioning of it to vanish into the air.

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 6:01 PM

SLC, you are racist slime, the vile sickening lying sucky racist scum ever. Vile degenerate racist wretch.

Matthew Yglesiss, stop this degerenerate from posting racist degenerate slime!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Jennifer | April 26, 2008 7:16 PM

Fakestinians"

SLC, you are the most degenerate sickening racist, to see your stinking name is to be ill you sick racist. I can only urge Matthew Yglesias to stop your degenerate racism. Vile slime monger! Rot in hell, you degenerate lying scum racist.

Posted by Jennifer | April 26, 2008 7:19 PM

The reality is that SLC is a Zionist troll. Nothing more or less. (Well, I suppose he could be less. Who knows? Maybe he's a child molester as well. It would fit his attitude.)

He doesn't think of any of this as "debating". He's just "sandbagging" people. He's "mugging" people on this blog and presumably elsewhere who disagree with him.

This is how Zionist freaks "argue". They start screaming and beating people down with accusations of "anti-Semitism". From Dershowitz to Foxman to Netanyahu, it's all the same. There's zero intellectual honesty. They just blandly repeat the same old discredited lies word for word, and follow it up with accusations and insults.

If they're really cowards with blogs, like Josh Marshall, they just engage in drive-by snark, then ban you.

President Truman had this to say about them:
http://www.mideastweb.org/us_supportforstate.htm

"One letter from a Jewish citizen accused Truman of preferring Fascist and Arab elements to the democracy-loving Jewish people of Palestine. He was sore and referred the letter to his Jewish, and pro-Zionist assistant David Niles, saying 'It is drivels [sic] as this that makes anti-Semites. I though maybe you had best answer it because I might tell him what's good for him.'

He wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt on August 23, 1947, apparently in the wake of one or another Jewish terrorist atrocity:

'I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side.'

'The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.'"

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 26, 2008 8:19 PM

Anybody who thinks you can outcrazy a group of suicide bombers (Hama rules) is an idiot.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 11:47 PM

Daniel Ortega ? He is currently the President of Nicaragua, and he has, believe it or not, turned anti-abortion. Somebody should therefore ask McCain if he thinks that pro-life Central Americans in general would support the Democratic nominee.

Really, I beginning to think that this guy may be worse than Reagan (who only went senile while in office). He probably meant to say Hugo Chavez, but couldn't come up with the right name.

Posted by Marshall | April 27, 2008 8:31 AM

Marshall,

It's not clear that Mr. Ortega (who I have a deep admiration for) was ever very strongly pro-abortion. I think he may have been pro-choice back in the 1980s as a matter of personal opinion, prior to his conversion and that of his ally Tomas Borge, but his government never legalized abortion in spite of the pressures of some so-called 'feminists' (more likely, U.S.-backed agent provocateurs). Abortion remained broadly illegal (at least by U.S. standards) in Nicaragua through the Sandinista era. The recent law in Nicaragua eliminated the health exemption, but it didn't ban the majority of abortions which have always been illegal in Nicaragua.

President Chavez, as well as Morales in Bolivia, are also pro-life, although some minor efforts to legalize abortion in Venezuela have come from agent-provocateurs as well.

Posted by Hector | April 27, 2008 10:55 AM