home

Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm sure there is news today, I've just not been following too closely.

Here's an open thread for those with things besides shopping to discuss. All topics welcome.

< Amazon Has Best Christmas Season Ever | Saturday Nights With Cops >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This Just In (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    from Reuters:

    GAZA -- Israeli warplanes and helicopters pounded the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Saturday, killing at least 205 people in the bloodiest one-day death toll in 60 years of conflict with the Palestinians.

    see link for full story at: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081227/NEWS-US-PALESTINIANS-ISRAEL-VIOLENCE/

    What is wrong with this world? And how ironic that the bombings were conducted on the Sabbath no less. Is it any wonder that so few in the international community have any respect for Israel or the US stand on Israel?

    The Hypocrisy knows no bounds!

    What is wrong with this world? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by SOS on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    This might help

    We live in a world of permanent battles between two opposed spiritual powers -- the subtle power of good and the rough power of evil. The first one is life creative, and works with truth, honesty, harmony, love, pardon, compassion, good will and altruism, abundance, joy and happiness, and all positive energies that feed the universe and the life we know here on earth. Opposed to this spiritual power is the evil, the father of deceptions and lies, the first revolutionary and father of tyrannical hierarchy in the universe, the spiritual power behind destruction of life, cruelty, tortures, greed, selfishness, robbery, lust and madness, all sorts of crimes, including suicide, suffer and diseases, hunger and thirst, poverty...

    Parent

    Too Bad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    the purported followers of the former more often than not end up looking more like followers of the latter and openly advocating those principles. I think you get my drift!

    Parent
    hm.. I think we live in a world of (none / 0) (#6)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    diminishing resourcees, and wars are inevitable.
    The best we can hope for is to keep them isolated.

    Parent
    Are you sayingt that certain world powers (none / 0) (#8)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    certain nation states, are on the side of "good" and others on the side of "evil"?

    Parent
    Asking SOS the question on good/evil... (none / 0) (#9)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST


    Parent
    What's wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    It's Israeli election season, and their leading politicians all think they can win by beating on their Palestinian neighbors.  The one wants to out-violent the other, and there we go.

    The depth of the irony should be astonishing, though I think we are so inured to it that it has ceased to astonish.  The Israelis wall in their undesired neighbors (of a different religion), then try to (and pretty effectively do) cut them out of economic life and starve them of food, water and essential services, deny them outside assistance of the most basic humanitarian nature, encourage them to engage in some form of self-governance and then deprive them of the ability to do so effectively, then wage one-sided war on them (All right, 99-1 war on them), targeting the very leaders who poke their heads up, and knowingly shoot guided missiles and drop multi-hundred pound aerial bombs into mixed residential/business neighborhoods.

    If one were to describe this behavior to a historically-knowledgable observer, leaving out the nationalities, that observer could quite easily find themselves thinking the Israeli military uniform was feldgrau, black and silver.  Because that's how they're behaving.

    Parent

    It's also US "election season"... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    And the neo-cons are still itching for war with Iran. If Iran can be provoked into interceding on behalf of the Palestinians, the US will retaliate directly, or indirectly via Israel. There will be a larger war, Obama or Nobama.

    Parent
    Iran on behalf of t he Palestinians? (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    What on earth are you drinking?


    Parent
    Iran sides with Palestinians vs. Israel (none / 0) (#82)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    See this NY Times article, from February, 2006: "Iran Pledges Financial Aid to Hamas-Led Palestinians".

    US reportage on the Arab-Israeli "conflict" doesn't like to emphasize that Hamas is the democratically elected political party of the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank. In the Palestinian parliamentary elections of January 2006, Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the former ruling Fatah party took 43.

    The US has officially designated Hamas as a terrorist organization and has acted with Israel to prevent governance by Hamas. Today's Israelis strikes on the Gaza Strip are a US proxy provocation to Iran.

    Parent

    Here's a more rounded overview of the topic (none / 0) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 07:23:56 AM EST
    Middle East: Analyst Discusses Relations Between Iran And Hamas .

    Parent
    meh (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST


    Parent
    What does "meh" mean? (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to be funny....

    Parent
    "Funny" doesn't cover it (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    Hyperbole is more on the mark.

    Parent
    Which part of my recitation (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    of facts is hyperbolic?

    They're accurate, but divorced from the whole "one side is Good, True, Right and Just and the other side is Evil, False, Wrong and Unjust" mindset which, unfortunately, perfuses just about any discussion of Israeli policy and/or action toward Palestinians.

    I suppose when one, in effect, depersonalizes a dispute (Which is what I was trying to do by removing the labels on the one hand and then comparing the facts of the situation to a historical example) it might tend to irritate people who might be invested - consciously or not - in the present dispute and the parties to it. Irking them into a bit of self-awareness was also my objective.

    But, of course, you are correct - to a degree - that my comparing the Israeli treatment of Palestinans today (as part of their ongoing treatment) to, say, German treatment of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto is a tad hyperbolic.

    In Warsaw, the Germans relied substantially (though not exclusively) on irregular forces and plain ol' thugs to go in with rifles and such.  The Israelis are using their regular military.  And, there have not been untreated outbreaks of stuff like epidemic typhus in the Occupied Territory.  Yet.

    So, while history does not repeat itself, it does rhyme.
     

    Parent

    The hyperbole is here: (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    "[F]eldgrau, black and silver.  [T]hat's how they're behaving." Not cool.

    Parent
    What does "not cool" mean in this (none / 0) (#25)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    context andgarden?

    Parent
    People should take great care (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    when making Nazi comparisons.

    Parent
    Andgarden (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    While I agree that people need to be careful in making comparisons to the Nazi's, I think people also need to be aware of when they are treading on thin ice and following patterns that could eventually lead to the crimes and behavior exhibited by the Nazi's. Just because we're not that bad YET, doesn't mean we won't be that way or worse if we continue to remain silent while the warning signs present themselves.
    As Edmund Burke put it:
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    Parent
    Let me let you in on something (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    When people compare the Israelis to the Nazis, my natural inclination is to ignore the rest of what they say. I'm am quite sure that I am not alone in that.

    Parent
    Your Probably Right (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:35:54 PM EST
    But I don't think we can remain silent and not express outrage over Israel's actions as a nation and their repeated refusal to abide by UN sanctions and regulations. Their horrific treatment at the hands of the Nazi's does not excuse their treatment of others. If anything, it should make them more sensitive to their treatment of others. Otherwise, the persecuted become the persecutors.

    BTW, I do appreciate your comments and perspective that you share with us here at TalkLeft. Keep fighting the good fight!

    Parent

    I tend to stay out of such discussions (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    because I am 1) not completely competent to assign blame; and 2) unwilling to engage in the flame war that inevitably follows. But the Nazi comparisons, when used, tend to end the pretense that there is any discussion to be had.

    Parent
    Please refute, on the facts, any (none / 0) (#38)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST
    or all of my comparisons.  (I'll bet you can't, and have to fall back on emotion.)

    Did the Israelis force the Palestinans into a walled-in enclave where access and egress was closely controlled and where living there was limited to the Palestinians?
    Was that distinction made by the Israelis on a religious basis?
    Did the Israelis erect physical barriers around that enclave?
    Did the Israelis encourage the people they had walled-in to try to form some self-government?
    Did the Israelis cut off the people they had walled in from economic contact with the outside world?
    Did the Israelis cut off the people they had walled in from communication with the outside world?
    Did some of the people walled in by the Israelis resist - with arms or not?
    Did the Israelis (claim to) target the very civilian leadership they had put in place to deal with resistance activities?
    Did the Israelis make their attacks knowing there was a strong likelihood, if not certainty, of civilian casualties?
    Did the Israelis use means of attacking which would make almost certain the likelihood of civilian casualties?

    The answer to each of those factual questions is "yes".

    The same questions, if posed at the situation in the Warsaw ghetto, for example, would yield the same answers.

    I don't like the comparison any more than any of you do.  

    But the fact of the matter is, when we rule a certain comparison "out of bounds" (or whatever you want to call it), we actually encourage those who would act in the outrageous manner that the Israelis are acting in today to follow the pattern set by those, the comparison to whom is "proscribed".  Said another way, if we were to posit that "comparing the Xs to the outrageous behavior of the Soviet Communists is out of bounds (because it makes us too emotional or whatever)", then we allow the Xs to pattern their behavior on the behavior of the Soviet Communists we found so outrageous, all because we were too polite to call a spade a spade, a heart a heart, and so on.  

    It is no different from Pelosi ruling impeaching Bush "off the table", despite his atrocities, thereby not discouraging him from committing further and worse atrocities and neutering the opposition, too.

    Sorry if you don't like it (I don't either), but there it is.  The only real distinction between the way the Israelis are treating the Palestinians today, and the way the Germans treated the Jews in Warsaw is of degree - as I noted up-thread, epidemic disease has not yet broken out, and systematic house-to-house killing has not started.  But there is no distinction in kind - none that can be made with any degree of intellectual honesty, anyway.

    And we need to see that, clearly.

    Parent

    I do not accept your jaundiced restatement (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    of the situation. However, I think it does confirm my suspicion that you do not want a real discussion.

    You will have to find someone else to discuss this with.

    Parent

    WEll, at least you admit (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM EST
    (a) you cannot refute the facts and
    (b) you'd rather turn a blind eye toward the atrocities and,
    (c) rather than meet the issue and try to find a resolution, you'll go pout.

    Parent
    Let me ask you a question: (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    Do you support a two state solution? Your recitation above leads me to suggest that you do not. And if that's the case, in my opinion there is no discussion to be had.

    Parent
    The first step in any solution (none / 0) (#54)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    is putting down the guns and explosives, and excluding those (on whichever side) who would reach for them, from the discussion.

    Enough - far too many - people have died.

    Frankly, when I look at how the people on the British, Irish and Ulster sides of the Northern Ireland issue have managed to work through those issues, stop the killing and start to build a peace, I think that is a viable model.

    That would, however, likely require a wholesale reappraisal on the part of Israelis of the semi-theocratic basis for that state's government.

    In other words, the comparison to Britain, Ireland and Ulster is most apposite to Israel, if we consider the Anglican-centered Britain of, say, the mid-19th century.  The church has much less political influence there today, and that relative lack of influence allowed the politicians to work out a peace deal.

    I don't know if the (naysaying) political power of the faiths in Israel can be modulated or vitiated sufficiently to enable a political rapproachment akin to that in Ireland.

    Parent

    You didn't answer my question directly (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    but reading between the lines, it seems to me like you think that a Jewish state is inherently illegitimate.

    Parent
    The core problem with any (none / 0) (#65)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:36:42 PM EST
    proposed "Solution" - be it one-state, two-state, red-state or blue-state - is that none of them appear to address the conflation of religion and politics which is at the core of the problem.

    The Ulster situation, as I note elsewhere, was similar in that the divisions were along religious lines and allegiances were religiously-based.  By saying "Israel is the Jewish state" or some variant of that, one guarantees a perpetual second-class status for non-Jews who happen to live in Israel.  That would be not much different from someone saying "The Republic of South Africa is the Afrikaans' state", with an ultimate  result similar to that prior to the resolution of apartheid and achievement of a new government.

    What I am saying is that the first step to any solution is to stop the violence.  So long as there is violence and the perpetrators of that violence are not excluded from the political discussion (as opposed to being hailed as heroes as they are now) anyone and everyone will have a ready excuse to retaliate and continue the violence.  You'll recall that in Northern Ireland, there was an extended truce and everyone got to like this "peace" thing.  Then, someone (IIRC, IRA, but it doesn't really matter) caused an incident and (a little surprising to me) the general reaction was "no, we do not want these knuckleheads to be wrecking the peace we've been enjoying".  The guys who wanted violence, lost their base of support.

    Not so different from the old classical myth where the villain (Tantalus?) drew his massive strength from the ground and the only way the hero (Hercules?) was able to beat him, was to hold him over his head where he could not contact the ground.

    Parent

    I think you've got it backwards (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    The reason that there is violence is that there are groups of people who are getting in one-another's way. The solution is a divorce, but no one right now seems willing to fully negotiate that.

    You keep side tracking to a discussion of what Israel should be. Under any version of the two state solution, the Israeli state would be majority Jewish. (The Jews in Israel can and will debate exactly what that means.) The only situation where the apartheid/Ulster problem arises is when jews become a minority under any map or when it becomes absolutely impossible to distinguish who lives where. And that is not the case.  

    Parent

    Well, apparently it is ok for you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    (CDN Ctzn) to say everything you're saying about the extreme barbarity of Israel toward the Palestinians. But, as you are finding, it is considered highly impolitic/politically incorrect to actually use the word "Nazi" in an attempt to compare the barbarity of another group (especially Israelis) to the barbarity of the Nazis.

    However, if you are a Canadian citizen as your moniker suggests, it is my understanding that Canada does not oblige its citizenry to regard Israel with the same sanctity as is required in the US. Understandable, given that the US uses Israel to advance US interests in the Middle East.

    Parent

    And Obama may have slightly different focus (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andrys on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    One area in which I agreed with Obama's possibly more broad reading of (shared) blame for Israel-Palestinian woes is his past quiet support for improving the lives of Palestinians.  In fact, Hillary Clinton also has that focus, re-stated recently, while both still emphasize the U.S. is behind Israel.

      One of the articles less quoted in new-Obama world was one on his changed public views according to the writer.


    'Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker.  In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor.  On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

    As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him.  He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.  I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."  He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!" '

     As for THIS week, an article says,


    'Militants often operate against Israel from civilian areas. Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.

    The offensive began eight days after a six-month truce between Israel and the militants expired. The Israeli army says Palestinian militants have fired some 300 rockets and mortars at Israeli targets over the past week... '

      Israel says it may continue, even after this bloodletting which caught so many civilians (w/o regard).

    And ...


     ' In an attack early Sunday, Palestinians said Israeli aircraft bombed a mosque near Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, destroying it.

    Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Hamas' political leaders could soon be targeted. "Hamas is a terrorist organization and nobody is immune," she declared.

    The campaign was launched six weeks before national elections. Livni and Barak hope to succeed Ehud Olmert as prime minister, and the outgoing government has faced pressure to take tough action. '

      All very ugly.  And I don't see Israel as angels to be totally defended without question, in all this.

    Parent

    You're Absolutely Correct (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    in that assertion. Then again, this is one of the fundamental differences between our two countries.
    The USA has always seen itself as a "Melting Pot" where people of different ethnic backgrounds come together and surrender their unique identity (ie. Ukranians, Jews, Italians...)and become instead "Americans".
    Whereas, in Canada, we see ourselves not as a "Melting Pot" but rather as a "Mosaic" where people are encouraged to maintain their ethnic identity under the premise that diversity only enhances the charecter of the nation.
    When I first moved to the States almost 20 years ago now, when I asked what nationality people were, by in large, the response was "American". In Canada, the response is usually, "Ukranian, Pakistani, Iraqi,..."
    While it's nice to see pride in being an American, it seems to inevitably lead to a blind obedience to the nation for fear that anything less would be seen as less than the "Patriotic" thing to do.
    In Canada, on the other hand, disent is expected and almost encouraged because it's felt to make us stronger by allowing one a broader spectrum of ideals to choose from.
    This is probubly the main reason why I remain a Permanent Resident of the USA rather than a citizen. While I am no longer required to renounce my Canadian citizenship if I become an American citizen, the USA will no longer recognize that citizenship and will recognize my US citizenship alone.
    So, my sole purpose is to point out a fundamental difference between the two countries. It's up to the individual to decide which model they feel the most comfortable with.

    Parent
    I've spent most of my (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 11:22:15 PM EST
    life living between Canada and the US, with a preponderance of time in the latter.

    The "melting pot" vs. "mosaic" story is also something I love to share. The "mosaic" is so pro-diversity and sends such a positive message. I believe that harmony ensues from the recognition and tolerance of cultural difference rather than the erasure and denial of cultural difference. That's why I don't like all of the "post-racial", "post-partisan" faux unity rhetoric that swirls around Obama.

    Parent

    I Couldn't Agree With You More (none / 0) (#93)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    When I moved here 20 years ago I literally went through culture shock. People couldn't understand it and would often comment, "There's no difference between Canada and the USA," but I sure noticed one.
    Again, so as not to offend anyone, I'm not saying one is better than the other, it's just VERY different, and it's still hard to understand the mindset that prevails even amongst "Liberals" on this forum.
    I just wish people could realize that we are WORLD citizens first and foremost, and not just Americans or Canadians.
    Thanks for the dialogue Foxhole. I really appreciate it!

    Parent
    You are most certainly not alone in that (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    I am right there with you.

    Parent
    Paul Rosenberg (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    on the South.

    I didn't make it beyond the white supremacy (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    section. Is he saying that's still the South's problem (politically)?

    Living here, I don't think so. It's religion. The time I spent up north in my previous marriage exposed me to some real Archie Bunker bigots. I'm sure they are still here, too, but they vote the way they do because of God and guns.

    Maybe if I read the whole thing, I'd understand his meaning but I don't think I agree with what I did read.


    Parent

    Due respect (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    I think your part of the south is a little different from what he's talking about. But I think it's absolutely true that the fundamentalist religion commingles with racism in a pernicious way in the south.

    Parent
    Allow Me to Interject (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM EST
    that the fundamentalist religion you speak of is "christian" in name ONLY. It bears NO resemblance whatsoever to the Chrsitianity of the early Church.
    It is this kind of "Christianity" that Jesus is referring to when he says:
     "You'll protest, 'But we've known you all our lives!' only to be interrupted with his abrupt, 'Your kind of knowing can hardly be called knowing. You don't know the first thing about me.'" Luke 13:26,27

    Parent
    Amen brother... (none / 0) (#52)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:51:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Good One (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    Hopefully someday, with a lot of work, Palin's wink wink, will be more nostalgic than Burns' or Ashcroft's revisionist histories.

    Parent
    That part I did read and agree with you. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Teresa on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:16:14 PM EST


    Parent
    8440 signatures to date (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    Petitioning Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder (and through him Obama) for a Special Prosecutor to Investigate Bush War Crimes, and it only takes The Power Of One.

    Can it really be a year (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    since Benazir Bhutto was murdered?

    It would seem so.

    Busy year.

    Not the best day (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    as it turns out, for my spouse to head to India, and western India yet, with students. . . .

    I've been watching the news for more than 24 hours -- including a sleepless night.  Of course, the news reports are quite contradictory on the India-Pakistan situation, and especially when reading the Indian and Pakistani press.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:14:57 PM EST
    Hope he is ok. A Pakastani buildup, denied by Pakistan, seems to be in the works...

    Parent
    Well, after Mumbai (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:47:55 PM EST
    we already agreed that he would not wear his usual masuzah (on a chain around his neck), as he's Jewish, after Jews were targeted by Pakis.

    And we agreed that he also ought not obviously be an American.  So he brushed up on his German:  "Ich bin ein Deutscher!"

    The school almost canceled the trip owing to the Mumbai attack, but finally went ahead.  I bet that administrator who made the decision was losing some sleep over it last night, too.  But my spouse?  He can handle just about anything -- although chaperoning a gaggle of girls on other trips was tougher, he said, than heading down the Amazon River and being held by guerrillas there. . . .

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    That is astonishing. Seemed like just the other day..

    Parent
    I had the same reaction (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:50:10 PM EST
    although I would have said maybe last summer.  Btw, it doesn't seem that her spouse has similar leadership abilities or maybe just not the same ability to create followers.  And by now, he was expected to accomplish more.  Of course, the honeymoons are short for many leaders lately.

    Parent
    I wonder, though (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:15:20 PM EST
    if maybe his relatively low profile and certainly less fantical support might be more effective in the long run.  Really don't know, just speculating, but I'm not sure Benazir ("Pinky" as she was known in college) was necessarily likely to be a unifying force.

    Parent
    Yes, it may keep him alive (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    -- you're spot on about that.

    Btw, just read an analysis of the Paki-India situation per the Guardian, but from the ground there, and it's just not good.  Much war-mongering and flagwaving going on in media on both sides. . . .

    Parent

    Frank Rich (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lilburro on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 10:22:11 PM EST
    editorializes about Obama/Warren.  Now I know what to think!

    I do think it's funny that Rich throws "hubris" and "arrogance" out there to describe Obama.  I guess those words are "okay" now.

    Looks like (1.00 / 2) (#23)
    by uncledad on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    Israel is initiating another mini-holocaust (bombing neighborhoods with USA made smart bombs) in GAZA. If the past is any indication this will last for a week or so until the US issues an ultimatum and then the Israeli cowards will cease fire for 6 months and start all over again. Why is it only Israeli officials get to comment on our media, why are Hama's soldiers called militants but Israeli military are called soldiers.

    Here's another one (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    People who press the Holocaust button in this context are just looking for trouble.

    Parent
    What is (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by uncledad on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    the proper context? A sophisticated military Air-Force is killing hundreds of innocent civilians, sounds like carnage on a major scale. What word would you use? If the palistinians were jews would it be OK?

    Parent
    Proper Context (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    Here is what Avraham Burg, an Israeli author and son of one of Israel's most admired and longest-serving government ministers, has to say about the comparison

     

    In a book that came out last year and has just been translated and released in the United States, he said that Israel should not be a Jewish state, that its law of return granting citizenship to any Jew should be radically altered, that Israeli Arabs were like German Jews during the Second Reich and that the entire society felt eerily like Germany just before the rise of Hitler.

    In other words, rather than reconciling the country's complex tensions, Mr. Burg ended up imploding from them.

    "I realized something about myself and Israel that frightened me," he said recently, looking back over the past few years. "I realized that Israel had become an efficient kingdom with no prophecy. Where was it going? What is a Jewish democratic state? What does it mean that Jews define themselves by genetics 60 years after genetics were used against them?"

    NYT


    Parent

    Q.E.D. (none / 0) (#46)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:39:57 PM EST
    Go see my comments here and here - the ones andgarden likes so little.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    I have followed the thread. IMO the strongest argument/comparison is that Israel is a nation built on the concept of racial purity aka racism.

    Parent
    Well, if you believe that, then there is (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:48:48 PM EST
    really no discussion to be had. Certainly most Israelis do not.

    Parent
    Believe That? (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:08:25 PM EST
    Are you joking, it is a fact. Israel is a "Jewish State". The fact that the British required the jewish settlers to allow prior residents of Palestine Israeli citizenship is the only reason that there are any non jews living in Israel. No non jew can become a citizen if their parents are not already citizens. Jews on the other hand can become citizens as long as they are 'practicing' jews

    The two state solution is primarily designed to strip the arab population of their citizenship through a swap.

    I agree with the author cited above that a Jewish state has no place in the 21st century.

    Parent

    Then frankly, you are part of the problem (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:11:27 PM EST
    Carrying forward your beliefs, the only way to solve the problem is to eliminate Israel. Since that is not a solution that will be acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis, that is not going to happen.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    Eliminate Israel? You are using anti semitic language here, and I am sure that it is no mistake. I am quite surprised. I have never even remotely suggested eliminating Israel, not even in my wildest dreams would I ever think that as an option.

    And I am part of the 'problem' wtf is that supposed to mean?

    And regarding my beliefs, what are you referring to?

    The only opinion that I stated is that having a Jewish state or any country whose discriminates based on religion or race has no place in the 21st century. The rest of what I stated is fact.

    My opinion is that Israel should be a single state and separate religion from government.

    Parent

    I don't know where you get the idea (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:07:01 PM EST
    that anything I am saying is anti-semitic.

    The problem is, what kind of Israel is there going to be? Most Israelis want a Jewish state (what that means is a different question--it is not necessarily religious). So what do you do with the Palestinians who do not want to be part of Israel? You give them their own state more-or-less where they live right now. That has been the basis of the peace talks since forever. But it seems to me that you are suggesting that something else should happen. What that something should be is not clear to me.

    Parent

    To Be Clear (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 10:14:47 PM EST
    You commented that I was for the elimination of Israel. That is such a loaded statement used by and against anti-semites.

    I would hope for a secular state where there are no religious requirements for citizenship. A state with no walls, where all can visit there holy spots freely.

    It is clear that most if not all of the killing, and agonizing about structure is about demographics. In order to keep a 'jewish state' the population has to maintain a large majority of jews.

    That is a problem. I agree with Tony Judt's reduction:

    The true alternative facing the Middle East in coming years will be between an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. That is indeed how the hard-liners in Sharon's cabinet see the choice; and that is why they anticipate the removal of the Arabs as the ineluctable condition for the survival of a Jewish state.

    Obviously I would hope for the latter choice.

    Parent

    It's simply an absurd bifurcation (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    First, the "binational" state would, indeed, be tantamount to the elimination of Israel. Second, all but the hard-liners on both sides are in agreement that the two-state solution is the right one.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:25:23 AM EST
    First, the "binational" state would, indeed, be tantamount to the elimination of Israel

    Why is that so?

    Parent

    Israel, as the Israelis and the rest of the world (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:28:53 AM EST
    understand it today, is a jewish sate. The state you propose would be something else.

    Parent
    False Logic (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:41:29 AM EST
    Israel would certainly still exist, it would just be different. Certainly not a 'jewish state'.  

    Other countries have gone through similar changes.

    Parent

    The problem you are unwilling to recognize (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:48:19 AM EST
    is that neither the palestinians nor the israelis desire this "one state solution" that you (and others) propose. The only option that will please most people is the two state solution.

    I think it is fairly colonial of you to insist that people who do not want to live in the same state must do so, frankly.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:20:33 AM EST
    The colonist in me finally comes out, so be it.

    In any case, I agree with many Israelis and Palestinians that a one state solution with equal voting rights and freedom of travel is the best solution.

    It is not true that no palestinians or Israelis favor a one state solution as you imply.

    If the only option that will please most people is a two state solution how come there is no two state solution?

    Parent

    The vast majority support (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:32:38 AM EST
    a two state solution. The public research supports this.

    Why is there no two state solution? If you believe Bill Clinton, it mostly comes down to very small but very significant patches of land that both groups claim.

    Parent

    Vast (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    That is an exaggeration. Majority, yes, vast no. The results of the polling also have something to do with how the question is asked.

    Parent
    It;s not so much racisim in the sense of a race (none / 0) (#56)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    (the way the Germans understood and pushed it) as it is a faith-based issue.  The issue conflates racial and religious identities, then mixes in politics, in such a way that I don't have any clue how one could parse it out.

    Parent
    Race Is A Fiction (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    There is no scientific basis for any of it, sadly racism and racial identity politics is hardly a fiction.

    Parent
    No, sorry (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:24:57 PM EST
    This is the reason I can't agree with the rest of your very good points.  It's not even remotely a "faith-based" isssue.  Israel is an overwhelmingly secular state, for one thing.  It's a perceived ethnic issue.  Russian Jews, for example, do not consider themselves Russians who believe in Judaism, they are Jews, no matter what they believe.

    Reducing this conflict to a religious difference hideously distorts and grossly oversimplifies what's been going on there for so many years.

    Parent

    If you're looking for a rise out of me (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    you're not going to get it.

    Parent
    I certainly don't want to risk getting (none / 0) (#41)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    "a rise" out of you, or any other fellow for that matter (mercy, me). But, are you neutral on what the Israelis are doing to the Gaza Strip today?

    Parent
    I think if a foreign country (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    were allowing rockets to be fired into my neighborhood, I would expect my government to respond with force. Now, whether the particulars of the Israeli response today were appropriate, I don't have a particular opinion on that. I will say that counter-terrorism is messy by nature. Innocents are killed, and it's not fair. But neither is the alternative.

    Parent
    Wow. Imo, that explains more about your overall (none / 0) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    political world view than everything I've seen you write on every other subject combined. These are neo-con-lite talking points that speak volumes. Still, peace be with you.

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:48:04 PM EST
    the belief that Israel has a right to defend itself is necon by any stretch of the imagination.

    My preference would be for a settlement as was almost accomplished 10 years ago.

    Parent

    Israel has a "right to defend itself" (none / 0) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:10:17 PM EST
    Andgarden, that is a Neo-con talking point which avoids the question: under what circumstances, and to what degree, is Israel entitled to exercise that right? Furthermore, who benefits, enables, and funds Israel's abuses of that right?

    Setting aside Israel's history of maltreatment toward the Palestinians, you have looked at the extremity of the carnage on the Gaza Strip today and you have said:  

    Now, whether the particulars of the Israeli response today were appropriate, I don't have a particular opinion on that.

    Perhaps you can explain how your position differs from that of a Neo-con sympathizer.

    Parent

    It does not avoid the question (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    it just does not address it. I could easily believe that a) Israel has the right to defend itself (most Americans and most Democrats do believe this, BTW); and b) that the response today was disproportionate. I cannot conclude (b) because I do not have enough information.

    All I can say is that it would be infinitely better if this were solved comprehensively through diplomacy. I think that's what distinguishes me from a neocon.

    Parent

    Without belaboring the point much further... (none / 0) (#84)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 01:24:07 AM EST
    Unfortunately, most MSM reportage ensures that "most Americans and Democrats" have a profoundly distorted and self-interested view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    If you want to truly distinguish yourself from the ideology of the Neocons, wake up and recognize that Israel has a long and heinous record of habitual, extreme, disproportionate force against the people of Gaza. This is a no-brainer.
     

    Parent

    Both areas have reason (none / 0) (#64)
    by andrys on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    to defend themselves.  It's not Good vs Evil.

    But it's easier to feel that way.

    Parent

    How do "terrorists" get made? (none / 0) (#48)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    Do they come from a factory?

    Or are they a product of something else?

    Or is what some people (usually those on the receiving end) call "terrorism" actually the response by people striking back at the people they perceive to have been their oppressor, usually out of desperation and usually in the ways that the weak use to take on the strong?

    I don't cotton to or encourage violence of any kind.  I believe it to be counterproductive no matter how good it might make one feel when dealing it out, particularly on someone who might be deemed to "deserve" a violent response (e.g., a bully).  But I do understand that some people might see it as their only alternative.

    Parent

    Here's the problem with this discussion (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:53:27 PM EST
    People who take your position think that this:

    I do understand that some people might see it as their only alternative.

    Applies only to one side. There needs to be a comprehensive settlement, or there will be decades more of circular blame.

    Parent

    Andgarden, sorry (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    but you simply cannot make equivalence between powerless people and a militaristic state.  There is no equivalence.  It is the responsibility of the powerful to make peace with the powerless, not the other way around.

    Israel continues to behave like a thug, and it reaps the rewards of a thug.

    Parent

    Let me ask you this question: (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    what did you think of our attack on Afghanistan after 9/11?

    Some people thought it was disproportionate. I thought it was the right call.

    And if you think Israel can unilaterally make peace. . .I want some of what you're smoking.

    Parent

    Sam Huntington (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    is dead. But sadly, his stupid thesis is destined to live on.

    Blago: If I'd known about the wiretaps, (none / 0) (#24)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM EST
    I wouldn't have cursed so much:

    The 52-year-old Democrat is charged with scheming to sell President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Federal prosecutors built their case against the governor using wiretapped conversations riddled with profanity.

    "Look, if I'd have known people were listening, I probably wouldn't have said some of the things you say in private conversations," Blagojevich said Friday. "But I think there's probably tens of millions of people across America who talk like that from time to time."

    Thanks to our friends at TPM for catching that gem.

    A week or so ago, TPM noted someone had coined a new adjectival term:  "Tysonic".  The word refers to a person who has, over a period time, done so many bizarre, strange, marginally unlawful or criminal things in the public eye and garnered such public attention and ridicule for them, that an observer will believe the Tysonic person capable of anything.  The word derives from the name of Mike Tyson.

    If someone were to say that Mike Tyson would have half his face tattooed with a Maori warrior's design (only half, mind you), bit the ear off an opponent boxer and done whatever, you'd have no problem believing it.

    So far, it seems a consensus has developed there are four public people whose bizarre behavior has earned them the title "Tysonic":  Tyson himself, Britney Spears, Sarah Palin (the turkey pardoning and slaughtering interview pushed her over the top, in my book) and Blago.

    Does anyone have any nominations to add to this list?

    De-nomination (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:31:37 PM EST
    Palin simply does not belong on this list.  The Palin monster created by the media and the blogs, yes, but not Palin herself.

    I fail to see how she can be held responsible for what was going on behind her in the turkey business, for one thing.  Does anybody imagine the flock mates of the turkey Bush pardons every year don't suffer the same fate?  The managers are just better at keeping that unpleasant reality out of camera range.  For crying out loud.

    I wouldn't vote for Palin for selectboard of my tiny rural town, but there's been nothing even remotely bizarre about her behavior.  Comparing her to Mike Tyson and Britney Spears, never mind Blagojevich, is just insane, IMHO.

    Parent

    Especially for the "turkey incident" (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 07:42:06 PM EST
    Geeze, she was "there" to pardon a turkey from slaughter. And where was "there"? A turkey farm/slaughter house!

    I had to laugh at the outrage on that one. I wonder how many of the outraged skipped their turkey dinner? I happen to know the chickens I get from my CSA are "dispatched" in a similar manner. And I can't tell ya how good they are  ;) Oy! Did I just Tysonize myself?!

    Parent

    Saturday Open Thread | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment