Comments on: Foundation for Israeli Foreign Policy? Joshua 6

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:49:49 +0000

greenwalds article from jan 8 is pretty sweet.

Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel’s war
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/08/israel/

“This afternoon, the Democratic-led U.S. Senate did just that by enacting — via a cowardly voice vote — a completely one-sided, non-binding resolution that expresses unequivocal support for the Israeli war, and heaps all the blame for the conflict on Hamas and none of it on Israel…

…ThinkProgess noted yesterday that Democrats took the lead in drafting the Resolution because they did not want to be “out-hawked by the Republicans,”

….The Resolution demands that Hamas take multiple steps towards peaceful resolution but demands that Israel do absolutely nothing.”

James Bovard gives some historical background on “the history of the Israeli government’s long war on terrorism was its covert financing, cosseting, and arming of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement.”
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/01/08/senates-know-nothingism-on-hamas/

By: JH

JH — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:47:06 +0000

Well, look, do I really need to make an argument as to why building a giant wall inside a people’s territory and restricting their movements is a divide and conquer strategy? I realize you’re off the conservative reservation in many ways, and I do appreciate that, but you really do drop some major turds in the conversation from time to time (viz. “Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, they’re just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex.”)

By: Chris McNeal

Chris McNeal — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:12:21 +0000

I’ve looked at that map several times and it looks to me more defensive than anything. They look more like Israeli enclaves to me. Also, I still think the power that has undeniably been ceded back to the West Bank is important in this argument.

JH: I don’t know who you are but you can make some of the least constructive comments sometimes. I’m not trying to win an argument here. I’m trying to learn and give my thoughts as they come to me. Does it make you feel big that you can come on to someone’s blog and tell them how stupid they are?

People like you are as guilty of obstructing free thought as the administrators at Harding which you rightly criticize. People like you are no better than the Republicans who ignored the Democratic Party while they had a majority in Congress and had the White House. If we are going to progress, we have to learn to actually listen to people and not make biting, unthoughtful comments to them. I could very well be wrong about what I said (I don’t think I’m wrong but I could be). At least say something constructive. You may or may not have noticed, but I have certainly changed a lot of my viewpoints since I began blogging (as has Steven). If you convince me that my arguments are flawed, I’m bound to change. If you come on here and just tell me I’m a moron, my views are bound to become hardened.

By: JH

JH — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:37:53 +0000

Why do walls and fences necessarily constitute a divide and conquer mentality?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this will be the most obtuse sentence of 2009.

By: S.C. Denney

S.C. Denney — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:42:21 +0000

Why do walls and fences constitute a divide and conquer mentality? Do you not see that they are literally dividing up the West Bank into Palestinian enclaves? This is accompanied by Israeli settlers moving into the West Bank.

Moving beyond the divide and conquer strategy debate, Israel seeks to dominate Palestine. Period. And we (heavily) subsidize their efforts.

Listen though. I’m no big idealist here. I cannot understand what it’s like to an Israeli or a Palestinian in the Levant region. I don’t pretend to understand the emotional aspect. However, I think I am warranted in making an objective (see realist) judgment. It’s a game of power, and Israel has had, has now, and will probably always have the upper hand. From their line of reasoning, why negotiate when you can rule? For the Israelis, belligerence keeps them safe. (of course I think that’s wrong — but I think that I understand where the Israeli’s are coming from).

By: Chris McNeal

Chris McNeal — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:43:39 +0000

To answer your question, yes and no. It just depends on the segment of the society.

The operation in Gaza is overwhelmingly popular in Israel. Not because Israel wants more control over Gaza. If that were the case, the last three decades of Israeli policy would make very little since.

They support the invasion because it is mostly seen as defensive. Of course there are notable segments of Israeli society that would love complete control over Gaza and the West Bank. But to say that Israel is a dividing and conquering nation seems difficult to prove.

By: Chris McNeal

Chris McNeal — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:38:05 +0000

Why do walls and fences necessarily constitute a divide and conquer mentality? If since 1967, Israel has been ceding more and more land and autonomy to the PLO in the West Bank, how do you say they are trying to take it over? Does the possibly not exist that the remaining settlements in the West Bank are protected by walls and fences for defensive purposes? Again, we’re talking post 1967. And really, the last decade or so.

I like the map by the way.

By: S.C. Denney

S.C. Denney — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:54:50 +0000

Chris, take a look at this map of the West Bank, which includes the walls and fences erected by Israel and the multitude of settlements inside the border, and tell me, in good faith, whether you think Israel practices a divide and conquer strategy. Just think if Canada started sending pilgrims into Montana and Minnesota to establish Canadian settlements within the U.S. border. And in addition to the settlement camps, they also built concrete walls and fences around major cities in Montana and Minnesota, creating small enclaves. There would be small exploding hockey pucks flying across the border, eh?

By: Chris McNeal

Chris McNeal — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:14:49 +0000

BTW, I’m not arguing in support of the current war. I’m only arguing against the notion that the modern modern (repetition intended) day state of Israel is overwhelming hawkish and imperialistic.

By: Chris McNeal

Chris McNeal — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:11:50 +0000

If Israel is in fact engaging in a “divide and conquer” policy with the Palestinian and not one of self defense, I’m curious how you would explain what most would argue is a different approach that Israel takes with the West Bank. Sharon and Olmert have met with Fatah several times and, for the most part, have been willing to work with them.

The different approach could be indicative of Israel not feeling threatened by Fatah and therefore indicative of a defensive stance.

I must always caution this discussion because when you look at a nation-state, you can find whatever you want. There are people in Israel that want to give Palestine independence and there are others that are right-wing fanatics who want to subjugate Palestine.