No I did not. That's why "on BOTH their houses" But it has to stop for BOTH sides. Neither is EVER going to just turn the other cheek and accept attacks from the other as the price for being there. And as Israel's violence tends to be much more concentrated and episodic, it provides a perfectly good example that your "thesis" doesn't work for both sides. I would again point out that you decided to GGT over my posts and respond to something completely different from what I actually said.Originally Posted by Aimless
Hamas was duly and properly elected in a fair election. It may be a terrorist organization too, but it is the "legitimate governor" of the Gaza Strip today. And insisting on that double standard just lets Hamas and those that choose and chose it off the hook for their own contributions. It is nothing but legerdemain allowing you to say shrug off what is done by one of those sides. The Palestinians living in Gaza aren't as helpless against Hamas as you choose to pretend. And you can kindly stop bleating about "but they're children" too since Hamas has a strong youth recruitment and training strategy. You think I say "a plague on both their houses" but don't really mean it about Israel. I think you say Hamas is a terrorist organization but don't really mean it.Hamas is a terrorist organization; Israel is "the Middle East's only democracy". There's nothing regular about a democracy committing crimes against humanity to punish innocent civilians for the actions of terrorists, though it may seem so in primitive, barbaric North American nations.
Huh. Apparently the original French formulation wasn't what I thought. Learned something new. Doesn't matter, the principle holds. The "good" being achieved still has to sufficient to achieve a goal. I said security. You say "well, as long as the Palestinians aren't the ones being attacked. . ."It really isn't.
Both have varied over time, yes. But they still led us here. Lifting the blockade would certainly be one necessary move. Interestingly, their withdrawal under Sharon was not, there were paths towards improvement even under an occupation. Too much of an investment for the Israelis to care though, they were and are markedly indifferent to conditions in Gaza and have been reaping the consequences. I'm not hearing anything but vague assertions that "something is possible" from you, though, beyond ending the blockade. That's not exactly persuasive nor explanatory.Even under occupation, the "status quo" was anything but—Israeli policy wrt Gaza has varied over time, as has the situation in Gaza. So, for starters, prior to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, there would have been a case for reverting to less grotesque policies. For example, the Israeli state could have opted to follow international law governing the obligations of occupying powers, or decided to lift the illegal siege. You can't start with the premise that we must accept a democratic nation engaging in illegal acts against a wholly subjugated populace. But, if you must, then there are other tolerable equilibria short of a final solution.
I invited you to the flood, Aimless. You are free to place the bar where it needs to be at to establish a secure and peaceful context for both sides. But you're not interested in that (probably you don't know how to get it anymore than I do, which makes us no different from everyone else who has flailed and failed at it over the years), instead preferring to spar and jab at me because you don't like that I'm ok with the people of both sides reaping the consequences of their adopted interactionsRight of return? How about trying to first clear the low, low bar of not subjecting people to a system of apartheid within the borders of the Middle East's only democracy?
Sure, it can happen. But that "peace and freedom" does need to be there and conditions in Gaza Strip even without Israeli measures keeping it down like the blockade don't fit that standard. Conditions on the West Bank seem like they would or could allow for it easily enough even being stateless but Gaza. . .If there is one thing we can learn from the recent history of our world, it is that even the poorest populations can rise out of poverty, given peace and freedom.
Over the course of your life, the global share of people living in extreme poverty has plummeted by more than half. I'm sure you can point to "example after example", and I can point to counterexample after counterexample, but we don't need anecdata—we have systematically collected global data. The story of our generation is that people can and do rise out of poverty, if they're allowed to.
You talk about "peace and freedom." Well, part of that freedom you will find in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the "anecdata" for success that you just dismiss in favor of "global data" is free movement of labor. The "open" border with Egypt allows what, a few hundred people to cross a day, mostly as an opportunity for graft? The Gazans would still be stateless, still be under the "governance" of the Hamas they voted in. NONE of the nearby states are letting them emigrate and resettle in their lands. I will confess I don't know what the situation may be or could become betwixt transitioning between Gaza and the West Bank so there may be an avenue there. . .
It's not a good resolution but it IS a resolution. . .Then let's work on that. You can't fix anything if everyone's dead, unless you consider death a fix.
But no. Let's not. I decline your generous offer to drop the only issue I have the slightest interest in on the general topic in favor of your preferred issue of voyeuristic humanitarian gnashing and angsting about just WHAT latest fuckery the two parties are doing to each other now. I didn't care when I saw headlines about "dozens of gunmen" breaking through into Israel, I didn't care when I saw headlines about 1400+dead, and decided to just stop looking at headlines since I knew I wouldn't care about what was going to happen as a consequence of those earlier ones either. The people on either side could have avoided this, neither set chose to.
Reply With Quote