I'm talking about the phrase 'Israel lobby' to which there is hysterical opposition, and ready-made labels for those who dare use it. This forum, of course, being one of the mildest places where rebuke takes place
Not that there is anything redeemable about any zionist body...
I'm not really one to get overly sensitive, but where exactly is this statement coming from?
The Israel Lobby (in the Mearsheimer-Walt sense) is in fact something I think most of us agree is a net detriment to both American and international political discourse; that one organization/group of organizations can single-handedly bend an entire country's foreign policy to its will is pretty unethical.
But Zionism, generally speaking, has taken on so many different forms that I don't feel comfortable labeling it a categorical negative.
@Hamurabi: I dislike Nationalism, and Zionism just happens to be one nationalist ideology. Israel is pretty much a platonic ideal of everything that is wrong with nationalism, and Zionism lead to its creation. I can't think of many people who actually benefited from the creation of Israel.
One of the main reasons given for keeping the locals out of Israel is that it will no longer be a jewish state if you let arabs in. Thus the zionist ideology of 'One nation for one people' is actively harmful. An ethnic state is a racist one, and something humanity as a whole should be moving away from. A humanistic, liberal, democratic state cannot be ethnic.
The only form of Zionism which I would not call harmful is the stream that simply stated that jews should live in Israel (rather than jews being the only group that lives in Israel, the majority, or the one that rules). This stream has generally died out, but I accept your criticism regarding unfairly condemning it. It is simply not what the word Zionism is associated with for the last decades.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Fair enough; Zionism does tend to refer to Israeli nationalism nowadays, though I wouldn't say every Israeli who refers to themselves as a Zionist (ie. they believe the Jews have a historic home in Palestine) necessarily agrees with the hardline stances of the present Israeli government. I think those kinds of people would be Zionists in-name-only, since they're technically the children of ideological Zionists?
I'm not really that heavily invested in extrapolating who is and is not a Zionist; at any rate, I doubt Ayatollah Khamenei was thinking about it when he proclaimed that the Oscar win for A Separation was a slam-dunk against "the Zionists." :P
I don't remember this being an acceptable tone to take on Israel 5-10 years ago. From the Economist's America blog.
DURING his meeting with Barack Obama on Monday, Bibi Netanyahu said Israel "must have the ability always to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."
"I believe that's why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself," Netanyahu said. "After all, that's the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny. That's why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains master of its fate."
News flash: Israel is not master of its fate. It's not terribly surprising that a country with less than 8m inhabitants is not master of its fate. Switzerland, Sweden, Serbia and Portugal are not masters of their fates. These days, many countries with populations of 100m or more can hardly be said to be masters of their fates. Britain and China aren't masters of their fates, and even the world's overwhelmingly largest economy, the United States, isn't really master of its fate.
But Israel has even less control over its own destiny than Portugal or Britain do. The main reason is that, unlike those countries, Israel refuses to give up its empire. Israel is unable to sustain its imperial ambitions in the West Bank, or even to articulate them coherently. Having allowed its founding ideology to carry it relentlessly and unthinkingly into what Gershom Gorenburg calls an "Accidental Empire" of radical religious-nationalist settlements that openly defy its own courts, Israel is politically incapable of extricating itself. The partisan battles engendered by its occupation of Palestinian territory render it less and less able to pull itself free. It is immobilised, pinned down, in a conflict that is gradually killing it. Countries facing imperial twilight, like Britain in the late 1940s, are often seized by a sense of desperate paralysis. For over a decade, the tone of Israeli politics has been a mix of panic, despair, hysteria and resignation.
No one bears greater responsibility for the trap Israel finds itself in today than Mr Netanyahu. As prime minister in the late 1990s, he did more than any other Israeli leader to destroy the peace process. Illegal land grabs by settlers were tolerated and quietly encouraged in the confused expectation that they would aid territorial negotiations. Violent clashes and provocations erupted whenever the peace process seemed on the verge of concrete steps forward; the most charitable spin would be that the Israelis failed to exercise the restraint they might have shown in retaliating against Palestinian terrorism, had they been truly interested in progress towards a two-state solution. Mr Netanyahu believed that the Oslo peace agreements were a mirage, and his government's actions in the late 1990s helped make it true.
Having trapped themselves in a death struggle with Palestinians that they cannot acknowledge or untangle, Israelis have psychologically displaced the source of their anxiety onto a more distant target: Iran. An Iranian nuclear bomb would not be a happy development for Israel. Neither was Pakistan's, nor indeed North Korea's. The notion that it represents a new Holocaust is overstated, and the belief that the source of Israel's existential woes can be eliminated with an airstrike is mistaken. But Iran makes an appealing enemy for Israelis because, unlike the Palestinians, it can be fitted into a familiar ideological trope from the Jewish national playbook: the eliminationist anti-Semite. With brain-cudgeling predictability, Mr Netanyahu marked his meeting with Mr Obama by presenting him with a copy of the Book of Esther. That book concerns a plot by Haman, vizier of King Ahasuerus of Persia, to massacre his country's Jews, and the efforts of the beautiful Esther, Ahasuerus's secretly Jewish wife, to persuade the king to stop them. It is a version of the same narrative of repression, threatened extermination and resistance that Jews commemorate at Passover in the prayer "Ve-hi she-amdah": "Because in every generation they rise up to destroy us, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, delivers us from their hands."
Mr Netanyahu is less attractive than Esther, but he seems to be wooing Mr Obama and the American public just as effectively. The American-Israeli relationship now resembles the sort of crazy co-dependency one sometimes finds in doomed marriages, where the more stubborn and unstable partner drags the other into increasingly delusional and dangerous projects whose disastrous results seem only to legitimate their paranoid outlook. If Mr Netanyahu manages to convince America to back an attack on Iran, it is to be hoped that the catastrophic consequences will not be used to justify the attack that led to them.
Mr Netanyahu thinks the Zionist mission was to give the Jewish people control over their destiny. No people has control over its destiny when it is at war with its neighbours. But in any case, that is only one way of thinking of the Zionist mission. Another mission frequently cited by early Zionists was to help Jews grow out of the "Ghetto mentality". Mr Netanyahu's gift to Mr Obama shows he's still in it.
That is a particularly good write up from The Economist. I liked these quotes quite a lot.
Violent clashes and provocations erupted whenever the peace process seemed on the verge of concrete steps forward; the most charitable spin would be that the Israelis failed to exercise the restraint they might have shown in retaliating against Palestinian terrorism, had they been truly interested in progress towards a two-state solution.
The American-Israeli relationship now resembles the sort of crazy co-dependency one sometimes finds in doomed marriages, where the more stubborn and unstable partner drags the other into increasingly delusional and dangerous projects whose disastrous results seem only to legitimate their paranoid outlook. If Mr Netanyahu manages to convince America to back an attack on Iran, it is to be hoped that the catastrophic consequences will not be used to justify the attack that led to them.
Hey look taking sides in a civil war can have unintended and destabilizing consequences. I'm fucking shocked.
Yeah, we totally should've left Gaddafi in charge.
Give it 5 or 10 years and that may indeed seem like the best idea.
In what reality?
Give it 5 or 10 years, Gaddafi keels over dead ... and we are back to where we are right now, except with alot of dead people in the interim.
I guess we'll find out, given time.
Oh come on, this is just getting silly and overly passive-agressive.
Under what situation would leaving Gaddafi in power have led to less violence over the long term?
...if the rebels who gain power end up being more violent.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I argued against the "intervention" (bombing campiagn, taking sides in a civil war) in Libya because the long term consequences of such an action were so murky. Why trust the rebels? What makes the rebels better than Gaddafi, except that they are not Gaddafi? Who will eventually end up in charge? What sort of government will it be?
We've already seen the rebels doing a fair amount of indiscriminate killing themselves, and now part of the country is trying to break away. The fighting in Libya, while characterized in the West to be about some generic notion of "freedom" is interlaced with complicated tribal politics. Which is why it wasn't surprising to see rebel forces take it out on some groups that were Gaddafi supporters, considering how many people the rebels lost themselves.
In the short term it was a great call. Had Gaddafi had his way, I bet the whole situation would have turned out to be a whole lot bloodier. But giving money, weapons, and training to militias of questionable loyalty has a funny way of back-firing over the long run. I have no idea how it will turn out. But I'm not making a judgement on Libya for at least a few years, only then will I have some sort of idea of how it may turn out.
You are again missing the point. Here's, I'll spell it out for you:
At what point would an overthrow of Gaddafi (or some successor) have been LESS bloody then it is now?
You are making the implicit assumption that at some point, some better, less nasty alternative to overthrowing a Libyan dictator was gonna show up. It's not a terribly credible one.
I'm not assuming that at all, since I wasn't in favour of orchestrating his ouster in the first place. I thinking we're talking past each other here, since my only response is to repeat my self. All I'm saying is that taking sides in wars like this can come back to bite in a bad way. Like funding the mujihadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. I'm not saying the world is a worse place for Gaddafi being gone, or that whoever replaces him is guaranteed to be worse. I'll tend to argue against most of these interventions because the consequences are so hard to predict, and the motives of the powers intertwining are so murky themselves. I'll stand by my arguments, such as they are, for now - but I wont really make a judgement on whether or not it was a good idea until some years down the road, when I can judge if it was a success or a failure to bring down Gaddafi.
And if you argue against them, you are arguing for a continuation of the status quo is my point. "It's gonna be messy" is not a statement of preference and it's not all you are saying.
You've said, obliquely, that it shouldn't have been done and I am asking you why the fuck you think doing nothing would have worked out better in either the short or the long term.
Alternatively, if you choose to be pedantic about it, you've argued "Oh, we don't know yet" and then the question is still the same:
Under what scenario can you imagine this having gone better with no intervention given the information we had at the time?
Scenario: Libya again breaks down into civil war, which lasts for years. Much of the population is displaced and flees to neighboring countries. Thousands killed, basic infrascture further destroyed, along with some oil producing infrastructure, crippling the economy. Fundamentalist islamic fighters flock to the country to fight their particular ideology. Violence spreads to Algeria, which is already fighting a low level war against Islamic rebels. The West gets involved again, to fight the terrorists.
Is one possibility of things turning out worse. Merely a hypothetical example, of course.
Which, again, is no different then what would happen if the Gaddafi regime collapses later instead of now. You aren't proposing a worse scenario, you are proposing the same scenario, just happening at a different time.
Also, I asked you for a scenario where it turns out BETTER with Gaddafi in power, not one where what is happening now turns out worse.
Basically, your argument is premised on the assumption that a fall of Gaddafi's regime at a latter date would have been cleaner and less bloody. This is an idea that, imo, is not at all credible in any way.
I really don't know why you're on me so hard about this. It really isn't something I care about; I'm only engaging in an attempt to be consistent with my previous statements.
If Gaddafi were to have left in some different way (this discussion is becoming increasingly hypothetical, I notice), then how can you say it would have gone down the same way? Anything could have happened. Maybe he has a heart attack and some general takes his place, or some relative. Peacefully and orderly, like in North Korea. Maybe it decends into civil war, even worse than the one we saw. Maybe a different sort of protest movement would take shape. Maybe it would turn into a democracy. Maybe it would be invaded. Who knows, and, frankly, who the fuck cares. We have no idea in what other ways Gaddafi could have left the scene; we can speculate uselessly until the cows come home. Maybe it would have been better, or worse, or the same.
How he would have left power was not a part of my reasoning when I argued against an intervention, and I don't see its relevance now.
I'm not giving you a hard time, I'm trying to make you actually acknowledge the outcomes of your stated position.
The fact that you aren't considering how he would have left power is exactly my point. You don't get to chose none of the above. Gaddafi maintaining power means he goes through with his plans to slaughter his enemies ... and then something like what's happening now just happens later. Gaddafi has to leave power at some point. And if he "peacefully" passes power to the next guy, the same applies to that guy. At some point, the dictatorial government/series of governments will end and there will be transition (unless you believe Libya will stay a dictatorship forever or something)
And I'm saying this future transition has little to no chance of being less bloody then the current one. I asked you for a credible alternative. Because if you don't have one, why the hell SHOULDN'T we have intervened now when we had the chance?
The fact that you are going "Well who cares about the alternatives" just means you are taking a position on the issue without thinking about it or even believing you should think about it.
I really don't see why violence is inevitable in Libya. Dictatorships have moved between leaders peacefully, as I pointed out. I listed several other possibilities above, including "turn into a democracy", which has also been done peacefully in other countries. The civil war was not inevitable.
edit:bit of a brain fart on my part. It was pointed out that the civil war was inevitable- once it had started.
[Tycho?] on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
That is a particularly good write up from The Economist. I liked these quotes quite a lot.
Violent clashes and provocations erupted whenever the peace process seemed on the verge of concrete steps forward; the most charitable spin would be that the Israelis failed to exercise the restraint they might have shown in retaliating against Palestinian terrorism, had they been truly interested in progress towards a two-state solution.
The American-Israeli relationship now resembles the sort of crazy co-dependency one sometimes finds in doomed marriages, where the more stubborn and unstable partner drags the other into increasingly delusional and dangerous projects whose disastrous results seem only to legitimate their paranoid outlook. If Mr Netanyahu manages to convince America to back an attack on Iran, it is to be hoped that the catastrophic consequences will not be used to justify the attack that led to them.
Hey look taking sides in a civil war can have unintended and destabilizing consequences. I'm fucking shocked.
Yeah, we totally should've left Gaddafi in charge.
Give it 5 or 10 years and that may indeed seem like the best idea.
In what reality?
Give it 5 or 10 years, Gaddafi keels over dead ... and we are back to where we are right now, except with alot of dead people in the interim.
I guess we'll find out, given time.
Oh come on, this is just getting silly and overly passive-agressive.
Under what situation would leaving Gaddafi in power have led to less violence over the long term?
...if the rebels who gain power end up being more violent.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I argued against the "intervention" (bombing campiagn, taking sides in a civil war) in Libya because the long term consequences of such an action were so murky. Why trust the rebels? What makes the rebels better than Gaddafi, except that they are not Gaddafi? Who will eventually end up in charge? What sort of government will it be?
We've already seen the rebels doing a fair amount of indiscriminate killing themselves, and now part of the country is trying to break away. The fighting in Libya, while characterized in the West to be about some generic notion of "freedom" is interlaced with complicated tribal politics. Which is why it wasn't surprising to see rebel forces take it out on some groups that were Gaddafi supporters, considering how many people the rebels lost themselves.
In the short term it was a great call. Had Gaddafi had his way, I bet the whole situation would have turned out to be a whole lot bloodier. But giving money, weapons, and training to militias of questionable loyalty has a funny way of back-firing over the long run. I have no idea how it will turn out. But I'm not making a judgement on Libya for at least a few years, only then will I have some sort of idea of how it may turn out.
You are again missing the point. Here's, I'll spell it out for you:
At what point would an overthrow of Gaddafi (or some successor) have been LESS bloody then it is now?
You are making the implicit assumption that at some point, some better, less nasty alternative to overthrowing a Libyan dictator was gonna show up. It's not a terribly credible one.
I'm not assuming that at all, since I wasn't in favour of orchestrating his ouster in the first place. I thinking we're talking past each other here, since my only response is to repeat my self. All I'm saying is that taking sides in wars like this can come back to bite in a bad way. Like funding the mujihadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. I'm not saying the world is a worse place for Gaddafi being gone, or that whoever replaces him is guaranteed to be worse. I'll tend to argue against most of these interventions because the consequences are so hard to predict, and the motives of the powers intertwining are so murky themselves. I'll stand by my arguments, such as they are, for now - but I wont really make a judgement on whether or not it was a good idea until some years down the road, when I can judge if it was a success or a failure to bring down Gaddafi.
And if you argue against them, you are arguing for a continuation of the status quo is my point. "It's gonna be messy" is not a statement of preference and it's not all you are saying.
You've said, obliquely, that it shouldn't have been done and I am asking you why the fuck you think doing nothing would have worked out better in either the short or the long term.
Alternatively, if you choose to be pedantic about it, you've argued "Oh, we don't know yet" and then the question is still the same:
Under what scenario can you imagine this having gone better with no intervention given the information we had at the time?
Scenario: Libya again breaks down into civil war, which lasts for years. Much of the population is displaced and flees to neighboring countries. Thousands killed, basic infrascture further destroyed, along with some oil producing infrastructure, crippling the economy. Fundamentalist islamic fighters flock to the country to fight their particular ideology. Violence spreads to Algeria, which is already fighting a low level war against Islamic rebels. The West gets involved again, to fight the terrorists.
Is one possibility of things turning out worse. Merely a hypothetical example, of course.
Which, again, is no different then what would happen if the Gaddafi regime collapses later instead of now. You aren't proposing a worse scenario, you are proposing the same scenario, just happening at a different time.
Also, I asked you for a scenario where it turns out BETTER with Gaddafi in power, not one where what is happening now turns out worse.
Basically, your argument is premised on the assumption that a fall of Gaddafi's regime at a latter date would have been cleaner and less bloody. This is an idea that, imo, is not at all credible in any way.
I really don't know why you're on me so hard about this. It really isn't something I care about; I'm only engaging in an attempt to be consistent with my previous statements.
If Gaddafi were to have left in some different way (this discussion is becoming increasingly hypothetical, I notice), then how can you say it would have gone down the same way? Anything could have happened. Maybe he has a heart attack and some general takes his place, or some relative. Peacefully and orderly, like in North Korea. Maybe it decends into civil war, even worse than the one we saw. Maybe a different sort of protest movement would take shape. Maybe it would turn into a democracy. Maybe it would be invaded. Who knows, and, frankly, who the fuck cares. We have no idea in what other ways Gaddafi could have left the scene; we can speculate uselessly until the cows come home. Maybe it would have been better, or worse, or the same.
How he would have left power was not a part of my reasoning when I argued against an intervention, and I don't see its relevance now.
I'm not giving you a hard time, I'm trying to make you actually acknowledge the outcomes of your stated position.
The fact that you aren't considering how he would have left power is exactly my point. You don't get to chose none of the above. Gaddafi maintaining power means he goes through with his plans to slaughter his enemies ... and then something like what's happening now just happens later. Gaddafi has to leave power at some point. And if he "peacefully" passes power to the next guy, the same applies to that guy. At some point, the dictatorial government/series of governments will end and there will be transition (unless you believe Libya will stay a dictatorship forever or something)
And I'm saying this future transition has little to no chance of being less bloody then the current one. I asked you for a credible alternative. Because if you don't have one, why the hell SHOULDN'T we have intervened now when we had the chance?
The fact that you are going "Well who cares about the alternatives" just means you are taking a position on the issue without thinking about it or even believing you should think about it.
I really don't see why violence is inevitable in Libya. Dictatorships have moved between leaders peacefully, as I pointed out. I listed several other possibilities above, including "turn into a democracy", which has also been done peacefully in other countries. The civil war was not inevitable.
Without intervention Libya would've looked a lot like Syria. The difference is that Libya isn't squatting in between Israel and Iran. And lots of others things, like Russia and China not being cockfaced cockbagglers.
I really don't see why violence is inevitable in Libya. Dictatorships have moved between leaders peacefully, as I pointed out. I listed several other possibilities above, including "turn into a democracy", which has also been done peacefully in other countries. The civil war was not inevitable.
They were using anti-aircraft machine guns on crowds and attacking residential areas with jets.
The only condition under which "civil war was not inevitable" is the scenario where indiscriminate slaughter of civilians did not lead to mass defections - providing arms and manpower for the non-government factions - but instead cow the survivors of said strikes back into submission. The civil war was inevitable, in the sense that by the time the west got involved, it, you know, was a civil war already.
I really don't see why violence is inevitable in Libya. Dictatorships have moved between leaders peacefully, as I pointed out. I listed several other possibilities above, including "turn into a democracy", which has also been done peacefully in other countries. The civil war was not inevitable.
They were using anti-aircraft machine guns on crowds and attacking residential areas with jets.
The only condition under which "civil war was not inevitable" is the scenario where indiscriminate slaughter of civilians did not lead to mass defections - providing arms and manpower for the non-government factions - but instead cow the survivors of said strikes back into submission. The civil war was inevitable, in the sense that by the time the west got involved, it, you know, was a civil war already.
Yeah, this is of course true, I got stuck in hypothetical land when thinking about my post.
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
I'd suggest you read what I wrote. What you describe is a Zionist lobby in an ample sense. But any Zionism that isn't made up by "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks" - Labor Zionism is the most obvious example - is dead politically, historically and socially. They don't matter anymore. The political positions of, say, the Haaretz newspaper can no longer be understood on terms of "Zionism".
What matters now are the crackpots who are settling on occupied territories, less worried about questions of labor than questions of (psychotic) religion or weaponry.
(I'd go even as far as saying those Labor Zionists didn't want any dialog with Palestinians. If you could go back in time to the 50's Israel, you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find an Arab working at, say, Kibbutz Machanayim or Hakuk).
I'd also criticize your "demographical" explanation of the growing bellicosity (and outright chauvinism) of Israeli politics. It's not (only) a question of demographics, but of politics and ideology. After 1967 (and up to 1973), Israel lived drunk by success; even after the 1973, it's still drunk, if not by success, at least by militarism, chauvinism, and the common scourge of religious fanaticism (remember, Shlomo Goren once proposed that all Jerusalem mosques should be destroyed).
I'm not going to take AManfromearth's criticism (that I shouldn't use the word "Zionism" because whaaaaargarbllll) very seriously. 1st) To follow his suggestion of "being accurate" would, ultimately, need me to describe the individual names of people whom I deem Zionist, so I wouldn't be "unfair". 2nd) It's almost shameful to have to point this out, but Zionism isn't Judaism. 3rd) To let only Ahmadinejad and racist Arabs to use the word "Zionist" is a moral surrender to these exact same people. 4th) As Arthur Koestler once said, ""You can't help people being right for the wrong reasons...This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence".
Besides - and this is rather more serious - you apparently believe I describe "Zionist Lobby" as some institution with an address (like AIPAC). Forget about AIPAC: Can you imagine any major American newspaper suggesting that the two-state solution is wrong, and that Israel should NOT be a Jewish state?
Basically, the Zionist lobby in America is enormously powerful. It wouldn't be a problem if it was a "Zionist lobby" in an ample sense, but by "Zionist" you should read "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks". You can't recognize the statehood of Palestine, you can't recognize the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, you can't point the obvious fact that Israel has nuclear capabilities of some kind. You go one step to the left of Netanyahu, and you're gearing for a Holocaust repeat.
It's a social fact; as the last TDS put it, you can't argue against Israeli policy - the political discourse in the US on Israel is either "we'll protect Israel no matter what, and we don't discard the option of bombing Iran" to "LETS BOMB IRAN"
This is an unfair (and inaccurate) characterization of Zionism as a political ideology. The original Zionists -- the small percentage of Jews who identified as ideological Zionists and who founded the State of Israel -- weren't as hard-line as the Likud Party and Israeli conservatives generally today. They were the original socialist Zionists who supported dialog with the Palestinians. They weren't totally blameless, mind you -- it was during the establishment of the State of Israel that things like Plan D happened, after all -- but they were much more open to conciliation with the Palestinians than the conservatives who came to power following 1977.
I'd suggest you read what I wrote. What you describe is a Zionist lobby in an ample sense. But any Zionism that isn't made up by "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks" - Labor Zionism is the most obvious example - is dead politically, historically and socially. They don't matter anymore. The political positions of, say, the Haaretz newspaper can no longer be understood on terms of "Zionism".
What matters now are the crackpots who are settling on occupied territories, less worried about questions of labor than questions of (psychotic) religion or weaponry.
(I'd go even as far as saying those Labor Zionists didn't want any dialog with Palestinians. If you could go back in time to the 50's Israel, you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find an Arab working at, say, Kibbutz Machanayim or Hakuk).
I'd also criticize your "demographical" explanation of the growing bellicosity (and outright chauvinism) of Israeli politics. It's not (only) a question of demographics, but of politics and ideology. After 1967 (and up to 1973), Israel lived drunk by success; even after the 1973, it's still drunk, if not by success, at least by militarism, chauvinism, and the common scourge of religious fanaticism (remember, Shlomo Goren once proposed that all Jerusalem mosques should be destroyed).
How is the increasing conservatism and hawkishness (which are synonymous in Israel) not a matter of demographics? Israel has a democratic system of government; more Sephardic Jews (who tend to be conservative and more religious) and Eastern European Jews meant more votes for the hardliners. The ideological character of the governing elites of a democratic system is, generally speaking, representative of the dominant views of its polity; that's rather the point of a democratic system. We can get into semantics about the ideological meanderings of political parties, and of the impacts of campaign seasons on rhetoric, but the bottom line is that Israel's politics have gotten more conservative and hawkish (evidenced by the proportional representation in parliament of various ideological factions) because its public has gotten more conservative and hawkish (evidenced by demographic data).
This is absolutely horrific. An American soldier has gone on a shooting spree in Kandahar and murdered 15 people. Nine of the dead were children, some reportedly executed with single shots to the head. He's apparently handed himself in and is in the custody of the US military. Obviously the guy had a mental breakdown or something but I'm not sure what the US army can do to make this right. "Sorry" doesn't quite cut it when a US soldier executes 9 kids and burns their bodies. The Taliban are of course delighted, they're already trying to spread around that the Afghan Security forces and ISAF planned the whole thing.
"Sorry" doesn't quite cut it when a US soldier executes 9 kids and burns their bodies. The Taliban are of course delighted, they're already trying to spread around that the Afghan Security forces and ISAF planned the whole thing.
I think we are going to end up having our first military execution in over 50 years. The trial needs to be quick, definitive, and no sitting in jail for a decade or two.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"Sorry" doesn't quite cut it when a US soldier executes 9 kids and burns their bodies. The Taliban are of course delighted, they're already trying to spread around that the Afghan Security forces and ISAF planned the whole thing.
I think we are going to end up having our first military execution in over 50 years. The trial needs to be quick, definitive, and no sitting in jail for a decade or two.
I'm fairly certain it will be. Regardless of what Newt Gingrich thinks.
This is messed up. I really can't explain it any other way. Its not like there was never such an incident before, but it feels like the people actually living there have been put through every nightmare possible and this happens. Not to mention that our relationships with the region have been getting worse, if that's possible.
ShinyRedKnight on
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The honest explanation is that the guy is fucking messed up and he better be put on trial and sent to prison for life at the very least. One of my last right wing views are that the death penalty has a place still. This would be one of those times, imo.
Not that there is anything redeemable about any zionist body...
I'm not really one to get overly sensitive, but where exactly is this statement coming from?
The Israel Lobby (in the Mearsheimer-Walt sense) is in fact something I think most of us agree is a net detriment to both American and international political discourse; that one organization/group of organizations can single-handedly bend an entire country's foreign policy to its will is pretty unethical.
But Zionism, generally speaking, has taken on so many different forms that I don't feel comfortable labeling it a categorical negative.
The Mearsheimer & Walt book is really helpful. I may not agree with everything in it, but man does it provide a clear message on why that particular situation is so... dangerous? Evil? One of those.
The honest explanation is that the guy is fucking messed up and he better be put on trial and sent to prison for life at the very least. One of my last right wing views are that the death penalty has a place still. This would be one of those times, imo.
I actually feel sorry for the guy. It doesn't excuse what he did, but something serious has plainly broken in his brain. I imagine you can only be in an environment where everybody outside your front gate is trying to kill you without it driving you a little crazy.
The honest explanation is that the guy is fucking messed up and he better be put on trial and sent to prison for life at the very least. One of my last right wing views are that the death penalty has a place still. This would be one of those times, imo.
I actually feel sorry for the guy. It doesn't excuse what he did, but something serious has plainly broken in his brain. I imagine you can only be in an environment where everybody outside your front gate is trying to kill you without it driving you a little crazy.
I'm torn between "this guy executed 9 children, a rope is too good for him" and "he's clearly a PTSD case that cracked and I don't agree with capital punishment under pretty much any circumstances". That said, there is the pragmatic aspect of this, pretty much the only thing that is going to come close to making this up to the Afghans is this guys death. Anything short of that is going to look like a whitewash.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The honest explanation is that the guy is fucking messed up and he better be put on trial and sent to prison for life at the very least. One of my last right wing views are that the death penalty has a place still. This would be one of those times, imo.
I actually feel sorry for the guy. It doesn't excuse what he did, but something serious has plainly broken in his brain. I imagine you can only be in an environment where everybody outside your front gate is trying to kill you without it driving you a little crazy.
I agree. That's why I'd be hesitant to put him to death, I'd be fine with him just going to prison for the rest of his life and getting the help he needs, but still. I doubt he'll get the death penalty, if I'm honest. If only because Obama doesn't want the headline "OBAMA KILLS SOLDIER".
This is absolutely horrific. An American soldier has gone on a shooting spree in Kandahar and murdered 15 people. Nine of the dead were children, some reportedly executed with single shots to the head. He's apparently handed himself in and is in the custody of the US military. Obviously the guy had a mental breakdown or something but I'm not sure what the US army can do to make this right. "Sorry" doesn't quite cut it when a US soldier executes 9 kids and burns their bodies. The Taliban are of course delighted, they're already trying to spread around that the Afghan Security forces and ISAF planned the whole thing.
I suspect that this will accelerate the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Between the Koran burnings and this, what was a tenuous and strained relationship will shatter. I doubt that any recompense will assuage the Afghan public at-large.
"Sorry" doesn't quite cut it when a US soldier executes 9 kids and burns their bodies. The Taliban are of course delighted, they're already trying to spread around that the Afghan Security forces and ISAF planned the whole thing.
I think we are going to end up having our first military execution in over 50 years. The trial needs to be quick, definitive, and no sitting in jail for a decade or two.
Death penalty cases are not quick, even in the military. Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Hasan's trial hasn't even started yet. Unless you're proposing we just have a drumhead court-martial, drag him out back and put a bullet in him, this will take a while. Even then, you're assuming that executing the soldier would make a difference. The damage is done and I can't think of anything that will fix it.
Death penalty cases are not quick, even in the military. Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Hasan's trial hasn't even started yet. Unless you're proposing we just have a drumhead court-martial, drag him out back and put a bullet in him, this will take a while. Even then, you're assuming that executing the soldier would make a difference. The damage is done and I can't think of anything that will fix it.
You have to look at the culture that we are dealing with. For a lot the common people on the street in Afghanistan, yes, executing this guy quickly and publicly will make a difference.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
Allow me to be very crass, and predict other people's crassness: Republican presidential candidate(s) to come out and defend the unnamed soldier, possibly promising a pardon, in 24-48 hours. Some version of "Obama is attacking our soldiers" to be used.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Death penalty cases are not quick, even in the military. Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Hasan's trial hasn't even started yet. Unless you're proposing we just have a drumhead court-martial, drag him out back and put a bullet in him, this will take a while. Even then, you're assuming that executing the soldier would make a difference. The damage is done and I can't think of anything that will fix it.
You have to look at the culture that we are dealing with. For a lot the common people on the street in Afghanistan, yes, executing this guy quickly and publicly will make a difference.
But he is entitled to a fair trial. We shouldn't get rid of those for political expedience.
Death penalty cases are not quick, even in the military. Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Hasan's trial hasn't even started yet. Unless you're proposing we just have a drumhead court-martial, drag him out back and put a bullet in him, this will take a while. Even then, you're assuming that executing the soldier would make a difference. The damage is done and I can't think of anything that will fix it.
You have to look at the culture that we are dealing with. For a lot the common people on the street in Afghanistan, yes, executing this guy quickly and publicly will make a difference.
But he is entitled to a fair trial. We shouldn't get rid of those for political expedience.
Also, considering how slow Afghanistan moves when it comes to investigating incidences in which Americans were killed by Afghani service members, I don't think I'd buy the notion that there's a precedent or a fair cultural expectation for a speedy death penalty case in this instance.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Allow me to be very crass, and predict other people's crassness: Republican presidential candidate(s) to come out and defend the unnamed soldier, possibly promising a pardon, in 24-48 hours. Some version of "Obama is attacking our soldiers" to be used.
Death penalty cases are not quick, even in the military. Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Hasan's trial hasn't even started yet. Unless you're proposing we just have a drumhead court-martial, drag him out back and put a bullet in him, this will take a while. Even then, you're assuming that executing the soldier would make a difference. The damage is done and I can't think of anything that will fix it.
You have to look at the culture that we are dealing with. For a lot the common people on the street in Afghanistan, yes, executing this guy quickly and publicly will make a difference.
Afghani opinions and culture can go fuck itself. Might as well use Malleus Maleficarum, as basis for our jurist prudence as that.
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
If republicans want to say that he did nothing wrong and would suck his dick, let 'em. It would only serve to broadcast their naiive jingoism and mean that they face a total shitstorm of foreign incidents when they take over from Obama.
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
All of this is why he needs a fair trial under the UCMJ/international law and not some fast tracked showboat drumhead to appease the Afghan people.
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
All of this is why he needs a fair trial under the UCMJ/international law and not some fast tracked showboat drumhead to appease the Afghan people.
If he gets found not competent to stand trial or gets a light sentence, a dishonorable discharge, and some therapy due to PTSD, then we might as well just pack our troops and gear up and bring them home because that war is over.
There is no way that the Afghan people are going to accept that and they are going to turn to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/whoever in even greater numbers.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
All of this is why he needs a fair trial under the UCMJ/international law and not some fast tracked showboat drumhead to appease the Afghan people.
If he gets found not competent to stand trial or gets a light sentence, a dishonorable discharge, and some therapy due to PTSD, then we might as well just pack our troops and gear up and bring them home because that war is over.
There is no way that the Afghan people are going to accept that and they are going to turn to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/whoever in even greater numbers.
Then so be it. Justice shouldn't take a back seat to expediency. It already does far too much. Sure, what he did was indefensible and he, assuming he's fit for trial, should get a heavy sentence for murdering fifteen people. I doubt he'd be declared unfit for trial, but if he is he is and we shouldn't ignore the system just because it might be politically useful. I don't care if that has been done in the past, it shouldn't happen.
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
The man killed and burned children. Maybe I could understand, if not sympathise, with that argument if it was a group of ex-Taliban or whatever, but it was unarmed, vulnerable citizens - no more a threat to him than any random Afghan/Arab-American on the street in his hometown.
I don't buy that being in a warzone is, on its own, enough to explain the sort of monstrosity this man committed - that this is such a rare occurrence is somewhat indicative of that. But you're right - he needs a full psych report by someone who understands the subtleties of military life. Even if we should drop the 'danger to society' clause, however, a full life imprisonment/sectioning is fully justified on moral grounds, should a fair trial come to such a conclusion.
My blood ran cold when I read that. This isn't a thing that can just be written off, this is...
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
All of this is why he needs a fair trial under the UCMJ/international law and not some fast tracked showboat drumhead to appease the Afghan people.
If he gets found not competent to stand trial or gets a light sentence, a dishonorable discharge, and some therapy due to PTSD, then we might as well just pack our troops and gear up and bring them home because that war is over.
There is no way that the Afghan people are going to accept that and they are going to turn to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/whoever in even greater numbers.
Then so be it. Justice shouldn't take a back seat to expediency. It already does far too much. Sure, what he did was indefensible and he, assuming he's fit for trial, should get a heavy sentence for murdering fifteen people. I doubt he'd be declared unfit for trial, but if he is he is and we shouldn't ignore the system just because it might be politically useful. I don't care if that has been done in the past, it shouldn't happen.
Couldn't have said it better myself. We have a system for a reason. I would think far less of us collectively if we made this guy a human sacrifice.
Bob Schieffer: Is it time for us to leave Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker?
Newt Gingrich: I think it is. I think that we have to reassess the entire region. I think the revelations about Pakistan having hidden Bin Laden for seven years in a military city near their national defense university and then hunting down not the people who were protecting Bin Laden but hunting down the people who were helping America. I think the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. When you look around the region, this is going to get much worse. That's why I've called for an American energy policy. We need to decide that we're going to produce our own oil and we're going to frankly be capable of surviving without having to define or dominate the region because I don't think we have the willpower or the capacity to do the things you'd have to do to fundamentally change the region.
Schieffer: You say it is time to leave. Do you mean just, let's leave, let's start leaving right now, not wait around?
Gingrich: I think we need to reconsider the whole region. We need to understand that our being in the middle of countries like Afghanistan is probably counterproductive. We're not prepared to be ruthless enough to force them to change, and yet we're clearly an alien presence. That was the real meaning of the reaction to the Koran burning. The fact is those Korans had been in fact defaced by Muslims who were prisoners. They had been abused by Muslims, not by Americans, and yet the instantaneous anti-foreigner sentiment is so deep that I think we need to recognize that we're walking on egg shells in places like Afghanistan, and after $20 billion in the last decade, it's pretty hard to argue that the Pakistanis are seriously our allies when they hide Bin Laden for seven years.
But before that he did say that “we have to indicate clearly and convince the people of Afghanistan that justice will be done and we are not going to tolerate that kind of thing.”
So, one vote for let's get out of Afghanistan, and not what I was expecting. But it's Gingrich, and he'll say anything. Let's see who's up next.
I'd suggest you read what I wrote. What you describe is a Zionist lobby in an ample sense. But any Zionism that isn't made up by "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks" - Labor Zionism is the most obvious example - is dead politically, historically and socially. They don't matter anymore. The political positions of, say, the Haaretz newspaper can no longer be understood on terms of "Zionism".
What matters now are the crackpots who are settling on occupied territories, less worried about questions of labor than questions of (psychotic) religion or weaponry.
(I'd go even as far as saying those Labor Zionists didn't want any dialog with Palestinians. If you could go back in time to the 50's Israel, you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find an Arab working at, say, Kibbutz Machanayim or Hakuk).
I'd also criticize your "demographical" explanation of the growing bellicosity (and outright chauvinism) of Israeli politics. It's not (only) a question of demographics, but of politics and ideology. After 1967 (and up to 1973), Israel lived drunk by success; even after the 1973, it's still drunk, if not by success, at least by militarism, chauvinism, and the common scourge of religious fanaticism (remember, Shlomo Goren once proposed that all Jerusalem mosques should be destroyed).
How is the increasing conservatism and hawkishness (which are synonymous in Israel) not a matter of demographics? Israel has a democratic system of government; more Sephardic Jews (who tend to be conservative and more religious) and Eastern European Jews meant more votes for the hardliners. The ideological character of the governing elites of a democratic system is, generally speaking, representative of the dominant views of its polity; that's rather the point of a democratic system. We can get into semantics about the ideological meanderings of political parties, and of the impacts of campaign seasons on rhetoric, but the bottom line is that Israel's politics have gotten more conservative and hawkish (evidenced by the proportional representation in parliament of various ideological factions) because its public has gotten more conservative and hawkish (evidenced by demographic data).
Ham: I agree that demographics clearly plays a big role in politics, especially in a country like Israel, whose population is uniquely made up of immigrants from various cultures, and has birthrates that vary dramatically between those cultures. But Lolken himself said "It's not (only) a question of demographics, but of politics and ideology.", acknowledging that demographics plays a role. He then goes on to make a couple more arguments, which I think are at least a bit valid.
Demographics plays a role. But when you talk of "...semantics about the ideological meanderings of political parties..." you seem to imply that demographics is the only thing that is shaping politics, which is ridiculous. Lolken makes fine points about the impact of the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, which dramatically increased expansionist military mentality in Israel. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured territory which it holds to this day; this has had a profound effect on both Israel's internal politics, as well as its dealings with the Palestinians and neighbouring nations. I don't feel I know enough about this subject to agree or disagree with everything that you and Lolken are saying, but he's quite right in pointing out that politics in Israel have become more conservative and militant. This is not some inevitable consequence of demography.
I had more in there that drew comparison to U.S. politics to try and provide a better example of the relationship between demographics and politics, which I didn't include for the sake of brevity, but here it is:
Here in the U.S., we have representatives of literally the entire global ideological spectrum. We have socialists, social democrats, communists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc.; we have libertarians, fascists, conservatives (real conservatives, not the classical liberals who call themselves the Republican Party), and even Nazis. These guys have been active in U.S. politics for decades.
So why do we only get to choose between two parties (who frankly are two slightly differentiated versions of the same ideological positions) every four years? Because of demographics. There aren't enough people in this country attracted to social democracy, or fascism, or libertarianism (a couple of vocal college kids doesn't count). That's why Ralph Nader will never be a viable candidate. (We could get into a different, more detailed conversation about how first-part-the-post voting systems have historically lead to two-party systems, but that's not what this post is about -- and it's also too soon after I've come home from work to get into the meat of that discussion.)
There were always hardliners in Israel; they just got drowned out by socialist Zionism. As the vanguard of that movement started dying off -- and because they had a lower birthrate than the newer Sephardic and Eastern European Jews who were coming to Israel en masse at this point -- you saw a tectonic shift in the 1977 election. Likud made strategic alliances with the religious and center-right parties and was able to secure commanding majorities in the parliament.
The point being: no demographic shift, no Likud ascendancy.
The man killed and burned children. Maybe I could understand, if not sympathise, with that argument if it was a group of ex-Taliban or whatever, but it was unarmed, vulnerable citizens - no more a threat to him than any random Afghan/Arab-American on the street in his hometown.
I don't buy that being in a warzone is, on its own, enough to explain the sort of monstrosity this man committed - that this is such a rare occurrence is somewhat indicative of that. But you're right - he needs a full psych report by someone who understands the subtleties of military life. Even if we should drop the 'danger to society' clause, however, a full life imprisonment/sectioning is fully justified on moral grounds, should a fair trial come to such a conclusion.
I don't know, I might align more with @tinwhiskers in being wary of placing too much emphasis on personality over context in determining what causes this behavior. It'd be nice to just say that this guy did it because he's fundamentally bad/messed-up, but I feel this is more of a threshold thing, where the extreme stress from the situation (of being in a warzone) pushed this individual over the edge. But you're also right in that if it were just the exposure to a warzone, it would seem logical that this would happen more.
Posts
I'm not really one to get overly sensitive, but where exactly is this statement coming from?
The Israel Lobby (in the Mearsheimer-Walt sense) is in fact something I think most of us agree is a net detriment to both American and international political discourse; that one organization/group of organizations can single-handedly bend an entire country's foreign policy to its will is pretty unethical.
But Zionism, generally speaking, has taken on so many different forms that I don't feel comfortable labeling it a categorical negative.
@Hamurabi: I dislike Nationalism, and Zionism just happens to be one nationalist ideology. Israel is pretty much a platonic ideal of everything that is wrong with nationalism, and Zionism lead to its creation. I can't think of many people who actually benefited from the creation of Israel.
One of the main reasons given for keeping the locals out of Israel is that it will no longer be a jewish state if you let arabs in. Thus the zionist ideology of 'One nation for one people' is actively harmful. An ethnic state is a racist one, and something humanity as a whole should be moving away from. A humanistic, liberal, democratic state cannot be ethnic.
The only form of Zionism which I would not call harmful is the stream that simply stated that jews should live in Israel (rather than jews being the only group that lives in Israel, the majority, or the one that rules). This stream has generally died out, but I accept your criticism regarding unfairly condemning it. It is simply not what the word Zionism is associated with for the last decades.
I'm not really that heavily invested in extrapolating who is and is not a Zionist; at any rate, I doubt Ayatollah Khamenei was thinking about it when he proclaimed that the Oscar win for A Separation was a slam-dunk against "the Zionists." :P
I really don't see why violence is inevitable in Libya. Dictatorships have moved between leaders peacefully, as I pointed out. I listed several other possibilities above, including "turn into a democracy", which has also been done peacefully in other countries. The civil war was not inevitable.
edit:bit of a brain fart on my part. It was pointed out that the civil war was inevitable- once it had started.
Without intervention Libya would've looked a lot like Syria. The difference is that Libya isn't squatting in between Israel and Iran. And lots of others things, like Russia and China not being cockfaced cockbagglers.
The only condition under which "civil war was not inevitable" is the scenario where indiscriminate slaughter of civilians did not lead to mass defections - providing arms and manpower for the non-government factions - but instead cow the survivors of said strikes back into submission. The civil war was inevitable, in the sense that by the time the west got involved, it, you know, was a civil war already.
Yeah, this is of course true, I got stuck in hypothetical land when thinking about my post.
Israel is doing a very good job making me nervous.
Couple of points.
I'd suggest you read what I wrote. What you describe is a Zionist lobby in an ample sense. But any Zionism that isn't made up by "crackpot militaristic imperialistic dicks" - Labor Zionism is the most obvious example - is dead politically, historically and socially. They don't matter anymore. The political positions of, say, the Haaretz newspaper can no longer be understood on terms of "Zionism".
What matters now are the crackpots who are settling on occupied territories, less worried about questions of labor than questions of (psychotic) religion or weaponry.
(I'd go even as far as saying those Labor Zionists didn't want any dialog with Palestinians. If you could go back in time to the 50's Israel, you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find an Arab working at, say, Kibbutz Machanayim or Hakuk).
I'd also criticize your "demographical" explanation of the growing bellicosity (and outright chauvinism) of Israeli politics. It's not (only) a question of demographics, but of politics and ideology. After 1967 (and up to 1973), Israel lived drunk by success; even after the 1973, it's still drunk, if not by success, at least by militarism, chauvinism, and the common scourge of religious fanaticism (remember, Shlomo Goren once proposed that all Jerusalem mosques should be destroyed).
I'm not going to take AManfromearth's criticism (that I shouldn't use the word "Zionism" because whaaaaargarbllll) very seriously. 1st) To follow his suggestion of "being accurate" would, ultimately, need me to describe the individual names of people whom I deem Zionist, so I wouldn't be "unfair". 2nd) It's almost shameful to have to point this out, but Zionism isn't Judaism. 3rd) To let only Ahmadinejad and racist Arabs to use the word "Zionist" is a moral surrender to these exact same people. 4th) As Arthur Koestler once said, ""You can't help people being right for the wrong reasons...This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence".
Besides - and this is rather more serious - you apparently believe I describe "Zionist Lobby" as some institution with an address (like AIPAC). Forget about AIPAC: Can you imagine any major American newspaper suggesting that the two-state solution is wrong, and that Israel should NOT be a Jewish state?
How is the increasing conservatism and hawkishness (which are synonymous in Israel) not a matter of demographics? Israel has a democratic system of government; more Sephardic Jews (who tend to be conservative and more religious) and Eastern European Jews meant more votes for the hardliners. The ideological character of the governing elites of a democratic system is, generally speaking, representative of the dominant views of its polity; that's rather the point of a democratic system. We can get into semantics about the ideological meanderings of political parties, and of the impacts of campaign seasons on rhetoric, but the bottom line is that Israel's politics have gotten more conservative and hawkish (evidenced by the proportional representation in parliament of various ideological factions) because its public has gotten more conservative and hawkish (evidenced by demographic data).
This is absolutely horrific. An American soldier has gone on a shooting spree in Kandahar and murdered 15 people. Nine of the dead were children, some reportedly executed with single shots to the head. He's apparently handed himself in and is in the custody of the US military. Obviously the guy had a mental breakdown or something but I'm not sure what the US army can do to make this right. "Sorry" doesn't quite cut it when a US soldier executes 9 kids and burns their bodies. The Taliban are of course delighted, they're already trying to spread around that the Afghan Security forces and ISAF planned the whole thing.
I think we are going to end up having our first military execution in over 50 years. The trial needs to be quick, definitive, and no sitting in jail for a decade or two.
I'm fairly certain it will be. Regardless of what Newt Gingrich thinks.
This is messed up. I really can't explain it any other way. Its not like there was never such an incident before, but it feels like the people actually living there have been put through every nightmare possible and this happens. Not to mention that our relationships with the region have been getting worse, if that's possible.
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
The Mearsheimer & Walt book is really helpful. I may not agree with everything in it, but man does it provide a clear message on why that particular situation is so... dangerous? Evil? One of those.
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
I actually feel sorry for the guy. It doesn't excuse what he did, but something serious has plainly broken in his brain. I imagine you can only be in an environment where everybody outside your front gate is trying to kill you without it driving you a little crazy.
I'm torn between "this guy executed 9 children, a rope is too good for him" and "he's clearly a PTSD case that cracked and I don't agree with capital punishment under pretty much any circumstances". That said, there is the pragmatic aspect of this, pretty much the only thing that is going to come close to making this up to the Afghans is this guys death. Anything short of that is going to look like a whitewash.
I agree. That's why I'd be hesitant to put him to death, I'd be fine with him just going to prison for the rest of his life and getting the help he needs, but still. I doubt he'll get the death penalty, if I'm honest. If only because Obama doesn't want the headline "OBAMA KILLS SOLDIER".
I suspect that this will accelerate the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Between the Koran burnings and this, what was a tenuous and strained relationship will shatter. I doubt that any recompense will assuage the Afghan public at-large.
Death penalty cases are not quick, even in the military. Remember the Ft. Hood shooter? Hasan's trial hasn't even started yet. Unless you're proposing we just have a drumhead court-martial, drag him out back and put a bullet in him, this will take a while. Even then, you're assuming that executing the soldier would make a difference. The damage is done and I can't think of anything that will fix it.
You have to look at the culture that we are dealing with. For a lot the common people on the street in Afghanistan, yes, executing this guy quickly and publicly will make a difference.
But he is entitled to a fair trial. We shouldn't get rid of those for political expedience.
Also, considering how slow Afghanistan moves when it comes to investigating incidences in which Americans were killed by Afghani service members, I don't think I'd buy the notion that there's a precedent or a fair cultural expectation for a speedy death penalty case in this instance.
I don't doubt you're right.
Afghani opinions and culture can go fuck itself. Might as well use Malleus Maleficarum, as basis for our jurist prudence as that.
This is a massacre.
Hell, what would be the response if the guy did the same thing in the US, and it was US kids that he shot and burned? Of course, mitigating factors need to be taken into account, but the man is clearly a menace to society at large and should be imprisoned (or sectioned) for the rest of his life.
If republicans want to say that he did nothing wrong and would suck his dick, let 'em. It would only serve to broadcast their naiive jingoism and mean that they face a total shitstorm of foreign incidents when they take over from Obama.
The thing is I doubt that. Without any physc evaluation, who knows how broken he is, but the situations are just so incomparable. Half a world away, under constant threat of attack. He broke, but that doesn't make him likely to break here. Because generally you aren't getting shot at day to day in the US.
All of this is why he needs a fair trial under the UCMJ/international law and not some fast tracked showboat drumhead to appease the Afghan people.
If he gets found not competent to stand trial or gets a light sentence, a dishonorable discharge, and some therapy due to PTSD, then we might as well just pack our troops and gear up and bring them home because that war is over.
There is no way that the Afghan people are going to accept that and they are going to turn to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/whoever in even greater numbers.
Then so be it. Justice shouldn't take a back seat to expediency. It already does far too much. Sure, what he did was indefensible and he, assuming he's fit for trial, should get a heavy sentence for murdering fifteen people. I doubt he'd be declared unfit for trial, but if he is he is and we shouldn't ignore the system just because it might be politically useful. I don't care if that has been done in the past, it shouldn't happen.
The man killed and burned children. Maybe I could understand, if not sympathise, with that argument if it was a group of ex-Taliban or whatever, but it was unarmed, vulnerable citizens - no more a threat to him than any random Afghan/Arab-American on the street in his hometown.
I don't buy that being in a warzone is, on its own, enough to explain the sort of monstrosity this man committed - that this is such a rare occurrence is somewhat indicative of that. But you're right - he needs a full psych report by someone who understands the subtleties of military life. Even if we should drop the 'danger to society' clause, however, a full life imprisonment/sectioning is fully justified on moral grounds, should a fair trial come to such a conclusion.
Couldn't have said it better myself. We have a system for a reason. I would think far less of us collectively if we made this guy a human sacrifice.
But before that he did say that “we have to indicate clearly and convince the people of Afghanistan that justice will be done and we are not going to tolerate that kind of thing.”
So, one vote for let's get out of Afghanistan, and not what I was expecting. But it's Gingrich, and he'll say anything. Let's see who's up next.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/11/gingrich_its_time_to_get_out_of_afghanistan.html
Ham: I agree that demographics clearly plays a big role in politics, especially in a country like Israel, whose population is uniquely made up of immigrants from various cultures, and has birthrates that vary dramatically between those cultures. But Lolken himself said "It's not (only) a question of demographics, but of politics and ideology.", acknowledging that demographics plays a role. He then goes on to make a couple more arguments, which I think are at least a bit valid.
Demographics plays a role. But when you talk of "...semantics about the ideological meanderings of political parties..." you seem to imply that demographics is the only thing that is shaping politics, which is ridiculous. Lolken makes fine points about the impact of the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars, which dramatically increased expansionist military mentality in Israel. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured territory which it holds to this day; this has had a profound effect on both Israel's internal politics, as well as its dealings with the Palestinians and neighbouring nations. I don't feel I know enough about this subject to agree or disagree with everything that you and Lolken are saying, but he's quite right in pointing out that politics in Israel have become more conservative and militant. This is not some inevitable consequence of demography.
Here in the U.S., we have representatives of literally the entire global ideological spectrum. We have socialists, social democrats, communists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc.; we have libertarians, fascists, conservatives (real conservatives, not the classical liberals who call themselves the Republican Party), and even Nazis. These guys have been active in U.S. politics for decades.
So why do we only get to choose between two parties (who frankly are two slightly differentiated versions of the same ideological positions) every four years? Because of demographics. There aren't enough people in this country attracted to social democracy, or fascism, or libertarianism (a couple of vocal college kids doesn't count). That's why Ralph Nader will never be a viable candidate. (We could get into a different, more detailed conversation about how first-part-the-post voting systems have historically lead to two-party systems, but that's not what this post is about -- and it's also too soon after I've come home from work to get into the meat of that discussion.)
There were always hardliners in Israel; they just got drowned out by socialist Zionism. As the vanguard of that movement started dying off -- and because they had a lower birthrate than the newer Sephardic and Eastern European Jews who were coming to Israel en masse at this point -- you saw a tectonic shift in the 1977 election. Likud made strategic alliances with the religious and center-right parties and was able to secure commanding majorities in the parliament.
The point being: no demographic shift, no Likud ascendancy.
I don't know, I might align more with @tinwhiskers in being wary of placing too much emphasis on personality over context in determining what causes this behavior. It'd be nice to just say that this guy did it because he's fundamentally bad/messed-up, but I feel this is more of a threshold thing, where the extreme stress from the situation (of being in a warzone) pushed this individual over the edge. But you're also right in that if it were just the exposure to a warzone, it would seem logical that this would happen more.