Watching the IDF (catch all)

[Tom Odom]

Once again, the anti-semetic argument emerges.

Interesting and completely expected.

you can read the pro and con reader responses to the Harvard paper at:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n08/letters.html the editors there have responded to criticism as well.

The paper hardly matches the Elders of Zion crap. Pappe regardless of affiliation raises points that are never discussed in open forum. And as is the case, here, the immediate respones is to start throwing mud. I put the Harvard paper on here because it is one of the few that actually raises hard issues with regards to US and Israeli ties. Pappe's essay looks at demographics; an issue I would still say is the long pole in the Israeli tent.

Best

Tom

[echoparkdirt]

It's not just "anti-semitic" to claim that shrewd Jews are using/buying influence over the United States policy-making apparatus against our interests, it's also plain dumb.

By all means, ignore the anti-Semitism inherent in this paper endorsed by David Duke. Note, however, its circular logic;
its factual errors
its lack of original scholarship
its mono-causal social science
its unsubstantiated generalizations
its selective use of evidence
its insinuations of dual loyalty;
its strawman counterarguments.

Basically this is a "Hail Mary" from "realist Arabists". Their "realism" infers that America takes action for its own best interests. But now they must explain why America has been supportive of Israel for decades -- and why we invaded Iraq -- if as they believe, both actions are not in American interests. Why, the answer must be those powerful Jews! Or, to use the more socially acceptable term, "The Lobby".

Also, Tom, you wrote this:

The situation reference "Palestinian targeting of civilians" versus IDF targeting is one of available means and achieveable effects.



Would you explain this statement? Do you see any moral difference in exploding buses and targeting civilians and "targeted killings" of terrorists or retaliation where innocents may die because terrorists insert themselves in civilian areas? If not, is there a difference between the insurgents in Iraq exploding mosques and American use of force which may cause civilian damage? Please elucidate.

[Jedburgh]

The Economist, 20 Jan 07: It's The Little Things That Make an Occupation

During 2006, according to B'tselem, an Israeli human-rights group, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, almost half of them innocent bystanders, among them 141 children. In the same period, Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians and six soldiers. It is such figures, as well as events like shellings, house demolitions, arrest raids and land expropriations, that make the headlines in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What rarely get into the media but make up the staple of Palestinian daily conversation are the countless little restrictions that slow down most people's lives, strangle the economy and provide constant fuel for extremists....

[Jedburgh]

USIP, Feb 07: From Rejection to Acceptance: Israeli National Security Thinking and Palestinian Statehood

...findings lead to several conclusions:

- Most Israelis are prepared to accept a withdrawal from most of the West Bank that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state. This may facilitate future negotiations.

- However, those who want to establish a limited, constrained Palestinian state through a unilateral process will create a self-fulfilling prophecy: a Palestinian state that is irredentist and in continuous armed conflict with Israel.

- The United States and its allies must try to prevent this development, which is detrimental to their interests, by encouraging dialogue between the two parties, and a negotiated settlement. At the very least, the United States should strive to turn a unilateral Israeli process into a cooperative process.

- The United States needs a policy that can accommodate renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations with the reality of Hamas holding public office. A nuanced, cautious policy of engagement may be the best option.

• From the Israeli perspective, the question of Palestinian statehood is deeply intertwined with the following three scenarios:

1. Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resume following a Palestinian national dialogue that leads to positive changes in Hamas policies.

2. Negotiations do not resume, because Hamas does not modify its positions, and Israel pushes ahead with unilateral disengagement from the West Bank. The recent war in Lebanon made this unilateral option less popular in Israel, but it is likely to reemerge.

3. A mixed scenario in which unilateral Israeli steps are carried out in parallel with Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over less than comprehensive agreements. This scenario is more feasible than the first and more promising than the second....