Israel and Hamas: all proportions guarded
“Commentator after commentator has attempted to browbeat Palestinian spokespeople with the same question. Why is Hamas launching these home-made rockets?
“The answer, in truth, is very simple. It’s because they do not have Merkava tanks, Hellfire missiles, and F16 fighter aircraft at their disposal” – John Wight, of the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, in today’s Morning Star.
Israel’s assault on Gaza is undoubtably ‘disproportionate’ in at least two closely related ways. Firstly, of course, Israel’s massive and sophisticated military machine is in a completely different league to Hamas and its home-made Qassam rockets. Secondly, the casualty figures speak for themselves: 4 Israelis killed so far, compared to 400 Palestinians.
There is simply no denying these self-evident facts, which make a mockery of any attempt to portray the Gaza conflict as an even-handed battle between two evenly matched sides…mind you: who does attempt to portray it in that way?
However, the ‘proportionality’ argument also serves to confuse and conflate two quite distinct propositions: a very strong case (that I for one would agree with) can be made that Israel’s action in Gaza is immoral, inhumane and counter-productive. It is alienating world public opinion and – even if militarily successful in the short term - will surely create a new generation of hate-filled militants in Gaza. Crucially, it is inimical to the attainment of the only possible resolution to the entire Israel/Palestine conflict: two states.
It does not, however, follow that the ‘disproportionate’ nature of the conflict in itself confers some sort of moral superiority to Hamas. Let’s not forget that these vicious, anti-semitic Islamists call for the total eradication of Israel. Their rockets, ineffective as they may be, are aimed at Israeli civilians and if their kill rate is not very impressive, it’s not for want of trying. The fact that Hamas doesn’t have the means to pose an existential threat to Israel doesn’t mean that the left should be indifferent (let alone indulgent) towards its genocidal intentions.
Sadly, much of the “respectable” British “left” and liberal/”left” appear to see no further than the ‘disproportionate’ nature of Israel’s action and to take at face value the weaselly propaganda of dodgy Islamists who don’t make their true programme clear.
I leave out of the equation – for now – those on the so-called “left” (like the SWP and the “left” anti-semite whose words opened this piece), who positively support the Islamists’ call for the total destruction of the “Zionist entity” and for whom Israel’s “disproportionate” action has been such a godsend…
*Oppose Israel’s assault on Gaza!
* Ceasefire now!
*Down with Hamas!
*For two states!
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 4, 2009 at 12:01 am
Splendid post. I fully agree with the four capstone statements at the end. The inability of leftists to accord the same support to the 3rd and 4th statements as they do to the first and second is shameful.
modernityblog said,
January 4, 2009 at 1:04 am
Charlie,
you might want to include the total of rockets/mortars fired at Israeli civilians in your post:
(sorry the formatting is crap)
Year
No. of rockets
Comments
Mortar bombs
2001
4
245
2002
35
257
2003
155
265
2004
281
876
2005
179
108 until the withdrawal, 71 afterwards
238
2006
946
22
2007
896
421 until the Hamas takeover, 475 afterwards
749
2008
1,212
January-November
1,290
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Missile+fire+from+Gaza+on+Israeli+civilian+targets+Aug+2007.html
G said,
January 4, 2009 at 1:35 am
FREE EVERYTHING InternetSurfShack.com
badnewswade said,
January 4, 2009 at 2:19 am
The more I hear about it the more I think that Reagan was right about the Middle East.Complete loonie bin.
Personally though I see it as a distraction from the only struggle that matters: the class struggle. If the Spectacle can have you rooting for one side in a bloodthirsty genocidal conflict as far away as possible, then that’s time you’re not spending concentrating on the depradations of the ruling class, like the newest proposal for yet another bailout for the City, or the wage cuts and swingeing, mean-spirited benefit sanctions being brought in to pay for this scumbags’ jubilee.
I would implore the left to drop the ME issue. These are people who are hell bent on mutual destruction and always have been.
Ofer said,
January 4, 2009 at 8:19 am
Quite a silly argument (John Wight’s). So if they had F16s and tanks, they would be able to target our southern towns more accurately. And the point is??
The question is of course, why do they fire these thousands of missiles (see charts here: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e007.pdf ) even if Gaza is no longer occupied? not only that, why has the pace INCREASED since Israel left? does this make sense?
2001: 4 rockets
2002: 35 rockets
2003: 155 rockets
2004: 281 rockets
2005: 179 rockets
2006: 946 rockets
2007: 783 rockets
2008: 1730 rockets
(that’s without similar numbers of mortar attacks)
You’re right, it’s not a symmetric conflict. And I do understand the subtexts of “they are frustrated that the crossings are closed”, but if you would want to improve your situation through negotiations, you would try to actually build something positive from this withdrawel, rather than step up attacks. That leaves us with no choice but to act militarily to try and stop the attacks and protect your citizens.
BTW – this issue with the crossings is a joke, the main reason crossings kept closing is because Hamas and Jihad kept ATTACKING them. Yes, you heard right:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Main+terrorist+attacks+carried+out+at+Gaza+Strip+crossings+16-Jan-2005.htm
UK Gaza demos round-up – Politics Unlimited | UK politics news said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:09 am
[...] write-ups and see pictures by: Harpymarx, Derek Wall, myself, James Hooper, Lenin, Liam Mac Uaid, Shiraz Socialist, Janine, Andy D’Agorne, permanent revolution, on Harry’s Place and bigbluemeanie. [hat [...]
John Palmer said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:18 am
Since we have heard a lot of nonsense from Israeli government propagandists about Hamas’ responsibility for breaking the “truce” – I think this analysis by an Israeli expert puts everythging in clearer context:
http://www.hagada.org.il/eng/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=248
Ofer said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:57 am
John Palmer – are you joking?
“Analysis by an Israeli expert” from a site that doesn’t even try to show up as objective, calling itself a “Left Radical Forum”. This is pure propaganda too.
The truce has been constantly broken by Hamas since it was started, but your “source” conveniently picks one incident. Don’t take my word for it, here is a report from the Times Online from early July, mentioning 11 rockets fired into Israel just in the first 2 weeks of “truce”:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4272883.ece
as more objectiveas they didn’t kill anyone in Israel. That’s your hypocretic media.
Ofer said,
January 4, 2009 at 11:05 am
Here’s another typical example from Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/07/news/Israel-Palestinians.php
The article discusses in-depth Israel’s gesture releasing prisoners, Hamas and Fatah internal bloody struggles, and then in one tiny sentence:
“After nightfall Palestinians fired a rocket at Israel from Gaza, the military said, in violation of a June 18 cease-fire.”
Completely unprovoked, sirens in the middle of the night of all surrounding Israeli towns, children waking in panic, but that’s ok cause it’s Israelis. Well, no more.
Voltaire's Priest said,
January 4, 2009 at 11:17 am
Hmmm. On the one side we have children waking up, on the other around 500 people dead and counting in the space of a week. Yeah, like that’s the same.
maxdunbar said,
January 4, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Charlie – great post
modernityblog said,
January 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm
John Palmer,
do you agree with Hamas firing rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians?
and if so, what political purpose do they serve?
offwiththeirarms said,
January 4, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@ ofer “The question is of course, why do they fire these thousands of missiles” They fire them because Gaza is not allowed an imports or exports, thus making business impossible, thus ruining living standards.
@ modernityblog – The rockets from Gaza cause Israeli civilians to live in constant fear. This is presumably to pressure Israel into lifting the siege of Gaza, or as revenge for past events. I do not agree with anyone firing anything anytime.
offwiththeirarms said,
January 4, 2009 at 4:25 pm
and @ both of you if you read you’re own documents ofer you’d get your answer:
“The rockets, while still having their
share of problems and shortcomings, in the terrorists’ view, allow them to disrupt the lives of
Israeli civilians within the range of fire, destabilize their social fabric, override the security
fence built by Israel along the Gaza Strip, and create a kind of balance of terror that makes it
difficult for Israel’s security forces to conduct counter-activities and reflects the terrorist policy
of Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip.”
Flying Rodent said,
January 4, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I reckon you’re looking at this “proportionality” issue from the wrong end. Surely the question is one of military utility – how many civilian casualties and how much damage to infrastructure is acceptable, proportionate to the military aim of the operation?
I believe (and I’m happy to be contradicted, if anyone knows differently) that international law would accept killing a small number of civilians while blowing up a building that contains a large number of enemy combatants and a large stockpile of weapons as “proportionate”. Blowing up a school in the vague hope that there are some terrorists in it would be “disproportionate”, because there would be no legitimate military objective.
When HRW accused the Israelis and Hezbollah of war crimes in 2006, it was because of this – lobbing tons of high explosive at towns and cities, deliberately targetting non-military infrastructure and such. Targetted strikes with a clear military objective = proportionate. Blasting bridges, apartment blocks, ports, bakeries, petrol stations etc. in the vague hope that they might be of some use to the enemy = disproportionate.
I think the question is, how many civilian deaths are you prepared to accept in pursuit of an unachievable goal?
To my mind, the only reasonable answer is “none”. For far too many, the answer seems to be “Exactly as many civilian deaths as actually happen, but not one more”. .
John Palmer said,
January 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I notice, Offer, that you are unable to dispute the accuracy of detailed analysis of the events since Israel closed the border with Hamas outlined in the Israeli Left Radical site. The Israeligovernment has been determined to provoke Hamas and others into this confrontation for many months – hence the near starvation they have caused by persistently closing the border to food, fuel and other essential supplies. They are not even willing to admit the international media. I am not suprised since the facts on mthe ground in Gaza speak for themselves. Modernity Blog asks what military purpose is served by the rockets which are fired into Israel. The answer is “none.” But I also understand something which some on this site seem to have forgotten – the sense of desperation which a people can feel when they are bombed, starved and terrorised into submission by the overweaning, swaggering arrogance of a vastly superior military and economic power. I am sickened by how many “socialists” seem to have forgotten (or abandoned) any sense of identity with a people who have been left in such a sickeningly inhumane situation.
modernityblog said,
January 4, 2009 at 7:51 pm
John Palmer wrote:
“Modernity Blog asks what military purpose is served by the rockets which are fired into Israel. The answer is “none.””
again, John, I didn’t ask that, I wrote:
so please could you answer, as a political activist for more than for decades, what political purpose does firing rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians serve?
again, that’s what political purpose?
charliethechulo said,
January 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm
John Palmer says “I am sickened by how many ‘socialists’ seem to have forgotten (or abanoned) any sense of identity with a people who have been left in such a sickeningly inhumane situation”…
I can assure you, John, that I *do* feel for the Palestinians… and wish that they could be given some respite from the war going on around them. Believe me, I wish for a ceasefire.
John Palmer said,
January 4, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Modernity – I can see no useful political or military purpose served by the pathetic resort to missiles into Israel – except this: a desperate people need to show that they will not lie down and accept whatever terms the all powerful Israeli state will serve upon them without proteswt or response. If you do not understand that and do not sympathise with the desperation of these people, we have nothing in common. In the meantime all praise to the tiny minority of Israeli socialists who dare tell the truth to arrogant power of the Israeli state. All praise to organisations like Jews for Justice for Palestinians in Europe who have upheld the banner of Jewish solidarity
with the oppressed against the arrogant, Bush supported Israeli war machine.
2115 Hrs GMT London Sunday 4 January 2009: An amazing event! A Lib Dem blogger has published an interesting piece attacking the idiocies fronted by James Purnell, currently the Department for Waste and Poverty-creation. The DWP is a waster because of the said,
January 4, 2009 at 9:25 pm
[...] write-ups and see pictures by: Harpymarx, Derek Wall, myself, James Hooper, Lenin, Liam Mac Uaid, Shiraz Socialist, Janine, Andy D’Agorne, permanent revolution, on Harry’s Place and bigbluemeanie. [hat tip: Jim [...]
modernityblog said,
January 4, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“If you do not understand that and do not sympathise with the desperation of these people, we have nothing in common.”
no Palmer, we don’t, you are a middle class pampered intellectual.
I am not.
but at the very least you could try to argue in good faith, or with a degree of reason, after all you’ve spent over 40 years as a thinker and intellectual, so why not indulge in using your grey matter?
therefore, if you wouldn’t support Baader Meinhof’s mindless violence or bombs in Oxford Street/Omagh town centre then WHY try to rationalise and excuse away Hamas’s utterly negative attacks on Israeli civilians??
Why?
they achieved NOTHING, worse than that, they lead to more misery for Palestinians
if you and others truly want what is best for Palestinians then surely senseless attacks on Israeli civilians make things worse?
or do you prefer for Palestinians to be the shock troops in some hellish “anti-imperialist” struggle, whilst in the West you sip coffee and tut tut at the state of the Middle East?
do you even want Israel to exist?
John Palmer said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Modernity – you may wish to abandon the Jewish socialists and radicals for the Israeli war machine and its Bushite backers. I will not. You display unbelieable temerity in proclaiming your sympathy for the Palestinians while leaving them no option but to resort to the methods of an ineffective military response. You may lecture the Palestinians on what kind of superior resistance they should mount WHEN you have proclaimed your opposition to Israeli state policy of turning Gaza into a vast superating, Warsaw Gheto style internment camp.
modernityblog said,
January 4, 2009 at 10:41 pm
“You may lecture the Palestinians on what kind of superior resistance they should mount WHEN”
Palmer, WHY don’t you READ a bit more, and less venting.
I don’t lecture the Palestinians, only those vacant Westerners who think that attacking Israeli civilians is somehow acceptable and will improve things?
I appreciate that nowadays you are either monumentally lazy or becoming a bit slow, but I am against the Israeli military attack on Gaza as even a cursory glance at my blog would reveal.
equally, I am largely against violence for political ends (see my comments to JohnG in the other thread).
I see no purpose in mindless violence but that’s because I think in political terms, unlike you
so Palmer, if you wouldn’t support rocket raining down on the residents of Hampstead or Islington then why excuse them when those rockets are aimed at Israeli civilians?
why??
and please, could you, for a moment, ENGAGE with some of these and my previous points ?
resistor said,
January 4, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Palmer has made a rather obvious mistake. He has assumed that a site with ‘Socialist’ as part of its title would have as its contributors, socialists. I’m afraid he’s sadly deluded.
The history of ceasefires between Israel and the Palestinians shows that they are always unidirectional and Israel always manipulates them to suit its own agenda.
e.g.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
‘A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.’
Technically Zionism might not be racism, but I’ve yet to come across many Zionists who weren’t anti-Arab racists. This site is no exception.
Voltaire's Priest said,
January 4, 2009 at 11:24 pm
On the demo yesterday were we Transistor? I was.
John Palmer said,
January 5, 2009 at 9:33 am
Modernity: What blog? Since you choose to refer to my personal political background, why not give us your’s? Why skulk behind a pseudonym? Is it laziness or shame?
ask a silly question.. said,
January 5, 2009 at 10:28 am
“do you even want Israel to exist?”
No
martin ohr said,
January 5, 2009 at 10:32 am
John Palmer said: “Modernity – I can see no useful political or military purpose served by the pathetic resort to missiles into Israel – except this: a desperate people need to show that they will not lie down and accept whatever terms the all powerful Israeli state will serve upon them without proteswt or response”
I think I agree with this, in general, although I’m not entirely convinced that the Hamas motivation is not literally just to kill as many jews as they possibly can.
It’s possible to sympathise and understand while calling for and end to something though. John do you support the breif 4 points which end the original post:
*Oppose Israel’s assault on Gaza!
* Ceasefire now!
*Down with Hamas!
*For two states!
?
Maybe you or someone else can also explain a couple of other things which are puzzling me: How come the blockade of Gaza is really effective at stopping food and medicine getting in but not rockets? Why do the professional anti-zionists keep referring to Israel as the worlds 4th biggest military power, when i) it clearly isn’t; ii) even if it was -so what?
What we need is a thorough discussion as to what practically we can do to bring about an immeadiate end to the killing and in the medium term progress to lasting peace based on a just settlement. STW, the morning star, and the various islamist groups are actually totally clueless on this. The open letter on the back page of the guardian last week was literally the biggest waste of paper I have ever seen. Demanding that Gordon Brown DO SOMETHING. What a joke.
John Palmer said,
January 5, 2009 at 10:38 am
“do you even want Israel to exist?”
I have long stood with those Jewish socialists (including the very brave Israeli radical lefts) who have long struggled for a federal democratic state for Arabs, Jews, Druze etc within a Middle Eastern federal union. I am opposed to an Israeli state based on a permanent, guaranteed majority for one ethnic/religious group. If a majority of the peoples involved opt for a “2 State” solution – so be it.
Perhaps the most disgusting part of the present Israeli blitzkrieg in Gaza is the way it is being used to try and secure victory for the present Israeli coalition in the imminent general election. Whether – in the short term – they succeed or not, the way in which Labour, Kadima – and even Meretz – have lined up with the hardest line advocates of a military solution will only increase the popular base for the further right in Israeli politics. This has already got point where Netanyahu is unable tp prevemt the selection of an alleged nazi sympathiser on the Likud list. Meanwhile do you seriously doubt that the sight of the death and suffering of so many civilians including women and children will not embitter yet another generation of young Palestinians and draw them to even more desperate reaction?
maxdunbar said,
January 5, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Voltaire
I think Resistor was too busy mourning his dead Hamas friends.
modernityblog said,
January 5, 2009 at 2:11 pm
John Palmer wrote:
“Modernity: What blog? Since you choose to refer to my personal political background, why not give us your’s”
Palmer, if you LOOKED at the side bar of Shiraz Socialist you’d see the link to my blog
that’s why I appended BLOG to the end of my posting name, BLOG, see as in BLOG, do you get that?
run a think-tank eh? money for old rope or so it seems
John Palmer said,
January 5, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Modernity – You can prevaricate for as long as you want, but everyone can see you continue to hide behind your blogname. You mentioned that I have been an activist for four decades (alas it is five decade). But why not tell us who you are and what YOUR political record is?
maxdunbar said,
January 5, 2009 at 3:15 pm
John
Why should Modernity have to out himself on this blog?
And what difference does it make – apart from snide moral grandstanding – whether he’s a better activist than you?
John Palmer said,
January 5, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Maxdunbar: You misunderstand. Modernity made some points about my personal record and background. He describes me as “a middle class pampered intellectual.” Others have noted and objected to Modernity’s recourse to personal abuse when he finds it difficult to reply to a critic. Now I come from a much harder political school and react with indifference to this kind of knock-about verbiage. But why does Modernity come clean about his own identity and background? What is he hiding?
maxdunbar said,
January 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Okay then can you both just discuss the issue?
modernityblog said,
January 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm
John,
you ask why “Since you choose to refer to my personal political background”
now you might find this hard to understand, but as a public figure and intellectual your life is in the public domain and so it is relevant to your pronouncements.
therefore, when I see you use all of the dodgy political tactics associated with low level student politics:
1) deliberately misrepresenting your interlocutor’s argument
2) consciously using fallacies
3) arguing in bad faith etc
4) ignoring logic and evidential reasoning, when it doesn’t suit you.
then I am a bit annoyed, because YOU, of all people, should know better
do you get the point?
when you argue here you just take the piss, you muck around and use techniques that you know are wrong, but still keep on doing it.
I would just hope that after 5 decades of intellectual discourse that you could TRY a bit harder and be more honest
but please be clear, I am NOT asking you to accept my views or that of others, just occasionally for you to argue in good faith
again, when a public intellectual, like you, deliberately uses deceptive debating techniques, that they know to be wrong, then they should be picked up on it, that’s my point
have you got it? or shall I repeat
Dr Paul said,
January 5, 2009 at 4:42 pm
John Palmer wrote: ‘Meanwhile do you seriously doubt that the sight of the death and suffering of so many civilians including women and children will not embitter yet another generation of young Palestinians and draw them to even more desperate reaction?’
That’s exactly it: the Zionist right don’t care if another generation of Palestinians grows up hating the state of Israel and even all Jews. Indeed, they’d like that. The hard-line Zionists do not want a solution that leaves the Palestinians with a state, even one based on Gaza and the disconnected bits of the West Bank. They also know the Palestinians can’t beat Israel militarily (starved of weapons by the Arab élites, they can’t even stop Israeli tanks marauding through Gaza). They ultimately want the Palestinians utterly smashed and preferably off to another Arab country: this is laid out in their hero Vladimir Jabotinsky’s writings. I recall a hard-line fellow-traveller of Israel explaining to me what he wanted to see (he didn’t know my politics, so he was quite frank) — the Palestinians expelled into the Arab countries.
The Israeli state encouraged the rise of Hamas in order to derail al-Fatah, but unlike the classic blowback of the USA’s sponsoring Afghan Islamicists (the World Trade Center’s demolition), this has worked a treat not just then, but even more so in the longer run. Hamas, with its genuine anti-Semitism, its obscurantism and its rockets, plays into the hands of the Zionist right every time. It is not in the latter’s interest, whatever its spokesmen say about ‘smashing Hamas’, to see it defeated at present. Hard-line Zionism requires an ‘existential threat’ over the Wall, so Hamas plays the part. Central Casting could not have sent along a more suitable player.
This current war will not defeat Hamas, as expulsion is not an option at present (Egypt has sealed the border), so it will revive. And when it does, and when it sends missiles over again, there will be another attack on Gaza, especially if there’s an election in the offing, because, as we have seen, in this siege mentality it’s a winner. The moderate Zionist parties in Israel are pulled along in the shadow of the right-wingers, and inevitably lose out as the right is fighting on its own ground. Israeli groups that want a genuinely equitable solution for the Palestine/Israel problem — either of a mono-statal or dual-statal nature — need to break out of the poisonous embrace of this siege mentality.
I am glad that I heard nobody on Saturday chanting ‘We are all Hamas’, in the style of the silly ‘We are all Hezbollah’ a couple of years back. We must not let our digust at the pogrom role of the Israeli state blind us to the fact that Hamas has been a disaster for the Palestinians; nor should anyone who considers himself a socialist permit the stupidity of Hamas to downplay the enormity of the role that the Israel state has played over the decades towards the Palestinians.
John Palmer said,
January 5, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Modernity- No, you have completely lost me now – and maybe others as well. Please illustrate where exactly I have committed the sins you outline in points 1 – 4. And, just in case we forget, why not come out yourself about your own past? Maybe you are “a pampered middle class intellectual.”
John Palmer said,
January 5, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Just in case anyone has forgotten. This all began when I referred to the detailed analysis of how the Israeli state had deliberately undermined the “truce” with Hamas -which was published by Israeli left radicals on the Hagada website. Similar conclusions have been published by members of Jews for Justice for Palestine. This was ignored by Modernity who then tried to sidetrack the discussion from the Israeli invasion (500+ killed including women and children) down the lines of “do you condemn the Hamas rockets (4 killed). That in turn led to his juvenile personalisation of the debate (“pampered middle class intellectual” etc)
modernityblog said,
January 5, 2009 at 4:57 pm
John Palmer wrote:
“Modernity- No, you have completely lost me now – and maybe others as well.”
as I said, you take the piss.
re-read the thread and the POLITICAL questions that were asked of you, then re-read your evasive responses.
ahem said,
January 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm
everytime modernity gets into an arguement he whines and he whines and he whines, ugh, I think your life is better off spent masturbating.
Miles Davis said,
January 5, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Modernity is indeed a consumate whiner, and he adds nothing to what is otherwise an interesting debate. If you’re going to be troll, old boy, can you at least be a thick-skinned troll?
I am very pleased to see comrades from this blog protesting with the rest of the UK left against the attacks on Gaza, despite their disagreements with other parts of the left on some important strategic and theoretical questions. I think this sort of unity in action is the necessary backdrop for a constructive debate about the theoretical questions. Trolls like Modernity are distinguished by their failure ever to get into the streets and act in concert with the rest of the left on this issue.
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Hey John Palmer, my solidarity at having gotten trapped in Modernities endless whataboutary. Its a genuinely infuriating experiance (but must be worse for him really). On the puzzling question of recognition I just wrote this on the tomb (which contains all the empirical arguments about ceasefires and rockets you could want, but which are of course simply ignored rather then refuted by those like Jim who continue to recycle the Israeli narrative about the ceasefire and its breakdown as if it is beyond mere empirical refutation. It seems to be a theological matter for the AWL though).
Its unclear whether Hamas really believe that a single state is achievable. The hocus pocus of ‘intent’ given, it does seem to me that Hamas’s real goal is to win leadership of the Palestinian national movement, and real political independence for a Palestinian State: which should, like Eire up until the peace process, have the right to state as its final goal, the achievement of a single state. The fragility of ceasefires had much to do with yet more proximate matters connected to the continuing blockade (which is an act of war which has already been responsible for large numbers of civilian dead: its a war crime in itself).
Importantly much of the fuss about ‘recognising Israel’s right to exist’ is simply part of a larger propaganda claim that the conflict in the Middle East has as its root cause, not the dispossession and continuing oppression of Palestinians but the ‘refusal to recognise Israel’. Its nonsense. And if you accept it you accept Israel’s right to continue to blockade, starve and wage war on Palestinian national rights until they, in effect, give them up, and settle for a diminished version of sovereignty. Plenty of States don’t recognise each other without going to war and there is no obligation on new states to recognise all existing states. Its not a reason to block self determination. Its clear why Israel and the US insist on this point: they don’t want to see proper sovereignty for Palestinians (and if truth be told nor do most of the Arab regimes). What is totally unclear is why any section of the left would recycle this right wing propaganda campaign against the very principle of self determination, which nowhere includes a proviso that any new state must ‘recognise’ another state.
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The Hamas line:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-hamas
jj said,
January 6, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Why would anyone bother to poison Arafat?
modernityblog said,
January 6, 2009 at 2:50 pm
JohnG,
Indeed, it is totally unclear why any section of the left would recycle this right wing propaganda from Hamas too?
or why you would construct false arguments to beat down, viz:
“…larger propaganda claim that the conflict in the Middle East has as its root cause, not the dispossession and continuing oppression of Palestinians but the ‘refusal to recognise Israel’”
I don’t believe that the root cause is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, that is a strawman
rather, the evidence shows that after taking power in 2006 Hamas refused to continue existing PA agreements AND would not accept Israel’s right to exist (note the distinction from “refusal to recognise”, they are different)
I was surprised at the time. I had expected that once in power Hamas would moderate its views and try to reach some modus vivendi, but it didn’t
that’s what happened, I would prefer that wasn’t the case, but it happened.
now I appreciate that SWPers (or old ISers) might have a problem reading that, so I’ll repeat:
I do NOT believe that the root cause is “refusal to recognise Israel”, but in THIS particular instance Hamas’s intransigence was a major problem, along with attacks on Israeli civilians
THIS particular instance, but NOT the root cause
in hindsight anyone taking a look at Hamas’s Covenant, with its uncompromisingly racist language, can see why the Hamas leaders were so willing to court disaster and provoke the latest episode of conflict.
The Hamas Charter/Covenant is here http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Hamas leaders are Jew hating ideologues, for them only a Jew Free Middle East is acceptable, anything in the mean while is just treading water whilst they arm themselves sufficiently. That is the problem.
again, just in case any SWPers were confused, the current conflict is of Hamas’s making, had they accepted Israel’s right to exist then events might have been different.
It is NOT the root cause, NO, not the root cause, but in terms of the post 2006 period it is useful to bear in mind, as is the racist content of the Hamas Covenant.
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Modernity:
“rather, the evidence shows that after taking power in 2006 Hamas refused to continue existing PA agreements AND would not accept Israel’s right to exist”
All the evidence points the other way. I have posted the interview with the foreign minister responsible for the disengagement with gaza which you have yet to respond to. In addition Eire did not recognise Northern Irelands right to exist. There was no war between Britain and Eire as a result. Hamas did moderate its position in practice with repeated offers of truce and de facto if not de jure recognition of Israel for as long as fifty years (along with support for the Saudi iniatiative). Simply repeating Hawkish propaganda designed to justify not pursuing offers of talks with Hamas is not good enough at this stage.
The attempt to argue that the Hamas Charter is the root cause of the current conflict is simply stale propaganda of no interest to anyone, from whatever political persuasion they hail, who wants to end this conflict. It is perhaps more useful to look at the official statements and positions of Hamas today. But you seem to regard this as impermissable.
JJ: I don’t happen to believe that the Israeli’s poisened Arafat (although I certainly wouldn’t regard the theory as perposterous: after all they have form) but Israel was waging a war against the PA and Arafat in precisely the same way they have been waging a war against Hamas since they were democratically elected. The difference is that it is not possible for Israel to isolate Hamas in the same way as they isolated Arafat as they have not made the mistake of making themselves complicit with Israeli plans to prevent proper self determination (as outlined in the posted interview) and thus still have popular support. Hence the Brechtian tactic of attacking the population (which is horrifyingly documented in this detailed account of Israeli targetting of civilians over the last week):
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/about-those-hamas-targets/
modernityblog said,
January 6, 2009 at 3:40 pm
[sign]
JG wrote:
“I have posted the interview with the foreign minister responsible for the disengagement with gaza which you have yet to respond to”
so what? that Minister, did NOT control Hamas’s actions. They choose to do what they wanted, they have human agency.
JG again:
“In addition Eire did not recognise Northern Irelands right to exist. “
it did, but it claimed the Six Counties, you’d need to refer to the Anglo-Irish Treaty which partitioned Ireland to see the totality of the situation, not just read selectively, that is sloppy reasoning.
JG, “Hamas did moderate its position in practice with repeated offers of truce “
NO, a Hunda is NOT the same as a final agreement, a hunda is just a breathing space whilst Hamas creates the military wherewithal to attack Israel and succeed in full, that’s the difference.
JG:
“The attempt to argue that the Hamas Charter is the root cause of the current conflict is simply stale propaganda of no interest to anyone,”
I did NOT say that, re-read my comments.
I did NOT say that, re-read my comments.
[please, John, please get a screen reader,
I know you are profoundly dyslexic and have learning difficulties, but misrepresenting my arguments is lazy if you can't be trouble to read them in full.
Dyslexia doesn't have to be a problem, unless you want it to be. There are many technological solutions to it.]
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Actually Modernity I have presented evidence that it is Israel that does not want peace and that is responsible for the present conflict. The Israeli minister actually responsible for the strategy said that his goal was to end the peace process. I don’t doubt that Hamas had agency. I just think that it is empirically evident that in this case it is Israels agency that needs examining. And no a Hudna is not a final status agreement. So what. I don’t at all understand the point you are trying to make. As far as I can see just denying any agency to Israel. You have stated that the Charter demonstrates that Hamas are simply a Jew hating organisation and that any agreement is just an excuse to re-arm to drive all Jews from the middle east and that ‘that is the problem’. I think this is stale Israeli propaganda which was used as a justification for refusing to negotiate a peace. You think differently. Fine. But try and conduct yourself in a more rational fashion in future if you want people to take you seriously.
modernityblog said,
January 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm
JG: “You have stated that the Charter demonstrates that Hamas are simply a Jew hating organisation and that any agreement is just an excuse to re-arm to drive all Jews from the middle east and that ‘that is the problem’.”
well, the Hamas Charter is fairly clear and racist
now if YOU don’t think that it contains anti-Jewish racism, well what can I say?
John Palmer said,
January 6, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Surely this attoricity is one too many even for the most fervent supporters of the Israeli war in Gaza – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7814054.stm
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Christ modernity your tedious. Yes the Charter contains anti-semitism. THAT is however NOT the problem here (in other words its not why the Israeli’s have refused to negotiate with them, and its not why these truces have broken down). Is that clear enough for you?
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Just seen John Palmers BBC report. God help us all. (in a non-theological way).
ahem said,
January 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4
modernityblog said,
January 6, 2009 at 7:28 pm
JohnG/John Palmer,
whilst I enjoy discussing the Middle East I find your (collective) misrepresentation of my views rather grating, so I’ll bow out
but you’ve reminded me to do that post I was considering:
Misreading On-line, Dyslexia and How to Avoid it
which I might do once my mind’s a bit clearer, it should be of use to the both of you, assuming that you can read it!
resistor said,
January 6, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Modblog is running away because his beloved IDF have carried out yet another massacre of civilians. A moral and physical coward. Don’t come back.
maxdunbar said,
January 6, 2009 at 7:41 pm
You’re the barely tolerated guest here. You’re the one that should be leaving.
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 6, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Bear in mind that when the Russians were bombing and shelling Georgian civilians last August – and when their Ossetian and Chechen proxy militias ethnically cleansed the latter – John G___ and resistor were cheering them on.
So I think genuine socialists can treat them and their crocodile tears with the contempt they deserve.
johng said,
January 6, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Actually no sackcloth. We now know that in fact the attack was launched by Georgia and that you are a lying apologist for just about anything done by ‘your side’. It must be a bit confusing when you pile lie on top of lie on top of lie. I see over at HP they’re playing the obediant and by now traditional game of repeating obvious lies about civilians the IDF have just murdered. Why don’t you go back there. You’ll feel right at home.
modernity said,
January 6, 2009 at 8:42 pm
sackcloth and ashes,
ahh let’s leave JohnG alone, he’s at least provided some sport for his fellow academics over at the Philosophers’ Magazine Blog:
“Over at a blog called Shiraz Socialist (which actually is a lot saner a place than many of the ’socialist’ blogs), a fella called John Game, who is something to do with the Socialist Workers Party (a very small British Trotskyist party), makes this claim:
Israel has no right to self defence so long as the Palestinian question remains unresolved. Period.
He doesn’t argue for this position – it’s just an assertion – but it is nevertheless a commonly held view. I’m sceptical about this view – though I wouldn’t couch my scepticism in terms of rights – and I’ve written about it before.”
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=544
tim said,
January 6, 2009 at 8:53 pm
John Game.
To be fair, you did spend a few days all over the web, posting Russian press agency casualty figures everywhere.
Although your new respect for UN buildings since you excused the assualt on the Bagdhad headquarters is admirable
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 6, 2009 at 10:16 pm
‘We now know that in fact the attack was launched by Georgia and that you are a lying apologist for just about anything done by ‘your side’. It must be a bit confusing when you pile lie on top of lie on top of lie.’
Well, I don’t read ‘Pravda’, Johnny Boy. I pay attention to all sides of the story (such as the fact that South Ossetian troops – armed by the Russians – were shooting at the Georgians on 1st August, and that Russian forces were moving through the Roki Pass well before the Georgians opened their offensive on the 7th). But then that’s the difference between you and me. I look at the fact and assess them. You listen to the party line like the dog listening to ‘his master’s voice’. It explains why you’re still Master G___ instead of Doctor G___.
In any case, your Hamas apologias makes you unwilling to accept their responsibility for the carnage. And it also illustrates your double standards when it comes to war and conflict. A real pacifist and socialist would call for an end to hostilities on both sides. But some superficial little twat pretending to be an academic will act as expediency dictates. It’s not something to be proud of, by the way.
Incidentally, you can perhaps answer the question you’ve failed to answer. Which is ‘What is wrong with arguing for this position’?:
*Oppose Israel’s assault on Gaza!
* Ceasefire now!
*Down with Hamas!
*For two states!
‘Why don’t you go back [to Harry's Place]. You’ll feel right at home’.
Fuck you. I’ll fight pseudo-socialists whenever I see them. I’d take you on at Seymour’s Place, except that I was banned for telling home truths.
resistor said,
January 7, 2009 at 12:51 am
Dunbar writes, ‘You’re the barely tolerated guest here. You’re the one that should be leaving.’
Barely tolerated? But if I cheered on fascist mass murders like your mate Chas, I’d get more than tolerated. You’d praise me to the skies. Try reading the justification for mass murder on HP by your newest hero, Eric Lee of the IDF. His attacks on fellow Jews who oppose the killing are especially despicable even by his standards.
Anyone notice that the Zionist scum on this site haven’t bothered even to mention the UN school massacres carried out by the Israelis? No, they’d rather attack anti-war protesters and damn Palestinians undergoing a mediaeval siege for the crime of fighting back.
The biggest fan of Israel on this site has been very quiet hasn’t he? Surely Jim Denham has something to say, I mean isn’t denying Israelis their right to kill Palestinian children anti-semitic enough for him to condemn it? Can’t he crawl out of his hole one last time.
Voltaire's Priest said,
January 7, 2009 at 7:54 am
You really do cut a pathetic figure sometimes. Change the record: I’ll s end you a copy of a nice book by Tariq Ali or something, to take your mind off that Burchill book which has driven you off the deep end.
maxdunbar said,
January 7, 2009 at 10:26 am
hahaha
resistor said,
January 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Sure, joke about the mass murder of Palestinians, makes you both look less than pathetic.
Where is Denham?
maxdunbar said,
January 7, 2009 at 1:06 pm
No, we’re laughing at you.
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 9, 2009 at 9:05 pm
‘resistor’ is proof that someone pissed in the gene pool when the life guard wasn’t looking.