Who Is IOZ?: The Wholey Land

Sunday, December 28, 2008

The Wholey Land

Here is the truth of the situation. The logic of fault is irrelevant. Only Israel has the power to make peace with the Palestinians, and it can only do so by making a deeply concessionary agreement involving land and reparations. Whether you believe that to be just or not is irrelevant. It is the only way.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...: Marty Peretz and the American political consensus on Israel by Glenn Greenwald

and

Informed Comment by Juan Cole.; 3:53 PM
TGGP said...: The Romans make a desert and call it peace. The Israelis could do the same. Dead men don't violate peace treaties, not that their signature is necessary either. Could the Palestinians conceivably continue their rinky-dink rocket attacks after Israel has given land and reparations? Why certainly! With a Great Wall of Israel such nuisances could be ignored for a lower cost than Israel has been spending. Then hopefully the not-at-all-poor (though they do have an ever-growing population of dead-weight Haredim that don't pay taxes or serve in the military) welfare welfare state won't suck up any more of my tax dollars in foreign aid. Hopefully then the news won't devote such an extraordinary amount of attention to a tiny country in the Middle East and perhaps more to our neighbor to the south currently racking up a considerable body-count from the War on Drugs.; 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...: I dunno about reparations -- whether they would be effective OR offered, and so ultimately whether they would make much difference.

Land, yeah, but what does that mean? Total withdrawal? Administrative withdrawal but security jurisdiction? Some form of joint administration?

I think what really matters is, Israel holds the military advantage, but non-Jewish Palestinians hold the demographic advantage. The question is, how does Israel use the former before it's overwhelmed by the latter?

Unfortunately, this question is now confounded with the question of, who/what is "Israel"? Jews only? Jews and Arab Palestinians? As equals or in some other arrangement? I'm afraid that, until those internal questions are resolved, it's going to be even harder to forge a consensus on how to handle the question of regional co-existence.; 6:05 PM
kyle said...: Nice to see that Glenn has discovered Peretz's anti-Arab racism. It's only been on public display for some 30 years now. Better far late than never, I suppose.; 7:09 PM
TGGP said...: I thought Glenn had been complaining about it for a long time. I could be confusing him with Eric Alterman and Mickey Kaus though.; 8:32 PM
Lysander said...: I'm afraid Israel also has the Rawanda option. It's sad, really it is, but with every escalation in violence, with each time Israel kills a bunch of pals and the world barely takes notice, they are encouraged to further acts. Next time killing a couple of hundred Palestinians wont be big news. They'll have to break a thousand to attract attention.

You have to wonder if that's their plan; desensitize the world to greater killings and finally to mass expulsion into Jordan and Egypt.

Demographic problem solved and at the cost of a few fire cracker rockets.

I don't know if it will work, but I'm sure they'll give it a try before they resort to "deeply concessionary" agreements.

After all, who is going to stop them? The U.S.? The E.U.? The Arab puppet states? Our new 'Muslim' President?; 10:27 PM
NutellaonToast said...: Israel just gave them Gaza and immediately were fired upon by rockets.

I believe it was in the late 90's when Israel offered them well over 90% of their land demands and were told to go fuck themselves.

Both sides are being assholes, but the idea that the people who have been saying "death to Isreal" for 60 years would stop if Israel gave them some land is absurd. They weren't occupying shit when over a dozen countries invaded them right after their independence.; 11:01 PM
TGGP said...: I hope Egypt and Jordan have integrate all the Palestinian refugees into their society. There's no "German refugee problem" in Eastern Europe because all the Volkdeutsche were permanently removed to Germany (a lot of them died in the process, but fewer people give shits about them than the Palestinians). Nor is there a problem of Jewish refugees from various Muslim countries in the region, because they became the Sephardics and Mizrahi of Israel. To the local Arab regimes (most of them allied to the U.S) the Palestinians are a useful chip to play on Israel, and they're happy to boost their own popularity by grandstanding about the oppression of the Zionist occupation but they want to keep the Palestinians in camps. The U.N agency for Palestinian refugees is completely complicit, just as the Bureau of Indian Affairs is with poverty among Native Americans.; 12:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Hamas isn't willing to negotiate. They had their chance and they used it as an opportunity to drive their rivals out of Gaza.

For there to be peace, Israel must end the settlements and (probably) come to terms with an agreement that would set the boundaries pre-1968. But this one-sided Israel loathing is counterproductive and belies the fact that Hamas was preparing for their own war before Israel "took the initiative" -- to use some military jargon. The whole situation is hosed beyond recognition.; 3:10 AM
Anonymous said...: kyle said...
Nice to see that Glenn has discovered Peretz's anti-Arab racism. It's only been on public display for some 30 years now. Better far late than never, I suppose.

7:09 PM

You're completely wrong. Glenn has been writing scathing articles about the New Republic almost since the inception of his blog.

To Nutellaon: You got the first three letters of your name correct; 5:30 AM
RobWeaver said...: They weren't occupying shit when over a dozen countries invaded them right after their independence.

I wish I had this kind of comedic talent.; 6:52 AM
Cüneyt said...: Oh, did someone confuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the Arab-Israeli wars again? I love it when someone does that.

I also love that Gaza and the West Bank are such fantastic concessions by the Israelis. The fact is that Israel's been a pretty good conqueror, in some ways better than either Egypt or Jordan. But a rump state is a rump state, and there's no way that the Palestinians are going to accept one sliver of territory and another porous lump and let bygones be bygones. Maybe the territory would be accepted, could be accepted, but you know Israel's never going to let them have control over their own electricity, water, and foreign policy. Why would they? And why would the Palestinians accept this in the long term?

In short, why should the Palestinians be anything more than power-hungry humans? Why should they accept any less than the Jews will? And I recall a few of Bibi's speeches where he vows that Jews have a right to be as savage as any other people. He's right. But his ilk never grant the same right to other folks.; 9:00 AM
mlr said...: Why should they accept any less than the Jews will?

Because they are less powerful. Because the Jews can make them (were it not for the USA holding them back). Because the Palistinians accepting their tactically inferior position and putting an end to this extraordinary waste of time, money, ink, and my patience would be a good thing.

IOZ: shame on croaking out the toadie line I could find on any pwoggie blaaaaaaawg.

TPPG: thanks for the breath of fresh (Moldbuggy) air.; 10:33 AM
Cüneyt said...: People ought to know when they're conquered, right?; 11:09 AM
mlr said...: I apolgize for the double post, but really: coming here and seeing a link to a NYT piece being described as "the truth" is like being hit in the face with a cat. Particularly when you consider things like this.

A narrative I find far more reasonable can be found here.

And since IOZ seems to have fallen victim to the "WhaddowedooooIOZ?"-virus, I'll through in The Shortest Way to World Peace, to boot, which follows up on the topic of the conflict.

After reading these, IOZ, I'm sure you'd agree: the world needs more buggery.

MOLDbuggery.

@ Cüneyt: Yes, yes they should. Plenty have previosuly, and have gone on to peaceful, productive existences. You're obsession with Christian/Calvinist/Quaker values, like 'righteousness' and 'social justice,' have created an industry of irridentism and revanchism in the PalTerr. They could be the Hong Kong/Dubai/Singapore on the Med - much less bloody industries there, you see. Follow the links.; 11:27 AM
mlr said...: EDIT: @ Cüneyt

I rushed to add a response to you when I was previewing my own, and promptly fell into your is/ought problem. The question isn't really whether the Pals "should" know they are conquered. I have a pretty high opinion of them (I wouldn't suggest they could be the next Hong Kong if I didn't), and so it should come as no surprise that I think they could, in fact, see exactly that were it the case.

The Pals are rational people - they must therefore perceive some potential for victory and gain if they continue their "struggle" for "justice."

After all, they seem to have you on their side, and your tax dollars in their pockets. They don't seem half wrong.

I don't think they are conquered, because I think they have a pretty solid ally in the USA - an argument made very well, imo, by MM, in the links I posted.; 11:33 AM
Cüneyt said...: My obsession? Could you please explain to me this Christian/Calvinist/Quaker ethic which I apparently hold?; 11:35 AM
mlr said...: Well, you've apparently decided that "Bibi and his ilk" are unrighteous. And that the concessions of territory made thus far are less-than-just (you poo-poo the notion of the PalTerr being a 'rump state' - I lol@your 19th century worldview, as if contigious territory is fundamental to success in our world).

I say that if the Palestinians are conviced that they will be turned into so much biofuel if they continue their agression that they will, in fact, make the rational choice, settle down, and, small and resource-sparse a bit of land they would be left with notwithstanding, could be expected to do as well or better than territories that find themselves in similar circumstances. I don't think they would refuse to "let bygones be bygones" because I think they're less attached to hate and blood-lust than you think they are, and are in fact more attached to your lovely money. Were the money to dry up (and the moral support for the 'righteous cause of the underdog' that no good Quaker would pass on the chance to root for), so would the desire to fight.

You're getting tangled up in moral questions. I think understanding the world as it actually is (leave the shoulds aside) is an approach more amenable to peace. Actual peace. As in, people not dying.

The links I posted make the argument better than I do, so I'll leave it there, until you've shown some evidence of having read them.; 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: You're obsession with Christian/Calvinist/Quaker values, like 'righteousness' and 'social justice,' have created an industry of irridentism and revanchism in the PalTerr.

Cüneyt. It was that goddamn Cüneyt all this time! Thanks a lot for creating this situation, asshole! What, were you bored? Why didn't you just go jerk off instead? Goddamn Calvi-Quaker.; 12:08 PM
mlr said...: Good catch, but when I'm on holidays, I make a point of not spelling correctly. Can you find more!? I did! Collect them all!; 12:11 PM
littlehorn said...: But this one-sided Israel loathing is counterproductive and belies the fact that Hamas was preparing for their own war before Israel "took the initiative" -- to use some military jargon.

You're right, there's so much Israel loathing everywhere, that Israel can't negotiate at all, and is forced to do stupid stuff. The only way to Peace is to support Israel even more than it already is.

Both sides are being assholes, but the idea that the people who have been saying "death to Isreal" for 60 years would stop if Israel gave them some land is absurd. They weren't occupying shit when over a dozen countries invaded them right after their independence.
Dude, so much Israel loathing! And this racist piece of shit reads a blog like IOZ's ? Damn.
In other insults, I hope you will be kind enough to see to it that you die very soon, and give me the location of your grave so I and others can piss on it.
But you know, you're right in repeating Israeli propaganda. Arabs are totally evil, it's impossible to bargain with these guys.
Unlike Israelis, who, it's a known fact, always keep their end of the bargain, and have no hidden agenda at all. Nothing whatsoever.

They're not trying to occupy a whole land which they think is theirs. Chaim Weizmann did not say in 1919:
We said we desired to create in Palestine such conditions, political, economic and administrative, that as the country is developed, we can pour in considerable numbers of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America is American. . . . I hope that the Jewish frontiers of Palestine will be as great as Jewish energy for getting Palestine.

Nop. He didn't.; 12:48 PM
IOZ said...: I apolgize for the double post, but really: coming here and seeing a link to a NYT piece being described as "the truth".

mlr, you may wish to reexamine your relationship with English syntax as well as with, uh, all internet traditions In Re: the matter of what "the truth" refers to.; 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Why yes, mlr! Those stupid Palestinians in Gaza could be exactly like Hong Kong, Singapore, or, gasp! Dubai, but there is this problem with noise ordinances, no harbor, and yet to be clarified zoning applications. But other than that, why, looks pretty easy to me.

Didn't those Lebanese try something similar? They must be stupid, too.; 1:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Good catch, but when I'm on holidays, I make a point of not spelling correctly. Can you find more!? I did! Collect them all

Actually, cumjunkie, I'm making fun of the fact that you seem to be accusing Cüneyt personally of creating this situation.; 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: The notion that the rational people of Hong Kong got over British conquest and flourished is horseshit. The Hong Kong Chinese who did flourish did not make peace with British colonization; for the most part they followed many decades in its wake. For this reason, if no other, it's a dumb comparison.

Of course, I might just be another mean-spirited Quaker. But either way, the assumption that everyone can and should just be more like the folks in Hong Kong is simpleminded, and it doesn't gain nuance with repetition.; 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: But...but...Hong Kong! Singapore! DUBAI!!!!!1111; 6:45 PM
TGGP said...: mlr, when IOZ used the phrase "the truth" he was referring to his own post. The Times link was so you know what situation he's referring to.

for the most part they followed many decades in its wake
Could you elaborate? I personally don't have as much optimism about the Palestinians due to their lower human capital compared to the Chinese.; 12:31 AM

Sunday, December 28, 2008

The Wholey Land

27 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive