Yggie's commenters are correct to note that the transcript pretty seriously misquotes Chuckles Schumer in the first paragraph, but I am curious about
In contrast to his proposed remedies, Schumer’s critique of Hamas policy is sound.I didn't hear any critique of any "policy" of Hamas, but just to be clear, Hamas twofold platform is basically the provision of human services to Palestinians and armed resistance to a foreign occupying power.
34 comments:
Errr.... sorta kinda, I guess.
I think you may be giving Hamas a bit of the benefit of the doubt there. The principle policy of Hamas is "ensure Hamas' continued grasp on power," to which ends the whole "provision of services" and "somewhat schizophrenic and militarily unstable approach to the occupying power" are fashioned and formed.
While perhaps not quite as distant from their bombed citizenry as the Israelis on the other side of the border, the actions of both ruling groups are consistent with the "better to rule in Hell" philosophy of self-interested governance. I don't think the people in Hamas give that much of a shit about individual people bulldozed and shot, except as it gives them an opportunity to shore up their own power base, any more than I think the right wing nutsos in the Knesset give a rat's ass about some fundamentalist yokel settler who gets a bottle rocket in the skull.
Matt Yglesias is a dipshit.
listen, mcduff, you fucking twit, the people who are getting their houses bulldozed ARE hammas.
further, how can they be distant from their bombed citizenry in a concentration camp? is there some palace israel inexplicably forgot to bomb?
and yes, of course hammas wants to remain in power. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO JUSTIFY A HUMANITARIAN BLOCKADE!?!?!
fucking nihilists. fuck me.
Don't you mean "provision of human-shield services"?
"The principle policy of Hamas is 'ensure Hamas' continued grasp on power,'" power gained when they won a democratic election in 2006 and which they had to maintain by force as a result of Israel's funding & arming the opposition Fatah party.
1:05 here.
The more I think of it, the more I see your post is filled with bullshit, MacDuff.
"While perhaps not quite as distant from their bombed citizenry as the Israelis on the other side of the border the actions of both ruling groups are consistent with the "better to rule in Hell" philosophy of self-interested governance. "
So we're calling it a border now? Palestinians are citizens, are they? Hamas leadership aren't personally targetted for assasssination on a daily basis? Real self-interest would seem to dictate leaving the west bank in the first place, if they're so 'distant' from their beseiged 'citizenry.'
"I don't think the people in Hamas give that much of a shit about individual people bulldozed and shot, except as it gives them an opportunity to shore up their own power base any more than I think the right wing nutsos in the Knesset give a rat's ass about some fundamentalist yokel settler who gets a bottle rocket in the skull."
As if Hamas's 'power base' weren't, you know, legitimate democratic support. As if Israelis didn't think of every single fallen Jewish citizen as a martyr and don't try to repay every death tenfold - and succeed.
ahem.
"leaving the west bank"/"leaving the gaza strip".
"Don't you mean "provision of human-shield services"?"
Let's say they make a deal: the minute Israel refuses all military aid from the US, stops using its air force entirely, restricts its naval activity to its own internationally-recognized territorial waters, and operates in/against the gaza strip without using armor, free, open & efficient radio communication, or artillery larger than a mortar, then the armed factions of Hamas will segregate themselves entirely from the civilian population.
nonnie 1:24
so using human shield is ok because Israel has a bigger stick?
way to equivocate
"so using human shield is ok because Israel has a bigger stick?"
no. the gaza strip isn't a state. its population cannot really be divided into 'civilians' and 'soldiers' according to the rules of war. it does not have a 'military.' it owns no 'sticks' which we can compare to israel's. israel has declared war on the entire population of palestine. there is no such thing as a 'human shield' in a set of people who have been completely dehumanized - i.e. denied the right to citizenship - by some power.
"there is no such thing as a 'human shield' in a set of people who have been completely dehumanized - i.e. denied the right to citizenship - by some power."
1)People are not human if they don't have the right to citizenship? That's typical donkilicous, liberal stupidity, if I've ever heard it, and good luck garnering sympathy for that argument from a bunch of anarchists.
2) human shields have nothing to do with the distinction between civilian and soldier, which as you point out, can be extremely murky in Gaza. However, to say that the population cannot be divided into civilians and soldiers is disingenuous. When Hamas fires rockets from the courtyard of a hospital, and Israeli artillery blows that hospital to shit, are you unable to tell whether the old sick and frail inside are soldiers or not?
a human shield is a non-combatant that is put in harms way so that their death or injury can be used as a propaganda tool.
As for the rest of your comment, all you've done is further entrench yourself in the position that because Gaza is not a state, and its military is not well-enough trained or equipped to fight the IDF, intentionally putting children and other non-combatants in harms way for the purpose of a PR victory is perfectly legitimate. You are insane, and I hope someone puts you in harms way one day, and when you get blown up , I will say oh it was hard to know if he was a civilian or not, and because he was already so dehumanized by not being a servile citizen of the state then his death is meaningless.
just wondering, do those here excoriating Hamas for using human shields have a problem with the fact that the cowardly IDF thugs constantly use Palestinian human shields (usually children) during raids?
Because Gaza is tiny and amazingly densely populated, there is absolutely no way that Hamas or any other organization resisting occupation could possibly avoid having civilians/non-combatants 'in harms way' without simply capitulating to the diktats of Israel. Without getting into the issues of the relative legitimacy of states or citizenship, raising the 'human shield' canard in this context is purest hasbara bullshit.
"provision of human services to Palestinians and armed resistance to a foreign occupying power"
The first sounds good in theory (though I've heard they also restrict the flow of aid to their populace), but it would be best if they dropped the latter.
Schumer : critique :: oil : water
" " :: Yggie : pundit
"there is no such thing as a 'human shield' in a set of people who have been completely dehumanized - i.e. denied the right to citizenship - by some power."
1)People are not human if they don't have the right to citizenship? That's typical donkilicous, liberal stupidity, if I've ever heard it, and good luck garnering sympathy for that argument from a bunch of anarchists.
No, it's some bog-standard Hannah Arendt boilerplate political theory. Pretty far from liberalism, friendo.
"When Hamas fires rockets from the courtyard of a hospital, and Israeli artillery blows that hospital to shit, are you unable to tell whether the old sick and frail inside are soldiers or not?"
I can. The IDF can't.
"all you've done is further entrench yourself in the position that because Gaza is not a state, and its military is not well-enough trained or equipped to fight the IDF, intentionally putting children and other non-combatants in harms way for the purpose of a PR victory is perfectly legitimate"
Nope. If Gaza is not a state then it has no military. It also has no public sphere in which to win 'PR victories.' Israel puts the entire population of the Gaza strip, 'combattant' or 'non-combattant' in harm's way continually by making it the world's largest concentration camp.
The title of this post happens to be my favorite war movie. The matter-of-fact and almost procedural way the conflict is presented would resonate with the people who read this blog, I think.
TGGP: It may well be that Hamas isn't perfectly equitable in their distribution of resources, I wouldn't know, but it seems pretty certain that Hamas won the elections because Palestinians experienced its distribution of resources as helpful and supportive to them. It's also certain that they've done a better job of doing so than either Fatah or Israel.
As for your notion that they should give up the platform of resistance to a violent occupying and aggressive power, Fatah already has done that, without doing the mass of Palestinians any good. Further, the article you link to is sheer nuttery, in the "Why do they hate us?" vein, which casts no light at all on the Israel-Palestine conflict unless you want to concede that Israelis hate Arabs and indeed all gentiles, and that the United States hates the world.
Michael - I'm a little uncomfortable calling it a war movie, but it's without a doubt one of the finest movies ever made.
"Don't you mean "provision of human-shield services"?"
I have an idea. Why don't we put Inky on the next flotilla to Gaza and see how that turns out.
The Promiscuous Reader:
I agree that by all accounts dissatisfaction with Fatah handled bidness while in power contrasted with how Hamas did people right while out was a big factor. I guess we'll have to wait for the next election before both of them can be evaluated with a track record in office.
The West Bank isn't under a blockade last I checked. So I would say that Fatah's passivity HAS done good for their constituents. A lot of the stuff I read from proggles indicates that there is a lot of Arab-hatred in Israel. Israelis aren't at war with the rest of the world, but I suppose there can be some mild resentment at times. And that bit about America sounds just right.
Not much can top Melville. Army of Shadows is one of the greatest movies ever made.
If you want to see something enlightening about the occupation of Gaza, Marcel Ophuls made a documentary about Northern Ireland in the early '70s called A Sense of Loss which, with only a touch of imagination, describes the actions of the prisoners in Gaza and their stupid captors as well as anything ever done.
The West Bank isn't under a blockade last I checked.
The West Bank isn't under a blockade because it's being actively colonized by Israel. The difference here is not the behavior of Fatah or Hamas, but the desirability of the land they're sitting on.
"I guess we'll have to wait for the next election before both of them can be evaluated with a track record in office."
i agree. hammas won an election, and the gaza strip was subsequently strangled and bombed to shit. what a bad track record gazans must think hammas has.
Enron---
Let me guess: you're one of the innumerable mod-progs who believes Helen Thomas's remarks were Unfortunate and Stupid......because she let herself be recorded.
stras:
"The West Bank isn't under a blockade because it's being actively colonized by Israel."
Thank you for making my point for me. I also like drip's analogy of Northern Ireland. The Irish would have been better off if they had just imitated the Cornish, Welsh and Scots in submitting to English rule.
Anonymous:
I agree with your remarks which you intended sarcastically, except that I can't be confident about the public opinion of Gazans. Sakashevili won re-election after screwing up and getting Russia to bitch-slap Georgia. Even GWB got re-elected!
tggp,
you're a stupid asshole
Reading, TGGP. It's a thing you can do!
The West Bank isn't under a blockade because it's being actively colonized by Israel. The difference here is not the behavior of Fatah or Hamas, but the desirability of the land they're sitting on.
Anon @ 11:38---
Careful what you ask for---if TGGP is "stupid", that makes you a lichen. Perhaps a tapeworm when you're on top of your game.
Anonymous,
I may be an asshole, but I'll ask you to support the stupid remark.
stras,
Gaza did have some settlements on a smaller scale which Israel unilaterally withdrew from. The settlers didn't seem to think it was worthless, as they had to be forcibly removed (I might have just let them fend for themselves, but I suppose that would have resulted in political pressure to go back in). Gaza also has access to the sea, (a real sea, not the Dead Sea), normally considered a desirable thing. The Tsars would have and did kill to gain access to a warm-water port.
Damn, this comment thread is EPIC.
Mission Accomplished, IOZ.
Go ahead oh smart one. Define 'occupying power' for us. Cos yknow some people see giving away territory (Sinai, Gaza, West Bank (with popular support if no further jihad occurred), East Jerusalem, etc as the actions of an entity who are at least, say 50% of the time interested in peace?
Oh I know! occupation, like...whole of Israel! Yeah that occupation! Dem jewz go back to Auschwitzzz!! Yeah, man...im so hip, cos fag nukular warmongering USA is on the side of Israel, we musssst be anti-israel.
Yeah and Hamas' charter says nothing like this gem here:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Yeah, we, man, are SOOO cool and radical, that, like...we'll support a revanchist, medieval, murderous, homophobic, misogynistic LITERAL culture warriors, who make Jerry Falwell type losers seem like Voltaire....cos we're COOL. You hear that? WE ARE COOL. Not like you corporate-controlled dupes.
if you don't call hannah a liberal I'm not sure what you mean by it
"Arendt theorizes freedom as public, performative and associative, drawing on examples from the Greek "polis", American townships, the Paris Commune, the civil rights movements of the 1960s, and the Hungarian uprising of 1956 to illustrate this conception of freedom. Another key concept in her work is "natality", the capacity to bring something new into the world, such as the founding of a government that endures. Natality signs the contingent, indeterminate and so political future that we don't know anything about."
this all seems very liberal to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#Works
@contemplationist: thanks, dude, I laughed
Post a Comment