« There may be some subtle message here | Main | Standing correction »

Tuesday, December 06, 2011


"...you can no more reasonably equate their motivations than you can compare the Sioux to the European colonists who drove them from the land."

Great parallel!

Caruso - the only blogger I know who can stand toe to toe with Greenwald. In Glenn's defense, he's a heck of a lot more prolific so these occasional whiffs have to be forgiven.

I hope Glenn responds. I glazed right over that line... I imagine Glenn will backtrack on it. It's inconsistent with most of what he's written - I think he just got up in his literary device trap and briefly sacrificed substance for style.

Yes, I suspect his brain might have been playing an old tape, since his position on Israel/Palestine is generally better-considered than this. I did write to him directly and give him time to post an update, though, and nothing so far.

From an email from Glenn:

I saw John's post and was going to reply, even to leave a comment, if I find the time, basically to say: (1) just because a party - Hamas or whomever - says they're open to a peaceful solution doesn't mean they are, and (2) it was really just included in a laundry list as a very ancillary point, and I didn't pay huge attention to the phrasing - probably would have been better/more accurate if I had said: "the most extremist elements of Hamas."

His point is fair, but it's really just a by-product of my not being super careful about a point that was, at best, very secondary to the post. Still worth raising for him, though.

The second point is reasonable, but I'd disagree strongly with the first (and I'm a bit surprised he'd offer it, since although it's a natural rhetorical counter it's also a weak argument). It goes without saying that we can't put absolute trust in what any party says about anything, of course—but given the roles and power relationships in this case, there's no reason to doubt Hamas leaders making what is for them an enormous concession. That's a principle that generalizes (I may write about it some day, since this kind of objection comes up frequently in this and other contexts). And in the case of Hamas we at least have the statements to believe or disbelieve; you won't face this trust issue with hard-line Israeli settlers, because they'll never say it.

Setting that aside, my own point was much more about the underlying notion that Hamas rejectionism (taken as true for the sake of argument) and Israeli rejectionism could ever be said to come from "the same reasons"; they can't.

Seems like more run-of-the-mill anti-semitism. Hamas' charter states very, very clearly, and very, very specifically that they are opposed to any and all peace negotiations, that they consider the UN and all other international organizations zionist plots, and that they will never, ever under any circumstances negotiate with the Jews. That is their official position, and that is their position that governs their actions. And obviously they aren't ready to end their illegal war. You can tell by their continuing to beat the long-dead horse of the 1967 borders, which is absurd and irrelevant. It's 2011, not 1967. That's just a red herring, and an excuse to refuse to begin negotiations on their surrender. The borders have changed. Israel, like every other nation in the world and in history, has every right to expand its territory. Perhaps taking territory that belongs to a recognized state might be wrong, but Palestine isn't a recognized state. Israel won a war that it didn't start, and it has every right to claim the spoils of victory. If it wants territory, then the Palestinians must agree. If it wants reparations, then the Palestinians must agree. If it wants control over the borders and security, then the Palestinians must agree. As the defeated people the Palestinians aren't entitled to a say. They have the right to surrender and accept Israeli terms, and that's it. If they don't come to their senses then they have the right to fade away into history. It's up to them. But Israel isn't going to be bullied by anti-semites, and it's not going to give into the demands of illegitimate groups that aren't recognized by the civilized world.

Looks like I'm now on mike's hasbara rotation, since he vomited up a similar block of asinine gibberish on this posting. It always amazes me that there's just no crime some people won't embrace as long as it's committed by their beloved Fatherland.

Mike, the United States' charter (i.e., Constitution) states very, very clearly and very, very specifically that slavery is legal and women cannot vote. And yet here I am in 2014, with no slaves and my wife voting in every election. How can that be?

The comments to this entry are closed.