July 15, 2006
Why the Left is Ignoring the War
As per Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly:1. It sparks unusually vicious comment threadsCompletely understand Kevin No reason to rile up the natives.
2. The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable."Both sides need to ratchet down the rhetoric and rein in their own extremists." Aside from being pointless, there are only just so many ways you can say this.
You are absolutely right Kevin. You could instead try the truth for once; like Israel pulled out of Gaza unconditionally and in return got hundreds of rockets launched from Gaza into Israel, incursions from Gaza and Lebanon where Israeli soldiers were killed and kidnapped.
This is not a case of both sides being equally guilty. Hamas is guilty, Hezbollah is guilty, The Lebanese government and the UN are guilty of not disarming Hezbollah 6 years after Israels withdrawal from Lebanon (honoring their part in a UN resolution) and after said UN resolution called for Hezbollah to disarm. And of course Syria and Iran are guilty of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.
3. The conflict is fantastically complex, and the partisans on both sides are mostly people who have been following events with fanatical attention to detail for many decades.
Actually it is quite simple as I explained above. In all fairness yes if you wish to go back to 1967, or 1948, or before the birth of Christ it gets very complex. We don't apply those standards anywhere else in the world. Only in this case is the world guilty of applying such twisted logic and nonsensical arguments.
4. As with the conflict itself, punditry is heavily dominated by extremists on both sides.
That hasn't ever stopped you before.
5. Related to 1 and 3, posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism.
No doubt some hardline supporters of Israel are guilty of this. In my experience more often than not the anti-Semites are the ones who get accused of anti-Semitism.
Although I find your explanations severely lacking you certainly did a much better job than anyone else on the left, so I guess you should be commended for it.
Just curious, when exactly do you think you might be ready to talk about this war?
After Israel bombs Syria? After Iran attacks Israel? After one side or the other employees some form of WMD? Would any of those events rise to a level of importance worthy of the left's attention?
Unfogged Agrees with Kevin's rationale, and cites Hugh Hewitt as one of the right wing extremists.
Kevin's first commentor isn't very kind.
This post is also available at TheRealUglyAmerican.com Posted by Real Ugly American at July 15, 2006 07:32 PM | TrackBackA political blog will be pretty lame without an opinion on an active war.
posts that display any sense of sympathy for the Palestinians run the risk of provoking a shitstorm of accusations of anti-semitism
Can you say "Little Green Footballs" boys and girls? I *knew* you could...
Posted by e. nonee moose at July 17, 2006 08:57 AM
Can you say "DemocraticUnderground? "DailyKos"? "Atrios"? They're all shrill. Get over it.
--------------------------------
Drum, in other words, implies we're too stupid to understand the nuances so we should keep our mouths shut. Let Kevin Drum be the one who decides if something is simple enough for any of us to actually hold an opinion.
"The fight between Israel and the Palestinians is over half a century old and seems intractable."
The problem I find most troublesome is that there are many who decide where the beginning of the conflict lies. Most people keep going back to 1967 or 1948. Even fewer will go back to 1920. And almost no one goes back two thousand years.
One cannot base an argument on facts only from a certain date onward. It's been a circle of violence for longer than written history even gives us. One cannot just set a marker anywhere one chooses in that circle to begin as a basis for their argument.
Those who do that often use the loose term "stable". Was that region stable at any given point? It depends on your definition of "stable". Is the subjugation of Jews in your midst, foisting dhimmi laws on them for a millenia and their fearful acceptance of those laws, considered "stable"? Was Saddam's midnight knocks on doors and his hauling away and subsequent torture and murder of those accused of arbitrary crimes "stable"? Too many people consider stability to mean; keeping crimes against humanity contained within one's own borders. When those who are oppressed finally fight back, they are accused of "destabilizing" the area.
Is there unreasonable screeching going on from both sides? Yes. But they are the far fringes and it's been my experience that the right is quicker to denounce their fringes than the left. People can point to specific incidences where this is not true, but overall, it is.
Are there wrongs committed on both sides of the conflict. Most certainly. But again, it's a matter of which is worse. Reasonable people will understand that an overwhelming majority of overt criminality against innocent people have been committed by Palestinians and their enablers and Hamas and Hezbollah and their supporters, Syria and Iran, and other various terrorist factions.
Yet Israel is disproportionately held accountable, censured and sanctioned time after time merely because they won't tolerate the constant picking-off of their citizens by unruly mobs riddled with hatred and infused with aggression.
Sorry to be so long winded. But this one really sticks in my craw.
Posted by Oyster at July 17, 2006 09:35 AM
