To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The "Gaza disengagement plan"

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Noam Chomsky at Jul 23, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Any sane Israeli government would want to remove Israeli settlements from Gaza, where about 8000 settlers take a large part of the land and resources, and have to be protected by huge army contingents. Far more rational, now that the occupation has turned Gaza into a hell-hole, is to get out and leave it as a prison in which the population can rot. The "Gaza disengagement plan" is, in fact, a US-Israeli West Bank expansion plan, designed to incorporate valuable land and resources of the West Bank into Israel, and leave Palestinians in a few unviable Bantustans which the US and Israel can call a "state" -- rather as South Africa called the Bantustans "independent states." There is great agonizing now in Israel about the tragedy of the settlers who were handsomely subsidized to settle illegally in Gaza, where they have tortured and terrorized the population and stolen their land and resources, and now will be handsomely subsidized by the same generous fairy godmother (you and your friends) to settle somewhere else. People are wearing orange, etc. As the better Israeli journalists have eloquently described, it is a shame and disgrace. The same is true of the "trauma" of Jews evicting Jews. If Sharon wants to remove the settlers quietly, nothing is easier. Simply announce that the IDF will be withdrawn on date X, and a few weeks earlier the settlers will be gone. It's mostly cynical show to justify the US-Israel West Bank expansion programs.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (64)

Person

Disengagement Staging Claims

By Duncan, J at Apr 04, 2007 10:31 AM

In _Failed States_ Chomsky argues that the '05 disengagement involved at least a partially orchestrated portrayal of settler-soldier confrontation and trauma, and that this sort of thing had happened before.  If anyone has information leads on this, please pass them on. Cheers, John   

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 11, 2005 02:17 AM
>Those who intend harm but are too weak to do so cannot be treated the same as those who are no threat because they intend no harm. This is likely true. But I have never advocated giving "those who intend harm" more power (on either side of the conflict). Creating a viable Palestinian state through the full withdrawl from the occupied territories would, on the contrary, strengthen those "who intend no harm." There are very few Palestinians who would choose to continue the conflict should such conditions materialize. Their political strength in the territories is fed by the conflict, fuelled by the iniquities of the occupation and prevailing conditions that ensure the rule of the gun. Removing these pressures will enervate their influence. Hamas, for instance, became popular because they were made necessary; their clinics and schools could have been run by others. Perhaps the U.S. might have funnelled some of their generous aid to Israel into these kinds of projects; it would have been an investment in Israeli security worth far more than all their Blackhawks and Patriots. Of course, this would have been "politically impossible" because it would fail to enrich the tycoons suckling at the Pentagon's bloated teet, and fail to satisfy the expansionist stance of the Israeli governing class. There are terrorists on both sides of the green line who draw strength from the occupation, after all. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 10, 2005 03:58 AM
"If Palestinian jihadists or suicide bombers could actually commit the genocide they apparently want to commit, I might be more concerned." If some people get their way, the WILL have this ability. All too often I hear arguments of the form "Group X is powerless therefore Group X is not a threat. Since Group X is not a threat, there is no reason to give them more power". The contradiction is obvious. Those who intend harm but are too weak to do so cannot be treated the same as those who are no threat because they intend no harm. If you knew someone really wanted to hurt you it would be stupid to turn your back on them no matter how much smaller they were. Just because you might be a crushing favorite in a heads on fight doesn't mean you can't be beaten if your completely careless to the threat. Even a child can can hurt you if he is vicious enough and attacks when you are completely unprepared.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 01:11 AM
R4D20, You bring up a good point about ends and means. I too have a basic problem with engaging any foe by attacking "soft targets" - eg. civilians, non-combatants, etc. by any side in a conflict. I recognize a Palestinian right to self-determination, and a right to fight for that self-determination, but I cannot condone random killings of Israeli civilians, even in retaliation for similar depredations against Palestinians. Besides violating the very principle under which they are conducted, such attacks have almost no tactical value. Nevertheless, the actions of non-state elements in a dirt poor, shattered and isolated society are of secondary importance. If Palestinian jihadists or suicide bombers could actually commit the genocide they apparently want to commit, I might be more concerned. Israel, on the other hand is a heavily subsidized regional military power propped up by our governments. It is the most advanced NATO state next to the U.S. It has WMD. It can actually carry out it's program of occupation, settlment and annexation (at great human cost.) It CAN bomb Iraq, Syria or Iran if it wants to. This concerns me, and because I live in a democratic state that contributes to Israeli power, I think my concern is justified.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 07, 2005 23:40 PM
I was wondering. Abyss and a bunch of other folks on this board have been busy since the get go minimizing and denigrating every possible concern raised about the Palestinians in the Isreal-Palestine conflict. Calvin gave me a testimonial on the blandness and emptiness of a moral life, until the wonderful golden moment when he shed that childish caul and embraced "a culture in which a basic tradesman can live like a Roman patrician." BTW, there's more than one reading of Nietzche. Others have brought up the terrible treatment of gays by Palestinians (ostensibly to ensure that we feel more reluctant to identify with them,) or the wonderful economic prosperity the Palestinians have enjoyed under benevolent Israeli rule. Always the constant recriminations of the mysterious ways Islam: impossible violent, thoroughly corrupt, and completely alien to decency and freedom. My question is this: what do you all propose we DO about the problem? Can any of you come up with any action on the part of the governments of our nations that can positively change a situation that we can all agree is sub-optimal?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 07, 2005 22:08 PM
Chomsky and his cohorts think they are Greek Gods. They seem to have laid bets on how many of the "little people's" lives they can save through influencing others. Chomsky thinks he's in the lead. But Graham reckons he's not far behind.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 07, 2005 21:45 PM
Chomsky's words are, sadly, rubbing off onto the worst of his fans/supporters/readers. In one of his books (not really a book, I think it was one of his marketing gimmicks, in which his good friend and agent asks him as many questions as are needed to fill 200 pages or so) - anyway, Chomsky says young people want instant results, and so are unwilling to sustain a protest if nothing is immediately gained by it. They are more interested in causes, focusing their energies on particular groups of people, than trying to understand the bigger picture. Chomsky then boasts that his approach saves more lives in the long run - many more! Graham (I think that's the poster) took Chomsky's words to heart and mocked me: "No one is interested in your childish story about a pop musician. Go away you little, insignificant person". I'll repeat what I said: I don't call trying to help a homeless kid who's sniffing petrol, which causes irreparable brain damage, childish. If that kid is allowed to die, then why not Chomsky? Why not you? Graham then claimed Chomsky was a pauper, reliant on the sale of his books to feed himself. Graham didn't see the irony. The pop musician also claimed poverty, which was why he couldn't help. However, he had "earned" over 30 million pounds the year before last.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 07, 2005 02:34 AM
".Why do you choose to examine the motives of the Palestinians with a microscope while completely neglecting Israeli action? I think that reflects some underlying bias." Bwong, Perhaps I do, but my conscious motivation was simply that this is a anti-Israel forum to begin with, so I assumed everyone was already aware of Israels actions against peace. When it comes down to it, I think the underlying justice of the Palestinian cause is without question. However, the ends do not justify the means. Rather, if anything the means determine the ends, and if the means of revolution are using religious fanaticism to motivate suicide bombers, I don't think we've got a hope in hell of getting a decent end. I can't sit back and make excuses for why they use these means, when I know that such means will lead to more misery and problems for everybody. To me it's kind of like enabling a drug-addict because you know he's "had a rough life". Religion is a lot like a drug, and it always ends badly when it moves out of moderation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 07, 2005 01:14 AM
And, as we are witnessing in Iraq, America loves nothing more than to be the sole authority, no matter how many innocent people die as a result. Blackett addresses other people's perspectives on the matter, not just his own. For instance, he writes: "It is quite possible that in July, 1945 the Allied High Command may have genuinely misjudged the real situation in Japan and have greatly overestimated the Japanese will to resist. But all this information was naturally available to Mr. Stimson and Dr. Compton when they wrote their articles justifying the dropping of the bombs." - Americans were up to their old tricks even then. Once all the facts had been collected together, making a case for the military necessity to drop the bomb was impossible. But that didn't stop friends of the U.S. government writing articles saying, even if we had known everything that there was to know at the time, nuking Japan would still have been necessary. As it turns out, Mr Stimson and Dr Compton weren't giving their readers all the facts.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 07, 2005 00:17 AM
“The fact is that the Japanese could not have held out long because they had lost control of the air. They could offer effective opposition neither to air bombardment nor to our mining by air and so could not prevent the destruction of their cities and industries and the blockade of their shipping. “As far as our analysis has taken us we have found no compelling military reason for the clearly very hurried decision to drop the first atomic bomb…But a most compelling diplomatic reason, relating to the balance of power in the post-war world, is clearly discernible. “they write as follows: … ‘It may be argued that this decision [to drop the bomb] was justified; that it was a legitimate exercise of power politics in a rough-and-tumble world; that we avoided a struggle for authority in Japan similar to that we have experienced in Germany and Italy; that, unless we came out of the war with a decisive balance of power over Russia, we would be in no position to checkmate Russian expansion.' This interpretation by Cousins and Finletter substantially confirms our own analysis. The hurried dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a brilliant success, in that all the political objectives were fully achieved. American control of Japan is complete, and there is no struggle for authority there with Russia.”

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 06, 2005 23:47 PM
Some excerpts from Chapter 10 of “FEAR, WAR, and the BOMB” by P.M.S. Blackett: “So we may conclude that the dropping of the atomic bombs was not so much the last military act of the second World War, as the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia now in progress. “The fact, however, that the realistic objectives in the field of Macht-Politik, so well achieved by the timing of the bomb, did not square with the advertised objective of saving ‘untold numbers' of American lives, produced an intense inner psychological conflict in the minds of many English and American people who knew, or suspected, some of the real facts. “The realization that their [atomic scientists] work had been used to achieve a diplomatic victory in relation to the power politics of the post-war world, rather than to save American lives, was clearly too disturbing to many of them to be consciously admitted. To allay their own doubts, many came to believe that the dropping of the bombs had in fact saved a million lives. “Before the bomb was used, most scientists probably felt that the only justification for its use against Japan would be one of overriding military necessity, and there seems definite evidence that, earlier in the summer of 1945, the American authorities did not anticipate such a situation arising.”

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 06, 2005 23:23 PM
It has been 60 years since America, without warning, atom-bombed Japan. It was an act of terror that had horrific consequences for the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Even those who had survived the devastating blast, failed to comprehend the full horror of what had happened; for none of their six senses could perceive the cloud of radiation that now hung suspended over their city. The atom bomb was dropped by the Great Beast in the year 1945. And, on that beast, was a mark, the letters U-S-A. To show that you do not need Chomsky to research many of the topics he discusses, get hold of a copy of “FEAR, WAR, and the BOMB” by P.M.S. Blackett. It was written in 1948, but you should have no difficulty acquiring a second-hand copy. I didn't! Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett (a physicist and Nobel Prize winner) was a member of the Advisory Committee on Atomic Energy set up by the British Government in August, 1945. However, after a promising start, he soon found his views diverging from the rest of the committee members. So, in 1948, after the committee was abolished, he wrote down his thoughts and opinions. His book deals with the military and political consequences of nuclear energy. The U.S. bombing of Japan is discussed in Chapter 10, “The Decision To Use The Bomb”.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 06, 2005 22:09 PM
I now realise why Chomsky's detractors are attacked with such vehemence on this blog (incidentally, "Blog" should stand for "Bloody awful LOG" - who wants them apart from egotists?). Anyway, back to my point. America has to be number one - it is, after all, as Chomsky says, "the GREATEST country in the world" - and we can't have the U.S. outdone on saintliness. Mother Teresa came as a shock to Americans. What the hell were they going to do? Americans are the nicest people you can ever meet, so what on earth is the world doing heaping praise - and a Nobel Peace Prize! - on an Albanian/Macedonian for? Enter Chomsky, the Mother Teresa of America's left. Phew, now the most perfect race in the world has the most perfect human in the world: Noam Chomsky! All's well with the U.S. once more. PS I came to this board "supporting" Chomsky, but after the treatment I received from his supporters, and certain things Chomsky has said, and things he has not done, I realised the fine words emanating from his camp were all a sham. All Chomsky cares about is his reputation, and charging money for his opinion. As for his supporters, the majority are nothing but intellectual snobs. For those who missed it, a recent survey found that the world takes a dim view of America AND the American people (article originally appeared in the Financial Times): http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0802-02.htm

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Aug 06, 2005 00:14 AM
In many way's Noam Chomsky is a mainstream kind of person. He's say's "America is the greatest country in the world", he apparently disapproves of sexually explicit magazines, he's a college professor who evinces a strong work ethic, he's a family man, his favorite musician is Beethoven, he supports the American school system calling it "the best in the world"...Feminists and environmentalists also sometimes seem to want to create a more austere culture that will facilitate a more generalized common good, siphoning away the admittedly illegitimate power of state/corporations and their manipulative media. But what will there be to do? Have picnics with the family at public parks? Bicycling? It sounds like an hypertrophied version of corporate PR. That can't be the objective of resistance, to make the phony PR a genuine reality.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 03, 2005 06:57 AM
"It was the Palestinians whop declared war in 1947, not Israel. People who pick fights, and then lose them, are NOT "victims" - they are pathetic." They are "pathetic" only in the sense that they lost. Is it picking figtht to try to defend your home? Suppose some immigrants come to the U.S and then craved out the best land to declare independence. They then systematically expell American citizens from those land. In other words, behaving like the white men when they arrived. Would you describe the action of an American citizen as "picking fight" if he picks up gun to defend his home? Hundreds of Palestinian villages were raid and tens of thousands expelled months before the Arab army "invaded" Israel in 1947. So who was picking fight? The Arab leaders hated and mistrusted each other almost as much as they did Israel. There is some evidence that they would have preferred tough talk to actually fighting. But the crisis in their countries created by massive refugee infux left them no choice.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 03, 2005 06:32 AM
"That is NOT what I was doing, so please don't change the subject.I was using their actions to interpret their motivations. Economically shooting themselves in the foot is eviodence that their main concern is NOT economic prosperity." But why do you think economical propserity should be the only letigimate reason that motivate people to fight? I don't know if that is your assumption but it sure comes across that way. Secondly,you sound as though the Palestinians were prospering before the second intifada. But Israeli bulldozing Palestinian houses, confiscating palestinian land and destroying Palestinian olive groves had gone on decades before the intifada. I don't think I am changing the subject. It is relevant to question the way you frame the subeject.Why do you choose to examine the motives of the Palestinians with a microscope while completely neglecting Israeli action? I think that reflects some underlying bias.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 03, 2005 00:35 AM
"It is moral cowardice to lay the blame on the viticms rather than the agreesor." That is NOT what I was doing, so please don't change the subject. I was using their actions to interpret their motivations. Economically shooting themselves in the foot is eviodence that their main concern is NOT economic prosperity. "How long do they assume they can get away with their abuses without the victims fighting back in some ways? " It was the Palestinians whop declared war in 1947, not Israel. People who pick fights, and then lose them, are NOT "victims" - they are pathetic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 02, 2005 07:41 AM
"In the case of the Palestinians, however, their own actions have lead to econmic hardship, due to Israeli policys that were predicatable before the fact." Any form of resitance inevitably leads to reprisal and hence hardship. By your logic no resistance is justified. It is moral cowardice to lay the blame on the viticms rather than the agreesor. "NONE of these checkpoints existed before the latest intifada." The lives of Palestinians had not been rosy before the latest intifada. You sound as if the Palestinains suddenly caught the "Islam supramacism" bug in the late 1990's, while conveniently forgetting the 30+ years of abuse by the Isralies that led up to it. "Only a fool or a liar would argue that such a response was not totally predictable BEFORE the terror attacks started .." One can also say the same about Israeli actions. How long do they assume they can get away with their abuses without the victims fighting back in some ways? If they cannot engage you on the battle field they will bomb your civilians. One way or the other they want you to pay. Is this unforseeable? Sharon's visit to temple mount triggered the latest intifada. Even a fool would not be stupid enouugh to argue Sharon didn't know he was lighting a cigarette in a room full of explosives. He has been warned by all sides beforehand but chose to ignore the warnings anyway.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 02, 2005 05:05 AM
In the case of the Palestinians, however, their own actions have lead to econmic hardship, due to Israeli policys that were predicatable before the fact. The best example is, of course, the "checkpoints" that make it very difficult for Palestinians to get to work or for businesses to move goods into and outof the territories. NONE of these checkpoints existed before the latest intifada. Prior to the latest intifada Palestinians could freely move into and out of Israel peoper, but the rewnewed attacks, naturally, lead to security measures like the creation of checkpoints. "Checkpoints", of some nature, have been used in every counter-insurgency in history, but Israel is supposed to not use them? Only a fool or a liar would argue that such a response was not totally predictable BEFORE the terror attacks started - and yet the people involved did it anyways. I don't think its a stretch to see this as evidence for the presence of OTHER, non-economic, motivations - motivations MORE important than money that justify actions that would cause forseeable economic impact.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 02, 2005 04:15 AM
"That means there's a class of people who can bankroll their idealogies and organizations in a way the Vietnamese or Nicarauguans couldn't." Are you implying that there isn't a class of incredibly wealthy people in South America? In fact, it is the continued existance of EXACTLY such a class of fabulously weathly landowners, that has caused almost all the problems in the continent. These are the guys who own the farms that supply United Fruit, and working with them to keep wages and prices down. The rise of the Cartels has simply added to the numbers of possible finaciers of international terrorism. And yet - nothing. Why? Because the actors in question are, in this case, motivated by purely economic concerns and they recognise that massive public displays of violence interfere with their economic objectives. Money is their real motive they act appropriately.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 02, 2005 00:42 AM
bobbo, to employ the liberal methodology, what are ethics, what are morals? I used to espouse the same opinions as you. One of the factors which changed my perceptions was reading Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals". It was like losing my virginity (only it took several hours longer). Morality is just a method of engineering the balance of social power. The moral, all culture embracing, worldview reminds me of one of these great big glossy red American tomatoes which actualy have no flavour. I desperatley wanted to believe in a world where respect was designated to individuals on the basis of moral rectitude, because I knew in my heart of hearts that I had a better chance of claiming superiority on this basis than on the basis of talent. I no longer care about superiority. I only recognize that life here is far, far beter than life elsewhere. We have a culture in which a basic tradesman can live like a Roman patrician. That's not a system I want to fuck up. Don't you think that even a litle bit of the responsibility for the modalities of life in the Dar al Islam is attributable to predominant Islamic beliefs?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 22:47 PM
I have little or no concern with how friendly we remain to "the Islamicist hatred of America". I am, however, interested in the conduct of the powerful towards populations who might be receptive. There is a rumour going around - and I don't know who started it - that "demonstrations of... America's strength" have an increasingly high civilian body count. There are also some whispers about how some of us drew their borders, managed them as colonies, and continue to manage them under the gaze of a heavily armed triumverate of client states. I'm also hearing troubling reports that we support the worst tyrants and fanatics when convenient for us, and then attack them at great civilian cost when we change our minds. There are people in the middle east, just like you and me, for whom these concerns and others are understandably important. If you think that we've been bending over too much to prove we're friendly, I think you have a serious problem understanding optics. This might be more than just a case of the uncivilized natives misunderstanding your universal sign of peace. If you want to destroy your enemies, I suppose that's fine. But I can't see any ethical or moral content to such sentiments. They seem to be as simplistic and belligerent. If you cannot recognize other societies unless they are compliant, assimilated and subordinate to your own, I expect you will find no shortage of aggresive, supremacist fanatics to decry and destroy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 22:02 PM
It might work a little better than just bending over a little more in our attempts to prove we're friendly.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 20:07 PM
Well, I can only hope that your passionate denunciations of the depredations of the religion of our enemies will change their minds.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 12:00 PM
As the worlds greatest economic and military power the Actions of of America have consequences for evertone. It is complete bullshit to say that America's attitude to Islam has been consistently negative and hostile however. America liberated Muslim Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia was quite happy to hide behind America's skirt tails. America consistently supported the Muslim rebels in Chechnya diplomaticaly and it was American soldiers who saved the Muslims of Kosovo. Where were the mujahadeen and insurgents when the Serbian tank columns started to roll? The Islamicists hatred of America is derived from their resentment at these demonstrations of their impotence and America's strength as much as any other factors. The fact that there may be many diverse influences on Muslim attitudes to America does not obviate the fact that one of the most powerful is the influence of an aggressive, supremacist religion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 04:36 AM
>Do you really think this rise is the result of a SINGLE cause- US? By this logic everyone, from the Nicaraguans to the Vietnamese, should be waging Holy War against us. Seriously - we F'ed with a lot of places and a lot of people in the last 50 years, but who else has engaged in these international attacks on civilians? This is a very good point. I don't think I could provide with a very good answer as to why different areas respond to violence and imperialism in different ways. However, looking at the different circumstances of the various countries you mentioned there is one element that isn't in the equation: oil. The middle east is steeped in capital thanks to it's position at the heart of the world's major energy reserves. That means there's a class of people who can bankroll their idealogies and organizations in a way the Vietnamese or Nicarauguans couldn't. Violent religious history is a bit to universal I think to help us here. >we HELPED cause it, but I think you underestimate how much feeds on things we did not, and do not, control. The is more to it than "blowback". Again, I would agree. It is rare to find circumstances in politics or history where the causes can be traced to a few simple elements. But, qv. my previous post, we should be spending effort on circumstances we CAN control, such as our actions, rather than ones we can't, which will result in endless platitudes and apologetics, but little rational action.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 01, 2005 03:53 AM
"Radical Islam is a distorted expression of frustrated nationalism. "Our" policies is directly responsible to its rise." "Hamas is blowback, just like al-Qaeda." ) It's not that I think these statements are "wrong", but I do think they are VERY simplistic and miss some key points. Do you really think this rise is the result of a SINGLE cause- US? By this logic everyone, from the Nicaraguans to the Vietnamese, should be waging Holy War against us. Seriously - we F'ed with a lot of places and a lot of people in the last 50 years, but who else has engaged in these international attacks on civilians? It's not even a Muslim thing - most Muslims live in Sout East Asia, but the areas has a MUCH smaller level of radicalism, and MUCH less popular support for terrorism, than that found in the middle eastern muslim population. Fundamentalism, across races and religions, is a big part of Mid-east history. It's birthplace of the religions for (2/3) of the world - the place produced so many "prophets" you have not even heard about 0.1% of them. The place is seeped in religious history and has a culture that tends to take religion pretty seriously. Actions and circumstances that would fail to produce a religious awaking anywhere else end up producing them in the middle east. Yes, we HELPED cause it, but I think you underestimate how much feeds on things we did not, and do not, control. The is more to it than "blowback".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 01, 2005 03:04 AM
abyss: just a quickie on Chomsky's credibility. I fully endorse questioning the credibility or motives of anyone, academic, brand or otherwise. In fact, I'd like to see Chomsky refuted and contradicted more often, especially on these sites. The problem with your challenge is that it seems to focus purely on issues of character, while ignoring his body of work. Issues of character don't really concern me; I couldn't care less, for example, if Mr. Bush II, or Karl Marx or whoever, was a nice guy or not. I'm more interested in what they say. Perhaps you could take an argument of Chomsky's, present it, and show it to be false. That's the kind of criticism that one can sink their teeth into. The rest is just conjecture and ad-hominims.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Otto, Steve at Aug 01, 2005 02:49 AM
Communism is a belief and an ideology. The idea that it depended on a country for it to exist was an invention of the capitalist pundits and politicians. We were supposed to believe that the Soviet Union WAS Communism and yet most Marxist rejected that model. Only other Marxists were aware of this, due to the great power of the U.S. capitalist press. If the Vatican is nuked and the Pope and his groupies die, does the Catholic Church die out completely? Or do its believers try and rebuild the process?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 01, 2005 02:14 AM
hellbender, if communism flourished because of capitalism, how come it failed to flourish in the worlds most capitalist countries and tended to take root in feudalist countries like Czarist Russia and Imperialist China? The Islamic world was at the end of WWII also a semi-feudal polity where communism was begining to infect the minds of the indigenous populations. The collapse of communism has simple meant that that percentage of the Muslim population which is of a zealous and ideological mindset have channeled these traits into religious fanaticism. Manure makes very good fertilizer BTW.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Otto, Steve at Aug 01, 2005 01:19 AM
So Calvin wants to blame all the bad guys on international Communism. That movement would never have flourished if Capitalism could deliver on its promises. Saddam Hussein eventually killed most of the communists and tried to wipe out their party. When you talk about communists are you taking about Pol Pot or Salvador Allende? – Joseph Stalin or the Sandinistas? As with Christianity there are those who use it peacefully and some who use it as a cover for fascism. While I don't want to live in North Korea, I don't particularly like living here either. It's a lot like standing in a knee deep pile of manure and being told to thank the manure providers because in some other place the manure is chest high. What I really want is not to stand in manure at all. So excuse me if I put my faith in some type of Marxism over the rotting smell of our capitalist country, that not only waists our resources, (including human) but keeps us in a constant state of war. This statement may leave me out of the “I Hate Chomsky Club.” So if you love capitalism so well, keep your manure and thank the providers. My views can also be seen at http://ottoswarroom.blogspot.com/.

Reply this comment

Person

By Espinosa_baca, Tenoch at Aug 01, 2005 00:03 AM
"Chomsky's "pedagogical style" demands that our attention revolves around him." A nice claim the-abyss but you forgot to provide evidence. Where in his "Gaza disengagement plan" post does Chomsky draw attention directly to himself? Also, if sharing one's earnings is so important to debate on ZNET, why not post yours?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Jul 31, 2005 23:06 PM
In short: Chomsky is not an academic - he's a brand! And like all brands, he's being marketed. For those who maintain Chomsky should hide his earnings, check out this page: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/whattodo.html Scroll down, and you'll see you can download consortiumnews.com's tax filings. "Consortium News" is run by Robert Parry, a journalist, and he's written many worthwhile articles - search the site's archive! If Chomsky were doing something similar - trying to build an alternative media infrastructure - I wouldn't be bothered so much by him charging for his speeches, opinions, and just about anything Chomsky's friends can think to ask him. But that's not what Chomsky is doing. A bit of honesty from the guy would go a long way in dispelling some of the cynicism Chomsky bemoans, yet helps to create.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Jul 31, 2005 22:21 PM
Someone, either on this so-called blog, or someone who sent me an abusive e-mail, said Chomsky is an academic, why should he feel any obligation to tell people how much he has made from his writings, interviews, etc., and why should he even have to bother visiting his own blog. First, Chomsky talks about the cynicism the right has created. If Chomsky wants to rid society of cynicism, being open with people is a good start. Second, that's exactly my point: Chomksy is an academic! He made/makes his living as a teacher, not as a journalist. If Chomsky were a journalist, I'd understand the need to be "the centre of attention". A journalist derives his income from the words he puts on paper, so he's got to build a reputation for himself, which means he can't afford to tell people to go elsewhere for information (at least not until he's wealthy enough). But Chomsky is an academic. Good academics always give people lists of books to read, places to go for information, tips and advice, and don't quote out of context. Chomsky's "pedagogical style" demands that our attention revolves around him. Therefore, the reader/listener is forced into the uncomfortable position of having to trust Chomsky implicitly, or not at all. This is the antithesis of a good academic. The work of a good academic speaks for itself. You don't have to wonder whether the author is a good person or a bad person, or whether they are deceiving us, or merely condensing the facts for easy digestion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Jul 31, 2005 19:33 PM
On the other hand, Arafat might have shown no hostility towards gay people - the hatred coming from others. Final excerpt from the same article: "As soon as they arrived in Trafalgar Square to join the demonstration, the gay protesters were surrounded by an angry, screaming mob of Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organisers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). They variously attacked the gay activists as 'racists', 'Zionists', 'CIA and MI5 agents', 'supporters of the Sharon government' and 'dividing the Free Palestine movement'. Sounds like one big, happy, tabloid family.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Jul 31, 2005 19:06 PM
Only a bit of time today, so some more links about the atrocious treatment of Palestinian people whose sexuality is less than 100% heterosexual - maybe that includes all of us! Incidentally, I'm not using this subject to deflect attention away from Israel's shameful treatment of the Palestinians. Anyone who read the previous links will know that. I'm merely highlighting an injustice that you rarely hear about. "'Death threat' to Palestinian Gays": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2826963.stm "Palestinian gays flee to Israel": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3211772.stm "Palestinian gay runaways survive on Israel's streets": http://action.web.ca/home/lgbt/databank.shtml?x=44074 "Gays abused at Palestine rights protest (attempt to silence debate on murder of gays)": http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=189 Extract from the link directly above: "Gay Palestinians live in fear of arrest, detention without trial, torture and execution at the hands of Palestinian police and security services. They also risk abduction and so-called honour killing by vengeful family members and vigilante mobs, as well as punishment beatings and murder by Palestinian political groups such as Hamas and Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement" I read somewhere that Arafat, himself, slept with men. It wouldn't be surprising, if it's true. Apparently, those who are most hostile towards gay people are themselves attracted to the same sex.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 31, 2005 11:38 AM
In our rush to blame the evil West for all of the maladaptions of the Arab world I think we are forgetting a little something called international Communism. Saddam Hussein was a COMMUNIST inspired revolutionary. Gadaffi, Arab SOCIALIST. The western nations installed or encoraged Arab leaders who they thought would counteract internationalist Communist expansion at a time when Communism dominated the worlds largest country and the worlds most populous country and was expanding into Africa and enverywhere else it saw a window of opportunity. The Communists had the avowed aim of destroying capitalism. Defensive measures against Stalin style brutality and expansionsism are perfectly legitimate. All those who disagree please book your tickets for North Korea

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 31, 2005 06:21 AM
bwong... Not to be a stickler for details, but the Israeli government didn't support Hamas, because it did not yet exist. They WERE however one of the main factors in securing funding for Yassin in the 70s for presicely the reason you mention - undermining the PLO. Hamas is blowback, just like al-Qaeda.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 31, 2005 01:55 AM
"But the persecution of gays in the P.A. may be relevent as a window into the minds of the Palestinians - particularly the movement towards violent aggresive muslim supremacism .." r4d20 I am very skeptical of the "Clash of civilizations" thesis. It is instructive to trace the trajectory of radical Islam in the ME since WWII. "Islam supremacism" gain popularity only after secular alternatives have been exhausted and destroyed. Iran is typical of this dynamics. The CIA overthrew its democratically elected government and installed the Shah.Under the Shah all secular opositions were wiped out. The only force left potent enough to unseat the Shah was Islam. Predictably the disaffected masses turned to the Mullahs. Pan Arab nationalism has many flaws, but it is secular. The fact that it was popular after the war disproves Islamic supermacism was instrinsic to ME cultures.It was only with the demise of Pan Arabism that Islam rises to fill the vaccum. Iraq is an example happening right in front of our eyes. Policy makers understand this. Robert Fisk reported that Israel gave money to Hammas in the 70's in order to undermind the secular PLO. Radical Islam is a distorted expression of frustrated nationalism. "Our" policies is directly responsible to its rise.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 31, 2005 00:01 AM
"We cannot coerce open mindedness or respect for humanity in cultures without displaying a fundamental contradiction that renders our views hypocritical. If you compel someone at gunpoint to "STOP HATING!"" But notice how you are automatically framing it as a choice between doing nothing and using force. You are right, force won't work, but there are alternatives. But I want to point out that I was not simply talking about fanaticism in "muslim" society - but rather specifically in PALESTINE. Regarding Palestinians, the "hate" has a direct bearing on the likelihood, and common sense, of Israel ending the occupation. Israel would be stupid to turn it's back on an active enemy still planning to attack it even after its given back the territory. Frankly, the most passionate Palestinian supporters are

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 30, 2005 22:05 PM
r4d20: Muslim extremism, discrimination, and closed-mindedness are really kind of secondary for those of us living in western countires. The reason is that we can't control "the muslim mind". We cannot coerce open mindedness or respect for humanity in cultures without displaying a fundamental contradiction that renders our views hypocritical. If you compel someone at gunpoint to "STOP HATING!" I think it's obvious that the message is going to come out a little garbled. However, we do have some measure of input into the actions of our own societies. There's no point in lecturing people living in the middle east on human rights while we support totalitarian militarist regimes, nor on international law when we support illegal settlement and occupation. When somebody in Saudi Arabia gets their head cut off for sodomy or something, we can whine and whine about the deficiencies of Arabs and Muslims, but if we don't put our money where our mouth is and withdraw our support for regimes who do these things, how superior is our position? It's a matter of practicality; focus on the stuff you have personal responsibility for, since that's the thing you can actually change. There is a reformist movement and a strong secular stream in muslim society. That's THEIR achievement. Unfortunately, it's a position right now that is seen as implicated with, or complicit with imperialism and oppression that is actively supported by our countries. That's OUR achievment.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 30, 2005 04:42 AM
"I doubt that even the Palestinian gays would think that Israeli's occupation has anything to do with gay liberation. " With the long history of finger-pointing it no suprise people have accepted it as legitimate. But the persecution of gays in the P.A. may be relevent as a window into the minds of the Palestinians - particularly the movement towards violent aggresive muslim supremacism - which is a KEY issue in the debate, especially regarding their intentions to live in peace with Israel after the Occupation. This trend towards extremeism is a subject many unwisely ignore due to the unjustified assumption that the problem will go away by itself once the Occupation is over. I find this frustrating because, while religious radicalism does usually !!start!! in response to economic or political discontent, even a simple glance at history will turn up several examples where the extremism got WORSE after the conditions that created it went away.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 30, 2005 00:23 AM
"I'm going to be a bit more subtle, and mention an issue Chomsky didn't raise: the treatment of gay people by the Palestinian Authority." Thank you for drawing our attentions to the plights of gay people under PA.In general the persecution of gays in ME countries is a serious human right issue that deserves more international attentions. But how does that relate to Israeli occupation and why do you assume bringing up the oppression of gays under the PA somehow embarasses Chomsky? I doubt that even the Palestinian gays would think that Israeli's occupation has anything to do with gay liberation. "Thinking about it, could a bomb actually destroy an abyss? Wouldn't the abyss just swallow the explosion whole, and not even burp?" Interesting theory. Why don't you test that out experimentally?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Jul 29, 2005 23:28 PM
Excerpt from the second link: "A 17-year-old refugee [and gay teenage prostitute living in Tel Aviv] from Nablus named Salah (a pseudonym), who spent months in a P.A. prison where interrogators cut him with glass and poured toilet cleaner into his wounds, tells Ganon that he has been stopped by Israeli police no fewer than four times that day. He recites the names of the different police units who stopped him by their acronyms. 'Try not to do anything stupid,' Ganon says. 'I've tried to kill myself six times already,' says Salah. 'Each time the ambulance came too quickly. But now I think I know how to do it. Next time, with God's help, it will work before the ambulance comes.'"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Jul 29, 2005 23:05 PM
The London bombers failed to get me, so to celebrate "the near miss", I've returned to Chomsky's blog to annoy a few of his fanatics. Thinking about it, could a bomb actually destroy an abyss? Wouldn't the abyss just swallow the explosion whole, and not even burp? Anyway, down to business. Chomsky seems to be getting people's hackles up, yet again: "Bloody Israelis!" "Damn Palestinian terrorists!" Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Who needs tabloids, hey? I'm going to be a bit more subtle, and mention an issue Chomsky didn't raise: the treatment of gay people by the Palestinian Authority. Four articles to read, for those who are broad-minded enough to be interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/gay_divide.shtml http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:BfS9JniS5H0J:thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020819&s=halevi081902+palestinians+gays+persecution&hl=en http://www.ektaonline.org/~quitpale/actions/gaymen2.html http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/4192 The most extensive article is provided by the second link, which shows the Google cache of a page on a Web site. You have to be a subscriber to read the article. Hence, why I've given the link to Google's cache. I've had no time to research this topic thoroughly, but the articles above at least provide a basis.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 29, 2005 14:19 PM
r4d20, Sorry about the Yakov thing. Its a fair point that my argument only holds true in extremis, but the situation for Palestinians is extreme, isn't it? I blame the PLO and Hammas as much as anyone. These orginizations are keeping the Palestinans poor to maintain their support. The IRA has been swept away by a wave of economic development as much as anything else. In SA "extremis" is when violent crime or unemployment hits you rather than your neighbours.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 05:07 AM
r4d20, Calvin doesn't necessarily disagree with you on liberty v.s security, except he probably thinks that only applies to "white Europeans", whose unique culture blesses them with the higher faculty to appreciate freedom. The rest of humanity are just like farm animals: feed them, don't hit them too hard and they will be happy. You're talking to a hardcore racist. There is no such thing as universal human value in his universe.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 04:45 AM
".. Blacks really were better off under Apartheid.The Africans exported to America were slaves already. A slave in America was better off than a slave in Africa. "Savagery" doesn't even come into i" So are you saying Apartheid and slavery are GOOD for the blacks? Very funny for a far right libetarian,--if I am not mistaken you're the kind of guy who would rather die than to give up the freedom to own gun. Would you prefer living in a jail because of the many benefits like free room and board, free health care, free gym, free internet access (and probably free sex) and don't have to worry about finding job and paying bills.I wouldn't be surprised you may actually live longer as a result. "Slavery was institutional in Black Africa. Around 50% of the populations in some states were slaves." And your point being? Is that suppose justify white enslavement of Africans? It is a compelling argument only if you believe in the moral equivalent that a kid abused by his parents is free game for everybody. But I won't be surprised if you actually believe in that kind of twisted logic. Your rants have established you're a dispicible piece of work, hope you're proud of yourself.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 29, 2005 04:45 AM
" Anyone who has ever been faced with the long term prospect of poverty will tell you that economic security IS freedom" Calvin, 1) I am not Yakov, I was addressing his point. 2) Your point is true ONLY in extremis - when people are starving, or in civil war. None of those conditions apply to Jordan or Syria, so your point, though technically true, has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 29, 2005 04:02 AM
Yakov, that's ideological pap. Anyone who has ever been faced with the long term prospect of poverty will tell you that economic security IS freedom. A freedom which is far more important that abstract political concepts of freedom. Before you can begin to talk of democratic freedoms you have to eliminate freedom from hunger, freedom from fear of violence etc., etc. sk34, Whatever spin you put upon it, Blacks really were better off under Apartheid. There has been an explosion of crime, aids infection, corruption and poverty in post Apartheid SA and the overwhelming percentage of the victims of these things are Black. The gang rape of babies by aids infected men didn't happen under Apatheid, it happens, to their eternal shame, under the governance of Black politicians. Slavery was institutional in Black Africa. Around 50% of the populations in some states were slaves. The Africans exported to America were slaves already. A slave in America was better off than a slave in Africa. "Savagery" doesn't even come into it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 29, 2005 03:26 AM
" They will find that between '67 and '00, the standard of living was higher than the Palestinian Arabs in Jordan and Syria. " Yakov, This statement is indicative of the intellectual rot happening around me in conservative circles. Sacrificing liberty in the name of economic security is the platform of Marxists. It is the fundamental rational behind the Nanny state. No true believer in liberty would EVER suggest that it is worth exchanging for a couple of $$$. We all know the quote about those who would trade liberty for temporary security - they deserve, and will get, neither. Why do you pretend to disagree with them, only to turn around and embrace their basic assumption? Stick up for Israel, but don't sell out in the process.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 28, 2005 08:34 AM
Another point, if I may, >what is "illegal" about Israel "occupying" land that Egypt refused to take back after losing it in a war of aggression? State the law being broken. I believe the assertion that Israel's occupation is "illegal" steps from it's contravention of international law. 4th Geneva Conventions specifically from section III onwards have several articles where Israel is in the breach. It doesn't matter why the land is occupied, BTW. International law in general bars the gain of land through war, "defensive" or otherwise. That way you can't have a guy like Hitler say that he's "defending" the Rhineland, or "defending" vital interests. Everybody says that kind of stuff. Nobody goes to war saying their attacking anybody - that would be silly. Occupation is considered by international law to be permissalbe as a temporary evil, under strict conditions only. >It would serve everyone well if Chomsky and his followers would examine the standard of living of the Palestinian Arabs pre-1967, between 1967 and 2000, and post 2000, the most recent Arafat orchestrated uprising. They will find that between '67 and '00, the standard of living was higher than the Palestinian Arabs in Jordan and Syria. Actually, I might find this data interesting, though I don't find it all that surprising. Please give me a reference.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 28, 2005 08:13 AM
Yakov, there appears to be an error of fact in your post: >8,000 settlers simply do not have a large >part of Gaza. That would imply the settlers >have vast acres of land while the Arabs are >overcrowded in their villages. I was wondering where you got your data. From what I understand, the settlers, numbering from 5000 (CIA world factbook) to 8000 (oft cited, I don't know from where), occupy a disproportionate area of the Gaza strip. The exact area depends on whether you count only actual, settled, occupied land (15%-25%), or include the secured roads, IDF military installations and "temporary" security zones in which case the number is as high as 40%. (I got this from the CAMERA website.) The total land area is 360 sq km (again CIA world factbook). Now, even if there were no settlements at all, 360 sq km is not a lot of room for 1.3 million residents. Its a little over 3600 people per sq km. Bangladesh, the most densly populated nation-state larger than 200 sq km., has 2200 people per sq km. Bangladesh is crowded. But of course, there are settlments there. In total, Arabs are denied access to all but approximately 215 sq km. Thats a population density of over 6000 people per sq km. Within the Gaza strip, 8000 settlers live on settled land (say about 20% of the strip - split the estimate) at a density of 111 people per sq km. I dont need to imply the settlers have vast amounts of land, while the Arabs are overcrowded in their villages. It's simply fact.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Jul 26, 2005 20:52 PM
Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza is a promising first step toward peace between the Jews and Arabs of that troubled region, but the Sharon administration must make it clear that the die-hard settlers are as great an obstacle to a lasting peace as the Palestinian militants. By that I do not equate the settlers with the atrocities committed by, say, Islamic Jihad or Hamas; what I do say is Israel's security and a viable Palestinian state cannot be achieved unless the more extremist settlers (of the so-called occupied territories) are recognized as the threat to Israel's future they pose. P.S.: Yakov, can you elaborate on how Chomsky is a self-hating Jew? I'm Jewish myself, and I'd love to hear your response on that.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Bok, Yakov at Jul 26, 2005 18:07 PM
Once again, Chomksy shows his self-hatred as a Jew. 8,000 settlers simply do not have a large part of Gaza. That would imply the settlers have vast acres of land while the Arabs are overcrowded in their villages. The Arabs themselves have never made this claim. They simply don't like Jews living near them. The occupation has not turned Gaza into a "hellhole." It would serve everyone well if Chomsky and his followers would examine the standard of living of the Palestinian Arabs pre-1967, between 1967 and 2000, and post 2000, the most recent Arafat orchestrated uprising. They will find that between '67 and '00, the standard of living was higher than the Palestinian Arabs in Jordan and Syria. Third, what is "illegal" about Israel "occupying" land that Egypt refused to take back after losing it in a war of aggression? State the law being broken. Fourth, it is simply hateful to say torture is, or has taken place. Especially in comparison to what the Palestinian Arabs face in the rest of the Arab world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Blairhead, Calvin at Jul 26, 2005 03:30 AM
Since the Arab nationalists who are driving the conflict claim all of Israel is Arab territory, it doesn't matter a rats ass where the Israelis draw up the new border. They will still have to deploy just as many troops to protect the next border. "Disputed territory" just means the territory we are disputing at this particular moment to the Palestinian extremists, so Chomsky's claim that the IDF could be demobilised in return for teritorial concessions has the faint odour of horse excrememt. Only Chomsky could claim that a withdrawal was an expansion. Orwell must be smiling in his grave. Black is the new white, war is the new peace. If the Israelis were smart they would leave the settlements as a buffer against Palestinian insurgents and let their own extremists soak up the casualties.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Otto, Steve at Jul 25, 2005 08:32 AM
If those yahoos on the settlements want to prevent peace for everyone but themselves, it is in both the Palestinian and the Israeli governments to warn them they can either become Palestinian citizens (Which seems unlikely) or the Israeli government can remove them and move on with the peace process.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 25, 2005 05:09 AM
The critical detail is this: the settlements in Gaza are too expensive to maintain for little or no gain in resources. All it is is a bit of beachfront real estate crammed to the rafters with refugees. Little water resources to speak of, nothing much else. The West Bank on the other hand is a wonderful prize. Hence you disengage from one, and do a de facto land and water grab on the other (the so-called "security wall"). Gaza and a few hundered Palestinian reservations will make for a wonderful state, put a damper on Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and, should the intifadah lose steam, create a local source of cheap labour. This was basically the aim of the Oslo accords. I expect the current unilateral disengagement plan would have been a beautiful dream for the Israeli right five years ago.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 25, 2005 04:00 AM
I'm not very sure what to think about the Gaza disengagement plan, but part of me says "ANY plan that is so fervently hated by BOTH Zionists and anti-Zionists, has to have something going for it". The hostility of Zionists I can understand - they are giving up land and taking a security risk. However, I can only think of two reason to explain this hostility by anti-Zionists: 1) They just don't trust Israel or Sharon so they assume there must be a hidden agenda. Hence Noams assertion 2) They are commited to the idea of replacing Israel with Palestine (in its entirety) and they are utterly opposed to any steps that may result in a two-state solution. Am I off base? Is there a critical detail I am missing?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 25, 2005 02:57 AM
"Extremism is a behaviour, and when it is practiced, those who exhibit this behaviour can accurately be called extremists" To paraphrase Forrest Gump: "Extremism is as Extremism does". It is hard to predict action, and I obviously I do not have a lock on their future actions any more than you. However, from the Zealots, to the Crusaders, to Hitler, true believers in whatever religion (or pseudo-religious secular philosophy like communism and nazism), throughout history have continually placed Faith above Pragmatism. In fact, this is essentially what defines the extremist - consistently putting more stock in faith than in the ability to rationally predict the consequences of their actions. Like the Crusaders (as seen in Kingdom of Heaven) who marched fully armored, into the desert, without water or maps, to fight an enemy that outnumbered them 2 to 1, Religious extremists trust in God to give them victory and see practical considerations as insignificant next to the power of faith. It's perfectly rational: God is all-powerful and can do anything, so who needs water, maps, or numbers, when you have God? Who need the IDF either? Not all settlers are religious extremists - but some are. By what logic should we expect them to buck the trend?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 25, 2005 01:10 AM
Fair enough. I have enough trouble just predicting what secular people do, and I would readily concede that predicting the outcome of such a strategy is really something of a fools game. Nevertheless, I don't see your scenario as any more likely than mine. I was rather careless when I bandied about the term "exremist". It's more loaded than a pair of crooked dice. I don't see exremists quite the way other people do; I presume that they can still adapt to new circumstances and ideas when they encounter them. Extremism is a behaviour, and when it is practiced, those who exhibit this behaviour can accurately be called extremists. But I doubt this quality is intrinsic in most cases. Nobody is "extreme" all the time , one would probably explode if they were uniformly "extreme". There are very likely conditions, though, that encourage extremist behaviour. The current execution of the disengagement plan comes to mind. Of course such a link could also be bollux. Anyway, we'll probably never know.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 24, 2005 23:54 PM
"But I can't help but feel that settler extremists, whose support within Israel is tenuous, would largely change their tune if the possibility of IDF withdrawl were made clear." No. They will stay and die in an attempt to start another war. Secular people are terribly bad at predicting the actions of religious exteremists. Try seeing the world through their eyes. God is on their side - they have nothing to fear. Just because you don't beleive this doesn't mean they don't.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Michael, Bobbo at Jul 24, 2005 19:11 PM
Perhaps not all of the settlers would leave without a fight. Obviously some kind of formal evacuation procedure has to be in place. But I can't help but feel that settler extremists, whose support within Israel is tenuous, would largely change their tune if the possibility of IDF withdrawl were made clear. Their existence in Gaza, predicated so long upon the misery of the captive population there, is unsustainable without a constant show of overwhelming force. The settlers know that, the Israeli government knows that. These dramatic evacuations of the most hardcore settlers, which are indeed traumatic for the young IDF draftees and settlers themselves, seems to be fine theatre, but not very practical from a "disengagement" standpoint. Pull out the military, shift away any material incentives, and get the evacuation system in place for a certain date, and I expect you'd have far less histrionics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Gaza disengagement plan"

By Cihant, Cihan at Jul 23, 2005 20:53 PM
I agree with almost everything that is said here. However, I don't believe that just pulling out the Israeli army is going to automatically cause the settlers to leave without any fight. So it seems simple-minded to say just pull out the IDF.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (64)

Loading_border