[lit-ideas] Re: Israel's Invasion Pretext UnderFire

  • From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:06:38 -0400

> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 7/27/2006 4:28:43 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Israel's Invasion Pretext UnderFire
> > >This  actually maybe a war that is manufactured by the press.
> >
> >AA: Yeah, all those pictures of that rubble are an art director's dream.
> My point is that there's always rubble to show. They just choose to show
> sometimes and not others.

During a war, yeah, there always is rubble to show.  And tanks.  They don't
show dead bodies, though, so we get an idea that war isn't really that bad.

> >Or they're the aggressor, depending on perspective.  See the problem?
> Yes I do and Andy, I almost completely agree with your side on these 
> issues, except for the fact that you seem to give Israel no credit for 
> anything. That's where we diverge.

That's not true.  I'm always commenting on how the Jews were persecuted
through the ages.  Israel is a different story.  But even there their
eyeing that area goes back to the 19th century.  They need to say that they
were acting out of a 19th century impulse that no longer applies, clear the
slate and get on with sharing the area.  Short of that, there is no other

> The point is... I wouldn't send 26 posts on a bike race to Lit-Ideas.

And if you did, what of it?  Would you be morally superior in some way?

> >AA:I don't know what war you're referring to, but in issues we've talked
> >about, you're solidly on the side of pharma and the rest of it.
> I'm not solidly on the side of pharma. You have tragically misread me
> or twice and perpetuated that fallacy. 

That's why we have to agree to disagree all the time.

>Anyway, as far as "the war at home" 
> remark goes, I'm much to busy with my life HERE, 10,000 miles from THERE 
> and it's hard enough just complaining to company x to give me straight 
> service that I paid for. It's like Bush is completely ignoring the
> because of "foreign policy" and the "war on terra" to care about you

Bush doesn't care about this country. He cares about the elites.  His war
on terror is about shoring up oil for the elites.  He said his base is
billionaires, the have-mores.  

> Everybody gets so wrapped up in world events that they sometimes forget 
> that they are part of the world. And as part of world, we have to keep
> part nice, so that the rest might say "oh, that's how it's done". I think 
> it's called leading by example or something. But, I think that the
> is completely lost on the people from that area. 

What example?  Like invading a country you mean?  Our invasion legitimized
Putin's role in Chechnya.  Right, lead by example.  Show 'em how it's done.

So... I don't even bother 
> holding out hope. Peaceful co-existence just doesn't even seem like an

It's there but the species is too war-like.  They want to sit on high
horses with guns until they fall off.  Then maybe there's a chance, and
maybe not.

> > > But... The Palestinians have done nothing but scratch and claw and
> > > stones for 50 years instead of actually trying to DO something to
> > > their position in the world. They are monolithically tunnel-visioned.
> > >
> >What do you expect them to do?
> ANYTHING except arm themselves to the teeth and attack. How about
> an infrastructure? How about inventing something? How about get on with 
> life and quit the hating?

And how do you expect them to pay for anything?  You want them to get on
with life, yet the Israelis are allowed to keep talking about the
Holocaust.  The Palestinians should forget, the Israelis should never
forget.  Something like that?

> >   Israel is financed by the U.S.  They have
> >the military, etc.  The Palestinians have nothing.

Because they're not being financed by anybody.  Because they've got PTSD
and need food and water.  You want them to pull themselves up by the
bootstraps when they have no boots.  You're kidding, right?  The Israelis
have the fifth largest military because they're a client state of the U.S.  

> >  If Iran subsidizes them then gosh, they're looking for war.
> If Iran subsidizes them with weapons? Of course. I can't see people 
> complaining about feeding some people.

We subsidize Israel with weapons.  Anything wrong with that?

> >  If they're on their own, then they're monolithic rock throwers.  Which 
> > one is it?
> Well most people graduate from throwing rocks. For some reason a whole
> of people haven't.

Maybe the U.S. can give them a few jet fighters.  That would be a start,
don't you think?  And actually, all we do is throw rocks too, but we call
them bombs.  Looks like you're sitting on a pretty high horse too.  

> >
> >AA: Maybe.  Iraq didn't turn didn't out so well, did it?
> Well that's because as Israel already exists, the US can fool us into 
> believing that they are being altruistic in 'preserving democracy' in the 
> middle east when giving disproportionate aid to such an OBVIOUSLY
> location. Whereas with Iraq, they just can't sell the notion of 
> "introducing democracy". The Iraqis obviously don't want democracy, or 
> perhaps just can't make it work.

Or one can't impose one's lifestyle on others.  None of the preconditions
for democracy were there when we invaded.  Our superior selves never took
the time to find that out.

> I have a straight-forward question and it's honest. I'm not being 
> sarcastic. I was not alive prior to 1966, so I am not really intimate 
> with  pre-world-war II history.  Were there Arab Terrorists before 1947?
> fact was there even a notion of 'terrorist' before the late '60s?Can
> point to a singular even that may have sparked the rise of Terrorism?

People have been defending their turf and fighting off occupiers from day
one.  See Omar's post about people getting their freedom back.

> >On top of which we invaded a country and expected to be loved.  Any
> >age mentality in that you
> >think?  For that matter, any mentality at all?
> I've got a sore neck from this segue. To which situation does this refer?

Our superior intelligence in thinking we'd be loved as liberators and
occupiers.  In fact, Wolfowitz was so sure we'd be loved they actively
discouraged any post war planning.

> >No, there is a middle way, but people have to get down from their high
> >horses and stop convincing themselves that military solutions are the
> >solutions.
> I never said military solutions. There is NO solution of any kind with
> sides as they are.

Yes, there's a solution.  But maybe they need to prove to themselves that
military solutions don't work before they give peace a chance.  If we don't
blow up the world in the meantime.

> > > Of if you only could resist
> >
> >AA:You don't say resist what.  Okay, resist replying to your posts.  If
> >insist.
> I don't insist you resist. I insist that you cannot desist.

I have learned to hate this list.  And that's the truth.

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: