shuggy's blog
The current position of Hamas, as far as the BBC is reporting, might suggest that they weren't really expecting to form a government. This is a disaster for the Palestinians. I don't want to sound flip, but could it have been tactical/protest voting gone wrong?
I don't want to sound flip, but could it have been tactical/protest voting gone wrong?
No, I don't think so. I think they probably saw Fatah as irredeemably corrupt, which is not an unreasonable view and went for Hamas as the puritannical option. But there's obviously going to be major problems when this essentially negative platform (we're not them) confronts with reality. They'll have to address the delicate issue of whether they still think the plan of blowing themselves up on a regular basis is a good idea. You wouldn't have thought that was a difficult question to answer - but that's were we are...
Hi Shuggy, I've only recently discovered your blog (through Normblog), although I recognise your moniker from Harry's Place. It's a very interesting read!
'expect lots of hand-wringing about the hypocrisy of our democracy from the usual suspects'
I had a conversation with an Icelandic chap last weekend coming home at night. He was chatting up a couple of random American girls and started the usual conversation about Bush etc. When he got onto Afghanistan he was coming out with such ill-informed rubbish that I couldn't help but put him straight on a couple of things.
Anyway, we ended up chatting for half an hour or so and the thing that really struck me (and has struck me before) is that a lot of reflex anti-Americans have never really thought about their views or encountered people who disagree with them for good reasons. I could see in his eyes as he realised how ridiculous a few of the things that he was automatically saying were. For example, when I asked him whether or not he thought that spreading democracy in the Middle East was a goal worth pursuing, he instantly said 'how can you talk about democracy when Bush was elected on a minority of the electorate?' I pulled him up on that and asked him if he really believed, as an apparently intelligent person, that Iran was as free a society as the US, and he seemed to realise what a ridiculous thing it was to say. My point is that I think that a lot of these people hold these views without ever really examining them because they probably only discuss these issues with people who hold similar assumptions. In particular, he was extremely surprised when I told him that I have always voted Labour, as it is for some reason easier for people to dismiss views which fall outside their own assumptions if they can dismiss the other person as holding very different aims and political assumptions.
Y'now Shuggy I have been quite enjoying reading your blog for a while now but the above defeats my understanding.
If a Palestinian bomber set off a bomb which decapitates my child, I reckon I would feel exactly the same about the killer as if an Israeli soldier 'accidentaly' shot my child in the head whilst aiming at some 'youth with a rock' behind him or whatever the supposedly 'legitimate' target happened to be.
What is this 'qualitative difference' thing you mention that I am obviously not getting and which would make my dead child alright?
Hey - we are sorry but the soldier was just 'careless' OK?
Now, maybe if it was a 'one off' I might be mildly consoled by this fact - that it was a 'tragic isolated accident', but in the real world of the middle east such 'carelessness' is not' one off'. The state of Israel consistently kills about three times the number of PEOPLE that the Palestinian groups do.
So, I just see three times as many dead bodies and anguished families and all that pain and grief further fuelling this ongoing cycle of killings, but hey - you see 'qualitative difference' right?
Ken - I'm not suggesting the manner and motivation behind a killing would alter one's feeling about the loss of a child significantly. If my son was killed, I can't imagine myself drawing the least bit of consolation from the motives of the killer. But the emotive point wasn't the one I was making. Deliberately targetting civilians is a crime against humanity, regardless of who does it. My intent then was to deal with the insidious idea that deliberately targetting civilians, only targetting civilians, is in some way an 'understandable', even justified, response to the brutalities of occupation that people may have experienced. And I'm also concerned with the frankly bizarre idea of Steele's that the election of these who believe it's a legitimate tactic to target only civilians is the 'best news to come out of the Middle East' for some time. (Do you think he's already regretting penning these words after watching what's happened already?)
If qualitative issues are of little account and it's the sheer body-count that is the only important factor, I'd like to know why the Israeli/Palestine conflict is given virtual saturation news coverage and other conflicts that have produced far higher death-tolls, such as in the Sudan, don't, and when they do are received with a detatchment and reasonablness not extended to this situation?
I'd take it you would agree with Steele when he says, "Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus"? For one, I'd take issue with this notion of "bound to" he uses. It doesn't square with the record. Israel has carried out assassinations that haven't killed civilians whereas suicide-bombs on buses can do nothing but kill civilians, given that this is their very intention. Are we saying the basic duty to attempt to distinguish btween combatants and non-combatants dosn't apply to any side in any conflict simply because the losses on their side haven't matched those of their enemy? Surely this is both morally and philosophically wrong?
Tom - I'd largely agree, and I think it goes even further than that. I think the response you record - "he instantly said 'how can you talk about democracy when Bush was elected on a minority of the electorate?'" - is the key. It's not just that people only discuss these things with people they agree with, they seem to agree it's all about us. It's a srange sort of inward-looking self-loathing where what goes on elsewhere in the world matters only in relation to the west. In fact one could be forgiven for thinking that for these people, oppression and suffering have no meaning unless they are attributable in some way to a capricious western statecraft.
Hi Shuggy,
Not directly to the main point, maybe, but check this out:
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com...as-
victory.html
Cheers.
Shuggie writes:
I'd take it you would agree with Steele when he says, "Murdering a Palestinian politician by a long-range attack that is bound also to kill innocent civilians is morally and legally no better than a suicide bomb on a bus"? For one, I'd take issue with this notion of "bound to" he uses…’
Yes - Indeed I would agree with Steele on this point and take issue with you. The ‘bound to’ he uses does legitimately reflect ‘the record’such as the well recorded dropping of a one-ton bomb on a highly populated area of Gaza in order to kill the Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh but which also wiped out 15 civilians: 9 children, including Shehadeh’s wife and child, and also injured about one hundred others.
One ton bomb? Highly populated area? -Yes I think ‘…bound also to kill innocent civilians’ is highly appropriate don’t you?
Shuggie writes:
‘If qualitative issues are of little account and it's the sheer body-count that is the only important factor, I'd like to know why the Israeli/Palestine conflict is given virtual saturation news coverage and other conflicts that have produced far higher death-tolls, such as in the Sudan…’
Well Shuggie, its not the sheer body-count that informs us, it’s the differential. For example you mention the Sudan. The body count of the different sides in this conflict does indeed give us a very real idea concerning just who is inflicting violence upon whom there - Have you any doubts about that?
Now perhaps you might do me the courtesy of considering that the body count from both sides in Israel and Palestine likewise informs us just who is inflicting violence upon whom there too?
Shuggie writes:
‘Are we saying the basic duty to attempt to distinguish btween combatants and non-combatants dosn't apply to any side in any conflict simply because the losses on their side haven't matched those of their enemy? Surely this is both morally and philosophically wrong?’
Sure, but if you think that Israel has some moral highgound over Hamas when it is prepared to operate as above, you are only kidding yourself.
I'm sorry to have to read such clotted shite on your blog as "pseudo-Marxists" Shuggy. It angries up my blood.
However, all groups in Palestine, or almost all of them, commit suicide bombings. That wouldn't be a distinctive feature of Hamas strategy, nor a distinctive appeal. What's more, your assumption that most Palestinians don't support the tactic is just straightforwardly wrong. In June 2002, the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre conducted a poll with Palestinians, and found that approximately 70% of them supported the tactic - 60% of those, strongly.
The bollocks about "qualitative distinctions" is so familiar as to induce a slight pain in the groin when I read it. Israel deliberately, specifically targets civilians. That has been established repeatedly and with empirical substance that anyone who isn't aware of it by now either doesn't follow the issue or is a purblind apologist. Of course I agree there isn't a moral equivalence, to use a particularly greasy neocon phrase, but that is because Israel is far, far worse, is the aggressor, the theif, the colonist.
A little respect for established facts would diminish your propensity to ignorantly dismiss "Livingstone, Galloway etc" as "apologists" whatever the fucking hell that is supposed to mean.
In fact, I'll tell you what I'll do - in punishment for your insubordination - I'm going to blog about this. And I am going to talk about you, you meliorist liberal apologist! You have only yourself to blame!!
In fact, I'll tell you what I'll do - in punishment for your insubordination - I'm going to blog about this.
Wow, scary yet exciting at the same time; I'm moist in anticipation. I'll look forward to reading what you've got to say and I'll get back to you in due course. Bit busy at the mo'. In the meantime, try and relax,
Bless
Relative moralism
http://images.ucomics.com/
comics...trall060130.gif
lenin no longer allowes comments from people who disagree with him on his blog, so I shall leave this post, in response to his blogpost, here:
Does Israel really target civilians? Or do Israeli soldiers constantly come under gunfire from people behind crowds of demonstrators? Hmmm, I'm perhaps thinking maybe that is rather the case. It would make you pretty jumpy, given how often it happens.
The polls people are referring to show that most Palestinians support a negotiated two state solution, in opposition to lenin and Hamas. This was very much a protest vote.
I like the way you finish with a whole set of assertions, and transfer your beliefs onto the Palestinians for why Hamas won. I can perfectly see why you're happy with this result; the crisis is likely to be more bloody and last significantly longer, therefore you will have a chance to use and play off this conflict for many years to come. I suspect Bin Laden is chuffed with it too. Not good long term news for the Palestinians though, however much they wanted to make this protest vote. Us two staters have enough compassion to recognise that.
"lenin no longer allowes comments from people who disagree with him on his blog"
Wow a lie in the very first sentence, great stuff.
Will C, yes, lenin now screens out people who disagree with him, so I'll stick mine up here too:
Most people are perfectly trained to understand that Muslims and Arabs are less rational than we are
If you go into a bad area even in the most advanced societies in the world, it's going to be a less rational place. Needless to say, the west bank, and particularly the Gaza strip, are currently chaotic shit holes with people living in very bad conditions; it would be rather cruel to pretend everything is hunky dory, lenin. What a strange view of humanity you have - anyone who treats dark poor people like white poor people is a racist. Most odd.
Wow a lie in the very first sentence, great stuff.
No, it's true I'm afraid. lenin still allows a few people who only half disagree with him on there, but all proper descent is banned. His comments are moderated now.
Descent is banned?
Wow that would mean no ancestors!
You don't deny it then sonic.
Sonic - Pictures so I can understand the point you're making; most considerate of you. Now, if you take the view that, say, the Dambusters were no different morally from Bin Liner, I would assume this is essentially something very close to a pacifist position. That's fair enough - it's by no means an absurd position to take. However, my point - which clearly I should have made in more detail, judging by the response this has brought - was that those who are so fastidious about civilian casualties lose this when it comes to the business of suicide-bombing in Israel. Surely this is hardly consistent?
When have you ever seen me cheer on suicide bombings Shugster?
If you are having to resort to sad world war two analogies and making sh*t up I worry for you mate.
Really Sonic - what is it that I've made up exactly? And I'm sorry you're tired of WWII analogies - I'll stop them if you answer the point I put using it, ok? And, erm, can't quite find the bit where I accuse you of cheering on suicide-bombings - could you point it out?
Oh and if you should speak to Lenin, do thank him for the link, won't you? No publicity is bad publicity - the extra traffic is welcome, even if it is for the wrong reason. I'd have to say the new (for me) experience of receiving hate-mail isn't entirely enjoyable, I could do without it - but it has been educational. You anti-zionists heroes of the proletariat enjoy the rest of your day, y'hear?
"those who are so fastidious about civilian casualties lose this when it comes to the business of suicide-bombing in Israel"
As for hatemail, where did I send that? or are we trying more guilt by association?
Anyway here is another dead for child for you to practice your patented moral relativism on, she was only 9 but then again she was "behaving in a suspicious manner"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
intern...1697745,00.html
Just like the dambusters eh Hugh.
As for hatemail, where did I send that? or are we trying more guilt by association?
Neither - like the notion I accused you of cheering on suicide-bombings, this is a product of your fevered imagination. You should work on the paranoia thing...
The moral relativism is all on your side. All civilian deaths are a tragedy and all deliberate deaths a war-crime. Could I ask you one last time why it is that for you the deliberate targetting of civilians is somehow less outrageous, less criminal, more understandable when these civilians happen to be Jews in Israel? If you aren't willing to answer this, don't bother responding at all.
Shuggy, you are dodging and weaving now. How can a soldier shooting dead a 9 year old be some sort of accident?
Sonic - you're really not getting this, so can I try and spell it out just one more time and maybe then you'll answer the question:
I haven't even read the case you linked, so why did you think I was expressing an opinion on it? Nevertheless, can we extablish as a matter of principle at least that if Israeli soldier shoots 9 year old girl - this is a Bad Thing. I really think so Sonic - surprising to you perhaps, but I do. Moreover, if Israeli soldier shoots 9 year old girl deliberately, it is not only a Bad Thing but indeed a Criminal Thing. My reasoning vis-a-vis the above is that it would represent not only a failure to distinguish combatants from non-combatants but a disregard of the very distinction itself. It is, in other words, a universal principle that no-one should be exempt from.
With me so far? But I can't follow either yours or lenin's reasoning at all because the basis on which you condemn the Israelis doesn't seem to have anything to do with this principle at all. For if you did, why would you not extend this principle to Hamas too? It not only disregards the principle, it explicitly rejects the principle, both in theory and practice, when it comes to the case of Jews in Israel. This tactic forms part of a wider purpose that seeks the annihilation of Israel. That this goal is couched in their charter with language and concepts that explicitly and with references draw from the poisoned wells of European anti-semitism is something so many of you seem rather too sanguine about for my taste. No, not sanguine - too much understatement: my suggestion that the election of a party that specialised in self-slaughter and the slaughter of Jewish schoolchildren as a sacred duty may not be an unalloyed good thing is greeted with a venom I have not experienced since I began blogging. Educational, as I said before. This is progressive to you? This fucking lunacy?
1) Where have I said Hamas was progressive?
2) Where have I been sanguine about Israeli civilian deaths?
Why the straw men?
Commenting by HaloScan
