But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
– Deuteronomy 20:13-16
God has mellowed with age and, perhaps, the chiding of the later prophets. Israel has not smited all the male Palestinians, nor have they killed everything that breathes in the Gaza Strip. And I suppose that represents progress of a kind.
:::flip:::
Israel is certainly powerful enough to solve their terrorism problem by resorting to Biblical forms of warfare. Richard Cohen worries that:
Unfortunately, Cohen sees this as a problem. He attributes it to “smug ignorance” or bad planning. I see the withdrawal from Gaza as a capitulation to terrorism, too. We can only control Arab areas by resorting to Fallujas and Jenins. And razing towns to the ground is not consistent with the values of Americans or Israelis. We have a choice between occupying lands that do not belong to us and paying the price in terrorism, or removing ourselves from those lands and seeing a cessation of violence.
Yes, we need a steady, predictable source of oil and gas. No, we don’t want Saudi Arabia to fall to a bunch of anti-American Sunni fundamentalists. But the present situation in the Middle East is a result of our cynical anti-communist at any cost policies. The present situation is a result of 25 years of blindly pro-settler policy. Sharon’s retreat from Gaza is a small step in the right direction. It’s painful to make concessions to terrorists. Making concessions to terrorists can encourage more terrorism. But sometimes you just have to stop banging your head against a wall and realize you have to reform your ways.
Did we fight for the freedom of Poland and Czechoslovakia only to see the whole Muslim world fall under an even darker cloak of totalitarianism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt? Let’s face it: we sacrificed our values in the Muslim world on the altar of petrochemicals. We didn’t do it without good reason. The mission was largely successful, even critical to winning the Cold War. But we have a lot of atoning to do. Invading Mesopotamia based on a pack of lies was hardly a good first step towards setting things right.
Contrary to Pentagon doctrine, we do not need air and naval bases throughout the middle east and central Asia. What we need is friendly and mutually beneficial business relations, and a stable supply of energy. It’s time to rethink our relationships with the Saudis, the Iranians, and Egyptians. It’s time to rethink our forward basing doctrine. And above all, it is time to get serious about alternative energy.
There is no longer any stomach for manifest destiny in the American population. Vietnam weakened our instinct for missionary work, and Iraq has finally killed it. Let us leave Iraq, as Sharon has left Gaza.
Maybe then we can beat our swords into ploughshares. Maybe then we can regain the credibility to fight for human rights and representative government.
nobody farms anymore – it is all big corporate structures with immigrant labor. So nobody can understand about beating swords into plowshares. Maybe Nukes into nuclear energy? (Although neither one has progressed far enough to be worthwhile touching in either state!) Maybe that is why we have humvees now as SUVs? Whatever. The war we now fight is not convertible to peaceful use and that may be the largest problem of all.
.
Sorry BooMan, the terrorist Sharon is pulling back out of Gaza, occupied territory since 1967. Interesting to read the statements from General Moshe Dajan after the war of 1967 and Israeli occupation!
Sharon has George Be Quiet sitting on his lap from the outset of his election in February 2001. Sharon was given the freedom to suppress the Palestinian uprising, continue military rule in occupied territories, inflict the Jenin massacre with impunity, criminal bombing of appartment building in Gaza city with a one ton bomb dropped from a F16 to assassinate a wanted terrorist, and establish harsh rule in Rafah on the Gaza border with Egypt.
Deal made with George is to pull out of Gaza, in return the Israelis will remain in East Jerusalem and bleed the local Palestinians to move out. The large settlements near Jerusalem on the West Bank will be enlarged and incorporated in Israel.
It was Bibi who launched an hate attack and incitement to violence in 1994 which led to the assassination of Israeli PM Rabin, partner in peace with Clinton and Arafat. The chickenhawk is not worthy to be mentioned in same breath with his brother.
Future US Foreign Policy ◊ An Insight From Men of Power
G. Gordon Liddy Interviews Bibi Netanyahu [WMP]
22 October 2001 — The G Man in Israel — MUST LISTEN TO THIS INTERVIEW!
~~~
Israel is leaving Gaza for many reasons. Demographics are a big part of it. A quid pro quo with the Bush administration is part of it. But terrorism is what is making Israel leave now.
Terrorism as a tactic has been working against Israel and it is working against America in Iraq.
Terrorism worked against us both in Lebanon too.
Unless you want to raze the cities, kill the men, and enslave the women, you cannot occupy these lands.
I’m not sure if terrorism is anymore of a reason for the pullout than projected population growth.. but I’ll think about it. I think you are doing a good job of trying to be very objective here..
that Israel can do the math on population growth.
But if the Palestinians were living peacefully alongside the Israelis the Israelis wouldn’t be too worried about population growth.
People want to live in security, and they know they have to make concessions to have security. Their armies can defeat any regional enemy in a few hours. But they can’t keep their buses safe.
Part of this pullout is to take pressure off doing something more about the West Bank settlements. But that solution is temporary, just as the pullout from Lebanon was a temporary solution, and the pullout from Sinai was a temporary solution.
Eventually, Israel is going to have to give almost all of the land back from 1967. And terrorism is the reason why.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about terrorism being a factor.
However, I think when Israel does the math it creates a paradox.. Israel wants to hold on to a form of democracy but also wants to be a Jewish state. And there is also a demand for Israel to maintain settlements in the West Bank.. and maintain access to water.
So, when Israel takes a step back and realizes:
And only:
I think Israel realizes that with 19.9% of its population being Arab within Israel proper and a fast growing population that Israel has to look down the road and think about how they are going to deal with this situation, i.e. how can Israel a) please the most amount of its settlers and hold on to as many settlements as possible, and b) maintain a democracy and granted Arab-Israelis a vote while maintaining a Jewish state. By giving up Gaza, Israel, and by Israel I mean the decision makers, thinks this shows a spirit of compromise and entitles Israel to maintain the settlements in the West Bank (and power in future negotiations).
The push for the two state solution is Israel doing the math. It is saying we need to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel and want the settlements in the West Bank, so we need to hurry and create a Palestinian state so that the Palestinians can populate there. The pullout in Gaza is the realization that the aspiration of having settlers there is unattainable in the long run. (see my post down thread from the Denfense Minister).
Sorry to be argumentative, I know you are busy! But perhaps you are right in that terrorism is the catalyst.
are quite conservative, just wanted to use a non-controversial source: the CIA factbook. Oh, the irony.
Maybe I should have said, not worth it in a cost/benefit sort of analysis instead of unattainable. Ok, done blogging for now!
I am just puzzled by the media coverage of the Gaza pullout. The language and content involved truly puzzles me. Just look at The Boston Globe today. There picture is not of Palestinian children who have lived under occupation their whole lives, but of settlers who have been evicted from land, holding hands because of Israel’s “unilateral” step in pulling out of Gaza. Well, if I steal ten dollars from my neighbor and give it back almost 40 years later I don’t think this is a something to grant nobel-peace prize-esque praise. Granted I’d be glad to get the money back and say it’s a step in the right direction. Not to mention the settlements are illegal in terms of international law and many think the occupation in general is, those who say it is legal insist on the word “the” in resolution 242 and then have a whole rational for why that since the word “the” doesn’t accompany territories it allows Israel to stay within the territories for as long as it likes (until its security is assured).
Even the other day in the Globe there was an article about how a Gaza surfer had to change his lifestyle. Well, sure, that is unfortuate, but it doesn’t compare with the day to day hardships of the people in Gaza. The media again humanizes the Israeli side and then shows the pictures of Palestinians raising their guns on the next page (Only on the BBC do they show extremist Israelis waving guns at weddings).
With all that said, I’m still glad Sharon is pulling out.
Thank you! For saying what I keep thinking…how come there is so much sympathy for the Israelis, when they did the same thing to the Palestinians all those years ago? And, they’re planning to bulldoze all the hommes so the Palestinians get a nice pile of rubble returned to them, from what I’ve read.
I’m glad they’re leaving too, but am worried about exactly what the deal is between Bush and Sharon that brought this about.
And the thing is: I have tremendous sympathy for the Israelis. Worrying about their lives each day is truly maddening and unfortunate. I just think the status quo in media coverage is really too bad.
Bulldozing.. don’t get me started, lol.
The deal.. I’m not sure. I found this quote interesting:
From a Eurotrib post of mine a while ago:
I don’t think Israel is making concessions to terrorists so much as to the reality that Jews are a minority in “Greater Israel.” The NYT had a sober assessment of “what went wrong,” why Greater Israel never happened: simply put, Jews didn’t expand their internal numbers fast enough and enough Jews didn’t come to Israel. And I don’t think it was just the threat of war and terrorism that was keeping them away.
Yes, alternative energy research has been an afterthought with this administration. Yet curiously, Bush’s ranch utilizes alternative energy sources.
.
Cannot agree with your use of the neocon term “terrorist” in both the occupied territories of Gaza/West Bank and Iraq. Both territories were invaded, for the US and Iraq one can consider it a foreign power with no legality to invade and occupy.
In the Netherlands during the German occupation 1940-1945, the Dutch groups resisting the occupation were dubbed resistance fighters, the same in France. Dutch citizens collaborating with the German forces, were killed when lives were at stake.
In Vietnam, Africa and South America, the West fought against communist rule and expansion, both sides using subversive methods of terror. See the US/CIA death squads in Central America. The communists used the querilla tactics of Mao Tse-tung in Vietnam and a mix of Castro/Che Guevara tactics in Africa and the Americas. Yes all of the parties involved in these civil wars used terror as means to attain their political goals.
The Christmas bombing of Hanoi ordered by Nixon/Kissinger in 1972 was an act of terror, perhaps a war crime. The devastation of the city of Fallujah was also a war crime.
In Iraq, the resistance movement uses guerilla tactics to maximize damage and counterattack the foreign occupying forces. Sometimes, blind terror acts are implemented, used on both sides! All guerillas and resistance fighters have the advantage of protecting their homeland, need no for motivation, and have the support from a share of the Iraqi people.
You cannot name all fighters simply “terrorists”, that’s the rhetoric used by neocons, Blair, Chalabi, Likud and George Bush. Illegal invaders and occupyers of a sovereign nation, bringing death and destruction, are just as much “terrorists”. From history we learn that war and occupation leads to total destruction of a society, often leading to civil strife or war in its aftermath, lasting for decades.
To oppose the illegal invasion of Bush | Cheney, best not call the insurgents terrorists, rather refer to them as resistance or freedom fighters, or you will always lose the political battle at home! A group bringing blind terror in Iraq, can be labeled as terrorists.
~~~