http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106162847943928.html
I have a couple of comments. First of all, I am not interested in debating who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. LeVine supports the Palestinians and I support Israel's right to exist in peace and to defend herself. As far as America's alliance with Israel over the years, the reasons may have been complicated from one period to the next, but to me, it has been the moral thing to do. I guess the main reason I have been sympathetic to Israel all of my adult life (which began in the 1960s) is that I remember so many Palestinian/Arab terror attacks over the decades, from the skyjackings, to the airport attacks (i.e. Rome and Vienna), the 1972 Munich Olympics, Entebbe, the kidnappings, the hostages, the Achille Lauro etc. In many of these incidents, Americans and other nationalities died. I remember the 1967 and 1973 wars, in which Israel was fighting for her very survival. Then more recently came the suicide bombings and the rockets lobbed into Israel.
I have never tried to argue that the Palestinians did not have legitimate grievances or that Israel was perfect. I simply believe, as stated above, that Israel has a right to exist and defend herself. So on that we can agree to disagree.
I would, however, like to take issue with one point that LeVine makes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The martyrs of the ships are heroes, they are warriors every bit as deserving of our tears and support as the soldiers of American wars past and present.
They are, in fact, the soldiers of the future - the only ones who can help us get out of the disastrous slide to moral turpitude that we, as much as Israel, have descended as a country.
Let us hope that the deaths of the Gaza flotilla activists will not be as in vain as those of the 5,000 American soldiers who have died in our own illegal and useless wars in the last decade."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, professor, but you are out of line here.
I do not consider the 9 Turks that were killed on the Mavi Marmara to be heroes or martyrs. More importantly, to compare those thugs with American soldiers who have given their lives in wars past and present (some of which you call illegal)is insulting. I don't know if you have ever served in the military (I have), but I suspect if you had, you might have more reverence for our fallen than to compare them to the 9 "martyrs".
11 comments:
Wow. I agree with Gary. Mark LeVine should have changed the last part of his article. It comes off very insulting.
- wejomerv
Very well put, Gary. Prof. LeVine is merely the product of a flawed educational system which often allows people to receive doctoral degrees based less on their ability to think critically and logically than on their demonstration of the proper politically correct (i.e., liberal) attitude and beliefs. His blind, Helen Thomas-like adoration of those (Hamas, Hisballah, Iran, etc.) who have used the Palestinian situation for their own violent political ends is, IMHO, symptomatic of one who, in a fit of self-loathing disgust, adopts any cause that is against America or American interests without looking at the entire issue. (I think this is because they know that's the only way anyone will ever notice them and their self-certified brilliance...but I digress.) Historically, Israel's right to that territory pre-dates the establishment of Islam by many centuries. Indeed, Islam came to be in control of the land now known as Israel only through force of arms. One might say that the situation in the Middle East is only history trying to repeat itself. The question for us is: Will we let it?
"Last week, the Israel Defence Force had to issue a retraction over an audio clip it had claimed was a conversation between Israeli naval officials and people on the Mavi Marmara, in which an activist told soldiers to "go back to Auschwitz". The clip was carried by Israeli and international press, but today the army released a "clarification/correction", explaining that it had edited the footage and that it was not clear who had made the comment.
The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida "mercenaries" aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson's website with the headline: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries", was later changed to "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers," with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-youtube-gaza-flotilla
Papa Bill,
Thanks for your comment.
(Papa Bill is one of my former DEA partners, with whom I worked in LA.)
Anonymous,
See my initial post about the transmissions. I mentioed the comments by the IDF that the tapes had been edited to cut out long pauses or periods of silence. As to who said them, it could have been anybody on board. Is it a huge deal that the speakers have not been identified?
As to whether they were mercenaries, terrorists or just toughies, I don't know (One passenger, a Dutch-Palestinian named Rashed is identified as a Hamas figure in Holland.)
At any rate, those were not heroes or matryrs that were killed, and I do not weep for them.
LeVine is indulging in a rather common form of political polemic, trying to wrap whoever he has allied himself with in as many analogies as possible to whoever and whatever undecided members of his audience may hold dear.
In this case, he failed. No doubt he got a rise out of the choir, but anyone uncertain which way to swing would likely have been turned off by this, for more or less the reasons Gary outlines.
One can sympathize with the idea of breaking the blockade and bringing necessary food and medical supplies to Gaza. One can also suspect that Hamas uses such sympathies quite cynically. Its not exactly a pacifist organization, nor does it preach the international brotherhood of the working classes of the world.
Some of America's wars have been at the least exercises of poor judgement, some perhaps illegal. It doesn't change our duties to those individual citizens who fought in our name and served with honor, however dubious the mission.
Siarlys,
Thanks for your support, but as far as breaking that blockade is concerned, I think it needs to be pointed out that Israel does allows tons of food and supplies across into Gaza daily. There are certain things that are not allowed that could be used for aggressive purposes. As far as the sea is concerned why should Israel allow any and all ships carrying whatever and whomever it pleases to land at Gaza, which is governed by an entity (Hamas) that is at war with Israel and dedicated to its destruction (read the Hamas charter).
Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Were we wrong to take action to stop the Soviets from delivering missiles to Cuba? Of course not.
For another thing, I'm not buying this stuff about Gazans starving.
I'm not sure there is any reliable evidence as to whether Gazans are starving or not. The presence of fine restaurants (if verified) does not show that the mass of the population is eating well. I don't particularly believe that Hamas leadership has even the level of concern for the well-being of the masses that Marxists, at their best, intended to improve. Martyrs don't care, any more than James Watt cared about environmental preservation, when he expected Jesus back no later than 1988.
I actually have somewhat more sympathy with Cuba in the case of the missile crisis. The U.S. had already sponsored one armed invasion of the island, which failed because at that time, people genuinely responded to defend their new government against the invaders. The placement of nuclear warheads had a defensive purpose -- making the U.S. think twice about another conventional armed invasion.
On the whole, I think withdrawal of the missiles, in exchange for agreement to cease military invasion, was a beneficial way to resolve the matter.
Do I have the same sympathy for Hamas? No. Cuba was not, contrary to popular paranoia in some circles, sponsoring armed invasion of the United States, although Stokley Carmichael was allowed to keep a book called "Listen Yankee" while locked up in Alabama, because the local police thought it was a tirade against northern agitators.
Mr Jenkins, Thanks for articulating what I was feeling in your first post.
You asked, I'm not sure there is any reliable evidence as to whether Gazans are starving or not.
http://tinyurl.com/23vafbs
The Washington Post ran this the other day:
Gazans readily admit they are not going hungry. But that, they say, is the wrong benchmark for assessing their quality of life. While Gaza has long been poor, the economy has completely crumbled over the past three years.
Anonymous,
Of course their economy has crumbled. They have a terrorist govt that is more interested in conquering Israel than building a stable society.
On the other hand, The Economist reports that the tunnel system has actually allowed Hamas to entrench its grip on Gaza, systematically taxing this commerce -- so perhaps Israel should take their crutch away, by opening the borders to commerce.
Post a Comment