Raid Evidence of Disunity in Israeli Leadership?

[Michael Tee]

This is the argument in a blog called Stump that I just found.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2010/06/03/greater-israel-greater-schmisrael-the-zionist-entity-is-mad-as-a-bag-of-cats/

Basically, that the raid was so fucking nuts and undisciplined that it reflects a split between the old-line Likud leadership and the new Likud blood, recently-arrived refugees from post-Soviet Eastern Europe more interested in provoking bloodshed for domestic political reasons than in maintaining important foreign alliances such as the one with Turkey.  Netanyahu being out of the country at the time, it is still not clear just who authorized this fiasco, and nobody is rushing forward to take the "credit" for it either.

The writer compares this little disaster with the earlier in-your-face assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai, also an exercise in instant blood gratification on an even smaller scale for a very large diplomatic set-back on many different fronts.  Again, what kind of sloppy planning allowing so much televised detail, for what paltry benefit?

I strongly recommend the article.  And the blog.  A few spelling and other errors of a minor nature, but a very interesting take not only on the alleged revelations of disunity but also on many other facets of the current situation.

[Plane]

It’s also why Turkish anti-americanism – at least until the Iraq war – was so muted, especially in the country’s metropolitan West. Israel’s actions over the past 5 years have boxed him into a corner. This was an alliance so important that Israel was the only country in the world that officially took the position that there had been no Armenian genocide – even though that event spurred Hitler on to believe that a Holocaust would be achievable, with global acquiescence.

What?

[Michael Tee]

Apparently in discussing the Holocaust, some of the Nazis told Hitler that this would bring a shitload of disgrace down on their heads, that they'd be universally regarded as inhuman monsters forever, and Hitler's answer was something like, "Bah!  Who now remembers the Armenians?"  Meaning that the Armenian massacres raised a huge stink for a few years and then blew over, so the Germans could expect to exterminate the Jews without having to pay much of a price for it.

The Turks are very sensitive to charges of genocide and resent being labeled as the perpetrators of the world's first genocide.  When motions were presented to various parliaments around the world calling for condemnation of this particular genocide, the Israelis decided against acknowledging that the massacre of the Armenians was genocide, for fear of alienating their Turkish "ally."

[Plane]

Apparently in discussing the Holocaust, some of the Nazis told Hitler ... the Israelis decided against acknowledging that the massacre of the Armenians was genocide, for fear of alienating their Turkish "ally."

Man , that is weird.

[BT]

The US hasn't officially recognized it as genocide either

[Michael Tee]

The U.S. position was a concession to Turkey as a NATO member.  There were serious threats by Turkey to pull out of NATO if the U.S. Congress officially commemorated the massacre as a genocide.

[BT]

And?

[Michael Tee]

And?

And the sky started to fall and fire rained down from Heaven upon the United States.

And nothing.  Life went on as before. 

[BT]

So the US is allowed to pass on a symbolic resolution, but the Israeli's aren't?

[Michael Tee]

They're both in the wrong.  Genocide is genocide and has to be condemned universally.

But Israel is more in the wrong than the U.S.. because they of all people ought to know better.  They sure as hell insist that people refer to the massacre of the Jews as genocide.

[BT]

Diplomacy is not always smash mouth. Sometimes allowing a people to save face is important. Symbolic resolutions won't raise the dead.

[Michael Tee]

Not about raising the dead but about preventing future genocides.  Saving the living and those not yet born.  Nobody should "look the other way" on genocide.  It's a horrible crime.  A zero-tolerance crime.  The symbolism in condemning a friendly nation says that no connections, no influence can save you from condemnation.  Our condemnation is severe because we don't reserve it for selected offenders and give our friends a pass on it.  It's too horrible a crime to permit us to look the other way for anyone.

[BT]

Oh Please

They looked away during WWI and then WWII and Rwanda and now in Darfur. Whoever they are.

Who is kidding who?

Symbolism never saved a life, it just makes those who believe in token acts feel better about themselves.

[Michael Tee]

<<They looked away during WWI and then WWII and Rwanda and now in Darfur. Whoever they are.>>

"They" are us.  Unfortunately.

<<Who is kidding who?

<<Symbolism never saved a life, it just makes those who believe in token acts feel better about themselves. >>

Maybe it doesn't happen overnight.  It's the old "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."  Say there's a process, it's long and it's slow, but it starts somewhere.  Starts with definition, with naming the crime: genocide.  Starts with international conventions, a convention against genocide.  Starts with legislative condemnation.  Think of them as building blocks, foundation blocks.  You START with the symbolism.  I don't say you end there.

[BT]

Then you must be applauding the Turks use of symbolism when they admit bad things happened and they will do their best to not let it happen again.

Hell i feel much better typing that sentence.