More Middle East Fun

[ants]

I am interested in a point of clarity. If the Palestinians stopped firing the rockets - what would happen? Would Israel decide to talk peace? Would they stop the blockades? Stop building new settlements? Would they allow a second state?

It seems to me that about the only source of leverage the Palestinians have is the rockets, and that when Israel asks for a cease fire they're effectively saying - stop doing the only thing we really now days give a rats arse about, but we'll only stop one of the many many things you have an issue with in return.

From a pure logic point of view - why the hell would you stop the rockets if your the Palestinians without major concessions or hope of concessions from Israel?

[Yoadm]

I wont go into the foolish "sworn to destroy us" excuse

Ofcourse you won't. You don't have to live with an adversary commited to your destruction, rejecting any peaceful compromise that would leave part of your country intact. Neither did you have to live through it with the IRA as it had very limted goals, and most of its operations took place in areas the UK could control. Had the republic of northern Ireland been at war with the UK, its troops firing the missiles, and its only compromise the the destruction of the UK, I have a feeling that the UK would have responded rather differetely. I also have a feeling that you wouldn't have regarded the murderous ideology of your adversary as a 'foolish notion'.

[Isalie]

Because you don't want rockets landing on your children? What will sending more rockets accomplish for them?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ants,

Because gaining a slim advantage at the bargining table with human lives is a disgusting position to hold much less advocate.

[The Iceman of the North]

Ofcourse you won't. You don't have to live with an adversary commited to your destruction, rejecting any peaceful compromise that would leave part of your country intact.

That would be relevant if if Hamas were even remotely capable of even threatening the welfare, let alone the existence, of Israel, or if Israel had made any peaceful compromise with Hamas in the first place.

[A wilding]

... Neither did you have to live through it with the IRA as it had very limted goals, and most of its operations took place in areas the UK could control. Had the republic of northern Ireland been at war with the UK, its troops firing the missiles, and its only compromise the the destruction of the UK, ...

I am not sure that the stated aim of the IRA being less than that of Hamas was really that crucial.

The UK did not give the IRA they wanted. Instead moderate NI Catholics and Protestants reached out to each other (getting a Nobel prize in the process) and forced a momentum towards peace that pulled in less moderate people as well. The UK negotiated with the Irish Republic (the equivalent of Egypt/Jordan/Syria), which had become ready to compromise, and they arranged a deal in which the Irish Republic would have a certain amount of oversight over NI. Key IRA members were seduced by the prospect of positions of power in the NI government. The hardline terrorists found themselves outflanked and outmanoeuvred with their support cut from under them - though a minority of them are still active and committing atrocities.

The situation in the Middle East is obviously far more intransigent, but I would say there are things in the above that might hint at possible attempts at solutions.

[Fez]

What a fucking mess. And by that I mean both the situation on the ground and, to an infinitesimally smaller degree, this argument on the board and elsewhere in developed countries; which crops up fairly frequently. The problem, in my mind, is that this is a rare situation where, fundamentally, both sides are completely and utterly in the right in terms of the goals they want to accomplish and both sides are totally unwilling to compromise and willing to make any sacrifice, including killing innocents/letting them die.

You can't compare Israel to the UK during the troubles, or to any other country, there's never really been a country in its situation before. Israel is surrounded by hostile countries, and has fought a large numbers of wars of self-defense in the recent past (you can argue against the past few decades, but everything pre-1982 certainly qualifies, and that's well within living memory) against enemies seeking its complete destruction. Israel needs to project a imagine of strength or it will face another such war (or at least, makes the justified assumption that it needs too; its hard to get over something like the Holocaust); and so when a group is killing its people, its going to respond, hard. And because Israel's firepower is so much greater, the death tolls are going to be lopsided. But to suggest Israel shouldn't do what it does, is to hold Israel to a standard far greater than anyone else while they're already in a (political) situation worse than most others.

At the same time though, its not the Palestinians fault that the Holocaust happened; its not their fault that the British completely fucked up the Middle East for an extended period of time; it not their fault that the leaders of neighboring countries invaded Israel multiple times; its not their fault that they don't have a homeland. They are completely justified in wanting to have a country to call their own and in attacking what they perceive as an enemy aggressor. They live in deplorable conditions for the most part, with most of their arable land and water rights taken by Orthodox Jewish settlers (who are a serious problem), with no real hope for building a better life for themselves or their families. And to suggest that they shouldn't fight back is to suggest that they should, essentially, lie down and die.

Now of course both sides have done deplorable things, and have shoot themselves in the foot numerous times. But its not their fault really, they're all just playing out the strings of a conflict whose parameters were set in stone before most of the current participants were born (or were only very small children). Anyone suggesting that only one side stop is the one who is being unreasonable; even more so than the people killing each other. The way most of Europe (at least that's the press coverage in the US) kneejerk blames Israel for the situation reeks of a desire to get people to forget the role Europeans played in setting up the situation, sometimes shows political cowardice in not wanting anger all those oil-producing countries in the area, and in some cases is a clear sign of anti-semitism. The way most of the US kneejerk blames Palestinians for the situation reeks of a latent Imperalistic streak, sometimes has really gross religious undertones (fucking fundies), and in some cases is a clear sign of anti-Arabism.

If you want both sides to stop. Great. Its not going to happen, but it would be nice. If you want only one side, either side, to stop; it shows a complete inability to understand or the situation or that you're not a neutral party and actively want one side or the other to "win". Peace will only be achieved if either this becomes something the next generation (or some future generation) of Israelis and Palestinians get sick enough of that they work something out on their own; or if the International community comes down so hard and so fast that both sides are forced to compromise (massive sanctions on Israel, cutting off all aid, including humanitarian to the West Bank and Gaza, locking down all the borders, putting a no-fly zone in place- and what a mess that'd be-, etc.) before they are both destroyed.

Since the second option is not going to happen, I see nothing to do but wait until the first eventually does and that the rest of us should just stay out of their way until it one day happens. There will be deaths, but there's lots of deaths every day and you rarely see the International community even remotely care (see, a lot of Africa); its just one of those facts of life. People need to get over the fact that this one is in the "Holy Land" and that white people are involved and just let it play out.

[Yoadm]

I am not sure that the stated aim of the IRA being less than that of Hamas was really that crucial.

Ofcourse it is. It means that while the IRA had limited goals and could be negotiated with (which eventually happeed), Hamas's goals are the complete and total anihalation of the Israeli state.

The UK did not give the IRA they wanted. Instead moderate NI Catholics and Protestants reached out to each other (getting a Nobel prize in the process) and forced a momentum towards peace that pulled in less moderate people as well. The UK negotiated with the Irish Republic (the equivalent of Egypt/Jordan/Syria), which had become ready to compromise, and they arranged a deal in which the Irish Republic would have a certain amount of oversight over NI. Key IRA members were seduced by the prospect of positions of power in the NI government. The hardline terrorists found themselves outflanked and outmanoeuvred with their support cut from under them - though a minority of them are still active and committing atrocities.

Problem is that the hardliners actually rule, and are not one movement of many. They admit that any negotiation will, at the most, lead to a Hudna, which in Islamic history means a cease fire aimed at lulling the enemy.

That would be relevant if if Hamas were even remotely capable of even threatening the welfare, let alone the existence, of Israel, or if Israel had made any peaceful compromise with Hamas in the first place.

Neither does Al-Qaeda threaten the existance of the west, yet I see no statesman supporting negotiating with it. Their ideology is relevant as it negates the possbility of serious negotiation.

[A wilding]

Ofcourse it is. It means that while the IRA had limited goals and could be negotiated with (which eventually happeed), Hamas's goals are the complete and total anihalation of the Israeli state.

But the UK did not allow the IRA to have its goals, that is why I was saying that what they were was not entirely relevant. The IRA was bypassed, by people who were ready to compromise talking to each other.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

That was a beautifully articulated post.

[Yoadm]

But the UK did not allow the IRA to have its goals, that is why I was saying that what they were was not entirely relevant. The IRA was bypassed, by people who were ready to compromise talking to each other.

The IRA was bypassed because it was not the governing body of that territory. Hamas is the governing body, kind of harder to bypass. And naturally Israel is not allowing it to achieve its goals, but when this isn't one movement, but the ruling body sworn to your destruction, it is even more understandable that you do not negotiate with it until it renounces its goals.

[Noroldis]

2) I won't comment on this thread, but in my eyes, the international community has definitely gone into "Ignore" mode regarding the Syria situation.

The international community is on "Ignore" mode regarding Syria's crimes because China and Russia have consistently used their vetos on the UN Security Council to prevent an international response. The same way the international community is on "Ignore" mode regarding Israel's crimes because the United States have consistently used their veto on the UN Security Council to prevent an international response.

[Padraig]

The way most of Europe (at least that's the press coverage in the US) kneejerk blames Israel for the situation reeks of a desire to get people to forget the role Europeans played in setting up the situation, sometimes shows political cowardice in not wanting anger all those oil-producing countries in the area, and in some cases is a clear sign of anti-semitism.

As you suggest yourself, that is more a reflection of the press coverage in the US. The press coverage in Europe is more pro-Palestinian than in the US but that's not a kneejerk response to the situation. We'd say it is more naunced.

I certainly don't think Europe is trying to pretend it had no role in setting up that situation. What would you expect it to do? Actively remind people what happened 70 years ago everytime there is a death in Israel? Although ironically, your solution is that Europe does ignore the conflict.

The international community is on "Ignore" mode regarding Syria's crimes because China and Russia have consistently used their vetos on the UN Security Council to prevent an international response.

The international community is not ignoring Syria. It was one of the main storys in the international press until the latest Gaza thing exploded again. Not creating another Iraq is not the same as ignoring it.

And people should drop the IRA angle. Completely different. Most people don't know enough about it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Noroldis,

Who, in the international community, is providing cover for Hamas and their crimes?

[mormont]

Ofcourse it is. It means that while the IRA had limited goals and could be negotiated with (which eventually happeed), Hamas's goals are the complete and total anihalation of the Israeli state.

I really wish you would stop spouting this nonsense about the IRA having 'very limited goals'. You make it sound like they were looking for increased funding for Gaelic-medium education or something.

Irish reunification is not a 'very limited goal'. It was an is a pretty fundamental change to the makeup of two democratic countries, and an issue with a long, bloody history tied up with nationalism and atrocity on both sides. It may not be comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict but it was not small potatoes and you are weakening your own point by seeming to diminish its significance.

As for the claim that somehow it's fundamentally impossible that Hamas could ever be negotiated with, you offer no reason to believe that's true. Similar groups with similar aims have been brought to the negotiating table.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

Isn't it difficult to negotiate with a group who's bedrock position is for the other party to cease to exist?

[The Iceman of the North]

Neither does Al-Qaeda threaten the existance of the west, yet I see no statesman supporting negotiating with it. Their ideology is relevant as it negates the possbility of serious negotiation.

What is there to negotiate with Al-Qaeda about?

Isn't it difficult to negotiate with a group who's bedrock position is for the other party to cease to exist?

PLO also had as a stated goal the end of the State of Israel, still they managed to come up with some accord with Israel.

You have to distinguish with posturing and "bedrock positions".

[Yoadm]

I really wish you would stop spouting this nonsense about the IRA having 'very limited goals'. You make it sound like they were looking for increased funding for Gaelic-medium education or something.

Irish reunification is not a 'very limited goal'.

When you use brackets to quote me, do not misquote me. Limited goals, ie, territorially limited. As in, they basically demanded what amounts to 7% of the UK. Definately hard to stomach, but different than negotiating, say, with an Irish group that is sworn to the destruction of the whole of the UK. Negotiating with such a group would be tantamount to the UK currently negotiating with Al-Qaeda.

It was an is a pretty fundamental change to the makeup of two democratic countries, and an issue with a long, bloody history tied up with nationalism and atrocity on both sides. It may not be comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict but it was not small potatoes and you are weakening your own point by seeming to diminish its significance.

As for the claim that somehow it's fundamentally impossible that Hamas could ever be negotiated with, you offer no reason to believe that's true. Similar groups with similar aims have been brought to the negotiating table.

Oh, which group would that be? Fanatical groups were brought to the negotiating table after they accepted basic prequisits for negotiations. Israel does not refuse to 'ever' negotiate with Hamas. Its prequisits are renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist. Both, Hamas vehemently rejected.

quote name='The Iceman of the North' timestamp='1353336693' post='3828619']

What is there to negotiate with Al-Qaeda about?

A cease fire? But considering AQ's ideology, the mere notion is ludicrous.

q

PLO also had as a stated goal the end of the State of Israel, still they managed to come up with some accord with Israel.

You have to distinguish with posturing and "bedrock positions".

The PLO rejected and renounced that ideology prior to negotiations.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

And yet Hamas, who succeded the PLO in their control of the PA will not drop "death to Israel" from their positons, odd, isn't it? For that matter, given that Israel has more or less stated Hamas must go, there seems to be very little common ground for each party to attempt to find some "middle" position.

[Noroldis]

Ser Scot:

Who, in the international community, is providing cover for Hamas and their crimes?

What's your point? That a number of nations not classifying Hamas as a terrorist organization is justification for the US systematically preventing UN condemnation of Israel?