More Middle East Fun

[The Iceman of the North]

Scot, you're aware that PLO is still in control of PA (even if they have lost control of the Gaza strip)?

[Hereward]

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?

Perhaps Hamas consider that the PLO dropping large parts of their negotiating position as a prerequisite for talks, which then went nowhere, was not a particularly sensible negotiating stance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What does Israel get for recognition that they may exist? Which, frankly, seems like a reasonable prerequisit for any negotiation that isn't pure blackmail.

[Hereward]

Peace?

[Yoadm]

Perhaps Hamas consider that the PLO dropping large parts of their negotiating position as a prerequisite for talks, which then went nowhere, was not a particularly sensible negotiating stance.

Or maybe they were always against it, and in the mid 90's enacted a series of bloody terror bombings in order to, in their words, derail the peace process, and get the Israeli hawks into power as to prevent a two state solution.

They are against it because its their ideology, not because they feel Israel would not negotiate. They hope it won't, and every time negotiations with the PLO seemed to be going somewhere they upped the attacks.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

While that sentement is lovely I imagine there are a few other issues to be ironed out before "peace" breaks out between Hamas and Israel. Hamas saying, "Israel will continue to exist when these talks are finished" seems like a reasonable starting point to me.

[mormont]

When you use brackets to quote me, do not misquote me.

OK, I won't.

And I haven't.

The quote is exactly accurate and if you meant something other than what you said, you should have been clearer.

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.

I can see those goalposts moving again...

I agree that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison and of limited use in considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but let's be clear - what the IRA wanted was the whole of Ireland reunited. It makes no sense to talk about them seeking all of the UK destroyed. That does not mean that they didn't consider the whole of the UK and all of its state institutions to be legitimate targets, nor that they didn't do their utmost to destroy or cripple them. They didn't formally seek the destruction of the UK state, but if they could have made it happen, they would have.

Let's recall that the move towards negotiation began under a Conservative government. A Conservative party conference had been bombed by the IRA only a decade previously. Five dead, 31 injured. There was heavy criticism of the very idea that the IRA could or should be negotiated with. It took significant political courage for anyone to do it. It was not at all obvious that the peace process would ever bear fruit and it could have ended very badly indeed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Oh, which group would that be?

How many do you want me to list?

Fanatical groups were brought to the negotiating table after they accepted basic prequisits for negotiations.

Well, apparently none, since you admit that it is actually possible.

Israel does not refuse to 'ever' negotiate with Hamas.

You could have fooled me.

Its prequisits are renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist. Both, Hamas vehemently rejected.

I don't think you understand what negotiation is.

[Hereward]

Hereward,

While that sentement is lovely I imagine there are a few other issues to be ironed out before "peace" breaks out between Hamas and Israel.

You don't say.

Hamas saying, "Israel will continue to exist when these talks are finished" seems like a reasonable starting point to me.

I bet it does. How about Israel commits itself to the right of return, or a withdrawal to the 1967 borders before the talks begin, that seems a reasonable starting point to me, too.*

*Or would do if I was being willfully blind and expecting them to give up key outcomes in advance.

[Shryke]

You asked how many missiles the UK dropped on NI, comparing totally different things. The comparison would be apt if the UK did not directly controll NI yet fired on by it nontheless. Britain did not fire missiles on NI because it already occupied it, and could use oots on the ground.

Did they not conduct infantry raids or arrests? Did they not have boots on the ground in NI?

Stop trying to shift goalposts and weasel out of your statements. You said that the missile thing mattered because if the UK hadn't been in NI, they would have bombed/shelled them from a distance.

With no proof for this contention.

And alot of proof against it cause, again, attacks during the troubles were coming from sources in Non-UK territories too.

You are continually trying to justify this shit based on "Well, anyone else would have done it". Despite the fact that, no, they didn't do it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

Which is why, for both sides, there is very little incentive to talk. If neither side will give on important issues both are to blame for the continued game of "how accurate are our missile barages".

[Yoadm]

OK, I won't.

And I haven't.

The quote is exactly accurate

Did I say the IRA had "very limited goals"? If I did, then I apologize, but did you insert "very" into the quote?

I agree that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison and of limited use in considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but let's be clear - what the IRA wanted was the whole of Ireland reunited. It makes no sense to talk about them seeking all of the UK destroyed.

Which is why I replied to people who brought up ireland that this is not an apt comparison.

How many do you want me to list?

Let's go with one organization with an ideology similar to Hamas.

You could have fooled me.

Oh, you are too intelligent for my schemes. You can fnd hundreds of articles where Israel 'refuses to negotiate with Hamas', since Hamas refuses to renounce its policies. Past Israeli government have layed the prequisits for negotiating with Hamas, mentiond above.

I don't think you understand what negotiation is.

Or maybe you don't. The mere fact that sides negotiate does not mean that everyting is up for negotiation. Continued terrorist attacks and swearing to Israel's destruction are policies that Israel demanded by changed prior to negotiation. The PLO also has prequisits. That does not mean it is not open to negotiation.

[Shryke]

Hereward,

Which is why, for both sides, there is very little incentive to talk. If neither side will give on important issues both are to blame for the continued game of "how accurate are our missile barages".

Hereward's point is that you give during negotiations, not before them. That's what negotiating is.Setting pre-requisites for negotiating is literally negotiating. It's just starting negotiations with a hardline stance and never budging.

[Yoadm]

Stop trying to shift goalposts and weasel out of your statements. You said that the missile thing mattered because if the UK hadn't been in NI, they would have bombed/shelled them from a distance.

Did I weasel out of it, or did I repeatedly say it? When you have boots on the ground you do not need to attack from the air. When the UK had no boots on the ground, say, in Serbia, then it bombed the crap out of the country (high level, imprecise bombings, to be precise), and that's when Serbia wasn't even attacking the UK.

You are continually trying to justify this shit based on "Well, anyone else would have done it". Despite the fact that, no, they didn't do it.

Didn't do what, or when? People brought up the NI comparson when it is incomparable. The government has a different ideology, the terror organiztiondoes not control the government, and the UK had boots on the ground. Those same people argued against Israel's actions by showing that the UK acted differentely in a completely different situation. Hence, my response. I will say this, the UKs military actions in countries that did not remotely threaten it (relative to Hamas to Israel), were just as harsh if not harsher than Israel's. Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, the aerial assaults arguaby had a higher civilian/militant ratio, especially when considering that it had the privelage of fighing in far less dense areas, with a lower risk to civilians.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Samalandar, Yoadm, your minimization of the civilian casualties in Gaza -- which are far far far greater than Israeli casualties (both civilian and soldier combined -- are fucking disgusting. Samalander posted that it's more Hamas' responsibility for civilian deaths, not the people dropping the bombs on them. I'm beginning to think that the "Hamas deliberetly puts its rocket launchers in civilian areas to demonize Israel when they get attacked" is a disgusting myth. Why? One of the motives for Hamas to keep electing is their loss of support in Palestine but, after the recent onslaught in Gaza started, their popularity has particularly gone up. People who actively hold their civilians hostage by endangering them aren't likely to gain much popularity. This is all moot anyway as you're using it as a way to justify Israel's slaughter of them. Furthermore, you're extending this logic to attacks on things like media stations, which also killed civilians, including children, how do you possibly begin to justify that?

Just read the damn live tweets I posted please -- as Israeli/western media tends not to cover the Palestinian side of the conflict accurately. I'm also posting this extremely graphic picture of children casualties :

https://fbcdn-sphoto...833880445_n.jpg

If you like I could also post the picture I saw of the burned baby. Additionally someone was targeted on a motorcycle who just died and while they haven't verified who he was, according to Mohammed Omar, tiny fingers indicate he was young.

Ser_Scott, I find it interesting that you ask a lot of questions about why Israel should tolerate rocket attacks that seek to kill civilians but you fail to apply those questions to the other side, which faces many many many more casualties.This seems uncharacteristically unobjective for you as a poster.

[mormont]

Did I say the IRA had "very limited goals"? If I did, then I apologize, but did you insert "very" into the quote?

I quoted a line where you said 'limited goals', which was preceded a few posts earlier by you saying 'very limited goals'. In neither did the word 'territorial' appear, and the context of both remarks lacks any suggestion that you were referring to geographical limitations.

But thank you for the apology. I suggest we do drop the comparison, as we agree it isn't particularly helpful. Except, perhaps, to note that many writers feel the reason the 'peace process' approach hasn't worked in this case is Israeli intransigence over preconditions - an obstacle that was overcome in the case of the Unionists in Northern Ireland.

Let's go with one organization with an ideology similar to Hamas.

There's the rub. You refuse to consider any organisation comparable unless its goals are identical to those of Hamas, ie the complete elimination of a nation-state. Since the Israeli situation is pretty unique, due to the unique nature of the Israeli state, that has the effect (coincidental I'm sure) of allowing you to dismiss the relevance of other comparisons, which is where we came in.

However, as others have pointed out, the PLO has been brought to the table before. Moreover, if we broaden the analogy to a point that is actually workable, say by including violent secessionist groups that sought to break up a nation-state or eliminate a rival ethnic group, the list is long. We can include the Sudanese Liberation Movement, FARC, some of the Balkans groups, etc. Not all of these were successful in producing peace, but each featured a pattern of separating the moderates from the radicals by dropping or ameliorating preconditions for negotiation and thereby making negotiated settlement a viable option.

[Yoadm]

I quoted a line where you said 'limited goals', which was preceded a few posts earlier by you saying 'very limited goals'. In neither did the word 'territorial' appear, and the context of both remarks lacks any suggestion that you were referring to geographical limitations.

But thank you for the apology. I suggest we do drop the comparison, as we agree it isn't particularly helpful. Except, perhaps, to note that many writers feel the reason the 'peace process' approach hasn't worked in this case is Israeli intransigence over preconditions - an obstacle that was overcome in the case of the Unionists in Northern Ireland.

Then If I said so, I apologize, although I seem to lack permission to access your link. Although I see that you keep bringing up the NI comparison. In NI, the IRA was bypassed, was it not? Here, we are speaking about direct negotiations with Hamas, the governing, elected body.

There's the rub. You refuse to consider any organisation comparable unless its goals are identical to those of Hamas, ie the complete elimination of a nation-state. Since the Israeli situation is pretty unique, due to the unique nature of the Israeli state, that has the effect (coincidental I'm sure) of allowing you to dismiss the relevance of other comparisons, which is where we came in.

However, as others have pointed out, the PLO has been brought to the table before. Moreover, if we broaden the analogy to a point that is actually workable, say by including violent secessionist groups that sought to break up a nation-state or eliminate a rival ethnic group, the list is long. We can include the Sudanese Liberation Movement, FARC, some of the Balkans groups, etc. Not all of these were successful in producing peace, but each featured a pattern of separating the moderates from the radicals by dropping or ameliorating preconditions for negotiation and thereby making negotiated settlement a viable option.

That's the rub, it is a unique situation. Nations did not negotiate with groups sworn to their destruction. Hamas's ideology and rejection of any peace agreement with Israel, in itself, negates the final status of peaceful negotiations, which is peace. Thus, the precondition of dropping the destruction of the other negotiating partner, is not only legitemate, but rather expected. To be precise, Israel does negotiate with Hamas, but indirectly, regarding cease fires and goods movement.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AFJ,

I do have a reflexive desire to defend Israel. It's instinctive and I'm not sure where it comes from. However, I acknowledge that once the fur starts flying both sides bear responsiblity for the deaths they cause. What I wish both sides would do is sit down and talk as though there were some place to go.

Shryke,

Has Hamas ever indicated a willingness to recognize Israel's right to exist or have they said they'd tolerate 1967 borders but will never recognize Israel?

[Arthmail]

Well, putting aside the history of the conflict, Israel can rattle its sabre all it wants about how it needs to protect its citizens and blah, blah, blah. I agree, they do have that right. But they simply need to recognize that they are going to be there for a long time, and all of this hyper agressive posturing and attacks is not doing their own cause any favors. Droping white phophorus on civilian population centres, as they did in 2008-2009, and their continued dominance in the region will only go to exacerbate the problems.

Part of the problem is that Benjamin Netanyahu is something of a hard liner, as evidenced by his 2009 "peace" speech, which was little more than a series of statements rather than open negotiations. I mean, they've been gearing up for something, anything, under his leadership the last little while. They rattled the sabre repeatidly about Iran, now they are all over Palestein, and i heard briefly something about shooting off rounds in Syria. I mean, how many fronts are they looking to engage in, and to what end? If they want continued existence, they need to get rid of dinosaurs like Netanyahu and focus on individuals that understand the peace process. Individuals that understand that there are elements within Israel and the ME that do not want to see peace, but if it is to be attained they must be dealt with in ways other than this.

I watched CNN last night and they had on some major or something from the IDF, along with the Palestinian ambassador (i think). The IDF major looked so fucking smug, comparing the attacks to 9/11 or whatever false equivalency worked for him, and the ambassador looked just worn out. Do not get me wrong, there are elements like Hamas that have no desire to see peace, but as long as Israel remains in the middel east this bullshit is only going to continue to see more innocent deaths. (And please, lets not hear this endless justification that Hamas plants their guys around civilians. Even if the civilians in the area support them in doing so, which i have not always seen to be the case, there is never any justification for killing civilians. None. And i mean, what the fuck are Hamas really going to do? Use the only cover they have, which are populated areas, or go out in the desert and get stomped into dust?)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Arthmail,

(And please, lets not hear this endless justification that Hamas plants their guys around civilians. Even if the civilians in the area support them in doing so, which i have not always seen to be the case, there is never any justification for killing civilians. None. And i mean, what the fuck are Hamas really going to do? Use the only cover they have, which are populated areas, or go out in the desert and get stomped into dust?)

So, it's cool to plant a kaytusha battery next to a block of resiential housing because they can't protect the battery, that they aren't aiming at military targets in the first place, any other way? that's a mighty long leash you're giving to Hamas.

[generic]

Has Hamas ever indicated a willingness to recognize Israel's right to exist or have they said they'd tolerate 1967 borders but will never recognize Israel?

How does that even matter? If they negotiate a settlement along the 1967 borders and then pretend they have been talking to their imaginary friends all the time what changes?