Hope in the Middle-east?

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[axordil]

If the problem is viewed as something we created and can reverse or at least control, then there is a solution. If the problem is viewed as the evil, inferior nature of someone else whom we do not control, then keeping the mortar repaired on this very vulnerable fortress is the only solution.

My concern is that at this point too many demagogues on both sides, or perhaps all sides, would prefer an endless low-grade "war" that allowed their political faction to stay in power indefinitely via demonization of the enemy to a negotiated settlement that opened the door for less belligerent voices to assume power. There are any number of euphemisms, jingos, and Orwellian double-speaks (Farsi, Hebrew, English AND Arabic) for rationalizing this in terms not quite so starkly Machivellian, but that's what it comes down to. Some people would rather fight forever than admit any blame for anything.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Túrin Turambar]

There is some question whether Israel's destruction of whole villages violates the Geneva convention against Collective Reprisal ... and whether their use of torture in some instances violates the Geneva convention against torture ...

As far as I know, both are illegal in Israel. This does not mean that they don’t happen, only that they are not state policy.

Do you see that we have made terrorism inevitable?

Yes and no.

Yes, I see that terrorism is the only way that the west can be fought today.

However, I don’t believe that it ever needs to happen.

Comparatively speaking, Israel's situation is simple. Not easy but simple. She can do things right now, today, that will prevent terrorism from being inevitable. Those things will not prevent war and certainly not forever - there will always be wars and lovers of war and beneficiaries of war - but terrorism can be made ineffectual simply by giving the other guy as much to lose as you have. Move from "Imbalance" to "Mutual."

There will still be lunatic fringe, but once the Palestinian state is established, Hamas will have as much incentive to get rid of those guys as Israel now has because Israel will reprise against Palestine where something is being built that no one wants to lose. Who wants to be on the receiving end of that all the time?

As I have argued upthread, I don’t think that the primary barrier to peace is the Government of Israel. Israel can do things to aid the peace process, but peace will not happen while the Palestinian militants will not compromise. Israel can never be free of violence while there are Palestinian terrorists who are determined to do whatever it takes to destroy it.

In my opinion, it would be insane to suggest that Israel should make concessions to enemies who are hell-bent on destroying it. Hamas may try to look respectable, but in the schools that they run children are still being taught to hate Israel. For example, there was a publicized example of an end-of-year play in a kindergarten where the children pretended to be suicide bombers. There was a writing task in high school which asked the students to talk about why people in the west hate Jews (for example, the fact that they caused disasters like WWI, WWII, The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the USA…). Against an enemy like this, I do not see an alternative to war.

In 1949, the Ben-Gurion Government made the Jewish militant organizations illegal. When Israel pulled out of the Palestinian territories, it was willing to demolish settlements that had been built there. Israel has not done a perfect job of controlling its extremists, but it has made a solid effort. I think that it should not have occupied the Palestinian territories in the first place, but it has pulled out now to within its own borders. What was the response from across the fence? Renewed terrorism. The first and foremost concession that must be made in this peace process, IMHO, is the renouncing of terrorism and support of terrorism by Palestine and the Middle East in general and the recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Egypt cannot be praised enough for taking this step. Saudi Arabia is starting to make an effort. Now we need to see Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Iran do the same. When that is done, then I will turn to Israel to do things that Jyn calls for in her post.

The trouble is, whenever Israel has come to the negotiating table, the result has been violence. Ehud Barak made an offer to Arafat in 2000 – Arafat rejected it and made no counter-offer. Instead, he flew home and a new round of terrorism commenced. I cannot blame Israel for being suspicious of making peace overtures if the response is violence. I’m not saying that Israel made a great offer in 2000 – only I can’t see why Arafat couldn’t have put his own demands on the table. Nor do I necessarily approve of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount afterwards. But the dispute is not whether a Palestinian state should exist – the Jews accepted the 1937 and 1947 partition plans and were willing to see one created in 2000 – but whether an Israeli state should exist.

The militants do not necessarily even care about a Palestinian state. As Voronwë pointed out, the Palestinian authorities seemed quite happy to work on building up Gaza. What did the terrorists do? Use it as a base to attack Israel. They do not care if Gaza and the West Bank get torn up in the process. It benefits their cause, in fact. A Palestinian state will not guarantee a stop to terrorism. It may, in fact, increase it.

It is also worth noting that Israel cannot reward terrorism. It cannot give into demands backed up by suicide bombers – the terrorist strategy cannot be allowed to win. Israel must reward concessions, not violence (as, I would argue, must the Palestinians).

To summarise, we will have peace in the Middle East when the Palestinian militants agree to recognise Israel’s right to exist and to stop terrorism, and not before.

[axordil]

The question then becomes, what can induce a militant to stop being militant?
It can't happen in a vacuum.

It's not the Palestinian militants but their Syrian and Iranian principals, for whom they are but proxies, that have to change for there to be a shift. The Palestinian/Israeli situation is the main thing propping up the governments there (although we've obliged them with new ones ).

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[vison]

I've said before that if I must "take sides" I am on Israel's side. For me, a non-Jew, and a non-Christian, it is not personal in any sense. I have no spiritual or emotional bond to Israel, nor to "the Holy Land". I just see Israel as a civilized country with civilized values (civilized meaning values that I share and respect). I see Israel as Hope. Think of what Israeli farmers have achieved! Think of what Israelis could teach!

At some point, the various states in the region must accept the reality of Israel's existence. And then they must turn their energies to . . . . I can't find the word for what they must do next: but the end must be to make anti-Israel terrorism unacceptable.

We could go back to Cain and Abel if we wish, seeking always to find the oldest grievance, the oldest crime or injustice. There is almost no end to that. The clock cannot be turned back, acts cannot be unacted, words cannot be unspoken. The time comes, inevitably, when we must accept the past and pick ourselves up and carry on, put the focus on the future instead of sitting about picking at scabs.

Edited to add: fascinating post, Jnyusa. Words are very important, since they are our main means of communicating. The very corruption of words speaks more plainly than anyone can guess when they use them to cloud our minds. People catch on. We're not stupid.

And while our more remote ancestors didn't have WMD, they had the means to accomplish much of what WMD can accomplish, and occasionally did so. The Romans sowed the Carthaginian fields with salt, effectively destroying a civilization.

[Frelga]

I will declare my bias straight off - I now have a cousin and his family in the bomb shelter in Haifa. Which does not stop me from feeling sorrow for the Lebanese women and children now fleeing the bombs. But this will not be fixed by looking sad and shocked.

What I would like people to consider is why is Israel so unique in the level of restraint of self-defense that is demanded of her. What other country would be expected to put up with its neighbor shooting rockets into its territory for years, nay decades, and be condemned for retaliating? If Mexico was shooting rockets into California, what would happen (or France into Germany for Hobbi)?

Here's an interesting background article from BBC: Who are Hezbollah?

Jn, I was puzzled by your posts. Would it be correct interpretation to say that you do not believe that political and spiritual leaders of the Arab world are serious in their calls for destruction of the state of Israel and murder of its citizens? Or that you believe that the majority of the population of those countries rejects that agenda?

It is a rational response of a rational Western person to think that if we only understood what the other person wants, everything could be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As my mind is now stuck in Pratchett groove, I'll call it Twoflower Syndrome. Unfortunately, what "they" want is us dead. It's hard to compromise from that position.

[axordil]

Frelga--
In this case, I think part of the restraint is based on memory: Israel really, really doesn't want to put troops back on the ground in Lebanon. And part of it is more of a call for thinking about aftereffects, which Israel, having something to lose, is in a position to do.

For people with nothing to lose, aftereffects mean nothing.

That all said, restraint is contextual anyway. Going back to the Mexican rocket attack idea: there's a huge continuum of options between starting a leaflet campaign and nuking Mexico City. Israel has pretty much that whole continuum available to it right now. To some extent, therefore, anything short of dropping the Big One on Damascus is restraint.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Would it be correct interpretation to say that you do not believe that political and spiritual leaders of the Arab world are serious in their calls for destruction of the state of Israel and murder of its citizens? Or that you believe that the majority of the population of those countries rejects that agenda?

Frelga, I do believe that the majority of the population of Arab countries would be content with living in peace with Israel. While I am completely sympathetic to Israel's need to defend herself from the militant, criminal actions of Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other terrorist groups, I also believe that her actions over the years have provided the best possible recruiting tools for these very groups. Somehow, the cycle of violence is going to have be broken. I do not believe that the need to defend herself justifies the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the oppression of refugees, or the disregarding of international law. I do not believe that the way to defeat the terrorists is to be brought down to their level.

[truehobbit]

Just a quick reply to Frelga, as I still haven't properly digested all the posts here:

If Mexico was shooting rockets into California, what would happen (or France into Germany for Hobbi)?

The analogy is incorrect, Frelga.
We are not talking about France shooting rockets into Germany, but about the "Action Directe" (ok, that's probably silly, but it's the only French terror-organisation I could find) shooting rockets into Germany.
I can't imagine Germany attacking France in response would be considered legal in international law.


As to "taking sides", that's a foolish thing to do in most conflicts (not all, of course, but you'd have to understand the origins and the parties involved, I think), but in this one more than in most (as it's easily the most convoluted one I've yet heard of).
I can understand feeling for one's family, if one has family down there - if one feels attacks are in any way against oneself or one's family I guess you can't blame people for taking sides. But if that is not the case, taking sides is just throwing reason overboard and joining the fray.
(And even for the people involved there's going to be no other way out of the circle of violence but to let go of revenge even if it's their families that are under attack. And that's of course the hardest thing of all.)


So, yes, what Voronwë said, 100%.

[Frelga]

Frelga, I do believe that the majority of the population of Arab countries would be content with living in peace with Israel.

Maybe. It is also true that the majority of population in Arab countries have no problem with the idea of destroying the state of Israel and killing the Jews (and Christians) who live their. If their governments chose to make peace with Israel, I am sure that the population would not rebel. But they are also not rebelling against the current policies. They may not be saying yes to evil, but they are not saying no, either.

In Israel, there were protest rallies against the current military campaign. I am not aware of anything like this happening in the Arab countries, ever.

Somehow, the cycle of violence is going to have be broken. I do not believe that the need to defend herself justifies the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the oppression of refugees, or the disregarding of international law.

Well, yes, I agree, somehow. How?

Which groups, leaders and factions with real power in the Arab world do you have in mind that could work with Israel or other members of international community to accomplish peaceful coexistence on this date, on this planet?

Certainly, there are some grass roots organizations that work for peace. One such group consists of Jewish and Arab mothers whose children were killed during what the world pleases to call "a conflict." Another tries to bring together Palestinian and Israeli teenagers. The official names elude me for a moment, but both groups consist of some incredibly noble and courageous people from both sides. Unfortunately, they are helpless to put any pressure on the terrorist groups like Hammas and Hezbollah.

We are not talking about France shooting rockets into Germany, but about the "Action Directe" (ok, that's probably silly, but it's the only French terror-organisation I could find) shooting rockets into Germany. I can't imagine Germany attacking France in response would be considered legal in international law.

That may have been a better analogy last year. Today, however, the group directing the attacks from Gaza, Hamas, represents democratically elected government of Palestinian people. At this point, their actions constitute an act of war by a government, just as they would if Action Directe got the majority in French Parliament (or whatever the French governing body is called).

Hezbollah, according to the BBC article I linked to above, "has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament" again making it an official force rather than just a group of outlaws.

And by the way, Hobbi, while I know you too well to take offense at the words "foolish" and "mindless," it still might be best to refrain from using them in a discussion that is already fraught with emotion.

[Túrin Turambar]

Frelga, I do believe that the majority of the population of Arab countries would be content with living in peace with Israel. While I am completely sympathetic to Israel's need to defend herself from the militant, criminal actions of Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other terrorist groups, I also believe that her actions over the years have provided the best possible recruiting tools for these very groups. Somehow, the cycle of violence is going to have be broken. I do not believe that the need to defend herself justifies the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the oppression of refugees, or the disregarding of international law. I do not believe that the way to defeat the terrorists is to be brought down to their level.

I’m not sure about both these claims.

I have read that support for terrorism is as high as 87% in Palestine. Figures this high are generally given by pro-Israeli sources, but I do not doubt that there is significant support in the Arab world for the destruction of Israel. Even in Egypt, which is at peace with Israel, Yom Kippur Day is still a national holiday – it was the day that Egyptian troops crossed the Suez Canal in 1973. Also, Palestine’s two political parties are terrorist organizations (Al-Fatah is affiliated with the Al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade). The question that Palestinian voters ask is not whether they want a terrorist group leading them but which one they prefer. It’s somewhat understandable given what passes for education in those parts.

Also, while I think there’s plenty of legitimate criticism for Israel, I do not see how it has ever been as bad as the terrorists. On purely factual terms, it has arguably conducted itself as well as we did in our wars against Nazi Germany and Japan. ‘Indiscriminate killing of civilians’ is quite rare – most of the people that Israel kills are legitimate targets. After all, it does often bomb areas that it is going to strike at with leaflets – there isn’t too much more that it can do. Given that it is fighting an enemy hidden in civilian areas, this is quite a remarkable achievement. Compare our conduct of the Vietnam War with Israel’s conduct of the Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War. They should quite possibly be the ones lecturing us. I tend to agree that the refugees have not been well treated, and I do not think that Israel should have maintained an occupation of the West Bank. Still, in terms of what it is facing these things are fairly minor. They don’t justify them, but they make demanding solutions from Israel seem a little odd.

The analogy is incorrect, Frelga.
We are not talking about France shooting rockets into Germany, but about the "Action Directe" (ok, that's probably silly, but it's the only French terror-organisation I could find) shooting rockets into Germany.
I can't imagine Germany attacking France in response would be considered legal in international law.

In addition to the fact that Hezbollah is legal and powerful in Lebanon, it is almost a de facto state in the south of the country. It was a condition of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon that the Lebanese army secure the border. This has not happened – Hezbollah camped out there. It basically controls the southern part of the country. As Lebanon cannot (or will not) gain some control over Hezbollah, Israel has to. I don’t see why it has to bomb Beirut or take out civilian infrastructure, but I do see why it is justified in attacking.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Frelga]

Jn, I was puzzled by your posts. Would it be correct interpretation to say that you do not believe that political and spiritual leaders of the Arab world are serious in their calls for destruction of the state of Israel and murder of its citizens? Or that you believe that the majority of the population of those countries rejects that agenda?

If you ... believe that people hate because they are hateful people, then the simple answer to your question is, "I don't agree that Arabs are hateful people." But there the conversation would end, because we disagree about the fundamental nature of the problem and would not find anything to discuss beyond that point.

Jn, I agree that our opinions are so far apart that there doesn't seem to be much room for discussion. However, I think it would be fair if you re-read my questions in the quote above and tried to answer them with facts.

I didn't ask whether or why Arabs hate Israel. That, to me, is immaterial. I asked about your impression of the government policies of the Arab toward Israel countries and the amount of support that policy has in their own country.

As for the facts on which I based my statements, Lord Morningstar has done a thorough job of presenting them and there is no need to repeat what he already said.

[Túrin Turambar]

I am willing to be persuaded that Israel is the cause of violence in the Middle East, but that’s the thing – I have to be persuaded. Most of what I’ve read about the conflict has convinced me that Israel has (in general) not been the aggressor, in fighting a number of aggressors has held itself to high standards, and is not the party that those who would like to see peace in the region should start making demands of. If I am to buy that the reverse of one or more of those statements is true, then I need evidence.

I cannot see why our positions here should be so far apart that discussion is impossible.

[Faramond]

That Superbowl was so crummy it has been blasted from my memory. I think the Aflac duck won.

Well, which side am I on? The Israeli side or the Palestinian side? I think the important follow-up question is which Israelis? Which Palestinians?

I think there are a sizeable number of Palestinians who will build a civilized country if given the chance. I am on their side, and I want them given a chance. I am on the side of Israelis who wish to act in their own self-interest, rather than from a sence of vengeance or even justice.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the way to defeat terrorists is for them to be allowed to "win". Yet that is what it will take to stop their flow into the world. Do not misunderstand ... I think terrorists are guilty to the core, and should never be directly bargained with. I think they should be killed ( if they can't be captured ) in the absence of any other consequences. I think one of Jn's points is that a Palestinian State can be far more effective in rooting out Palestinian terrorists than Israel can. And the bottom line is that Israel is standing in the way of a truly effective Palestinian State right now. A truly effective Palestinian state will have something to lose, something to protect, one with an interest in stamping out terrorists. That's what I agree with from Jn's posts.

I can't say I blame Israel for standing in the way of a Palestinian State. It surely must seem like suicide to withdraw any pressure or force from this terrorist factory. I think it even feels like justice to subjugate these people who want to drive Jews into the sea, who seem to never let up. But justice is not a good compass for the future. Part of the broad terrorist goal of a Palestinian State must be allowed to win. It's the other part of the terrorist goal, that of destroying Israel, that Israel fights against with everything it has. The best way to fight it in the long term is to remove the hopelessness that fuels hatred of Israel. Right now, fighting Israel is the same as fighting for a true free Palestinian home. Separate these two things and not many people will be so interested in fighting Israel. It's just human nature.

I don't blame Israel for the plight of the Palestinians, I really don't. I don't consider Israel the cause of violence in the Middle East. But Israel is the country that can really do something about it, and it's in their own self-interest to do something.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Which groups, leaders and factions with real power in the Arab world do you have in mind that could work with Israel or other members of international community to accomplish peaceful coexistence on this date, on this planet?

Right now, I don't believe that there is a viable negotiating partner. But I am convinced that if, after Arafat's death and Abbas' election to the Presidency of the Palestinian authority, that if the government of Israel had been serious about working with him to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the Road Map as its framework rather then insisting on imposing its unilateral plan for pulling out of Gaza and eventually part of the West Bank (while building that awful barrier), then Hamas never would have come to power and we would have been a long ways towards accomplishing peaceful coexistence.

I am willing to be persuaded that Israel is the cause of violence in the Middle East

I don't believe that Israel is the cause of violence in the Middle East, but I believe that her policies have helped perpetuate the violence and that she had missed several golden opportunities to moved towards peaceful coexistence.

I have more to say about this, but no more time. I'll try to come back tomorrow.

[Túrin Turambar]

think one of Jn's points is that a Palestinian State can be far more effective in rooting out Palestinian terrorists than Israel can.

It can be, but it won’t necessarily be. If it is run by a Government that believes in destroying Israel (as it would if it was created now) then it would simply be state supporter of terrorism. I think that there should be a Palestinian state, but a Palestinian state itself will probably not make a major contribution to the peace process.

Part of the broad terrorist goal of a Palestinian State must be allowed to win. It's the other part of the terrorist goal, that of destroying Israel, that Israel fights against with everything it has.

The terrorists are willing to accept a Palestinian state – one that encompasses all of Israel and the Palestinian territories. They know that if they cede to less, then they’ll simply lend legitimacy to Israel. They have had chances to make offers – they have made none.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]