Middle East on fire - Part XVII

[Glassfan]

Nope, I don't think paranoia is a good guideline for any sane foreign policy.

And I would agree, except in the case where paranoia is justified. Then it's prudence.

And?

Apart from a bit of character assasination of the Palestinians, what's your point? That Israel hasn't got a problem because their leaders ain't the quality of Michael Collins/Mahatma Ghandi/whomever? So?

I was just amazed at what a fine example you provided. The Irish accepted their deal, however imperfect, and now they have their own country. The Palestinians didn't and so don't.

Furthermore, Arafat had repeated opportunities for peace, but inevitably sabotaged them. That he never grew from freedom fighter to diplomat is one reason. Another is that entities in the Middle East and beyond didn't want him too. There are probably more reasons.

 

[Verbose]

I was just amazed at what a fine example you provided. The Irish accepted their deal, however imperfect, and now they have their own country. The Palestinians didn't and so don't.

Furthermore, Arafat had repeated opportunities for peace, but inevitably sabotaged them. That he never grew from freedom fighter to diplomat is one reason. Another is that entities in the Middle East and beyond didn't want him too. There are probably more reasons.

And Israel is no British Empire, neither in power and general callousness, and consequently the Palestinian basic assumption is that they will win the waiting-game, in one way or another.

Israel needs to make the offer again. But it's pointless if they keep screwing the Fatah and the spirit of a two-state solution.

The Hamas are aware.

 

[Agent327]

Excellent observation.

I see this sentence too much.

I'm sure that if rockets were launched at the Netherlands form a nearby region, the Dutch army would at least bomb that region.
And this is a reasonable reaction.

It's not about fighting an extreme danger,
It's about fighting those who try to kill people of your state.
And Israel will continue to harm those terrorists. This is how it is supposed to be.

I see this kind of one-sided approach too much. With the US firmly backing Israel, it has nothing to fear from the hopelessly underdogged (in every way imaginable) Palestinians, radical or otherwise. Not acknowledging this, is indeed one-sided.

And I would agree, except in the case where paranoia is justified. Then it's prudence.

Paranoia being a pathological confition, I fail to see any point here.

I was just amazed at what a fine example you provided. The Irish accepted their deal, however imperfect, and now they have their own country. The Palestinians didn't and so don't.

Furthermore, Arafat had repeated opportunities for peace, but inevitably sabotaged them. That he never grew from freedom fighter to diplomat is one reason. Another is that entities in the Middle East and beyond didn't want him too. There are probably more reasons.

I spot a conspiracy theory; I suppose that's in line with paranoia being equated to prudence.

At any rate, as long as Israel insists it is merely fighting terrorists, it shall not have peace. It will, on the contrary, create future terrorists to fight. Poltically or otherwise, that is far from prudent.

 

[innonimatu]

At any rate, as long as Israel insists it is merely fighting terrorists, it shall not have peace. It will, on the contrary, create future terrorists to fight. Poltically or otherwise, that is far from prudent.

Have you considered that it may be not only prudent but even necessary for the careers of some people in Israel who have risen thanks to this long conflict? Long, continued conflicts tend to produce institutions for which the conflict is its sole raison d'être. The major obstacle to peace are those who, on either side, live for the conflict.

On the palestinian side Arafat and Fatah tried to move from fighters to government, but Hamas (which hasn't and probably can't recast itself as a government of a stable state) had already been created and was pressuring it for "street creed". Israel keep defaulting on its commitments to advance a two-state solution and the palestinian side started breaking apart.
On Israel's side the prime-minister who did try to advance that two-state solution got murdered, and a lot of people in the security services seemed only too happy for that... mishap.

Internal politics are very screwed on either side. Both men who signed the peace deal ended up murdered...

 

[Agent327]

True. I was talking of prudence, not of political ambition. I realize full well that political ambitions are at play; it might explain why PM Netanyahu agreed to the operation in the first place (and even why he agreed to the truce). And ofcourse political ambitions are at play on the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians and Israelis are just one part of a larger situation. However, since the operation was focused on Gaza, it seems most practical to focus on the whats and whys there, whithout unnecessary complicating things by including, say, the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, Iran, Syria, the US and what not - all of whom have their own ambitions, obviously.

So when speaking of prudence, I'm referring to what's prudent for the Israeli and Palestinian citizens, not so much their respective political leaders.

 

[Absolution]

I see this kind of one-sided approach too much. With the US firmly backing Israel, it has nothing to fear from the hopelessly underdogged (in every way imaginable) Palestinians, radical or otherwise. Not acknowledging this, is indeed one-sided.

You still miss the point.
No matter what, a state cannot allow terrorists to launch rockets at it, and of course not on a daily basis.

 

[Cutlass]

Of course absolute safety is impossible to achieve.
My point was rather that taking strong actions to ensure a better level of safety is not only reasonable but something that all countries do, without having to face the risk of obliteration to act (and of course Israel is in the rather rare position that obliteration is a possibility, however remote).

Westerners complaining about Israel's reactions should indeed ask themselves how their own countries would react in response to a terrorist attack with rockets against their civilians.

How would the US react? My guess is that the number of dead arabs due to the response would be far, far (far!) higher.

The problem being that Israel is in a unique position. And that position is that there is no level of violence they can respond with that will increase their security. As others have pointed out, this isn't really the Israeli people against the Palestinian people, but rather leaders on both sides and leaders throughout the Mideast who simply have no interest in peace short of total victory.

I increasingly see no solution at all that still has Israel on the map.

But as much as outside agitators keep the Palestinians stirred up, Israel is ultimately its own worst enemy. Because Israeli leaders refuse to have peace as well.

 

[Agent327]

You still miss the point.
No matter what, a state cannot allow terrorists to launch rockets at it, and of course not on a daily basis.

There's now a truce in force. No rockets are being launched, and Israel is showing that it is perfectly capably of a prudent stance. Meanwhile 160 Palestinians and 5 Israeli citizens have died. So who is missing a point here, I'm wondering...

 

[Absolution]

There's now a truce in force. No rockets are being launched, and Israel is showing that it is perfectly capably of a prudent stance. Meanwhile 160 Palestinians and 5 Israeli citizens have died. So who is missing a point here, I'm wondering...

So what are you trying to say?

There is a truce, and it is good for now.
But we had to fight for it.

 

[Agent327]

Not really: israeli and Gazan leaders had to be convinced that a truce might be a good thing. You are confusing cause and effect. If there hadn't been any fighting going on, there wouldn't have been any need for a truce.

 

[Absolution]

Not really: israeli and Gazan leaders had to be convinced that a truce might be a good thing. You are confusing cause and effect. If there hadn't been any fighting going on, there wouldn't have been any need for a truce.

But there wasn't any truce before.
It was raining rockets in the south.
So what is your point?

That was the reason for this operation.
And you can see that the launching stopped.
So I say that so far the operation has proved itself.

 

[Agent327]

There wasn't any truce before, because of the stance that "Hamas et al are terrorists and we don't negotiate with terrorists" (not true: when push comes to shove negotiations will take place, but without direct contact).

Again: it has been mentioned that this rocket problem had been going on for some time now. And "all of a sudden" (sources indicate that it had been planned awhile ago back already actually) PM Netanyahu gives to go ahead for a military operation, some time before elections are due, giving him tremendous support in Israel (slighly less so when he agreed to a truce).

If a truce were the actual goal (as opposed to domestic political considerations - of which I'm sure you are aware if you are an Israeli), wouldn't negotiation have achieved this at a much earlier point? The fact that rockets were being launched, was actually the result of the previous operation 4 years ago, which was followed by the rearmanent of Gaza radicals Israel abhors.

So, the point is: both operations may have caused damage (though mostly to civilians), the net effect is nil, as it doesn't affect the cause of the violence.

If people don't see this, there will just be an unendless cycle of violence-truce-negotiation-break of truce etc with no hope for any lasting peace. (Which is how it appears to any outsider.) And ofcourse, there are those who will gain politically on both sides if there indeed will not be a lasting peace.

 

[Verbose]

So what are you trying to say?

There is a truce, and it is good for now.
But we had to fight for it.

Problem is also that Israel is now conducting negotiations with the Hamas — only indirectly through intermediaries of course, but still.

As far as can be told, no such thing for Fatah and the Palestinians playing, relatively, nice for the moment.

Given the observation above, how long will it stay like that? Or, less dramatically, how much has the above situation at least extended the lease of life of the Hamas?