Absolution
King
His point is that safety is much more important than convenience.
Middle East on fire - Part XVII
- Thread starter anandus
- Start date
His point is that safety is much more important than convenience.
Realism? There has indeed never been any peace. Truces never last. Negotiations have been futile. You're absolutely correct in your predictions, yet you don't recognize it.
Verbose
Deity
Well, it's quite likely inherently futile to try to negotiate with someone like Netanyahu...
I would be inclined to agree, but he did agree to the truce.
That wasn't my assertion, and it also doesn't follow, no.
Safety? Why then the invasion and bombardments? Point negated then.
"There has never been any peace"? Seriously? There never will be any lasting peace if not both side show the political will to keep it.
That wasn't my assertion, and it also doesn't follow, no.
Safety? Why then the invasion and bombardments? Point negated then.
"There has never been any peace"? Seriously? There never will be any lasting peace if not both side show the political will to keep it.
Well there's your problem. You think there are two sides. But there are in fact, multiple 'sides' in the Middle East and peace is held hostage to the least stable or most hateful.
I mentioned Arafat above, because his later behavior was so bizarre. Just when his life-time goal of Palestinian Statehood was within reach, he repeatedly sabotaged it with his "Intifadas", his rocket attacks against Israel, and his intercepted weapons shipments. Either he was mentally ill - or he was being manipulated by his patrons in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo (and I've heard speculated, even Moscow) who desired that he continue provoking the Jews (and by proxy, the United States). The Palestinians have been used as Pawns by their fellow Muslims for decades. That's their true tragedy.
The conflict in the Middle East is infinitely more complex then most people imagine.
Verbose
Deity
The "complexity" of Arafat's position wasn't that incongrous to those who took the trouble to look into the situation on the Palestinian side back then. It was an arociously badly timed offer by the Israelis. There had been no preparation of way too many people on the Palestinian side for such a deal. And here came Israel, somehow expecting the entire Palestinian society to turn on a dime with no prior groundwork, at the say-so of Arafat. Which cleary badly overestimated Arafat's powers.Well there's your problem. You think there are two sides. But there are in fact, multiple 'sides' in the Middle East and peace is held hostage to the least stable or most hateful.
I mentioned Arafat above, because his later behavior was so bizarre. Just when his life-time goal of Palestinian Statehood was within reach, he repeatedly sabotaged it with his "Intifadas", his rocket attacks against Israel, and his intercepted weapons shipments. Either he was mentally ill - or he was being manipulated by his patrons in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo (and I've heard speculated, even Moscow) who desired that he continue provoking the Jews (and by proxy, the United States). The Palestinians have been used as Pawns by their fellow Muslims for decades. That's their true tragedy.
The conflict in the Middle East is infinitely more complex then most people imagine.
If one wants a comparison with anoyther example of nationalist politics in the 20th c., compare it to Ireland. Arafat could have taken the deal, and become the Michael Collins of the Arab world. Well, considering how Collins ended, clearly he wasn't interested in that kind of risk-taking.
What is however stunning is how apparently oblivious the Israely side was to what the internal political situation over by the Palestinians. The offer being turned down apparently completely gutted the entire Israeli peace movement, which seems to have unreflectingly assumed that if Israel just made an offer, the Palestinians must take it. And then they didn't.... And already back then the knowledgeable newspaper reporters were perfectly able to identify the flaw in the timing of the Israeli offer... (I know I got my heads-up over this from Nathan Schachar and the late Cordelia Edvardsson in my Swedish newspapers at the time.)
I'd agree that was a bit naive from the Israelis that if they suddenly made a proposal it might not be immediately accepted. The positions had become increasingly hardened on both sides by then. Hardly surprsining then, I should think. But in the end the West Bank got it's Palestinian Authority and still is firmly under Israeli control.
Which makes the Israeli stance towards Gaza all the more incomprehensible.
Interesting... nuance intermixed with paranoia. Nope, I don't think paranoia is a good guideline for any sane foreign policy.
"provoking the Jews"? Seriously?
Interesting analysis there... Anyway, the reason multiple sides have become involved (including the superpowers) is that the two sides have rather consistently been so implacable towards another. But once Israel and Palestinians actually agree on issues, that will have little effect: on the West Bank what matters is what Israel and the Palestinians do, not what all those 'other sides' might wish would happen. And since Israel is firmly backed by the US when push comes to shove (a very consistent foreign policy on their part).* they have little to worry about any terrorist threat to the state of Israel, and they can comfortably afford any disproportiate response to any such threat.
*The only time the US didn't back Israel was during the Suez adventure of '56. But they didn't back their other 2 allies involved either, allowing the matter to be resolved in a more peaceful manner - without tha aim of overthrowing Nasser being achieved. Israel then knew how the cards lay, and has been firmly relying on US support ever since.
Which makes the Israeli stance towards Gaza all the more incomprehensible.
Well there's your problem. You think there are two sides. But there are in fact, multiple 'sides' in the Middle East and peace is held hostage to the least stable or most hateful.
I mentioned Arafat above, because his later behavior was so bizarre. Just when his life-time goal of Palestinian Statehood was within reach, he repeatedly sabotaged it with his "Intifadas", his rocket attacks against Israel, and his intercepted weapons shipments. Either he was mentally ill - or he was being manipulated by his patrons in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo (and I've heard speculated, even Moscow) who desired that he continue provoking the Jews (and by proxy, the United States). The Palestinians have been used as Pawns by their fellow Muslims for decades. That's their true tragedy.
The conflict in the Middle East is infinitely more complex then most people imagine.
Interesting... nuance intermixed with paranoia. Nope, I don't think paranoia is a good guideline for any sane foreign policy.
"provoking the Jews"? Seriously?
Interesting analysis there... Anyway, the reason multiple sides have become involved (including the superpowers) is that the two sides have rather consistently been so implacable towards another. But once Israel and Palestinians actually agree on issues, that will have little effect: on the West Bank what matters is what Israel and the Palestinians do, not what all those 'other sides' might wish would happen. And since Israel is firmly backed by the US when push comes to shove (a very consistent foreign policy on their part).* they have little to worry about any terrorist threat to the state of Israel, and they can comfortably afford any disproportiate response to any such threat.
*The only time the US didn't back Israel was during the Suez adventure of '56. But they didn't back their other 2 allies involved either, allowing the matter to be resolved in a more peaceful manner - without tha aim of overthrowing Nasser being achieved. Israel then knew how the cards lay, and has been firmly relying on US support ever since.
Absolution
King
The goal of the invasions and the bombardments is to decrease the amount of rockets launched at the areas around Gaza strip.
Isn't it safety reasons?
Verbose
Deity
It's all palliative. No effort is made to try to resolve the underlying problem. Obviously because it's on the one side unclear what would be safe remedies, and on the other side pretty damn clear that other possible remedies are likely to be excruciatingly difficult, painful and/or outright dangerous...
Still, the expectation from outside the conflict tends to circle back to the observation that this state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely.
I don't entirely disagree with your observation. By "complexity", I mean that there's a lot more to things than the casual observer would normally take into account - not one single narrative. I don't wish to discount the poor relations between the Jews and the Palestinians - or the mistakes of their leaders. I'm just pointing out that there are more than just the two factions in this conflict, and to some of these peace is not a high priority. Some want the destruction of Israel as a state, even the elimination of the Jewish people, and to them the suffering of the Palestinians is of little consequence.
The "Two Sides" would have had enough difficulty resolving their issues without the vindictiveness, hatred and interference of such characters as the Grand Mufti of Jeruselem (below), the ayatollahs in Tehran (from 1979), and numerous others.
Safety applies to both sides. Israel isn't in any danger of being obliterated by these terrorists, so the objective would be control rather than safety. Safety is better now that there is a truce than when the operation was on, not because the operation was a succes, but becasue it was ended. Indeed it's the previous invasion that has led Hamas to increase their armaments, resulting in the preceived threat by Israel. In one week these increased armaments have resulted in 5 Israeli deaths. A grave threat indeed.
And:
this notion that safety concerns require the threat of obliteration to be valid is beyond bizarre. Does this mean that Western countries have no valid safety concerns whatsoever during the Olympics? Did the US not have any valid safety concerns after 9/11?
5 deaths as a result of terrorist activity is indeed a very grave issue. Any western country would freak out if a terrorist group launched rockets against its civilians killing 5 people.
A very large quantity of rockets was launched. It's a tribute to Israel's defensive technologies and to Iran's crappy engineering that few reached the target. Which seems to almost be a disapointment for some people...
Actually, once you strip out the falsely absolute standard you're pinning to what he's saying, kinda yeah.
wolfigor
Emperor
I agree with you on this (and the rest of your post too).
Israel did not have much more time for their offer, the Israeli government was staking its reputation on this deal.
With elections looming the government had to get a success or fall (as they fell replaced by a much more hawkish prime minister).
On the Palestinian side, Arafat may have seen the pragmatic value of accepting the deal, but no groundwork was done to influence the Palestinian public opinion.
Internally Arafat was still championing issues that could never be accepted even if he was taking them away in his negotiations.
At the end Arafat had a deal that could be extremely beneficial to his people but no way to sell it internally... As you correctly wrote no ground work was done
The Palestinian rhetoric was still very belligerent even when it should have been calmed down to make the deal successful.
It's quite easy to think that Arafat had to choose between the long term good of Palestinians and the survival of his own power: we know what decision he did take.
Probably it wasn't even completely his own choice, most likely different factions in Palestine were going against it, and Arafat had very limited power to overcome them.
This was one of the great missed opportunities in the story between Israel and Palestine.
I have little doubt that all the other Muslim countries prefer to have a conflict down there: at least it distract public opinion from their real problems.
If you really think so, you're kinda absolutely crazy.
The state should not respond with great force only when threatned with obliteration, but rather whenever the safety and well-being of its individual citizens is threatned. Lets speculate for a moment how Australia would respond to a terrorist group launching rockets against its civilians.
Verbose
Deity
And?I don't entirely disagree with your observation. By "complexity", I mean that there's a lot more to things than the casual observer would normally take into account - not one single narrative. I don't wish to discount the poor relations between the Jews and the Palestinians - or the mistakes of their leaders. I'm just pointing out that there are more than just the two factions in this conflict, and to some of these peace is not a high priority. Some want the destruction of Israel as a state, even the elimination of the Jewish people, and to them the suffering of the Palestinians is of little consequence.
The "Two Sides" would have had enough difficulty resolving their issues without the vindictiveness, hatred and interference of such characters as the Grand Mufti of Jeruselem (below), the ayatollahs in Tehran (from 1979), and numerous others.
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?
The point you are missing is that the only way to have absolute safety is to have everyone else have the absolute absence of safety. Not only would everyone else have to truly believe that they are dead on your smallest whim, but they would have to believe that they could not hurt you just out of revenge even with a suicide attack. Clearly this is an impossible standard. And with a group of people who have a shown willingness to launch suicide attacks, it's a standard that does no more than provoke suicide attacks.
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.
Absolution
King
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.
