Middle East news (really M.E.!)

[V7]

Oh, and, just a personal note -- IMO Great Britain set the standard for ruthlessness in managing the colonies, although they had mellowed out a bit after the Boer War. (Which, by the way, saw the introduction of that wonderful 20th-century innovation, the concentration camp.)

Have to disagree with you there, as colonial powers go GB wasn't too bad, France was worse, and god help you if you got colonized by Belgium.

 

[Corwin]

Protests:- Classic case. Protesters were standing around with placards protesting quite peacfully all day. Late afternoon, a gaggle of media shows up complete with TV cameras etc. Enter a couple of 'new' people who immediately pick a fight with the protesters, violence ensues- all caught on camera- people are draggged away and guess what gets reported on the news that night!!

 

[cptmaxon]

really it's not so cut and dry, you guys think it's so easy to do military operations in the most dense urban area in the world?, you can't spit in Gaza without hitting 6-7 guys, 25% percent of those killed were civilians that number is miraculous, alot of other countries would have just leveled the place to the ground.
but no we for some reason have to call inhabitants and warn them off before bombing...

 

[Squeek]

...but no we for some reason have to call inhabitants and warn them off before bombing...

It was so much easier when all anyone ever had to worry about was killing the men, raping the women and burning the village (not that they always got that straight, mind you).

 

[dteowner]

It was so much easier when all anyone ever had to worry about was killing the men, raping the women and burning the village (not that they always got that straight, mind you).

You don't have to go that far back. Scorched earth was pretty straight-forward, too.

 

[Prime Junta]

Have to disagree with you there, as colonial powers go GB wasn't too bad, France was worse, and god help you if you got colonized by Belgium.

Belgium was in a class of its own for brutality, but it was a bit of a special case in other ways too -- Congo was King Leopold's personal fief.

I wasn't talking about brutality, though, but ruthlessness: the willingness to use any method in the book to keep the colonies docile, considered purely on technical merits -- was it likely to be effective or not.

 

[Prime Junta]

really it's not so cut and dry, you guys think it's so easy to do military operations in the most dense urban area in the world?, you can't spit in Gaza without hitting 6-7 guys, 25% percent of those killed were civilians that number is miraculous, alot of other countries would have just leveled the place to the ground.
but no we for some reason have to call inhabitants and warn them off before bombing...

So, let me get this straight:

(1) Herd people onto a patch of land, making it the densest urban area in the world.
(2) Lock them in.
(3) Complain that they're standing too close to each other to get a clear shot at the ones with beards.

Oh-kay...

(BTW, that 25% collateral damage figure IS miraculous, which is why I don't believe it.)

 

[Benedict]

So do I however. I've said several times I'm against this military invasion and airstrikes. I'm not complimenting the IDF on what they're doing. In PJ's terms, I'm whining about the constant attention Israel always receives when it does something.
I've also argued in saying that I believe Israel does have the right to defend itself, I however do not believe this is a way to defend itself.

:lol:

Then we're definitely arguing at completely cross purposes

 

[Zaleukos]

(BTW, that 25% collateral damage figure IS miraculous, which is why I don't believe it.)

Yup, it's on the lower side for modern conflicts (IIRC 20-50% is par for the course unless you are invading the Falklands or the Kuwaiti desert) and seems implausible for attacks in an extremely densely populated urban area... I cant imagine Hamas are that bad at camouflage.

 

[Pladio]

:lol:

Then we're definitely arguing at completely cross purposes

cross purposes means we're agreeing ?

 

[Pladio]

Or maybe only those protests where Arabs throw rocks (etc.) get the headlines. Which do you think it is?

Probably true, but why don't you see any protests with Jews throwing rocks at the government authorities anywhere ? Wouldn't these be on the news too ?

Quoting from memory, "how can I be for Palestine when even Europe can't stop the violence against Jews." I.e., you appear to be saying that in order to be for Palestine, you require that Europe succeeds in preventing all attacks against Jews. That's IMO as unreasonable as demanding that Europe succeeds in preventing all crime.

No, what I'm saying is that Europe isn't supposed to prevent those attacks. I'm saying there shouldn't be those attacks in the first place. It's not something that should happen and you yourself said you are appalled by it.

 

[Prime Junta]

Probably true, but why don't you see any protests with Jews throwing rocks at the government authorities anywhere ? Wouldn't these be on the news too ?

You do see a lot of pictures of Jews dropping bombs and firing heavy artillery, though. Does that count?

No, what I'm saying is that Europe isn't supposed to prevent those attacks. I'm saying there shouldn't be those attacks in the first place. It's not something that should happen and you yourself said you are appalled by it.

Absolutely. It is appalling. But wringing your hands and saying that it shouldn't happen won't help, any more than wringing your hands that Hamas shouldn't shoot rockets, or Israel shouldn't use excessive force in Gaza.

What just might help is putting pressure on Israel to make up its damn mind: annex, or cede. And you, as a Jew, are in a much better position to do that than I am; because of my Euroweenie background and Lebanese wife, I'm very easy to write off as an enemy-of-Israel by default.

As I said, I'm pessimistic about the short term, even should that happen -- the depth of anger and hatred created over the past sixty years is such that it will take decades for it to dissipate. But that won't even start as long as the occupation continues.

 

[Benedict]

cross purposes means we're agreeing ?

Probably not agreeing but certainly not arguing the right points or getting the right overall view of the other's position.

 

[Toaster]

I've followed this thread with much interest (like every other thread here for that matter) but for once something on the Internet has made my adjust my position on something.

Earlier I've mostly supported Israel (except the cries of anti-semitism whenever some obvious legitimate criticism comes up) and thought "Well, they're getting rockets shot at them and suicide bombed most every other week or so, what are they supposed to do?". But now I realize that there are things they're supposed to do.

I don't like Hamas in any way, but that's what they get for occupying a people for 40 years I guess. I feel like a basic problem is that even those Israelis and friends of Israel who understand that the only humane solution is a two-state solution (like Pladio) still think that the cessations Israel has to make to make it work (divided Jerusalem, abandonment of most settlements etc) are extremely unfair after all they've gone through (and wars they've won). Like the Palestinians haven't is my comment. This even though they somewhere understand that a working two-state solution is absolutely necessary if they want to continue to exist and not engage ethnical cleansing of epic proportions or have an Arab majority in Israel.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm going to make a prediction at this point, about what happens after the dust settles on this:

The one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to re-enter polite discourse.

It's just a gut feeling, but somehow I think the rules have changed. The two-state solution is no longer the only conceivable one. That means that all of the parties advocating for a one-state solution will get to state their case: Yisroel Beiteinu, with its project of expelling the Palestinians and restoring Biblical Eretz Yisroel; Hamas with its project of expelling the Jews and restoring the Caliphate, and, of course, the various more or less crunchy left-wing humanists with their project for a nondenominational, democratic Israel/Palestine where everyone has the same civil rights regardless of race, color or creed.

I very much doubt any of them will prevail, but I think the discourse will be interesting. Advocates of the two-state solution (and I count myself among them) will have to explain to the Israeli right wing and the Islamists why ethnic cleansing isn't a viable option, and to the crunchy lefties how come "one man/woman/transgendered person, one vote, and equal rights for all" doesn't apply in Israel/Palestine.

At the very least, it ought to light a fire under anyone who wants to fix this thing in a way that *doesn't* involve ethnic cleansing, or Israel joining the Arab League in another decade or two. (Come to think of it, that would sort out any number of diplomatic problems right there.)

 

[Pladio]

You do see a lot of pictures of Jews dropping bombs and firing heavy artillery, though. Does that count?

No, since we're talking about "peaceful" protests...

Absolutely. It is appalling. But wringing your hands and saying that it shouldn't happen won't help, any more than wringing your hands that Hamas shouldn't shoot rockets, or Israel shouldn't use excessive force in Gaza.

What just might help is putting pressure on Israel to make up its damn mind: annex, or cede. And you, as a Jew, are in a much better position to do that than I am; because of my Euroweenie background and Lebanese wife, I'm very easy to write off as an enemy-of-Israel by default.

As I said, I'm pessimistic about the short term, even should that happen -- the depth of anger and hatred created over the past sixty years is such that it will take decades for it to dissipate. But that won't even start as long as the occupation continues.

Except I don't have much political say in the world... I also don't plan to go into politics. Also I witnessed too many people victimizing both sides to go into it. I find talking about it with people very interesting and eye-opening, but going out and talking to crowds doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Prime Junta]

To get back to recent developments, here's something that goes straight into the "holy fucking shit" file in my book:

[Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] also said a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza could only be achieved if conditions set by both sides were met.

From [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828622.stm ].

Read that again, folks.

*By both sides.*

If you're at all familiar with Syria's role in the Mid-East mess, this is HUGE. There's a whole bunch of other stuff in the interview, some of which is boilerplate, but most of which comes across as remarkably even-handed for any Arab leader -- and absolutely earth-shaking from the leader of the country that has prided itself on being the most intransigent one in the Arab war against Zionism. These are the guys who host the Hamas HQ, you know -- not to mention lots of Hezb leaders and what have you.

There's been a lot of indications about secret talks between Israel and Syria, and some suggestions that they've broken with the Hezb and Hamas, but with this, they might as well have gone on Conan O'Brien to announce it.

The rules of the game *have* changed. We're entering unknown territory. There's no telling what's at the end of it -- peace (finally), or a really bright light for a really short time, or, most likely, yet another disappointment followed by yet more of the same.

But, folks, the rules have changed.

 

[Pladio]

I've followed this thread with much interest (like every other thread here for that matter) but for once something on the Internet has made my adjust my position on something.

Earlier I've mostly supported Israel (except the cries of anti-semitism whenever some obvious legitimate criticism comes up) and thought "Well, they're getting rockets shot at them and suicide bombed most every other week or so, what are they supposed to do?". But now I realize that there are things they're supposed to do.

I don't like Hamas in any way, but that's what they get for occupying a people for 40 years I guess. I feel like a basic problem is that even those Israelis and friends of Israel who understand that the only humane solution is a two-state solution (like Pladio) still think that the cessations Israel has to make to make it work (divided Jerusalem, abandonment of most settlements etc) are extremely unfair after all they've gone through (and wars they've won). Like the Palestinians haven't is my comment. This even though they somewhere understand that a working two-state solution is absolutely necessary if they want to continue to exist and not engage ethnical cleansing of epic proportions or have an Arab majority in Israel.

Like I think PJ and I have pointed out in this thread several times... Israel has had several leaders with a similar vision of peace, and maybe so has the PA, except that every single time there's been some problem on one side or another.
After the Oslo Accords, Israel and the PA were in REAL talks for peace, but then someone shot Rabbin. Then Barrack's plan got rejected. Then the Arab Peace initiative gets rejected. If they could just get it straight and be on the same page for once, then this might finish at some point.

On the other side, you have Fatah who is corrupt as hell, so they get voted out and Gazans get Hamas who is considered by the whole (Western) world to be a terrorist organization, so Israel doesn't want to deal with them.
This in turn reduces chances for peace and then we're back to 20 years ago ...

 

[Pladio]

To get back to recent developments, here's something that goes straight into the "holy fucking shit" file in my book:



From [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828622.stm ].

Read that again, folks.

*By both sides.*

If you're at all familiar with Syria's role in the Mid-East mess, this is HUGE. There's a whole bunch of other stuff in the interview, some of which is boilerplate, but most of which comes across as remarkably even-handed for any Arab leader -- and absolutely earth-shaking from the leader of the country that has prided itself on being the most intransigent one in the Arab war against Zionism. These are the guys who host the Hamas HQ, you know -- not to mention lots of Hezb leaders and what have you.

There's been a lot of indications about secret talks between Israel and Syria, and some suggestions that they've broken with the Hezb and Hamas, but with this, they might as well have gone on Conan O'Brien to announce it.

The rules of the game *have* changed. We're entering unknown territory. There's no telling what's at the end of it -- peace (finally), or a really bright light for a really short time, or, most likely, yet another disappointment followed by yet more of the same.

But, folks, the rules have changed.

Could he have been misquoted?

But even if so, I don't think people will pay too much attention to it. If I had read the article I would probably not even have noticed it..

 

[Prime Junta]

Could he have been misquoted?

But even if so, I don't think people will pay too much attention to it. If I had read the article I would probably not even have noticed it..

Highly unlikely; the BBC generally doesn't misquote, and I don't think they've ever misquoted a head of state commenting on a major political crisis.

I did surmise earlier in this thread that there might be a Syrian rabbit produced out of some hat after the dust settles. This doesn't make me think any different.

Oh, and, from now on, you can safely regard anyone talking about the Syria-Iran axis as a clueless dweeb totally out of touch with real events in the M-E.