Middle East news (really M.E.!)

[dteowner]

Noticed this bit of news.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/ap_on_re_mi_ea/syria_hamas_israel_4

I simply don't remember where the line was in 1967 to have any feel for how reasonable this offer is. Carter was a horrible president, but he seems to have a knack for getting people to the table, so maybe this is a legit offer.

[Squeek]

Negotiation can be a funny, funny thing. IMO, Hamas is in no position to negotiate anything with anyone. They have no credibility. I know that will upset some people, but it's my honest point of view.

I'll admit that opinion is validly disputed, of course. But it's a big bone of contention.

One of my closest friends once sat next to Jimmy Carter on a cross-country flight and talked with him for hours about world peace. Apparently, he's very sincere. You can't help but like the guy and what he's trying to do over there.

[magerette]

I also have more respect for Jimmy Carter now than when he was pres, Squeek. I agree even if he doesn't succeed here, he is sincere in wanting to.

I don't know about how much progress this represents--I looked up the 1967 Six Day War, and the territories in question are the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula acquired from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) acquired from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. It's hard to believe Israel will walk away from all of those areas just to get Hamas to go away.

I'm sure there's someone here that knows more about the likelihood of this than I do, though. :)

[blatantninja]

Sadly this will never come to pass because, though I find it completely reasonable:

1) Israel would have to withdraw from eastern Jerusalem completely
2) Israel would have to remove dozens of large, established colonies that are within in the Palestinian 1967 territory. Though they have removed lots of smaller, and many illegal, colonies, they have stated they won't remove the majority of the others. In fact, despite agreeing not to expand anymore, they have plans for several new ones.

Good PR move on Hamas's part though.

[Prime Junta]

Nothing really new here. The Arab League peace offer brokered by Saudi Arabia is based on exactly those terms, and was available since before Hamas was elected into power. Hamas has been offering Israel a truce (but without formal recognition) for a couple of years now, and Israel has ruled out (and continues to rule out) any negotiations with Hamas unless it first recognizes Israel.

As to Hamas's credibility, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they control Gaza. Credibility or no credibility, that gives them a seat at whatever negotiating table may be set up.

The real irony is that "everybody" understands what the only solution that just might lead to peace there is -- something based roughly on the 1967 borders, with territory swaps so that the biggest and best established settlement blocs get annexed by Israel, and the Palestinians get an equivalent amount of land in return (or at least enough that whoever on their part accepts the deal can argue that it's equivalent).

However, I don't see it happening, simply because all sides are so deeply dug into their foxholes: Olmert doesn't have the moral or political authority to beat the settler bloc into submission and make them swallow the "painful concessions" involved (though Sharon might have), Hamas is very, very unlikely to agree to formally recognize Israel, and Israel is very, very unlikely to ignore Hamas's lack of formal recognition for it.

The Palestinians and Israelis are pretty much like two punch-drunk fighters leaning on each other, but neither quite falling over. The only way out that I can see is if there's a radical political shift on the Israeli side -- the Palestinian side is so fragmented and lacking in both political leadership and state structures that any political shifts on their side will make very little difference.

IOW, I remain pessimistic. But I really, really hope I'm wrong on this one.

[V7]

Pessimistic here too. I think there was a brief window when peace might have been possible in the 90s, but then Rabin was shot hopes and the extremists have been the loudest voices since. Israel can't accept Hamas' offer and Hamas knows that.

Squeek - I think it depends on what you mean by credibility. I don't think anyone can dispute that Hamas is a serious political movement and I'm not sure that any deal would be workable without at least a tacit agreement from them. I'd think they'd probably even abide by the terms if Israel accepted this offer and they're in a position to enforce, but they'd spend those ten years consolidating their position in Palestine as the group who 'beat' Israel and start all over again with a fresh generation of recruits when the cease fire ended. There's nothing in the offer for Israel and everyone on both sides knows it.

[Squeek]

I mean credibility in the standard sense of the word, V7. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its responsible for multiple suicide bombings targeting civilians. That earns Hamas a credibility rating of less than zero.

To suggest that its credibility doesn't matter doesn't make sense. How could credibility not matter in a negotiation, especially when the issue is life and death?

That's produced a bind, meaning there can't be any progress until something changes. In terms of peace, the best thing that could happen would be for Hamas to reinvent itself or go away.

[V7]

I mean credibility in the standard sense of the word, V7. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its responsible for multiple suicide bombings targeting civilians. That earns Hamas a credibility rating of less than zero.

Well sure Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel, that doesn't preclude a ceasefire and as I said above there are a couple of reasons Hamas might want to have one. They've said they won't recognise Israel or its right to existence even if there is a ceasefire so I still don't see a credibility gap, tactically they may well be happy with a ten year truce. Not that it really matters because they know the offer is unacceptable to Israel anyway.

To suggest that its credibility doesn't matter doesn't make sense. How could credibility not matter in a negotiation, especially when the issue is life and death?

And I'm not disputing that, just suggesting that there's no conflict between their stated goals and a temporary truce offer.

In terms of peace, the best thing that could happen would be for Hamas to reinvent itself or go away.

That’s a really interesting question, I don't think going away is an option, if Hamas ceased to exist another group would fill the role they currently occupy. Reinvention would be tricky, some of their more moderate political leaders might want to pull them that way but I suspect any peace settlement (not truce) that Israel would find acceptable would spilt Hamas (a bit like what happened with the IRA and Real IRA) and I'm not sure they'd ever trust Israel enough to be able to take action to restrain a radical militant movement from attacking the Israelis and starting the whole cycle over again.

[dteowner]

I'm not sure they'd ever trust Israel enough to be able to take action to restrain a radical militant movement from attacking the Israelis and starting the whole cycle over again.Key point there. I'd offer up that such a meltdown could go the other way just as easily. I've gotten in trouble for saying it before, but I'll throw it out there again: those two groups have been killing each other for 2000 years and show no signs of stopping any time soon. That's a whole lot of bad blood for any sort of negotiation to overcome.

[V7]

Key point there. I'd offer up that such a meltdown could go the other way just as easily. I've gotten in trouble for saying it before, but I'll throw it out there again: those two groups have been killing each other for 2000 years and show no signs of stopping any time soon. That's a whole lot of bad blood for any sort of negotiation to overcome.

Could well do, I think Rabin's assassination demonstrated that. I'm not sure I'm quite as pesimistic as you in that I think they've managed peaceful coexistance for extended periods during those 2000 years but I have to agree that it doens't look like anything will change soon without a radical change of paradigms.

[Prime Junta]

Key point there. I'd offer up that such a meltdown could go the other way just as easily. I've gotten in trouble for saying it before, but I'll throw it out there again: those two groups have been killing each other for 2000 years and show no signs of stopping any time soon. That's a whole lot of bad blood for any sort of negotiation to overcome.

And you're still wrong about the timespan. Arabs and Jews have been killing each other in earnest only for the past 60 years; they got along fine for 2000 years before that. For any reasonable value of "fine" that is -- they killed each other no more than any other two ethnic/religious groups living in proximity anywhere, and considerably less than many.

[Prime Junta]

I mean credibility in the standard sense of the word, V7. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its responsible for multiple suicide bombings targeting civilians. That earns Hamas a credibility rating of less than zero.

Could you define "credibility" for us, then?

I understand by it something like this: a group or individual is credible if it's reasonable to suppose that they'll deliver on what they promise.

I don't see anything about what Hamas has done or is doing to suggest that they're not credible. You may not like what they're doing (or promising), but they do have a track record of pretty close alignment between what they say and what they do.

But, as I said, that doesn't really matter in this case, because I can't see any way the parties in question could come to an agreement of any kind that would put the credibility to the test. It'll only become relevant if and when there are serious negotiations about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian mess, and credible or not, if Hamas controls Gaza, they will be sitting at that table. At this point, though, all that it sheer wishful thinking -- you might as well hope that Hamas suddenly converts itself to a knitting club or Israel declares Islam the state religion.

[KazikluBey]

those two groups have been killing each other for 2000 years and show no signs of stopping any time soon.
Even if you were to argue that PJ is wrong, Islam is only 1386 years old. ;)

[V7]

Arabic culture extends a bit further back than Islam.

[Prime Junta]

Some of them even did pretty well for themselves: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab ]. :)

[Squeek]

Could you define "credibility" for us, then?This is what I see as the crux of the matter, actually. I suppose I could, but I doubt I could make it any clearer than it is already.

Hamas makes no distinction between its obscene acts and normal behavior (for that matter, neither do you). It's like some kind of a curse that intelligence can be applied that way.

There's no explaining that, beyond what's already obvious. If it's not plain to you, then all I can say is try harder to understand it. Sorry. That's all there is to it.

[dteowner]

al-Qaida speaks (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_al_zawahri_5)
I would think Osama and friends wouldn't want to antagonize Iran too much. "The enemy of my enemy" and all... Not to mention that Iran would probably have a much easier time tracking down Osama and kicking his butt than we've had.

I thought this quote
"In another answer Tuesday, al-Zawahri said it was against Islamic religious law for any Muslim to live permanently in a Western country because in doing so they would "have permanent stay there under the laws of the infidels."
was particularly interesting.

[KazikluBey]

Arabic culture extends a bit further back than Islam.
I assumed he was talking of religious adherents, i.e. Jews and Muslims, not Semitic subcultures. But the specifically Arabic culture's sphere of influence was rather limited until the rise of the Arabic/Islamic empire(s) in the 7th and 8th centuries anyway, which would limit any clashes between Jews and Arabs as well.

[dteowner]

Nope, not confining it strictly on religious lines since, as has been pointed out, Islam was a little late to the party. However, I should clarify that I'm not really targetting specific cultures/religions either. More a case of ongoing regional conflict involving the locals and whoever happens to be "invading" at the time (Romans, crusaders, Jews, etc). I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.

[Prime Junta]

This is what I see as the crux of the matter, actually. I suppose I could, but I doubt I could make it any clearer than it is already.

Hamas makes no distinction between its obscene acts and normal behavior (for that matter, neither do you). It's like some kind of a curse that intelligence can be applied that way.

There's no explaining that, beyond what's already obvious. If it's not plain to you, then all I can say is try harder to understand it. Sorry. That's all there is to it.

Thank you for conceding the point, then.

[Prime Junta]

Nope, not confining it strictly on religious lines since, as has been pointed out, Islam was a little late to the party. However, I should clarify that I'm not really targetting specific cultures/religions either. More a case of ongoing regional conflict involving the locals and whoever happens to be "invading" at the time (Romans, crusaders, Jews, etc). I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.

You can certainly find instances of Arab/Jewish friction right back to Mohammed's little disagreement with the Jews of Khaybar, but no more than between any two groups living in close proximity. Relations between, say, the French and the English are historically a good deal bloodier. IOW, "a 2000-year history of conflict" isn't a very good explanatory factor for the current problems in the M.E.

[Zaleukos]

7I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.


Not all that much further. Traditionally Islam is much more forgiving towards the other religions of the book than "the Jews killed Jesus" branches of Christendom.

Arab-Jewish friction in Palestine is mostly a 1900s product, as the diaspora started to return. From the failed revolt against Rome in 70 AD (?) to the last century the Jewish people was dispersed all over Europe and the middle east, with the former usually getting the harsher treatment. Tension rose around WW1 as the Ottoman empire played on jihadist sentiments, and there was a lot of terrorism during the british mandate 1918-47 by both sides as European Jews migrated there (obviously accelerated by the atrocities in Europe and the Balfour declaration).

The situation for Jewish minorities in Arab countries got rather worse after the establishment of the state of Israel though, with many fleeing to Israel.

I'm really weary of the 2000 years of conflict reasoning. First there are long periods of peace in the region, most notably during centuries of Ottoman turkish rule. The crusades (to use an example) dont have anything in common with modern largely nationalist (with religion being used as a weapon, but hardly the root cause) conflicts either. There was no popular uprising against the crusaders, the war was between latin invaders and the lords of Damascus and Egypt.

EDIT: The area corresponding to modern day Germany has likely seen as much conflict in the last 2000 years as Palestine has. Even if it might take long to calm down the situation there is no law of nature stating that the place has to be at war forever. The same goes for the Balkans or any other traditional conflict zone.

[Squeek]

Thank you for conceding the point, then.Keep telling yourself that, PJ. That's how that works.

[Squeek]

This is a serious issue that needs serious people to work toward resolving. Hamas needs to drop its convenient position of being unavailable to see reason. Otherwise there's simply no point in trying to negotiate with Hamas.

Its position is desperate, but children's skills are hardly the ones it should rely on now. Hamas is only kidding itself. It should drop its pretenses and become responsible for itself. That will enable them, not weaken them.

[Zaleukos]

I think the best way to deal with Hamas atm would be to simply ignore them and keeping the Israel-Gaza border tight, while somehow easing the humanitarian pressure (water, energy and medical supplies are huge problems in Gaza). Negotiate a settlement with the government in Ramallah. Try to avoid raiding Gaza or assassinating Hamas leaders.

Hamas have stronger control over it's thugs than Fatah, and have upheld an unofficial ceasefire for a long period of time in the past (until shortly after their victory in the elections). It could be done again.

[KazikluBey]

Nope, not confining it strictly on religious lines since, as has been pointed out, Islam was a little late to the party. However, I should clarify that I'm not really targetting specific cultures/religions either. More a case of ongoing regional conflict involving the locals and whoever happens to be "invading" at the time (Romans, crusaders, Jews, etc). I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.
Ah, yes (I remember now). Still, I really don't see how the area would be more heavily contested than just about any other strip of land in the settled parts of the Earth, such as Europe.

Major conflicts during the last 2000 years
Year 1: Rome vs Parthia
Year 250: (East) Rome vs Sassanids (conquered Parthia).
Year 650: Byzantium vs Caliphate (conquered Sassanids and most of the Near East and North Africa)
Year 1050: The Seljuk Turks conquer most of the Caliphate and soon begin the conquest of Anatolia.
Year 1095: The crusades start and conquers much of the Levant and retake parts of Anatolia for the Byzantines.
Year 1187: The Kingdom of Jerusalem falls. Soon after, an Arabic dynasty conquers Egypt and Syria from the Turks before the Mongols arrive and conquers most of the ME.
Year 1350: The Mongols have been driven out, and several Turkish sultanates control the area, the foremost of them being the Mameluks who hold Egypt and the Levant.
Year 1517: The Ottoman conquest of most of the ME is finished, and they hold on to it for 400 years.
Year 1798: Napoleon invades Egypt, but it is soon back under Ottoman suzerainty. Technically, it remained an Ottoman province until 1914, but it acted and was treated much like an independent state.
Year 1882: The UK seizes control of the Egyptian government to protect its economic interests (the Suez canal, first and foremost).
Year 1914: The Ottoman Empire joins Germany and Austria in WWI and its non-Anatolian possessions are divided between France and the UK who set up a number of protectorates and client kingdoms.
There are a couple more wars in the 20th century, but IIRC only the 1967 war involved much land being exchanged.

It's not an entirely exhaustive list, but I covered most conflicts where any major swathes of land were exchanged. I think you'll find at least as many for Europe, if not more, and also (as mentioned by Zaleukos) that the recent conflicts in the ME have very little to do with ancient history and are largely products of the 20th century.

[Zaleukos]

By comparison Sweden in the last 500 years (I dont remember the medieval conflicts) can offer, in an inexhaustive list with erroneous dates:

1520s: War with Denmark over the Kalmar union (national independence of sorts)
1560s: War with Denmark over Danish interception of the kings love letters.
1580s: War with Russia over Karelian/Ingrian borderlands.
1600s: War with Poland over the baltics.
1610s: War with Denmark
1620s: War with Poland over succession claims
1630s and 40s: The thirty years war with intervention in Germany.
1644: Surprise invasion of Denmark.
1650s: Surprise invasion of Poland, Denmark, Courland. War with Russia. Just for the heck of it war with about ten neighbours, only ending with the death of the king.
1670s: Revenge war initiated by the Danes.
1700-21: The great Nordic war against Denmark, Russia, Poland, and Saxony, with Brandenburg joining in. They started it.
1740s: Failed war on Russia.
1788: War on Russia.
1809: War against Russia (started by the Russians who take Finland from us).
1810s: Participation on the allied side in the Napoleonic wars, sneak attack on Denmark.

Going by these Scandinavia must have been an incredibly nasty place. Will those people ever stop killing each other? :p Worth noting is also that we started almost all these wars (with maybe 4 or so exceptions) and that most ended in land exchange... There is also a remarkable continuity in the choice of enemies that you dont see in the middle east.

[dteowner]

Well, if nothing else, I think we've proven beyond doubt that all you peaceniks are pissing up a rope. ;)

[Squeek]

Cue the codependent enablers to start citing examples of how everyone else is just as bad as Hamas.

[KazikluBey]

Cue the codependent enablers to start citing examples of how everyone else is just as bad as Hamas.
Are you sure you're not an alt of kingcomrade (http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4406)?

[Squeek]

Are you sure you're not an alt of kingcomrade (http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4406)?Pretty sure, yeah. Why? Is he the other guy who's heard of codependence?

[JemyM]

Going by these Scandinavia must have been an incredibly nasty place. Will those people ever stop killing each other? :p Worth noting is also that we started almost all these wars (with maybe 4 or so exceptions) and that most ended in land exchange... There is also a remarkable continuity in the choice of enemies that you dont see in the middle east.

How the peace between Sweden and Denmark was finally established is one thing to study if one wish to end a continued war between two people living next to eachother. Yes, Sweden was the warlords of the north, and yes, the enmity between Sweden and Denmark was great. Today attacking a northern country would be unthinkable, and Sweden have not fought a war since 1814.

[KazikluBey]

Pretty sure, yeah. Why?
Your "In before [straw-man]" post just gave me a strong feeling of deja vu from the RPG Codex General Discussion forums.

[Squeek]

Your "In before [straw-man]" post just gave me a strong feeling of deja vu from the RPG Codex General Discussion forums.Nope. That's somebody else.

[Prime Junta]

This is a serious issue that needs serious people to work toward resolving. Hamas needs to drop its convenient position of being unavailable to see reason. Otherwise there's simply no point in trying to negotiate with Hamas.

How do you propose to get them to do that?

[Prime Junta]

How the peace between Sweden and Denmark was finally established is one thing to study if one wish to end a continued war between two people living next to eachother. Yes, Sweden was the warlords of the north, and yes, the enmity between Sweden and Denmark was great. Today attacking a northern country would be unthinkable, and Sweden have not fought a war since 1814.

That's because Sweden took the only known permanent cure for militarism.

They invaded Russia.

Seriously: here's a list of some of the more significant people who have invaded Russia:

* The Mongols.
* The Lithuanians.
* The Swedes.
* The French.
* The Germans.

All of these used to be badass military powers in their day, and all became strangely peaceful after invading Russia. The Mongols did stick it out longer than the others, but even they finally scrapped their world domination plans after invading Russia.

Seriously. It works.

[Squeek]

How do you propose to get them to do that?
It’s not possible to get anyone else to do anything like that. That's something Hamas will have to achieve on its own. There are billions of people around the world whose perspective and views could serve as examples for them, though.

Whether its fair or not, Hamas needs what Palestinians in general need, and that's a change of values. Some of the ones they're working with now are hurting them more than they realize, and Hamas epitomizes those.

The entire world is aware of the Palestinians’ situation, including their raw deal, and would like very much for there to be an equitable outcome. Somehow, Palestinians need to find a way to trust in that and find hope for the future. As unlikely as it sounds, Hamas is in the best position to make that happen.

Hamas could turn poison into medicine by reinventing intself and rejecting violence altogether. Palistinians could be the new Tibetans and be on the receiving end of the world’s concern and sympathy. Israel isn’t China and would react a lot differently to that kind of pressure.

That ignores a myriad of very real and seemingly-impossible obstacles that would stand in the way of that happening, of course. But that’s the fight Hamas should be fighting. That’s the battle it should be trying to win.

[JemyM]

That's because Sweden took the only known permanent cure for militarism.

They invaded Russia.

Seriously: here's a list of some of the more significant people who have invaded Russia:

* The Mongols.
* The Lithuanians.
* The Swedes.
* The French.
* The Germans.

All of these used to be badass military powers in their day, and all became strangely peaceful after invading Russia. The Mongols did stick it out longer than the others, but even they finally scrapped their world domination plans after invading Russia.

Seriously. It works.

lol, yeah, it's difficult to argue against that theory. :)

But actually, Sweden fought wars after the attack against Russia, against Finland, Napoleon, Denmark and Norway. Gustav IV wanted badly to fight Napoleon (which he believed was antichrist). This lead to a 2-front war against both France and Russia at the same time, which ended up with losing Finland to Russia. This made the generals so fed up that they threw him in Jail. He's after that known as "The King who lost half the kingdom". Sweden then imported a king from France, now with crippled rights. His mission was to retake Finland, but he ignored that idea, gave Finland to Russia, then went into Norway who gave up without a fight. But Norway never really belonged to Sweden like Finland did, it was more a kind of union with reduced rights on their side, an union they eventually got free from.

Karl XIV Johan was almost a pacifist compared to the rest and he ran an era of peace so long that when it was over Swedes was happy living that way. Due to the long peace, Sweden also showed definite improvements, improved population, working roads, state debt gone etc. Ofcourse, it might also be that they were exhausted and tired of fighting and getting rid of their war hungry leaders was a good idea. And even more cynically, it might be that we found out that selling weapons and resources to other wars have greater profit than being in them.

The thing that really made the northern countries buddies after pretty much ripping eachothers lungs out non-stop since the viking era (and probably before that as well) was a kind of nationalism, the idea that all things considered, they were the same people and they had alot in common. The propaganda changed from "Danish people are the devil" into "Danish people are your friends". It was a decision to pretty much forget the past and stop speaking about it, until the savage differences between the countries were forgotten and people found it difficult to believe it ever happened.

A similar thing happened between Germany and France after the 2nd world war, and 60 years later both of them refuse to go to war.

And that was my point. A leader who exploit bitter enmity between two people can simply go on fighting forever, while a leader who uses the right propaganda can end the differences between people who just cant solve their differences, even when it seems impossible to do so.

[V7]

It seems to me the peace came first then the change of attitudes, and while we like to hold Euorpe up as an example of post national humanisim lets not forget Yugoslavia looked like a soildly post national country not so long ago. Thats not to say I think there's likely to be a bloodbath in Europe but... these sorts of discussions always remind me of Norman Angell, one of the founders of the study of international relations now best remembered for predicting an end to war in Europe back in 1909.

[Prime Junta]

It’s not possible to get anyone else to do anything like that. That's something Hamas will have to achieve on its own. There are billions of people around the world whose perspective and views could serve as examples for them, though.

Whether its fair or not, Hamas needs what Palestinians in general need, and that's a change of values. Some of the ones they're working with now are hurting them more than they realize, and Hamas epitomizes those.

The entire world is aware of the Palestinians’ situation, including their raw deal, and would like very much for there to be an equitable outcome. Somehow, Palestinians need to find a way to trust in that and find hope for the future. As unlikely as it sounds, Hamas is in the best position to make that happen.

Hamas could turn poison into medicine by reinventing intself and rejecting violence altogether. Palistinians could be the new Tibetans and be on the receiving end of the world’s concern and sympathy. Israel isn’t China and would react a lot differently to that kind of pressure.

That ignores a myriad of very real and seemingly-impossible obstacles that would stand in the way of that happening, of course. But that’s the fight Hamas should be fighting. That’s the battle it should be trying to win.

You're right. They should.

But the reality is that they're not going to, any more than the Israelis are suddenly going to respect every UN resolution about them to the letter, retreat to the 1967 borders, take down the settlements, grant fully equal status to Israeli Arabs, and generously compensate all of the Palestinians (and their descendants) evicted from their homes since 1948, and then wait patiently for 30 years as the violence gradually winds down.

There's a reason I don't (usually) use ethical arguments when discussing politics -- except through analogy, by matching behaviors in one ethical framework with behaviors in another, and pointing out similarities and parallels I see. It's because ethical arguments only carry any weight between people or groups that share the same ethical framework. Most of us don't.

The Euroweenie ethical framework is clearly different in many ways from the red-blooded American one, which is (somewhat) different from the center-right Israeli one, which is different from the secular Palestinian one, which is different from the Islamist Palestinian one. Put these people into the same room and ask them to discuss ethics, and there will be a bar fight in no time flat. If your intention is to get them to agree about concrete things -- such as what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- this is completely pointless.

In fact, the clashes between you and me are a pretty good example of it: we share fundamentally different values and ethics on a few points, and there's no way we're ever going to agree on them. But that doesn't mean we couldn't come to perfectly workable agreements about any number of practical issues.

Edit: In D&D terms, I think I'm a True Neutral whereas you're a Lawful Good. We fail to see eye to eye because of this alignment difference, and we all know what a hell of a job it is to change alignment. (This thought amused me enough that I'll post another thread about it.)

The only way forward is to (a) accept the facts and (b) try to find the best possible solution that accommodates those facts that everyone can live with. Sometimes there is no such solution to be found, and that just means the conflict will go on.

[Prime Junta]

Now, the Hamas thing was IMO not much more than talk, but this would just conceivable might indicate that something's on the move:

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7362937.stm ]

If Syria and Israel settle their differences, Syria won't need Hezbollah or Hamas anymore. That just could cause a shift on things on the Lebanese-Israeli-Hezbollah front, which just could give the movement towards peace just a little bit of momentum, which just could create a strategic moment for peace on the Hamas-Fatah-Israel front.

That's a lot of "just coulds," but IMO if this bloody snarled mess is ever going to start to unwind, the Golan is where it'll begin. IOW, this is the first bit of news from the Middle East in ages that has got me feeling cautiously hopeful.

Not that there haven't been many such false dawns before.

[POLYGON]

Now, the Hamas thing was IMO not much more than talk, but this would just conceivable might indicate that something's on the move:

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7362937.stm ]

If Syria and Israel settle their differences, Syria won't need Hezbollah or Hamas anymore. That just could cause a shift on things on the Lebanese-Israeli-Hezbollah front, which just could give the movement towards peace just a little bit of momentum, which just could create a strategic moment for peace on the Hamas-Fatah-Israel front.

That's a lot of "just coulds," but IMO if this bloody snarled mess is ever going to start to unwind, the Golan is where it'll begin. IOW, this is the first bit of news from the Middle East in ages that has got me feeling cautiously hopeful.

Not that there haven't been many such false dawns before.

I think if Syria agrees with Israel, that doesn't mean it won't need Hizbullah anymore. As long as Hizbullah stands, Syria maintain its safety..
If it happens then nothing IMO will change on the Lebanese front, Hizbullah is Iran's not Syria's, Syria merely pass them weapons from Iran...So as long as Iran is not satisfied, Hizbullah will prevail and will grow stronger year by year,

[Prime Junta]

I think if Syria agrees with Israel, that doesn't mean it won't need Hizbullah anymore. As long as Hizbullah stands, Syria maintain its safety..
If it happens then nothing IMO will change on the Lebanese front, Hizbullah is Iran's not Syria's, Syria merely pass them weapons from Iran...So as long as Iran is not satisfied, Hizbullah will prevail and will grow stronger year by year,

I disagree with you on this count. First off, Hezbollah's remaining casus belli with Israel is the Cheba'a farms. In any peace deal, Israel will cede these to Syria. That means that if Syria still feels they're Lebanese, it is free to cede them to Lebanon.

Second, Hezbollah and Syria are purely a marriage of convenience. They have nothing in common ideologically; the only thing they share is a common enemy. Syria doesn't have too many chips to bargain with, and of these, the (admittedly limited) influence it has over Hezbollah is the strongest one. Again, in any deal between Israel and Syria, Israel will insist on assurances that Syrian support to Hezbollah will stop.

This will weaken Hezbollah's position -- without Syrian assistance (or acceptance at least), it'll get a lot harder to get the Iranian arms through: it's a long way from Tehran to Bint Jbeil. This changes Hezbollah's strategic position in one important way: it'll have a great deal more trouble restocking in case there's another 2006-style war.

A lot depends on how Hezbollah will react to the change -- if indeed it happens. There is the internal tension between the Islamic Resistance and the political and social wings of the movement. This could create an opening that would shift Hezbollah more towards the stance of a political party and less a private army. In this way, it could even strengthen its position inside Lebanon, even as its regional strategic position weakens.

[POLYGON]

I disagree with you on this count. First off, Hezbollah's remaining casus belli with Israel is the Cheba'a farms. In any peace deal, Israel will cede these to Syria. That means that if Syria still feels they're Lebanese, it is free to cede them to Lebanon.

Second, Hezbollah and Syria are purely a marriage of convenience. They have nothing in common ideologically; the only thing they share is a common enemy. Syria doesn't have too many chips to bargain with, and of these, the (admittedly limited) influence it has over Hezbollah is the strongest one. Again, in any deal between Israel and Syria, Israel will insist on assurances that Syrian support to Hezbollah will stop.

This will weaken Hezbollah's position -- without Syrian assistance (or acceptance at least), it'll get a lot harder to get the Iranian arms through: it's a long way from Tehran to Bint Jbeil. This changes Hezbollah's strategic position in one important way: it'll have a great deal more trouble restocking in case there's another 2006-style war.

A lot depends on how Hezbollah will react to the change -- if indeed it happens. There is the internal tension between the Islamic Resistance and the political and social wings of the movement. This could create an opening that would shift Hezbollah more towards the stance of a political party and less a private army. In this way, it could even strengthen its position inside Lebanon, even as its regional strategic position weakens.

If Israel retreats from Golan and Cheba, Syria will need something to ensure the continuity of this retreat, so it will have to keep Hiozbullah a bone in Israel's throat, however it will have to do it in secret, which means it must deny all links to Hizbullah and Hasan Nasrullah will have to stop talking about Syria as an ally..
but I think the arms from iran will still reach Hizbullah through Syria,if Israel and Syria agrees that does not mean they're gonna be friends and trust each other...
Besides I am certain that Hizbullah are not gathering all these forces just to free a few kilometres in the form of Cheba farms. They have other goals, the most clear being the Lebanese and Palestinian captives in Israel. Especially Samir al Qintar whom Israel are not willing to free unless Hizbullah hands them Ron Arad.
Most importantly it's Iran's decesion that counts the most for the future of Hizbullah. What Iran says, Hizbullah does at least regionally.

[V7]

Always difficult trying to work out whats going on inside a regime like Syria's. It might be worth asking though whether after the Hariri assassination and the international fall out from the last Hizbullah/Israel war some inside Syria might view their Lebanese entanglements as more of a threat than advantage. Syria migth be happy if it could get the Golan heights back at the same time as opening a little distance with Hizbullah.

[Prime Junta]

If Israel retreats from Golan and Cheba, Syria will need something to ensure the continuity of this retreat, so it will have to keep Hiozbullah a bone in Israel's throat, however it will have to do it in secret, which means it must deny all links to Hizbullah and Hasan Nasrullah will have to stop talking about Syria as an ally..
but I think the arms from iran will still reach Hizbullah through Syria,if Israel and Syria agrees that does not mean they're gonna be friends and trust each other...

This will already weaken Hezbollah's strategic position. The arms shipments don't have to stop; they just have to slow down. Israel is extremely good at intelligence, and any peace deal will include some provisions for monitoring traffic between Syria and South Lebanon. IOW, it will be very difficult to continue arms shipments at the scale they're currently happening.

You can certainly get ammunition, RPG's, light rockets, light anti-aircraft missiles, perhaps even light anti-tank missiles and such across but not medium-range ballistic missiles, anti-shipping missiles, or other heavy iron. Israel is very worried about the Chinese anti-shipping missiles Hezbollah is said to carry, as well as its capacity to reach Tel Aviv with the medium-range ballistics. Those will be off the table.

In other words, Hezbollah's defensive capabilities will be virtually unaffected -- it will still be able to stop any IDF incursion into Southern Lebanon in its tracks. However, it will find its strategic threat much reduced: the rocket barrage on Israel will be necessarily more limited in scope and will weaken over time as the "best before" dates on those rockets expire. Its ability to hit Israeli shipping will also be reduced.

That is a significant shift in the power balance.

Besides I am certain that Hizbullah are not gathering all these forces just to free a few kilometres in the form of Cheba farms. They have other goals, the most clear being the Lebanese and Palestinian captives in Israel. Especially Samir al Qintar whom Israel are not willing to free unless Hizbullah hands them Ron Arad.

Quite, and both sides are just as deadlocked as Israel and Hamas -- neither side is budging. It's just conceivable that the shift in strategic balance might prompt them to move on this as well.

Most importantly it's Iran's decesion that counts the most for the future of Hizbullah. What Iran says, Hizbullah does at least regionally.

That's true, to an extent -- Hezbollah won't go charging over the border even if Iran tells it to. Like any group, they can only act within the capabilities they have, and an Israeli-Syrian peace deal will have a significant impact on those capabilities.

[Prime Junta]

Always difficult trying to work out whats going on inside a regime like Syria's. It might be worth asking though whether after the Hariri assassination and the international fall out from the last Hizbullah/Israel war some inside Syria might view their Lebanese entanglements as more of a threat than advantage. Syria migth be happy if it could get the Golan heights back at the same time as opening a little distance with Hizbullah.

This could also give an opening to international diplomacy. The world could reward Syria a quite a lot for a peace deal. Such carrots might seem rather enticing. Hey, it worked for Libya, and their glorious leader is a certified loon. (That said, if I was dictator of an oil-rich country, the first things I'd do too would be to gather an all-girl bodyguard and design a Batmobile.)

[POLYGON]

This will already weaken Hezbollah's strategic position. The arms shipments don't have to stop; they just have to slow down. Israel is extremely good at intelligence, and any peace deal will include some provisions for monitoring traffic between Syria and South Lebanon. IOW, it will be very difficult to continue arms shipments at the scale they're currently happening.

You can certainly get ammunition, RPG's, light rockets, light anti-aircraft missiles, perhaps even light anti-tank missiles and such across but not medium-range ballistic missiles, anti-shipping missiles, or other heavy iron. Israel is very worried about the Chinese anti-shipping missiles Hezbollah is said to carry, as well as its capacity to reach Tel Aviv with the medium-range ballistics. Those will be off the table.

In other words, Hezbollah's defensive capabilities will be virtually unaffected -- it will still be able to stop any IDF incursion into Southern Lebanon in its tracks. However, it will find its strategic threat much reduced: the rocket barrage on Israel will be necessarily more limited in scope and will weaken over time as the "best before" dates on those rockets expire. Its ability to hit Israeli shipping will also be reduced.

That is a significant shift in the power balance.


As you said Israel are extremely good at intelligence however are not able to stop weapons shipments, Israel do not need any deals to monitor traffic between Syria and Lebanon, it already does yet it can't do anything about it...
I agree that it will be much easier for Israel to monitor traffic if it's official
And I agree that things will change when and if Syria and Israel strikes a deal, like suddenly some forces in Lebanon will start to like Syria causing a shift in political alliances in Lebanon.

[Corwin]

Hey, if it helps bring some degree of peace to the region, I'm all for it!!

[Prime Junta]

As you said Israel are extremely good at intelligence however are not able to stop weapons shipments, Israel do not need any deals to monitor traffic between Syria and Lebanon, it already does yet it can't do anything about it...

Quite -- it can't stop them, but it can know if and how much is going through. With a peace deal, Syria would be responsible for stopping the shipments, and Israel would simply monitor that they're doing so. There would certainly exist enforcement mechanisms in case they weren't in compliance.

I agree that it will be much easier for Israel to monitor traffic if it's official
And I agree that things will change when and if Syria and Israel strikes a deal, like suddenly some forces in Lebanon will start to like Syria causing a shift in political alliances in Lebanon.

Yup. But it will be uncharted territory -- it's impossible to predict how things will go, and the optimistic outcome I've sketched here is, unfortunately, only one among many. As you know all too well, things rarely work out according to the best-case scenario in your part of the world.

[Zaleukos]

Arent there factions in Syria who would want to maintain ties with Hezbollah just in order to keep their leverage on Lebanese politics? While the pro-syrian faction in Lebanon is fairly diverse I got the impression that Hezbollah still is its strongest element by far.

[V7]

Arent there factions in Syria who would want to maintain ties with Hezbollah just in order to keep their leverage on Lebanese politics? While the pro-syrian faction in Lebanon is fairly diverse I got the impression that Hezbollah still is its strongest element by far.

Yes, and thats been Syrian policy for several decades, the question is whether the changes on the ground over the past couple of years are causing Syria to rethink strategy. The involvement in Lebanon made a lot more sense when Israel was occupying the south, now that Israel has withdrawn there are fewer benefits and more risks (not least of which is that there is less incentive for Israel to negoatiate over the Golan heights.

[Prime Junta]

What's more, coalitions in Lebanese politics are notoriously fluid. Because the parties aren't ideological as much as sectarian, the common ground they have at any given moment depends on the power relations between the sects more than any shared political, ideological, or even religious vision. Things could change very rapidly if something shifts in these relations, for example if Syria and Israel bury the hatchet. That's one of the problems with Lebanon -- there never was a genuine, shared vision of what the country is supposed to be.

As to Syria, it's very, very difficult to guess what's going on in there, because the regime keeps an extremely tight lid on information. That means that there's almost no way to tell which rumor is credible, and, naturally, the official information is whatever happens to be most convenient at the time. There are at least seven more or less autonomous secret police organizations with complex relations between each other and the Alawite clan currently running the show; there's no way to know exactly what each of these groupings want, nor which one is on the way up and which one is on the way down.

We can't even know for certain how stable the entire system is -- it could be rock-solid, or it could collapse tomorrow. Not even the average Syrian would know about that. The best information we have is from high-level Syrian defectors like Khaddam, the former VP, and all of them have their own agendas -- nor do even they necessarily have a solid picture of what's going on either. That means we should absolutely not take anything they say at face value either.

[magerette]

I've got a question for our resident Middle East pundits about some information I've just run across--I found this presentation by Richard Engel, MSNBC's correspondent in Iraq(he's been there for five years covering the war) explaining the regional powerplays and the components of the conflict very clearly. It's one of the simplest breakdowns I've seen of why everything is going to hell in a handbasket, along with some conclusions about what will happen if & when the US starts pulling out troops.

I'm really glad to see this type of coverage emerging here because its been sadly lacking, but I'd like to know how accurate those who know more about the region than I find this, and whether it ought to be recommended as a primer for those who are confused here.

Here's the presentation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17722026)(I'm sure it's flash-it's streaming video, anyway)

and here's the Extra Info (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17722026) section, which gives a succinct table listing the differences/commonalities of Shia and Suni.

Thoughts?

[Prime Junta]

Thoughts?

Well, I suppose that's about as good as you can do in a five-to-ten-minute presentation. It's bound to be a huge simplification, and as such, it's very dangerous to draw any conclusions from it beyond what he actually states.

There were only two things that actually jarred with me.

First, his characterization of Saudi Arabia as the "backbone of Sunni Islam." It isn't. It's the backbone of one particular branch of Sunni Islam, but I very much doubt that Sunni Muslims from, say, Turkey, Indonesia, or even Lebanon or Palestine would feel any particular loyalty to Saudi Arabia. Mecca and Medina happen to be there, and the hajj is immensely important, but that doesn't give the Saudi state, or Saudi scholars, any particularly privileged position for Sunnis. If anything, the backbone of Sunni Islam would be the Al-Azhar mosque and university in Egypt, I'd say, even if the holiest places of Islam -- Shi'a and Sunni alike -- happen to be situated in Saudi Arabia.

Second, his characterization of the Iran/Iraq relationship. The way he stated it, Iran could simply take over Iraq because Iraq is majority Shi'ite. That's not so. Iranian/Iraqi relations are way more complex (and difficult) than that, with Iraqi Shi'ites having various highly divergent positions about Iran. The current Iraqi government is based on an organization formerly called the Badr Brigades (now called the Iraqi Army), which was organized and trained in Iran. They have extremely close personal ties to Tehran. The current main antagonist to America, Moqtada al-Sadr, is an Iraqi phenomenon, opposed to Iranian dominance over Iraq, and opposed to the current government.

A bigger problem with this exposition, though, is that it characterizes Iraq as a purely regional problem -- Kurds wanting this, Syrians, Jordanians, and Saudis wanting that, Iranians wanting the other -- without any attention paid to what Iraqis of various religious, ethnic, and political backgrounds want.

Now, I'm not really well-versed in Iraqi politics, but I have a very strong suspicion that they're a lot like Lebanese politics. If that's the case, yes, you do have to know about the regional picture, but it's far more important to understand, say, Ayatollah Sistani's relationship to Moqtada al-Sadr's father, Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, or what Jalal Talabani was up to before they made him president. Or, at the very least, that such relationships, alliances, antagonisms, and histories exist and make the situation enormously more complicated than it is.

Finally, about his prognosis -- yeah, America is stuck there like a louse in tar, as the Finnish saying goes. Pulling out would certainly lead to an intensification of the conflict with regional players meddling like crazy, probably through proxy (except the Turks, who would certainly give the Kurds a righteous stomping fairly early in the game); we're talking the Lebanese civil war with the added excitement of it happening on top of some of the best oil reserves left on the planet, at a time when oil is climbing inexorably towards $200/bbl. But if the American game plan is to sit there and hope, I don't know how much better the outcome of that would be.

And finally finally, IMO his "extra info" doesn't really say much. The salient point about Shi'ism is that it's based on (a) martyrdom and (b) 1300 years of getting stomped on by Sunnis, which he already mentions in his main presentation.

[magerette]

Thanks very much Prime J. I realize it's an over-simplification, but let's face it--without some basic education like this, the complexities of the discussion are way over the heads of most Americans, including me. (It took me twenty minutes of close reading to begin to pigeonhole the facts of your article with the "simple" breakdown of the personalities and factions in Lebanon, and then I needed aspirin and a lay-down.) I was concerned that in over-simplifying, accuracy would be glossed over, so thanks for your examples of such.

I was primarily thinking of this in terms of an introduction for people who know almost nothing about the area. It's hard to believe that after 5 years of our involvement, this is the first mainstream media presentation of its kind that I've seen. (And I would say the only reason its out there now is due to a) the election and b) the Bush/McSame/Obama appeasement/negotiation flap.)

To you the Shia/Sunni table may seem elementary, but the terms are used and heard over here without many people having even a remote clue what they signify--my own impression before my partial education on this board, was that it was a cleft in Islam similar to the Catholic and Protestant one in Christianity and why don't they just get over it (which I suppose to some extent it is, but talk about over-simplifying/misidentifying...) but of course, if you don't understand the history, you aren't going to get it.

This factoid you presented really surprised me:
The current Iraqi government is based on an organization formerly called the Badr Brigades (now called the Iraqi Army), which was organized and trained in Iran. They have extremely close personal ties to Tehran. The current main antagonist to America, Moqtada al-Sadr, is an Iraqi phenomenon, opposed to Iranian dominance over Iraq, and opposed to the current government.

So we're in effect supporting an Iran-oriented government with an Iran-trained army as our choice, and simultaneously saber-rattling at Iran like a drunken cicada in springtime? Somehow this doesn't seem productive...or even logical.

[V7]

Somehow this doesn't seem productive...or even logical.

Welcome to the exciting world of US foreign policy ;)

For a media presentation it was pretty good, I found myself constantly thinking 'yes but...' or 'yes and...' but I don't think it'd be easier to get a better picture than that without getting into the books and journals and it does at least introduce the complexity.

Re Saudi backbone - agreed its not in the sense that it sounds like in the presentation but the Saudis have spent a lot of money building mosques round the world and export a lot of imams. Its the Saudi royal family’s way to buy off the religious critics while they spend their spare money on palaces so it doesn't buy them loyalty exactly but its one of the big reasons for the international spread of conservative Wahhabism.

He also called Turkey a military state which is an interesting interpretation.

[magerette]

Thanks for shedding more light on the Saudi position, V7. I was thinking might the fallacy of the "backbone" remark also be somewhat due to ethnicity?

So you don't see Turkey as a secular military state? More of a blend, or what?

Got to go now and look up Wahhabism. ;)

[Pladio]

Just wanted to thank everyone here for all the info...

Any more information on Israel-Syria peace ?

[V7]

So you don't see Turkey as a secular military state? More of a blend, or what?


I'd describe it as a democracy with military participation. The military views itself as the guardians of the constitution and more particularly the political legacy of Kemal Ataturk who founded the 'modern secular' republic of Turkey (in itself an interesting balancing act as Ataturk was keen to keep the army out of politics). So while the army has occasionally mounted coup d'etats (the last in 1980) or political interventions the country is ruled by a democratically elected government (currently made up of Islamists that the army mistrusts but hasn't kicked out) and the army doesn’t seek power for its own sake. All in all there's a vast gulf between Turkey and what I'd consider a 'military state' (Myanmar, Libya, Fiji or Pakistan would be a current examples). Its an interesting thought experiment to wonder what some of the western militaries would do if they were in a situation similar to Turkey.

[Prime Junta]

Thanks very much Prime J. I realize it's an over-simplification, but let's face it--without some basic education like this, the complexities of the discussion are way over the heads of most Americans, including me. (It took me twenty minutes of close reading to begin to pigeonhole the facts of your article with the "simple" breakdown of the personalities and factions in Lebanon, and then I needed aspirin and a lay-down.) I was concerned that in over-simplifying, accuracy would be glossed over, so thanks for your examples of such.

Well, it was, but that's inevitable. As I said, all in all it was about as good as you could do in something as condensed as that.

I was primarily thinking of this in terms of an introduction for people who know almost nothing about the area. It's hard to believe that after 5 years of our involvement, this is the first mainstream media presentation of its kind that I've seen. (And I would say the only reason its out there now is due to a) the election and b) the Bush/McSame/Obama appeasement/negotiation flap.)

Very likely, and I find it hard to believe that this is an accident.

To you the Shia/Sunni table may seem elementary, but the terms are used and heard over here without many people having even a remote clue what they signify--my own impression before my partial education on this board, was that it was a cleft in Islam similar to the Catholic and Protestant one in Christianity and why don't they just get over it (which I suppose to some extent it is, but talk about over-simplifying/misidentifying...) but of course, if you don't understand the history, you aren't going to get it.

The Shi'a/Sunni table has to be elementary; that's not the problem. The thing is that it didn't IMO really communicate why the two groups are still so much at odds. That was mentioned in the main presentation, though.

So we're in effect supporting an Iran-oriented government with an Iran-trained army as our choice, and simultaneously saber-rattling at Iran like a drunken cicada in springtime? Somehow this doesn't seem productive...or even logical.

More or less. That's also one reason the Iranians don't take you terribly seriously -- they know they've got you by the short-n-curlies in so many ways it's almost (but not quite) not even funny. The Middle East is like that, with all those overlapping identities and loyalties. If you're not very careful, you'll end up in bed with some rather strange people. (For example, I've always thought that if you absolutely have to support an oppressive government in the Middle East, a secularist dictator like Saddam or Bashar would seem a more logical choice than a theocratic king like Abdullah al Saud.)

[Prime Junta]

Just wanted to thank everyone here for all the info...

Any more information on Israel-Syria peace ?

Nothing new that I've come across. Still waiting (and hoping)...

[Prime Junta]

Thanks for shedding more light on the Saudi position, V7. I was thinking might the fallacy of the "backbone" remark also be somewhat due to ethnicity?

Not really; it's more that Sunni Islam doesn't really *have* a "backbone" the same way that, say, the cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church are its backbone, or the ayatollahs of Shi'i Islam are its backbone. It's much more diverse and decentralized; any Muslim who reads up on it can gather a following as a religious leader. "Imam" in Sunni Islam simply means the individual who leads the prayer at the mosque; usually there's someone at the mosque who has this job, but if he's not there, anyone can step up and do it.

So you don't see Turkey as a secular military state? More of a blend, or what?

It's a secular democracy guaranteed by its military. Sorta. That is, if the democracy does anything that the military perceives to threaten the secular character of the state, it'll step in and do a little democratizin' of its own. The current governing party are moderate Islamists, and the army has been extremely suspicious of them; thus far they haven't stepped out of line, though.

Got to go now and look up Wahhabism. ;)

Wahhabis actually call themselves salafis, so you should probably look up that too.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafism ]

[magerette]

A lot of very helpful information here; thanks. I had found the wiki on Wahhabism and it was most interesting--the depth and complexity of Islam itself is one of the mind-bogglers that we face in trying to understand it, that and the profound personal influence it has on individual people's lives. I don't think western Christianity has had that level of intensity for the average person since medieval times.

Prime J wrote:
Very likely, and I find it hard to believe that this is an accident.

Agreed. The sense that this will be an election focusing on foreign policy (and the need to deal in some way beyond militarily with the ME) is beginning to leak through, and that makes this stuff news. No doubt 4,000+ US military deaths and the untold number of American and Iraqi civilian deaths, not to mention the diminishment of the US in world opinion, are factors as well...

A bit late, if you ask me....

[Corwin]

When Christians have that level of intensity, they're called nutters, or something similar and totally ignored!!

[V7]

When Christians have that level of intensity, they're called nutters, or something similar and totally ignored!!

The violent ones maybe, but the evangelical movement is quite influential in a number of countries and even the old catholic church manages to inspire some.

[Prime Junta]

I was just at the funeral of a relative on Saturday. She was a charismatic Pentecostal. The funeral left me with something of a bad taste. The overall message I got from the lay preacher officiating was "We're going to see her in Heaven, but y'all are going to Hell! Neener neener!" He went into considerable detail about Judgment Day, the resurrection of the flesh, and so on.

That movement is very strong where said relative is from; I believe about half her village belongs to it.

[Corwin]

Welcome to my world!! :)

[Prime Junta]

Somehow, I don't think you'd go "you'll burn in Hell, neener neener" at grieving relatives who don't happen to be part of your movement. Would you?

[Corwin]

Well, no. I don't have a mean bone in my body and such behaviour is really inappropriate. Sometimes my 'colleagues' step over the line and that is definitely an example of that. I have little time for 'extremists' of any persuasion. Jesus preached moderation, not intolerance. Unfortunately people have twisted things taken out of context to present Christianity as an intolerant faith. It's not when it comes to people, though it is, like most others, when it comes to claiming that it is the right and only way!! Still, while I believe in encouraging people to become Christians, it is TOTALLY unacceptable to attempt to force people. If God gave everyone free will and the right to choose, who are WE to try to take that privilege away!!

[Prime Junta]

Thanks, that's more or less what I figured. The trouble with intolerance is that the intolerants tend to be the loudest, which means they quite often end up being the public face of their community, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or whatever. Even if they don't represent the silent majority.

My grand-aunt (the one being buried) was anything but intolerant (in fact, as my father put it, she's one of the very few people he knew about whom it's virtually impossible to find anything nasty to say). I'm fairly certain she wouldn't have liked what the preacher said, even if the preacher was a close friend of hers. She had asked my father to be one of her pallbearers, after all, and he has nothing whatsoever to do with her religious community.

This is her -- IMO it gives a pretty good idea of what kind of person she was.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2479833829_4015c43ae9.jpg

[magerette]

No, she doesn't look like she'd ask you your beliefs before she would get you a drink of water on a hot day, or even care.(Is that a butter churn or an ice cream maker?) It's sad her religious community is so short-sighted and antagonistic to people of divergent beliefs.

I worked with a Pentecostal lady at one time and she was a nice but an extremely low-key person--in her version of that sect, there was no make-up, no dancing, no listening to secular music, no card-playing etc allowed(let alone smoking, drinking and other more major vices..er, SINS) and she was taking a daring step of rebellion which got her in trouble with the church when she put on some lipstick and had her hair done for a job interview. She was always kind and helpful, though.

Somewhere in this "we have a monopoly on the afterlife" concept there's a great existentialist play lurking. In my meandering exploration of myths and religions, I've often wondered--what if exactly what you believe will happen to you when you die is what determines what does happen?

I picture a huge, confused ethereal universe where devout Christians are playing the harp sitting on clouds or frying in sulpherous flames depending on their level of guilt, where ancient Greeks wander the shores of a dark underground river, Vikings are having a rousing party drinking ale until Ragnarok, Buddhists and Hindus are being reincarnated or becoming one with the infinite, and atheists and agnostics are just...not around anymore.

It would make for some great theatre, anyway.

[Prime Junta]

No, she doesn't look like she'd ask you your beliefs before she would get you a drink of water on a hot day, or even care.(Is that a butter churn or an ice cream maker?) It's sad her religious community is so short-sighted and antagonistic to people of divergent beliefs.

Neither. It's a dough vat inoculated with Finnish sourdough starter. It was a wedding gift to an American friend of mine. (I discovered afterward that it made a criminal of me, since importation of biological cultures into the U.S. of A is strictly forbidden. Who knows what that sourdough starter could do...)

Somewhere in this "we have a monopoly on the afterlife" concept there's a great existentialist play lurking. In my meandering exploration of myths and religions, I've often wondered--what if exactly what you believe will happen to you when you die is what determines what does happen?

I picture a huge, confused ethereal universe where devout Christians are playing the harp sitting on clouds or frying in sulpherous flames depending on their level of guilt, where ancient Greeks wander the shores of a dark underground river, Vikings are having a rousing party drinking ale until Ragnarok, Buddhists and Hindus are being reincarnated or becoming one with the infinite, and atheists and agnostics are just...not around anymore.

It would make for some great theatre, anyway.

Have you read Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov, by any chance? One of the ideas he's kicking around in it is just that. If you haven't, you might want to check it out -- I have a feeling you'd enjoy it.

[magerette]

Neither. It's a dough vat inoculated with Finnish sourdough starter. It was a wedding gift to an American friend of mine. (I discovered afterward that it made a criminal of me, since importation of biological cultures into the U.S. of A is strictly forbidden. Who knows what that sourdough starter could do...)

All the subtlest terrorists use sourdough starter. See Homeland Security memo #1,344,287:Biological Agents of Mass Destruction.


Have you read Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov, by any chance? One of the ideas he's kicking around in it is just that. If you haven't, you might want to check it out -- I have a feeling you'd enjoy it.

All the best ideas are already taken.:p Thanks for the rec--I've heard of the title but now it goes on the list.

[dteowner]

Found an interesting news article. The topic is actually related to our hijack of the Democratic Party thread, but I thought this thread might be a better home.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_security_success_2

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_11

Hamas and Israel playing nice? We'll see how long that lasts.

[magerette]

Yeah, just saw this. As you say, believe it when you see it, but as in a bad divorce case, at least the defendant and the plaintiff are talking.

[Korplem]

One of my closest friends once sat next to Jimmy Carter on a cross-country flight and talked with him for hours about world peace. Apparently, he's very sincere. You can't help but like the guy and what he's trying to do over there.

Sorry, I'm a little late to the show. I just couldn't help but point out how ironic it is that he may very well be sincere about world peace but his legacy will live on as one of the most advanced weapons of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter)...

[magerette]

I think that has to be a classic example of irony--wonder if the Pentagon has a sense of humor after all? ;)

[Corwin]

I think that has to be a classic example of irony--wonder if the Pentagon has a sense of humor after all? ;)

Maybe I've watched too many movies, but the concept of the military mind being in an association with a sense of humour, is somewhat akin to an oxymoron IMO!! :)

[magerette]

Some might even say that about the juxtaposition of military & mind, as in the granddaddy oxymoron of them all, "military intelligence." :)

[Corwin]

No, the granddaddy oxymoron is 'female driver'!! :p :)

[dteowner]

The "He started it! No, he started it!" goes on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_bulldozer_attack_12

[dteowner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_080706150658

The Iraqis want a withdrawal time table. I don't understand what the holdup is... If they're ready to put on their big-boy pants, I'm all in favor. It's a golden opportunity for everyone. The Iraqi government gets to show some independence from the infidels; the region gets rid of foreign occupation; the US gets a semi-graceful way to get the hell out; the US also gets a little "moral" protection from any unpleasantness that pops up after we leave since, "We told them they weren't ready for us to leave, but we did what they insisted on."

McCain should be on this like white on rice. Without having to significantly revise his rhetoric, he shows some independence from Dubya and effectively wipes out one of Obama's biggest appeals. What are you waiting for, Johnny boy???

[magerette]

What are you waiting for, Johnny boy???

The okay from Halliburton?

(Sorry--couldn't resist...)

[Pladio]

Hezbollah traded 2 bodies for 5 militants and 200 bodies. How is that a fair deal ?
Especially when you consider that one of them murdered a 4-year old girl ?!

Israel buried one of the two soldiers today while the 5 militants received a hero's welcome back at home...
I believe that this is really dangerous.

[dteowner]

I was a little surprised by that, too, although it's not the first time Israel's had wildly unbalanced exchanges with the militants.

[Prime Junta]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Hezbollah won a war two years ago. If Israel wanted those bodies back, that's pretty much the only thing left for them to do. Generally speaking, losers get sore deals when making agreements after wars. As to the imbalance, don't forget that Israel has also cheerfully jailed Palestinians and Lebanese for the sole purpose of using them as bargaining chips in prisoner swaps. Qantar is actually an exceptional case, since he is a genuine terrorist who has genuinely killed genuine civilians -- that's what all the fuss is about.

It's also just barely conceivable -- in light of the Paris conference, the Israeli-Syrian peace talks, the warm Olmert/Abbas handshakes, and even the sudden talk about the US opening an office in Teheran -- that there's some kind of back-room dealing going on about actually making progress on substantial issues. If so, the prisoner thing was something that had to be gotten out of the way, and the only way that would happen is by handing back Samir Qantar.

Now, if Israel has the sense to evacuate the Cheba'a farms, they will have removed the last of the symbolic obstacles to actual discussions on substance about incorporating the Hezbollah militia into the Lebanese army.

Don't forget that prisoner swaps, and deals involving tiny, uninhabited parcels of land like that, have no substantive value -- they won't affect Israel's security or Hezbollah's operational capacity one whit. However, they are of huge symbolic value, and will make it possible to move further. Yes, Israel has lost face with this exchange -- but that's all it has lost. On the other hand, they have a slim but real chance of gaining a great deal in any negotiations that may follow.

I'm no fan of Qantar either, but on this score, Israel did the right thing. With the new political constellation forming there, the Hezb will either talk, or be forced onto the same road as Hamas. They're not stupid, so I believe they'll talk. They may still prove too intransigent to accept any settlement that's acceptable to the Israelis or their Lebanese opponents, but if that happens, at least the Israelis will have tried.

[Pladio]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_prisoner_swap

Freed Lebanese say they will keep fighting Israel

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Five militants freed as part of a prisoner swap with Israel prayed Thursday at the grave of a slain Hezbollah military commander, pledging to follow in his footsteps and keep fighting Israel.
ADVERTISEMENT

Wearing military fatigues, the five men walked a red carpet laid out for them outside Imad Mughniyeh's burial site at a cemetery south of Beirut. They placed wreaths at the grave and gave a military salute as supporters showered them with rice.

I wouldn't have cared them trading two bodies for 200 of them. The thing that bothers is me is the release of five militants, not just one as you're saying that only Quntar is a terrorist ...

[Prime Junta]

Five militants either way won't make any practical difference whatsoever. The effect is purely symbolic. OTOH not making the deal, at whatever terms were available, would prevent any further progress.

I'm also highly leery about slapping terms like "terrorist" on people there, it's so much a matter of point of view and definition. Everybody who's at all involved in any conflict there is ankle-deep in blood. Discussions of whether someone is a terrorist or not inevitably devolve into name-calling and grudge-listing. There's no useful purpose to be served by that, so I prefer to avoid it altogether whenever possible.

[Pladio]

I think anyone who has the heart to rifle-butt a 4 year old girl is a terrorist or in the very least a heartless bastard and murderer. Probably both.

[Pladio]

I even talked to a Lebanese I know and he said he doesn't agree with freeing Quntar, but he wouldn't say that to other Lebanese.

[dteowner]

Five militants either way won't make any practical difference whatsoever. The effect is purely symbolic. OTOH not making the deal, at whatever terms were available, would prevent any further progress.The militants had the upper hand in this negotiation and they took the opportunity to bend the Israelis over without even giving them a kiss first. It's gone that way a fair bit in recent years, but I'm sure there was a time when the shoe was on the other foot. Neither side understands the concept of gracious victory, which just gives the hate machine another load of fuel. Sad, but so it goes in that part of the world.

[Pladio]

Until WWII, that's how it went in Europe too.

[Prime Junta]

I think anyone who has the heart to rifle-butt a 4 year old girl is a terrorist or in the very least a heartless bastard and murderer. Probably both.

There's a war on. Shit happens in wars, including shit that's much, much worse than that. Dwelling on it, or demanding retribution, won't help. Moving on and trying to find arrangements that are achievable just might.

[Pladio]

You're probably right in looking at the big picture, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a murderer/terrorist.

[Prime Junta]

So what? So was Menachem Begin, and he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing ]

(N.b.: If you pull a "but... that's... completely... DIFFERENT," I'm not going to get drawn in. As I said, listing grudges or demanding justice is not going to lead anywhere, neither on this forum nor in the Middle East. The only thing that might is attempting to find solutions that are possible, even if they are not fair, nor just.)

[Pladio]

Yup, shouldn't blame me or this discussion for it. I don't agree with any murderer or terrorist getting a peace prize.

You brought it up though and from what I have read from the article is that the Irgun usually called in advance so the loss of life would be minimal or none at all. Bombing a building isn't the same a rifle-butting a 4 year-old.

Even if there was something and they wanted to kill people with this plan, killing a 4 year old and killing adults has always been different in the eyes of history. If you compare even now the controversies surrounding pedophiles and just murderers, you'll see it.

Killing kids isn't part of war. Killing other soldiers is. Hezbollah is for me a terrorist organization, but killing soldiers invading their territory is a justified act of war. Killing a 4 year old IS NOT !

[Prime Junta]

"But... it's... completely... DIFFERENT!" Yep-o, I somehow knew that would be coming.

Anyway, what do you suggest? Not do the exchange, even if that means that the low-key conflict will drag on, and tens, hundreds, thousands more will die? There's nothing moral about that; it's just sanctimonious.

The first priority must be to find a solution breaks the tit-for-tat cycle of killing that's been going on there since the 1930's or so. The second priority is to stabilize it so it won't start again. And a very distant third is punishing the guilty. In no case must the third priority endanger the other two. This means that necessarily a lot of murderers will go free; some may even have parades thrown for them, win Nobel peace prizes, or have airports named after them. But if that's what it takes to stop the bloodshed, it's a price worth paying. The alternative is simply a never-ending cycle of vengeance.

[vanedor]

Injecting him a deadly undetectable virus before trading him?

Yeah I know, got too much imagination :)

[Pladio]

"But... it's... completely... DIFFERENT!" Yep-o, I somehow knew that would be coming.

You brought it upon yourself :P

Anyway, what do you suggest? Not do the exchange, even if that means that the low-key conflict will drag on, and tens, hundreds, thousands more will die? There's nothing moral about that; it's just sanctimonious.

The first priority must be to find a solution breaks the tit-for-tat cycle of killing that's been going on there since the 1930's or so. The second priority is to stabilize it so it won't start again. And a very distant third is punishing the guilty. In no case must the third priority endanger the other two. This means that necessarily a lot of murderers will go free; some may even have parades thrown for them, win Nobel peace prizes, or have airports named after them. But if that's what it takes to stop the bloodshed, it's a price worth paying. The alternative is simply a never-ending cycle of vengeance.

I agree with you. I still think he's a murderer and terrorist and releasing him is a crime against humanity.
I also don't believe this will really lead to peace, especially considering what Hezbollah did in Lebanon a few months ago. Also considering that this deal will probably be an incentive for more kidnappings and killings by those terrorist groups in and around Israel.
Hezbollah is also currently rearming since last war.

So, in theory I'd agree with you, but in practice I don't.
Of course, we'll see though. Maybe you're right. Hopefully you are.
Let's all pray to whatever gods we believe in that peace shall come soon.

[dteowner]

The first priority must be to find a solution breaks the tit-for-tat cycle of killing that's been going on there since the 1930's or so. The second priority is to stabilize it so it won't start again. And a very distant third is punishing the guilty. In no case must the third priority endanger the other two. This means that necessarily a lot of murderers will go free; some may even have parades thrown for them, win Nobel peace prizes, or have airports named after them. But if that's what it takes to stop the bloodshed, it's a price worth paying. The alternative is simply a never-ending cycle of vengeance.I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with you nearly completely. I'm not sure a solution exists to break that cycle, though. Could priority 3 be a vehicle toward that goal, though? Imagine the instant legitimacy they'd gain if Hezbollah very publicly stated they were changing their ways and put Qantar on trial to prove it. It's not like the guy's more than a symbolic pawn now anyway. Imagine the instant overwhelming pressure on Israel to match that gesture. You'd have to have some seriously dynamic leaders for both sides not to be strung up by their own followers, but hey...

I know, it's more likely I'll ride a unicorn down Main Street of the Bustling Metropolis and find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow out front of the courthouse AND I won't have to pay taxes on it. I know, I know, you were willing to believe until the "taxes" part.

[Prime Junta]

I also don't believe this will really lead to peace, especially considering what Hezbollah did in Lebanon a few months ago. Also considering that this deal will probably be an incentive for more kidnappings and killings by those terrorist groups in and around Israel.

Peace is certainly a long way off. However, I think that the prisoner exchange as well as the other recent developments make peace less unlikely than it has been for decades. I don't know what can or will bring peace to the region, but I do know that it won't happen without things like this prisoner exchange.

Re the Hezb in Lebanon, their position -- both military and political -- has changed completely since 2006, due to Damascus breaking with Teheran, and due to the fact that they spent their political capital in Lebanon in that mini-war this spring. I wrote at length about this in threads on this forum during and after that conflict, so I won't bother going into it again, other than to note that their freedom of movement is much more constrained now than it was then.

Re incentives to kidnapping and killing: the 2006 war served as an extremely powerful disincentive for Hezbollah to do that. What's more, since Israel no longer holds any Hezb prisoners, they no longer have any pressing reason to do so. I would be extremely surprised should they do a damn-fool thing like that now. This may encourage Hamas, though, since they have much less to lose, but OTOH their operational capacity is much more limited, and I have a feeling they're already doing their damnedest to kidnap any Tsahal soldiers they can.

Hezbollah is also currently rearming since last war.

If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you be doing that too?

So, in theory I'd agree with you, but in practice I don't.
Of course, we'll see though. Maybe you're right. Hopefully you are.
Let's all pray to whatever gods we believe in that peace shall come soon.

I could say the same. In a perfect world, terrorists like Qantar would be put on trial, get sentenced, and do their time (or get that short drop with the quick stop). But the world isn't perfect. If there is to be peace, it will mean that Hariri's assassins will go scot-free, as will Qantar, as will any number of other stone killers on all sides of the conflicts.

And finally, just to make this clear -- I'm still not very optimistic about the prospects for peace in the region; there have been way too many false dawns before, and they've always come to nothing. I do believe that we have to keep trying, though, and while peace may not be possible even with stuff like this, it certainly won't be possible without it. Give the choice between certain war and an uncertain possibility of peace, I'll take the latter.

[Prime Junta]

I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with you nearly completely. I'm not sure a solution exists to break that cycle, though. Could priority 3 be a vehicle toward that goal, though? Imagine the instant legitimacy they'd gain if Hezbollah very publicly stated they were changing their ways and put Qantar on trial to prove it. It's not like the guy's more than a symbolic pawn now anyway. Imagine the instant overwhelming pressure on Israel to match that gesture. You'd have to have some seriously dynamic leaders for both sides not to be strung up by their own followers, but hey...

The problem is that the movement wouldn't survive a move like that. It's conceivable that there are people in the Hezb leadership who would be willing to do that, but if they tried, the militant wing would split off from it... and they're the ones that have the guns. Hezbollah is just as loyal to their own as Israel is -- they will never betray one of their fighters, especially one that's been sitting in an Israeli jail, no matter what he's done.

What's more, many of the people in the Hezb leadership aren't any cleaner than Qantar is. Many of them are simply gangsters who got religion. If he was given a fair trial, a huge amount of dirt on them would come up, which would erode the legitimacy of the movement far more than the gesture would strengthen it.

IOW, it's a nice thought, but it won't fly -- any more than the fairy-tale of justice and fairness winning out in the end. The best we can hope for is that the Hezb fighters are given nice new uniforms with a cedar tree on the sleeve, rather than the yellow flag with the green rifle. If we got that far, things would already look a lot better.

[Pladio]

Re incentives to kidnapping and killing: the 2006 war served as an extremely powerful disincentive for Hezbollah to do that. What's more, since Israel no longer holds any Hezb prisoners, they no longer have any pressing reason to do so. I would be extremely surprised should they do a damn-fool thing like that now. This may encourage Hamas, though, since they have much less to lose, but OTOH their operational capacity is much more limited, and I have a feeling they're already doing their damnedest to kidnap any Tsahal soldiers they can.


I was talking about every other group, hezb is an exception to this because of the situation. Hamas and other groups will learn that kidnapping and killing gives them militants back alive and kicking.


If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you be doing that too?


Yup, my point was that they're not going for peace, they're going for war.


I could say the same. In a perfect world, terrorists like Qantar would be put on trial, get sentenced, and do their time (or get that short drop with the quick stop). But the world isn't perfect. If there is to be peace, it will mean that Hariri's assassins will go scot-free, as will Qantar, as will any number of other stone killers on all sides of the conflicts.


You could, but my question is: Will letting them off the hook bring peace (as in being a step towards it like you're suggesting)? Or will it instead incite more violence and kidnappings from other terror groups who now believe that kidnapping and killing is rewarding?

[Prime Junta]

I was talking about every other group, hezb is an exception to this because of the situation. Hamas and other groups will learn that kidnapping and killing gives them militants back alive and kicking.

Um... were you under the impression that this is the first prisoner exchange of this type?

Yup, my point was that they're not going for peace, they're going for war.

They're _arming_ for war. That's the only sane thing to do in their position. It doesn't mean that war is their first option. Without a realistic capacity to wage it, they won't have any bargaining power at all. You cannot judge anything at all about their intentions from the simple fact that they're rearming. They're certainly ready to fight if they need to, but they're also quite conscious of the costs of fighting -- and that cost is very high.

You could, but my question is: Will letting them off the hook bring peace (as in being a step towards it like you're suggesting)? Or will it instead incite more violence and kidnappings from other terror groups who now believe that kidnapping and killing is rewarding?

It's certainly a step towards peace on the Israeli/Hezbollah/Lebanese front. You could argue that it has the opposite effect on the Israeli/Hamas front -- but that only if you believe, against the evidence, that Hamas hasn't kidnapped any more soldiers lately due to lack of incentives rather than lack of capability.

Furthermore, I believe the following things:

(1) There is no single, universal, global magic solution that will resolve all of the Middle Eastern conflicts at a stroke. You have to tackle them one by one.
(2) The least intractable of the conflicts is the Israeli-Syrian one. The Israeli-Hezbollah-Lebanese one is next, and it's connected to it.
(3) If one of the conflicts is resolved peacefully, it will create a precedent that may make it easier to resolve any of the other ones. This could create a momentum for peace -- a true peace process, rather than the fake one that's been going on since Oslo -- that might, over time, result in peaceful resolution of all or most of the conflicts in the region.

So, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that this exchange makes peace more rather than less likely on balance. There are certainly negatives, but I believe the positives outweigh them.

[dteowner]

Sounds like my idea was truly a flight of fantasy, since it looks like Qantar's situation is going the other direction completely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080720/wl_mcclatchy/2996428

Seems to me this prisoner exchange has turned into a major step back with no sign of "2 steps forward" on the horizon. Thoughts?

[Pladio]

Wait and see was what PJ suggested. I think that's what we need to do for now. If this can lead to peace I'm for it. I'm pessimistic about it though and believe Kuntar will probably die in a mysterious car explosion...

[Prime Junta]

Sounds like my idea was truly a flight of fantasy, since it looks like Qantar's situation is going the other direction completely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080720/wl_mcclatchy/2996428

Seems to me this prisoner exchange has turned into a major step back with no sign of "2 steps forward" on the horizon. Thoughts?

First off, that article had a slant like the north face of Mount Everest, so don't take it at face value.

Second, some things to keep in mind:

(1) Qantar is, and will remain, a hero to about half the Lebanese population, and to very many disaffected young men around the Arab world in general. There is no way to change that.

(2) The Lebanese government, "pro-Western" or not, has been extremely weak ever since the PLO set up shop in Beirut. This can only change if there are major structural shifts within Lebanese society, which will take at least a generation or two, if they're ever to happen.

(3) The best-case scenario that the "pro-Westerners" are currently shooting for is something like this:

(a) Avoid another war. There are at least four of them that they're trying to avoid. This is a very delicate balancing act, because doing something to avoid one may well make another more likely.

(b) Integrate the Hezbollah into the polity, in some way or another. Specifically, they're looking to merge the Hezb army into the Lebanese one, and to bring the Hezb social and public services somehow under the Lebanese national umbrella. Following that, there could be substantive changes in small areas -- allowing Lebanese police and, say, street-sweepers access to Hezb-controlled areas, bringing a part of the Hezb's budget into the national one, and so on.

The Qantar thing should be seen against this background. The Lebanese government has clearly taken the line that they're willing to make all the symbolic gestures the Hezbollah can ever ask for -- celebrating their martyrs, hanging up posters at the airport, giving the red-carpet treatment to Qantar, whatever -- in order to make progress on substantive issues easier.

I have no idea whether this will actually work, but it will certainly have some effect among the Hezb's base. If it's sustained, it might.

Finally, re Lebanese-Israeli peace talks: the problem as it currently stands is that there's nobody there who's in a position to negotiate. The Lebanese state's differences with Israel are pretty trivial; the problem is the Israel/Hezbollah angle. In order to have a meaningful peace accord, the Hezb will have to be a party to it. The Lebanese government is still way too young and way too precarious to do anything at all about that; they haven't even come up with a program yet. If there is a Syrian/Israeli peace, I'm pret-ty certain that a Lebanese-Israeli one will follow -- always assuming that the Lebanese government manages to not fall apart, and that the Hezb stay in it.

IOW, "wait and see" is the way to go. Like it or not, the Hezb is there to stay: if you want peace in the region, the only way to go is to try to integrate it with the Lebanese state. Now they have a seat at the Lebanese national table. They have no experience governing a country, and will certainly make mistakes.

Beyond that, it's impossible to say what line they will take. I'm hoping they'll see sense and opt for integration with the Lebanese state and peace with Israel. That's by no means a given, but seeing the Lebanese government "embrace the resistance" is a step in that direction.

I would not expect to see any further progress on the Lebanese/Israeli front until (if) there is a peace treaty between Israel and Syria. Until then, the best we can hope for is a somewhat functional Lebanese government with the Hezb in it, and no more shooting or provocations from any of the parties. If we're lucky, there will be such a treaty within the next 12-24 months, and if we're _really_ lucky, the Hezb will have gotten some experience at governing by then, and will be ready to put their imprimatur on a Lebanese/Israeli peace treaty.

Summa summarum, the Middle East can turn on a dime -- but generally wars break out a great deal more quickly than peace. So let's be patient and see where things go from here on out -- and, most especially, let's not get too caught up in flamboyant symbolic gestures of any stripe.

[dteowner]

Thanks for the analysis. Perhaps I'm putting too much stock in the power of symbols (good and bad), but it seems that the direction that Qantar is being used would be gasoline-soaked tinder. There's enough nutjobs with a vested interest in continued conflict on both sides of the fence that running Qantar up the symbolic flagpole would have to be considered dangerous provocation.

[Prime Junta]

It certainly won't raise the stock of the Lebanese government in Israel or the West -- but, then again, that's not really that important: Israel and the West know well enough that any alternative to the Lebanese government will be much worse. If it is to succeed, it has to raise its stock among Lebanese Shi'ites, and that's what this is all about. Expect to see more of this sort of thing over the next year or so.

The Lebanese government's problem is precisely that it's (largely but not completely unjustly) seen as the lapdog of the French and the Americans. If it's to become credible enough to give the country any semblance of unity, not to mention credible enough to be able to sign a peace treaty, it'll have to do some serious chest-thumping first. As long as that's all that it does, there won't be a problem. That isn't to say that it won't do something rock-stupid and substantive, which would be a problem.

But the first thing to do when looking at stuff in the Middle East is to ask "is this theater, or is this substantive?" Generally speaking, theater is harmless (and there's a lot of it); substantive things are usually low-key but they matter.

[dteowner]

I guess I don't trust the Israelis to ignore the grandstanding, and I'd be giving the Lebanese 2 minutes in the penalty box for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[Prime Junta]

As long as they just respond with some grandstanding of their own, there's no real problem. I doubt they'll stage bombing raids just because of this; they're all too well aware what's at stake here. As long as they stick to chest-thumping, this ought to blow over in a month or two.

When's the last time someone conducted themselves like a sportsman (either as a winner or a loser) in world politics anyway? Come to think of it, when's the last time a sportsman conducted himself as a sportsman?

[magerette]

This is a very sketchy short article from the Jerusalem Post--can anyone fill me in?

Iranian Cleric Blasts Ahmadinejad (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1219572137344&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

I can't tell if he's blasting him for domestic incompetence, ignoring the UN, being too pro-West or too pro-nuclear or just a generally wanker.

(Thanks in advance--I had to wade through a sea of dattaswami threads to find this one.)

[Prime Junta]

Ok, I'll try.

Here's the short version:

"Nancy Pelosi attacks President George W. Bush on the economy. Film at eleven."

Here's the longer one:

By neighborhood standards, Iran has relatively broad political freedoms. I'd say it's about halfway between a genuinely free society and your typical authoritarian Saddam/Bashar/Mubarak/Saudi style place, where political discourse happens in private and the opposition is underground, in jail, or under house arrest. So a lot of political discourse there is out in the open. It's very hard to tell what it means unless you know more about the people concerned.

There are several independent power centers, with a variety of motivations, bases of support, and ideologies. These include at least the following:

1. The "old-style revolutionary conservatives." These are the ideological successors of Ayatollah Khomeini. The current boss, Ayatollah Khamene'i, is one of them. They control the Council of Advisors -- the ultimate authority in the country. They want a country that's governed by Islamic law, and they like the position of the Council of Advisors just fine, thank you very much. They're not opposed in principle to rapprochement with the West or their neighbors, but in practice their unyielding position on Israel sorta makes this rather difficult. (My take: given a chance, it's a possibility this group could become something "we can do business with," as Thatcher put it -- they're not stupid, they're not rabid fanatics, and they're relatively realistic.)
2. The "new-style populist-nationalist-Islamists." Ahmadinejad is their front guy. The support base is disaffected urban youth, of which Iran is in no short supply. They want Iran to dominate the region, and are opposed in every way to being friends with anyone, except on their terms, and they're very big on stuff like public morality (keeping the women covered, that sort of thing). These guys are kinda nasty.
3. The Revolutionary Guard. This is a state within a state: they're their own army, they run their own industries, and they control lots of choke points in the economy. They're ideologically close to the new-style populists, but they're also very concerned about maintaining their privileged position in society. They prefer to work in the background, though, partly because they're so very strong. I would suspect they're rather corrupt.
4. The "Reformers." The West's great missed chance on Iran, Mohammed Khatami, is one of their leaders. They're clerics who want "Islamism with a human face." They'd like to see Iran become a more open society with more or less normal relations with the rest of the world. I would suspect that many of them secretly admire Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan. Their base of support is one part of the clergy, plus much of the educated youth and the small middle class. Unfortunately, they had their shot at power when Khatami was president, but the West totally snubbed him, after which the old-style conservatives and new-style populists booted him out of power. I'd very much like to see them succeed, but I don't hold out much hope.

So, without knowing much about the individual concerned, this looks like a Reformist cleric blasting Ahmadinejad. That sort of thing happens in Iran all the time. It doesn't, in and of itself, mean anything in particular. If he was joined by voices from the Conservative establishment, there would be something interesting going on. I don't know why this particular instance made it to JPost; perhaps it does mean something, or perhaps the reporter just wanted something to show that Ahmadinejad isn't all that popular really.

[Pladio]

I thought Ahmadinejad wasn't so popular except for in his group ... By this I mean, the conservatives tolerate him because he's against Israel, but they don't particularly like him. He doesn't make problems for the Guard, so they don't care too much and if it's only the last group which is against him then he's in a good position. But all in all, I thought they didn't really like him.

[Prime Junta]

That's true; he got elected largely because (1) his group is a pretty big one, and (2) the other big group, namely the folks supporting the Reformists, were seriously discouraged by the failure of Khatami's policies to deliver anything substantial to them on the one hand, and by the old-style conservatives' moves to purge the candidate lists of most serious reformist candidates. The trouble is that the old-style conservatives don't really have a mass constituency, and the reformists have been more or less marginalized since Ahmadinejad got into power.

I do think he has some kind of understanding with the Guard that goes beyond simple tolerance; however, I think he needs the Guard more than the Guard needs him. There have been signs that the old-style conservatives have been losing patience with him lately.

But unfortunately I don't know Iran nearly as well as I would like; I've been gradually reading up on it though, so perhaps I'll be able to offer better insight in a few more weeks or months.

[magerette]

Thanks very much, Prime J. You have a great deal more insight into the situation than I do, or than was displayed in that article, which was taking way too much for granted in its reporting, and I appreciate the time taken to clearly explain the various factions. That fleeting reference (in the JP) to the Republican Guard told me nothing.

Now that I'm armed with a few more facts, I'm wondering if this isn't just some pre-election bruhaha from the opposition, perhaps laying the groundwork for their stance in 2009.

[Pladio]

Maybe here's the other group going against him...

Iranian conservative attacks president on economy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_ahmadinejad)

TEHRAN, Iran - A top conservative cleric close to Iran's supreme leader criticized the economic policies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they threaten to keep Iran from its goal of becoming a regional superpower by 2025.
He probably needs to get some real support from the conservatives to win the elections....
What do you think ?

[magerette]

I find this little bit of lockstep between the Republican party in office an