Middle East News 2

Pladio · January 24, 2009

dteowner said:
Perhaps I should have only quoted your first sentence. That was the part I was referring to.

Israel isn't going to lose a lot of power neither ...

Pladio · January 24, 2009

V7 said:
And the settlers would peacefuly pack up and go home if that was part of the deal?

Probably not, but a one-state solution wouldn't require them to leave, would it now ?

Prime Junta · January 24, 2009

Pladio said:
I'm not sure about everyone, but I am almost a 100% sure that quite a few leaders actually believe their rhetoric, meaning they actually want Israel wiped off the map. So I don't think they'll just lay down their weapons so easily.

True -- but the way they see it, a one-state solution would have Israel wiped off the map. What is Israel, from their POV? It's a Jewish state encroaching on Arab land, at war with Arab states, and keeping an Arab population under permanent occupation. A nondenominational state that incorporated the occupied areas and treated the Arabs in them equally before the law, and that recognized the right of return e.g. in the indirect form I described above would no longer *be* Israel. If nearly half the citizens of Israel are Arabs and they're treated equally before the law, it's going to be awfully hard for them to argue that it's an aggressive, racist, colonialist state out to screw over Muslims.

Sure, it'd be a hard sell, just like it'd be a hard sell for Israelis to have to give up on the dream of an Israel that's characteristically Jewish. But perhaps, given the right incentives, it could be done.

Not only that, it would also mean they lose their power which is what (probably) most of them are after. So I don't see Hamas and others just laying down their arms. Maybe that's pessimistic of me, but I think you are just too optimistic about it.

Not "just" lay down their arms, but I think they just might be persuadable.

Prime Junta · January 24, 2009

Pladio said:
Probably not, but a one-state solution wouldn't require them to leave, would it now ?

Which would be the main selling-point of the one-state solution on the Israeli side. It would require a shift in thinking of both sides; I've been proceeding from the assumption that a two-state solution is the only way to go that my brain is hurting from considering the implications of a one-state one. It set a whole different set of candy and bitter medicine on the table; without broad discussion, there's no way to know if there's enough candy to get everyone to swallow the medicine.

But I am starting to think that the two-state solution may have run into a wall. If so, someone has to start thinking of alternative solutions.

Pladio · January 24, 2009

Prime Junta said:
Which would be the main selling-point of the one-state solution on the Israeli side. It would require a shift in thinking of both sides; I've been proceeding from the assumption that a two-state solution is the only way to go that my brain is hurting from considering the implications of a one-state one. It set a whole different set of candy and bitter medicine on the table; without broad discussion, there's no way to know if there's enough candy to get everyone to swallow the medicine.

But I am starting to think that the two-state solution may have run into a wall. If so, someone has to start thinking of alternative solutions.

I think there would have to be a lot of discussion before people even think of it as a viable option. There's so much hatred on both sides, which I've witnessed personally and otherwise that I see very little hope (in the near future) for a one-state solution where people will just live side by side. As you know. I would accept it, but unfortunately, my ideas represent but a low portion of the Israeli Jews, which are sometimes considered as traitors to some Israeli extreme rightist.

Except for that...

True -- but the way they see it, a one-state solution would have Israel wiped off the map. What is Israel, from their POV? It's a Jewish state encroaching on Arab land, at war with Arab states, and keeping an Arab population under permanent occupation. A nondenominational state that incorporated the occupied areas and treated the Arabs in them equally before the law, and that recognized the right of return e.g. in the indirect form I described above would no longer *be* Israel. If nearly half the citizens of Israel are Arabs and they're treated equally before the law, it's going to be awfully hard for them to argue that it's an aggressive, racist, colonialist state out to screw over Muslims.

Sure, it'd be a hard sell, just like it'd be a hard sell for Israelis to have to give up on the dream of an Israel that's characteristically Jewish. But perhaps, given the right incentives, it could be done.

I still think you're being over-optimistic, but I do think it's worth a try. Want to open a blog ? Like those two guys : The Israeli and the Palestinian ? Instead of talking about the problems, we would speak out for solutions ?

The more people see it's possible to talk to people from opposite aisles, the better it is ...

Not "just" lay down their arms, but I think they just might be persuadable.

The only way they would, I believe, is if they're offered positions of power, which I don't think they should receive.

Prime Junta · January 25, 2009

An interesting take on the problem from an anthropologist writing an op-ed in the NY Times:

[ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25atran.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion ]

Essentially, he's saying that the practical considerations -- how much land, to whom, will there be compensation, how much, and so on -- are less important than purely symbolic ones. According to him, Netanyahu would be willing to accept the 1967 borders if Hamas etc. officially recognize Israel's right to exist and back it up by action (i.e., a change in their rhetoric etc.), and Hamas would be willing to accept Israel's right to exist if Israel issued an official apology for displacing the Palestinians in 1948.

IOW, only words. Yet who ever said talk was cheap? Boy were they wrong.

dteowner · January 25, 2009

Everything makes sense until someone decides, "It's a matter of principle", eh? I guess I don't share the belief that words are more important than actions. If it were that simple, we could have locked these bozos in a room at the UN (!) with nothing but ham sandwiches and Boone's Farm until they talked it out. Both sides have a history of saying one thing while doing another.

Prime Junta · January 26, 2009

I think the real problem is when words and actions don't match. If Israel says that it wants peace with the Palestinians in a two-state solution, but keeps grabbing more land via the settler movement, it pisses people off. If Palestinians say they recognize Israel's right to exist, but then publish overtly anti-semitic schoolbooks, that also pisses people off.

But I think the author does have a point: without those declarations of principle -- "parole parole" -- it's awfully hard to make progress on concrete things. The converse is true, too. Words do matter, fortunately... or not.

Geist · January 26, 2009

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I came across an article by Norman Finkelstein in which he argues that a primary reason for Israel's attacks on Hamas (apart from wanting to restore the IDFs 'deterrent' capacity) is due to recent Palestinian "peace offensives".

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas. "

....

"Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce "harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement."[41] Translation: a protracted ceasefire that enhanced Hamas's credibility would have undermined Israel's strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank. As far back as March 2007 Israel had decided on attacking Hamas, and only negotiated the June truce because "the Israeli army needed time to prepare.

Here is a link to the full article in which he provides some background info and cites other historical examples in which Israel has opted for military confrontation at various points in time when Israel's opponents (first the PLO and later Hamas) started to make concessions and soften their positions.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542

If Finkelstein's argument is correct, then the prospect of reaching a diplomatic solution certainly doesn't look promising. In that case, even if Hamas recognizes Israel's permanent right to exist (albeit within the 1967 borders), rather than being a step toward peace, as the NY times anthropologist envisions, this gesture would be perceived as a threat by Israeli hard liners such as Netanyahu.

Note, this is not the same Finkelstein who authored the NY Times article that Pladio posted in the earlier ME thread (though he is also the son of Holocaust survivors).

Prime Junta · January 26, 2009

Yep-o, the two-state solution is looking less workable by the day.

I'm hereby changing my personal position on this question from "advocate of the two-state solution" to "undecided."

Geist · January 26, 2009

I still think a two state solution could work, but the real battle for peace in Israel and Palestine has to be fought in America. The international community pretty much unanimously supports a resolution based on the 1967 borders. If the United States were to join this consensus and demand that Israel withdraw the settlements, Israel would have no choice but to comply. Of course, the settlers would have to be compensated in some way and of course there would still be massive resistance. In the end though, Israel can't live in a vacuum. If faced with the genuine threat of sanctions, they would have to cut their losses and deal with it. If Washington took the lead, the rest of the world would certainly follow.

Hamas has already said in so many words that they would accept such an arrangement. Moreover, if they were to be the ones to take credit for it, I'm convinced they would grab the opportunity. Forcing the Zionists out of the occupied territoris would be seen as a historic victory and would firmly entrench Hamas as the dominant political force in Palestinian politics for years to come (whether that would be a good thing for the Palestinian people is another question).

I don't see the Obama administration making any significant policy shift when it comes to Israel/Palestine. One of these years, however, if things start to really heat up in the middle east as a whole, those voices in the American political establishment who argue that it might actually be in America's best interests to take a balanced approach toward Israel, in tune with the rest of the world, may start to get louder. The Israel Lobby would certainly fight back with guns blazing, but this is the crucial battle that needs to be won if there's to be any hope for a just peace.

dteowner · January 26, 2009

Geist said:
I still think a two state solution could work, but the real battle for peace in Israel and Palestine has to be fought in America. The international community pretty much unanimously supports a resolution based on the 1967 borders. If the United States were to join this consensus and demand that Israel withdraw the settlements, Israel would have no choice but to comply. Of course, the settlers would have to be compensated in some way and of course there would still be massive resistance. In the end though, Israel can't live in a vacuum. If faced with the genuine threat of sanctions, they would have to cut their losses and deal with it. If Washington took the lead, the rest of the world would certainly follow.

Bolds are mine. See, PJ, I really don't make this stuff up. Geist is just one voice, but I think it's safe to say that every voice here represents a larger voice in the global community. Somehow, it always becomes our problem to fix and then everyone complains when we try to fix it.

Prime Junta · January 26, 2009

dteowner said:
Bolds are mine. See, PJ, I really don't make this stuff up. Geist is just one voice, but I think it's safe to say that every voice here represents a larger voice in the global community. Somehow, it always becomes our problem to fix and then everyone complains when we try to fix it.

Are you seriously saying that Israel/Palestine was somehow mysteriously shoved in your lap by the international community? Come on, dte -- surely you can do better than that. If what you're saying is true, then where's the clamor demanding that the US take the lead on solving the Sri Lankan Tamil/Sinhalese war, for example?

On Israel/Palestine, I'd very much like to see what would happen if Washington just got out of the way -- although I'd certainly appreciate it if they did attempt to take the lead in finding a lasting peace.

dteowner · January 26, 2009

It's more the sentiment than this specific issue. We've kind of asked for this one, given our long-standing blind support of Israel. I'll see if I can find some damning article re Sri Lanka.

Geist · January 27, 2009

The thing is dte, I very much would like the USA to take an active role in trying to solve global problems. That's not so much the issue. The issue is that I often strongly disagree with the approach. If, in trying to solve those 'problems', we feel that you're creating more problems, not just for the US, but for everyone else, then the rest of us certainly have a right to complain.

dteowner · January 27, 2009

Geist said:
The thing is dte, I very much would like the USA to take an active role in trying to solve global problems. That's not so much the issue. The issue is that I often strongly disagree with the approach. If, in trying to solve those 'problems', we feel that you're creating more problems, not just for the US, but for everyone else, then the rest of us certainly have a right to complain.

No, you don't in that case. There are leaders and there are followers. Note, the "leader" does not have to be a single entity, but it must be a single, unified philosophy. If you don't like the solution, then by definition you cannot be part of the leader group. At that point, you either choose to follow and accept whatever you get, or you put on your big boy pants and become the leader of a new and different approach/philosophy. The old leader and his philosophy get abandoned.

And I'm perfectly willing to believe there are better answers out there for various problems than the ones the US brings to the table. The real problem is that, with action comes responsibility. Y'all aren't happy as followers but you refuse to become leaders with the burden it entails.

So, you've got a choice. Become the 600 pound gorilla you claim we are and do things the way you want (we might adapt to your philosophy to join the leadership group, or we might be relegated to the silent followers group), or accept your position in the silent followers group. No shame either way.

blatantninja · January 27, 2009

I don't have a problem with other countries stepping up and taking a more proactive approach in solving the world's problems, however I do have an issue when people want us to take the foremost roll, then complain about the way we do it. If you think you can do it better yourselves, than by all means do. I'm not saying we're perfect, we're not.

magerette · January 27, 2009

Obama's first television in-depth interview since being elected:

Transcript of Al_Arabiyah Interview

And so what I told him[George Mitchell, recently appointed Special Envoy to the MidEast] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

There's a lot more here(3 pages) for those interested in the new adminstration's foreign policy stance.

Zaleukos · January 27, 2009

bn and dte

I can sympathise with your position, but on many issues there is no real alternative to US leadership.

No other free country has comparable economic or human resources. Some might point to the EU but that is not a country but a loose confederation/free trade zone that still is struggling to even define a framework for common foreign and security policy (that is one of the issues of the whole Lisbon process). Individually a country such as PJs Finland has about the same population as Atlanta and even if reasonably wealthy it wouldnt be a 600 pound gorilla, but rather a two pound lemur... Even Britain or France would at most be baboons rather than gorillas.

So part of the whining stems from us not really having any other options, or from the necessity of having you guys on board or at least out of the way for any action of ours to have any effect. You may then point at us hypocritically not having the same expectations on China/India/Russia, but they dont have a global presence comparable to yours, and are not mature democracies that we have a history of being allies with.

That said there are definitely plenty of areas where we should do more and where our lethargy is far from flattering.

dteowner · January 27, 2009

Prime Junta said:
Are you seriously saying that Israel/Palestine was somehow mysteriously shoved in your lap by the international community? Come on, dte -- surely you can do better than that. If what you're saying is true, then where's the clamor demanding that the US take the lead on solving the Sri Lankan Tamil/Sinhalese war, for example?

On Israel/Palestine, I'd very much like to see what would happen if Washington just got out of the way -- although I'd certainly appreciate it if they did attempt to take the lead in finding a lasting peace.

Quote from magerette's article:

Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows.

That's the interviewer's words.

Middle East News 2

Guardian of Nonsense

Guardian of Nonsense

RPGCodex' Little BRO

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Guardian of Nonsense

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Shoegazer

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Watchdog

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Watchdog

Shoegazer

RPGCodex' Little BRO

Shoegazer

Watchdog

Shoegazer

Resident Redneck Facist

Hedgewitch

Bum

Shoegazer