The New Catastrophe in Gaza

Remove all ads!

Well, from all those links, this particular part had most of my interest.

So there it is, Israel simply responds to violence. Hamas can claim they had a seize fire for 16 months, but that's bullcrap, as there are so many groups with an agenda of their own. And besides, i don't believe a single word from any Hamas spokesman to begin with.

 

BTA - I suspect we would run out of motivation before hitting the 500 posts limit.

For the record: I argue for the sake of the Palestinian people. While attacking the Israeli *state*, by no means do I support Hamas or any other group of extremists. I think them two aspects of the same symptom.
The murder of Israeli and Palestinian civilians are equally disgusting. Some just cannot bring themselves to call a crime by its name in both instances. Never hold the mirror to Israel, yes? What started the current crisis is not my main peeve, although it is clearly a related topic. In my opinion.

 

Exactly. No one is arguing that the attacks levied by Hamas, Hezbollah are justified (at least I hope not). What we are arguing is that the fact that those attacks are unjustified does not justify Israel's response. 2 soldiers were kidnapped and a few others were killed. So Israel decided to set Lebanon back 20 years. I'm sorry, but that just isn't proportionate. Not only that, but it will have the exact oposite result Israel is aiming for.

 

Meh, this thread started with a rant against Israel; I thought I should point out that they are not the only ones responsible for the situation. In my opinion, what lacks from most discussions on this topic is an acknowledgement that both sides have some legitimate grievances.

And I think that Israel is making a mistake in Lebanon with the bombing of civilian infrastructure (like power plants and TV stations). Of course, they can argue that these are militarily relevant...but they should consider the downside of these attacks, too. Meaning the loss in good will from other people/countries, and the resulting increase in arab animosity... assuming that that can increase any more.

 

It sure as hell can. Hezbollah is a minority party in Lebanon. I doubt it will be a minority for much longer. Only 62% of the Palestinians that bothered to vote voted for Hamas, the only properly funded party running, with the rest mostly voting for moderates. Due to Israel's response, I can almost garauntee that support for Hamas will actually increase. When Israel targets civillians because of the actions of a few militants, it causes the Palestinians to turn on Israel, not blame the militants. Israel's tendency to repay deaths tenfold actually turns the suicide bombers who started the attacks into martyrs in the minds of the Palestinians. I'm not arguing that it should....merely that Israel needs to pay attention to how their actions will be viewed by Palestinians and tweak their responses accordingly. It's called diplomacy.

 

Diplomacy only works when you're dealing with TWO reasonable sides, when one of the two is a bunch of raging lunatics it's of no use, better to put the hammer on them.

 

And when they BOTH are, it's hopeless.

 

So, any suggestions? An international task force could be a good solution, but it's hard to make it large enough to be effective (would be probably 20 000+ people), and, in addition, it should be willing and able to use force. Most UN missions do not expect that, nor are they able to. Especially if they must be able to keep both parties away from each other. If the UN manages to organize a force big and strong enough to act as an impartial defender, it would be great. It's just that it would be hellishly hard for that to happen. The USA/UK wants this force to protect mainly Israeli interests, and will push for a such mission. However, in case a shootout starts - and it's very hard not to have at least one, when both parties are itching for a fight (happened even in Kosovo or Bosnia), the UN force should be able to protect the Lebanese as well. If they are not considered impartial, they will probably suffer the same fate as the MNF did in the 1980's - most radical militias went after them. Israel initially wanted the Lebanese regular army to take over the role of protective force, but given how Israel has attacked army installations, one could guess they wouldn't really be jumping from joy at the idea. Not to mention that if the army fought Hezbollah, with its political and especially social influence, Lebanon could have civil war in weeks. Not everyone's priority. The bottom line is, we wouldn't need someone to keep the peace when there isn't peace. There has to be someone able to enforce it. That is a step more than most international missions have to do, and consequently can do. Of course, there is a notable problem: which states would be willing to dedicate the money, soldiers, and military equipment to this task? The countries closest to the region, hence more immediately affected and likely to undertake such investment, are the countries Israel would least like to see at their border, or trust with it. One exception may be Turkey, which at the moment has its own problems - the PKK attacks are on the rise and it won't send the Askeer anywhere unless the Kurds are made so settle down. Few European countries would be willing to send a strong enough force by themselves, although NATO troops could be sent. However, that can only happen with the full backing of the USA, which shown extraordinarily little concern in limiting the Israeli actions. I hope things change, of course. Other countries that could spare the forces necessary for little more than the prestige involved may be China or India... An interesting option, but a little too unorthodox, perhaps.

Here's an interesting question: if the UN positions are attacked again, what would happen if it struck back? These are the basic rules of engagement for an armed unit (and the peacekeepers are such, normally), so they should really have the firepower to. After all, if the region needs another Srebrenica, they don't need an external force for that. Just leave them do what they're doing.

Just to point it out, I don't think anyone here excused the Hezbollah or Hamas raids. However, if they are crimes deserving of the brand "terrorism," so are Israel's incursions. I was, and still am, completely disgusted by the way their leaders and speakers try to frame the issue. Excuse me, but when a Justice minister says that the Lebanese people should leave the region, or they will be considered Hezbollah supporters (read: enemies), this is inciting a war crime. This man should be Hassan Nasrallah's cellmate, not a minister in a democratic country.

[ July 28, 2006, 17:54: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Labelling your opposition "a bunch of raving lunatics" isn't exactly reasonable, Pac Man. Lets just say I'm glad you aren't from Israel with an attitude like that. If that was the "standard" Israeli position on Palestine, I'd have to question exactly which side is the "unreasonable" one. Unless we are actually considering genocide, patience and diplomacy is really our only option. Patience is necessary because it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a week or a year of diplomacy to undue two generations worth of strife and unrest. Diplomacy is necessary because Israel has been "bringing the hammer to them" since the 1970's and the only thing they've managed to accomplish is to make the situation worse and egender even more resentment. We've given force a try for 40 years running. It's time to admit that force will simply never accomplish anything.....at least not between Israel and Palestine.

 

It helped them stay alive in an extremely hostile environment, didn't it ? You know just as well as i do that Israel doen't negotiate with terrorists, and the Palestinian government happens to be a terrorist organisation, or did you forget that already ? Personally i think that it would sooner come to a complete annihilation of the Palestinians in the region as that there is room for a peaceful coexistance, and frankly, i don't think i would lose much sleep over it, should such a thing happen.

 

Yeah, right, does not negotiate with terrorists my foot. That phrase is one of the most often-abused ........ in the history of international relationship, not to mention a great lie. Not one or two Israeli politicians from their earliest days had performed or backed acts of terrorism either against the British or the Arabs. They backed the SLA by any means, and the SLA was little better than Hezbollah in what they did, it was just the "whom they did it" that was different. They have negotiated with Arafat, many times throughout the 1990's. So the whole "we do not negotiate with terrorists" bit is just for the cameras in 99% of the cases, or just when you don't want to negotiate, because you think you're strong enough to take what you want. Were the current standards on terrorism applied to all countries equally, no one would negotiate with no one. Just how many countries were engaged in a liberation struggle that did not feature what can today be defined as terrorism, particularly to a military group? Next to none. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," as they say. Sorry if that offends someone, but I just can not take that phrase seriously anymore.

On the issue of Hezbollah provoking Israel - true, they did, and carry the blame for starting the conflict. First, however, it's not fair to blame only them for the escalation and everything that happened. Second, for them it was also a matter of Israel holding prisoners that they wanted freed, like with the Palestinians. It need not make the whole affair justified, but it's also not that they just felt a burning hatred for every Israeli living or dead and decided to kidnap a few - and that statement has been made many times. They may be ruthless, but seeing them as irrational or homicidal is beyond simplistic. If the Lebanese people believe that there is a grievance, legitimate or not, the Hezbollah can be reformed even if destroyed. When "God is high and the king is far," the weapon is usually the only mean of resolving matters.

[ July 30, 2006, 20:41: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

I don't know why I keep reading this...

A wise man said these words:

 

Your own words are more telling than any rebuttal I would make. Sometimes a counter argument isn't needed.

[ July 30, 2006, 21:38: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Especially when it's one of your twisted counterarguments Drew, have you learned to read and actually understand what you're reading by now or what ? I didn't say that i'm hoping for a complete annihilation of the Palestinians, i said that if they stay on this course, it would be more likely to happen than the two of them living together in harmony. I've asked you this before, and i'll ask it again...stop twisting my words into something you apparently want to read.

What i'm seeing is Israeli settlers grabbing more and more land from the natives, pushing them further and further away from their natural habitat, thanks to an overwhelming superiority in firepower. Peacenegotiations are a fluke, and only work on short terms, because on one side they want to kill every single last one of their enemies, and on the other they aren't really interested in in peace with the natives, all they want is to increase their lands. 75 years from now, there's a good possibilty there aren't all that much Palestinians left in that region, because they all may have fled elsewhere, or they simply died in the violence.

It's history repeating itself. The Europeans who crossed the Atlantic left little or nothing alive from the original inhabitants of the new world they were about to settle. It's just a theory, but not an unrealistic one in my opinion. Unless the international community puts a stop to it, i could see it happen somewhere in time. It happened before, didn't it ?

 

I quoted you verbatim. I, in fact did not want to read a statement like that. It shows that you feel that the lives of Palestinians carry less intrinsic value than the lives of Israelis, a statement you've made several times before and, until now, I've let slide.

Regarding peace negotioations.....it will take a lot more than a week of peace negotiations to undo two generations of strife and unrest. It will take patience, and tolerance of occasional setbacks. Neither side should expect to go from 40 years of hate, resentment, and war to peace overnight. The problem with the process is that we haven't really given it a chance. It will take years of negotiations done in good faith, moderated by an impartial third party, and undeterred by occasional flare ups which occur outside of the control of the two negotiating authorities to accomplish lasting peace in this region. After nearly 40 years of fighting 10 years of peace talks isn't really that big a number, is it?

[ July 31, 2006, 03:27: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

An interesting choice of words: "settlers", "natives", "natural habitat".
It's not "twisting" words, it's just a matter of semantics.

This choice of words betrays a (post) colonial approach to the issue which may be defensible if one chooses to overlook the emphasis on extermination:

The use of the word "native" implies that there was no nation state before it was colonized (you can't have natives without some sort of colonization).

As for "natural habitat" I find it strange that one could apply this expression to a human population. Last time I heard that word I was watching some program about black bears...

I think the question of colonialism and racism is central. But I don't think that a Western outlook based on an assumed sense of superiority over indigenous people (another word for "natives") is defensible (whether in the Middle East, Africa or Asia).

By the way, the use of the word "native" would reinforce the claim of that particular population to the land in this region... Paradoxical isn't it?

And I don't think that the killing of Native Americans should be referred to in order to justify genocide as a means to an end.

-->I'm really getting tired of discussing this particular point:<--

Extermination is not and never was some kind of "solution" except for the warped minds of the Nazis -who were the ones responsible for what happened to the Jews and should have paid for what they did.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The Palestinians lost their lands because of what the Nazis did.

 

They have worked here, and I am sure they have worked in many other countries. With Israel being greedy, of course its not going to work at the moment.

So why do the Palestanians act the way they do?

Well in Hebron, 85% of the water is given to about 400 settlers, while 15% must be divided among Hebron's 120,000 Palestinians - sound fair?

High-ranking military officers in the Israeli Defense Forces have admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed by the IDF - again sound fair?

Palestinian license plates in Israel are colour coded to distinguish Jews from non-Jews - racism?

Israel has set up non-Jew roads in the West Bank - again this sounds like racism.

It was only 1988 where Jew only jobs were banned, but Arabs cannot buy or lease land in Israel.

[ August 01, 2006, 17:19: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]