Hamas announces 6-month truce with Israel

[Deckard]

Now I don't want to sound overly-cynical, but whenever I hear those phrases "Hamas announces truce (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/17/israel.hamas/index.html)" or "Hamas announces ceasefire", it always seems to be followed (within days) by some kind of Israeli assault, resulting in said 'truce' in shreds.

Am I suggesting deliberate coercion by elements within Israel to keep Hamas as the enemy? No, not at all. I'd want more to go on before arriving at that conclusion.

However... (!) I have to be honest and admit, it's been a pattern I've noticed enough times as to warrant me posting my concerns here, so let's just see what happens. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong this time. And if I am, I'll take note of it.

(In the interest of balance, I would add that whenever sensitive negotiations are taking place between the two sides, these are similarly sabotaged by elements of the Palestinian side. But then we all knew that anyway.)

[cured]

Prelude to a military conflict. Whoever blinks first is going to have the other all over them in very short order.

[Jason Roth]

Can I ban people for being stupid?

[Deckard]

Can I ban people for being stupid?
Do elaborate...

[Jason Roth]

Forget it. You're right. It's all Israel's fault.

[Deckard]

Forget it. You're right. It's all Israel's fault.
Yes of course, exactly what I meant to say. :rolleyes:

[Jason Roth]

Yes of course, exactly what I meant to say. :rolleyes:

"whenever I hear those phrases "Hamas announces truce (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/17/israel.hamas/index.html)" or "Hamas announces ceasefire", it always seems to be followed (within days) by some kind of Israeli assault, resulting in said 'truce' in shreds."

[Deckard]

Certainly the last few times (which doesn't equal a historical 'always', I'll give you that) that I've felt a tinge of optimism, it seems to have been Israel in the news days later getting heavy handed, and the 'brink' is lost.

Much as I'd love to dig out sources, I'm going purely on the memory of reading those stories and thinking to myself, "Christ, Israel, what a lousy time to go and do something like that". Naturally you're free to speculate on whether my memory is selective and being influenced by a fixed pro-Palestinian (or anti-Israel) bias, and I imagine that no amount of me denying that will convince you otherwise if you've already made up your mind.

What I will say to you Jason, is that if you think I believe the current mess is "all Israel's fault" - or even the majority of it is Israel's fault - then you're very much mistaken, and being rather stupid yourself.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Seems they are also calling for talks on Lebanon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/18/israelandthepalestinians.lebanon) too now, which is interesting.

An article in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659753549&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) seems to be pre-empting a potential terrorist attack by other factions in the run-up to the Hamas truce that might require a "response", however. And the head of Military Intelligence seems to be looking on the bright side too :rolleyes:: Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baiditz, head of Military Intelligence's Research Division, said that the IDF had already prepared and presented plans for operations in Gaza should the truce collapse. MKs, he said, had already been briefed on the various options and contingencies.

"Even if the calm is achieved with Hamas and the other terror organizations, it will be temporary and breakable," he added.

Can I ban people for being stupid?

You appear to have read the first line of Deckard's post without reading the rest of it, which is very balanced. In fact I am at a loss to find anyone who posts in the World Forum with a more balanced approach than Deckard's, ever. Threatening to ban someone because you don't share their opinion makes no sense at all, especially in World. There would be no-one left. ;)

[Sean]

Seems they are also calling for talks on Lebanon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/18/israelandthepalestinians.lebanon) too now, which is interesting.

An article in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659753549&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) seems to be pre-empting a potential terrorist attack by other factions in the run-up to the Hamas truce that might require a "response", however. And the head of Military Intelligence seems to be looking on the bright side too :rolleyes:: Can't blame them given the history. In contrast with Deckard, as I remember it, during previous attempts at a cease-fire, there would be things like kidnappings of Israeli soldiers or random missiles shot across the border into Israel that would prompt a military response from them. When dealing with a terrorist organization like Hamas, I'd say it's wise to be ready for anything.

[dubman]

oh look, another hypersensitive tussle over israel and palestine.
GB2youtube

[Deckard]

Can't blame them given the history. In contrast with Deckard, as I remember it, during previous attempts at a cease-fire, there would be things like kidnappings of Israeli soldiers or random missiles shot across the border into Israel that would prompt a military response from them. When dealing with a terrorist organization like Hamas, I'd say it's wise to be ready for anything.
It's quite possible that the Israeli heavy-handedness is sticking in my mind more over the last few occasions because it goes against what we've come to expect/what the popular view is. I do get the impression that Hamas violence is instantly linked with sabotaging progress, whereas the Israeli violence isn't. (does the recognition of being state-sanctioned give it more legitimacy?). I stand by my recollection, but as I say, I'm happy (and hoping) to be proven wrong, though that's obviously not to say I'm hoping for elements of Hamas to curtail things either. But either way, we'll see. Let's just say I'm noting it this time.

BB - gosh, very kind. :D

[Sean]

It's quite possible that the Israeli heavy-handedness is sticking in my mind more over the last few occasions because it goes against what we've come to expect/what the popular view is. I do get the impression that Hamas violence is instantly linked with sabotaging progress, whereas the Israeli violence isn't. (does the recognition of being state-sanctioned give it more legitimacy?). I stand by my recollection, but as I say, I'm happy (and hoping) to be proven wrong, though that's obviously not to say I'm hoping for elements of Hamas to curtail things either. But either way, we'll see. Let's just say I'm noting it this time.I honestly don't feel motivated to dig for the old stories of past cease-fires gone wrong right now, so I guess we can both just stand by our memories for the time being. :)

[Deckard]

Here's how it starts (from the BBC):
On Wednesday, before the truce came into effect, at least 40 rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza at Israel, and the Israeli army killed one Palestinian militant in an air strike.

The militant group, Islamic Jihad, which lost several members to Israeli air strikes in recent days, claimed responsibility for some of the attacks.
What's frustrating is the same as what was frustrating during the attempts at sabotaging the Northern Ireland peace negotiations and IRA ceasefires. We've got a state - Israel - with all the backing and support behind it that it does, and when it acts, it tends to do so with government backing. And then we've got terrorist activity from the other side, against it. Now Hamas might have the mandate of having been democratically elected, but to deny that even in a ceasfire it's far less likely to be able to exert control over ALL those disparate militant groups that continue to engage in violence seems naive to me, just as expecting Sinn Fein to have been in a position to guarantee no attacks by the Real IRA was naive. They will always get through somehow.

In those circumstances, what you would expect - and hope for - is for the democractically elected element, the official party, Hamas, to condemn those attacks being carried out against Israel. Yet when it's done this on several occasions in the past, it's been met with Israeli insistence that Hamas control all the terrorists, or else "Israel will respond".

Now this is what I think is reckless, "deliberately naive" I'm tempted to call it. And this is the point at which it becomes necessary for me to repeat the phrase, to understand is not to condone* (and I can't emphasize that strongly enough)...

Controlling those renegade elements, or whatever you want to call them (terrorists), inevitably becomes much harder (though NO LESS NECESSARY) when the inequality of the two sides becomes more apparent. Since the last ceasefire collapsed in April 2007, 14 Israelis and about 600 Palestinians have been killed in fighting between the two sides. That's not to turn it into a pissing contest, but when you combine that fairly consistent inbalance with the structural difference, the vast inequality in living conditions between everyday people of both sides, and the overwhelming sense of powerlessness, surely it's inevitable that anger from the Palestinian side is going to run so much deeper and be more widespread, likely spilling over into terrorist activity from more extreme elements, than from the Israeli side? (That's not even going into the longstanding sense of anger at Israel's perceived 'land grab' in the first place).

I repeatedly ask myself, is it really that hard to grasp that the only way to maintain negotiations and secure peace is for the official parties of those negotiations to accept that there will almost certainly continue to be terrorist activity carried out to try to stall that process, not officially sanctioned but from certain groups out of the control of the official organisations. And for the reasons mentioned above, that will mostly come from the Palestinian side - not because Palestinians are somehow genetically more pre-disposed to violence, not because they're "the baddies", the unciviilised natives - but for reasons of organisation and anger that are intrinsically different to what Israel faces. What is surely incumbent upon those at the top is to condemn such activity whenever it happens, and to only take 'defensive measures' when that is genuinely what they are - as opposed to tit-for-tat (or rather tit-for-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat) vengeance.

It continually saddens me that official representatives of both sides so often seem to allow the peace process (and that's the key - it is a PROCESS) to slip away.

(* For the benefit of anyone who needs to hear me say it, of course rocket launches and market bombings and other indiscriminate violence are utterly deserving of condemnation, and by far the people to condemn the strongest are the terrorists. :rolleyes: )

[Deckard]

I've just read that apparently the ceasefire doesn't apply in the West Bank. Now that could spell trouble should a Palestinian or an Israeli be killed there.....

[Sean]

It's already starting to fray a bit. Both sides blaming the other...

"Earlier, Palestinian militants fired three homemade rockets into southern Israel, the first such attack since a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza militants took effect last week.

Israel condemned the attack as a "gross violation" of the truce, but did not say whether it would retaliate.

The barrage wounded two people and capped a day of violence that presented the truce with its first serious test.

Just before midnight, Palestinian militants fired a mortar shell into an empty area in southern Israel. And in a pre-dawn raid, Israeli troops killed two Palestinians in the West Bank city of Nablus.

Islamic Jihad, a small armed group backed by Syria and Iran, claimed responsibility for the rocket fire. Although the West Bank is not included in the truce, the group said the Nablus raid had soured the atmosphere of calm.

"We cannot keep our hands tied when this is happening to our brothers in the West Bank," the militant group said.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm." He said Hamas will talk with other factions and make sure they are committed, too."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

[Deckard]

Depressing isn't it?

The issue (and possibly the confusion from my first post) is whether we include these Palestinian militant groups as part of Hamas, and whether it's realistic to expect Hamas to be able to control every militant group like this.

"Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm."

OK, so Hamas haven't ordered it, nor are they supporting it (from the above statement). And obviously they can't be expected to guarantee that militants won't act to undermine their peace efforts.

But it would be awfully useful if Hamas would actually come out and condemn these attacks, unequivocally.

And Israel, for its part, needs to start acknowledging some distinction between those militants, and Hamas, otherwise there will absolutely NEVER be peace over there. Ever. Every time Hamas agrees a ceasefire, militants will go and do something, and Israel will respond in its usual heavy handed manner, and the whole thing will just keep going on.

[Sean]

Depressing isn't it?

The issue (and possibly the confusion from my first post) is whether we include these Palestinian militant groups as part of Hamas, and whether it's realistic to expect Hamas to be able to control every militant group like this.

"Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said the rocket attack came because of "Israeli provocation this morning" and added that Hamas was "committed to the calm."

OK, so Hamas haven't ordered it, nor are they supporting it (from the above statement). And obviously they can't be expected to guarantee that militants won't act to undermine their peace efforts.

But it would be awfully useful if Hamas would actually come out and condemn these attacks, unequivocally.

And Israel, for its part, needs to start acknowledging some distinction between those militants, and Hamas, otherwise there will absolutely NEVER be peace over there. Ever. Every time Hamas agrees a ceasefire, militants will go and do something, and Israel will respond in its usual heavy handed manner, and the whole thing will just keep going on.This is where the biggest problem lies in my opinion. Hamas agrees to a cease-fire, but then sits back and declares innocence when Israel continues to be attacked by other militant groups...even morally supports the attacks by making statements like the one I quoted, where the Hamas spokesman said the rocket attacks were the result of "Israeli provocation this morning". I mean, Hamas was voted into power, and as such, it's their responsibility to maintain order in their society, not condone unprovoked rockets being lobbed into Israel while acting as if their hands are clean of the whole affair.

[Jason Roth]

I mean, Hamas was voted into power, and as such, it's their responsibility to maintain order in their society, not condone unprovoked rockets being lobbed into Israel while acting as if their hands are clean of the whole affair.

Wow, someone who gets it.

Hey Deckard, got any more great predictions? I mean, you were so close this time. Just replace 'Israeli assault' with 'Palestinian assault' and you're there.

[BeautifulBurnout]

This kind of reminds me of the IRA and the "Real" IRA at the time the Irish Troubles were coming to an end and negotiations were taking place. The IRA wanted dialogue and cease-fire, and the "Real" IRA were doing their damnedest to sabotage the process.

I am hoping that, in many respects, this is a good sign. As long as Israel hold their nerve and don't retaliate in an over-egged way.

The cycle of violence has to be broken. History tells us that no amount of "an eye for an eye" or displays of force will ever do that.

Sean: Yes you are right overall, except we don't know at this stage the unprovoked-ness or otherwise of the jihad rockets. The fact that the West Bank is not included in the cease-fire agreement is bizarre to say the least. I think I need to see a much bigger picture before I pronounce on it.

[Sean]

Sean: Yes you are right overall, except we don't know at this stage the unprovoked-ness or otherwise of the jihad rockets. The fact that the West Bank is not included in the cease-fire agreement is bizarre to say the least. I think I need to see a much bigger picture before I pronounce on it.Agreed...I was only commenting on what has actually been reported at this point. But yes, what's been reported isn't necessarily chock-full of details or clear timelines.

[Deckard]

Oh please, just drop the antagonistic tone Jason. It only makes you come across as a dick - as does trying to reduce my position to a simple black and white "Israel = bad". I'm actually more than happy to have my mind changed on things, and when I do, it typically comes from constructive civil posts like Sean's rather than dickhead ones like yours. Dialogue and progess are funny things like that.

Sean, I largely agree with you, but I just think it's not the whole story. As BB says, the key challenge in any peace process is not to retaliate when militants (whether it's Islamic Jihad or the Real IRA) try to sabotage it. I understand retaliation to defend yourself, but when it's done in a tit-for-tat way, and when it undoes any progress that's been painstakingly made, the militants have won. It really is as simple as that. The fact that the militants are Palestinian (like the fact that the NI militants were Irish Republican) makes it hard for Israel, but it does not change that simple fact. BOTH parties – Israel AND Hamas – have to hold their nerve, and as BB says, not retaliate in an over-egged way. And yes, also unequivocably condemn (and take reasonable actions to stop) the actions of the militants. Had the Unionists always allowed terror attacks and assassinations by the Real IRA to derail the peace process, then we would not have the peace that we do now. Remember, we still don't have a United Ireland, but neither do we have the IRA letting off bombs in our cities. 20 years ago, that would have been unthinkable.

[Strangelet]

Wow, someone who gets it.

Hey Deckard, got any more great predictions? I mean, you were so close this time. Just replace 'Israeli assault' with 'Palestinian assault' and you're there.

LOL

So what's the year long israeli economic blockade then? Even handed defense? So we can call suicide bombers of civilians terrorists but putting a knife to the throats of thousands of sick impoverished civilians isn't?

chalk me up as someone else who doesn't get it mate


Here's how I see it, which is exactly what Sean said, only it adds the, you know, the other fucking half of the story. That is not to say it contradicts Sean either. But it certainly seems to be contradicting you

"It is high time that the leaders of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) took effective steps to prevent and punish attacks on civilians in Israel," said Malcolm Smart, "but their failure to do so does not make it legitimate for the Israeli authorities to launch reckless air and artillery strikes which wreak such death and destruction among Palestinian civilians.

AND

"Israel has a legal obligation to protect the civilian population of Gaza,” said Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme. “These attacks are disproportionate and go beyond lawful measures which Israeli forces may take in response to rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0303-03.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0303-03.htm)

[BeautifulBurnout]

Ah well - so much for common-sense prevailing :(

Israel closes Gaza after rockets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7472819.stm)

Still, I guess it took the spotlight off Olmert and his alleged dodgy dealings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7472636.stm) for a few days.... and seems to have saved his political ass to fight another day.

[Sean]

Ah well - so much for common-sense prevailing :(

Israel closes Gaza after rockets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7472819.stm)What the hell? :eek:

Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya said the group remained committed to the six-day-old ceasefire with Israel and it had called on all Palestinian groups to respect it.

However, he said that Hamas would not act as Israel's "police force" in confronting militants who breached the truce.

So taking responsibility for and doing what you can to stop rockets being launched from Palestinian territories into Israel is considered acting as "Israel's 'police force'", and you'll have none of it? That's just some brazenly flawed thinking. You're the ruling party, Hamas! It's your freakin' responsibility to make sure attacks aren't being launched on Israel from your territory!

I wish they'd tell us more about the Israeli raid in Gaza that supposedly sparked the rocket attacks. What were the goals that motivated it? How did the raid unfold that two people were killed? Who were the two people killed...militants or civilians?

[BeautifulBurnout]

What the hell? :eek:

Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya said the group remained committed to the six-day-old ceasefire with Israel and it had called on all Palestinian groups to respect it.

However, he said that Hamas would not act as Israel's "police force" in confronting militants who breached the truce.

So taking responsibility for and doing what you can to stop rockets being launched from Palestinian territories into Israel is considered acting as "Israel's 'police force'", and you'll have none of it? That's just some brazenly flawed thinking. You're the ruling party, Hamas! It's your freakin' responsibility to make sure attacks aren't being launched on Israel from your territory!

I wish they'd tell us more about the Israeli raid in Gaza that supposedly sparked the rocket attacks. What were the goals that motivated it? How did the raid unfold that two people were killed? Who were the two people killed...militants or civilians?

Yeah - here is Al-Jazeera's (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/06/200862553317485882.html) take on it, which will evidently give a pro-Palestinian account. The West Bank seems to be the sticking point. Still doesn't give any details about who the two men in Nablus were that were killed.

This is the kind of bizarre political-speke that I just can't get to grips with:
Mark Regev, an Israeli goverment spokesman, insisted that Hamas bore responsibility for any attack from Gaza since "unfortunately, it seized power there one year ago".

He said that the attacks violated "two cardinal points of the understandings reached through Egypt, namely that the truce applies only to the Gaza Strip and not to the West Bank and that it concerns all armed groups".

So is Israel saying that, because the ceasefire doesn't apply to the West Bank, it is ok for them to take military action in the West Bank, but not ok for Al-Quds to respond, presumably from the West Bank? This whole process is set up to fail if that is their understanding of it.

[Sean]

So is Israel saying that, because the ceasefire doesn't apply to the West Bank, it is ok for them to take military action in the West Bank, but not ok for Al-Quds to respond, presumably from the West Bank? This whole process is set up to fail if that is their understanding of it.I don't get that reading from what he said. Can you elaborate on how you extrapolated that from his comments? Just trying to follow...

Found out more about the raid that supposedly sparked this whole tense situation. This is from Ynet news, which does tend to favor Israel in it's reporting.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3559494,00.html

And just to round it out, here's a shamelessly pro-Palestinian account of it. I've gotta be honest, this account sounds like total BS propaganda to me:

http://www.imemc.org/article/55617

[BeautifulBurnout]

I don't get that reading from what he said. Can you elaborate on how you extrapolated that from his comments? Just trying to follow...



I find it hard to understand quite what was meant at all really. Which is why this business of the ceasefire not affecting the West Bank is going to be so difficult to police. I really don't know whether the Israelis think that that applies to both sides or whether they are just reserving themselves the right to operate as they see fit in the West Bank without retaliation. It is mightily screwed up imo.

As for the two links, they are both likely to be biased one way or the other imo. Difficult to say what is happening overall.

The bright side is that there don't appear to have been any incidents one way or another, or at least none that have made the mainstream news over here... so fingers crossed.

[Deckard]

I'd say this commentary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast) on today's bulldozer attack (from Seth Freedman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2008/apr/22/seth.freedman)) is pretty much spot-on.

I was going to quote some of it, but there's too much I want to quote, so I'll just recommend you go read it if you get a moment.

[Strangelet]

I'd say this commentary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast) on today's bulldozer attack (from Seth Freedman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2008/apr/22/seth.freedman)) is pretty much spot-on.

I was going to quote some of it, but there's too much I want to quote, so I'll just recommend you go read it if you get a moment.

awesome read. i'd like to know Jason's reaction.

[Jason Roth]

i'd like to know Jason's reaction.

Why?

[Strangelet]

Why?


because, for whatever level of clarity this online forum provides us, you seem to have a contrasting perspective and I'd like to understand it better.

[Sean]

Well I for one find some fundamental flaws in the author's assertions.

One, he writes that:

Trade and Labour Minister Eli Yishai's on-the-scene response was to demand an immediate freeze on freedom of movement for Arab residents of East Jerusalem, as well as the predictable call for the terrorist's home to be demolished. Not for him the option of treating every criminal as an individual; instead, the attack was reason enough to tar all Arabs with the same brush.

I don't believe that putting a freeze on the resident's "movements" inherently implies that Israel is painting "all arabs with the same brush". What it imlies to me is that since Palestinian authorities refuse to crack down on terrorist activities, Israel is forced to do something to protect themselves, and since they can't know who will be the next terrorist attacker, that means taking sweeping action. I'm not saying that what they're doing is right...I'm only saying that it's more an indication that they have no idea who will perpetrate the next attack than it is that they assume "all arabs must therefore be terrorists". In fact, the author himself even acknowledges this by saying: "branding an entire section of society as potential terrorists, and curtailing their freedoms, plays right into the hands of the extremists among them." So I think a more accurate wording would have been "all Palestinians in the area may potentially be terrorists". It's a possibility, not a certainty.

Next, I take issue with the author's assertion that: "It's not because we're Jews; it's because of the relentless oppressive tactics employed by successive Israeli governments since the very foundation of the state." My understanding of the history does not support this statement. From Israel's inception, it has been under constant attack, which put it on defensive ground from the start. That's not to say that Israel has commited no offensive actions throughout the decades, but the author's statement implies that Israel was formed, and basically became instant and perpetual aggressors. I find this to be a flawed, inaccurate implication.

I do, however, agree with his conclusion that "Vicious reprisals against the killer's family, mass restrictions of movement for all Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and revenge attacks on Palestinian towns and cities, are not the answer. Because when we crush their civilians' lives and livelihoods, the chances are that the radicals among them will do the same to us."

I don't know what the realistic solution is, but I do still personally believe that if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated.

[Strangelet]

I don't believe that putting a freeze on the resident's "movements" inherently implies that Israel is painting "all arabs with the same brush". What it imlies to me is that since Palestinian authorities refuse to crack down on terrorist activities, Israel is forced to do something to protect themselves, and since they can't know who will be the next terrorist attacker, that means taking sweeping action.


No argument with you here. This was a weak point in his arguments, admittedly. But I don't find it a fundamental drawback to his main assertion that pursuit of responsibility for actions taken on both sides must cut through all the layers of politics, religion, and excuses if the betterment of people's lives is ever going to be achieved.


Next, I take issue with the author's assertion that: "It's not because we're Jews; it's because of the relentless oppressive tactics employed by successive Israeli governments since the very foundation of the state." My understanding of the history does not support this statement. From Israel's inception, it has been under constant attack, which put it on defensive ground from the start. That's not to say that Israel has commited no offensive actions throughout the decades, but the author's statement implies that Israel was formed, and basically became instant and perpetual aggressors. I find this to be a flawed, inaccurate implication.


I'm not sure I understand. Israel has not been an instant and perpetual offender but its been an instant and perpetual defender of itself by offensive tactics? On a practical level I'm not sure there's much of a difference, moreover whatever difference in perspective it makes, I think its categorically relative. Baruch Goldstein, the new york born jew who offed 30 moslems worshipping in a mosque virginia tech style made the argument that he was just killing people who would one day kill jews. Which is the rational behind all the heavy handed military action that has not only targeted terrorists but have consistently taken large civilian casualties. This may all exist in a framework of defensive responses to previous palestinian agreession, but they all stand on their own as brutal actions against a civilian populace. And it begs to perspective how offensive/defensive one is to perceive them.

Add on top of this the fact that if you do see the chronology of bloodshed as israel being lopsidedly on the defensive, you're playing into the useful enemy model. Both sides of the fence have used the existence of the enemy to shoulder up support for corrupt politicians on their respective sides, causing as much internal damage for which the other side could only dream. It is because Israel is so terribly oppressive that hamas gets the power it does. And it is because palestinian terrorists are so awful that likud party takes control and ass hats like netanyahu, olmert, and sharon are allowed to ride rough shod over paletinian people while yitzhak rabin gets murdered by a fellow jew.

This is why if you're Jason Roth and you care about the Israeli people first and fore most, your first task ought to be to figure out why the rest of the arab world feels about Israel the way americans feel about palestinians. The Israeli people don't benefit from the model where Israel is perpetually justified. The only people who benefit are the corrupt leaders and the starry eyed believers they manage to con.



I do, however, agree with his conclusion that "Vicious reprisals against the killer's family, mass restrictions of movement for all Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and revenge attacks on Palestinian towns and cities, are not the answer. Because when we crush their civilians' lives and livelihoods, the chances are that the radicals among them will do the same to us."


Which is why I trust that we can both see we're not saying anything that different from each other.


I don't know what the realistic solution is, but I do still personally believe that if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated.

Again, when you have every evangelical douche bag like Hagee on this side of the world referencing bible passages that condemns any manouever of compromise, because every speck of palestinian soil is to be Israel by divine decree and jesus won't come until it happens, then you can believe that both sides act on a self driven mandate to obliterate the other side.

[Jason Roth]

Yes, it's because Israel is so oppressive that things are the way they are. It's Israel who should be taking care of the Palestinians. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Iran, nor any of the other arab countries awash in oil money that should be helping out.

Have they built one hospital in the Palestinain territories? One school? One road? No. Trust me, I was just there. Other arab countries are using the Palestinian people as their sword against the Jews and have been for ages. They want them poor, and hungry, and angry and armed to the teeth. They fire missiles into Israel from residential neighborhoods so that when Israel retaliates and kills Palestinain citizens, the world sees Israel as the devil. And you buy into it every time. Grow up.

PS - John Hagee is an end of days cult leader, nothing more. Grouping him in with Israelis who want to live in peace shows complete ignorance.

[Strangelet]

Have they built one hospital in the Palestinain territories? One school? One road? No. Trust me, I was just there. Other arab countries are using the Palestinian people as their sword against the Jews and have been for ages. They want them poor, and hungry, and angry and armed to the teeth. They fire missiles into Israel from residential neighborhoods so that when Israel retaliates and kills Palestinain citizens, the world sees Israel as the devil. And you buy into it every time. Grow up.


see this what you still haven't figured out, which means you're not really thinking about what I've been saying. I'm not interested in a which-side-is-more-bat-shit-crazy-than-the-other argument. I'm arguing against the mentality of either whole sale approval or whole sale view that I see Israel as the devil. The fact that you would even assume that's my perspective means I'm wasting my time.

incidentally, you're right. hagee has absolutely nothing to do with peace loving jews. But he has everything to do with AIPAC.

edit.....



Yes, it's because Israel is so oppressive that things are the way they are. It's Israel who should be taking care of the Palestinians. Not Saudi Arabia, nor Iran, nor any of the other arab countries awash in oil money that should be helping out.


Again, useful enemies. Hard line iranians pray in gratitude to Allah five times a day that Israel exists. Otherwise they'd have no enemy against which to fashion themselves as the defender of Islam, so that their own oppressed people look over the abuses and love them. Want out of this cycle? Be more of the friend to Palestinians than muslims are. Which wouldn't be that difficult if they really are being intentionally starved and oppressed by sharia governments.

[Sean]

No argument with you here. This was a weak point in his arguments, admittedly. But I don't find it a fundamental drawback to his main assertion that pursuit of responsibility for actions taken on both sides must cut through all the layers of politics, religion, and excuses if the betterment of people's lives is ever going to be achieved. The reason I pointed this and the other quote out is that they reveal a clear bias on the part of the author that makes me wary of his conclusions. In this particular article, I agree with his ultimate conclusions, but I don't feel he's an author I could trust to deliver objective thoughts on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict overall. So anyway, yeah....we agree on this.

I'm not sure I understand. Israel has not been an instant and perpetual offender but its been an instant and perpetual defender of itself by offensive tactics? On a practical level I'm not sure there's much of a difference, moreover whatever difference in perspective it makes, I think its categorically relative. Baruch Goldstein, the new york born jew who offed 30 moslems worshipping in a mosque virginia tech style made the argument that he was just killing people who would one day kill jews. Which is the rational behind all the heavy handed military action that has not only targeted terrorists but have consistently taken large civilian casualties. This may all exist in a framework of defensive responses to previous palestinian agreession, but they all stand on their own as brutal actions against a civilian populace. And it begs to perspective how offensive/defensive one is to perceive them.

Add on top of this the fact that if you do see the chronology of bloodshed as israel being lopsidedly on the defensive, you're playing into the useful enemy model. Both sides of the fence have used the existence of the enemy to shoulder up support for corrupt politicians on their respective sides, causing as much internal damage for which the other side could only dream. It is because Israel is so terribly oppressive that hamas gets the power it does. And it is because palestinian terrorists are so awful that likud party takes control and ass hats like netanyahu, olmert, and sharon are allowed to ride rough shod over paletinian people while yitzhak rabin gets murdered by a fellow jew. As you mentioned, I think we're roughly on the same page regarding the counter-productiveness of the tit-for-tat back and forth killing and finger-pointing, but I also personally feel it's important to always remember the foundation of the conflict in order to fully understand it. My recognition of the fact that Israel has been surrounded by countries that wish to see it wiped off the map since day one does not excuse it's actions. I agree with you that the situation has been used by many power-hungry people on both sides of the conflict over the decades, and has been exacerbated as a direct result. But where I think it's necessary to recognize the defensive nature of Israel's position is in discussions about how the violence could be ended. My final assertion that "if the Palestinian militants and terrorists laid down their weapons today, peace with Israel would ensue...but if Israel laid down it's weapons today, attacks on it would continue unabated until it was obliterated" is not meant to say that if the terrorists laid down their arms, then there'd be nothing but butterflies and rainbows....it's meant to say that I do think the overall mindset of the Israelis would, in that hypothetical situation, create a wave of reform towards a relatively peaceful co-existence with their neighbors. But in the reverse situation, I don't feel that there's an underlying, fundamental desire to live peacefully alongside Israel.

This is why if you're Jason Roth and you care about the Israeli people first and fore most, your first task ought to be to figure out why the rest of the arab world feels about Israel the way americans feel about palestinians. The Israeli people don't benefit from the model where Israel is perpetually justified. The only people who benefit are the corrupt leaders and the starry eyed believers they manage to con. While I certainly don't agree with Jason's delivery, I'm not sure this is an accurate way to frame what he's saying. I don't want to put words in his mouth, so speaking for myself, I know that none of my comments are meant to imply that we should "care about the Israeli people first and fore most". Clearly, we should care about all involved parties, while still being able to constructively recognize the root causes of the mess that everyone's stuck in. Nor do I feel that the actions of the Israelis are "perpetually justified". But I do feel that the actions in question never would have even happened had there not been such a concerted effort by Israel's neighbors to destroy it, and if the cultures of the societies surrounding Israel didn't indoctrinate it's subsequent generations with deep, lie-based hatred of Jews. Or, to sum it up another way, the fundamental driving force behind attacks on Israel by it's neighbors is primarily the result of ingrained, societal hatred and anger coupled with the desires of opportunistic politicians/powerful people, while the fundamental driving force behind attacks on Palestinians by Israel is a combination of defensive necessity and opportunistic politicians/powerful people. So Israel's society, as far as I can see, would be far more able and likely to make a fundamental shift towards peace than surrounding societies that have been raised since childhood hearing stories about, for example, Jews drinking the blood of children to celebrate their religious holidays (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/passover-and-the-blood-libel/30846/).

[BeautifulBurnout]

A French-brokered peace deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7503838.stm)?

This is even more encouraging than the 6 month truce, imo. And the French are the right people to facilitate this too, imo. They don't have too much "baggage" with them to retain impartiality as moderators.

[chuck]

As long as the cheese from the surrender monkeys is both halal and kosher, I think we can do a deal.

We now return you to your regular programming.

chuck.

Who would dive in and get involved in this thread properly - but better people than me have said what needs to be said.

[Sarcasmo]

A French-brokered peace deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7503838.stm)?

This is even more encouraging than the 6 month truce, imo. And the French are the right people to facilitate this too, imo. They don't have too much "baggage" with them to retain impartiality as moderators.

I really hope you're right, Janie. The cynic in me sees this as nothing more than posturing and lip service. My gut tells me that France is going to run into the same problems that everyone else has: the hardliners aren't at any tables. They're cleaning their rifles while the moderates talk.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I really hope you're right, Janie. The cynic in me sees this as nothing more than posturing and lip service. My gut tells me that France is going to run into the same problems that everyone else has: the hardliners aren't at any tables. They're cleaning their rifles while the moderates talk.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, that is the only way these things progress - the example is with the situation in Northern Ireland. The moderates were doing talking while the IRA, UVF and various other factions were still doing the killing. But eventually it paid off. So, I have to have hope.

[Sarcasmo]

I agree with hoping, and I don't mean to bring you down, but the situation in Northern Ireland isn't quite the same, I think. At least when the day was done, you were talking about the Irish killing the Irish. There were so many ways for one group to identify with the other that eventually both sides had to realize the pointlessness and senselessness of what they were doing. In the last 50 years, both sides have done more to dehumanize each other than look for similarities. I don't think this is over by a long shot.

[Sean]

I also see it as a problem that the majority of these kinds of peace talks tend to focus on issues of economics and territory....or as Sarkozy said, trying to "achieve peace through economic development, political initiatives and providing guarantees for all stakeholders"...while essentially ignoring the larger, more fundamental issues at the core of the conflict. As I mentioned earlier, there are entire generations of people living in the countries surrounding Israel that have been raised on the belief that Jews are basically monsters who do things like drinking the blood of children to celebrate their religious holidays (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/passover-and-the-blood-libel/30846/). Hell, they even had the Palestinian Mickey Mouse, Farfour, "martyred" while defending his family's land from the Jews in a children's show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkvbln1ORk0). "Economic development" and the like simply doesn't deal with the ingrained bigotry that drives much of the violence, and I don't see any lasting peace being achieved until the bigotry is dealt with.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I also see it as a problem that the majority of these kinds of peace talks tend to focus on issues of economics and territory....or as Sarkozy said, trying to "achieve peace through economic development, political initiatives and providing guarantees for all stakeholders"...while essentially ignoring the larger, more fundamental issues at the core of the conflict. As I mentioned earlier, there are entire generations of people living in the countries surrounding Israel that have been raised on the belief that Jews are basically monsters who do things like drinking the blood of children to celebrate their religious holidays (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/passover-and-the-blood-libel/30846/). Hell, they even had the Palestinian Mickey Mouse, Farfour, "martyred" while defending his family's land from the Jews in a children's show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkvbln1ORk0). "Economic development" and the like simply doesn't deal with the ingrained bigotry that drives much of the violence, and I don't see any lasting peace being achieved until the bigotry is dealt with.

Well, if we are talking about bigotry, then Northern Ireland is another prime example. It is too easy to say it was just about the Irish killing the Irish. It really was much more complex than that politically and militarily, but it is important to remember the hatred between the Catholic and Protestant factions - a hatred that has been ingrained for centuries, not simply since the end of WW2. It still exists, but people have learned to deal with it in a peaceful way.

And really the only way to address this kind of problem is through dialogue and economic development so that neither faction feels that it is the "underdog" any more. Military force solves nothing and just begets further bigotry and violence.

[Sean]

And really the only way to address this kind of problem is through dialogue and economic development so that neither faction feels that it is the "underdog" any more.Agreed....but that's just the problem. I don't recall bigotry-based hatred being a central issue that's been on the receiving end of any serious dialogue in all of the peace talks that have taken place over the years.

Military force solves nothing and just begets further bigotry and violence.At risk of going off-topic, I think there've been plenty of examples in history where military force has resulted in a more net-positive outcome than any other realistic options would have.