Hope in the Middle-east?

[Túrin Turambar]

To me that is the only relevant question. The answer to that question is the only one which gives us control over the situation using tactics short of perpetual warfare and/or genocide.

I think we do need to answer that question. Sadly, it may not necessarily give us answers above and beyond perpetual war or genocide.

Second, I do not consider the words of the dead Mufti of Jerusalem in 1940 to be indicative of what Palestinians think today any more than I consider the book of Rudolph Hoess to be indicative of attitudes in modern Germany.

I was not suggesting that it was. I was quoting him to provide evidence that, had the Arabs won the 1948 War, the results for the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine would have been catastrophic.

If the Arabs had any tradition of anti-Semitism to fall back on when the Jews began recolonizing Palestine in large numbers, they would not have had to borrow a thesaurus from the Nazis.

Violence against the Jews was not necessarily only a post-1937 thing. See the Hebron massacre, for example.

I did not say that Israel was the cause of violence in the Middle East. I said specifically that the fault for the Palestinian situation lies with England and with the Hashemite dynasty.

And I am blaming the Palestinian militants and their backers in the Governments of the Middle East for the situation continuing.

It can be, but it won’t necessarily be. If it is run by a Government that believes in destroying Israel (as it would if it was created now) then it would simply be state supporter of terrorism. I think that there should be a Palestinian state, but a Palestinian state itself will probably not make a major contribution to the peace process.

Perhaps not. But if you agree, and in fact the whole world agrees that such a state should be created, then let's create one and see what happens.

Agreed. But isn’t that essentially what has been happening since the pull-out from the territories in 1995? What, exactly, would the creation of a Palestinian State entail? If it is the Palestinian authorities controlling the Gaza strip and not Israel or Egypt isn’t the territory de facto independent? Wouldn’t only formalities remain?

[truehobbit]

That may have been a better analogy last year. Today, however, the group directing the attacks from Gaza, Hamas, represents democratically elected government of Palestinian people. At this point, their actions constitute an act of war by a government, just as they would if Action Directe got the majority in French Parliament (or whatever the French governing body is called).

Hezbollah, according to the BBC article I linked to above, "has an important presence in the Lebanese parliament" again making it an official force rather than just a group of outlaws.

In addition to the fact that Hezbollah is legal and powerful in Lebanon,

Before they started actually killing people, 'Action Directe' was quite accepted by the French government.
But that's not the point.
I was not speaking of Hamas - I know they won the elections, but if I'm not mistaken they also said they were not denying Israel's right to exist anymore - but of Hezbollah, as it's the Israeli attack on Lebanon that I find must be against international law.

The fact that the Lebanese government does not take effective measures against Hezbollah would (in my lay opinion of lawful action) make Lebanon a candidate for some international intervention.
But there is no justification to say that because the government doesn't take measures against the terrorists, the terrorists are acting officially on behalf of the government. This would be a very convenient conclusion, but a legally untenable one, IMO.

ETA: if we want an analogy, maybe one from places that have problems with terrorists would work better?
Would it be acceptable if Spain dropped a few bombs on Bilbao next time the ETA launches a terror attack in Madrid?
What would the international community say if the UK dropped a few bombs on Londonderry next time the IRA plants a bomb in London?

I think that far from expecting unnatural restraint from Israel, the international community is being quite patient, giving heed to the fact that the situation is too complex to make quick judgements, and to the hostility Israel has received from its neighbours.

And by the way, Hobbi, while I know you too well to take offense at the words "foolish" and "mindless," it still might be best to refrain from using them in a discussion that is already fraught with emotion.

Frelga, as you've seen I'd already taken out "mindless" before you posted as I realised that was over the top. However, I'm afraid that I have no other words for actions that perpetuate and foster hatred and violence.
And I have found the discussion here pleasantly unemotional so far.
But I agree those words contain evaluation and therefore might disrupt the level-headedness of this thread, so I'll try not to use them anymore.

[axordil]

I don't believe that Israel is the cause of violence in the Middle East, but I believe that her policies have helped perpetuate the violence and that she had missed several golden opportunities to moved towards peaceful coexistence.

I tend to agree with this, Voronwë.

There is a fundamental disconnect here with the usual sense of justice and fair play I think people have, in that those who are responsible for the problem as it stands now--Iran and Syria--are very likely not going to pay the price for it as part of the problem being solved. It's something that I struggle with myself.

And while it is possible to trace back the genesis of the overall situation back to blind US support for Israel, or the British protectorate and Balfour, or the Ottomans, or the Crusades, or the Romans...etc... to do so is to lay responsibility for current mistakes at the feet of the conveniently dead. It's a copout no matter who is doing it. You can't fix the past, or the future for that matter. You can do something about the PRESENT, and hope it makes the future better, and that's about it.

[Cerin]

What would the international community say if the UK dropped a few bombs on Londonderry next time the IRA plants a bomb in London?

Was the military wing of the IRA a part of the Irish government? Was it ever the goal of the IRA to wipe Britain and the British off the face of the earth? Were missiles ever being fired from Ireland into England with the acquiescence of the Irish government? If not, then I don't believe the comparison is apt.

[Alatar]

Its far from simple. Lets face a few facts. Without terrorism, Ireland would still be under British Rule. I'm not saying its justified, but thats the simple fact. As far as I know, the only country ever to win Independance through peaceful means was India, under the leadership of Gandhi. In every other case, while the solutions may have been reached in peaceful discussions both parties were forced to the table by violence.

While Irish independance seems straightforward on the face of it, the situation with Northern Ireland is vastly different. The majority of the inhabitants of NI are British and wish to remain so, however that's tantamount to global squatting rights. Not a cut and dried case by any standards.

Even the recent peace and the devolved government were forced by violence and terrorism.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Lidless]

As far as I know, the only country ever to win Independance through peaceful means was India, under the leadership of Gandhi. In every other case, while the solutions may have been reached in peaceful discussions both parties were forced to the table by violence.

Of course you forgot to include Pakistan and Bangladesh.

...and Malta.

...and Jamaica.

































… and Antigua and Barbuda.

… and Australia.

… and the Bahamas.

… and Bahrain.

… and Barbados.

… and Belize.

… and Bhutan.

… and Botswana.

… and British Somaliland (joined Italian Somaliland to form Somalia Brunei).

… and Cameroon.

… and Canada.

… and Cyprus.

… and Dominica.

… and Egypt.

… and Fiji.

… and Gambia.

… and Ghana.

… and Grenada.

… and Guyana.

… and Iraq.

… and Jordan.

… and Kenya.

… and Kiribati.

… and Kuwait.

… and Lesotho.

… and Malawi.

… and Malaysia.

… and the Maldives.

… and Mauritius.

… and Mozambique.

… and Muscat & Oman.

… and Namibia.

… and Nauru.

… and New Zealand.

… and Nigeria.

… and Palestine (part of which subsequently became Israel).

… and Papua New Guinea.

… and Qatar.

… and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

… and Saint Lucia.

… and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

… and Samoa.

… and Seychelles.

… and Sierra Leone.

… and Singapore.

… and the Solomon Islands.

… and South Africa.

… and South Yemen.

… and Sri Lanka.

… and Sudan.

… and Swaziland.

… and Tanzania.

… and Tonga.

… and Trinidad and Tobago.

… and Tuvalu.

… and Uganda.

… and Union of Burma.

… and United Arab Emirates.

… and Vanuatu.

… and Zambia.

… and Zimbabwe.

That's about 900,000,000 people.

[Alatar]

I stand corrected



































































... but unconvinced.

[yovargas]

Did all those countries actually win indepence? Meaning there was a struggle and they were the victorious party?

[Lidless]

That's the point. No, they didn't. The vast, vast majority, just like India, just asked for it and got it.

[axordil]

The vast, vast majority, just like India, just asked for it and got it.

Well, it was a LITTLE more complicated for India than that...

[truehobbit]

Was the military wing of the IRA a part of the Irish government? Was it ever the goal of the IRA to wipe Britain and the British off the face of the earth? Were missiles ever being fired from Ireland into England with the acquiescence of the Irish government? If not, then I don't believe the comparison is apt.

Jny has already answered this better than I could, but I can't leave something addressed to me unanswered.

Of course there are no 100% analogies.
But I think this one is pretty close.
IRA has large backing among the people in Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein, the non-military version of the IRA, was at one point (or still is? I should really follow world politics more closely) the leading party in the country. Rather comparable to the Hamas-situation, I think (who, as has been pointed out before, also officially renounced terrorism, i.e. can compare to Sinn Fein).
The same goes for the ETA, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't understand what difference it makes where the missiles are fired from. A bomb is a bomb, whether the terrorist fires it from accross the border, or takes the trouble to plant it in a city of the country they want to harm.
The point is whether the country under attack does or does not feel justified to attack the civilians of the country that supports the terrorists.

England and Spain have largely answered the question "no" - and in those times where they answered "yes" (there have been cases of retribution at times, I believe) this did not lead to either applause from other countries or success in dealing with the terrorism. It only led to further aggravating the situation and driving previously peaceful people into the arms of the terrorists.

(But this digresses - sorry!)

it was just our luck that the 1973 attack took place on Yom Kippur and not on Rosh Hashana. If Israel had been attacked on Rosh Hashana, it is doubtful she would still exist today.

Why is that?

[Cerin]

A bomb is a bomb, whether the terrorist fires it from accross the border, or takes the trouble to plant it in a city of the country they want to harm.

I disagree. An individual or group of individuals who aren't part of a gov't. arranging transport to another country with a bomb is quite different from a faction of a country's own gov't. launching missiles from that country's territory, and the gov't. doing nothing to stop it. In that case, that gov't. is responsible both for the activities of that faction taking place from their own soil and for their own failure to put a stop to it.

The point is whether the country under attack does or does not feel justified to attack the civilians of the country that supports the terrorists.

Israel isn't attacking civilians; that is, the civilians aren't the targets. The targets those who reprehensibly set up military shop within civilian neighborhoods, thereby putting those civilians in peril from retaliatory military strikes.

[Túrin Turambar]

I think we do need to answer that question. Sadly, it may not necessarily give us answers above and beyond perpetual war or genocide.

You seem to be saying that where Arabs are concerned war and genocide are likely to be our only solution. Is that what you think, really?

Not necessarily – but if there are a lot of Arabs who hate Israel simply because it exists, then there’s not much Israel can do for them. I wouldn’t expect all the Jews to pack up and leave. In that case, the ball is in their court. Likewise if they hate Israel because of propaganda they’re being fed in school – again, it would be a problem for the Arabs to fix.

Violence against the Jews was not necessarily only a post-1937 thing. See the Hebron massacre, for example.

Arab violence against the Jews in Palestine began with Jewish colonization in the late 1800s. The Jews were buying their land from the Ottomans, replacing the absentee landlord with a squatter landlord who intended to work the land rather than renting and taxing it, meaning that not only could the Palestinians no longer own the land they couldn’t even use it. The Jews were creating European enclaves in a country that was trying to grow an anti-colonial movement. The Jews had no interest in defying the Ottoman Empire or the British Empire post-WWI because they did not want to threaten their own access to the country. They also had no interest in working together with the Arabs who were living there, or even with the other Jews who had been in Israel for generations without problems, because they had this new social model from Europe and implementing their new theory of how to solve the Jewish Problem was all they cared about.

Their purposes were simply at odds with Arab ambitions on nearly every horizon right from the very beginning - sort of like the Europeans who landed on the shores of 'uninhabited' America determined to make the world safe for Puritanism. Were the Palestinians annoyed by this? Did the Jews care? They cared at least as much as every other European colonizer cared about native response to their arrival.

I’m reluctant to call them colonizers – if the Jews (who turned up and usually bought the land they occupied) are colonizers then the people of Jewish, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, ect, communities in the west today are colonists. There were Jews who didn’t want to work with the locals. But there were many who did – many Arabs came to Jewish settlements because jobs were on offer. There’s a nice quote by a Palestinian leader of the time about how he saw both the Jews and Palestinian Arabs as being oppressed peoples, and wanted to see them work together to make a country for themselves in Palestine. Sadly, extremists drowned out the views of him and his ilk.

‘Let’s all go to Palestine!’ is a somewhat dodgy idea. Still, it’s understandable to an extent. Unlike the European colonists, they did live there at one stage, and they were facing serious persecution at home.

I did not say that Israel was the cause of violence in the Middle East ...

And I am blaming the Palestinian militants and their backers in the Governments of the Middle East for the situation continuing.

So ... they were just supposed to disappear from the face of the earth? What would have been a reasonable Palestinian response, in your opinion? Please don’t say, “Move somewhere else,” without explaining how they were supposed to get in. Every country in the world had just denied entry to the Jews fleeing the Holocaust, and after the ‘48 war not even the king of the Palestinian’s own country would take his own people in.

I don’t expect the Palestinians to leave. I expect them to renounce terrorism, prosecute those who commit terrorist acts and end their claims on Israel (if any). I expect the surrounding Arab nations to recognise Israel as Egypt did. If that happens, continuing Israeli military intervention should become unnecessary. Look how it easy it was with Egypt – all it took was for Egypt to renounce the ‘no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel’ line, and it got back the Sinai and there’s been peace ever since. I don’t see why a similar claim on behalf of the Palestinian leadership and the leadership of Syria would not be similarly rewarded.

But isn’t that essentially what has been happening since the pull-out from the territories in 1995?

Every time I turn around Israeli troops are entering the Gaza strip or the West Bank to arrest someone, or firing mortars on them to retaliate for some individual’s act of aggression. If the U.S. were in a position to invade Canada and blow up a neighborhood every time a Canadian person committed a crime in the U.S., would you consider Canada sovereign over its own territory?

But is it not sovereign over its own territory because of Israeli military intervention or because the terrorists have free reign there in the first place?

If it is the Palestinian authorities controlling the Gaza strip and not Israel or Egypt isn’t the territory de facto independent? Wouldn’t only formalities remain?

Is Greenland independent? Is Tibet independent? The formalities are everything where independence is concerned. They are the difference between real sovereignty and pretend sovereignty

True. However, I suspect that what we’re seeing now is what we’ll be seeing after the creation of a Palestinian State. Still, I’m all for giving it a go.

[truehobbit]

I disagree. An individual or group of individuals who aren't part of a gov't. arranging transport to another country with a bomb is quite different from a faction of a country's own gov't. launching missiles from that country's territory,

Who said that just because a bomb is launched across borders, it must be the country's government that is launching it?
Surely, if you are able to get into the possession of overland rockets, you can also get the means to launch them?

Israel isn't attacking civilians; that is, the civilians aren't the targets. The targets those who reprehensibly set up military shop within civilian neighborhoods, thereby putting those civilians in peril from retaliatory military strikes.

So, if they get killed, that can't be helped, and is then what newspeak calls "collateral damage", I suppose.
But I forget that whoever gets killed in the Middle-East, some people find ways to blame it on Palestinians/Arabs.

[Cerin]

Who said that just because a bomb is launched across borders, it must be the country's government that is launching it?

It wouldn't necessarily be the case, but here, it is the case; Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese gov't and the gov't. has done nothing to stop them amassing these weapons on the border. And even if a militant group is not part of a country's gov't., if they are operating within that country and amassing weapons on the border, it is surely up to that country's gov't. to do something about it. If they do not, then they are in part responsible for those activities by dint of having allowed them to take place.

If some militant group in the US began amassing weapons along the Canadian border and our gov't. knew it and did nothing about it, and then that group began bombing Canada, we (our gov't.) would certainly be held responsible in part for those events (whether or not the group was actually part of our governing body), and certainly Canada would be justified in taking action to stop it if we refused to do so.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[Túrin Turambar]

Its far from simple. Lets face a few facts. Without terrorism, Ireland would still be under British Rule. I'm not saying its justified, but thats the simple fact.

True enough, but comparisons between Ireland and Palestine don’t really work – the IRA was never out to destroy Britain.

I’m reluctant to call them colonizers – if the Jews (who turned up and usually bought the land they occupied) are colonizers then the people of Jewish, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, ect, communities in the west today are colonists.

As far as I know, the Jews who entered Palestine under the Zionist banner always bought the land they lived on. They were not squatters. (I'm not contradicting you here - the case, I think, is even stronger than you have made it.) It was the Jewish refugees attempting to flee the Holocaust, and then the survivors of the Holocaust, who simply moved in. I do not hold this against them, of course. People have a moral right to flee slaughter, and they could not have bought the land even if they wanted to because by then the Ottomans were gone and their administration had left with them. Few Palestinians actually held title to the land they were living on. They just went on living where they had previously rented and hoped for the best. The British did nothing to put Palestine back in working order. (The French were good at building native administrations but the British really sucked.) And the Palestinians could not erect their own administration as long as the Mandate was in effect. So ... land titling ... this is serious business, you see. This is a huge issue everywhere in the post-colonial world.

But I don't know of any Arab villages that were displaced by those later settlers - not prior to 1948 at least. The Jews didn't move into the Arab's houses. They built their own kibbutzim on land that appeared to be unoccupied and they developed the 'Jewish side' of cities, e.g. Tel Aviv next to Yaffa. So, yes, you are right. The Jewish refugees had a moral claim to sanctuary, imo, and the early settlers who were not refugees made every attempt to settle legally.

Nevertheless I will parse the rest of your statement because I think that there is a large and reasonably obvious difference between an immigrant and a colonist. When the Puritans came to America they had a piece of paper from the King of England not unlike the pieces of paper the Jews had obtained from the Ottomans. But we call them colonists and not immigrants to the Land of the Iroquois. Why is that?

These terms do sometimes defy definition. The Jews in Palestine generally settled on land that they bought, or on unoccupied land. There are also cases of colonists in North America or New Zealand or whatever doing this. The Jews weren’t setting out to ‘plant the flag’ but then again, neither were the Pilgrim fathers. On the whole, though, I’d have to say that the Jewish influx to Palestine resembles immigration more than colonisation – they were not plating the flag, they came legally under the laws of the Government of the area (either the Ottomans or the British), they came as a steady trickle, and they generally did not displace the inhabitants. In some ways, it might resemble colonisation because they built settlements there – had they simply moved into houses in the towns I doubt there would be any talk of colonisation at all. I think that the idea of a settlement packing up in, say, Russian and then showing up in Palestine and building up a little village on some land used only previously by nomadic Bedouin conjures up thoughts of colonisation in the way that a number of families moving into a row of houses in a town does not, even if the processes were more or less the same.

I don’t expect the Palestinians to leave.

Leave where? Their refugee camps?

Palestine in general.

Look how it easy it was with Egypt – all it took was for Egypt to renounce the ‘no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel’ line, and it got back the Sinai and there’s been peace ever since.

Lord M, the Egyptians are still living in Egypt. Egyptians citizens didn't have to find another country to live in because of their peace agreement. The wars were very expensive and the peace was very cheap. The same is true for Syria, of course. But not for the Palestinians.

The Palestinians don’t need to find another place to live – they have the West Bank and Gaza (and they should have Jordan as well, but that’s an issue for the Jordanian Government to answer for).

[Cerin]

The Lebanese government is unable to stop Hezbollah from using south Lebanon as a launching ground not because they don't want to but because they have no army.

If the Lebanese gov't. is helpless to curb the military activities of a group attacking another country from their territory, then the country being bombed is obviously going to step in and try to protect themselves, and I think they have the right to do so. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]