Why do we care so much about Israel and Palestine, and so little about everyone else?
49 Comments Published by Tom Gara on Saturday, January 10 at Saturday, January 10, 2009.
It is a weird and interesting question, one that catches me particularly given I feel so connected to this part of the world over all others. How come the death of Palestinian civilians gets more attention than similar deaths anywhere else?
Ideally, every time an innocent civilian dies at the hands of military violence, the world would take note. Practically, there is only so much attention the world can give, and it feels like the overwhelming majority of it is paid on the Middle East.
Why? I could list off a hundred theories, and I'd love whoever reads this to leave their thoughts in the comments. Here is mine:
Israel is seen as a member of the modern, developed Western world, one of "us". When machete-wielding crazies take people to pieces in Africa, it is just too confusing and weird, too hard to understand motivations and prescribe solutions. But the feeling changes when a basically Western army and people, using our weapons and in good standing with the West, start killing people in big numbers.
We hold Israel to a way higher standard, because they are one of us. Israelis and their supporters call hypocrisy when people constantly talk about Israeli war crimes, Israeli breaches of human rights standards etc, but those same people never really complain about all the other nasty third world war criminals, including those of its enemies like Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
It is not exactly hypocrisy though - it's an acceptable kind of cultural supremacism, and it is pretty much a compliment to Israel. We accept that insane tribal conflicts will go on in the deep recesses of Africa, and we expect repressive military dictatorships in places like North Korea or Egypt or Zimbabwe. We are not shocked by the indifference to death of Islamic fundamentalists. But when a democratic, enlightened, prosperous nation and government go on a killing spree, it is disgusting and wrong, because they know the evil of what they are doing.
And when they talk about it in our manner - smooth-talking spokesmen in suits eloquently explaining in American accents how they respect human rights and want peace and are ready to negotiate, it seems far worse than hearing an insane paramilitary commander in Congo talk about exterminating their enemies, or hearing a Hamas spokesman scream about drowning Jews in a sea of their own blood.
Equally, we know that a country like Israel aspires to be a member in good standing among Western nations - it has more to lose by being seen as a nation that commits war crimes. Constantly emphasisng the nastiness of Sudan or Burma will mean little to its leaders and change nothing in their behaviour. In the case of Israel, which genuinely cares about its international reputation, things are different.
This is the same reason we care a lot about a company like Nike using sweatshop slave labour, but care much less about the actual slave labour situation in China. Nike interfaces with the West, relies on a good reputation in the West, is of the West, and therefore accountable to us. We have leverage, far deeper and more powerful leverage than the sanctions or bombs we can drop on other countries.
I think the same goes for why Israel's bad behaviour attracts such passionate responses by non-Westerners. The average Egyptian or Indonesian knows there is pretty much no point engaging in mass protest against other third-world despots, because they know exactly how little such protests matter in changing things. Did the Iran-Iraq war, a far bloodier and more insane conflict than the US invasion, attract mass worldwide protest and generate such anger?
This is yet another way where I feel the South Africa example should inform the way we approach Israel. (The power of a campaign of strict non-violence by Palestinians combined with an organised international effort focussed on human rights is another example, for another post.)
South Africa's whites, like Israel's Jews, were culturally "ours", and needed to be accepted by us for their long-term viability as a nation. Being shown up as nasty oppressive bastards hurt them far more than it would hurt the Chinese re: Tibet, etc etc.
I think I am fine with this situation, because it focusses attention on the places where attention can lead to changes. It is efficient. Ultimately, in an eyes-on-the-prize sense, there should be widespread action against all acts of organised state / paramilitary violence, serious enough to discourage similar violence in the future.
That isn't happening any time soon though, so we may as well focus on the ones where the attention is worthwhile.
Ideally, every time an innocent civilian dies at the hands of military violence, the world would take note. Practically, there is only so much attention the world can give, and it feels like the overwhelming majority of it is paid on the Middle East.
Why? I could list off a hundred theories, and I'd love whoever reads this to leave their thoughts in the comments. Here is mine:
Israel is seen as a member of the modern, developed Western world, one of "us". When machete-wielding crazies take people to pieces in Africa, it is just too confusing and weird, too hard to understand motivations and prescribe solutions. But the feeling changes when a basically Western army and people, using our weapons and in good standing with the West, start killing people in big numbers.
We hold Israel to a way higher standard, because they are one of us. Israelis and their supporters call hypocrisy when people constantly talk about Israeli war crimes, Israeli breaches of human rights standards etc, but those same people never really complain about all the other nasty third world war criminals, including those of its enemies like Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
It is not exactly hypocrisy though - it's an acceptable kind of cultural supremacism, and it is pretty much a compliment to Israel. We accept that insane tribal conflicts will go on in the deep recesses of Africa, and we expect repressive military dictatorships in places like North Korea or Egypt or Zimbabwe. We are not shocked by the indifference to death of Islamic fundamentalists. But when a democratic, enlightened, prosperous nation and government go on a killing spree, it is disgusting and wrong, because they know the evil of what they are doing.
And when they talk about it in our manner - smooth-talking spokesmen in suits eloquently explaining in American accents how they respect human rights and want peace and are ready to negotiate, it seems far worse than hearing an insane paramilitary commander in Congo talk about exterminating their enemies, or hearing a Hamas spokesman scream about drowning Jews in a sea of their own blood.
Equally, we know that a country like Israel aspires to be a member in good standing among Western nations - it has more to lose by being seen as a nation that commits war crimes. Constantly emphasisng the nastiness of Sudan or Burma will mean little to its leaders and change nothing in their behaviour. In the case of Israel, which genuinely cares about its international reputation, things are different.
This is the same reason we care a lot about a company like Nike using sweatshop slave labour, but care much less about the actual slave labour situation in China. Nike interfaces with the West, relies on a good reputation in the West, is of the West, and therefore accountable to us. We have leverage, far deeper and more powerful leverage than the sanctions or bombs we can drop on other countries.
I think the same goes for why Israel's bad behaviour attracts such passionate responses by non-Westerners. The average Egyptian or Indonesian knows there is pretty much no point engaging in mass protest against other third-world despots, because they know exactly how little such protests matter in changing things. Did the Iran-Iraq war, a far bloodier and more insane conflict than the US invasion, attract mass worldwide protest and generate such anger?
This is yet another way where I feel the South Africa example should inform the way we approach Israel. (The power of a campaign of strict non-violence by Palestinians combined with an organised international effort focussed on human rights is another example, for another post.)
South Africa's whites, like Israel's Jews, were culturally "ours", and needed to be accepted by us for their long-term viability as a nation. Being shown up as nasty oppressive bastards hurt them far more than it would hurt the Chinese re: Tibet, etc etc.
I think I am fine with this situation, because it focusses attention on the places where attention can lead to changes. It is efficient. Ultimately, in an eyes-on-the-prize sense, there should be widespread action against all acts of organised state / paramilitary violence, serious enough to discourage similar violence in the future.
That isn't happening any time soon though, so we may as well focus on the ones where the attention is worthwhile.
What about that Israel is primarily supported by the US government, which is not necessarily very popular around the world...so concern and discontent about Israel killing Palestinians is rather concern and discontent about the role the US government is playing in the world.
None of the other blood spilling conflicts around the world can be directly linked to the US government as much as the one in the Middle East.
A few others:
1 - Very linked to your explanation that Israel is of 'us', but another aspect of it is that we feel implicated in the crimes Israel perpetrates. When Israel bombs a UN refugee post, they do so with bombs bought by us (if you're American), or with our implicit support (if you're one of the countless countries that feels duty-bound to shut up or cheer them on whenever the Israelis commit a war crime). Being implicated in the crime makes the speaking-out that much more necessary, and that much more energetic. Many of us don't want to go down in history as those who stood by quietly as crimes were perpetrated in our names and with our tax dollars.
2 - There are people who argue that what Israel is doing is a good thing, justifiable, a
'measured response to Islamic terrorists' and so on. It would kind of be a mute point if we started criticizing the Ugandan rebels because there's not many people advocating their actions in our societies. But when the zeitgeist is premised upon 'unconditional support of our friend and ally' there is actually something to argue about, and someone to argue with. Hence the need for protest and debate.
3 - This is a conflict that influences other conflicts. Just like conflicts in the Balkans attract serious attention (as that was where World War I started), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of great importance to the broader conflicts between elements of Islamic and Arab societies and the 'West.' It is a vivid symbol of the West's hypocritic violation of our stated principles, and is one clear example in which we continue our pattern of colonialist, repressive, divide-and-conquer policies, all under the guise of what seems all too obviously to be a left-over of the 'white man's burden' mentality. "Oh, those poor, violent, Arabs, why don't they like peace?" (see excerpt from here - http://www.meforum.org/article/1813 - below) we essentially say as we steal their land, colonise (what else could it be called) it with settlers from New York who think God gave them the land, treat them like animals, and then wonder why they fire some rockets over the wall. Because of our colonialist history, and because this region is the source of the world's major monotheistic faiths, this conflict is the symbol for the broader conflict between colonised and colonialists, and between Islam and the 'West' since the crusades.
Here's the excerpt from an essay by a McGill University anthropologiest that continues to forward what is essentially a 'white man's burden' argument:
Any outside observer without any prior knowledge of the Arab-Israeli conflict would find the unrelenting rejection by Arabs of Israel to be confusing. It would be difficult to fathom why Arabs who currently struggle to get along with one another would not look with enthusiasm to neighbors who could and would assist them in bettering their circumstances. The Arab situation, compared to Israel's, is bleak. In all spheres of life except for religion, Arab society and culture has declined in importance and influence. In global competition with other societies and cultures, Arabs have for centuries been losers. Israel, on the other hand, is a parliamentary democracy with established civil liberties. It is perhaps the most multiracial and multicultural state in the world, gathering as it has Jews from all corners of the world. It has also accepted and, albeit imperfectly, incorporated a substantial population of Arab Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian. Israeli science and technology makes major contributions to medicine and high technology. IBM and Intel each have three research and development centers in Israel while Microsoft and Cisco Systems have built their only non-U.S. facilities there. Motorola has its largest research and development site in Israel. Israelis are close cousins of the Arabs. Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages. And, even religiously, Jews are a fellow "people of the book."
Tom,
There is a flaw (actually there are many but let's start with one) in your answer to your own question. You ask "Why do we care so much about Israel AND Palestine, and so little about everyone else" but then provide a theory for why "we" care only about the death of Palestinian civilians (not Israelis).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised by your one-sidedness... that's par for the course. Though I was hoping to hear a more insightful answer to an interesting question.
Let me pose a question back to you:
How would any other country that is one of "us" (using your words here) respond to 80 rockets being shot at their civilians on a daily basis?
What would Australia do? What would the UK do? What would France do? What would the US do if mexican "activists" shot 80 rockets a day at Florida?
How do you suggest that Israel should protect its citizens from from Hamas rocket fire?
Hey Roi,
I'm sure you're not going to like my post ;-) But I'm sure it won't surprise you either. A quick response to your post. (I have a feel this is going to be one of Tom's blog entries that ends up with many, many comments ;-))
1 - I have never heard of those Hamas fighters who fire rockets being called 'activists', in fact, I would argue that in 90% of Western news sources, Hamas or even Fatah politicians who denounce violence are more likely to be called 'terrorists' than those who fire rockets are to be called 'activists.'
2 - I don't know what they would do (probably invade Mexico city or something), but I know what they should do. First, if the US was having rockets fired on it from Mexico, they should first consider whether they were illegally in possession of any Mexican land. I use the word 'illegally' here because even the Israeli courts (never mind the UN, and basically every international observer) have declared the settlements illegal. If this was the case, they should a) stop taking the land and b) withdraw from that which they have taken.
Second, they might want to consider whether they have taken massive portions of the arable land in Mexico for use by the settlers. Hungry people get very angry, very quickly.
Third, they might want to adhere to let in shipments of food and medicine (countries I remember this year that have prevented the UN from shipping in food and medicine - Israel and Burma). Journalists would also be nice.
Then, once they are clearly established as a party that is adhering to the standards of human rights and international law to which the international community has agreed, I suspect there will still be some Mexicans who are still pissed off for what happened sixty years ago, or just want to fire rockets. In this case, do what needs to be done, including potentially invading territories in which these people are based, cutting off funding sources, and the various other things that Israel has done.
The problem is that without the previous actions, Israel remains a state that is essentially in a long-term process of invasion, and it is very hard to see such a state's actions as 'defensive' in the way you suggest.
Tamer - I agree that US backing makes the conflict more of a Western and American issue, although I would argue that if US backing dropped and Israel started buying weapons and getting diplomatic support from Russia and China, people would be pretty much equally concerned.
Roi - I do care about the death of Israeli civilians, when they are actually dying. When suicide bombers were killing Israelis, I felt very strongly about it. In recent memory, Palestinians have been massive net victims of the conflict, and it is their lives and future I am more worried about.
Re what Australia would do, it would probably be something very similar to what Israel is doing. But we would never be in the situation where we needed to do it.
You might as well ask what we would do if we were in the situations Gazans are in today. We wouldnt be, is the answer.
Something I would like to hear your answer to - do you think this war was a good idea? Is this how you would like Israel to respond to similar problems in the future?
I think the fundamental reason we care is, as Brodie alludes to, the fact that Israel-Palestine is a microcosm for what is simplistically boiled down to as a conflict between the East and West. The simplicity of the dichotomy (which was greatly exacerbated by 9/11) is what leads people to identify (and identify strongly) with their respective proxies; the U.S. with their unconditional support for Israel and most Arab countries with their unconditional support for the Palestinians.
(I think Roi's post is indicative of that; while it offers up a good question, I could just as easily turn it around and, looking through the Palestinian lens, ask "how do you suggest that the Palestinians protect themselves from an occupying (and previously expansionist) power whose policies have subjected them to such harm that they'd prefer to keep both humanitarians and journalists from exposing them?)
As an American, I think I get so riled up because in Israeli policy and action I see American policy and action towards the greater Middle East; policies and actions which currently (in my opinion) reinforce what U.S. policies have already revealed: that we need a paradigm shift in this entire "war on terror" thing, that retaliation may be justified but the way we wage it may not be, that militant responses, foreign occupations and Cold War-era tactics are poor national security strategies, and will wield unintended consequences for years to come.
Israel is a great case-in-point on how to not "fight terrorism"--a half century of military dominance and aggression hasn't made it any safer. The IDF's current offensive likely won't either.
-fear of second holocaust
-historical/theological importance of the region
-expert PR campaigns by both sides romanticize the conflict
roi and I have just debated this post over chat - anyone who is interested can read the transcript.
sulemain, I agree the first two points are big contributors. with the third, i think the palestinians have a terrible PR problem, and it is one of their core problems.
Brodie,
1. Pulling figures out of the ass doesn't equate factual truth, thought that's why figures are many times used in flashy statements. Hamas people might not be activists, but surely they are not referred to as terrorists in the western sources, aside of fox news maybe. If you do actually look it up and count, you will see the general term used is "Militants" - for Hamas and "representatives" for Fatah.
2. Your romantic account about how US should respond to the hypothetical aggression from Mexico would keep any government of any country in the world not more then 2 weeks in the job. They would be thrown out by force by their own people.
Thinking you can tell the John Doe to stay put while bombs fall in his garden, while his government ponders on how to positively engage the bombers, is an exercise of intellectual masturbation, with no chance of application in reality.
3. Do the international human rights standards which you refer to apply solely to those which should shape their actions based on the "white man's burden" or the entire human population? Or is it that people with lower standards of living get a discount on observing the standards - hence, as Tom ridiculously suggest in his original post, it is less bad for Hamas to talk about drowning Jews in a sea of blood than for Israel to strike in Gaza?
Hmm...The beauty of adaptable standards...
Tom,
You talk about a South Africa style of approach: “The power of a campaign of strict non-violence by Palestinians combined with an organized international effort focused on human rights..."...
Let there once be a campaign of strict non-violence from the Palestinians and Israel will not only follow suit with no hesitation, but will aggressively engage in the peace process meant to create the independent Palestinian state.
Speak with Israelis from all levels of society and of political spectrum (aside for the ultra-religious, the hopeless lunatics yet fortunately minority ones). You will learn (if willing to hear) that this is what they want, and what they would want to mandate their government to do, if only the absence of violence were for real.
Brodie,
Let's for a second pretend that I agree with your wonderfully-zen ideas. I've always complemented you on your ability to come up with big-picture, birds eye-view ideas.
Now let's be realistic.
I know that you admire Obama very much. Now run that same question that I asked you with a realistic-lense assuming that this happened on January 21st. How would Obama respond? His most important responsibility (okay, that's arguable) is to provide security to the citizens that elected him. Do you think that he would sit there and go down your suggested list him while rockets keep being fired on his citizens? Even this man that you admire so much said ""If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that,and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
Brodie, you are applying (and will hopefully be accepted) to public policy programs in universities from which many well-regarded political leaders graduated. Let's hope that this leads to you one day being given the responsibility to protect the citizens of a country (your stuck with Canada, unfortunately or fortunately). How would you respond? Would you really sit back and let rockets rain on your citizens while you 'figure things out'? Please answer with a realistic, action-oriented, viewpoint.
A few more thoughts in response to your other points:
1- settlements. You know my thoughts on this. I agree that they should be dismantled 100%. I'm happy to talk about suggested solutions to final status issues (that seems like a far more productive conversation, don't you think). That said, my argument back to you is that I don't believe Hamas will stop firing rockets if all settlements were dismantled. They have continually stated that they will not accept peace with the State of Israel. Pre-67 borders is not enough for Hamas so your argument here leads to a moot point.
2- Israeli war crimes. What can I say here? It's okay to keep a missile cache in a mosque, but it's not okay to attack the mosque? It's okay to fire rockets from heavily crowded buildings but it's not okay to shoot back? It's okay to shoot from beside a school, but it's not okay to shoot back? The fact that 40+ civilians were killed in the school is an absolute tragedy. No doubt about it. The fact that it is a "UN school" doesn't make it any more or any less tragic (though I'll point out that you don't make any reference to Hamas' rockets that hit schools and kindergartens in Israel). Innocent people died. Unfortunately, that happens in wars. Though it happens far more when militants are using innocent civilians as human shields (a war crime you somehow forgot to mention). Golda Meir once said "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." I think that sums it up pretty well.
Brodie, you've been in this war-mongering country (aka Israel), you've met some of these war-mongering citizens and, therefore, you know the type of people that serve this war-mongering army. My question to you is, do you honestly think that these people, their army, and their country actually intend and target to kill children, women, and other innocent civilians?
Without a doubt, they are aware that civilian casualties will happen, as they do in any war. Do you honestly believe that it is their aim, their hope, to kill these civilians?
Now what about Hamas? When they shoot their rockets, do you think they intend on killing innocent civilians?
Guys, let me be clear here, this war is obviously not a long term solution. Wars rarely are. This is an unfortunate, but necessary -- in my opinion -- short term solution. Hopefully, this war will end soon. I hope that the Franco-Egyptian proposal is accepted by both Israel and Hamas as soon as possible and I hope that this will (eventually, not immediately obviously) pave the way and add to the urgency of negotiating a long-term solution towards a two-state solution.
Peace,
Roi
P.S. Don't you think your arguments would be more complete if you considered and criticized both sides?
hero - i disagree that the actions of the last half century has made israel less secure.
remember that there were a few times in the first 30 years of the country when a loss in a war would have meant the end. not lots of deaths - the end.
it is impossible to imagine arab states ever attempting to invade again. nuclear weapons and the best military in the Middle East make it unlikely, and a series of ass-whippings of its neighbours means none will think of full-scale aggression again.
equally, terrorism on israeli soil is basically eradicated. that the greatest threat to the country is these shitty, inaccurate backyard rockets is testament to how little danger the Israeli people are now in.
the perception that israel is in great danger, or that its enemies are capable of causing it harm, is a big reason why wars like this can be launched. it isn't, and they can't.
albert: as a standard, pretty much any western media mention of hamas will add that it is a designated terrorist group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. it gets annoying after the tenth read of the day :)
the international law / human rights standards argument is circular. because the other side breaches them, so do you?
either you are wrong are you are right, the actions of your enemies are irrelevant.
we both agree on the non violence so that is a good start...
roi: what should israel do to stop rockets?
1) Recognise that the rockets are an inevitable cost of the occupation. The benefit of occupying gaza via siege is that they don't have any more serious weapons or funding, and they remain a defeated people. the cost is that they will lash out in increasingly desperate ways, the rockets being the latest. People living in range need to live with the small risk and major inconvenience while a solution is found. or they can move somewhere else.
2) Respond to every rocket with a number of punitive measures communicated in advance - 10% less fuel and food for a week, a much more powerful rocket in return, etc.
3) Do whatever can be done to execute the people who make and fire rockets.
4) Talk to Hamas, ask what it would take for a ceasefire, give it to them.
5) If all these measures fail, reoccupy Gaza.
Hero of the Light,
Where shall I start with you. I can go through every line of your post and point out your lack of knowledge and uninformed perspectives but that seems like a waste of time. The fact that you conclude that the Israeli-Palestine conflict "simplistically" (not sure what that word means) is a microcosm of the conflict between East and West embarrassingly over-simplifies the immediate 60 year history of the land and the hundreds or thousands of years prior. Perhaps it is best to call you naive and to offer that you spend more time reading history books rather than other people's blogs or ultra-left wing college newspapers.
Sometimes it is better to listen (or read in this case) than speak .
Tom,
Just a couple of quick responses. It's almost 6:00am here so i should probably get some rest.
Responding to your earlier post (7:39pm):
1) Suicide bombers - you say you felt strongly against it. Well, Israel responded by building that huge, ugly wall that I know you strongly disagree with. The fact of the matter is that its been largely successful (nearly entirely) in stopping terrorists breaching the border and carrying suicide attacks. Are you still against the wall?
2) The net effect - there is no doubt that ordinary Palestinians are deeply and sadly affected in this war both physically and, worse in my opinion, psychologically. It affects me to see Palestinian children dying, injured or orphaned just as much as it affects you, trust me. However, I disagree with the notion that bases proportionality on the number of the deaths (call it, the result). In war time, intention matters far more than achieved results. You don't take it easy on Hamas because their rockets are shitty. You can't say 'Israel has done worse because it has killed more'. Hamas' success rate does not change its intention of indiscriminately killing as many Israelis as possible (different than Israel's intention as I've argued in a previous post).
The fact is that with every cease-fire or lull in hostilities, Hamas has re-armed with a greater supply of more sophisticated, longer-range missiles. Demolishing (or at least drawing down) their firing ability and supply source of rockets was a necessary evil in my opinion. A basic responsibility of the government of Israel to protect its citizens. This answers your question of whether I think this war was a good idea. Unfortunately, yes.
Your second question asks whether this is how I would like Israel to respond in future problems. Tough question. I hope they won't have to. Sometimes dire situations lead to positive transformational outcomes. I hope that will be the case in following this conflict. Tactically speaking though, I think you yourself answered this question well in your post at 9:48pm.
I agree with all 5 of your suggestions. I especially like #2! However, i fear that many in the international community would view it as 'collective punishment' (damned if you do, damned if you don't). I believe that all your other suggestions #1-#5 are currently been used by Israeli army (#3 through the Egyptians, Turkish, etc.)......
One more point I wanted to make was in response to your point that palestinians have a terrible PR problem. I find that quite interesting because if you speak to most Israelis and Jews outside Israel would argue that as good as Israel may be in advocacy and lobbying, they are terrible at PR. I think Hamas is PR machine. How come you never see videos or images of Hamas operatives being rushed to hospital and you only see kids in hospitals? Clearly, many Hamas fighters were killed and injured in the fighting. Where are they?
You will never see (and never have in the past such as after suicide bombs) dead Israeli kids in the street because it is against the law (actually, it may be just against Jewish custom) to 'disrespect' the body and soul in this way. So you just don't see it and therefore the suffering is percieved as "just" running to a shelter a couple of times a day. Anyways, i thought it was interesting to see that both sides feel they are losing the PR war.
I'm off to bed.
Peace
Roi
I do not in anyway defend Hamas, but there are a couple of things here that should be pointed out:
#1. Israel, the United States and a couple of other countries are the only ones who recognize ALL of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Britain, Australia and others recognize the militant arm of Hamas as the one that is terrorist. Why is this distinction important? Well when the IDF destroyed a Hamas police station for example, such actions did nothing to stop rockets from firing; in fact it did just the opposite when you get rid of the few people who are actually willing to avoid a lawless Gaza run over by militants. This is not the first time the IDF has hit targets that were not in Israel's security interests to hit, leading me to believe the Israeli government is following a pretty self-destructive policy of "hit anything and everything that might be linked to Hamas" thinking that will solve the problem.
#2 - The question of Israel violating international law is a fundamental obstacle to the peace process and for Palestinians to accept the peace process; this is why the international community should hold Israel to an extremely high standard. It doesn't help when Israel insists that it made an effort of peace by withdrawing from Gaza, only to impose the blockade just after its supposed withdrawal. And not surprisingly, the frequency of rockets being fired increased dramatically as the blockade was tightened.
As illegal settlements continue in the West Bank and the Israeli government does nothing to stop it, more West Bank Palestinians start asking the question, "Is Fatah really doing anything for us?" And that's where we may get into another dangerous situation in the West Bank, which is not good for anyone. I haven't exactly seen the Israeli government exerting pressure to stop these settlements, but it would not just be in the Palestinians' best interests to do so, it would be in their own interests as well.. and to stop them now.
#3 - Hamas is surely a threat, but to deny that Hamas has never relented in saying it will continue to militarily attack Israel is also incorrect. When the Arab League put forth the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 it was accepted by all Arab States, the Palestinian Authority, and given that all Arab states offered their acceptance, Hamas was in a corner and accepted it too. Yet the Israeli government was not willing to accept it because it was not yet ready to accept returning to the 1967 borders, it had concerns about the "refugee question" (Palestinians' right to return) and the potential concession of East Jerusalem to Palestinians. All of which could have been negotiated, but never was. Understandable concerns yes, but what the plan provided was peace, security AND recognition of Israel by ALL Arab states, which was a massive concession on their part, and which would by far have put Israel in a better position in terms of security, and would have certainly backed Hamas into a corner.
I speak as someone who wants as much peace for Israel as for the Palestinians. At the same time, Israel has been given a number of opportunities to at least begin the groundwork for peace and even the collective commitment from all Arab states is not enough for Israel to consider making some concessions.
This is asymmetric warfare, and here Israel is the bigger party, and truly the only one that can sit down and initiate legitimate peace talks with the smaller opponent. But it has to be willing to make concessions. And it cannot adopt the approach the US has used to date, which means "no talking to Hamas or any one of those terrorists at all". Certainly such policies don't seem to be working so well right now. As I mentioned in my first point - it is clear from the mixed statements coming from Hamas representatives for several years now that Hamas within itself is divided. If Israel (and the United States) was able to make the distinction and look within these divisions, rather than asserting that they will not negotiate with Hamas since the entire thing is a terrorist organization, maybe they would have gotten further in the peace process... or more realistically: maybe they would have actually started a peace process.
The one thing I never understood was complaints about 'proportionality.' If you want to argue that Israel's blockade of Gaza is horrible and must end, I'll be there with you. But dropping 'asymmetric' and 'proportional' with respect to what, for all intents and purposes, is ridiculous. Ridiculous. Ridiculous.
On the other hand, I'm kind of intrigued by how this complaint would change if Israel started firing dumb mortars and Qassam rockets aimlessly into Gaza's schools and apartments.
for all intents and purposes, is war. That's ridiculous. Ridiculous.
---
pardon my dyslexicisity
OK I have a few points to finally weigh in with though I can see we have gone some way from Tom's originally intended question.
The first is the US vs. Israel comparison which I find blatantly ridiculous.
"2. Your romantic account about how US should respond to the hypothetical aggression from Mexico would keep any government of any country in the world not more then 2 weeks in the job. They would be thrown out by force by their own people.
Thinking you can tell the John Doe to stay put while bombs fall in his garden, while his government ponders on how to positively engage the bombers, is an exercise of intellectual masturbation, with no chance of application in reality."
Mate, Brodie outlined for you why this is not a plausible comparison. The United States is not occupying and settling Mexican land. The United States does not control Mexico's borders and limit the flow of aid, food, medicine, energy and trade to Mexico. Mexicans do not have to live with the lack of hope, the lack of freedom and the lack of statehood that Palestinians do. If this situation were the case, it doesn't matter whether a US president would be "run out of office by his own people" because then the US would be populated by *real* colonialists that are not just going against the shaky institution of international law but actually against the progress of history and modern standards of statehood.
My second point is, I have an idea... why doesn't Israel give the Palestinians East Jerusalem and a proper state? Why don't they lift the economic blockade? If they did that and rockets were still coming they would have full support from the international community to go to war.
And my third is, if you think proportionality does not matter and intent is all that matters. Why doesn't Israel drop a nuke on Gaza? Or at the very least a shitload of napalm? That would be pretty effective I'd say...
that's what frustrates me most about this argument. Those that defend the Israeli perspective always say "what would you do if this was happening to your country?" It's the biggest moot point ever. My country is not an occupying power. None of our countries are. If the people you have occupied, whose land you have settled and who you are keeping in an open air prison decide they don't like it... perhaps that's ummm... reasonable? I know if my country *was* occupied I certainly wouldn't sit around and take it.
And my third is, if you think proportionality does not matter and intent is all that matters. Why doesn't Israel drop a nuke on Gaza? Or at the very least a shitload of napalm? That would be pretty effective I'd say...
Israel has nothing to gain, and much to lose, by killing Palestinians at random and much to gain by targeting Hamas combatants. If showing restraint is 'proportionality' to you, it's mere strategy to Ehud Barak
Hey all,
Albert; I'm sorry if you think I 'pulled figures out of my ass'. I think the above responses already have addressed this point.
As to the other comments on my answer to Roi’s questions, a few points:
1 – I actually am not as big a fan of Obama as perhaps it seems ;-) For example, I disagree strongly with some of his past statements on the Israeli-Palestinian question, in particular him going one step further than even many Israeli negotiators, and taking the Jerusalem debate off the table, which essentially condemns any peace process before it even begins. But this is another debate ;-)
2 – As for my romantic and zen-like plan, there are two issues here. One is whether it is an accurate analogy to continue to use the question ‘What if Canada were being fired upon – what would you do?’. The second is the question of what I think Israel should actually do, in their particular circumstances.
The way I was answering the question was addressing the first part – and trying to make perfectly clear that the justification implied by that analogy is plainly false. Canada has not invaded another country (except for our initial invasion of the Native Canadians’ land), does not continue to take away this peoples’ land (Roi, I'm glad you and I share views on the settlement issue), has not separated these people from what little arable land was left to them by a massive concrete wall, does not restrict these people from international movement and movement within their own borders, does not treat these people like animals (a certain image of a feces, brick, and refuse-laden wire mesh laying below the settlements in Hebron and above the heads of those shopping the previously bustling streets of the old city below comes to mind), etc… So, it confuses the issue when we start equating Israel with any other country. There are very, very different circumstances, and to completely take these out of the conversation separates the circumstances of this particular situation (invasion purportedly in response to rockets) from facts that are very important for understanding what’s going on there.
The second issue is what Israel should do. First, to Albert’s point. Israel does not invade Gaza every time a rocket is fired (obviously – to do so would be ridiculous). This demonstrates that there are options other than an immediate, large-scale response. And to call allowing shipments of food and medicine, permitting journalists, dismantling settlements, and working towards a long-term solution ‘intellectual masturbation’ is, well, disturbing.
What would I like to see done? Practically, the following:
- Dismantle the settlements. They are illegal, and pretty clearly show an intent to continue to appropriate Palestinian land. No one wins except a few thousand fanatics, or poor people who are given Palestinian productive land in exchange for moving there. And dismantle all of them, not just a symbolic few while expanding them elsewhere (a la Sharon).
- Make a clear statement that the 1967 borders will be honoured in exchange for peace.
- Enter a serious peace process with the following as the outcomes: 1. 1967 borders, with full territorial integrity, and land access between Gaza and the West Bank 2. Jerusalem as a shared capital, administered by the UN if need be. 3. No right of return for refugees (would compromise the existence of Israel)
- Unilaterally suspend attacks (other than responses along the lines of what Tom suggested) on Palestinians for a period of time such that negotiations can take place.
The above are just initial suggestions, I’ve written another post on this in response to a post on the nomadlife main page a while back.
Now, Roi, you made a few other comments, here are my thoughts:
1 – I agree with you that there will be elements of Hamas that will not stop even if the 67 borders have been agreed upon. The problem is that if we wait for everyone to be happy, extremists on both sides (think settlers and Hamas) will stall the peace process indefinitely. So, I agree with you that final status is a far more productive conversation.
2 – No, it is not okay to store rockets in schools, and no, it is not okay to attack those schools, or refuse care to sick and wounded civilians, or not allow medicine and food into a region in conflict. Both are war crimes, and the party that ceases from committing war crimes will be the party to earn legitimacy. Until then, both deserve the harshest condemnation.
I do not believe that Israel is a ‘warmongering’ nation, and even in my most frustrated moments, I’ve never said such. And if you’ll recall a post I made from Israel, I argued that the conflict is really a conflict within each nation. A conflict between the moderates in Israel and the extremists in Israel (of which there certainly are many, and yes, I did see them), as well as between the moderates in the Palestinian Territories and the extremists there (of which, again, there are many, and those who talk about ‘drowning Jews in a sea of blood’ as Albert mentioned, obviously are a waste of skin). I have tried to find a link to this post, but my archives don’t seem to be working. If I remember correctly though, both you and Albert criticized this post.
I hate to say it, but I do believe that, in some cases, there are Israeli forces and Israeli individuals who intentionally kill civilians. There have been numerous cases of shootings, bulldozings, bombings, etc… which demonstrate this. But no, I absolutely do not think it’s the majority. I think the vast majority of Israelis (as Palestinians), want nothing more than to be able get up in the morning, have a quiet coffee with their family, listen to some music on the way to the office, do work that makes them feel useful and empowered, eat some of the best food in the world, do their prayers, and go to bed. The problem is that these majorities are being held hostage by their minorities, and by the feeling that they should support the worst of their own side before the worst of the other side.
Also, I can't let this whole issue of the 'security barrier' slide. First, the wall is a joke. I've walked along portions of it, and even in the populous areas there were in 2007 (after it was being called a great success) massive stretches that are just holes. If you look at the wall it's more like a bunch of stretches of the wall right in front of Palestinian homes. The actual location of the wall serves to separate off the most productive lands in the West Bank (I don't know enough about Gaza to comment) from their former Palestinian owners. The wall itself does not prevent suicide bombers. The correlation in the decrease in suicide bombings is more with changes in the political scene in Palestine than the wall.
PS – Frankly, it gets a bit tiring being called one-sided on this, when obviously we’re both arguing two different sides of the same issue. I don’t think either of our hands are clean on this, no? You’re right, I probably do typically see the Palestinian side first. I would justify this to myself by saying that there is a massive power differential, that there is a clear aggressor in this situation, that the history is of a country invaded by another, etc…, but arguments could be made either way, and lead nowhere productive. I think I’ve tried pretty hard to understand both sides. Recently I’ve read a lot of the stuff on Hamas, for example, to try to understand how much they are formally dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and was disappointed to learn that it’s pretty clear that their official stance (aside from in the last election, in which this was omitted), is for the destruction of Israel. I try to be pretty detached, but in previous posts in which I’ve tried so hard to be unbiased, I still get criticized, so who knows. But let’s talk about the issues (as we certainly do), not call each other one-sided.
Anyways dudes, I know this is a seriously emotional issue for everyone involved (and I’m no exception), so apologies if I’ve been personal in any way. This stuff’s just been building up ever since I left a week of meditation and realized there’s another friggin war going on, and it’s good to debate it with people who I respect.
Ciao…
brodie
LX,
1. I was not comparing US vs. Mexico; had you read the comments before, you'd have realized it was an analogy drawn from a question posed by Roi before.
2. to your rhetoric on "why doesn't Israel give the Palestinians East Jerusalem and a proper state? Why don't they lift the economic blockade?"...Back to the "chicken or egg first". I do believe that Israel should give East Jerusalem back (with a caveat that a solution should be found for the Jewish quarter in Old City and most of all the Western Wall to be under Israeli sovereignty), I do believe the Palestinians should have a proper state. But I do not see any way in which an Israeli government will get a mandate from its people to do that as long as their houses are still being target constantly and randomly by rockets.
3. The 'nuke' comment is a 'for the sake of playing with words' remark. Keeping a proportional response means having an Israeli sniper taking out one Palestinian for each Israeli killed by the Hamas rockets. That would not only be ineffective, but an actual cold blooded crime. However, Israel in its offensive doesn't try to annihilate the Palestinian people (which your insane nuke suggestion would do), but aim to damage to structure and network that continuously attacks its citizens. An awful lot more people die on the Palestinian side, because Hamas is consciously setting up it bases in people's homes, school, mosques etc.
Brodie,
Apologies if my language was offensive. I used the term of "intellectual masturbation" not in relation to the individual actions you mention in the reply, but to deride the idea that an Israeli government would /should be able to take all those steps plus the other mentioned in your earlier comment, in a straight line, with no reaction to Hamas's actions, and hope to stay in power for more than few weeks. As much as we analytically debate this, the John Doe of Israel (let's call him Abraham Benjamin, so LX doesn't think I'm again comparing US with Israel) will simply vote his/her government out if rockets fall on his garden, while his government is doing zero reactive action against it.
This tango is for two, one step at a time. Assuming that Hamas is not run by some complete retards, they know this as well. Why then, do they start shooting the rockets in the first hour after the 6 months armistice is over, when not doing so would have been such a clear step towards engaging in a peace negotiation? Is it, perhaps, that they only be chosen for leadership in time of war, hence peace is not beneficial for them?
first, thanks everyone for an interesting, civil debate. here here.
there's so much been said that I can't reply to all, so i'm going to cherry pick the topics where i can make a good point :)
roi - re suicide bombers and the wall. I think the wall is totally justifiable, and seems to have worked. What is wrong is the way the wall annexes even more Palestinian land, and protects settlers, who I think should be as exposed as possible to acts of terrorism. the cost of being a settler should be much, much higher than it currently is.
Israeli PR - I think just in terms of media narrative, Israel does pretty well. Hamas is always described as a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Israel. But you will rarely see Israel described as "Israel, which continues to expand settlements on palestinian land and occupy gaza via siege"
Yes, you see lots of injured women and children, but that is more because that is what viewers want to see - same goes for any conflict anywhere.
Albert - regarding Abraham Benjamin, the John Doe of Israel - would it be fair to say that Abraham and John are very different people when it comes to their view of the world, life experience etc?
Abraham has grown up much of his life at war, most likely served in an occupying army and lost a friend to the conflict. He probably has a passionate view one way or the other about the need to occupy Gaza. He lives 20 kilometres from the Gaza strip.
I just feel like when rockets get fired at his town, and he takes his family into the shelter, he has a bigger and deeper understand that he is in a a long, seemingless endless war that needs to be resolved.
His response is just nothing like that of some random guy living in a peaceful corner of Australia, Europe or the US, who wakes up one morning with a rocket crashing through his roof.
final thing - i think the settler question is very interesting. Roi and Albert are both happy to say they would dismantle every settlement, and a lot (a majority?) of Israelis agree. My question: are the people of Gaza more or less able to prevent rockets being fired from the Strip than the people of Israel are able to stop settlements?
Settlements are slow-motion terrorism. Not only do they physically invade another country, they slowly ruin the lives of the people living around them, as their land gets criss-crossed with settler-only roads, checkpoints, fencing, soldiers. Roi, Albert, how should the John Doe of Palestine respond to settlements? Should they, as you both say, just sit there and watch as their lives are ruined?
Ok, here's what i have whitnessed over the last period:
- The cease-fire ended in December, Israel asked to extend it, palestinians wouldn't
- Israel threatened to take action, palenstinians didn't bother
- Israel said, we'll take action and target Hamas sites, civilians should go, and cilivians don't move (or Hamas doesn't let them leave to protray Israel as a big evil monster)
What i don't get (from Arabs mainly), why don't they blame Hamas for the death of all these civilians? They knew what was coming, had the power to stop it and did nothing anyway. The way i see it, the blood of those dead palestinians lies on the hands of Hamas, and not of Israel.
Two years ago a similar scenario happened with Lebanon, Israel bombed all the Hezbollah places, was portrayed as an evil monster, Hezbollah claims it has "won" the war, and since then not a single bullet or rocket has been fired from Lebanon to Israel. Even last week when one rocket was fired in the north, Hezbollah scattered quickly to claim it wasn't responsible for it.
Seems to me like Israel knows exactly what it wants and knows how to get it. Can anyone blame them for going out there and making it happen? We've already established that Israel's response is what any other country would do, and I believe that the civilians getting in the way is a problem caused by Hamas...
So what is Irael doing wrong here again?
The problem Luli lies in the fact that we are not dealing with a country - so it is quite difficult to reconcile because it is not what we are accustomed to - Israel attacked South Lebanon in war with Hezbollah - and attacked Gaza against Hamas; both are political parties that govern but not in a capacity as a head of state.
This situation will be much simpler if Hamas declared independence of Gaza 18 months ago after it defeated Fatah and call it Republic of Gazastan(West Palestine).
some relevant comedy from a irreverent source;)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=strip-maul
start at around 3:30...
Tom,
Back to the main topic, I believe its the age of the problem, we're talking almost a century now. Also the fact that a "country" is occupying another's non declared state's land whether its a western country or not, it doesn't make a big difference. Thirdly, is the location and history of the occupied land in the heart of the middle east, which is for some reasons, an interesting region for the US and Europe. Lastly, somehow some people may see this conflict as a religious conflict.
With all the respect to the numerous responses, there will be no peace that will arise from such operations. Egypt has signed the peace treaty 30 years ago, and until this moment in the most optimistic polls you'll find at least 85% of the Egyptians define Israel as an enemy.
Luli,
I totally disagree with you, one might say that those civilians were going to die anyways sooner or later by the siege that has been there for a long time. The cease fire didn't help! Another would say that the excessive use of force is the reason behind the death toll. In regards to your third point (that civilians should've moved), don't think for a minute that it was a choice, if those whom we see killed each day on TV had another place to go to thy would've left.
Unless both sides believe that they compromise in order to get land or live in peace, we won't live to see a solution to this problem.
dody i disagree with you! Gazastan sounds very central Asian. Gazaland would be a better option, but sounds more European though.Maybe a super long name like Libya, the independent glorious Hamasian state of Gaza?
The word of 'occupation' is a strong one and in a conflict, it's powerful especially in a fight within the framework on independence.
People don't give a fig about Darfur or Congo or Srilanka or Burma or Somalia or Chechnya because they are missing a foreign entity factor - oh it's civil war or a government screwing its own people; the presence of a native government suddenly absolves all the responsibility for everything that happens in the country.
If this current war between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, this current fight will be seen in a slightly different angle.
Luli - you are just swallowing the propaganda line so easily here.
First, the ceasefire was broken before December, like in November when Israeli tanks and soldiers rolled into Gaza, and like when Israel periodically laid siege to Gaza by closing the borders - both these things were against the ceasefire terms.
Second, Israel is not targeting Hamas sites, there are none left. There is basically nowhere safe in the entire Gaza strip right now, and fighter jets are bombing apartment buildings, schools and houses.
What Israel is doing wrong is killing probably a thousand civilians, to achieve a dubious goal. Just because their enemies are motherfuckers doesn't make it right.
Great to read two of my closest Jews kicking it with two of my closest Gentiles over this intractable issue. Intractable as in "not to be drawn or guided by persuasion; not easily governed, managed, or directed; uncontrollable; violent; stubborn; obstinate." The land, the sides, the cycle of violence itself...
I wonder what objective measure Roi and Albert would use to contrast damage and blame for both sides? Albert stated that Tom was ridiculous for suggesting "it is less bad for Hamas to talk about drowning Jews in a sea of blood than for Israel to strike (a euphemism) in Gaza?". Roi disagreed "with the notion that bases proportionality on the number of the deaths (call it, the result). In war time, intention matters far more than achieved results".
In any system of morality I can think of (utilitarianism, to pick and example) these are false claims. They are also dangerous, in that could be used with exactly the same justification if Israel had killed 100 or 1000 times as many civilians- the logic would be the same. Blood is blood, civilian body counts matter- what else do we have to go by that isn't open for spin and partisanship?
Voltaire said, "Those who makes us believe absurdities, can make us commit atrocities". Thus suicide bombers are made and thus nations take themselves to unwinnable wars.
Very interesting to read the points of all of you, thanks for the considered perspectives , most challenging.
so i was watching al jazeera and there was an interview with a palestinian guy who lost two daughters, a 7 year old girl who got hit by 9 bullets and a 2 year old girl who got hit by 12 bullets. let's assume these claims are not false.
i was wondering, can anyone tell me how its possible to hit a 2 year old girl with 12 bullets unless you were aiming directly at her? I mean, I'm no weapons expert so what sort of weapons would be able to do that sort of damage accidentally? I'm just wondering here...
This post has been removed by the author.
LX,
you're right, the aim here was to kill the 2-year old girl.
Die 2-year-olds Die!
you fucking idiot.
Roi, I presume you're lowering yourself to such a hideous level of sarcasm because you don't have an answer to LX's question.
The majority of these posts have been thoughtful and civil. Yours, however, have been consistently belligerent. You've added nothing to the conversation besides apologetics for violence.
The only fucking idiot here is you.
Scott,
Regarding your first point, I believe LX’s question was rhetorical (hence my lack of direct response) and if it wasn’t, its absurdity didn’t justify much more of a response.
Help me understand your second point. You say that I have added nothing to the conversation (have you? Did I miss it?) besides apologetics for violence. Forgive me for not agreeing with your (or others’) opinions on every issue but last I checked, a debate allowed (and was enriched by) arguments from both sides of an issue. If we all agreed on all the issues then this wouldn’t be a debate/discussion, would it?
Roi - it wouldnt be the first time an Israeli soldier has deliberately shot dead a little girl.
Roi,
Firstly, you're right, I haven't contributed to this conversation so far. I don't have a problem with disagreement but you argue in a profoundly hostile way. Even if I agreed with your arguments (which I don't) I would feel compelled to comment on their tone.
Even if LX was talking rhetorically I still think it's reasonable to ask how a two year old girl was shot to death by 12 bullets. I also think it's naive to assume that it couldn't have been done on purpose. There is an intense amount of hatred on both sides and the IDF do not have a human rights record to be proud of.
I think we need to take a moment and look at the people who end up being soldiers. They could easily be unbalanced, suffering from previous trauma that triggers them to do things that i normal person wouldn't do. You hear about a marine who shot his wife coz she startled him to wake up. So maybe this particular shooter has issues, like many others. But i doubt the aim of the state of Israel is to kill 2 year olds, and i refuse to belive it!
Again, the price of war is dear, Palestinians should know that Israel is stronger, life ain't fair, deal with it. When an ant decides to take on a lion for whatever reason albeit justified, that is blatant stupididty and shows irresponsible leadership not bravery!
Tom/LX/Scott,
I am not condoning the fact that these young innocent children were killed. As I’ve said in earlier messages, it saddens me to see Palestinian children dying, injured or orphaned just as much as it affects you, believe me.
Though like LuIi, I reject the notion that the aim of the Israeli military campaign is to kill innocent Palestinian civilians, and especially to kill children. Unfortunately, a sad byproduct of war is that innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire (I won’t even go down the human shield argument here). This happens in all wars. Heck,even Canadian soldiers killed a 2-year old boy and his 4 year-old sister 6 months ago.
Of course, it also happens (in most wars I’d imagine) that an unstable, mentally-ill, or just a plainly bad person makes it through the cracks of the army recruiting process and turns his weapon on his own troops, or worse, horrifically on civilians. Let me be clear that I am not making unapologetic excuses; such individuals should be punished by the full extent of the law. Tom, if my memory serves me right (though it’s been known to do otherwise), I believe that in the 2004 shooting that you linked to, that soldier was charged and put in jail.
I am sure there will be many investigations and law suits as soon as the dust settles. Now the question is when?
--------
Anyways dudes, perhaps we can be more productive and turn this conversation to how to solve the deadlock both in the short term (the cease-fire) and long-term (peace). Brodie started earlier by giving his suggestions on this, I think that we can continue from there….
Hamas controls Gaza. With this leadership position, they have the choice and the responsibility to decide whether to fight with diplomacy or with arm.
The 8000 or so rockets to Southern Israel since 2005 shows their strategy.
The stupid thing about this whole issue is this - everybody KNOWS that the idea of a Palestinian state has been accepted by virtually by all major powers. Everybody knows that continuing armed struggle to achieve that goal is no longer the right course of action - especially considering the far superior military power of IDF.
So KNOWING that armed struggle is a dead end and diplomacy is the only viable way on this situation - why still do it?
Dody,
As far as I remember the Annapolis conference took place late 2007 when most parties agreed on the two-state solution, since then no progress has been seen!
Roi,
I agree with you that need to be more productive, I'd like to read more suggestions...
"i was wondering, can anyone tell me how its possible to hit a 2 year old girl with 12 bullets unless you were aiming directly at her? "
LX, it could be machine gun for covering fire.
The name of the game is fire and maneuver - you have your squad buddy putting a withering fire into a position and then you go out try to outflank your opposition so you have a clear shot.
Solution talk:
Excuse the repetition from my earlier posts, just would be very curious to see what others think of this. I'll approach it from a 'how do I think a solution can come about' angle, which believe must be US-driven. Here goes:
- President Obama convenes a summit with the relevant parties. This INCLUDES the elected leaders of Gaza - Hamas. (I know this has a hundred and one downsides, but I don't see a practical alternative.)
- Obama sends a very clear message, which includes some sticks. I.e., continued military aid to Israel, and support of a Palestinian state are contingent upon the following:
1 - Hamas and Fatah completely cease attacks on Israel. Independent actors are punished severely if still alive, and if suicide bombers, internationally supervised investigations are conducted to eliminate their support networks.
2 - Israelis cease all settlement activity, and all targetted assasinations, military incursions, bombing, wall-construction, etc... - any violent or land-acquiring interference behind the '67 borders.
When these pre-conditions are met, there can be a stable period during which final status conversations can take place. The US plays the role of arbitrator, in that they actually strongly recommend a particular solution (as opposed to mediator, in which they more facilitate the conversation). The mediation team, unlike past medations, must be at least ostensibly impartial in order to gain credibility. I.e., no past or present AIPAC members or outspoken Palestinian supporters on the team. This mediation team works towards gaining agreement on the following solution:
- A two state solution along the '67 borders, with complete rights of a nation for both Israel and Palestine (water access, border control, etc...). And none of this class a, b, and c bullshit in terms of land (that's not a solution, that's procrastination). 100% of both sides of the '67 borders go to either party.
- Jerusalem is the shared capital, potentially UN-administered.
- A land link between Gaza and the West Bank.
- No right of return for refugees to Israel proper.
- Dismantling of all settlements on the Palestinian side of the '67 borders.
The United States communicates this as the intended solution, allows this to leak, and also communicates the following massive carrots:
- The US/international community will fund the land connection between Gaza and the West Bank.
- Massive reconstruction dollars from the international community will be poured into Gaza and the West Bank.
- Free trade agreements will be facilitated with both Palestine and Israel, between the two states, and between willing states in the region (think a Lebanon-Syria-Israel-Palestine-Jordan-EU-US economic group).
- The US will continue it's military support and funding of Israel, to ensure Israel is completely comfortable with the sustainability of its existence in the region.
I know the above seems idealistic, but I think it can be quite practical with a strong-handed approach. The above is not something that both parties will willingly agree to (Jerusalem will be an incredibly hard swallow for the Israelis, no right of return will be an incredibly hard swallow for the Palestinians). BUT, I think if the US is willing to put its money and diplomatic power where its mouth is (Israel's not going to get that billion dollars of military aid, and the Palestinians are going to lose their chance for statehood), the leaders could be convinced. There will still be extremist elements in both nations that will be completely, and likely violently opposed to the above. These elements must be aggressively marginalised through the above carrots. If the mainstreams of both societies are convinced that they will incur huge material benefit from the above solution, never mind a lasting peace, then there will be public support enough to support governments who can create this agreement.
Thoughts?
Hi Guys,
Roi,
My question was not rhetorical and I suggest you exercise some restraint in future before verbally abusing people on the internet because, in doing so, you're really only embarrassing yourself.
Thanks to everyone for the serious responses, especially Dody for the weapons perspective.
In relation to the civilian body count I'd like to float one question. Firstly I'd like to state that I don't personally believe the Israeli campaign intends to kill civilians or children. However one thing that is more difficult to measure is the amount of realistic restraint being exercised. Restraint is a fluid concept and is related to the culture or collective psyche of the army in the battle which can be attributed to many factors including the general feeling and also the culture propagated by those above. I think we have every right to question the collective restraint being shown by the IDF and whether they are really doing their best to avoid civilian casualties. My hunch is that they are not but this is open to debate, of course.
I think if you kill a 2-year-old child in cold blood and intend to do so, that is clearly murder. However, if you kill a 2-year-old child, perhaps unintentionally, but without exercising restraint thereby avoiding the casualty, that is equally reprehensible and should not be ignored. We are talking about one life here and that can easily translate to many. Of course it's impossible to ascertain whether specific deaths could have been avoided as we do not have the facts on the ground (which is why having unbiased news coverage on the ground is critical) it is definitely a matter for debate.
In relation to Brodie's solution comment which I think is really good and am not trying to steer conversation away from it by any means, I think having read it the biggest thing that jumps out at me is the land link between Gaza and West Bank. I don't see how that could be achieved without severely compromising Israeli security since it would allow for potentially dangerous elements to pass into the Israeli mainland.
and also I'd like to direct you all to these piece that came up in NYT
http://tinyurl.com/8tc3e6 which I found interesting - apparently 9 Israeli Human Rights groups (including B'Tselem which I think are really cool, look em up) are requesting an investigation into possible war crimes by the IDF in Gaza.
Also I'd like to ask Dody in relation to your earlier explanation for the killing of the 2-year-old girl - if it was cover fire would the soldier covering not have cleared the area before firing? I'm assuming the girls wouldnt have walked into a hail of bullets...
LX,
I don't think the kid ran into a hail bullet - but anyway it's hard to know the situation when it happened.
A 2 year old is a pretty small target - you either shoot her in a close range or she got hit in hail of bullets.
An M16 and similar assault weapons carry 20-30 rounds each cartridge and putting 9 bullets into a kid for the purpose of killing just looks excessive - especially in a close range - because the result will be really ugly and messy(there's a good book regarding war wounds called "War Surgery in Iraq and Afghanistan").
You only provide covering fire when you know your opposition location - you shot so they duck their head and can't shoot back (pinning them down).
I suspect that these little kids die of shrapnels from the shelling or the bombs or grenades thrown over a window.
Anyway, just a speculation.
Hey amigos,
LX, thanks for the response on the solution comment. Roi, Albert? Would like to hear your guys' thoughts especially.
As to the land link, consider it a six-lane highway or something, with walls on both sides. In terms of the security threat, it would basically entail border control on either side of this highway. If the road stretched from just South of Jerusalem to Gaza just East of Gaza City, it would be far less 'borders' than the existing border between the West Bank and Israel, and Gaza and Israel. So it would certainly be an incrementally larger 'border' to control, but I think fully realistic given the size of the borders they're already going to have to control. Maybe a 10-20% increase or something like that. Given the roads and walls that have been constructed around and through the West Bank (there are many Israeli roads between settlements throughout the West Bank which would have very similar controls as this road would require, just the opposite, so I think it could be feasible.
Wow, so nothing like talk about a solution to kill a good Israel-Palestine argument. Where is everyone?
dissapointed...