There's never really been a shortage of useful idiots nor people willing to make use of them.

Because Turkey and Egypt are what now?


That's actually become a bargaining chip as the Saudi Arabia plan had showed (which was accepted by the Arab League, mind)


Rockets and weapons are far easier to get (since they are already there and have been for years) than medicine. I mean, these are groups who actually distribute the medicine in Gaza saying the Israelis are keeping them out, not Hamas.


I'd say the same thing with the Israelis but replace "international community" with "Americans".

ISiddiqui,

I did consider Egypt and Turkey when I made that comment. For convenience, "Middle East" is a broad brush to cover the majority and central figures in the conflict.

Wow, that's a lot of vitriol, Dutch.

First, I said "more legitimacy" not "absolute legitimacy" which seems to be how you took it. Obviously Israel's cause is already legitimate to most of the Western world and this wouldn't change that, and Israel's cause is already illegitimate to most of the Muslim world and this wouldn't change that either.

But that isn't the point.

The point would be to gain some more legitimacy in the eyes of the states that waver. Like Turkey and Egypt, as ISiddiqui pointed out. It becomes yet another piece of evidence when sitting down to the table with other players in the region and attempting to convince them that Hamas are the real problem here.

And lastly, note that I said "it would be interesting if", not "this is what they should do".

As stated, legitimacy has become a bargaining chip now.

Saudi Arabia's Revived Plan For Middle East Peace


Now, Isreal may not like that deal, but obviously, they are willing to negotiate with it (ie, no reason to legitimize Isreal for nothing).

another thing to keep in mind is that the rest of the middle east LIKES that the Palestinians are kept in this state, on the border of Israel. Y'know if you look at history books its not as if the muslim countries treat the Palestinians well. anyways, theyre bait and the muslim world uses them as so. I do not agree with either side and ALSO agree that to just give Hamas legitimacy one night, identify their borders as a country and warn them of the consequences of state on state war. Then when a rocket is launched, perhaps you warn once, twice, but not thrice and the war is on. The middle eastern countries will likely join in but IMO theyre looking for a reason to do so anyways over the next 10 years.

I doubt it.

Any relatively sane head of state knows that if the Israeli Armed Forces don't immediately defeat them, the U.S. will come in and do so because if there's one thing the U.S. military does exceptionally well, it's defeat other formal Armed Forces.

I don't know of any head of state in that region currently insane/stupid enough to think otherwise (not even Iran - because Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader).

The Palestinian conflict is a proxy war for every Sunni state in the region. It allows Sunni states in general (and rich radical Sunni Hamas-backers in particular) to attack Israel without having to go to war with them (and inevitably losing). There's no rational reason for them to want to change that.

hence my point if the palestinians are an identified governed state and then they continue to attack Israel, when israel attacks a recognized muslim state it will all blow up.

I'm not sure what you're saying, Flasch.

If, at the start of this recent "ceasefire", Israel, as I suggested, said "OK Hamas, you're the government, Palestine is its own state, it's all good", put in immigration/border control, and otherwise did nothing hostile to Palestine, and then Hamas bombed Israel and then Israel attacked the "state" of Palestine, I don't think you'd see any other country intervene, militarily.

Any rational state in the region would see the situation as either a) Israel gained legitimacy for at least trying to let Hamas govern Gaza or b) neither gained legitimacy because it's still the same situation.

If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that something like the Saudi Arabia plan ISiddiqui linked is agreed upon, and then a while after that Israel invades the new "state" of Palestine then sure, you might see some other regional power get involved but, again, I doubt it, because: a) there's not a lot for them to gain and a ton for them to lose and b) to most, it'd just be a reversion to the status quo of 1946 to 2008 anyway.


Edit: Bear in mind it's actually a heck of a lot more favorable for Israel if other states get involved because, based on past performance, the most likely result is that Israel would expand their borders again. This would result in:

• buffer territory for Israel
• fighting potentially taking place outside of Israel's borders for once
• yet another excuse to expel people from Israel/Palestine they don't want
• a chance to topple neighboring governments they don't like
• retribution through "accidental" bombing/destruction of, well, anything

It's important to understand that Israel don't need to convince neighboring states of the just nature of their cause. Or at least that's not their top priority. They need to convince the members of the U.N. Security Council not to scream and complain when they blow stuff up. Any chance they get to portray Hamas as unreasonable monsters, and as representatives of the Palestinian population, serves this cause.

ok

Hmm, this is an interesting discussion, but something I think that is not being considered is that, at this point, Palestine does not want one state. It wants two. Abbas and Hamas would almost kill each other before Israelis, and certainly would not welcome shared rule of a Palestinian state. My guess is Hamas would like to rule as sovereign over the Gaza strip alone, and Abbas in the West Bank, as it currently stands.

We are not in court, relax. :)


So what the Middle East really wants is just a Palestinian State and nothing else? Have you ever picked up a history book in your life or did you just start with the Associate Press and CNN?


So we have Egypt and Turkey..."as ISiddiqui pointed out"...


You are thinking backwards again. Israel invading the "sovereign" state of Palestine because of uncontrollable terrorist attacks against Israel from Palestinian territory would not result in the Middle East agreeing with you. They would go even more beserk over it.


Fixed.


The UN Security Council? You just shook the resolve of anti-semetic Muslims everywhere.

The bottom line. Liberals like flere get so out of whack everytime Israel defends itself. It's text-book liberal arm flailing. Israel has some warts, no doubt, but they are our friends and they follow international law about a billion times more closely than anything the Palestinians or their "allies" ever have. Justifying Palestinian terror rocket attacks by making it equal with an Israeli security fence that is trying to stop suicide bombers from encroaching on Israeli villages is typical liberal bullshit. It sounds nice, like ponies, but it's not reality and it makes shit worse, not better.

Why is this a liberal thing? I'm feeling mostly liberal and feel the opposite. Intelligent people can make these arguments without using the dirty liberal name-calling card.

I love how when Hamas starts flinging rockets, not a peep, but as soon as Israel retaliates there are protests around the globe.

I still remember fondly my youthful days in the '80s when there would be public outcry that the Israelis returned fire on Palestinian protesters "throwing rocks". The news coverage always failed to point out that those rocks were being "thrown" by slings, a fairly deadly weapon in its own right (without the range of a rifle, true, but we're not talking peaceful protest here).

And lets all ask the Palestinian refugees in Jordan how they are holding up...

And I doubt that any peace plan that involves giving Syria back the Golan Heights after the invasion history is a serious peace plan.

But given that this is how Israel got itself formed in the first place, I'm not sure how likely peace is.

No, you relax. :p

Seriously, though, your post is perhaps the most comprehensive misinterpretation of one of my posts I've seen to date. :D


No. How the heck did you get that conclusion out of what I wrote? Seriously, I want to know.


See, you post stuff like this and I have to assume you're otherwise having a bad day. Or you really hate me. :p


Rational state actors in the Middle East are not limited to only Egypt and Turkey. Or do you disagree?


Beserk enough to try to invade Israel again? Really?

Look, you're in the military. What do you think the likely American response to a formal state invasion of Israel by another Middle East country is likely to be? Even under a "liberal" like Barack Obama?

Is this really your argument?


Irrelevant. If another Middle Eastern country hates Israel enough to try to invade them again, they're going to hate them just as much once Israel beats them and expands their borders again.


Did you even read what I wrote? Seriously, did you? Because you've completely misunderstood my point.



:eek:

Help me out here, people. Was my original post so poorly worded to necessitate this response?

Apparently Senator Joe Libermann (D-Isreal) is anti-Isreali. Who knew?

yeah, I lean left and Im not against Israel in this. BTW Hezbollah stated their support and the dominoes begin.

If you were fair, some of you might have asked Edward64, "Why is this a Condeleeza Rice thing?". It's all perspective, my friends. And it's easier to target the opposition than to be fair. I know that. Flere knows that. Israel knows that. And newsflash...the Palestinians know that too.

And as for friendship with you, Flere, c'mon man, you know I don't hate you. I don't care about you one way or the other. My political stance is usually just in counter to your own. But in this case, I think it's very unfair that you (and others) are singling out Israel by saying Palestine has a right to fire rockets at them because of some sort of weird belief that it is Isarel that is causing the perpetual state of war upon Palestinians and not the other way around.

But I haven't said this. Where have I said this?

I think he's referring to when you said 'Yes' in response to that article posted earlier.

Really? Because the article does not say:


It does say:


With which I agree. I read the article as blaming both sides and calling the conflict intractible, but Dutch has misconstrued this, and my subsequent posts, as being unambiguously pro-Israel.

Explain to me how this is an attack on Rice:


In fact, the third paragraph is my repudiation of the idea that this "failure" (if we can even call it that) is limited to this administration only.


So Dutch, have you simply misread everything I wrote, or did you let your bias against my political views misinterpret what I wrote for you?

So we have two groups of people who each believe their fairy tale entitles them to certain parts of the globe. They are blowing each other up. Are there any losers in this scenario?

Right, "Yup" appeared to blanket the entire article which meant you would agree with everything, including a "blockade" (security fence/border checkpoints) being a "state of war" which means that Palestine has the right to "war" anytime they want.

That's not the Edward64 post I was was referring to when I said it was Edward64's post that initiated the partisan crap. What you quote is your post, which I had no comment on (although I find it humorous when you said a part of the Bush admin was "overt and public" which has never been a liberal talking point).

C'mon Dutch. Don't be obtuse.

ISiddiqui posts, and I quote: "I feel Ezra Klein puts it well:" and quotes Klein. I respond (clearly to ISiddiqui) by saying "Yep." Klein's article is clearly, as summarized in its final paragraph, not an effort to show one side as right or wrong, but an explanation of why this is simply the latest salvo in a conflict that's lasted forever, and will last forever (apologies for the potential hyperbole). That's the way I read it, and that's the sentiment with which I agree.

Honestly, I thought I clarified a few posts later. Guess not, though.

Still, your subsequent posts seemed hell-bent on making me into some sort of Hamas sympathizer. For reference, I agree with Dershowitz's assessment (albeit on a different conflict) that I posted two years ago.


Well, OK then. You don't appear to have read that post either.

I am sure they knew they were aiming at Americans.

http://jewishcrimenetwork.com/?p=2342

If you blame Israel for anything you hate Jews and are no better than a Nazi.

Is it not possible to have the belief that both sides are fucked up? It's like two dogs fighting. You don't pour water on only one to end the fight, you pour water on both of them.

Unfortunately it'll take a lot more than a few rockets and a few air strikes before we pour some water on both of them. This perpetual state of warfare will never end unless they go at it really good.

If you aren't to thrilled with the idea of the whole Middle East blowing its lid, these little spitting matches between Hamas and Israel are as good as it's going to get.

Same with India and Pakistan, but in different ways.

Why doesn't the U.N. just annex some land from Israel and give it the Palestinian people?

Sorry, I thought I worded it carefully ... specifically not to be partisan.


See above...

I blamed Hamas (okay, I should have said Gaza but an honest mistake).
I blamed Israel.
I blamed US (it was really a question)
I blamed Fatah.

As an Atlantan from her district, let me be the first to wish her good riddance. She's a human rights activist like I'm a professional baseball player. I'm glad you're getting your newsfeed from such a distinguished site.

They tried 60 years ago and the "Palestinians" were offered 2x their current land by Jordan and Egypt and other Arab countries to leave and let them annihilate the Jews. Not that I agree with annexation or anything, I'm just reminding you the history so you don't get too one-sided.

:D

It sounded like a joke from Noop to me. You know the opposite of the UN resolution creating Isreal.

I understand it may have been a joke, but judging from the link and content of his previous post, I think it's fairly clear where he's coming from...unless of course he was linking that site in jest, it which case I'll gladly put my foot in my mouth and then somewhere else.

:withstupid:

Somewhat too strong of an analogy for me but yes, there is blame to go around.

You blamed the Bush Admin and blamed Arafat for not taking Clinton's deal. That set the tone. I wish the Palestinians had taken the deal that was worked out by Clinton. But to slam the Bush Admin is poor revisionism of what happened. In 2001, the Bush Admin stated that their goal was to work on Palestinian Statehood, but as you know, a massive and wicked Palestinian daily suicide bombing campaign against Israeli civilians started up almost immediately afterward. Followed up by Isreali security fences which led to more violence. The death of Arafat and the incoming thug Hamas terror organization as the head of the Palestinian people was Palestine taking the wrong steps to show they were serious about their own statehood.

There is blame to go around, but we cannot confuse big picture with the current situation, which is what is happening here in this thread.

Big Picture: Palestinians and their allies need to work a strong public diplomatic effort. Israel needs to answer the generations long question of "Taxation without Representation" that has been imposed on the Palestinian people.

But in the current situation, if Hamas is firing missiles at Israel for 2 months straight, what is Israel supposed to do? I disagree that when Isarel fights back that we should then pounce on them for the big picture issues.

Not quite. I never blamed the Bush Admin for not taking Clinton's deal. However, I did ask the legitimate question what has Rice done for the ME situation since she took over and would stress again, this was in the context of placing blame on all 4 players, not just Bush/Rice.


I'll have to check the news back 8 years but my perspective is the Bush Admin had a laissez fair, hands off policy on resolving the ME situation. This hands off policy was changed somewhat after 9/11.

Okay, I can agree with this statement.

I think 2 months misrepresents the situation. Please state your source, my understanding is that the rockets started after the ceasefire ended which was 2 weeks or so ago. If it has been 2 months, I will concede the point to you.

My concern is not that Israel is pouncing back. It was what I viewed as an overreaction in the response.

In retrospect, I will concede there seems to be minimal civilian deaths and can concede that collateral damage does occur. This is in the context of Israel preparing for a ground assault and it makes sense to me they would soften up the targets which is justifiable to me. If Israel was just bombing without a ground assault, the collateral damage would have seemed meaningless to me.

Palestinian militant killed in Israeli airstrike - CNN.com

I might be mis-reading this, it's not clear, but this is where I started believing this was going on much longer.

Fair enough, I understand the concern.

Unfortunately, I will suggest that rocket attacks from Palestinian territory into Israel-proper is not designed to defeat Israel either. But it has the intended effect...it's hope is that Israel defends itself, so the Palestinian leadership can say, "Look at us! Poor us. Please send money, food, medicine (and more weapons) now."

And it works like a charm and we shouldn't let it.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian plight, and feel they have a justifiable grievance that should be addressed. That sympathy I feel is completely mitigated by the tactics they have used to get those grievances addressed.

Quite. In fact, as I posted on Page 17:


Note that when I say "lends support to their cause against Israel" I mean largely in the eyes of their radical Sunni backers across the Middle East, which is the other audience they're playing to aside from the hand-wringers on the world stage to which you refer.

The amusing thing about this whole exchange, Dutch, is that you & I actually agree on these points. I hoped you would come to realize this during the exchange, but you seem determined to let your dislike of my other political views color your analysis.

Going meta for a moment....


One thing I like about FOFC is that in spite of the convoluted arguments we all tend to get into, there's no one I really hate here, no matter how diametrically opposed our worldviews are. I do care about all of you one way or the other. I might rail against your political views, but if anyone posts about tough times, or personal issues or triumphs, I'll respond with support. Even for JiMGA, with whom I'm probably most diametrically opposed.


On another note, I'd like to congratulate Edward64 for his attempts to keep this thread relatively on-topic over the years. It's clearly taken a lot of work, and not always been successful, but it's been a much more thoughtful thread than I expected when it was first posted.

I think that's the whole point of the "Two State Solution", though. Israel would never allow Palestinians to be Israelis and have a vote in Israeli affairs because, at its heart, Israel is a Jewish state, end of story. So it's solved by giving Palestinians their own state which is, in itself, a huge concession by Israel (speaking historically, looking from 1946 onwards).

Didn't Palestine have an election and Hamas was the party that was elected?

If Israel is blockading Gaza and essentially holding the people that live there hostage, what are the Palestinians supposed to do? I disagree that when Palestinians fight back that we should then pounce on them for the big picture issues.

It's quite simple really. They talk with the Israeli government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Israel per their charter, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations. They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all rocket attacks.

But we're all aware that Hamas won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Why doesn't Israel talk with the Hamas government, tell them that they no longer seek the destruction of Hamas per their actions, and start an open negotiation where both sides agree to a cease fire and more open relations??? They then prove their willingness to work together by ceasing all attacks.

I'm guessing it's because we're all aware that Israel won't agree to all of those conditions, so the war will continue.

Israel is an officially recognized state. Hamas is currently recognized by many countries as a terrorist group. I don't think there's any question who needs to be the one to make the concilliatory steps in this situation. Using your circular logic that you mention above is the reason the current situation exists.