I'm not sure that I follow why or how you are setting up the parameters. GLT states, in short terms, that a nation's military can accomplish anything, it's just a matter of will (military or civilian or political will, in a democracy they are one in the same). It can apply to anything you or anyone else wants to apply it to, that's part of the beauty of it. Someone could say that Hezbollah could invade Israel and wipe them off the map, it's just a question of their will to do so. You might think that is insane, but it can't be proven wrong. Any failure of Hezbollah to actuall destroy Israel could just be explained away as a lack of sufficient will. Replace Hezbollah with America, Israel with Iraq, and 'wipe them off the map' with 'install an American style democracy', and the same could be said of that situation. Certainly the American military is very good, the best in the world, but there are some jobs that it can't do for the sole reason that militaries are limited as to what they can accomplish.

MrBigglesworth. Again, I am clearly trying to define our baseline for what GLT says as it does not seem to exclude my suppositions of A,B,C,D. I am trying to establish this baseline because you differed from my opinion that there is plenty of historical examples where GLT is true.

ex. When I mentioned historical, you added "within past 50 yrs"
When I mentioned civil wars, you mentioned "foreign intervention"

I just though it would be worthwhile to clearly define the parameters before proceeding and not give each other "easy outs/wiggle room" in our future discussions.

Under the assumption that A,B,C,D is not excluded by your interpretation of GLT, I would again state that GLT is true. Without a clear response from you on my above question of A,B,C,D I will assume this discussion of GLT with you is complete.

Mojo. Thanks for your analysis on GLT and your understanding of my wish to establish a baseline of understanding. I agree, without A,B,C,D the GLT is hard to "prove with contemporary historical evidence" due to (1) lack of clear examples due to lack of overwhelming foreign military force/conflicts and (2) existence of UN and East/West polarization of major powers that have made such GLT conflicts untenable.

Regardless, I think you agree with me that with suppositions A,B,C,D that GLT is true?

It looks as if Italy will take the lead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209724,00.html

Good for them.

Disappointed the French did not step up. I can understand the risks (ex. it can go sour quickly) to them but it would seem they would want to play the leadership role and establish their eminence in Europe. Using the Foreign Legion would minimize the negative domesitc impact if it became a shooting conflict with Hezbollah.

Also disappointed with the Chinese. At least with India they have a large Muslim population that could complicate their internal politics. With China this would seem to be a perfect opportunity to present themselves as the emerging world leader.

(It would be a sight to see a bunch of Orientals in the Holy Land).

Yes, my reply wasn't directed at you specifically, though it is tangential. To be completely honest, I checked out of your discussion with MrB about GLT (mostly because I don't have the time to read it all, not necessarily because of its merits).


First of all, I don't want to seem nitpicky, but in any conversation like this, one's choice of words can often be very important. Subjugate means one thing, but your subsequent description of a generalized military occupation is something else entirely.

Secondly, I must go back to MrB's requirement that you choose examples from the last 50 years. There's a reason for this. On one topic alone, technology, we can say that the playing field for guerilla warfare has changed immensely in the past 50 years. Today, a people under military occupation have a large number of tools at their disposal which make it easier for them to keep in touch and/or wage war against an enemy which has superior technology. Iraq is a very good example of this.


But it's not the same difference at all. Compare these two scenarios:

1. Iraq's security situation as it exists now.

2. Iraq's security situation with a "secret police" of native Iraqis, loyal to the U.S. military, who have the ability to infiltrate any sector of Iraqi society and "correct" people at will.

Which, do you think, would result in a more subjugated Iraq?

Imagine Nazi Germany without the Gestapo & SS. Imagine the Soviet Union without the KGB.


Which brings me back to my original point. Under realistic conditions, I don't think you can have a miltary force alone that will effectively subjugate a people in this day and age. Case in point: Iraq. Under hypothetical conditions (such as putting 5 million U.S. troops into Iraq), you might, but the problems inherent with realizing such a hypothetical scenario suggest deeper flaws with such a plan.

Understood.

No problem. It was not clear from the article but I now believe the GLT applies specifically to contemporary (ex. 50 yrs) foreign intervention (ex. no civil wars).

Question, under the assumption that GLT also applies to "civil wars", do you still believe the GLT is not true? My example is the Khmer Rouge, they effectively overthrew the Cambodian royalty/government and controlled the country (and would probably still be in power without Vietnamese intervention).

No arguments with which is better. I can easily believe a "secret police" is better than pure military force alone. I would add in your two examples of Nazi Germany and USSR that there would not have been a "secret police" without the military force first. I view the "secret police" as a subset of the military force and/or a direct result of the military force ... hence my "same difference".

My problem is that I can't really argue for GLT (ex. show examples) without the 2 added suppositions of B or D. Remove the B-50 yrs or throw me the bone of D-Civil War and I think I can show plenty examples in the past 50 yrs.

I state again that the GLT link did not specifically say 50+ years or not include civil wars. It seemed pretty general in its stated theory.

In other words, they would have been deterred to capture Israeli soldiers knowing the response. Or perhaps, if the IDF did not do what it did, Hezbollah would not have had second thoughts now?

Or perhaps Nasrallah's acting contrite now, knowing full well that Hezbollah now has the opportunity to earn the respect of the radical islamic world by rebuilding most, if not all, of southern Lebanon before the international community can get itself in gear?

Just because he's a radical doesn't mean he can't have good PR.

There is no way this can be spun into a victory for Israel. Both sides are worse off, that's what usually happens in war. Knowing what they know now, Israel wouldn't have escalated the conflict either. This is not the end of the greater conflict.

Although too early to tell, the current situation seems to have stabilized. With UNIFIL (and EU participation), Syria's pledge to back the embargo (wonder if the UN will be monitoring this?), Olmert's domestic disenchantment/distractions ... the odds are probably much lower that another conflict will flare up.

Charles Krauthammer had an interesting article but hard to gauge the accuracy of his text. It would be nice if this was true but hard not to think Krauthammer is looking through rose-colored glasses.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/C...hollow_victory


I do think its good that other non-Middle Eastern muslim countries are participating in UNIFIL (ex. Indonesians).

I would love to know what Krauthammer bases his thinking on, because the facts say something different:

Seems like the same situatin as before the war, with the Muslims backing Hezbollah and the Christians not. Plus, with 84% of Lebanese believing that Israel had planned the war beforehand, it's tough to say how they can simultaneously be furious at Hezbollah for provoking the war.

I found this line of thinking worth noting here.


As for the "Lebanese", it's a bit ambiguous. Does it mean the Lebanese Government, prominent Lebanese, or Lebanese citizens in general. Who knows.

I think it means Ralph Nader.

Pyrrhus?

"One more such victory and I shall be lost!"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14946254/

How did I missed this brewing?

Abbas seems willing to take chances for peace, hopefully he will turn out to be a Palestinian George Washington instead of a politician that sold out a people.

I don't understand why he would do this without first exacting some concessions/understanding with Israel. Or maybe they already have a secret agreement negotiated?

Abbas and Fatah already recognized Israel. They've been holding out on forming a unity government with Hamas until Hamas also recognized Israel. Apparently Hamas has now agreed to that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14946254/

Sorry, forget it. Back to the same old grind.

and today Hezbollah thumbed their nose at the UN agreement they agreed to to stop the conflict and will not disarm. Imagine that. Biggles? Should we trust them again, next time?

Israel completed their pullout and ended the blockades. How come they haven't gotten the two prisoners back and how come Hezzbollah have/will not disarm?

I don't know why you can't see that this is Israel's fault.

They're in violation of the UN decree, but Hezbollah never agreed to disarm...

...yet they'll site UN doctrine and law when accusing Israel of warcrimes like using the cluster bombs in civilian areas, which, should be investigated by the UN and followed up on just like anything else should be. Neither side is immune from the laws that we all agree to. What I have noticed about this is what is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander in the eyes of Nasrallah.

Time for a post mortem analysis on the latest conflict?

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Hezbollah vs Israel. Not militarily, but hard to argue that Hezbollah did not emerge stronger it this most recent conflict. The pro-West government has not been too vocal/public, not a good sign.

Hamas vs Israel. I don't see any significant shifts in advantage, more or less the same status quo.

Hamas vs Fatah. I don't know.

I agree the fighting didn't make much difference, but Hamas may be starting to feel the impact of having foreign aid cut off (it's been half a year now). As I noted earlier in this discussion, they were ready to deal on recognition of Israel at the beginning of this round of fighting, and might be again. I know they just bailed on Abbas, but Abbas must have had some reason to believe what he did. Most likely there is some internal conflict... I don't think they can hold out forever, recognition is not a popular enough political issue for them (i.e. most Palestinians appear to be willing to recognize Israel).


Advantage Hamas. Before this fighting Abbas and Fatah were waiting for Hamas to come to them, and Hamas were the ones leading the charge for a unity government. Now, the reverse is true. Abbas and Fatah have to make nice with Hamas to show their street cred. At least in the short term, fighting always helps the hawks, no matter how stupid or pointless it is.

A 6+ month update just to see how things are shaping up.

Hezbollah = 1, Israel = 0
Hamas = 0, Israel = 1
Hamas = ?, Fatah = ?

Still no basic change to my Sept evaluation but some interesting things have happened.

Hezbollah was able to flex its power and have popular demonstrations in Lebanon against the pro-west government. The general in charge of the Israeli war resigned/fired, a tacit acknowledgement that Israel did not achieve its military goals. But Israel did get its international buffer zone and relative peace (haven't heard of any incidents). However, Hezbollah's influence seems to be as good as ever, if not increased.

Hamas and Fatah continue their fraticide even after 2 cease-fire agreements between the top leadership and Egyptian mediation (read the Egyptian colonel said Hamas broke the initial cease-fire).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16940679/

Even if the leadership wants peace, it seems the lower minions find a way to break the cease fire, one way or another.

Unfortunately, even with new elections, I doubt the loser would respect the people's vote and the power struggle will continue. I know there would be alot of bloodshed, but it seems that one side or the other just needs to militarily overwhelm the other and impose its will on the loser ... then the Israelis will know who to negotiate with.

17 pages. Wowza.

And there you have it.

Call me an optimist ... but I see the planets lining up ... this is the best chance in recent memory for some sort of peace between the 2 (Hamas excluded of course).

From Time.com, of all places


Winners were also Olmert and Abbas, and Rice.

Okay, I was wrong. What a waste ... no significant movement anywhere.

Sheesh. What a fu*king waste.

Air strikes on Gaza continue as deaths rise - CNN.com

1. Why can't Hamas stay content with their defacto government in the West Bank and keep their wads in their pants?
2. Why can't the Israeli's stop overreacting?
3. What the hell has Rice done the past 4 years?
4. Arafat, why didn't you take that opportunity 8 years ago?

De facto government in Gaza, not the West Bank.

What would be the appropriate level of response from Israel? Lob Russian-made mortars back at them?

Where was Rice? Where was anyone the past 1300 years? You think Clinton will do anything more than a few photo ops and the promise of a future agreement without violating Obama's pro-Israeli stance?

They've exercised too much restraint for too long, which is why this mild response was necessary.

They live next to a den of rattlesnakes & from time to time you have to at least kill a few of them. Pity they haven't wiped out the entire nest.

How about surgical strikes, targeted assasinations?

Bill got us close, did Bush try to close the deal? Nope, not willing to (this was before 9/11). So what did Rice do in the past 4 years in ME?

I don't disagree with your analogy about rattlesnakes and wiping out the nest. To kill/maim children is uncalled for. Sure they weren't specifically targeted but there was bound to be collateral damage with those strikes. Send in your animal control and wipe them out.

Occasionally there's a less harmful critter caught in the vicinity when you take out snakes. Shit happens. And let's be realistic, it's not as though there's never been the use of children as weapons in the region either.

Reverse Terrorism.

Israel's already tried that.

You poke the lion with a stick enough times and the lion is going to rip an arm off. That is what happened here. The collateral damage of children is a shame but Hamas should have thought of that before they started poking the lion again.

You may be interested to learn that you agree with Alan Dershowitz, writing in March.


Who knows?

Generally, there's two levels of diplomacy, the overt & public kind, and the backchannel kind. Since the Bush Administration has generally been disinclined to put serious effort into backchannel efforts, one must assume that the bulk of their efforts have been in the form of Rice's overt & public diplomacy. However, the problem with this approach is that ever since 2003 U.S. diplomacy in the region has been seriously hampered by the baggage saddled onto it by our Iraq misadventure.

So, while I'm sure Rice has been putting an honest effort in, it's like the meek 5'0" teacher telling two 17-year-old boys not to fight when you know, as soon as her back is turned, that they're going to try and knock each other out.

Contrary to popular opinion, I think the U.S. actually exercises a lot of control over Israel from the standpoint of getting them to exercise restraint. I think if the U.S. let them do their own thing, they'd be a lot more brutal in their responses than they are.

On the flipside, the U.S. obviously exercises very little control over Hamas because, well, the reason should be obvious.

So, no matter which administration is in power, you're not going to get Israel to back down (the best you can do is to convince them not to engage in wanton bloodshed on a regular basis) and you're not going to get Hamas to the negotiating table. In fact, it's in Hamas' best interest to provoke Israel even more, because it lends legitimacy (at least among their supporters) to their own actions).

I think the only avenue to "peace" would be to, in a very, very covert & backchannel manner, maneuver someone to the top of Hamas eventually who might be inclined to some sort of settlement. This would probably take forever and is pretty unlikely, but there you go. Otherwise, I think you're left to hope that eventually the Palestinian population en masse would reject Hamas and promote leaders inclined to a settlement, which also seems unlikely.

The other avenue everyone talks about is letting Israel engage in a "scorched-earth" policy which, although cathartic for the bloodthirsty, has still never been a successful strategy against terrorists/guerrillas/insurgents/etc....


I honestly don't think Hamas cares who dies, even among Palestinians. In fact, to them the death of Palestinian children is a good thing, as it lends support to their cause against Israel.

I feel Ezra Klein puts it well:

EzraKlein Archive | The American Prospect

Yep.

The thought of the U.S or European powers negotiating peace in that region is on the same level as the financial institution bailout hoopla. At some point, shit happens. Stop trying to make short term gains by creating peace that is bound to fail. Let 'em fight it out, regardless of who is right. If there's any hint of intentional killing of civilians with the purpose of exterminating the other side, then you step in.

Yep, what? Hamas should just continue it's rocket attacks and Israel should not respond?

At some point, Hamas' leaders have to take some responsibility. Israel didn't put up a blockade because Hamas was egging their cars.

Yep I agree with ISiddiqui's post.

Edit: Both sides are going to fight and there's precious little anyone else can do about it. To think otherwise is to ignore what, 1300 years of history now? More?

Additionally, although I'm sure majorities on both sides would actually prefer peace, there's a heavy disincentive to actually stand up and say so, since those who do tend to get killed.

Honestly, we'll have cold fusion before this conflict gets resolved. Come to think of it, we'll probably also have magical flying unicorns as well before these people stop fighting.

Isreal should have done what the Brits did in Northern Ireland when they allowed Sinn Fein to rule. As soon as Hamas got elected, Isreal decided to throw up a blockade and what do you think is going to be the result of that? If even humanitarian aid can't get through, they are going to lash out. Should have at least allowed them to govern to see if they'd moderate as Sinn Fein did when they got into power.

This way solved nothing. And around and around it goes.

Well, bear in mind that Sinn Fein ruled (rules) in a power-sharing agreement with the Unionists, and only did so after Gerry Adams did everything in his power to disassociate Sinn Fein from the Provisional IRA.

But I agree. It would have been interesting, at least, to, once Hamas got elected, suddenly have the Israeli government do a 180 and treat them as an actual state. Worst case scenario Hamas starts bombing Israel again and now Israel can say "Look, we sent an ambassador and everything! WTF?! This is no different from Egypt invading us!" and they've got a ton more legitimacy on their side.

Ligitimacy? Do you honestly think that is there for the taking if and only if Isreal makes all the right moves? In whose eyes? The western world? They already give Israel legitimacy. The Middle Eastern world? No way. Jews attacking Muslims because they are sovereign would make it even worse, not better. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal for the majority of the Middle East is to destroy Isreal. Not figure out ways to get along with them in a beat down of another Muslim state. Give the Muslims an inch and they will take a mile. Isreal simply hasn't the real estate to deal like you think they should.

Israel has a responsability to provide Palestinians a voice (either by giving them Isreali citizenship or by giving them their own state) but I'd caution you not to confuse the Palestinians terroristic ways as legitimate diplomacy that demands and deserves Isreal immediate attention.

And if getting Palestinians humanitarian aid is truly the issue of their rocket attacks, how is it possible that the Palestinians can get a hold of rockets and weapons so easily but not food and medicine? I wouldn't put too much stock in the Palestinian grief that they can't get anything in or out of their territory. I'd say they are pulling a fast one on the sympathetic international community.

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.