clair I appreciate that you took the time to read it. I am at work and cannot review the thrad right now to find it, but I thought you had said something about colonizing at the point of a bayonet … or something similar. It was that image that I specifically wanted to disabuse you of. Also you state
Of course seeing mainly the narratives held tightly by the Zionist side. I think I have communicated unclearly if you believe I think that they are not very present. Both sides are holding on to their narratives for dear life. Yes, members of the Zionist side are, and so are many of the Palestinian side, a narrative that is also to a significant degree fictionalized to justify current and past actions. And then you have some who intentionally polarize … but that’s another discussion.
My intial point in engaging with you on this was based off my perception that you were using the Palestinian narrative as a framework to decide what is “just” today. We can have dueling narratives and dueling mytholgies but many on both sides will not be disabused no matter what. What we have are the facts on the ground as they exist. Hamas needs to be stopped from throwing rockets into Israel. Israel needs to make significant concessions and do so quickly. Structures need to put in place that can first cease hostilities and then build trust even if that trust at first relies on good fences (as in that, was it Frost? poem) and then to collaborative enterprises.
Yes, I remember it because when I wrote this post, I suspected I could be called on it by the poster I was responding to. Eventually, it’s you who mention that.
The post was a tad long, and instead of elaborating, I reused the word written by this poster, as a shortening. It was an image. Regarding the “British bayonets”, I was simply referring to the fact that Palestine was under British control, hence that it was indeed a colonial European power who made the calls and enforced (to the extent it could control the situation) there the policy it favoured. Regarding the Zionist bayonets (IIRC), I was referring to the 1948 war.
What I was referring to there wasn’t people holding on the “narratives” about the past (which is also true), but people using essentially the same narratives, barely adapted, about the present situation (perception of the Arabs, for instance). And I was more thinking of SDMB posters than about Zionists or Palestinians.
As for the similarities on the Palestinian side between the “narratives” about the past and the “narratives” about the present, I’m going to let you point at them.
And I surely do. My perception being that the Palestinians were historically the wronged party, it most certainly influences my view about what would be just today, for instance in the case of the reparations I think the refugees deserve. As for whether or not this perception is tainted by mythic “narratives” rather than being based on historical facts, we’re probably going to disagree.
But do you have a clue as to how achieve that? I surely don’t. I certainly have an idea about what, ideally, would be an acceptably just outcome, that might or might not differ from your idea of the same, but that’s pipe dreams as long as I can’t see any clear way such an outcome could be achieved, given not only the situation now, but also decades of wrongdoings, mistrust and resentment (and that’s only taking into account the most reasonable parties on both sides).
To pick an example I was discussing yesterday, what do we do with the 4 mllions or so (IIRC) refugees nobody wants?
Oh I am most certainly also am including SDMB posters among those who hold onto myths. I do believe that we will have to disagree about what is being informed mainly by mythic narrative and which by historic facts.
As to how the narratives (mythic or not) inform (or misinform) the circumstances - the Palestinian narrative is clearly based on this sense of having had a longstanding historic homeland stolen from them and all the blame for that circumstance being laid at the feet of the Zionists. Clearly I see that as an inaccurate narrative and you do not. But in any case hanging on to that narrative as the framework creates, for many, an expectation for what is fair that is outside the realm of what is realistically possible - or which has any overlap what the other sides narrative (mythic or not) would think of as fair.
Insofar as those narratives focus on righting each sides perceived past wrongs they are roadblocks. In the case of some of the Palestinians they encourage a mindset of revenging past perceived wrongs above and beyond working towards a future with more hope.
My concept of how to achieve my dream of peace in the region is now a bit more difficult given recent events but it is still achievable. (I’ve always been hopeful.)
Immediately: Israel needs to cease its current occupation and hold still for a while. State unilaterally that they will withhold from further operations for now and give Hamas a chance to cease rockets as well. Israel will need to state that the conditions for maintaining this pause will be dependent upon its obtaining some reliable assurance that rocket attacks will not recommence.
Short range: It is my belief that Hamas is only interested in maintaining their own power and relevancy and that goal is ill-served by any kind of long term settlement with Israel. Hamas needs to be marginalized. Israel’s recent action have impaired accomplishing that goal but the world that wants peace needs to make that happen. A cease fire that contrinutes to the marginalization of Hamas would be helpful.
Medium range: Israel needs to make major concessions to the PA in the West Bank and America needs to pressure Israel to do so. If this ends up resulting in a separate peace deal with the PA and creating an independent entity there with the door open for the Gazans to join in at any time then that may be how it gets done. Concessions should include a real halt on settlement construction and giving up control over land that some occupy (with assurances regarding the safety of the settlers who live there if they decide to stay - but as citizens in a new Palestinian entity, not as Israelis, and subject to the rule of law in that land), water rights and a beneficial tax structure over workers that commute between Israel and the Palestinian entity in the West Bank. It should include international investment in an educational infrastructure and longer range plans for collaborative projects on technology, industry, and tourism. Those projects would need to start small to build the trust. They need to include Palestinians in shared leadership positions.
Security needs to be delivered in return for those concessions. Not just promised but delivered. “Right to return” may seem just according to a Palestinian narrative but it is a deal breaker realistically as it spells the end of Israel as a state with a Jewish nature.
The refugees do not need to be wanted by any one but themselves. A peace deal can give them the tools to build themselves a real country that works together with its neighbor on economic and infrastructure development as part of informed mutual self-interest.
A successful deal between the PA in the West Bank with Hamas successfully marginalized by those Arab entities whose best interests are now served by peace, will allow the Gazans to join on board over the course of a few years.
Trying desperately to find a positive spin on the recent catastrophic events - if Hamas ends up still fairly marginalized despite Israeli leadership’s current over-reach, the this “iron fist” action may enable the Israeli public to allow their leaders to make the large concessions with the more moderate wing that are needed to make this happen.
But then I was hopeful that Hamas would moderate once they had real power, so my hopefulness is not much to go on.
You and your ilk think it fine to slaughter civilians by the hundreds to stop a threat that is barely a threat at all in terms of lives taken over the years. That is barbarism and savagery by any definition and each news bulletin is full of more UN schools destroyed, civilians shelled in houses the IDF put them in 24 hours previously, kids left starving next to the corpses of their parents in full view of IDF troops etc etc.
And the Hamas savages are no better. They don’t have a tag team of apologists here ready to justify their every action though.
If I wasn’t an atheist I’d pray to God to put his thumb down on the whole damn area. I no longer care what happens to any of them.
Why aren’t or can’t the Indian, Chinese and any other nation that has no dog in this fight, not step up to the plate and help broker these peace deals? Surely they must be as concerned as we are, so why have we not heard any large overtures from these govts?
I take it that the proposed plan is that Hamas is to be “marginalized” by a peace settlement. A cease fire (in which Hamas agrees to stop firing rockets and other violent acts) is necessary for this marginalization. You want Israel to cease military operations to incentivize Hamas to agree to such a cease-fire.
Then why on earth would one expect that this would work - assuming that the above is true and Hamas knows it? They have no incentive to “marginalize” themselves, yet this plan requires them to essentially co-operate in it.
Israel halts hostilities and announces its intentions. Hamas continues to send rockets beyond a last day or so of face-saving pot shots. Result: Hamas shooting off rockets in that circumstance would marginalize itself. Clearly the moderate Arab world would again feel comfortable in holding them culpable for perpetuation and escalation of the conflict. If Israel can show restraint in the face of that then pressure would quickly grow on Hamas to cease. If not then Israel would have no choice but to proceed with routing out Hamas unless the international community offered up some other way to get the rockets to stop. Hamas is very aware that they have succeeded in getting “the whole world watching” and want to play as innocent as possible now. They want the media images to be the Israeli bully, not the Hamas provocateur. From their POV this has been about controlling the narrative on the world’s stage.
Same Israeli action. Hamas agrees to halt as well but demands some discussions regarding terms for a long term cease fire with the intention of course to re-arm during a six month to one year period and provoke another Israeli over reaction in the future. Israel can agree to discussions via intermediaries but does not withdraw until those discussions are complete. The conditions that Israel and forces that wish to have a long term peace must insist upon as the bottom line can and should include borders open to all non military supplies but without Hamas in charge of the border crossings. A UN presence or a multinational Arab force could be acceptable but ideally the PA is put in charge of crossings. Yes, getting that would give them the face saving they need to declare a victory in the PR campaign but it would over a more moderate term lead to greater marginalization. Doubtful that Hamas would agree to the PA as that significantly marginalizes them, but they may believe that they can smuggle past the UN well enough. They may be right too. But it would slow down the rearming process enough to give the medium range objectives a chance to gain traction (in my dream). Once there is real progress in showing that a moderate course is leading to real results then the next set of rocket attacks, responded to with greater moderation from the Israeli side, will only further marginalize Hamas.
This of course is why I am so pissed off with Israeli leadership. A restrained response this time, sticking to 2-3 days max of fairly precision bombing and no more - a mild slap down - would have kept the process of marginalizing Hamas going. Hamas’s attacks could have been capitalized on to drive Hamas farther away from any support internationally or from moderate Arab states. That opportunity was squandered.
But in any case both of their choices can result in their marginalization if Israel and moderate forces are conscious of making that the goal. I clearly recognize that no state is obligated to allow trade across its borders with an enemy, but the economic embargo on Gaza is not only trying to use the imposition of civilian harm as a political tool (an ethical no-no in my mind) but is over a longer term counter productive for Israeli best interests.
The outcome I see to this scenario - Israel halting attacks and asking for a cease-fire - is Hamas announcing a victory and continuing rocket attacks.
Hamas’ rocketing of Israel has done nothing to “marginalize” it in the past. I believe Hamas ultimately cares little for world opinion - certainly propaganda is useful as a weapon against its enemy, but “world opinion” is not vital to Hamas. What is vital is its paymasters and the opinion of its adherents, both of which are stimulated by combat and resistence, not by peace deals.
In your scenario 1 - Israel ceases, Hamas continues rocketing - then, Israel attacks again - all that will happen is more of the same: world opinion will again be all offended by “Israel brutality”. Nothing would change. There simply is no point of Hamas instrangence beyond which “the World” would finally agree that Israeli actions against Hamas were justified.
I believe Israel has come to this conclusion and that the issue from their perspective is not some elaborate gamesmanship but much more simple - to do as much damage to Hamas as it can.
I’m afraid that Malthus is pretty much correct. Remember, after all, that while there wasn’t fighting going on Olmert’s government said they wanted to extend the ceasefire and Hamas said that when it was up, they didn’t want it renewed.
Well, first, what would this ‘marginalization’ actually look like, other than polite finger wagging in certain Arab state run media sources? And second, what reaction did we see during the actual truce while forces in Gaza were still firing rockets and mortars at Israel and Hamas proudly announced that they would not police the ceasefire, at all, despite being the rulers of Gaza?
What form would this pressure take?
And how long, and for how many rockets would Israel have to wait until the ‘world community’ said “okay, now you can attack Hamas.” And what form would that allowed attack actually take? Even now, with the threads here in GD as evidence, you can see that even precision targeted munitions at valid military targets will be called ‘war crimes’. Even at the start of this round of conflict, many international sources weren’t exactly supporting or even condoning Israel’s actions.
I admit I may have missed it, but can you find any cites of international support for Israel’s precision strikes in, say, the first 48 hours of this most recent military action? I don’t remember seeing any. And I ask that honestly, because I do think you have an unreasonably favorable view of the rationality and even-handedness of most of the global community, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Why? Hamas used this last period of a ceasefire to rearm and improve their weapons stocks, and then declined to renew the truce. When Israel responded militarily, it was pretty much immediately demonized.
I think you give much of the world too much credit. There is almost undoubtedly no point at which many nations/people would say “Okay Israel, now you can smash Hamas.” It will always be a litany of “ayieee, that’s disproportionate!” and “the IDF is targeting civilians!” and “war crimes!” Maybe (maybe) if Hamas started using biological/chemical/radiological munitions, but even then, I have my doubts. “It was just a little anthrax, and the Israelis are already all hiding in fallout shelters with gas masks on. Why, hardly a dozen Israelis have died since Hamas started shelling them with anthrax, and Israel is going to use this as a pretense to slaughter hundreds of Palestinian civilians?”
Hamas still would have paraded Palestinian civilian casualties out like ghoulish PR trophies and Israel still would have been criticized for not being able to wage a campaign 100% free of collateral damage.
What is much more likely, IMO, to successfully marginalize Hamas is for Israel to go forward, full steam, to a peace deal with the PA with actual security. After the West Bank began to flourish economically and live in peace and comfort that would do more to show the self-defeating nature of Hamas, most importantly, to the Gazans themselves. I don’t believe that Israel can do anything, other than showing the Palestinians themselves that Hamas is neither necessary nor in their best interest, that will actually marginalize them.
Finn you mistake marginalization of Hamas as an end itself rather than as a means to the end.
I have said it before and I will say it again - There are many different regional players with different interests. In some cases the same player has mutually conflicting interests.
Part of what has hindered peace between Israel and “the Arabs” through the years is that it has not really been in the interests of many of the players to have peace. Most Arab governments benefited from having the “other”, the big bad evil Zionists, to keep their own distracted lest they realize how their leadership oppressed them. Those governments supported the forces of instability for that purpose. But now those same forces of instability are turning on the governments that helped create them and are to some degree being co-opted by Iran. They are outside their control. It scares them mightily. They want to cut these forces off and isolate them as much as possible if the circumstances give them cover to do so. We want those circumstances to exist.
And with a very restrained Israeli response that narrative could have prevailed, both internationally and in much of the Arab world. Oh sure, you’d have the knee-jerk Israel is always all bad and a single civilian death is a war crime if it is Israel’s fault anyway types. But their drivel would not stick with as many as it does now. And now you have this instead.
I completely agree that it is most important for
That means major concessions and maybe some pressure from an American administration to give them, if for no other reason, to give an Israeli administration the political cover they need to make them.
Not quite. I’d say that it’s an irrelevancy in practical terms. I don’t believe it’s an end unto itself (although I do believe that nobody should support or give credence to those racist thugs), and I also don’t believe that marginalizing Hamas, in and of itself, will lead to anything further down the road. As I stated, I believe that Hamas will effectively be marginalized once Israel is able to make peace with the PA and show that Hamas and their tactics were not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.
Ehhh… considering that Fatah and Hamas are actual blood-and-murder rivals, I’m not quite sure that counts. And, still, that’s a quote saying that Hamas should have held the truce, not supporting Israel in striking Hamas positions. The distinction, I believe, is essential. Again, I’m open to being proven wrong, but I believe you are fundamentally mistaken if you believe that, at any point, any Israeli military reaction would be seen as okay, justified, or restrained. Even targeted assassinations of terrorist masterminds have been soundly criticized in the past.
Condemnation of Hamas is not the same as support for Israel’s military possible response(s). And even your proposed ‘snapping turtle’ approach would still lead to Israeli being demonized by the vast majority of the global community, even if its military campaign had been limited to 24 instead of 48 hours, or what have you.
For what it’s worth, I disagree.
Israel started its offensive on December 27th. By the 28th, this article appeared:
(after less than 48 hours of a ‘snapping turtle’ response)
But more was notable in the lack of condemnation from many quarters in the first two days. Sometimes quiet speaks loudly.
On preview -
In the Arab world there is a significant difference between the immediate street reaction (as referenced in your link) and the governmental responses - which was very subdued. But if the street gets loud enough they cannot ignore it completely.
But yes, we’ll need to disagree. I see elements of the world as having motivations different than in years past, motivations that can be served by less of a knee jerk anti Israel response than they have had in years past. I do not see the iron fist approach as likely to bear anything but inedible fruit.
And btw thank you for the flattery in remembering my old “snapping turtle” metaphor that goes back to the situation in Lebanon.
Yes, I think the same analysis applies today and that Israel is making the same sort of mistake. Israel is perhaps in a better position to do more harm to Hamas’s capabilities than they did to Hizbollah as Hamas will have a harder time resupplying given an Hamas-unfriendly Egypt on its other side. But it is still discounting the cost of doing more than the quick snap when a quick snap can send an effective enough message without sticking your neck out too far for too long.
Hamas WANTS civilian deaths in Gaza. It’s a fucking goal. In addition to being, in their fucked-up theology, inherently good, those deaths can be used as PR weapons to convince gullible westerners that Israel is the bad guy.
Do people have so little imagination that they cannot grasp that a movement whose members sends out their own children on suicide missions to blow up busses and pizzerias would also happily choose to lose some of their own people for the chance to lob some missiles at Israeli civilians? It’s the same fucking strategy, just a different tactic.
I think you’re mistaken on this point. I think the leaders of the Hamas are sincere. If they were just power-hungry or corrupt, the situation would be much simpler. They would have agreed with some kind of deal with Israel, including some level of face-saving, and have marginalized the Fatah in the process. That would have been easy since they had the political legitimacy, the Palestinians placed great hopes in them, and they would have been much more capable than the Fatah to calm down the extremists.
I believe they really are acting for what they think is the greater good of the Palestinian people, and the Muslims in general. I’m quite convinced they strongly believe in their religious and political ideals. They’re not seeking power for the sake of it (not yet at least) but are idealists, IMO.
Note that this also exclude the possibility of a long-term settlement. We agree at least on this point. But I don’t think there’s any concession Israel could conceivably agree with that could satisfy the Hamas. No agreement (besides temporary cease-fires or such things) is possible as long as it holds the reins, IMO.
So whether because they are only motivated by preserving power or by some dogmatic vision of a future ME free of any Jewish stain or some other ideology the net is the same? Yes, you may be right on that and that may be the more important point. “No agreement (besides temporary cease-fires or such things) is possible as long as it holds the reins” And I think we agree that Hamas cannot be destroyed by force or by pressuring the Gazans with force or economic hardship. We are left with marginalization as the best option.
Destroyed by force : I doubt it. By pressuring Gazans? It seems it’s Israel’s policy. It might be possible. After all, whatever their level of resentment towards Israel, whatever their sympathy for the Hamas, there’s a point where people just want to be able to live a semblance of a normal life. I don’t know if it could work. But in any case, it isn’t a policy I can be happy with. And it’s not going to lower the resentment.
By marginalizing them? How would you propose to do that?
