What happens when "I stand with Israel" becomes "I stand against democracy in the Middle East"?

Terror is a successful strategy (3.00 / 2)

Kill a few Israeli civilians here, a few more there.  Here a suicide bomb, there a Katysuha rocket.  Gain political credit, and have a street party, for every successful attack.

When the Israelis get pissed and try to stop these attacks, moon and mope for the cameras to demonstrate the unfairness of it all, and get political credit for "standing up" to the Israelis.  Have all the European leaders in to cluck at Israel for not giving you sufficient motivation to stop aiming to kill civilians.

If Israel tries to calm the situation by withdrawing, shoot as many rockets as possible until they get pissed and try to stop the attacks.

Rinse, repeat.

Israel ought to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state and then immediately declare war on such state for innumerable cassus belli, invade it, and behave straightforwardly as an occupying power of a conquered, hostile land with no functioning civil authority of any kind, as if in Germany in June 1945.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 19:20:54 PM CST

a little reflection might be beneficial (0.00 / 0)

Have you ever considered, for one thing, that Israel's actions over the years, from settlement expansion to it's own state-sponsored terrorism have strengthened the hand of the hard-line Palestinians and undermined those it claims to want to be it's negotiating partner. Israel is hardly the innocent victim that AIPAC would have you believe.
A little history, please.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 20:27:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Even so (6.00 / 1)

It's difficult to see how to move forward.

CentralMassDad does describe a dynamic that goes back decades in the Middle East where Arab states tried to substitute a show of pro-Palestinian militancy for effective governance at home — or even effective advocacy for the Palestinians themselves. This dynamic has become deeply ingrained. Hamas' rockets are its continuation, a kind of show of militancy as futilely tragic as it is tragically futile.

It does seem as if we have reached a very horrible impasse.

---

by: KBusch @ Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 21:08:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As I pointed out above... (6.00 / 1)

... it wasn't futile for Hamas if the goal was never a two state solution in the first place.  It should be noted, however, that the appearance of Hamas not necessarily wanting a two state solution shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value.  It could be that they already do not see a viable two state solution as being feasible in the current conditions.  Personally, I think their behavior was utterly predictable.  I can imagine the frustration of being told that they should be negotiating in good faith knowing full well that the object of negotiation is losing worth by the month because the other side isn't doing anything in good faith at all.  It's the kind of thing that can (demonstrably now) drive an already oppressed people to do something stupid.

Greenwald had a post about the recent 60 Minutes piece:

The 12-minute 60 Minutes segment, which is highly recommended for those who haven't seen it, conveys a very clear sense of how difficult that task is going to be and how the blame for this conflict is hardly confined to one side:

He then embedded the piece in question:

Looking at that, I just think 'American revolutionary patriots put their lives on the line for arguably less'.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Wed Feb 11, 2009 at 23:10:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not defending hard-liners (0.00 / 0)

on either side. Clearly there is an impasse.
My point is that there is ample evidence that Israel itself is not interested in peace despite its protestations to the contrary.
Our military and financial support for the state is predicated on the belief that Israel is a democratic state committed to peace in the region. For us to have any credibility as a world power we need to revisit the underpinnings of this relationship and return to a more pragmatic approach in dealing with the players in the region.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 06:06:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Eh (6.00 / 2)

I think both sides are interested in peace.
I don't think either side is interested in justice.
And without justice, there can be no peace.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 06:36:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're not going to achieve justice for both sides (0.00 / 0)

no matter what. Not justice as they define it, anyway.

I'm very reluctant to endorse any religious state, regardless of what that religion is. Specifically, if the "Zionist dream" precludes citizens who aren't Jews, we should explicitly disavow support for that dream.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 08:01:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No. (0.00 / 0)

Why on earth should any country, in the name of "democracy" choose to allow an overwhelming majority of people, who profess undying hatred of you and ardent wishes for the violent end of your country, you, and everybody like you, to assume control of the government?

Why should democracy be a suicide pact?

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:07:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

If you want a system... (0.00 / 0)

... where citizenship is dependent on being non-criminal, that's probably reasonable (to some degree).  Defining citizenship based on beliefs, however, doesn't feel very democratic to me.  It seems to me that freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are the kinds of things that a modern democracy shouldn't suppress.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:13:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

point taken about peace (0.00 / 0)

I should have said that Israel is not very interested in peace that involves any concessions on its part.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 08:15:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I would rephrase (0.00 / 0)

Israel has decided it is not very interested in concessions on its part that do not involve peace.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:08:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'd agree... (0.00 / 0)

... but it's actions indicate otherwise.  They've lurched to the right to the point of not really wanting to negotiate in good faith.  If they were really interested in peace being the 'good faith' goal of negotiations, they wouldn't be building settlements on lands whose disposition is still being negotiated.  Its like negotiating on the price of a house advertised as 'move-in-ready' while the seller is simultaneously rendering it uninhabitable.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:17:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gee, I wonder why that happened? (5.50 / 2)

I don't suppose it could be because they indicated a willingness to make vast concessions at Camp David, only to be rebuffed and faced with waves of suicide bombers, and later forced right wing settlers to abandon settlements, at great political cost to the government, only to be met with more suicide bombers and rockets.

The political credibility of any Israeli political party favoring "reasonableness" or negotiation has evaporated because these approaches have proved, over time, to be manifestly unproductive and misguided.  Instead, they are regarded as weakness:  maybe if we blow up another bus, we'll get more land!  That is why, in yesterday's election, the Labor Party has essentially ceased to be.

Israeli liberals and moderates made a huge political bet that by offering land, they could secure stability, if not outright peace.  They secured nothing.  The left is accordingly no more, and the moderates are embattled.  What a shock.

Good faith requires two parties, and the Palestinian side has never, not even once, shown any at all.  And the response to this among "progressives" is consistently to cluck at Israel for not doing more.  Israel has --rightly-- decided that it could care less about progressive opinion when the lives of its citizens are daily at stake.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:34:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Its true that... (0.00 / 0)

... the walk away at camp David was probably a wrong move.  Although it has been noted that it was more complicated that that.  But here is the irony.  They were making much more progress previously, but the ability for negotiations to make progress was undercut by settler activity.

In the thread on LiL someone pointed out "Why do people always give Israel a hard time."  I don't disapprove of Israel.  But if you really like Israel then the worst thing you can do is to continue to enable the current course.  It's a problem of self-destruction because the only way out they've left themselves is deporting the majority of the population (ethnic cleansing anyone?) or apartheid, neither of which I think the state could survive.  This certainly isn't the fault of 'the left'.  This is the ground game as it exists.  

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:44:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with much of that (0.00 / 0)

Again, the ability to stem settler activity was hampered by suicide bombers.

My question isn't "Why is everyone so hard on Israel?"

It is:  Why is Israel expected to make such wrenching concessions, but the Palestinians are expected to make no concessions at all?  I mean, is it so hard not to launch explosives into civilian areas?  

As to the future:  unless something changes, it must be apartheid, or unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, followed by a completely sealed border and a wish of luck.  I don't see any reason why they should ever, ever consider making this endless war into a civil war.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 12:13:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure... (6.00 / 1)

... that settlement activity was motivated by anything other than religious real-estate claims.  Put differently

If they really want a two state solution, then there has to be land for peace.  That's it.  If they find that wrenching, then they shouldn't be paying lip service toward it and shouldn't be dragging the other negotiating party for a ride.  If this is indeed what was going on for years now, it's little surprise that Hamas gave up on negotiations now, isn't it?  From what I can tell, the only reason that may be 'wrenching' is because of their own politically powerful militant minority and encouragement to hold out by the results-blind 'I'm with Israel' crowd in the US.  

The sealing of the border option has been made impossible, again because of settlement activity.  I agree about a civil war, but I don't see how they can seriously avoid it without apartheid.  I don't see how they can keep claiming the moral high ground under those circumstances.  I don't see how they can survive international scrutiny under those circumstances, to say nothing of their Middle East neighbors.

I simply don't see a way out of it short of a demonstrated commitment to stop or even reverse settlement activity (which the UN has already told them they had to do anyway) and this is politically nonviable while the hard-liners are in charge and getting votes for setting them down this self-destructive path.  

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 12:44:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would like to know (0.00 / 0)

if anyone actually believes that we would be any closer to peace were it not for Hamas' rockets. The real tragedy is that the answer is probably "no". We weren't making any progress when it was only stone-throwing kids and not much else.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 08:20:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

There was progres. (0.00 / 0)

Israel made progress assuaging militant settlers from voting them out of office by dragging on the negotiations in bad faith while settlements continued to be built.

Oh... you meant progress toward peace.  Different goal.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 08:43:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Overoptimistic? (0.00 / 0)

Possibly without Hamas' rockets, the Israelis would not elect hardliners.

Possibly without hardliners, they're be less support for settlers on the West Bank.

---

by: KBusch @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:27:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You'd think so,... (0.00 / 0)

... but as I recall, before the hardliners became popular again, the moderates still had difficulty stopping the settlers.  As a political movement settlers don't care if the government isn't hard-line.  It doesn't deter them because when the government moves against them they make political hay enough to their policy of expansion (even if it disagrees with government policy).  They are in the way of any true negotiations because the current framework is land for peace, but if the land being promised is disappearing or unsustainable, it's no wonder that Palestinians who dismiss the efficacy of negotiating with in such a context became more popular.  

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 11:35:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Since when... (0.00 / 0)

...has there been "state sponsored terrorism" on the part of Israel?  There's plenty that I wish Israel had done differently over the years, but that accusation seems a bit over the top.  I don't recall stories of Israeli suicide bombers walking into clubs and blowing themselves up.  Are there extremists on the Israeli side?  Sure, Yitzak Rabin's assassin comes to mind, but even hardline governments like Ariel Sahon's or Benjamin Netanyahu's aren't terrorist organizations a la Hamas, and pre-1990s PLO.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 09:26:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The last incursion into Gaza (5.00 / 3)

was terroristic in many aspects. Many Israeli officials even justified the large number of civilian deaths as a way of teaching the Palestinians a lesson. This was echoed by Tom Friedman as explained by Glenn Greenwald here
Terrorism is not just suicide bombers. It can also take the form of helicopter gunships, phosphorous and nuclear-laden armaments, and indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 10:36:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So in other words... (0.00 / 0)

...an invasion.  I guess when I think of terrorism I think of anything but the actions of the legitimate armed forces of a given country.  It may not be nice, but Israel has just about always had the policy of not going tit for tat, but rather coming down with all the wrath of God they can muster.  I would say the incursion into Gaza was justified this time.  My understanding was that Hamas just kept firing into Israel for the fun of it and Israel finally decided enough was enough.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 17:35:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would say that your understanding is not based on the facts (5.00 / 2)

First of all, the classical definition of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve political aims. Nothing about the size of the terrorist organization or whether or not the terrorists wear uniforms. In the eyes of the terrorist the goal is always "legitimate."
With regard to the chronology of events immediately prior to the invasion of Gaza, there had been a ceasefire for 4 1/2 months that had been very faithfully adhered to despite the fact that Israel had failed to honor its agreement to lift the siege of Gaza. The ceasefire suspiciously ended at the time of the US election when Israel killed 6 Hamas militants because of a tunneling incident.
Frankly your manner of engaging, e.g. "just for the fun of it", suggests that you're not interested in a serious discussion of the issue.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 20:21:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My understanding... (0.00 / 0)

...was that Israel was the responding side in this situation.  If not please let me know, but then I must turn the question around.  Why would Israel start attacking unprovoked (ie "just for the fun of it", admittedly a bit of a snarky phrase, but I'm making a serious point)?  I never did feel I got the complete story on this one.  I stand by my understanding of what constitutes terrorism, but whatever - the point is what causes these flare-ups.

---

by: Christopher @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 21:11:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I apologize for coming down so hard (5.00 / 1)

I agree that Israel has a right to defend itself. The issue that Mr Lynne is trying to address here is that there is no logic in its attempts to secure its future viability as a democratic state. In fact its actions over the years have made its security and the possibility for peace and a just solution very tenuous.
The Gaza incursion should be judged by what was accomplished. Just like in the Lebanon bombing of 2006, the hand of the Palestinian hard-liners was strengthened and that of the potential peace makers weakened. When a state engages in violence against a civilian population that has no chance of accomplishing the stated goals, this has to be considered terrorism.  

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 03:18:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

CentralMassDad (6.00 / 1)

We forget so soon. Back over the summer, after the cease-fire, we had two months that were almost entirely rocket-free. There was a single rocket fired into Israel that entire month.

That's not "as many rockets as possible," not by a long shot, particularly when facing an unreasonable blockade.

Of course, the whole thing fell apart when there was tunneling into Israel, Israel went and killed six, and it got worse from there. (Still, let's recall that not one Israeli civilian was killed during the cease-fire.

Peace is hard, peace is dangerous, peace is improbable. But despite your over-the-top rhetoric describing a Palestinian master plan, it is possible.

---

by: demredsox @ Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 13:57:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]