Smug Git
Arrogance Personified
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 36242
|
quote:
Originally posted by CHiPsJr
In short, the peace process allows the Israeli people a choice between not negotiating, in which case their citizens will be murdered, or negotiating, in which case they make territorial concessions while their citizens are murdered.
Probably, although that is rather picking certain elements from the whole situation. As for 'territorial concessions', they wouldn't be considered as such by many nations (such as the US and the UK) which don't, I believe, recognise the West Bank to be a part of Israel in any case. The argued need for Israel occupying the West Bank includes nothing about settling or exploiting that region, just that it was needed as a buffer from arab nations invading, which event looks much more unlikely now; certainly giving it up would not constitute territorial concessions as even most pro-Israel supporters would describe it as concessions to national security (and not really very big ones; if Sharon didn't, crucially, have pro-settle members in his coalition, he wouldn't much sweat giving up the settlements even though he has allowed most of them to be built on his watch). 'The Israeli people' isn't the best description, either (and, let's not forget, includes a million arabs too, who might well approve such a move); it is the government of Ariel Sharon who have had a part (and in Sharon's case personally, a larger part) in exacerbating the whole situation. One could equally well, rather than painting this as Hobson's choice, say that Bush is trying to get them to offer some redress. And protraying the 'Israeli people' as those suffering the most here isn't fair, either; twice as many palestinians have died, including the kids and other innocent civilians (the same demographic as the Israeli victims, in other words), as Israelis during this intifada. It isn't anything like as simple as the statement that I have quoted above implies that it is, at least, not in my opinion.
quote:
A lot of time has been spent "understanding" the bombers' position on these boards.
I think that there have been attempted explanations of the sympathies that many Palestinians feel for the efforts of people like Hamas. I haven't seen anyone who has really explained why an 18 year old would strap explosives to themselves then try and kill women and kids on a bus. I'd certainly appreciate a link to help me understand that, because I really can't.
quote:
I would hope that at a bare minimum, the above dichotomy would help us "understand" the sentiments among the Israeli people that led to the election of Sharon. It is not as if more moderate--indeed, extremely conciliatory--alternatives had not been tried. It's more that from the Israeli perspective, a negotiations-oriented leader seems to make no difference.
The ins and outs of what has been offered in the past are also not as simple as that. Barak didn't even have fair certainty of carrying the last deal through the Knesset. If negotiations have led nowhere in the past (and I think that is a fair statement) then part of that is because neither side at the talks (ie, the politicians) were all that keen on it, both feeling pressure from extremists to adopt positions that they knew that the other side would find unpalatable. Aram Mitznah, the Labour leader battered by Likud in the last elections, pointed out that Israel did well to portray the collapse of the last talks, over-hastily arranged by Clinton, as Palestinan intransigence in walking away from a sweet deal offered by Israel, but if anyone on the Palestinian side is a political whore likely to take a morally flexible stance, it is Arafat. He couldn't accept the deal, he can't control the fundamentalist terrorists (at least, he can't stop them) and he wouldn't still have any power if Sharon hadn't repeatedly legitimised him through attacking him (including two invasions of the Ramallah compound). It seems to me that, whatever reasons the Israelis re-elected Sharon (foremost amongst which must be the weak campaign fought by Aram Mitznah's labour party), Sharon is not the man to find a peaceful way out of this (his actions relating to the Al- Aqsa mosque basically started the intifada, and although presumably he didn't know what would happen, he has utterly failed in reducing the attacks on Israelis even though he has created potentially thousands of new willing martyrs of the future).
As for your main point in that quote, I think that the main reason that Israel re-elected Sharon, apart from the lacklustre campaign from the Labour party (which may even be the main reason), was the same reason that the British population supported harsh and ultimately ineffectual (in terms of suppressing recruitment into terror groups) actions in Northern Ireland, to whit, we didn't like being bombed and somehow extended our dislike for that to the whole of the Northern Irish population that this terrorist minority claimed to represent. The situation that the Israelis have now is far worse, both in sheer numbers of murders and proportionally to their own population, than ours was in the UK, and their reaction has been more severe, if no more effectual. It is certainly understandable, possibly more understandable to me than Bush's election and current domestic popularity (and I'm really not making that up for effect).
quote:
This is not merely a matter of "splinter groups" who will continue bombing while their more moderate cohorts stop doing so. Quite the opposite, in fact. Remember that the latest bombings--the most severe in some time--have been portrayed as a direct response to the current round of negotiations. In other words, from the Israeli perspective, going to the table directly results in the problem getting WORSE.
This is a little disingenuous, because the reason for going to the table is to achieve long term, rather than immediate, peace. I mean, it seems pretty obvious that if attending negotiations would bring immediate peace, it'd have happened ages ago; the road ahead is bound to be difficult. Long term, Israel doesn't really have a choice; surely the US will eventually tire of helping them kill children as collaterol damage while Israel pursues an apparently never-ending stream of loony suicide bombers and their leaders, the Palestinian population is expanding very rapidly and can certainly afford to provide any number of suicide bombers, Israel's economy is in the shitter, the Israeli arab population will eventually swamp the Israeli jewish population and there is a big problem with water (and the US isn't going to smile and watch while Israel completely plunders the West Bank even down to water). But any solution is likely to be painful in the short term (however the sillyness of saying that a complete cessation of violence was necessary before talks could start in earnest is hidden behind).
quote:
It's entirely unreasonable to expect the Israelis to go to the table when they have literally nothing to gain.
If the US threatens to be less generous towards them, they have everything to gain. Additionally, they can't hold out forever (even if only because the Israeli arab population will become too big to allow the current situation to continue). They have the future to gain. Their economy is really very fucked; tourism has fallen to virtually zero, and a lot of their workforce can't get into Israel to work. There is far more to gain, for both sides, than the stopping of the current rate of deaths through Palestinian terrorism and Israeli military retaliations (although the latter might also be called terrorism by some, we don't have to argue that out here) which amounts to only a few thousand a year at most; it is just that those few thousand murdered people a year makes horrific and powerful headlines. It is unreasonable to expect the Israelis to accept a deal which offers them less than not accepting the deal does, is presumably what you mean to say; that I would agree with. Bush can sweeten or sour the pot a little, as he wishes to, and he has staked a fair amount of his credibility on this (and continues to do so, as Powell was speaking again of the US's committment to making this ambitious plan work). Sharon has already treated Bush like an annoyance and ignored him, twice before (before now, I mean), and I should think that Bush will find his patience wearing a little thin. Perhaps it is a good thing for Sharon that there are, apparently, a fair number of jews in Florida ready to vote on one issue if need be.
__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of
Last edited by Smug Git on 06-16-2003 at 09:37 AM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
06-14-2003 12:36 PM
