![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Sunday, 4 Jan 2009
Today is a fantastic day, ladies and gentlemen. Today is the day Israel decided to finally prove that it already forgot everything it had learned from the Lebanon War, and repeat its mistakes, with fantastic percision and exactness I might add. Today, Israel went into Ghaza with ground forces, proving yet once again that the people running the IDF are still complete and utter morons.
To spare you the news watching for the next couple of days, here is what will happen: For the first week or so, support for the War amongst the Israeli public will remain mostly high, because everyone will tell them that this time is different and that the casuality rate isn't as high this time, with only 15 dead and 80 injured. But with every passing day with news of another soldier dead, and the media doing its duty of giving you the funeral and the pictures of the crying widowed wife or grieving mother or sister, the people's resolve will melt like a a scoop of vanilla ice cream on top of Natalie Portman's hot little body, and the left will start saying that there is no exit strategy and that it's time for this war to end before Israel loses some more.
On the Hamas side, things will be different, because they don't give a flying hoot how many of their own die in exchange of killing one of the Israelis. Not to mention, the dead will give them a chance to engage in their favorite past-time of starting funerals and parading the deadbodies around, a tradition that-if you believe the crap AlJazeera broadcasts and you shouldn't- "strengthens their resolve", whatever that means. But what we do know is that Hamas's definition of victory is not completely getting eradicated, which will be very hard for the Israelis to do, because the Qassam brigade alone is 15 thousand soldiers, who once they get shot magically turn into innocent civilian casualties. And as usual people around the world will run around saying that Israel is conducting another "Holocaust", like they do with every military action Israel intiates. Of course, it will help that the Israelis will eventually bomb a school or a kindergarden or a children's hospital by mistake, and then appear preplexed in front of the world's angry public opinion, excusing their mistake by blaming the evil palestinian's insistence on not writing "This is a school filled with innocent children" on top of the building in Hebrew. And thus the eventual shamefull withdrawel, and thus the eventual Hamas celebration amidst the devestation, followed by a whirlwind of aid in both money and food that Hamas will seize and distribute to its supporters, right in time for the "Presidential elections" in Ghaza, where only Hamas members will run and win, because by then every Fatah supporter will be dead or shot , you know, to stop them from voting against the venerable heroes of the resistance. Oh look, they are already starting. How awesome is that?
Oh boy, this is going to be a fantastic exercise in stupidity. Should be a blast. I am excited. You excited? Sweet. Get your War on!
January 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
The purpose of the war is to enhance the public image of Tzipi Livni and Barak before the upcoming elections.
They both are quite the Israeli media’s darling so I do not think that the media will instigate the same anti-war/anti government campaign that they did with Olmert who was a walking target for them.
Even the Leftist Israeli media realizes that for Tzipi to win (and execute Leftist policy) she must appear to be a Hawk , at least temporarily.
Hamas is just suffering from a bad case of pre-elections in Israel. It will pass.
After the elections they will be able to once again shoot at Israeli citizens as much as they want.
I can’t wait…
January 4th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Sandmonkey:
As a hypothetical, lets say Hamas started raining rockets on Egyptian towns. Secretly paid for by Iran, who seeks to demonstrate to the Arab world Egypt no longer owns the ‘Palestinian Card’ and also punish Egypt for its treaties with the USA and Israel. The rockets go on for some time, and no amount of diplomacy will work - since Iran publicly denies involvement, and Hamas says it won’t stop until Egypt breaks its treaties, opens the crossings, and fulfills a list of absurd and unreasonable demands .
What should Egypt do?
January 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I seriously doubt the Israelis are stupid enough to repeat lebanon. It would seem that they are using the same failed strategy but the situation in Gaza is quite different. They have Hamas surrounded and unlike hizballah, Hamas has no means of resupplying especially with the Egyptian border closed and Israel splitting the strip in half separating Gaza city from the western section and Rafah. Having said that, maybe I am wrong and they are that stupid and maybe the political gains before the elections and before Obama comes in are too blinding and they will achieve nothing other than a couple of thousand dead palestinians, a couple of dozen dead israeli soldiers and further deterioration to their “power of deterrence” and a strengthened Hamas. All i know for sure is that a month from now when all this is over, the innocent Palestinians in Gaza will have paid the biggest price.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Sadly, I think Ham wins this one, like Hez did in Lebanon. But really, what choice did Israel have? Ignore all the rockets being shot at their civilians?
It’s proving really hard for the democracies to fight enemies who don’t mind their own people being killed - who in fact set their own up as targets, for propaganda. But fight them we must. What’s the choice? They’re not going to leave us all alone if we just ignore them.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
The best way is to NUKE the whole middle east with all of the semitic-tribes (jews and arabs).And the rest of the world can enjoy the happy living without this monkeys.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Dick…
Hamas…and Palestinians and guys like Nashrallah…are experts at the word game…I call it the Defiant Brave Hero/Poor Hero.
When they kill Israeli’s that are not fighting back, they are Arab heroes standing up to the cowardly Israeli aggressor. And they are willing to die, they love to die. Also…they have this secret arsenal and will give Israel all kinds of hell if they dare do something back.
When Israel does something back, they are defenseless, without any power, poor and weak with only homemade weapons and rocks against the monster created and supported by the Americans (who, by-the-way, they typically cry to and ask to pressure Israel into various deals).
So Hamas will come out of this a sure winner, if only to the suckers who do not see through this con job.
On another note…I still hope that maybe this time, folks in the Pali camp can wake up and think “maybe we should try the non-terror, non-threat, sincere effort a peace routine”
But that might include admitting that they have a good deal of responsibility for their own mess and…wait…I see a flying donkey…
January 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
For the sake of debate, let me float a very un-PC question. What would happen if Israel pulled a “Hama” operation like Syria did in 1982? Would it solve the problem, even if it did cause a huge death toll?
Let’s face it, Hamas will not stop until it achieves its stated goal of the total destruction of Israel. Israel can only defeat Hamas by killing almost every single member, but this is almost impossible to do since the people of Gaza willingly or unwillingly hide and shelter Hamas. If Israel made the “innocent” people of Gaza fear them more than they fear Hamas, they might turn on Hamas.
What I ask is, admittedly, ghoulish, but would it ultimately save more deaths in the long run? The U.S. killed hundreds of thousands by dropping the nucleam bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasake, but they ultimately saved millions of lives that would have been lost in a ground invasion of the Japanese homeland.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
#1 Yogi:
The purpose of the war is to enhance the public image of Tzipi Livni and Barak before the upcoming elections.
For the last time - Tzipi Livni is *not* the Prime Minister of Israel. Unfortunately, Ehud Olmert is. And frankly, Ehud Olmert couldn’t care less about Livni, or any other politician he will leave behind in Kadima.
The argument for Barak, though, holds water… Or would have held water, had he not been the one in the government to try and stop the fighting three days after it started by being the “military voice” who was “seriously considering” the French truce offer.
This is because Barak’s voters are the center-left, more left than center. He’s terrified of losing them. Barak is a capable strategist and minister if someone gives him orders, but he is an incredibly horrible politician.
Olmert overrode his considerations. This is because, quite simply, Olmert has no political future. He has nothing to lose.
They both are quite the Israeli media’s darling so I do not think that the media will instigate the same anti-war/anti government campaign that they did with Olmert who was a walking target for them.
Even the Leftist Israeli media realizes that for Tzipi to win (and execute Leftist policy) she must appear to be a Hawk , at least temporarily.
Did I mention that Livni isn’t the PM yet? For those of us here with a short memory, Tzipi *lost* her attempt at forming a government, and she is running at the head of the Kadima list for the *next* elections.
Olmert is still running the show, as absurd as that may be.
#4 Dick
Sadly, I think Ham wins this one, like Hez did in Lebanon.
Possible. Two similarities between the two situations is that one party purposefully targets civilians while using its own civilian deaths for propaganda purposes, while the other party has tied its arm behind its back by playing by the rules of engagement.
Hamas, like Hezbollah, cannot lose very easily because its definition of victory is purely virtual. It wins by “preventing” that which its enemy didn’t even try in the first place, and by having enough people left to form a rally in the rubble.
Hamas, like Hezbollah, wins as long as there are enough brainwashed, nationalist, or simply hate-blinded people left to believe them. And belief in victory becomes victory itself, regardless of the facts.
The only way for Hamas to actually *lose* this one is for one of the following scenarios to occur:
1. Near-total destruction of the Hamas armed presence, and restoration of Fatah rule.
2. Near total destruction of the Hamas armed presence, and restoration of Israeli military occupation.
3. Near total destruction of the Hamas armed *and* government presence, and descent into total chaos and anarchy.
The third is, sadly, becoming the likeliest occurrence. Anarchy.
#5 Gary
The best way is to NUKE the whole middle east with all of the semitic-tribes (jews and arabs).And the rest of the world can enjoy the happy living without this monkeys.
Brilliant idea, Gary! Let’s resolve all worldwide conflicts by nuking both parties, so that Gary and his fellows don’t have to watch violence on TV!
Oh, and Gar? You’re an idiot. A violent, childish, and rather racist idiot.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@lasati
But Egypt is not occupying Palestinian land!
January 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I do not know. Today is Jan, 5th and I wouldn’t say news from Gaza is all that bad for Israelis. Of cause it is not over yet but still.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Roman,
Wow.My bad. I was sure that she was the PM already. I guess I should read the papers or watch the news.
But I won’t. Ignorance is better…I actually kinda liked the idea that such a birdbrain would be PM, it seemed to me the ultimate satire. Why did you have to ruin it for me??
January 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Sorry Sam, I can’t see what other choice Israel has…
Come on - let’s hear your take on a solution, other than a generic lament for the civilians caught in the fighting. It’ll give the rest of us something more tangible to discuss…!
January 4th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
SM, you’re starting to sound like those leftists who claim every time the US takes military action, it’s going to be “another Vietnam”
HAMAS may well have as much success claiming victory in the Arab world as Hezbollah did. That doesn’t seem like a very difficult accomplishment, after all. But it’s extremely unlikely that Israel will make the same mistakes this time, that they made last time. Rational people don’t tend to do that very often, and Israeli military and political leaders seem pretty rational to me. I wish I could say the same for Arab leaders. There would have been peace in the middle-east decades ago, if that were so.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
#11 Yogi,
I actually kinda liked the idea that such a birdbrain would be PM, it seemed to me the ultimate satire.
Give it a couple of months, and the joke’s going to be on us. The biggest problem with Livni is that her opponents are proven failures in the PM’s office.
She’s an unproven failure. Unfortunately, that may just bring people to place their votes on her.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
@An egyptian
Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2006, I believe, and look what it got them… rocket attacks. Do you realize that the attacks happen when Israel -stops- occupying Palestinian land?
January 4th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Israel has just increased the hate towards it and the support for Hamas! We all know Hamas could care less how many of its civilians die..they are animals just like Israel..both contribute to the suffering of ordinary people.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Sorry Sandmonkey, the IDF are not complete and utter morons. They are, in fact, determined not to repeat 2006. It won’t be easy, but for once it looks like Israel is gonna win. Don’t pull a Sullivan here, the forces of civilzation need you.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:44 am
No Cooment!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Great post as usual
January 5th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Sigh!
January 5th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Since Hamas initiated the current round by firing rockets into Israel right after the cease-fire ended, I don’t blame Israel one bit and have no remorse for Hamas.
It looks like Israel is not repeating what happened back in 2006. They got the north of Gaza effectively cut off from the south and Gaza City is also cut off from everything else, all with 1 casualty. Where is your bloodbath Hamas? The only fighting I’ve seen has been on Israel’s side!
January 5th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Step 1. House to house search of the entire Gaza strip, with confiscation of any firearms and bomb-ingredients found.
Step 2. Complete withdrawal from all Palestinian territory as per the 1947 Partition Plan.
Step 3. Watch Hamas try to cope with a non-occupied Palestinian state with no weapons to crack down on political opponents.
Step 4. Live in peace happily ever after.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I am putting my money on Israel this time because if they failed (God Forbid) I am sure rockets will be flying all over Egypt to punish us for not opening the borders for them to hide from the war they started.
Go Israel! Be the beast you claim to be! Be mean just do the job I don’t want to have Iranian rockets showering Sharm EL Shiekh!
January 5th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
What is Irael supposed to do? The newer missiles can reach anywhere in Israel. Are they supposed to wait until there are large warheads on them as well?
Hamas has been continually provoking Israel as you know, goading Israel into responding so they can play the victim card, as they always do. UN is nothing more than the first two letters in the word unncessary. Who else is going to do something? What’s your solution?
January 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Step 2. Complete withdrawal from all Palestinian territory as per the 1947 Partition Plan.
Um, Adam? You *have* looked at a map of that particular partition plan, right?
Including the UN-governed Enclave of Jerusalem?
Back in the day, the Jews accepted the plan out of sheer desperation, while the other side of the fence refused it outright, and declared war. Since then, the discussions between Israel and the PLO have been around the 1967 borders, as the other major parties involved (Israel, Egypt, and Jordan) had already resolved the border lines.
Not to mention that, today, the 1947 lines would place approximately half of Israel’s population under Palestinian rule.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
RK, the jews might have found the Partition Plan of 1947 inadequate back then, but obviously so did the arabs - looking at the number of citizens in either camp, it seems easily the most reasonable solution…! Wars and conquests aside, the goal is to live side by side in peace, right? A fair division of the land is a minmum requirement to right such a state.
The fact that Israel has been so self-centered and short-sighted as to relocate (or allow to relocate) large parts of their population to land that they KNOW is not theirs to keep is their own fault. It’s just another hurdle they are gonna have to overcome, along with orthodox extremists… Plus, the 1947 plan is the only one that proposes a viable solution to the Jerusalem-problem. One, that includes the wants and needs of the christian community as well…
January 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“…REACH such a state”, is what it should have said.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
RK, the jews might have found the Partition Plan of 1947 inadequate back then, but obviously so did the arabs
Indeed. Because it was based on a bunch of foreigners drawing lines on a map. It had about as much to do with reality and fairness as most “international efforts” do.
It was, first and foremost, an exercise in convenience with very active British derailing all the way.
looking at the number of citizens in either camp, it seems easily the most reasonable solution…!
Why? And how?
Wars and conquests aside, the goal is to live side by side in peace, right? A fair division of the land is a minmum requirement to right such a state.
Who defines fairness?
The fact that Israel has been so self-centered and short-sighted as to relocate (or allow to relocate) large parts of their population to land that they KNOW is not theirs to keep is their own fault.
“know is not theirs.” Interesting. The ceasefire lines between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc, defined the borders of Israel as of 1948-9. And here’s another cardinal rule of defensive warfare.
Sounds a far more reasonable approach to defining national borders than a Border by Committee. Because even though a peaceful resolution and diplomatic agreements are a very fine ideal, it pretty much fails when a group of outsiders tells you how it *should* be.
Agreements are made between the parties involved, not because a council of politicians and beancounters from far and wide gathered to play Pretend World Government.
And as to the relocation…
So, to sum it up, Israel should rush to relocate a majority of its own population (3-4 million), destroying and rebuilding housing and infrastructure on the march, so to speak, eradicating any semblance of personal property and economy along the way… for the UN’s scribbles which neither side accepted in the first place?
Plus, the 1947 plan is the only one that proposes a viable solution to the Jerusalem-problem.
No. It doesn’t. What it does, is place a large population under the rule of a foreign power that neither side likes. That’s one of the major flaws of the 1947 partition plan - *both sides* would have rebelled within a year, be they Jew or Arab Palestinian.
One, that includes the wants and needs of the christian community as well…
I’m sorry to be the one that breaks it to you, but the wants and needs of the Christian community don’t have to involve sovereignty over Jerusalem. Respect to holy sites and right of access is one thing - a myth of “shared sovereignty” quite another.
Oh, and just like under British occupation, the Jews would have been the biggest losers. Know why? We’re the minority of the three religions that have some form of holy site in Jerusalem. We’re not big enough to care about in the first place.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Forgot to mark this section in the previous reply:
The fact that Israel has been so self-centered and short-sighted as to relocate (or allow to relocate) large parts of their population to land that they KNOW is not theirs to keep is their own fault.
“know is not theirs.” Interesting. The ceasefire lines between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc, defined the borders of Israel as of 1948-9. And here’s another cardinal rule of defensive warfare.
Sounds a far more reasonable approach to defining national borders than a Border by Committee. Because even though a peaceful resolution and diplomatic agreements are a very fine ideal, it pretty much fails when a group of outsiders tells you how it *should* be.
Agreements are made between the parties involved, not because a council of politicians and beancounters from far and wide gathered to play Pretend World Government.
And as to the relocation…
So, to sum it up, Israel should rush to relocate a majority of its own population (3-4 million), destroying and rebuilding housing and infrastructure on the march, so to speak, eradicating any semblance of personal property and economy along the way… for the UN’s scribbles which neither side accepted in the first place?
January 5th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
” # Adam B. Says:
January 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
RK, the jews might have found the Partition Plan of 1947 inadequate back then, but obviously so did the arabs - looking at the number of citizens in either camp, it seems easily the most reasonable solution…! Wars and conquests aside, the goal is to live side by side in peace, right? A fair division of the land is a minmum requirement to right such a state.
The fact that Israel has been so self-centered and short-sighted as to relocate (or allow to relocate) large parts of their population to land that they KNOW is not theirs to keep is their own fault. It’s just another hurdle they are gonna have to overcome, along with orthodox extremists… Plus, the 1947 plan is the only one that proposes a viable solution to the Jerusalem-problem. One, that includes the wants and needs of the christian community as well…”
Arabs first ought to lead by example and quit Kurdistan, Assyria and all of the other lands conquered by them. Practice what you preach. I don’t see the Russians giving back the part of Germany the now occupy or Poland doing the same and for good reason; the Germans lost the war they started. As it is the Israeli’s are out of Gaza which is more than enough concession. They should burn it to the ground as an object lesson to the rest of the Arabs. They voted for war when the voted for Hamas and they are all to eager to dance at the deaths of Americans and Israelis. Fuck em. Here is what Obama should tell the world, there is no peace process, there never was one and never there be one until such time as the Arabs make Israel an offer they can’t refuse. Let the EU, the UN and the left choke on that. They Arabs can either defeat Israel, be defeated by Israel or accept the inevitable and make the Israeli’s a deal they will actually take. In the meantime Israel should quit screwing around and blat the Palestinians to hell until it finally gets in to their deluded heads that they are never going to win but may well die outright or be forcibly expelled. The fact that no Arab country will accept them ought to be a wake up call to them. Indeed the Saudis and Kuwaits keep them out in 1991/1992. The Palestinians get lots of lip service and some money but you don’t see three hundred million other Arabs joining in to one gigantic armed force to “liberate” them. Wonder why.
So all that brotherhood talk is just that, talk. Americans have an expression “money talks, bullshit walks”.
Here is a partition plan for the Israelis if the bullshit continues in to 2010, expel the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, take the rest of the Golan and kick the Arabs out of Syrian Kurdistan and encourage the Kurds in Iraq and Iran to do the same. Kick the Shia out of Southern Lebanon and offer the Maronites the opportunity to came back to Lebanon from their diaspora. The Egyptians will kick the expelled Palestinians to God knows where and the Jordanians sit still.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:02 am
SM,
i have to completely disagree with you in how you characterize things.
It might well be that Israel will not wipe out Hamas completely (which is very likely). However, if its goal is to inflict serious harm, and prevent future Hamas action for at least a few years, this is doable. Moreover, it is wise and not dumb to strike back at a genocidal enemy seeking your annihilation, which Hamas is. The dumb thing was waiting as long as Israel has waited, and it also would be dumb to accept a ceasefire before Israel finishes the job.
However, even if Israel does accept a premature ceasefire, at the very least, they are killing Hamas members This alone is smart and not dumb. The world hates Israel no matter what it does, but the mere killing of Hamas members is a good thing, as it means that many less terrorists to kill Israelis.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Of the thousands of words I’ve read on this conflict over the past couple of weeks, this post is by far the best.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:29 am
28. RK:
“Because it was based on a bunch of foreigners drawing lines on a map”
You do know that those foreigners made the division plan on the basis of population majority between jews and rabs, right? In other words, Israel was mainly given land where they were in the majority, and vice versa for Palestine, with a few strategic. What’s your idea of a better way to draw the lines? Fight it out?
“The ceasefire lines between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc, defined the borders of Israel as of 1948-9″
Since when has this been a good way of settling borderdisputes? It sure as hell didn’t work for Europe after WW1…!
As for the relocation?
“Israel should rush to relocate a majority of its own population (3-4 million), destroying and rebuilding housing and infrastructure on the march, so to speak, eradicating any semblance of personal property and economy along the way… for the UN’s scribbles which neither side accepted in the first place?”
Yes, if that’s what it takes. As I said, the Isarelis can fault noone but themselves for trying to colonize land that they KNEW would be contested in the future. Reluctant or not, the jews DID agree to the borders in the 1947 plan.
“What it does, is place a large population under the rule of a foreign power that neither side likes”
That’s a scary statement in itself - so neither the jews or the arabs like their fellow human beings? After all, the UN (which would the “foreign power” in charge) represents us all, and why should Jerusalem be strictly under the control of jews or arabs (or christians for that matter) when all three parties have an interest in the place. In any case, it’s a dispute that the jews and arabs will never agree on, so why not make it a moot one…? It’s the only solution that’ll guarantee equal treatment to all three religions, regardless of size.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
30. cubanbob:
I don’t see what tyrkish/iranian claim to sovereignity over kurdistan (another never-has-been state) has to do with palestinians wish for an independant Palestine? Different countries, Different people…
True the Germans didn’t get back their enclaves in the eastern Baltic, but then again, they were not traditionally german (Germany as a single cohesive state was first formed in 1871), and by the end of WW2, no german majority was to be found in the areas. I’ll give you a better example from real life:
At the end of WW2, the former danish regions of Slesvig and Holsten, in what is today northern Germany, were offered back to us by the allies, but we declined, because the population majority in the areas had shifted to the germans’ advantage since we lost the land after the war of 1864. Despite the fact that Denamrk naturally and geographically extends to include these two regions (Holsten to a lesser degree), we decided that annexing the land would be more trouble than it was worth due to local resistance. A few hundred years earlier, we lost danish heartland in southern Sweden, which still to this day enjoys a much closer relationship with Copenhagen than it does with Stockholm. Still, we manage to live in peace with our neighbours.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Roman:
Bibi is a proven failure? How so?
I submit he has been by far the best PM since Oslo.
of course, by “best” I mean “least harmful”.
That’s saying a lot in Israeli society where political discussion is conducted at the kindergarten level.
January 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
#33 Adam B.
You do know that those foreigners made the division plan on the basis of population majority between jews and rabs, right?
Not quite. It also took into consideration the various treaties between those foreign powers, the international desires and political goals of these foreign powers… things like relations with the new countries of the Middle-East, oil supply, the fact that Britain was a very important country back then and pretty much had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, through the proceedings…
It was a game of arrogance, first and foremost. And it failed. And today, the population majority centers are quite different. Why you wish to enforce the realities of sixty years ago today, as if the situation and circumstances are precisely the same, is beyond me.
It is an intellectual exercise in blindness and wistful thinking.
What’s your idea of a better way to draw the lines? Fight it out?
No. My idea of a better way to draw the lines is for the actual people who have a stake in these affairs to draw the lines, and reach the agreements.
Because it’s us who have to live with the lines tomorrow. Not you. Not the UN. Not the so-called International Community that lives a thousand miles away.
Since when has this been a good way of settling borderdisputes?
It had so far, in history, been the only way that worked.
It sure as hell didn’t work for Europe after WW1…!
Different reality. Different circumstances. And while we’re at it, the post-WWI saw a policy similar to what you currently suggest - remember Chamberlain? Remember the Anschluss, where Germany was given Austria on a silver platter as “their land”, to appease them?
Remember what came next?
And then we had WWII, whose final notes proved the opposite of white you claim.
Total conquest mark borders rather well, while a policy of total appeasement merely feeds those who want more land.
Reluctant or not, the jews DID agree to the borders in the 1947 plan.
A plan the other side of the plan did not agree to, breaking the agreement before it had a chance to form. The war waged against the newly-declared Israel cemented the new realities quite clearly.
Trying to go back in time doesn’t solve the issues of today. It never did, and never will.
That’s a scary statement in itself - so neither the jews or the arabs like their fellow human beings?
Show me one person who *likes* a foreign entity that takes away your sovereignty.
After all, the UN (which would the “foreign power” in charge) represents us all
Yes. Which is why the UN has failed utterly. The UN in and by itself is a clear reflection of the world at large - a band of bickering opportunists.
And like UN peacekeepers, any form of UN sovereignty would have failed - for same reason, because it would have relied on the same failed resources and planning.
You idealize the location (Jerusalem) while forgetting that there are actual people living in it. People who may like to have some say about their fate.
and why should Jerusalem be strictly under the control of jews or arabs (or christians for that matter) when all three parties have an interest in the place
Because we don’t live in a kindergarten, where the nice lady tells us we have to share. And actual people *live* in Jerusalem - it’s not just The Holy Land Theme Park. When you stop treating it as such, you may just realize why your idea is a failure before it even begun.
In any case, it’s a dispute that the jews and arabs will never agree on, so why not make it a moot one…? It’s the only solution that’ll guarantee equal treatment to all three religions, regardless of size.
Never?
Interesting.
I have heard few calls by Christians to go and conquer Jerusalem lately, even though such calls were quite common a few centuries ago.
Never is a very long time. And people, and how they think, change. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not eternal at all.
And the only thing the UN can reasonably guarantee is chaos, while its forces stand idly by and argue over what they can or cant do based on a Mission Statement of 10,000 pages.
#35 Yogi,
Bibi is a proven failure? How so?
I submit he has been by far the best PM since Oslo.
of course, by “best” I mean “least harmful”.
Agreed. But that doesn’t really say much for Bibi, does it?
That’s saying a lot in Israeli society where political discussion is conducted at the kindergarten level.
Sadly true.
January 6th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I’m new to this blog. It seems the second iranian war against Israel will go like Sandmonkey writes, I see no “acceptable” way of defeating iran (oops, hamas) in the strip of Gaza. The only way would be a real “ancient times” cleansing, Romans style (they called it “tabula rasa”): not conceivable today, and maybe there’s one or two honest people living in that piece of hell on heart. And remember hezbollah, which can open a second front any time (now it’s early, since it’s better to have “heroic” hamas resist a little bit to enter the myth status).
For me two outcomes are possible in the long term: Israel will surrender and dissolve (a new diaspora) or there will be another holocaust. Very sad.
January 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
RK, I’ll give you that demographivs have changed since 1947, but much of this is due to Israels illegal settlement of occupied territories. The ultimate solution might not be the 1947 plan exactly, but it sure as hell ain’t the lines we see today either…!
“My idea of a better way to draw the lines is for the actual people who have a stake in these affairs to draw the lines, and reach the agreements.”
Riiiiight… You’ve had 60 years, and you’re further apart than ever! I think the boat has sailed a long time ago, unfortunately!
As for your WW1 and 2 comments, you’ve got it backwards - you’re thinking of the pre-WW2, not post-WW1 situation. The circumstances you describe (anschlus, etc.) were the result of the awful handling of Germany’s defet after WW1. Had Germany been treated less harshly, they probably would not have had the desire for revenge that fueled WW2… As for the aftereffects of WW2, well, those were exactly what you oppose in the beginning of your comment - lines drawn out by the world society as a whole.
“Show me one person who *likes* a foreign entity that takes away your sovereignty.”
The thing is, it’s NOT your soverignity…! Who gave you Jerusalem for your own? Plenty of factions have a stake in Jerusalem, and since they can’t all have the cake for themselves, they are going to have to settle for sharing… I agree on your view on UN, though, but for a lack of a better choice, it’s going to have to do for now. The only reason the UN might fail at runningJerusalem would be because a pack of offended children refuse to accept that others have rights too. The citizens of Jerusalem would be no worse off - quite a bit better, actually…!
“Because we don’t live in a kindergarten, where the nice lady tells us we have to share”
To be quite honest, a kindergarden is EXACTLY what your region resembles, and perhaps that’s the best way to treat it…
“I have heard few calls by Christians to go and conquer Jerusalem lately”
They’ve grown smarter, apparently unlike jews and arabs…
“Never is a very long time”
Semantics… Are you prepared to wage this war for centuries?
January 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
#38 Adam B.
RK, I’ll give you that demographivs have changed since 1947, but much of this is due to Israels illegal settlement of occupied territories.
Would you care to explain again just what makes Israel’s borders following 1948 illegal? I think you missed your law and history lessons, specifically those parts that had to do with UN resolutions, how binding said resolutions are, particularly General Assembly resolutions of the nature that Resolution 181 was, and just which parts of it got implemented in the first place.
I think you missed the part where all the UN managed to agree upon, after the original deliberations, was to tell the British Mandate that its time was due.
So don’t tell me what is or isn’t legal. The UN is not the World Government, to draw lines in the sand. And then disagreeing about them. And then bickering some more while the war’s already on and people are dying.
Israel is a sovereign nation. So is Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. If by dint of some effort Palestine actually getting its crap together, it will also become a sovereign nation.
And we will draw lines in the sand. And do you know why they will always be a great deal more legal than anything you will dictate, Adam, all the way from Europe?
Because it’s us who damn well live here, not you.
Riiiiight… You’ve had 60 years, and you’re further apart than ever! I think the boat has sailed a long time ago, unfortunately!
60 years? Hardly any time at all, then. Had it been 600, I may have considered your argument to actually hold water.
Seems that one consequence of the Information Age is that everyone expects things to be the way they want them yesterday, double-time, and make it snappy. When you get a chance to open a history book, examine just how long it took warring nations to stop wars, not to mention actually improving relations.
And quite a lot *has* changed in the past 60 years, Adam. But then again, it seems that everything looks quite the same from your vantage point. So what’s the point in actually examining the finer detail? You know, like peace agreements. Like the fact that the Arab League can actually stomach using the world “Israel”.
Like the fact that people don’t go on total wars over nationalism around here anymore.
60 years? It took Europe over a millennium to work out the basics of not sending armies on wars of conquest, religious subjugation, or genocide.
You’re a mite impatient, aren’t you?
Had Germany been treated less harshly, they probably would not have had the desire for revenge that fueled WW2
I see you like reducing complex issues into simple one-paragraph affairs. Let’s just say that it was a bit more complex than that, shall we?
As for the aftereffects of WW2, well, those were exactly what you oppose in the beginning of your comment - lines drawn out by the world society as a whole.
Lines drawn by society as a whole? Rubbish. Society as a whole, in the shape of the League of Nations (the UN’s rather drunk father), failed to even realize that there was a war. Germany was a conquered nation dismembered by its neighbors and militarily occupying armies, to prevent it from ever posing a military risk to its continental neighbors. It was a solution based on right of conquest following a defensive war, of ethnic cleansing of Germans from all neighboring countries and a large territory that was German before the war…
What it most certainly wasn’t, from your definitions of legality and justice brought so far, was “legal” or “just”.
But it most certainly worked.
The thing is, it’s NOT your soverignity…! Who gave you Jerusalem for your own?
Whose was it to give in the first place? The UN’s? Current Israeli rule of Jerusalem is just as legitimate as any other rule of any city on this entire planet that exchanged hands over the course of history.
And I doubt, sincerely, that you will find a city that didn’t.
Will you then go across the world, far and wide, and doubt every sovereignty there is?
Plenty of factions have a stake in Jerusalem, and since they can’t all have the cake for themselves, they are going to have to settle for sharing…
Unlikely. What will happen, as it often did, is that one “faction” will hold the city, allowing the other two full visitation rights and rights of prayer. So far, two our of three is the majority - and it seems to be working.
The third will come around in a century or two.
but for a lack of a better choice, it’s going to have to do for now.
No, it won’t. The “better choice” is to rely on countries, because that actually works in the long run. Making use of a proven failure because it’s a “group effort” is, again, an exercise in blindness and wistful thinking.
The only reason the UN might fail at runningJerusalem would be because a pack of offended children refuse to accept that others have rights too.
No, the UN will fail because we don’t live in Utopia. The UN has so far failed in pretty much every venture where it had to send actual people to keep the actual peace. I wouldn’t trust the UN to run my neighborhood grocery store, least of all running a city-state by committee.
Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed… Most people aren’t all that mature. Or clever. Or nice, for that matter. Pretending that they’re otherwise is a sure way of failing. Just as the UN did, really, systematically and predictably, particularly when genocides were involved.
To be quite honest, a kindergarden is EXACTLY what your region resembles, and perhaps that’s the best way to treat it…
By all means, do so. Just as soon as you get your priorities straight and clear up those world issues that result in a six-figure death toll.
Only the UN failed miserably at that as well, didn’t it.
They’ve grown smarter, apparently unlike jews and arabs…
No, merely unlike Arabs. Because Jews have so far treated Christian holy sites with due respect, and have granted the worshipers the freedom they needed to visit and pray as needed. And have given Muslims the same consideration, actually giving them control over Judaism’s holiest site to maintain good relations.
Semantics… Are you prepared to wage this war for centuries?
No, it’s not semantics. You simply hold a very short term view.
January 6th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
RK, you’re running in circles here… You’re implying that resolutions made by the UN do not have any legal weight behind them, but at the same time, you refer to a UN resolution (actually a League of Nations resolution) acknowledging the foundation of Israel, which is what defines Israel as a sovereign state. Contradictory… If you believe otherwise, how do you propose to deny that Palestine is a soverign state as well?
Israel has joined the UN and has thereby acknowledged international law as defined by the UN - as such it is obligated to adhere to it’s decrees, or be expelled from the organisation. In that sense, the UN IS the world government, yes, at least as far as it’s members go.
“And we will draw lines in the sand. And do you know why they will always be a great deal more legal than anything you will dictate, Adam, all the way from Europe?
Because it’s us who damn well live here, not you.”
As far as I know, YOU do NOT live in Gaza? And still, you have no qualms invading the place because they’re harrasing you? Well, in that light, since the rest of us are ALL suffering because of your f*ck-ups, we’re perfectly excused to dictate terms to you…! In other words, get your butt out of Gaza, or face the fact that the rest of us have every right do the same to your entire region!
Oh well, you’re rambling by now, and the fact that you consider 60+ years to be an acceptable time-span and your continued confussion between the aftermath of WW1 and 2 means that this discussion has lost it’s interest…
You come off as every bit as self-centered and uncompromising as the Hamas members you rage against. Hopefully you’ll realize this in the future and mend your ways, ’cause otherwise you WILL fullfill your own profecy of a never-ending conflict!
January 6th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
You’re implying that resolutions made by the UN do not have any legal weight behind them
Wrong. I am implying nothing. I merely stating what is written in the UN charter.
General assembly resolutions are advisories, little else. They have no legal binding whatsoever, and they depend solely on the sides to which the resolution pertains. Should some party defy a general assembly resolution, the consequences are purely diplomatic in nature.
Security Council resolutions are a different concern. They *can* be legally binding to UN members. Further, resolutions grounded on Chapter VII of the UN charter give the Security Council the ability authorize economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions, and military force if and when deemed necessary for conflict resolution.
And now, allow me to return to what you brought up yourself - the UN Partition Plan, otherwise known as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181.
The General Assembly vote wasn’t legally binding, beyond a diplomatic gesture by the voting states. The Security Council… tied itself up, having reverted to arguing the nuances of what it can or can’t do, when it can or can’t intervene to bring about the implementation of the plan based on the Charter…
So the implementation was left up to Britain, as it was the mandatory power in charge of the Palestine.
Britain chose an… interesting course, so to speak. It left, in the wake of what was seen as a monumental failure at keeping the peace and a what was, by then, a very unpopular British presence abroad, as the British public saw it.
And it gave over its military hardware to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian armed militias. And left observers in place, under UN colors, to see how the slaughter would proceed.
And is how the UN failed.
(actually a League of Nations resolution) acknowledging the foundation of Israel, which is what defines Israel as a sovereign state.
The League of Nations placed Britain as a power in charge of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine, after granting Britain the Mandate of Palestine during the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. This, in turn, came about through the Balfour Declaration a few years before.
Israel, as a Jewish homeland, had been acknowledged as a state-in-the-making thirty years before the UN General Assembly resolution that attempted to create a partition of Palestine.
Contradictory… If you believe otherwise, how do you propose to deny that Palestine is a soverign state as well?
Contradictory? Not in the slightest. Sovereignty is based on declaration of independence from the former ruling power, international recognition, and the ability to govern one’s own borders.
As for Palestine, it isn’t a sovereign state yet. It had only attempted to declare independence while in exile… which is to say, the PLO attempted to declare the independence of Palestine while in Algiers… of all of Mandatorial Palestine, minus Jordan. Which is to say, over Israel’s dead body. As it held no control of the land it was supposedly declaring independence *in*, the point was rather moot.
The PLO received UN recognition as the national representative of Palestine (yet another failure of the UN, in my view - it gave prestige to what was, basically, a terrorist organization with a national budget), yet it did not recognize an independent Palestine as of yet - merely giving it observer status.
And Palestine doesn’t govern itself, or holds the ability to do so, at this date.
Israel has joined the UN and has thereby acknowledged international law as defined by the UN - as such it is obligated to adhere to it’s decrees, or be expelled from the organisation. In that sense, the UN IS the world government, yes, at least as far as it’s members go.
I suggest you read the UN charter when you get the chance, just to understand what the organization can or can’t do. It has so far been unable to expel countries that murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, because it is unable to ever make use of the actually *binding* aspect of its charter - and failing miserably when it tried to use Chapter VII, too.
As far as I know, YOU do NOT live in Gaza? And still, you have no qualms invading the place because they’re harrasing you?
No, I don’t live in Gaza. The Islamic Enclave of Gaza just had the misfortune of declaring war at me, and holds the means to do so - a shared border, and a close aerial distance. Which it has put to use.
Well, in that light, since the rest of us are ALL suffering because of your f*ck-ups, we’re perfectly excused to dictate terms to you…!
You? Suffer? Because of us? Please, you’ve advanced from self-delusion to outright bullshit.
Let me know when a Palestinian or an Israeli, as a servant of his or her national representatives, rains fiery death over your head or fills your friends and family with fast-moving lead. Then, maybe, you will have a mere shadow of an argument.
Until then, kindly treat this region as being made up of discrete nations, rather than a collective entity. You’re starting to remind me of people who think Africa is a country.
Or, wait… Maybe you actually believe that the Middle-East and all the crap therein is about Israel and Palestine? Perish the thought. Again you appear to be reducing complex issues into single-paragraph summaries.
You come off as every bit as self-centered and uncompromising as the Hamas members you rage against.
Your definition of compromise is that of self-destruction, I’m afraid. I’m all in favor of dialogue, of compromise, and of trying to reach an accommodation that leaves us and the Palestinians as well-off as possible, without further bloodshed.
And I will wait until the Palestinians have actually matured enough for such a dialogue to take place again. The previous attempts failed because that was not the case, and Hamas won the popular vote rather too easily for that very reason.
Hopefully you’ll realize this in the future and mend your ways, ’cause otherwise you WILL fullfill your own profecy of a never-ending conflict!
You know… there are two ways to end conflicts. There are convoluted agreements which leave both sides largely dissatisfied, but satisfied enough to put the guns away… and there’s surrender or suicide.
You seem to believe that the latter approach is the best way at conflict resolution. I agree, it will indeed end the conflict between Israel and Palestine, in that one of the parties involved will no longer exist, and will make room on your international news reports for another conflict rather than ours.
Yet I find that approach to be somewhat… how shall I put this… sacrificial? You know, as much as I believe that the Afterlife will be an interesting experience, I thing a long and prosperous life is a good preparation for it. I’ll stick to living. And will wait for when the representatives of Palestine share that belief.
Simple enough, isn’t it?
January 6th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Oh, and my “prophecy”, if you will… is that the conflict will end in time, as people and conditions change. It is merely a matter of time, though whether or not I shall see it in my own lifetime… don’t know.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:57 am
“# Adam B. Says:
January 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
30. cubanbob:
I don’t see what tyrkish/iranian claim to sovereignity over kurdistan (another never-has-been state) has to do with palestinians wish for an independant Palestine? Different countries, Different people…
True the Germans didn’t get back their enclaves in the eastern Baltic, but then again, they were not traditionally german (Germany as a single cohesive state was first formed in 1871), and by the end of WW2, no german majority was to be found in the areas. I’ll give you a better example from real life:
At the end of WW2, the former danish regions of Slesvig and Holsten, in what is today northern Germany, were offered back to us by the allies, but we declined, because the population majority in the areas had shifted to the germans’ advantage since we lost the land after the war of 1864. Despite the fact that Denamrk naturally and geographically extends to include these two regions (Holsten to a lesser degree), we decided that annexing the land would be more trouble than it was worth due to local resistance. A few hundred years earlier, we lost danish heartland in southern Sweden, which still to this day enjoys a much closer relationship with Copenhagen than it does with Stockholm. Still, we manage to live in peace with our neighbours.”
Unlike the Palestinians, the Kurds are not an ersatz people, they have a language, culture and history unlike the Palestinians. If the Arabs won’t quit their homelands, why the faux outrage for the Palestinians? If the Kurds aren’t good enough for a free and independent homeland, why the Palestinians? Most of the lands presently occupied by the Palestinians were largely unoccupied 100 years ago. Their claim is not particulary good so what is the beef?