It isn't an issue of feasibility- it's an issue of acceptability. Do you really that a Palestinian state of those territories would be accepted by the Arab nations or Palestinians? It would be admitting failure, with no gain of territory from 1967 borders.
(PS- personally, I'm far more supportive of Israel's military stance and it's intended effects than the poster I linked to, but he makes an extremely well-thought-out overview.Call me crazy, but the current military action actually has significantly reduced Hezbollah's power, for years to come. Yes, Katyushas are easy to get (they smuggle them into Gaza, for heaven's sake- do you know how tight the border is?) but the large Iranian missles with long ranges are almost entirely gone. Getting those in across the border will be almost inmpossible with almost any level of scrutiny.
People said Israeli intelligence was faulty as to Hezbollah capabilities. I'd like to mention that in the first 48 hours of bombing, Israel destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's long range missles, which were their most hidden and secret resource. Israel's inability to drive out hezbollah imediatlly is mainly due to careful targeting in an attempt to not hit civilians (even so, it's a "good luck" scenario- most Hezbollah members ARE civilians, and exploit this) and simply the level of Hezbollah entrenchment. We'll see what happens.)
It isn't an issue of feasibility- it's an issue of acceptability.
I was referring specifically to the poster's claim that a Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza would be economically unviable. As for what the Palestinians want, suffice it to say that the official positions of the PNA, the Israeli government, and most foreign observers are very similar; it's just that each side thinks the other is acting in bad faith, pointing to the Kahanists or Hamas or whatever. I don't know that anyone knows for sure exactly how the Palestinians as a whole would react to a restoration of the 1967 borders, but that doesn't make any sort of Palestinian state useless. Israel could build that wall, but as a real border rather than a unilateral grab. The Palestinians could be paid; money is a liberalizing factor. I'm just puzzled how anyone can be sure that such a state would be rejected under all circumstances.
Mmm, I have to run to work, but I hadn't heard the 50% figure; where's it from? I've also heard a lot of claims as to exactly how many of the civilians killed were combatants, but I haven't really seen any good information either way. This suggests otherwise, and of course I wasn't there and know nothing that would corroborate or contradict it, it seems difficult to imagine that someone could mistake that order for a completely different one. If it's true, it's terrible. :-/
That sounds like a misquote- Israeli officers speak in hyperbole, which gets them in trouble occasionally. The one nice thing on Israeli TV is that generals are always on the news, keeping everyone updated on troop movements and current targeting, so I know exactly what buildings are hit and why about 5 min after the missles launch. As most Israelis were in the army and have family involved, they very much care.
Anyway, from what I've seen (and Israel doesn't lie to it's civilians, not about wars- too many ex-soldiers can tell what's really going on), there's no retaliation. However, some of the initial infrastructure strikes were meant to make life hard in the area for pretty much everyone, mostly as a PR move against Hezbollah. That's the most amoral type of behavior I've heard from Israel.
The 50% measure is from IDF- more conservative estimates are from 35-45%. But definitely a sizable amount- hell, Hezbolah launched one of their biggest missles, the fajir-5, at Afula in the south (this thing can hit almost all of Israel), and literally minutes later, Israel destroyed the launcher. Most of the big missles Israel can't get to are in mosques or deep in apartment buildings and the like.
Even so, Israel has blown up some stockpiles under houses pretty ingeniously. They actually call up the owner of the house and tell him to get out in 20 min. Keep in mind, this means that Israel has most of these stockpiling people's phone numbers- now that's intelligence.
Human Rights Watch has a good page on what exactly constitutes "sheltering," "reprisals," and so on. As Michael Walzer wrote in The New Republic a few days ago, attacks on power stations and so on aren't justified just because hey, Hezbollah militants also use electricity. (They weren't acceptable when the U.S. tried it in the first Gulf War, either.) HRW makes a convincing case that this is true for the bombing of the Beirut airport as well. (As a result of that, my friend's aunt in Lebanon had to drive to Damascus and then to Amman to fly back to the U.S.) Also, the use of cluster bombs is also probably illegal (as is Hezbollah's use of rockets with ball-bearings).
As for the casualties, remember that in addition to its military wing Hezbollah is the second-largest civilian employer in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah (or even being a civilian member) doesn't deprive you of civilian status. "Sheltering" behind civilians strictly only applies to actually fighting or preparing to fight while hiding behind civilians. Given that the UNIFIL observers who were bombed by Israel said that Hezbollah were hiding behind them, I'm inclined to believe the IDF that Hezbollah does this, though some people seem to disagree that this is Hezbollah's MO. But this is really an empirical question and I haven't seen enough evidence either way as to how many civilians killed were not being sheltered behind.
Anyway, surely if Israel couldn't get rid of Hezbollah after eighteen years of occupation, they're not going to be able to do so now. So far they seem to have succeeded mainly in getting al-Qaida involved, making Nasrallah a sort of folk hero, and driving everyone away who doesn't, in fact, constitute Hezbollah's Shi'a base. Proportionality has to be measured against what exactly can be realistically achieved, surely.
i'm definitely inclined to agree. What is Israel doing now that they couldn't or didn't do better while occupying lebanon for 18 years? All they seem to be doing is blowing shit up in lebanon daily.
The onus is now on israel to stamp out hezbollah completely before they withdraw or they will appear weak in the process, while all hezbollah has to do is survive in order to proclaim victory.
But yeah, dude- no reason why a Palestinian state couldn't be economically feasible. Hell, it could have been economically feasible a long long time ago.
(PS- personally, I'm far more supportive of Israel's military stance and it's intended effects than the poster I linked to, but he makes an extremely well-thought-out overview.Call me crazy, but the current military action actually has significantly reduced Hezbollah's power, for years to come. Yes, Katyushas are easy to get (they smuggle them into Gaza, for heaven's sake- do you know how tight the border is?) but the large Iranian missles with long ranges are almost entirely gone. Getting those in across the border will be almost inmpossible with almost any level of scrutiny.
People said Israeli intelligence was faulty as to Hezbollah capabilities. I'd like to mention that in the first 48 hours of bombing, Israel destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's long range missles, which were their most hidden and secret resource. Israel's inability to drive out hezbollah imediatlly is mainly due to careful targeting in an attempt to not hit civilians (even so, it's a "good luck" scenario- most Hezbollah members ARE civilians, and exploit this) and simply the level of Hezbollah entrenchment. We'll see what happens.)
Reply
I was referring specifically to the poster's claim that a Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza would be economically unviable. As for what the Palestinians want, suffice it to say that the official positions of the PNA, the Israeli government, and most foreign observers are very similar; it's just that each side thinks the other is acting in bad faith, pointing to the Kahanists or Hamas or whatever. I don't know that anyone knows for sure exactly how the Palestinians as a whole would react to a restoration of the 1967 borders, but that doesn't make any sort of Palestinian state useless. Israel could build that wall, but as a real border rather than a unilateral grab. The Palestinians could be paid; money is a liberalizing factor. I'm just puzzled how anyone can be sure that such a state would be rejected under all circumstances.
Mmm, I have to run to work, but I hadn't heard the 50% figure; where's it from? I've also heard a lot of claims as to exactly how many of the civilians killed were combatants, but I haven't really seen any good information either way. This suggests otherwise, and of course I wasn't there and know nothing that would corroborate or contradict it, it seems difficult to imagine that someone could mistake that order for a completely different one. If it's true, it's terrible. :-/
Reply
Anyway, from what I've seen (and Israel doesn't lie to it's civilians, not about wars- too many ex-soldiers can tell what's really going on), there's no retaliation. However, some of the initial infrastructure strikes were meant to make life hard in the area for pretty much everyone, mostly as a PR move against Hezbollah. That's the most amoral type of behavior I've heard from Israel.
The 50% measure is from IDF- more conservative estimates are from 35-45%. But definitely a sizable amount- hell, Hezbolah launched one of their biggest missles, the fajir-5, at Afula in the south (this thing can hit almost all of Israel), and literally minutes later, Israel destroyed the launcher. Most of the big missles Israel can't get to are in mosques or deep in apartment buildings and the like.
Even so, Israel has blown up some stockpiles under houses pretty ingeniously. They actually call up the owner of the house and tell him to get out in 20 min. Keep in mind, this means that Israel has most of these stockpiling people's phone numbers- now that's intelligence.
Reply
Human Rights Watch has a good page on what exactly constitutes "sheltering," "reprisals," and so on. As Michael Walzer wrote in The New Republic a few days ago, attacks on power stations and so on aren't justified just because hey, Hezbollah militants also use electricity. (They weren't acceptable when the U.S. tried it in the first Gulf War, either.) HRW makes a convincing case that this is true for the bombing of the Beirut airport as well. (As a result of that, my friend's aunt in Lebanon had to drive to Damascus and then to Amman to fly back to the U.S.) Also, the use of cluster bombs is also probably illegal (as is Hezbollah's use of rockets with ball-bearings).
As for the casualties, remember that in addition to its military wing Hezbollah is the second-largest civilian employer in Lebanon. Supporting Hezbollah (or even being a civilian member) doesn't deprive you of civilian status. "Sheltering" behind civilians strictly only applies to actually fighting or preparing to fight while hiding behind civilians. Given that the UNIFIL observers who were bombed by Israel said that Hezbollah were hiding behind them, I'm inclined to believe the IDF that Hezbollah does this, though some people seem to disagree that this is Hezbollah's MO. But this is really an empirical question and I haven't seen enough evidence either way as to how many civilians killed were not being sheltered behind.
Anyway, surely if Israel couldn't get rid of Hezbollah after eighteen years of occupation, they're not going to be able to do so now. So far they seem to have succeeded mainly in getting al-Qaida involved, making Nasrallah a sort of folk hero, and driving everyone away who doesn't, in fact, constitute Hezbollah's Shi'a base. Proportionality has to be measured against what exactly can be realistically achieved, surely.
Eh, so much for brevity.
Reply
What is Israel doing now that they couldn't or didn't do better while occupying lebanon for 18 years? All they seem to be doing is blowing shit up in lebanon daily.
The onus is now on israel to stamp out hezbollah completely before they withdraw or they will appear weak in the process, while all hezbollah has to do is survive in order to proclaim victory.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment