Comments | kateorman: (без темы)

kateorman

(Untitled)

Jan 23, 2009 09:46

The thing I want to find out is what Israel's other options are. Everything they're doing right now seems, to my admittedly underinformed eyes, to be counterproductive - at least, if the goal is peace, 'cos that's not always what politicians are trying to accomplish. I want to find out what alternative strategies Israel could use - military tactics ( Read more... )

operation cast lead, pollie tix, killing

Comments 11

tavella January 22 2009, 23:12:29 UTC

They could say, kick the settlers out of the West Bank. They could stop confiscating people's fields and houses as 'security zones' and razing them. They should stop building walls all over Palestinian land.

That would be a start.

kateorman January 22 2009, 23:25:26 UTC

OK - how would you convince Israel that those actions would be in its own best interests?

tavella January 22 2009, 23:37:43 UTC

Me? I'd start by explaining that if they didn't, I'd yank the 3 billion in American subsidy they get. They might decide they don't care, but if so, it's that much less money to coddle fundie settlers with.

Of course, that will never happen, because anything apart from Israel is the most wonderful perfect victim country isn't allowed to be spoken in American politics.

kateorman January 22 2009, 23:54:00 UTC

What you're describing there is something the US could do to force Israel to act in a certain way. What I'm looking for here are alternatives that Israel could use, so that as well as saying "You can't do that", I can say, "but you could do this".

hiraethin January 23 2009, 00:17:45 UTC

Given the huge success of withdrawing from Gaza, I don't think there's a lot of electoral support in Israel for withdrawing from the West Bank. Well, not as much as there could be, anyhow.

Also, given the real and actual success of the security barrier in curtailing suicide bombings, I don't think there is much electoral support at all in Israel for pulling it down.

_bigjobbies_ January 23 2009, 00:48:38 UTC

Dov Weinglass (2004) on the disengagement from Gaza:

"The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians...It is the bottle of formaldehyde within which you place the president's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy period. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians...there is an American commitment such as never existed before, with regard to 190,000 settlers...there will be no timetable to implement the settlers' nightmare. I have postponed that nightmare indefinitely. Because what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns.”I think one could argue that it has been ( ... )

strangedave January 23 2009, 01:07:37 UTC

I simply think you are right that many of Israels politicians do not really seek peace, and its actions must be seen in this light.

kateorman January 23 2009, 01:13:13 UTC

For that matter, fuck if I can work out what Hamas really wants. I need to get back to reading that book about terrorists' motives.

_bigjobbies_ January 23 2009, 01:50:30 UTC

Alistair Crooke is often quite well informed :
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090115/OPINION/761318562

I imagine one of their wants would be recognition & inclusion in any negotiation. It is possibly a mistake to think of Hamas as a unitary organisation however - especially at the moment.

_bigjobbies_ January 23 2009, 02:18:37 UTC

and a longer briefing paper (I have only skimmed it so far I'm afraid)
http://conflictsforum.org/briefings/Hamas-From-rebel-movement-to-political-party.pdf

pollie tix is all about endless talk... ajponder January 24 2009, 14:58:35 UTC

1) This is a really good question. It's something that needs to be asked because you can't just call atruce and think everything will be alright, usually adversaries have to be more pro-active about the peace process -- as the Americans keep on finding out - it's all very well to shoot up the opposition, but you need to spend money on the civilian population to clean up the mess afterwards because power vacuums and desperation through lack of food and infrustructure etc. tend to lead to enormous problems ( ... )