h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> A question, of who-ever, please. What is the defining difference between territory gained by defence, conquest and war, ... and 'illegal occupation'? <<<

At its simplest, I would say that the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank which contravene the UN agreed boundaries are illegal. Israel agreed that these were Palestinian territories in (I think) 1967. Not only have they allowed 'frontiersmen' settlers to build on Palestinian land but they ahve also 'ooops' allowed the path of the 'big bad wall' to slip and chew up a few km of Gaza as well...

>>> But I thought Israel had pulled out of Gaza? <<<

Ma! Everytime they pull out, the Palestinians send some one else to sting them and they have to go back in again. They began to pull out but i don't know the details. The wall is definitely still there though...

They're *forced* to reoccupy 'enemy' territory? How dreadful it must be to be a nuclear-armed militia, sponsored and supported by the greatest military power the world has ever seen, *forced* to fight an enemy armed with hand-held weapons (mainly petrol bombs), and the occasional surface-to-surface missile.

<<"We leave Gaza, they shoot missiles at us from there. We leave Lebanon, they kidnap our boys. How do they expect us to leave the West Bank? Fuggedaboudit!" These views, expressed by most Israelis these days, can only fill me with awe at how the Big Lie works: Repeat it often enough, publicly enough, by political and spiritual leaders, and the whole country/world will begin to believe that Israel is innocent of all wrongdoing and that these attacks emerged from a political vacuum: As if there is no occupation. As if there is no siege on Gaza. As if there are no 39 years (and counting) of military and political oppression with all the killing, maiming, home destruction, and livelihood wrecking that this entails. What is it about "end the occupation" that they don't understand?>> - Gila Svirsky (a veteran peace and human rights activist, having headed some of the major peace and human rights organizations in Israel -- the New Israel Fund, Bat Shalom, and B'Tselem. She has been a member of Women in Black since its inception, and co-founded the Coalition of Women for Peace, which brings together nine Israeli women's peace organizations.)

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-C, What do you expect them to do? Really. Do you expect them to sit back when they are the more powerful of the equation? Their citizens will not allow it. Gila Svirsky is great but again....

*shakes head in despair*

The first two mistakes were made in 1947 and 1948 (as I have just been reminded elsewhere). We need to go back there and look.

(first mistake) The Diaspora decided to formalise the homeland and create Israel - imho, that was the first mistake. Don't jump down my throat yet: the Jews always, through the millenia, had the 'homeland' it never went away - there was a coexistence of sorts with the 'locals' and it more or less worked. So Israel is created, the Brits and UN refuse to sanction it (if I remember correctly but please do correct me if I am wrong) The land was more or less split in half - half for Israel, half for Palestine.

(second mistake) The arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria) advised the local arabs to flee - whuch they did - and came to get Israel sorted... they got mashed for their troubles, Israel now had the majority of the land and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were stranded in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon - and are still there with their grandchildren now.

I am not going to enter into who did what when, it would take us years to track through each event, while the same thing is happening now. I have tried that and there is no end to that morass - the snake eating its tail again - the eternal circle.

Let us just accept that all sides have done great wrong and committed great evil and been rather stupid at times - all sides represent people desperate for peace and a chance to raise their children in safey. All sides are misguided, blinded by hatred and anger.

Let us try to find a place for all Palestinians to live in the 21st Century now - and close the camps in the Middle East - no more refugee camps.

Wilma, couldn't agree with you more. I had thought Israel had made major effort to remove the settlements. There was major coverage of the Israel army removing Israel citizens from the settlements...how come everyone else here missed that coverage?

P-C, could you answer my question?

I understand Irael moved out of a small number of settlements in Gaza, retaining their occupation of Jerusalem, some of Gaza and the West Bank. Is that not correct?

If Israel had occupied the (*whole* of the) States, and then retreated from Alaska, but remained in all the other states, and continued pumping and selling Texan oil, would you consider their 'retreat' sufficient, or even significant?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Arnie, with all my respect. Noone in the Middle East os going to do anything unilaterally. We have an expressin I think you guys share too - when the unwanted guests exit from the door only to enter through the window. This is something that needs to be agreed multilaterally - *if* a neutral party can be found to host the talks. Forget the UN - Israel has no respect for them and the rest don't trust them.

PC, you're analogy is just at tiny bit misleading. The west bank/gaza appear to be at most around 40% of the area of the poper "state of israel" (whatever that actually is). So in your analogy, the force occupying the US would have to be a land mass of

(US geographic area)/0.4

So who could that be? Russia maybe? They've got enough land. So now we're looking at a country the size of Russia, occupying the entire US. And they voluntarily (e.g. they are not physically through direct fighting) remove themselves from Alaska.

Would I consider it sufficient? No. But I never said what Israel had done was sufficient. Significant? Yes! It's a start. That's something a lot of people don't mention.

It seems like you don't really want to be realistic about this at all. Why not acknowledge it as a step in the right direction, rather than saying it is a worthless nothing?

Finally, why choose the mostly deserted, but resource rich Alaska in your analogy?

It wasn't an analogy, just a simple way of asking how you would feel if it was your country. I know how I'd feel if it was mine.

Of course any withdrawal is a step in the right direction. But when an Israeli minister refers in the media to recent "unprovoked" attacks, it makes me . If over thirty years of military occupation isn't provocation, then I don't know what is. This (in my mind) tends to overshadow minor withdrawals.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What is an analogy, if not what you just described?

Can you tell me what exactly causes you to think the Israeli minister is wrong? I mean, it's a given that both sides have a long laundry list of acts they could call "provocation" for a future attack. But given that Israel *was* in the process of a withdrawl from the Gaza strip, it does seem to be an "unprovoked" (e.g. the last action by Israel was peaceful).

The withdrawal from Gaza was controversial at the time because it was done unilaterally. That was done off the back of the death of Yasser Arafat with whom Washington had already long since cut diplomatic ties - and I think I recall Israel barricaded him in to his compound in the last days before he was airlifted to France where he died. Following that, the idea that there was no partner to be negotiated with from within the Palestinians emboldened the unilateralist policies such as the wall and the withdrawal.
That drove a coach and horses through the idea of a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, in fact, if I recall correctly, the withdrawal from Gaza controversial and embittered though it was for Israel, that pay-off endorsed by Washington was that some West Bank settlements in the occupied territories would remain.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4120505.stm)

I felt at the time that this was not a magnanimous gesture from Israel but rather a project doomed to failure.

After those things didn't improve - The Abass leadership in Fata was not what it should be and the imbalance of power in the region continued. The withdrawal from Gaza is held up often as this generous gesture but I think it's worth remembering while it was hailed as a step in the right direction it was one side striding ahead of the other and expecting the other side to keep pace and I don't think for any number of reasons that that was a reasonable expectation.

And what followed was a political vacuum - and as Fata declined - Hammas stepped neatly into the breech.

And this is where I think the process of events that led to what is happening today begin to take shape. For what the world did in response to Hammas was not try to legitimise them but to disown the Palestinian people and cut the money going into the country. Well that was going to work wasn't it? It's like a 101 in how to seriously annoy a lot of embittered people. Starve them. Economically Palestinians are on their knees, totally beholden to Israel and what work there is behind the wall. After the occupation, that area has a lot of damaged infrastructure and without the funding, that region can't function. That was proven when the subsidies stopped.

Nevertheless, the wisdom was that by cutting funding from Hammas this would expose and vilify the terrorists who had the audacity to claim a democratic mandate. I suppose it was believed that this would impress the Palestinians to see the error of their ways.

Hammas are this strange double entity at the moment: a paramilitary group in government but they are in government and I think the world missed a trick in not working harder to make them the responsible partner Israel sought. Distasteful it might have been but preferable I suspect to where we are now. They should IMO have been treated with a desire from all the parties engaged to make them a responsible partner. That hit a stumbling block over forcing the s recognition of Israel's right to exist. Small steps were required but they were attempting a long jump and but that was a demand pursued with such vigour at the time I find it unsurprising that Hammas in making the transition into Government were at the very least hesitant to go from paramilitaries to political representatives. But foreign policy wasn't focussed on massaging this delicate relationship into being as it has been thoroughly engaged with Iraq and again with Afghanistan.

In the last few months since things have been careering along but if Hammas are not treated as the legitimate government of Palestine I was not surprised, lets put it that way, that some radical element of what is still an unreformed militarised group upped the anty and kidnapped that soldier.

In less than a week from that, things have blown up out of all proportion. A copycat attack and a new front opens up in the north of Israel. I think the destruction of civilian targets bridges, power stations etc in Lebanon is going to be 100% counter productive.

The way things are going with Iran (in the context of the nuclear issue) and now stood accused by some as co-sponsors of the Hezbollah copy-cat action and Syria too this reminds me uncomfortably of how the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand begot the start of World War 1. I don't see how the Israeli shelling and blockades are intended to secure the return of three soldiers. I feel the truth is the meaning of this nascent war has long surpassed that. This has become embroiled in the lexicon of 'The War on Terror' and within that paradigm the paramilitary groups are seen to be attacking Israel and Iran and Syria and moving into positions of power and this is why attention within the G8 is fixated on negotiating with those state players to reign in the 'terrorists' and it obscures the way this has been building up as a consequence of failed foreign policies.

It's not the event of the kidnapping itself in some strange way that matters anymore but that it's the spark that has ignited the powder keg that's been growing for years.

before you relurk - could you explain a small thing or two to me?

How/why was the world supposed to legitimize a regime which has as its central tenet the destruction of it's neighbor?

Not that I think their response was correct, but you seem to be advocating the opposite extreme, which seems almost equally as bad.

And again, I fail to understand why the removal of settlements can't be taken on face value - for the time being. it seems to verge on conspiracy theory to come up with reasons why Israel removed the settlements.

I'll try. I'm not sure what you mean that I am "adovating the opposite extreme" but I'll do my best to set out what I think so I hope it helps.

-----------------------

If the foreign policy of our age is that 'democracy works' then I think it was at best hypocritical to on the one hand encourage democractic engagement in Palestine and then to immediately set about undermining it because the result was not to our liking.

At root, I think at that moment there was an opportunity. Nothing stronger. It may not have been a good choice but there rarely are good choices. But there was a chance things could have been improved but it was squandered.

In the same way that the violence in Ireland was to some degree reigned in by working hard through serious negotiations to move the IRA away from violence and to democratic means; I was hoping that the world would enage with Hammas and seriously make the effort to move them away from paramilitarism and establishing an "adequate forum" for discussion to take place.

The situation in Palestine is not directly comparable to Ireland but the priciple of enaging was I thought sound. Because it means at the least two sides are talking which is the prerequisite for negotiation and compromise and from there to the ideal position of dual settlements without the need for unilateral actions.

Having the destruction of Israel as a central tennet was an obstacle - but the only way to change that and overcome that is through negotiation. I think legitimising Hammas was an end to be sought - a process to be undergone it was not going to happen overnight but that is why our demands fatered - we expected too much - and sanctions resulted.

It hardly set a good precident.

Without that honest engagement we have become sullied, our worth as negotiators and honest brokers is next to meaningless and Hammas for all their evils are left in this void and limbo.

I actually forgot to mention that prior to the kidnapping of the soldier - Israel arrested half the Hammas cabinet (on the grounds they were terrorists) I've no idea if they ever let them go. If someone can enlighten me on their fate I'd be grateful.

However that action spoke to me about how the policy of legitimising Hammas (if there ever was one) has been still born. It shouldn't be possible for one state to arrest half the government of another. It's contemptuous and I think that it explains why Hammas aren't close to being a reformed actor despite being elected becuase they are stil being treated as a terrorist organisation.

Which goes back to my original point that they have this dual nature for Hammas *is* a terrorist group but it had acquired that democratic legimtamcy which I think could have and should have been given more importance than it was - the result is that by letting that go Hammas remain only a terrorist group.

------------------

Conspiracy that's a too harsh. withdrawing from settlements in Gaza can't be taken at face value - even for the time being - for a very simple reason: there is less than zero trust between the two sides.

What unilateral action does is to break the equilibrium of a truce which is holding out the prospect of a negotiated settlement.
Withdrawing was supposed by the Israelis to end violence becuase it was believed that it was the occupation of that land which was the cause of violence but the cause of violence is more complicated than that for it is rooted in the lack of a Palestian state. That is reflected in the abence of Government which has been ceded to Hammas.

Building a wall unilaterally - despite in my opinion be a phenomenally bad idea - means that land borders and boundaries are being dictated by one side whether that is fair or not, conspiratorial or not - it undermines the principle of a negotiated end for the hositlities. That policy coming as it does from a position of occupation is doubly likely from the point-of-view of the Palestinians to be viewed with suspision.

Can I relurk now?

<>

This ties in with Hammas recently calling for a return to pre-1948 borders, i.e no Israel.

So, Israel could completely pull out of occupied territories and this *still* would not be enough? Well, that is simply not acceptable is it? The Palestinian *cause* seems to be a non-issue. This is about keeping a sense of injustice going in the Islamic world, primarily the Shias. If it wasn't Israel, they would find something else to cry "oppression" about.

With regard to Lebanon, Israel pulled back completely within its' own borders years ago, complying entirely with all UN resolutions. Yet for six years, Hezb'Allah has been launching rocket attacks over the border. Hezb'Allah, IMO, has been deliberately trying to provoke conflict for years, culminating with the attack last week that left eight dead and two abducted. In previous prisoner exchanges, prisoners released by Israel have gone on to murder Israelis again, so I doubt if that is going to happen again.

How long before Hezb'Allah start releasing videos of the kidnapped pair, just to wind the Israelis up some more?

Again, if I'm being a bit one-dimensional, please put me right. I'm trying to understand the situation but I can't expect to get there in a week.

It's intractable isn't it really?

The issue with borders is one I think that has to be negotiated. Whtever Hammas's starting position the negotiations should lead to a compromise. Without negotitions things just get entrenched.

I don't agree that the palestinian cause is rootless. See some of the above posts about the 30-odd-year occupation. That is a genuine wrong that ought to be righted.

The reason why borders alone is not the complete answer is that after 30 years of occupation there are now many other grivences to be accounted for. At it's heart this about borders but it is also about a lot more.

With regard to Lebannon - yet again wrongs on both sides. I agree here there was more provocation but I think Israel's response in Lebannon has been dissproprtionate and will only serve to make matters worse not better. and that's tragic because it means the provocation worked. I believe there is a UN resolution regarding Lebannon requesting Hazbollah lay down all arms - but as far as enforcement goes this is paid less than lip service, I presume it has been totally ignored in fact.

I started to write a response, then I stopped. Everything I was going to suggest seems to have been done at some point.

Sod it. The entire Israeli experiment has failed, demonstrably.

Let's relocate Israel to Utah.

And then it will be the Mormons up in arms, ... their way of life shattered, disposessed ...

Might knock that self-satisfied grin off their faces for a while

You can re-lurk, and I thank you for your explanation, but I still don't understand. You've said it's better to deal with Hamas, but you haven't really explained how/why that would work, specifically, how do you 2 parties negotiate when the central tenet of one party is the destruction of the other? Seems to be an impossible starting point.

If for example, a political party were elected in France, that, just for a random example, was a white supremicist party and didn't tolerate the presence of Muslims/Islam and/or Arabs and North Africans (I'm just making this up as I go ), would you be surprised if countries imposed boycotts and/or other financial pressure on France?

If country A says it is our goal to destroy/enslave country/group B, it seems that in the past the response was to contain country A, through either military or economic force. South Africa is one example. And what if the BNP *had* been elected en masse in France?

Just to be clear I *am* re-lurking, however I'd like to point out to Arnie that I don't find your argument in #119 persuasive because it is not congruous to what is happening with the Palestinians.

The context of the occupation, the settlements and the economic hardship is not the same as a white-supremicist party in any country, (but particularly a wealthy, affluant, Western nation) rising to power on the strength of an anti-immigration or racist ticket.*

As to sanctions: well a financial pressure is one thing but when a 'nation' (howsoever defined in this instance) is bankrupt more-or-less (I don't know of a Palestinian economy that is flourishing outside of The Israeli wall) and the financial pressure is applied to the aid that to goes to the citizens, Hammas supporting or not, - I find it small wonder that this only serves to increase bitterness and a rejection of the moderate approach.

What is their to contain in Palestine that can be achieved militarily? I *know* about the rocket attacks - but a heavy handed military response in my judgement, plays into the hands of those who use rockets because it will simply be used as evidence of further aggression when inevitably innocents are killed.

Personally, I don't think it is possible to successfuly eliminate a terrorist campaign using military force. This is the de rigueur of the "War on Terror" but I think the War on Terror campaign and military responces generally overlook and seriously underestimate the forces of dissatisfaction (to putit mildly) that allow the groups in question to come into being and the function in an area.

The War on Terror, if I may briefly depart onto a tangent, has been a dismal failure. The 'Coalition' is now over-committed in Iraq and Afganistahn, we've ignored and contributed** to the problems between Israel and Palestine which predictably has erupted. Iran and Syria are emboldened and choose this moment to start playing power games in the region - and The 'Coalition' has neither the moral nor political will left to do anything meaningful other to watch as the Middle East slides backwards about a decade or two.

It's appalling.



* Caveat - I *know their are issues between Jews and Arabs and Islam - is this racism? er.... perhaps, maybe but not of the type you are comparing it to I would suggest.


** see my views on the sanctions - because supporting a democratically elected Hammas government was perceived to be somehow paradoxical when all Terrorists are evil and wicked.