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

Arnie, there is a lot of rhetoric that goes on - the Israelis do this too - when they publicly refer to the Palestinians as cockroaches in need of extermination. The languages of the Middle East lend themselves to hyperbole... I really don't think it will help to dig up all the ugly details in this conversation - there are thousands of threads on the BBC message boards if you want to see who said what and where. This is one of maybe four intelligent seeking and searching conversations I have seen anywhere, let alone right now.

SWL, in 1947 Israel was 'created' with half of the land inthe area, leaving half for the Palestinians. (my dates are up the snook so call on me if I blollox up history) The Palestinians at the time were mainly an uneducated farming society. The wealthy and powerful fled, and the arab nations surrounding told the villagers to flee as they were coming in to 'sort out' these people who thoguht they could just walk in and take over their land.

Suffice it to say that the Israeli forces wiped the floor with them and ended up with a sh*tload more land leaving only the West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians. So when you hear the term pre-1948 borders, it means the half and half ratio - not no Israel. I don't think anyone truly believes that Isrel will pack its bags and go away. There are generations of Israelis with no other home. The thing is, it is ditto for generations of Palestinians and this has gone on now for almost 60 years...

Take a look at this map of Palestinian maps http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/Refugees-UNWRA-2001.html

It does not show all the Palestinians because many are not even registered as camp denizens (for example it says 300k + for Lebanon but here are closer to 800K) These are the fomenting acid in the vat. These people have been in these camps for nearly sixty years. They must no longer be ignored. In fact they have been ignored at the cost of peace - and in a way, I have to say rightly so... despite the price Lebanon is now paying.

HizbAllah on the other hand - cannot be forcibly disarmed by the Lebanese Army. They are better equipped for a start and even it was militarily possible to do it, the risk is too great. The Lebanese army has 80% Shia foot soldiers. These boys are not going to go disarm their brothers and cousins. Reality must speak alongside ideal.

Sorry, Clive, simulpost there.

Not a problem - if anyone needs me I'm back over the page # 120

I guess we think it doesn't matter whether Hamas intends to destroy Israel or not because they're incapable of it.

There is a disturbing factor in this latest conflict. In past conflicts Israel has been concious of world opinion and that has been a limiting factor. However in a recent speech Ehud Olmert justified Israel's actions as being part of the global war on terror. According to a BBC reporter his phraseology mirrored Bush's exactly.

However as the linked article from the Independent shows British Jews are split in their support for Israel and concerns within the States, regarding Americas foreign policy being dictated by the Jewish political lobby, are growing.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1183428.ece

(The urge to reply overwhelms me )

I tried to intimate something along those lines in my last post - simply, that the paradigm of the war on terror is affecting this latest conflict. I tried to view it as in how the foreign policy of the last few eyars has emboldened Iran but I'd say it's probably also true that Israel is just as capable of making use of it to their own ends as well.

okay, now I'm going.

I actually think Israel are doing exactly what hezbollah wanted. It clearly demonstrates how impotent the west are, already fighting on 2 fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the West can do is make feeble noises, about something really serious and destabalizing. I'm sure Hezbollah calculated exactly how Israel would respond. Especially with a new Israeli PM with no war experience.

Fanny - I have to disagree. I don't take the sign of the west doing nothing as feebleness, more as either "we're not getting mixed up in that any further" or tacit approval.

Clive, it's fine if you disagree, I just wish you would explain why. You said you find the argument "is not congruous to what is happening with the Palestinians." but offer no reason why...

Again, I'm not saying the sanctions are necessarily correct, but I wonder how you address the logical impasse we've arrived at, as stated in post 119. Until that is addressed, I don't really see a way forward.

Also, I disagree with your statement that terrorist campaigns can't be stopped with military force This is not historically accurate (British in Malaya for example). The current battles against terrorists have been extremely poorly executed; that doesn't mean that *all* battles have to be that way.

Robert Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism) claims that "nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland".

If this is a correct and useful analysis, it implies that an Israeli withdrawal could moderate - maybe even stop - much of today's terrorism, across the globe. End the occupation and the justification for AQ and all the rest is removed, yes?

To say "ah, but the terrorists must stop attacking first" is more than merely provocative. Palestine is occupied. Why must those who seek to free that land and its people stop their efforts, while the occupation continues unabated?

An end to the occupation might even bring about an end to the 'War on Terror' too, which must be a very fine thing, yes?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

*locks on to that last comment with all her might*



W

An interesting viewpoint, I thought:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19826085-25377,00.html

>>"we're not getting mixed up in that any further" or tacit approval.<< Arnie

You maybe right Arnie, especially if the West doesn't consider the present spat as a threat to oil resources. Because it always come back to that. And I'm not one to overly criticise the West for that. To be honest all the whining about the West only caring about oil really gets on my nerves. Our whole way of life would be threatened if we didn't look out for that. Yes we need to stop being so dependant on oil, and look to develop other resources, but let's not have hypocrisy.

But it's about bloody time the UN showed it really has some balls, and did something. Rather than everyone always expecting the US to sort out the problem.

Arnie. re# 128

I thought I'd been fairly clear that I don't think it's a straight comparison to say: 'the election of a white supremicist group in France would invite sanctions so why is it wrong to sanction a Hamas Government?'

How is that unclear?

As to why I don't think it is a stright comparison I thought I'd covered that as well but I'll try again.

The Palestinians are under occupation and are economically dependent on Israel, whether that's through restrictions on movement, lack of infastructure or the inflow of money such as the Customs Revenues that were withdrawn as part of the sanctions, they are beholden to them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4729000.stm

Now, I don't imagine even a similar caricature could be drawn for a white supremicist group who suddenly rose to dominance in elections in France.

In that conext I've outlined when Fata were in decline for corruption I am not surprised that Hamas were successful in elections.

My attitude was, that having been successful, more effort should been made at the time to give them democractic legitmacy to replace the need for armed conflict. That wasn't done and the opportunity was wasted.

Where they go from here I don't know. Since your asking, the future looks pretty bleak to me.

I realise we disagree but it's a good thing. The world would be dull as ditchwater if we all went roung agreeing all of the time.

>>I disagree with your statement that terrorist campaigns can't be stopped with military force<<

Okay I tried to avoid sweeping statements and stepped into one of my own making you are correct - not all military engagements are doomed - indeed they may demonstate a measure of success - the point I was making was that a miltary solution won't solve the problems that underly the reasons why the miltary was deemed to be necessary in the first place ergo it won't mean an end to hostilities.

I reckon the opportune moment was when Hamas were elected - but everyone turned away and the moment was lost.

There really is no other situation with an analogy to the situation in Palestine that holds water. In the example that Arnie suggested one would have to add that 75% of France had been militarily occupied by the by the people that the new government wanted to expel.

Noggin

*and* the occupiers were in many cases monopolising water supplies, putting up barriers to tranist between the areas they *hadn't* occupied, etc.

I'm not so sure Hizb'Allah got exactly the response they wanted. They've been getting away with firing off rockets for six years apparently and the alst time they took hostages they swapped 1 businessman and 3 dead soldiers for hundreds of prisoners. Who knows, maybe they thought this one would go the same way as the last one. What they didn't reckon with, IMO, is Israel feeling unfettered by world opinion and going after them big time, using the War on Terror pretext.

Yes, quite a few nations have taken the opportunity to get tough with local 'troublemakers' using this 'justification'. [Russia and Czechnia (sp?), and so on.]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Would I be correct to observe that the US vetoes any UN proposal it doesn't like, such as passing motions to sanction Israel, for example.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>Would I be correct to observe that the US vetoes any UN proposal it doesn't like, such as passing motions to sanction Israel, for example.<< PC

Well then it's about time the system was reformed then. The UN symbolically represents the whole world. So by continuing to behave so abjectly and refusing to take any sort of real responsibility, is it surprising that more powerful nations continue to get their own way.

If the whole world really gave a fig for the Palastinians it would get itself organised, and certainly could wield more power. And that's exactly what it should be doing because, yes, individual countries have vested interests. A communal organisation with real teeth could make a difference. But does anyone really care enough to sort things out unless it's a direct threat? I'm not sure they do.

>>"Yes, quite a few nations have taken the opportunity to get tough with local 'troublemakers' using this 'justification'. [Russia and Czechnia (sp?), and so on.]"

Russia managed without a 'war on terror' justification for many years before 9/11, (or, at least, without feeling the need to tie their actions to anything global).