Palestine

[broncofan]

This is just one example, but a foreign policy of keeping a people besieged for many, many years while hoping the masses one day rise up against those viciously in power, ala Ceausescu in Romania, is not a foreign policy at all but pure fantasy role playing. This is the same policy the US has had toward Iran for 35 years to no good effect. Why sit on your hands for decades fantasizing about an extremely remote possibility when other options exist to ameliorate the situation?

Below I have quoted what he actually said. He basically said that the Israeli government should deal willingly with Abbas, and that this is a good way to make the Gazans realize by comparison that Hamas is not effective at governance. He also said he thinks the blockade should be lifted as part of the terms of an eventual ceasefire. So not only is he saying that he does not think Gaza should be besieged but he is also saying that the Palestinians should be dealt with more fairly in the West Bank and their national aspirations recognized. He did not say the Gazans should be mistreated in order to get them to reject Hamas.


My suggestion is to approach Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas - the ed.] and to accept the terms - which the whole world knows - for a two-state-solution and coexistence between Israel and the West Bank: Two capitals in Jerusalem, a mutually agreed territorial modification, removal of most of the Jewish settlements from the West Bank.
When Ramallah and Nablus on the West Bank live on in prosperity and freedom, I believe that the people in Gaza will sooner or later do to Hamas what the people of Romania did to Ceausescu. I do not know how long it will take, but it is destined to happen - simply because the people in Gaza will be very jealous of the freedom and prosperity enjoyed by their brothers and sisters on the West Bank in the state of Palestine. This in my view is the solution, although this solution cannot be implemented in 24 hours or 48 hours.

[broncofan]

Stavros tempered his attack and apologized above, but I have to say you sort of set yourself up for the attack by unequivocally agreeing with pretty much everything Oz was saying.

Agreeing with Oz is so objectionable that you set yourself up for attack? I'm not taking sides, but I don't really see the logic in that. I doubt that whatever the disagreement between Stavros and Prospero is, it had to do with the premises of the article Prospero linked.

Here is what he said about the blockade. He thinks removal of the blockade should be negotiated, and that Israel should be more charitable to Abbas who is a willing peace partner. Perhaps he didn't use strong enough language for some people's liking, but he did not say that the misery in Gaza should be maintained in order to get people to reject Hamas. He said Israel should deal willingly with Abbas.


Hamas is presently demanding that the blockade of the Gaza Strip be lifted…
I am absolutely for it. I think that the blockade should be removed. I think plenty of international, Arab and Israeli resources should be pumped into the Gaza strip in return for effective demilitarization. This is a proposal that Israel ought to make immediately.

[Ben]

I'm enjoying everyone's posts except for Ben's. For the love of jehovah write some prose. An editorial every now and again can be useful, and hard news is almost always useful. But the wholesale appropriation of other people's ideas via link could easily turn a discussion into a debate by proxy. Who can find the authors who express something useful to their very generalized stance? Who can post the most videos of Noam Chomsky doing naughty stuff on webcam (that is what he's doing right?). It's not didactic Ben. You know what I've learned. You agree with Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald.

With all due respect, if Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald got into an argument whose side would you take.

P.S I know this sounds very harsh. You're a heck of a nice guy, but you do realize all you're doing is posting links don't you?

"... if Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald got into an argument whose side would you take."

Um, it'd hinge on who has the bigger penis -- ha ha ha!

[Odelay]

Agreeing with Oz is so objectionable that you set yourself up for attack? I'm not taking sides, but I don't really see the logic in that. I doubt that whatever the disagreement between Stavros and Prospero is, it had to do with the premises of the article Prospero linked.

Oz's interview had some interesting ideas and some positive, in my opinion, policy prescriptions, mostly the ones you quote such as lifting the blockade and the negotiated two state solution. Although it should be pointed out that these aren't new ideas. The interview would have been very brief had he stuck to those. Some of the other things he said were ridiculous. And the way he started the interview was bombastic. He fails to mention that the balcony that the Israeli is sitting on was once the rightful property of the machine gunning Palestinian who is sitting across from him. It was inflammatory, not clever. Furthermore, compare this to his point about the Czech and Slovakia split. Long time rivals who were forced to live and govern together retreated to their original boundaries and called a truce. Tell me what original boundaries Israel is supposed to retreat to for the Palestinians to feel somewhat satisfied, like the Slovaks?

Back to Prospero... his quote was that Oz's interview "sums up his feelings." I'm guessing now he regrets the sloppiness of such shorthand. If not, perhaps he'll come back onto this thread and defend everything (the sum of what) Oz said. It's Prospero's call, on that.

It's interesting that you criticize Ben for posting links, and presumably buying into everything that Chomsky (another old man) and Greenwald believe. Very shorthand of Ben. And I agree with your critique. Isn't that the same that is occurring here with Prospero? (Although, admittedly on a much smaller scale.)

Arguing politics ain't beanbag. I'm guessing both Ben and Prospero can take it as they've both displayed intelligence and a sense of humor on this board.

[broncofan]

It's interesting that you criticize Ben for posting links, and presumably buying into everything that Chomsky (another old man) and Greenwald believe. Very shorthand of Ben. And I agree with your critique. Isn't that the same that is occurring here with Prospero? (Although, admittedly on a much smaller scale.)

.

But I don't know that the reason you gave is the reason Stavros got angry at Prospero. I thought he was accusing him of changing the subject by talking about other instances of violence (I understand both argument and counter-argument and am not taking sides).

I feel like I'm talking about two people in the third person who are actually in the room. The reason YOU were angry at him was for the Oz article. My critique of Ben was selective in the sense that if I agreed with his articles I would have not have said it here. But what I said, I've wanted to say for a while. But I think Prospero mixes articles with comments fairly well. I would like to hear more from Ben personally.

I agree with you about the start of the interview. I think he doesn't realize that many people understand the situation and don't need that kind of analogy to make it more visceral. I do remember now when I read first read the article, I could tell that beginning wouldn't fly.

[broncofan]

Long time rivals who were forced to live and govern together retreated to their original boundaries and called a truce.Tell me what original boundaries Israel is supposed to retreat to for the Palestinians to feel somewhat satisfied, like the Slovaks?

I'd have to go back to the article. I agree that's not a useful analogy. Edit: the concept of two nations governing together and having an equitable "divorce" as he put it does not sum up the situation in Israel and Palestine. Fair point.

[Prospero]

Yes I do believe that in some situations then defensive violence is necessary. I believe that opposing Hitler violently was necessary. I believe that taking violent action to halt a genocide such as that presently posed to the Yazidi people is necessary. Generally I prefer jaw jaw to war war.

I don't accept that not taking a totally Gandhian position on violence makes one an addict.

[Stavros]

Stavros my friend

lets leave the Gaza vs. Israel conflict for a short while , we will get back to this conflict later.

please give me your educated and inteligent answer to this question : why the slaughter of 170,000 poeple , many of them innocent children in Syria , many of them by chemical weapons , or the slaughtering of thousands in Iraq by the ISIS are totally ignored by the media?

The continuing war in Syria has been pushed off the front pages because of other events, in Ukraine, in Iraq -that is an editorial decision made by press and broadcasters, not by me.
I think it is a pity that you want to divert the attention away from the original intention of this thread, but I do also understand how weary people are of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am also disappointed that you have not confronted what to me has been the radical change in Israeli politics, because to some extent it is both a reflection of a growth in extremism in Israel and Palestine and a cause of it.
As I see it, the Zionism which created the Israel of Judah Magnes and Martin Buber, of Felicia Langer and even of Daniel Barenboim, has been eclipsed by a crude nationalism that casts everything in Israel in terms of 'life or death' thereby making negotiations on long term structural changes such as an end to West Bank settlements almost impossible. If every position that Israel takes is based on the claim that the long term aim of the Palestinians is to destroy Israel, it might help of Israel did not invite such murderous intentions by appearing to seek its own eradication of the Palestinians. Zionism always had a problem with the Arabs, the first Aliyot of committed Zionists in 1880 had to confront the reality that Palestine was not empty but that there were Arabs there, farming land, engaged in small-scale industry, and trade. Over time, some Zionists realised they had to reach an accommodation with the Arabs, others did not, and the same was true on the other side, but that is now over a hundred years of history and however weary people are of it, one has to live in hope that the next generation of politicians will think in more practical rather than ideological terms, not least because so far, the ideology has failed.

[Stavros]

As a more general reply to posts above by Prospero, Odelay and Broncofan, let me first wonder what the reaction would have been if Vladimir Putin had decided to bomb IS in Iraq -how many would 'applaud' the Russian 'humanitarian' effort, even as they seem reluctant to endorse Russia's campaign of support for the Ba'ath government of Syria?

As for Amos Oz, I should say that my own position as a pacifist is open to all sorts of ridicule and concern, I am aware of that, and I probably ought not to define other people's views in terms of my own or use inflammatory language, but it happens, many of us do not spend hours editing our posts. But look again at the Amos Oz interview and the paragraph that I partially quoted from, because I think it is important, and this passage in particular:

The only alternative to continuing the Israeli military operation is simply to follow Jesus Christ and turn the other cheek. I never agreed with Jesus Christ about the need to turn the other cheek to an enemy. Unlike European pacifists I never believed the ultimate evil in the world is war. In my view the ultimate evil in the world is aggression, and the only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force. That is where the difference lies between a European pacifist and an Israeli peacenik like myself. And if I may add a little anecdote: A relative of mine who survived the Nazi Holocaust in Theresienstadt always reminded her children and her grandchildren that her life was saved in 1945 not by peace demonstrators with placards and flowers but by Soviet soldiers and submachine guns.

My first reaction is to be disappointed with Oz's lack of knowledge of history -the armed forces of the USSR were focused on destroying the Third Reich, the liberation of the camps was incidental to the larger campaign. Moreover, and more pertinent still, Oz either doesn't know or chooses not to mention the fact that far from being ineffective, it was indeed German Christian pacifists across the Ruhr who saved thousands of Jews from being sent to the camps. They did not wave placards or throw roses at the SS, but they did put their lives in danger so it is very wrong of Oz to depict Christian pacifists as deluded when their record is superior to his (cf Martin Roseman, The Past in Hiding, 2000). He is also in a contradictory position by claiming to be a 'peacenik' whilst reserving the right -I assume he believes it is a right- to kill people.

If Oz is demonstrably wrong about Christian pacifism in Nazi Germany, and that was an extreme example, does it justify the recourse to violence in every case?

Look at this way -twice in fifty years a global war was fought to prevent Germany from dominating the international system, be it a system of Empires or states. Where is Germany now? Even more worrying is the thought that the ideology of national socialism, albeit in an edited form, has survived the war, and if there aren't enough Jews left in Europe to be worried about, the language some people use to vilify and abuse Muslims in Europe today is not so different from that which the Nazis used to demonise the Jews in the 1930s.

Japan failed in its attempt to create an Asian Empire in the 1930s and 1940s, it was destroyed by the USA in 1945 -which then invested substantial sums of money to re-build Japan which is now of the largest economies in the world and with China the strongest power in Asia. What was most effective? War, or peace?

Was it not because successive wars between Israel and the Arabs had failed, that Anwar el-Sadat went to Jerusalem in 1977 to talk peace with the Israelis?

In November 2001, Tony Blair told the House of Commons It is clear that support for the Taliban is evaporating. Although there may be pockets of resistance, the idea that this has been some kind of tactical retreat is just the latest Taliban lie. They are in total collapse; yet al-Qaeda still exists; the Taliban still exist as a crucial component of any peace that might come to Afganistan, 13 years after Blair's triumphalism.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq was demolished by the Surge in 2006-07, yet many of the Sunni factions who contributed to that 'victory' have now joined forces with IS.

The position that a pacifist takes is quite clear -and not just because at the end of wars the parties agree to negotiate the issues that were there before the war started, and because the campaign of death has failed. These conflicts have political causes, in recent times, the crisis of the Arab state has been fundamental because for decades the Arab states have been dictatorships which did not offer the people representative and accountable government, economic growth and social mobility. The discourse of politics in the Arab states has been so distorted over the years that the battle cry Islam is the Solution seems irresistible, even though in practice it appears few know what that means, or they look at Iran and wonder if that is the solution then maybe there isn't one at all, but every young person with a utopia to look forward to believes theirs will be different.

There is no law which says that every time politics fails, the must military step in. If anything, we are fighting fewer wars now than in the whole of recorded history. But what we do need are political leaders who deal with political problems without recourse to violence, it has not worked in Israel or Palestine, and it will not work in Iraq no matter how many Islamic eruptions and surges there are.

[yosi]

Stavros my friend

what is YOUR solution to this conflict?

before you answer please listen again someone who knows he truth about Hamas more than anyone else