Israel building the worlds largest prison

Post Reply New Topic

EU report notes huge increase in Jewish settler attacks

Throwing stones? Throw them in prison!

Dishonest? I think not. Israel has been quite unambiguous about her policy towards Gaza. Were the Palestinians to demonstrate an ability to successfully police their own people, I think you might well see a very different response from Israel. But so long as Hamas is free to act unrestrained, then Israel is going to continue to attend to her own security.

When you say, "mass injustice," you are being just as much a politician as you accuse me of being. You have imported your personal standard of justice and you have applied it uncritically to the circumstances of Gaza. There are many others who would assert that it is no injustice at all, but merely a proper response to the intifada. For my part, I think neither of you are right, and choose to take a more moderate point of view. If that's a politician's way, then that's a politician that I would vote for.



If Egypt has eased the blockade, then where's the problem? All the aid, money and weapons can move into Gaza through Sinai, and there is no need to run the Israeli blockade at all. The truth of the matter is far more subtle. Egypt has certainly taken a less rigid stance than before--their border was, after all, absolutely sealed, as opposed to Israel's. Now their border is somewhat less permeable that the Israeli-Gaza border. But the reality on the ground is that almost all aid is still coming to Gaza through Israel.

And why is that? Because although Egypt is happy to pay lip service to the notion of open access to Gaza, they are perfectly well aware that it is not in their interest to throw open the border. The Egyptian Army will continue to view Iran--and her puppet, Hamas--as a direct threat to their perceived leadership in the Arab world.



Both sides thunder. It's the public face of negotiation. Fatah thunders, so Israel thunders back. Both sides must, after all, maintain credibility among their populations. But behind the rhetoric that both sides issue for domestic and international consumption occurs the process of negotiation. If Israel and Fatah ever reach a handshake, you can be sure that the rhetoric will be dropped in favour of promoting the deal.



Israel is at fault for theft by Hamas from their own people? You have descended from the sublime to the ridiculous.



Is is realpolitik, which has been at the heart of diplomacy since the dawn of international relations. Be idealistic if you must, but do not make the mistake of expecting the world to conform to your idealism. Politics (and by extension diplomacy) is the art of the possible. Notions of justice, fairness, right and wrong are essentially meaningless. What is meaningful is that which is practical and practicable.

Think about how much money Israel must spend on maintaining her borders with Palestine. How much easier would that be if a substantial part of the burden could be downloaded onto the Palestinians? How much pressure on the Israeli economy would be relieved by making Palestine responsible for her own economy, currency, banking system and international trade? A durable two-state solution is in Israel's interest.

But the rubber hits the road with the adjective: durable. Were Palestine cut loose today with her 1967 borders, she would be a failed a state--and that serves no one, least of all her people.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with ideals. No idealistic disagreement could last this long, for it could never generate the ongoing passion that proponents bring to the conflict. The conflict has to do with power, pure and simple: the economic power of land and the political power of sovereignty. It has to do with tribalism and the unwillingness of either side to live together in a pluralist state.

You are passionate, but you have allowed your idealism to cloud any realistic assessment of the circumstances on the ground and the possibility of a sustainable solution. You spend all of your time trying to score debating points, but never once do you turn your attention to the strategic interests of Israel and of Palestine. No lasting peace will ever be achieved unless it responds to both sets of strategic interests.

Balfour idealistic? That's laughable. Balfour was an inherently political document that had its genesis as much in domestic British politics as it did in the circumstances in the Mandate. No, I am certainly not living in the past. If I was, I would be living in the world of the Six Day War, and insisting that Palestinians already have a homeland: it's called Jordan. Clearly that option is long past, the Jordanians saw to it when they refused to take in the Palestinians after Black September. No, I insist on living in the present, and looking for solutions. Meanwhile, yes, I am cynical. It comes part and parcel with political analysis and strategic thinking. It is all very well to blame Israel. It's a comforting notion to support the underdog, and those of us who are or have been marginalized in our societies are particularly susceptible to the temptation. For my part, I have never denied that Israel is the author of much of the misfortune that she currently faces. But that does not mean that ever decision that she has taken is wrong. I do not exclude the possibility that Israeli policy is misguided, and that she might better achieve her strategic goals through other means. But to describe her as dishonest is to throw reason out the window and rely on nothing other than invective.

Right and wrong most certainly are subjective. Anyone who believes in absolute standards of morality is living in a dreamworld. Incidentally, I find your use of the word, "crusade," delightfully ironic. Notwithstanding your protestations, I see no flip flop in Israel’s policy towards Gaza. Israel has not reassumed de facto sovereignty. She continues to recognize Gaza as Palestinian. In the meantime, she continues to take the steps that she considers necessary to meet her legitimate security interests. No nation can reasonably be expected to tolerate rocket attacks from outside its own borders. The first expectation is that the country from whom the attacks are coming will police her citizens activities, but when that fails, military response becomes necessary.

So, let's be clear, I have made no comparison between rocket attacks (or rock throwing) from Gaza and Jewish military action into Gaza. The one is relied on as justification for the other. Is the response proportionate? Of course it's not. But since when has the use of military power ever been proportionate? Israel could either respond or not. The latter is not an option—the Israeli government is answerable to the Israeli electorate, and a failure to respond would have led to the collapse of the government in short order. So, with response the only option available, it was always going to be disproportionate—and Hamas knew this. Hamas were perfectly well aware that rocket attacks from Gaza would provoke an Israeli response—they were counting on it, because that has been the basis for their very effective PR campaign since.

If Palestinians want a livelihood, they need look no farther than Ramallah to see the fruits of a good faith attempt at peaceful coexistence. That's not to say that life on the West Bank is perfect--I am firmly of the view that Israel should abandon her settlements--and the US and Saudi Arabia should be footing the bill for handing over that infrastructure to Palestine. But the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank is the closest thing in the Arab world to a democracy (with the possible exception of Lebanon). Neither comes close to the democratic institutions in Israel, but they are still a damn sight more advanced than any of the rest, and the relative prosperity shows the benefit of that.

Meanwhile, on the other border, Egypt views herself, rightly or wrongly, as the leading nation in the Arab world. She certainly has far and away the largest population, but she is significantly eclipsed when it comes to economic clout. The Egyptian Army is a significant proponent of Egyptian nationalism and they need no encouragement from the United States on that front. Giving Iran (who are not, let's remember, Arabs) a toehold on the Mediterranean would significantly destabilize the military situation in the region--particularly after the Western withdrawal from Iraq.

Assigning blame is a fool's game--all it does is alienate the person blamed and act as an impediment to finding a way forward. The only solution is a two state solution. And one or the other of the states is going to be faced with a corridor between two divided halves. So instead of allowing Hamas to reap the rewards of using hospitals and schools as staging grounds for rocket attacks, and stealing humanitarian aid intended for their own people, let's instead insist upon the rewards of negotiated peace.

A meaningful effort on the part of Hamas to control the population of Gaza would go a long way to removing Israel's justification for continued aggression (and I concede unreservedly that Israel is being aggressive). But so far, we see no sign of that. Until we do, Palestinian sovereignty is significantly impeded.