Learning From Belfast

An excellent post from Tony Karon on recent seeming successes in Northern Ireland and the implications for the Israel-Palestine conflict:

The original Good Friday agreement ten years ago was brokered by very different parties to the ones who have now joined a unity government. On the Catholic side, it was the SDLP of John Hume who was the dominant voice at the table, while the Ulster Unionists of David Trimble represented Protestant loyalists. But the electorate eventually rejected those parties, and each community chose more uncompromising parties — the Sinn Fein on the nationalist side and the Democratic Unionists on the loyalist side — to represent them at the table.

The government of Tony Blair did not flinch or give up hope, it pressed on, pushing the chosen representatives of both communities into a process that led to agreement. And the agreement may be far stronger than its predecessor, in that it was brokered by hard men on both sides and that has left no significant rejectionist constituency on either side.

This is what makes the search for "moderate Arabs" generally and moderate Palestianians in particular so inane. If, by "moderate," we mean something like "eschews violence" or "accepts the basic legitimacy of Israel" or both, then, obviously, those aren't the people you need to strike a deal with. As Yitzhak Rabin put it, "one does not make peace with one's friends, one makes peace with one's enemies." This was also what made Ariel Sharon's term in office and the breaks -- minor as some of them were -- he made with the Israeli far-right so significant. Peace doesn't need to be made by the very most extreme elements on both sides, but you can't exclude any faction that has a non-trivial following simply on the grounds that that faction's leadership isn't moderate. It's easy, after all, to broker a deal between moderates. The trick is to moderate the views of influential non-moderates.

Comments

Excellent. The moderates are exactly the wrong party with whom to negotiate. Whatever is agreed oncannot be enforced. In thecase of Palestine-Israel it is precisely Hamas who has the power to enforce the security component of an agreement; can they be dealt with?; very difficult to determine without negotiation; but any agreement to which they are not a major party will fail.

Posted by della Rovere | May 11, 2007 2:01 PM

This is also part of the reason that the 1980's attempts at peace in Sri Lanka and the subsequent Indian occupation failed. The Buddhist-dominated government made peace with more moderate Tamil groups, but failed to make peace with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers), the most radical and powerful of all the Tamil groups. Instead, fighting continues in Jaffna and other places to this day.

Posted by Reality Man | May 11, 2007 2:02 PM

Exactly right. Peace will only come if Hamas agrees to it. This is why I think that the election of Hamas was actually quite a good thing. We cannot get peace until Hamas is at the bargaining table, and now there is an opportunity to pressure them to do so. Let's not blow the opportunity by giving up all our pressure on Hamas.

Posted by al | May 11, 2007 2:10 PM

Spot on. OTOH, I do think that the search for moderates in Palestine is hypocritical. Israeli policies in a lot of ways are calculated to strengthen the Palestinian extremists so as to reject them as not suitable partners for negotiations and keep on establishing fait accomplis.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 11, 2007 2:11 PM

I acknowledge the need to have "As Yitzhak Rabin put it..." in this sort of claim, but its not clear that Rabin's actual policy was any different from Nick Kaufman's summary above.

Posted by otto | May 11, 2007 2:19 PM

Matt,
A deal between the DUP and Sinn Fein was only possible when Sinn Fein conceeded everything (decommissioning of its weapons and acceptance of the police force) that had been at the heart of the reason the DUP defeated the UUP. SF did this for a variety of reasons but most relate to unbearable external pressure from its traditional support base in the United States (afer 9/11 and even more important after the McCartney sisters campaign in Spring of 2005). Once this happened the DUP could claim vindication. What did SF get? They realized that in practice they could not pursue the armelite in one hand and the ballot box in the other, that the DUP were absolutely inflexible, and that if they were to achieve their long held ambition they would have to sacrifice the illusory benefits of being an army for the tangible benefits of power sharing. The lesson, if there is one, for the Middle East is for Israel to recognize whatever Palestinian government emerges but to insist that it adheres to its core conditions. By Northern Ireland standards, the more inflexible Israel is the more chance there is that hamas will see sense.

Posted by pt | May 11, 2007 2:20 PM

Matt, There is clearly something to this point. But you seem to be rejecting or ignoring the idea that there is a competing point, both practically and morally. There are some people towards whom the appropriate response really is to fight them rather than to make a deal with them. It is sensible to take the position that this is the case less often than many people think, and it is definitely sensible to take the position that one should be skeptical of the "evil must be fought" line because it is so beloved by warmongers whose goal have nothing at all to do with fighting evil. But that's no reason to reject it altogether.

Posted by David J. Balan | May 11, 2007 2:21 PM

It depends on your goal. If your goal is peace between Israel and the Palestinians and normal relations throughout the region, a deal needs to be made that satisfies the real interests of both sides, regardless of who signs it. If your goal is to placate EU business partners for a few more years, any recognizable Palestinian signature might be good enough.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 11, 2007 2:25 PM

David - it's always tempting to think that way. But there is enough hope that a sufficient number of Israelis are not completely addicted to settlement building and the ethnic cleansing of Arabs that a deal is possible, if enough pressure is persistently applied.

Posted by otto | May 11, 2007 2:30 PM

I agree with what you're getting at, MY. The problem is what, shall we call them, the reasonable extremists -- and I'd, pace all but about 3 other people in the synagogue I attend, would include Hamas here -- want and what risks are involved should such reasonable extremists come to power.

The thing which differentiates the Israeli/Palestinian situation from Northern Ireland or from Apartheid South Africa is what the reasonable extremists want. The reasonable extremists on the Catholic side in Northern Ireland wanted unification with Ireland or at least some increased form of home rule. And what kind of risk is involved to your work-a-day Prod. if those things come to pass. Indeed, I'd reckon a conservative Protestant would be happier in the Irish Republic than a socialist canting IRAer ... and some in SF will indeed admit as much.

Similarly, what did the Protestant Unionists who wanted Northern Ireland to stay British want? What did the reasonable extremists in the ANC want in South Africa? Anything that was too much of a risk for a moderate on the other side?

OTOH, the reasonable extremists on the Palestinian side have good reason to want a one-state solution that would really cause problems for Jews in Israel (and Jews world-wide: yesterday they blocked Sharon from visiting the Temple Mount ... will tomorrow Muslim fundamentalists decide we liberal Jews who follow practices to which conservative Muslims are averse, shouldn't visit the Temple Mount? and what of the, historically proven necessary, Jewish right of return?).

As Nick Kaufman points out it's hypocritical for Israel to say "we'll only negotiate with moderates" and then do things which hurt moderates. It's even confirming the worst stereotypes of Jewish slipperiness for Israel to say they'll wait to make any progress until they get moderates on the other side (even if Israel stopped discouraging moderates).

Yet, it is a problem for Israel that the reasonable extremists on the Palestinian side advocate a position which makes it risky for moderate Israelis to want to engage with them. Similarly, it is a problem that reasonable extremists on the Israeli side advocate quite reasonable positions that are in fact huge risks for moderate Palestinians.

As liberals, we must agree, see e.g. Rawls, that a change which brings disadvantaged X to the same level as advantaged Y, without severly impacting Y's quality of life, that change is just. However, if Y and X were simply to have their places changed in the scale of advantage, that's hardly just, nu?

In Northern Ireland, in South Africa, etc., even the positions of reasonable extremists (SF and ANC) in disadvantaged populations did not represent, at least in theory, a mere switching of privilage with the advantaged population, but rather had much more win for the disadvantaged group than a loss for the advantaged group. To an extent, Rawls, I would imagine would find the positions, at least as they were theoretically, of SF and the ANC to be just. However, no such claim of justice, IMHO, can be made about the positions of the reasonable extremists of Hamas.

And that difference in justice is a very important differentce, isn't it?

Posted by DAS | May 11, 2007 3:04 PM

Otto- One of the most interesting things to me about Ariel Sharon was his decision to shift his position on settlements. It would have really been interesting to see what might have happened if his health had not failed him and he had continued down that path and successfully reversed the settlement situation in Israel. I don't know if he could have done that, but then we could have gotten a chance to see if peace was a possibility. Its the one issue that is a real problem for the Palestinians where the Israeli position makes no sense from a non-religious point of view.

Posted by mpowell | May 11, 2007 3:05 PM

I don't think this set of developments makes for good generalizations. True, if you want a real peace, you need the most radical factions of appreciable size to buy into any deal, but that is not all all that happened here.

The election to leadership positions of polar opposite radicals would normally be a sign that the population was ready to start a civil war. That was clearly not the case. The Irish situation was very odd. The leaders were elected specifically so that the most radical elements would be representitives in peace talks that were ardently desired by both sides. That just isn't going to be the usual situation. Moderates on both sides made peace, rather than victory, a winning issue. The radicals then won election, not by promising victory, but by claiming the best capacity to make a good peace.

Posted by Njorl | May 11, 2007 3:11 PM

worst stereotypes of Jewish slipperiness

Views of Israel have nothing to do with antisemitism.

Posted by David | May 11, 2007 3:33 PM

Views of Israel have nothing to do with antisemitism. - David

I dunno ... it can't be good for perceptions of Jews when neo-cons and Likudniks act in a manner that validates anti-Semitic stereotypes. I understand the psychology of what's going on: one way to not be a victim of false stereotypes is to make those stereotypes true -- if people are going to hate you for being a slippery-too-clever-by-a-half sort simply because of your ancestor's refusal to accept the government sanctioned theology of the time and place, its far more empowering if you can make that hate a matter of your control by actually being slippery-too-clever-by-a-half and then daring people to continue to hate you for your religion.

So, there is some relation between these stereotypes being out there and the behavior of some Israelis.

Anyway, though, the point which I was making was that, due to confirmation bias, when Israel acts in a slippery manner, it gets noted far more than when other nations do the same thing. There is a double standard with regards to Israel's actions. Not all of it is anti-Semitism, and some of it is quite fair (we expect more of self-styled democracies than we do of dictatorships) and some of it is actually based on prejudice against other groups (we expect more of them Jews than them [fill in the blank here]) ... but there is a double standard, and some of it does relate to anti-Semitism.

At the very least: why do people care about what Israel's doing so much vs. what other countries (even ones the US gives money to) do?

Posted by DAS | May 11, 2007 3:56 PM

Ireland is an island, and the south wants nothing to do with the north.

The Muslim/Arab-Jewish conflict is a hundred times more complicated in military,geopolitical, and historical terms.

Posted by Ron | May 11, 2007 4:00 PM

My position on this, and granted, it's a minority one is that the reason Ireland's troubles ended is because they joined the EU, and so you should do the same in the Middle East.

The Celtic tiger started roaring, and molotov cocktail stocks went down.

I am probably the only person arguing that the way you end the Israel-Palestine conflict is to bring Palestine and Israel into the EU.

But that's my prescription, and I'm sticking with it.

Posted by anonymous | May 11, 2007 4:34 PM

Well said.

The 1922 Anglo-Irish peace agreement, for example, was worked out between the IRA's military commander, Michael Collins, and PM David Lloyd George, who had recently won the Great War. Hard men both.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 11, 2007 4:35 PM

I am probably the only person arguing that the way you end the Israel-Palestine conflict is to bring Palestine and Israel into the EU.

Yeah, I'm sure the Jews would be much happier once they're under the sheltering umbrella of Europe once again!

The reason you're the only person making this argument is that it's the precise opposite of the reason the Jewish state was formed in the first place. You might as well say the solution to the IP conflict is to get rid of Israel.

Posted by Steve | May 11, 2007 5:06 PM

What's missing from this analysis, though, is that essentially the same deal was on the table back in 1974, with the Sunningdale agreement. And one of the primary people who torpedoed that agreement was Ian Paisley. The [Provisional] IRA also opposed Sunningdale.

"SF did this for a variety of reasons but most relate to unbearable external pressure from its traditional support base in the United States (afer 9/11 and even more important after the McCartney sisters campaign in Spring of 2005)."

This is missing the key turning point by at least a decade. Most of the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership had realised in the early to mid-1990s, that a continued military campaign would just lead to stalemate. The propaganda momentum of Thatcher's mishandling of the Hunger Strikes gave the fabled Ahhhrmed Strugggle an extra decade of life (and propelled the Shinners to become the primary Nationalist party), but Adams and McGuinness and others knew the gig was up by the early 1990s. It's just taken this long for them to bring enough of the rest of their side with them.

But the biggest factor behind the momentum behnd peace is the eye-popping change in the economy in Northern Ireland, for various reasons: the ceasefire leading to more private investment by English and Southern Irish companies. Unemployment dropping from the mid-teens to ~4% (and it's probably even lower given the substantial grey economy in Northern Ireland).

I shit you not, the nicer parts of Belfast are as expensive as the San Francisco Bay Area. A four-bedroom in the Lisburn Road in Belfast will run you $2 million. A decade of prosperity post-Good Friday Agreement has meant that nobody, nobody except a diehard 2-4% on each side wants to vote for those who want be the peace process to come to an end. So there's lots of kabuki theater around Taig X digging their heels in, then coming round in a high level meeting, followed by Prod Y doing the same. Two steps forward, one step back. Also, the Real IRA's atrocity and screw-up in Omagh, in retrospect, pretty much killed the prospect of Republican splinter groups opposed to the peace process having any operational capability.

On the political front, you had a much more united front between the Irish and British governments than in the 1970s, and you had serious backing from the Clinton administration. There would be no Good Friday agreement without Mitchell, or indeed without Clinton's call to David Trimble to clinch the deal when it was on the verge of collapsing. A lot of people took risks, Mo Mowlam and Blair not the least of them.

"The Muslim/Arab-Jewish conflict is a hundred times more complicated in military,geopolitical, and historical terms."

Frankly, no. Depending on how you measure it, Irish-British conflict goes back 300 years, or 800 years if you want to go back to the Norman invasion. Its *severity*, in the last few decades, is less, because the British security forces were able to keep things at a Socially Acceptable Rate of Murder, but its complexity (in terms of having the Unionist population having a British identity but whose interests are distinct from the mainland British) and is and was higher. Just ask Winston Churchill or Michael Collins. (Incidentally, David Ben-Gurion called his submachine gun after Collins)

The Arab-Jewish conflict goes, ohhh, back to the Balfour Declaration if you want to be generous, and is essentially bilateral, not trilateral. Thinking it was more than bilateral was the delusion that Nasser led the Palestinians on, and for which they're still paying. That, and that Adams and McGuinness [and Paisley and Trimble], knew when to cut a deal.

Posted by Dale Sunning and Anne Foblack | May 11, 2007 5:06 PM

its far more empowering if you can make that hate a matter of your control by actually being slippery-too-clever-by-a-half and then daring people to continue to hate you for your religion.

I was being re-educated once about resolution 247 and how it didn't really mean what it rather plainly said it meant and once you looked at the commas and such at just the right angle...

and the word for the way it was being parsed kept coming up "talmudic". I sat around trying to come up with a synonym and there isn't one in english that works as well. In the end I just didn't say anything.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 5:09 PM

...you need to strike a deal with...

What deal, why not just insist on complying with resolutions 242 and 194? Or else just go back to the deal - the original 1947 partition.

I don't understand the logic here, behind this mystical deal.

Posted by abb1 | May 11, 2007 5:13 PM

There is a double standard with regards to Israel's actions.
Posted by DAS

Yes, it's frequently referred to as the "special relationship". Israel enjoys extraordinary support and protection from the American government, including dozens of UN Security Council vetoes. And then apologists for the occupation complain that Israel has been "singled out" for criticism.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 11, 2007 5:14 PM

"Or else just go back to the deal - the original 1947 partition."

The Palestinians should have taken that deal when it was on the table sixty years ago -- and the Jews agreed to it. No chance in hell they'll ever get anything like that now.

Posted by Juan | May 11, 2007 5:44 PM

The Palestinians should have taken that deal when it was on the table sixty years ago

The reason they didn't take it was because it was all the Palestinians shit the Great Powers were dividing up. What's so hard to grok about this?

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 5:47 PM

Considering some of the Palestinians choices over the last 7 decades or so, including...

1) Siding with the Nazis in World War II

2) Siding with the Soviets during the Cold War

3) Siding with Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War

4) Siding with the Soviet coup-plotters during the abortive coup against Michael Gorbachev

5) Siding with Osama bin Laden during 9/11...

Why should I care about their grievances, as opposed to those of, say, the Basques or Tibetans?

Posted by Heather | May 11, 2007 5:50 PM

Yes, it's frequently referred to as the "special relationship". Israel enjoys extraordinary support and protection from the American government, including dozens of UN Security Council vetoes. And then apologists for the occupation complain that Israel has been "singled out" for criticism. - Gary Sugar

Ummm ... but those resolutions that get vetoed by the US wouldn't even get written if it were any country besides Israel. Any other country as under siege as Israel has been would have been allowed to just seize those territories and kick out the inhabitants (were the 1947 borders really defensible?).

IMHO, what happens is a rather a viscious cycle. Israel gets singled out for a bit of criticism, perhaps a bit unfairly. The US steps up to Israel's aid, highlighting the special relationship. And then people use Israel as a whipping boy against the US.

This is why I am not so convinced the special relationship is really such a good deal for Israel ... I could go on, but it would be OT ...

Posted by DAS | May 11, 2007 5:53 PM

Well, there are counterexamples. We made peace with Gorby, not Brezhnev. The Russian hardliners weren't the ones who removed the wall and freed the Soviet client states. The Israeli-Egypt peace was negotiated by Carter, a moderate, not Bush, a hardliner. Bush didn't reverse what Carter had done, but he would never have done it himself.

Rather than "peace is made with hardliners, not moderates", I would say "peace is made with leaders who have legitimacy in the eyes of the people". If you have a legitimate leader who's moderate, that still can work.

In the long-term of course a peace has to be ratified with a hardliner who comes to power and decides not to re-initiate hostilities, but that's true of Social Security or universal health care or peace or any big change in the status quo.

Now it's true that the other side usually can't determine who's legitimate and who's not, unless there's a very big power disparity. If you're Israel, you can't pick and choose who the legitimate Palestinian leaders are, and you can't artificially prop up moderate Palestinians if they've lost the election. But what counts in who you deal with is legitimacy, whether hardliner or not.

There are different dynamics in dealing with a legitimate hardliner versus a legitimate moderate, but that doesn't mean dealing with a hardliner is preferable to dealing with a moderate.

Posted by roublen | May 11, 2007 5:57 PM

1) Siding with the Nazis in World War II

2) Siding with the Soviets during the Cold War

3) Siding with Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War

4) Siding with the Soviet coup-plotters during the abortive coup against Michael Gorbachev

5) Siding with Osama bin Laden during 9/11...

You have to be using an incredibly loose definition of "Palestinians" but you could make the exact same case for "Israelis" on every single count.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 5:58 PM

Ed Marshall:

"The reason they didn't take it was because it was all the Palestinians shit the Great Powers were dividing up."

Nonsense. Until Palestinians and their advocates start being honest about their history, they will keep making historic mistakes.

Two historic facts to wrap your minds around to start with:

1) There was no Palestinian national consciousness in 1947 -- Palestinians didn't consider themselves a separate people from other Arabs at the time (they would have been insulted by the term "Palestinian", which denoted "Jew" at the time), and deferred to pan-Arab judgment in rejecting the UN Plan of 1947. Palestinians didn't start to consider themselves a distinct people until they were herded into refugee camps by other Arab countries, instead of being assimilated, after 1948.

2) The reason the Arabs rejected the 1947 plan was because they thought they could get a better deal (i.e., all of the land) through force. They chose war over a deal and they lost.

Posted by Juan | May 11, 2007 6:02 PM

I don't care what they called themselves, they lived there, fished, worked on orchards and didn't feel like moving out to the desert. Jewish immigrants had bought a tiny fraction of land in the mandate under the conver of British guns. The only way the Jewish Israeli's were going to get anything (which didn't belong to them in any sort of sense) was "through force" and that's what they did.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 6:09 PM

"You have to be using an incredibly loose definition of "Palestinians"

How's this for incredibly loose?

For siding with the Nazis, I'm referring to the Palestinian Muslim's spiritual leader (and uncle of Yassir Arafat, by the way) Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husayni

For siding with the Soviets, the Soviet Coup Plotters, and Saddam Hussein, I'm referring to the PLO.

For siding with Osama bin Laden on 9/11, I'm referring to the spontaneous celebrations like this one that erupted in the Palestinian territories on 9/11 (Yassir Arafat did express condolences and donate some of his probably AIDS-infected blood to 9/11 victims though).

Posted by Heather | May 11, 2007 6:13 PM

Re Ed Marshall

The only way the European settlers in North and South America were going to get that which didn't belong to them was by force and that's what they did.

Posted by SLC | May 11, 2007 6:18 PM

Yeah, you genocide the inhabitants. I know you have no problem with that and the fate of a block of desert in the Levant is well worth murdering every last dissenter for whatever reason, but I think sane people in the year 2007 might think differently.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 6:27 PM

Considering some of the choices Israel has made over the last 7 decades or so, including

A) attacking US forces
B) continually spying on the US
C) harboring fugitives including murderers from justice.

Why should I care about Israel ....

I like Heather's game but prefer letters to numbers.

Posted by Israel 2.0 - now with even more territory | May 11, 2007 6:34 PM

Peace doesn't need to be made by the very most extreme elements on both sides, but you can't exclude any faction that has a non-trivial following simply on the grounds that that faction's leadership isn't moderate.

It also needs to be noted that in NI, the idea of voting for SF and the DUP became more palatable among their respective communities as the ceasefire sustained itself.

But the biggest factor behind the momentum behnd peace is the eye-popping change in the economy in Northern Ireland, for various reasons

Indeed, given that it was up around 25% in the worst Thatcher days. One of the biggest catalysts for involvement in paramilitary activity was that there was fuck-all for young men to do in the council estates.

The biggest stumbling block to a local settlement seemed, at least from this outsider's perspective, that direct rule wasn't considered that bad among many in NI who saw the new prosperity and no longer felt that a career or a future lay across the border or the Irish Sea -- as long as they can afford to live there. And Blair, in a move more characteristic of his time in office, decided rightly that an incomplete settlement with momentum could create a space for people to grow accustomed to peace.

(Anyone got numbers on right-to-buy takeup in the Falls and Shankhill? I'd be interested to know.)

Oh, and Heather? I think you're better off sticking with LGF. You're stinking the place up.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 11, 2007 6:36 PM

Heather,

Look up Yitzhak Shamir's WWII record sometime.

http://www.answers.com/topic/yitzhak-shamir

Posted by Bill | May 11, 2007 6:38 PM

Doubt anyone here actually read resolution 242.

Israel is in full compliance with it.

Posted by Ron | May 11, 2007 7:14 PM

Re Ed Marshall

Native Americans only wish that they had been treated as well by European settlers as the Palestinians have been treated by the Jewish settlers.

Re otto

Yessir, let's put the pressure on the Government of Israel to negotiate with Sheik Ahmad Bahr, a man one can surly do business with. Just because he wants to murder Jews and Americans is no reason to not negotiate with him. By that standard, the US and Britain should have negotiated with Hitler, rather then fight WW2.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/11295.htm

Posted by SLC | May 11, 2007 7:20 PM

Israel is in full compliance with it.

See my comment upthread, I'm sure he could give you the rundown on this, it's entertaining.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 7:24 PM

If Gaza is any guide to what the Palestinians will accomplish when they get their own state, what's the point? The Palestinians could be trying to turn it into an economic powerhouse, by ceasing militant activity from Gaza, soliciting help from Arabs successful at building commercial hubs like the sheiks in Dubai, etc. Instead, it's been more of the same nihilism and pointless aggression.

What was the point of tunneling into Israeli territory and kidnapping a soldier? Or continuing to launch rockets at Israel from Gaza? After Israel already gave them back the land? It's utterly pointless and self-defeating. It seems the only reason is to draw Israel back into combat in Gaza, so the Palestinian leaders don't have to get on with the tedious and hard business of building a civil society there.

Posted by Juan | May 11, 2007 7:44 PM

Juan,

The kidnapping of the Israeli soldier followed a two-week Israeli killing spree in Gaza.

Posted by Bill | May 11, 2007 8:48 PM

Re Bill

Apparently, Mr. Bill thinks that the State of Israel should just sit back and take it on the chin when the Palestinian terrorists fire Kassems across the border. I wonder what the reaction of the US Government would be if terrorists in Mexico started firing rockets across the border into US territory? Somehow I think that our reaction would not be as timid as the Israeli reaction has been.

Posted by SLC | May 11, 2007 9:04 PM

Sidestepping the tedious question of retalliation vs. aggression (no one on the planet ever admitted to agression, there is always something to be avenged), the point would be that the population of Gaza near to a man has relatives in refugee camps, their family wasn't born there, "gave back the land" or not it's still an open air prison. If you have some realistic plan that under any circumstances would make the Gaza strip anywhere you would want to live much less an economic powerhouse you should submit the plan.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 11, 2007 9:13 PM

"If you have some realistic plan that under any circumstances would make the Gaza strip anywhere you would want to live much less an economic powerhouse you should submit the plan."

How's this for a plan:

1) Cease all rocket firing from Gaza, as well as any other hostile actions from that territory. Israel has ceded this territory to you, and it can be entirely peaceful if you want it to be.

2) Establish order and rule of law among your own people.

3) No need to reinvent the wheel -- copy what other small, resource-less territories have done to become economically successful. See, for example, Singapore and Hong Kong.

4) Use some of the hundreds of millions of EU money to hire competent civil administrators from Singapore or Hong Kong or Dubai to get Gaza on track.

5) If you build it, they will come: If Gazans made their territory an orderly, peaceful one, where rule of law and property rights were respected, what affluent Arabs wouldn't want to demonstrate solidarity by investing there? What of millions of sympathetic Europeans? Why not build some luxury beach front condo towers for Saudis looking for a weekend home on the Med?

6) Instead of insisting on Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, why not announce that it will be Gaza City? Palestinians own Gaza City now! Every country in Europe would be happy to establish a consulate there, and an embassy district could spur economic activity (restaurants, etc. to cater to the diplomats).

Posted by Juan | May 12, 2007 1:14 AM

Juan forgot

7) Issue war crimes indictments against the 200,000 people Israel settled in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Indeed, Juan casually, or is that callously, omitted any responsibility on Israel to do anything whatsoever to resolve a situation that it, as the legally-recognized occupying power, must bear the brunt of the responsibility for. Then again, I don't think Juan really wants a solution - at least not until Greater Israel is a reality. The Israelis treat the Palestinians today like the English treated the Irish 500 years ago - and we all know how well that worked out.

Posted by ndm | May 12, 2007 1:22 AM

"Indeed, Juan casually, or is that callously, omitted any responsibility on Israel to do anything whatsoever to resolve a situation that it, as the legally-recognized occupying power"

Since the last internationally recognized sovereign authority ("High Contracting Party", in Geneva Conventions parlance) in the West Bank and Gaza was Great Britain (under its League of Nations Palestine Mandate), and since Israel didn't acquire either territory from Britain, but in a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, it has never been the "occupying power" in either territory.

Posted by Hans | May 12, 2007 2:24 AM

"Juan forgot

7) Issue war crimes indictments against the 200,000 people Israel settled in the Occupied Palestinian Territories."

That's a brilliant idea, and should prove as beneficial to the Palestinian economy as everything else they've done to nurture a culture of grievance.

That would be as useful as Israel putting its energy into suing Iraq, Yemen, Egypt and other Arab countries for the property they confiscated from the hundreds of thousands of Jews they expelled decades ago. Fortunately, for Israel, the put their energies into creating a high-tech first world economy instead.

Posted by Juan | May 12, 2007 2:31 AM

Hans claims:

Since the last internationally recognized sovereign authority ("High Contracting Party", in Geneva Conventions parlance) in the West Bank and Gaza was Great Britain (under its League of Nations Palestine Mandate), and since Israel didn't acquire either territory from Britain, but in a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, it has never been the "occupying power" in either territory.

This is not true.

The Internation Court of Justice has equivalent status at the UN to the Security Council. In an advisory opinion on the legality of the so-called security wall the International Court wrote:

78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter "the Hague Regulations of 1907"), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the airthority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the iterritory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.

We therefore have the choice of believing Hans or the International Court of Justice. Frankly, that is not much of a choice.

Posted by ndm | May 12, 2007 3:20 AM

Only a totalitarian state can totally end all chance of its inhabitants carrying out terrorist attacks against others. We couldn't even stop Timothy McVeigh from attacking fellow Americans. When you operate under a framework in which any wacko with a bomb pack can derail a peace process, that peace process is either based on a false sense of reality or those controlling it - the most powerful party - aren't being serious (unless they're total idiots). In South Africa, there was ground-level fighting among followers of the ANC, Inkatha and the National Party, yet the elites recognized that total control of every individual involved was impossible, so they plugged along while cultivating relationships to create a sense of acting in good faith. If a Hamas (an organization once supported by Israel to divide the Palestinian people in different political directions a la the British Empire) attack can derail negotiations between PLO/Fatah forces when the latter control the government, one has to ask if the Israeli government is either 1) operating under an unrealistic worldview or 2) looking for a reason for the negotiations to fail. I hope it's 2. Part of the whole reason for Israel's policy of targeted killings against Hamas leaders is to scare them and force them to the negotiation table (which has worked), yet once they have Hamas there the Israeli government seems to lose interest. One must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Posted by Reality Man | May 12, 2007 4:18 AM

Speaking of Tim McVeigh...

Posted by Fred | May 12, 2007 4:35 AM

Apparently, SLC thinks that some Palestinians shooting rockets justifies Israel killing any Palestinians it feels like.

Posted by William Burns | May 12, 2007 9:14 AM

Apparently, SLC thinks that some Palestinians shooting rockets justifies Israel killing any Palestinians it feels like.

Posted by Bill | May 12, 2007 9:14 AM

Re William Burns & Bill

I know this is rather tiresome, and the Israel bashers like Mr. Marshall, Mr. otto, and Mr. Reality Man will sigh in utter boredom, but Mr. Burns and Mr. Bill should consider what would have happened if the late Syrian Dictator, Hafaz Assad were the Prime Minister of Israel. I can guarantee that Mr. Assad would not have been satisfied with targeted killings of known terrorists, as evidenced by his actions in the City of Hama, Syria in 1982 when terrorists from that place were planting bombs all over Syria. The fact is that the Israeli actions are incredibly timid in comparison to the actions which all Arab regimes would have taken under the same circumstances.

Posted by SLC | May 12, 2007 9:27 AM

A more descriptive name for targetted killings is extra-judical execution. Here is a brief description of its effect from the 2001 Amnesty International Annual Report:

The Israeli authorities responded to the intifada and the killing of Israeli civilians by firing on Palestinians at demonstrations, checkpoints and borders, and by shelling residential areas. The Israel Defence Force openly carried out a policy of extrajudicially executing Palestinians said to be involved in attacks; more than 40 Palestinians were assassinated in incidents in which more than 20 bystanders were killed. No killing in the Occupied Territories was properly investigated and claims and counter-claims reverberated.

For every two Palestinians murdered in extra-judicial executions another wholly innocent Palestinian is murdered in cold blood. Imagine the outrage were Israel to hold a trial, find two Palestinians summarily guilty, execute them in the dock - and immediately shoot dead a random Palestinian in the street. Yet that is precisely what Israel does when it performs extra-judicial execution.

Britain went the extra-judicial route in Northern Ireland in the 1970s by performing actions that have haunted the peace process ever since. Israel performs these illegal actions on a far larger scale than Britain ever did - indeed, they are so widespread as to make Israel the leading sponsor of international terrorism in the world today. Because terrorism is precisely what it is - the wanton murder of 17 people lying asleep in their house, the wanton murder of a family picknicking on the beach, the wanton murder of a passer by to an extra-judicial execution.

Posted by ndm | May 12, 2007 12:19 PM

I think the overall point, that you can only negotiate peace with your enemies, is good. I also think there is little in common between Northern Ireland and Israel.

One of the stranger things about Northern Ireland, to me, is that the Protestants would do quite well in a united Ireland. The Irish republic went out of its way to protect the rights of the few remaining Protestants in the south. The Dail is elected using proportional representation, and in a united Ireland, Protestants would make up close to 20% of the population. Their political parties would likely hold the balance of power in the Dail, giving them political influence beyond their numbers. In contrast, they only send about a dozen MPs to Westminster, out of over six hundred.

However, its also fair to note that the British government has not exactly been oppressing Catholics in recent decades.

Posted by Ed | May 12, 2007 1:36 PM

The people who complain about targeted liquidations of terrorist leaders, are the same ones who would cry shrilly if Israel were to launch a ground invasion of Gaza in order to sweep them up and bring them to justice.

See Jenin 2002, and the fabled "massacre"

Posted by David | May 12, 2007 2:49 PM

To "Reality Man" -

The argument you and others make about the supposed distinction between a single terrorist act carried out by a Palestinian, vs. the actions and/or responsibility of the PL0, Hamas, etc., fails to take in to account the fact that in most cases, the larger entity (Hamas, PLO, etc.) encourages, refuses to prevent, takes glory in, declares martyrdom for, the actions of that single Palestinian terrorist, whereas the democratic institutions in Israel investigate, hold accountable, initiate new policies and laws against and to prevent, and apologize for those actions which are deemed violations of policy and crimes. The latter is not a perfect system, and, as in the U.S., Britain, and other countries, abuses do occur, but it's an important aspect to the discussion in your post, and the larger discussion of this thread.

Posted by rick | May 12, 2007 7:31 PM

Rick asserts that:

the democratic institutions in Israel investigate, hold accountable, initiate new policies and laws against and to prevent, and apologize for those actions which are deemed violations of policy and crimes. The latter is not a perfect system, and, as in the U.S., Britain, and other countries, abuses do occur, but it's an important aspect to the discussion in your post, and the larger discussion of this thread.

This utter rubbish typifies the mendacity of so-called friends of Israel.

The Amnesty International Annual Report for 2006 states:

Israeli soldiers, police and settlers who committed unlawful killings, ill-treatment and other attacks against Palestinians and their property commonly did so with impunity. Investigations were rare, as were prosecutions of the perpetrators, which in most cases did not lead to convictions. By contrast, Israel used all means at its disposal, including assassinations, collective punishment and other measures that violate international law, against Palestinians who carried out attacks against Israelis or who were suspected of direct or indirect involvement in such attacks. Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis were usually sentenced to life imprisonment by Israeli military courts, whereas in the exceptional cases when Israelis were convicted of killing or abusing Palestinians, light sentences were imposed.

The Human Rights Watch World Report for 2007 states:

As of October, the number of Palestinians killed in 2006 by Israeli security forces had reached 449, at least half of whom were not participating in hostilities at the time of their deaths, raising serious concerns for civilian protection. The Israeli army’s continued failure to conduct investigations into most killings of civilians reinforced a culture of impunity in the army and robbed victims of an effective remedy.

It is clear from both the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports that Israel does not punish Israelis who attack Palestinians or otherwise commit war crimes against them. Israel's strategy in these matters is to deny all responsiblity, obfuscate the reality, and hope that time will make us all forget its willful depravity. Rick, and the other so-called friends of Israel, perpetuates that depravity by pumping out Israeli propaganda.

Israel is investigating its war against Lebanon. But this investigation is not because of Israeli guilt over the deaths of hundreds of Labanese civilians. No, the investigation is because the war was a disaster for the Israel as a nation.

Posted by ndm | May 12, 2007 8:29 PM

Amnesty International is right. Israel needs to be censured for its crimes against humanity. The Palestinians have been far more moral in their use of force. An independent Palestine will be a real "light onto the nations" -- not the bullshit version Israel has, discriminating against Arabs and committing genocide against Palestinians.

Posted by Susie | May 13, 2007 2:12 AM