Gilad Shalit

[MatthewV]

I don't feel the actions of Israel have been neutral. If Palestinian hadn't been fighting back they would have lost much more.

Every cause of dissent begins with some radical group with an idea that spreads to greater population. Today we see the cause for racial equality as just. The people who supported it are heroes everyone holding onto the past just fades away. In America, the better comparison would be supporting gay rights because that is a current fight.

So in sixty years, who will history favor?

[Antrax]

China. That being said, could you elaborate exactly what did the Palestinians have, what they've already lost, and what they're holding onto thanks to their noble resistance?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Zag]

An interesting perspective, MattV. I asked myself the same question, once, in a conversation about slavery and how Americans of the 1700's did not consider it such a terrible thing. (My thought was that eating meat might be the 'slavery' of 200 years from now. It hasn't stopped me, though.)

Antrax, I think that Israel kept the Palestinians brutally oppressed for decades, and would never have changed if the Palestinans hadn't started their terrorist campaign in the 1970's. You can argue that they were there illegally, that they oppressed the Jews when they were in power, etc. etc. but that doesn't matter. It was not the people being oppressed now, it was their ancestors. History is just that, in the past, and you have to move forward with compassion and integrity. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I'm sure there are other aphorisms and platitudes that apply.

Unfortunately, the oppression has been so systemic that giving them freedom now would cause havoc as they lash out against their oppressors just as Israel did when the Jews regained power in 1948. The Nelson Mandelas of the world are far too infrequent, and expecting one to arise from Middle Eastern culture, where memories of slights last for centuries and "an eye for an eye" was an argument for compassion and a limitation of retribution, is simply hopeless.

Don't get me wrong: I am a strong supporter of Israel, and I think that the Arab culture which gives far too much support to Muslim extremists is fundamentally broken. I know that suicide bombers are made into heroes on the West Bank, and there are plenty of people there who cheered when the Twin Towers fell on 9/11 a decade ago. But I also know that a lot of the problem came out of desperation because of the complete hopelessness of their situation.

I believe I said this before, but I think that Israel missed a terrific opportunity a few year ago. The Palestine national football team had won a place in some larger tournament, and I know that the Israeli government put some obstacles in the way of them travelling to compete. I'm afraid I don't recall the specifics, nor the outcome. But even putting any obstacles in the way of a football team was representative, to me, of a desire to punish rather than a desire to find peace. It was such a terrific opportunity to give Palestinian children some heroes and role-models who were not suicide bombers, and they just blew it. Rather than being an obstacle, the Israeli government should have secretly funded getting the team the best facilities, equipment, and coaches, and they should have (also secretly) flooded West Bank and Gaza Strip with cheap or free footballs for all the kids to have.

[Antrax]

[Zag]

I admit to not being very well informed, and I'll defer to your knowledge of the facts.

By "lashing out" I only mean that the Palestinians were ghetto-ized on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As far as I understand, this situation started soon after the founding of modern Israel, and never had any hope of changing until Palestinian organizations made enough noise (and enough trouble) to get world attention.

[Antrax]

I don't understand why you think it had no hope without terror. Do you think terrorist acts in Iraq are the reason the US wanted to pull out of there? Do you think any actions by the Iraqis factor into the decision?
What happened was an increase in liberal spirit in Israel due to its advancement. It's difficult to be enlightened when under constant threat. Then, despite of the terror, the school of thought that we should not conquer any other nation grew increasingly stronger. As this was happening, the Palestinians occasionally had periods of increasing violence and terrorist attacks, which typically swayed the popular opinion to the direction of not ending the occupation. Then, as memory of the attacks faded, enlightened thought again prevailed. I really don't see why you think terror would motivate Israel to vacate the premises. The unilateral disengagement (completely ending the occupation) is considered a mistake exactly because terrorist attacks haven't ceased after it. In fact, they became much worse. Then Israel lost its shit and went on operation Cast Lead, which marks the end of good will. At least, that's how I see things.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

I'm sorry, but what are you basing this on? Can you show a correlation, or suggest a mechanism, to show how terror aids the Palestinian's goals?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[MatthewV]

At one point, the black movement in America was brought in as a comparison. If I recall correctly, many people in that movement wanted to fight back with violence. It took a strong leader to hold a peaceful march.
The Palestinian cause might be successful with such a leader and methods. When the neutral people begin to support the cause, your group wins.

I honestly don't know much about the entire region and the dynamics that have happened. Everything I hear has been filtered several times over. But my impression is that Israel is holding onto what it has because it fears repercussions if it isn't strong. For example, the harsh sentences are given not necessarily for what the individual did but for what they fear he could do.

[Nsof]

[Jack_Ian]

[Antrax]

The problem is that I normally post on the GL while at work, and I'm incredibly busy lately. Jack_Ian, you raise good points. What I want to do is show a timeline showing the correlation between rises in terror and declines in the peace process / violent reactions by Israel / etc. The problem is this takes time which I don't have. So, watch this space, I guess.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Jack_Ian]

Before you spend a lot of time gathering the statistics, be careful not to assign correlation incorrectly.
You might end up showing that decline in the Peace Process resulted in increased terrorism.

Terrorism is never the cause, it is the symptom. If you remove the cause then the symptom goes away.
Of course, if the cause is Israel's mere existence, then there will never be peace, but while the stated goal of some militants is the destruction of Israel, I do not believe that the vast majority of Palestinians would support such an aim if they had their own independent and viable state. Besides, it's easy to find militants in Israel with similar views.

Terrorism requires support to survive, otherwise there is too much intelligence available for them to be effective.
There are still a few hard-line "Real IRA" members in Ireland, but they are forever being arrested, even for minor offences such as drunk driving, because they are constantly informed upon. Nobody wants to go back to the dark days of before.

If the Palestinian people see a viable future for themselves, then they will grasp it with both hands.

[Nsof]

The Palestinians have several options to achieve their "own independent and viable state", only one of which is terror. Why do you think terror is better than other methods?

You have said that terror is a way to keep your voice in the headlines so it makes us talk about their situation in this post but you haven't said how that helps the Palestinian cause. So how does it? (sorry if I can't make the leap)
On the other hand:
- The people who need to work at making the peace and then making it work are the Israelis and the Palestinians. Both sides have their extremists (for peace and against) who will not change their mind no matter what and a majority who are swaying. Acts of violence always sways them away from peace
- Hamas, unlike the PA (Palestinian authority) is considered a terrorist organization and therefore does not get support/money from many countries that would have otherwise helped their cause. Whenever Iran or anyone else wants to transfer money to them they have to do it at the risk of it getting intercepted by the world banks and other authorities. A lot more money than is otherwise smuggled into Gaza could have made it there (and used to improve the lives of the Palestinians) if Hamas was not considered a terrorist org.

I don’t know much about Ireland but I think the situation here could have been much better for everyone if there was no terror. (We could have had that after the Oslo accords in 1995, we could have had it after the withdrawal from Gaza and at other numerous occasions.)

You have said "Nobody wants to go back to the dark days of before". What are the dark days of the Palestinians?

Wouldn’t Ireland have had peace sooner if there was no terror?
_________________
Will sell this place for beer

[Zag]

The Irish could have had peace easily, just by submitting to British rule. In fact, most Brits at the time were puzzled that they wouldn't want simply to do so.

If not for the terrorist actions of the 60's and 70's, the Palestinians would still be living, unnoticed, in their ghettos. I believe that they had no other way to achieve any kind of global awareness. On the other hand, once they got it, they would more quickly have achieved a peaceful independence if they had stopped right away. I completely agree that it is now horribly counter-productive, and has been since they got the world's attention.

HOWEVER! That comment (and yours) presumes that their goal is peaceful independence while co-existing with Israel. In other words, the response to the above would be "counter-productive to what?" I would guess that in the 70's, at least the early 70's, if you had asked the average Palestinian what their goal should be, the complete annihilation of Israel would have been an overwhelming favorite. I think that there is still a significant minority of Palestinians who feel that way. (That is, it IS a minority, but not a miniscule one.)

For any Palestinian who continues to cling to a goal of completely re-taking of the land now considered to be Israel, then terrorism and violence is absolutely the only path there. (Not that I think that there is any path there, but if there is one, it includes violence.) For someone with that belief, any cessation of violence is only to lull them into a false sense of security.

Note how this situation is different from the one in Northern Ireland. The Irish just wanted to be independent in their own land. The Palestinians want their land back.

[Nsof]

[Zag]

[Antrax]

Jack_Ian, you could make an even stronger case than the IRA -- we're taught in history class that the British mandate over Israel ended thanks to Israeli terrorists carrying out attacks against various military installations. However, the fact that terrorist might be an effective strategy (worked well enough in Vietnam), doesn't mean it has to be such. It stands to reason that you could drive out an occupying force by harrying them with guerrilla attacks. However, if that "occupying force" has nowhere to retreat to (other than the Mediterranean sea), then you'd have a hard time achieving your goal.

I don't think Israel is perfect. Specifically,I'm very familiar with the situation in Bil'in, having several friends who go to those demonstrations (and two who go there to disperse demonstrations, btw. Makes for interesting after-dinner talks), and I think it's atrocious. However, you're discussing the conflict as a whole, and things didn't used to be like this. Right now there's less than zero tolerance from the Israeli side, but this is something relatively new, and is the direct result of Palestinian violence not ending after the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza strip. And that's the mechanism I've laid you and wanted to show makes sense by the proposed timeline presentation of events. You could argue statistics, of course, but my position is not that of an academic, all I can tell you is what I see, as a person with a brain and a conscience living in Israel. I don't know if I could prove my case in an international court, but I still believe it makes sense.

You argue terror raises awareness of Palestinians, that's probably correct. How that awareness helps them, is a difference issue. The Israeli street has always been aware of their plight, and trust me, the reactions after a terror attack are not very sympathizing. That leaves the international community, but what has it done for the Palestinians, precisely? The UN talks a lot, but the average Israeli really doesn't care about the UN, we see it as a biased body completely dominated by oil interests (which does have some merit, to be honest - it's distressingly easy pointing out clearly biased decisions). So, how does this awareness help anyone?

I do believe if it were possible to somehow force separation of Palestinians and Israelies for a while, we could get along. The problem is there's a ton of blood and a mutual lack of trust, which leads to a lack of good will, which lets extremists dominate the scene, on both sides. Every time a baby is knifed in the settlements, more of the Israel public moves to support settlements and indiscriminate military action. I don't see how you could believe it to be otherwise, that a murdered infant would lead an introspection and understanding that the settlements are terrible. The only thing that sways public opinion the other way is periods of peace. Unless you can suggest a working model that involves humans and works the opposite way, I strongly suggest you accept that in this case, the correlation is the result of causation.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Jack_Ian]

First of all I would like to point out that I do not support terrorism as a means to achieve political ends. And I agree that violence only intensifies the conflict.
In the end, with the current trajectory, the loss on both sides will eventually bring people to a point where they say "There must be a better way".
I do not see that point any time soon and the only thing that will have changed between now and the final sit-down, will be a lot more innocent blood spilled (and of course more extensive settlements).
You say that violent response is inevitable in the face of such attacks, but look at the statistics on number of deaths and ask yourself who has the most right to respond violently.
At least we agree that violence will not solve the problem. Now we just need to wait until everyone is sick enough of the pain to agree with us.

[Antrax]

But we were already there. The treaties just don't last, and one-sided actions don't work. That's why our current best plan is a big-ass wall. My point is that we were already at the "surely there must be a better way", regardless of terrorism. We tried the better way, it failed. I don't know why, but it's hard to take the position of "tsk tsk, why all the violence" when peaceful solutions were already tried and failed. So while violence is not a solution, neither is peace, and nobody can figure out a third way so far (well, I can, but it involves aliens).
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Pablo]

[Antrax]

Sure, you declare peace, and the other side throws rockets at your civilians. If you choose to ignore it, go to page 47. If you choose to react violently, go to page 2. If you board the spaceship in spite of the warning, go to page 133.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Jack_Ian]

America should declare war on the whole region. They'd start working together then.

Although that didn't go so well with the Russians in WWII, so maybe not.

[Antrax]

Joke all you want, that's one of the solutions I thought about. Nuke the US, get annexed, problem solved. Basically they all involve an external force that compels the Israelies and Palestinians to work together. That's the only way I can think of to build trust, since the more common way (a series of small compromises that gradually increase in scope) failed several times, so nobody's willing to try it again.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Thok*]