Finally, no tour of the wartime blogsphere would be complete without a visit to Wretchard at Belmont Club. His offering today examines the implications of Hamas founder Sheik Yassin catching an Israeli missile (thus rendering the deceased Sheik truly the spiritual leader of Hamas, as one wag at Tim Blair’s blog pointed out).
Before diving into excerpts and discussion, let me take a moment here for a big round of applause. Sheik Yassin was long overdue to take a dirt nap; the world is a better place without him, and his absence will only increase the prospects for a long-term and stable peace in the Mideast.
Wretchard makes a series of related points: The first is that the traditional multipolar Franco/UN approach to foreign policy, honed during the Cold War, won’t work in the current war because the current war is a fight to the finish. Playing both ends against the middle is a no-win strategy when both ends are engaged in mortal combat.
With each passing moment the odds lengthen that the EU or the UN can broker a negotiated settlement between Israel, India, Russia and USA on the one hand, and the Jihadis on the other. There will be no Congress of Vienna at which French palaver can work its wonders, only unconditional surrender by one side or the other. A zero-sum conflict guarantees that Europe will not be on the winning side. Whoever the victor, Europe will be despised and whether America or Jihadistan triumphs, Europe will have played the wrong hand.
His related point is that George Bush, by bringing down Saddam Hussein, seized control of the war and ashcanned the Islamists’ favored strategy. That strategy, honed in years of terrorism against Israel, was to alternate terror attack with hudna (the Mohammedan truce, entered into for purposes of preparing the next blow).
War was Osama Bin Laden’s goal in attacking the United States on September 11. He hoped to force America into fruitless but ineffectual reprisals against the Islamic world, then offer a hudna at intervals while he prepared his next blow. George Bush’s counterstroke, which history will either judge as an act of supreme folly or genius, was to go beyond Afghanistan into Iraq. In a worthy riposte to Osama’s, he escalated the struggle to the point where it was mutually mortal. If the fall of the Twin Towers was a gauntlet in America’s face, the fall of Baghdad was a glove shoved down the Islamist’s throat. Both Bin Laden and Bush have made compromise impossible. If the jihadis believed they could control the tempo of the conflict they were misinformed; American forces in the Arab heartland have forced a zugzwang [from chess, forcing the opponent to make a move he does not want to make] to compel the game to the bitter end.
Euro pressure and brokering were critical for the hudna to take hold and protect the terrorists, whether from Israel or the US. The UN, prodded by the French, fell into their old familiar pattern, attempting to hold the US schwerpunkt [the main thrust of a military action] against Hussein hostage to the familiar UN-sponsored (and terrorist-protecting) de facto truce. Bush and the US proved to be unresponsive to such pressure, and by going into Baghdad made it impossible for Islamists to even propose a hudna. A military, rather than a diplomatic/law enforcement, schwerpunkt fatally disrupted the preferred strategy of the Islamists by making their preferred cycle of bombing and hudna impossible and delivering control of the operational tempo of the war to the US.
As someone who has studied conflict for years, whether at a global strategic level, the business negotiation level, or at the personal combat level (via martial arts), I believe that it is impossible to prevail without controlling the tempo of events. The terrorists attacking Israel, with the collusion of their European and UN allies, have been in control of the tempo of their war with Israel through the punctuated terrorism described above. So long as the bombing/hudna cycle continued, Israel was losing. If the US had fallen into the trap of allowing the UN to control the tempo of its war, it would have doomed itself to failure as well.
By finally delivering a missile (Express Airmail, Monday morning delivery) to Sheik Yassin, Israel may have finally taken control of the operational tempo of its war.
By striking at so senior a terrorist target, the Jihadis will be in no mood for negotiations. They themselves will cast away the Peace Process and sheer fury will make them forswear their favorite tactic, the faux hudna — thereby granting Israel a meeting on the battlefield. For this is Israel’s mortal challenge to Hamas which has often said it would kill the last Jew. The message, now ringing in their ears, is that the Jew will kill the last terrorist, beginning at the top.
Hasn’t the US also pulled Isreal back from ‘setting the tempo?’. Even after 9/11, when there were daily bombings in Isreal and ‘occupied’ territories, we urged caution and negotiation etc, while we were doing the opposite in Afghanistan. I suppose it have been merely a coordination of efforts, and we asked Isreal to hold off for just a period of time, so that we could meet other objectives, and would return to theirs at some point. But it sure had the same feel as the EU/UN approach.
toolkien, I agree. The US has been complicit in miring Israel in the bombing/hudna tempo. I believe the EU/UN/tranzi community has been the primary source of the outside pressure on Israel essential to terrorist control of the operational tempo in that war, with the US primarily going along with their policy for a number of reasons (placating the tranzis, placating the oil suppliers, etc.). That was always bad policy for the US, and for Israel.
If Belmont Club is correct – http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_belmontclub_archive.html#107993193241974131 – then Europe is in big trouble. Will England choose Europe or America?
The idea that Europe is in big trouble is not the same as Europe is doomed. As long as governments still hold elections, it is possible to create a durable majority that will elect governments all across Europe who will clean the current mess up and take the offensive.
“The idea that Europe is in big trouble is not the same as Europe is doomed.”
I agree with the comment. But in order to prevent doom Europe is going to have to drop their post-modern multicultural leftism. Will that happen? The longer Europe takes to change and confront the gathering storm the harder the battle will be.
I predict it will take many 3/11’s or a massive WMD attack for Europe to get serious. And when Europe does get serious expect as much blowback from the hard left as from the Muslims. It won’t be pretty.
Reid:
“Europe is going to have to drop their post-modern multicultural leftism”
I would say that in the UK (I’m not in a position to say about continental Europe) a lot of non-elite, mainstream Labourite democratic socialist/social democrat leftists are by no means as sympathetic to po-mo multi-culti right-on goodthink as some might expect.
I happen to know a lot of leftists from among various branches of my family and their old acquaintances.
(I’m the political black sheep 🙂
Backgrounds include trade union activists, labour party workers and supportes, a few former party officials and councillors, mostly from the Midlands and Merseyside, mostly present or former factory workers.
There appears to be a good deal of continuity from the old Labour core: generally non-marxist even if socialist, highly suspicious of trotskyite groups (and Greens, interestingly), patriotic, dubious about the EU, sometimes unsure about Blair’s Labour credentials, mildly racist in quite a few cases. And ferociously anti-terrorist.
A very common feeling seems to be that maybe Bush is beholden to corporate interests, and the Yanks need to be watched, and maybe Blair is a bit too nimble, but that is as nothing compared to the reality of the enemy: they are backward, bloody-minded fanatics who must be destroyed.
Or as one uncle put it: “They’re a queer new sort of fascist. And the only good fascist is a dead fascist.”
My greatest worry, actually, is that they are inclined to say that civil liberties are a fine thing in peacetime, but if we’re at war, then they are a dangerous luxury.
And a large number, even if not personally racist at all, are inclined to favour internment of radicals.
Regarding non-British Muslim asylum seekers and residents, there is virtually universal support for intrnment or expulsion.
If this mindset is anything like as widespread in the “working class” generally as I suspect, then a continuation and intensification of the war might just see a massive upheaval in British politics.
Good riddance to Yassin. It would have been laughter-provoking if it wasn’t so sick to see the Palestinian Prime Minister describe Yassin as a ‘moderate’ who was controlling Hamas.
He was certainly inspiring Hamas, if not controlling it’s day to day operations, yet I’m concerned that the Palestinian Prime Minister might not have been right- that Yassin was moderate compared to other fellows in the background who are even more extreme.
It scarcely seems possible, I know, for there to be anyone more extreme then Yassin, but this IS the Palestinians we are talking about here.
However, the international reaction, forseeably, has been almost universally hostile. The Torygraph editorial (free registration required) thinks it is a mistake.
I fear that I agree with this reasoning. Which is a pity, because Yassin certainly got what was coming to him.
In a sideshow battle, the fundies took another hit in Malaysia. UMNO has won a resounding victory against the fundamentalist PAS, almost taking back Kelantan in the process.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,241855,00.html?
Moderate Islam is on the comeback. Now, for the Indonesian elections…
The Wobbly Guy
Scott, I’m inclined to agree. The cycle of violence and revenge attacks will continue until one side decides that enough is enough and lays down its arms. That side has to be the Palestinians. I’m not over hopeful…
As far as S. Lewis’ comment about the British working class and patriotism, I don’t think there’s been a significant change of heart from the days of the Falklands War when the left was much more militant than now and the union rule books were thrown away to get stuff fixed for “our boys” in time. I don’t think the likes of the insane left-elite Polly Toynbee and so on, who are quoted so often, in anyway reflect the voice on the “British street”…
Killing Yassin to increase security was not the point.
The fight among the Palestinians after Yassins death was the point.
Think clearly here.
Israel announces withdrawal from Gaza starting an inter Pali fued re: who gets the spoils. Then once that pot is brought to a bubling simmer. Kill Yassin and bring it to a boil.
This is strategy not tactics.
If I was Sharon I would use hudna tactics.
Let the battles in Gaza rage a while. Let the US talk him out of giving up Gaza for a while. Then see him change his mind and decide he wants out. US consults.
Rinse Repeat.
The Palis know Sharon is a man of his word and only the US can restrain him. Ho. Ho. Ho.
Rinse Repeat.
Wobbly, very interesting about Kelantan! Oh, I so hope Malaysia continues on its historical moderate, intelligent, rational path. About Indonesia, I harbour no hopes. They’re about as corrupt as it’s possible for a country to be – especially Java – and the corruption and pandering will not change no matter who gets in. I do not believe for one second that they are serious about the militants.
On Indonesia, I tend to favor the re-election of Megawati Sukarnoputri, for want of a better, and fear of a worse.
She really doesn’t have a lot going for her though.
“Whatever Yassin’s death was meant to achieve, its symbolism is disastrous for Israel.”
While this lunatic inciting to fanaticism, murder and death while enjoying personal immunity isn’t symbolic at all, it’s as should be ?
“Palestinian equivalent of Leon Klinghoffer…”?
How many people did Klinghofer kill before he was brutally murdered ? This equating of the two wheel- chair bound people is obscene.
“Sharon’s decision to execute Yassin is worse than a crime: it is a blunder.”
Another obscene analogy: Napoleon commited a crime by executing an innocent person. Was Yassin innocent ? Maybe it was a blunder, but by no means a crime.
(Every time Israel acts against terrorists it’s a blunder in the eyes of the Europeans.)
And, if the Torygraph represents the thought of the Tory party, it doesn’t matter at all what those working calss British patriots think. There is nobody in the political classes that represents them.
Killing Yassin was long overdue, as is the death of Arafat. The ONLY way to make the Palestinians see reason is for the Israelis to hit them so hard that they finally get the operant conditioning. The Palestinians need to be so certain, and so afraid, of Israeli retaliation that the next Pal idiot who suggest terrorism gets ripped to bloody shreds by his own Pal neighbors who KNOW EXACTLY what kind of destruction his acts WILL draw down on them. This sounds awful, and I understand that. It isn’t, however, as awful as what the other alternative–wholesale forcible transfer of all Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan–will be. Anybody who thinks the Jordanians or the Egyptians will treat them even close to as well as the Israelis have doesn’t know much about either country’s past dealings with Palestinians.
Tom Friedman once said that the only Israeli politician the Arabs REALLY feared was Sharon, because he was willing to play by “Hama Rules.” Hama Rules means that you’re willing to walk ankle-deep through the blood of your enemies because you know that the alternative is them walking ankle-deep through YOUR blood. The Pals have killed without compunction for a long time and the only reason the Israeli death toll isn’t higher is due to a lack of Palestinian competence, certainly not of desire.
Sharon is getting to be an old man. Maybe he’s decided, since his time is getting short and he doesn’t want to die leaving this horrible danger facing his country, that this situation has to end, either with the Pals coming to their senses or with them being booted out of the country. Either way, I suspect we’re looking at the end game and if it goes badly for the Palestinians, they’ve got it coming to them because since 1948 they’ve consciously and intentionally destroyed every opportunity for a peaceful settlement.
So Dan, I take it you’re overlooking the significant “greater Israel” religious fanatic camp’s objectives, & the various policies which appear to further their purpose (settlements, anyone? Please explain what other purpose they serve). Tell me, what was the reaction in the West recently to religious fanatics demanding dominion over land they feel is historically “theirs”? Why should the Palestinians feel any differently towards the significant minority within Israel who feel this way (far more powerful than Al Quaida, & respectable to boot). I’m not denying this is a thorny problem, but to lay all the blame on one side is unrealistic (this goes equally for any fool who goes “oh, poor pals… evil american-supported Israelis”).
Why should a people who have already suffered greatly have to pay a blood price for the few fanatics among them? Where is the evidence that utterly humiliating a people makes them less likely to want to kill themselves in order to wreak revenge? Would you advocate this solution wherever terrorism happens? Should we in the UK perhaps get impatient with the lack of any definitive peace agreement in NI, & start taking people, & innocent bystanders out, until “the people” get the message?
I can understand the tempting logic of the solution, but the only way you can truly justify it, even if you believe it’ll be utterly effective, is to dehumanise the other side entirely. I can’t find it in my heart to endorse a policy that inhuman.
When I galnced at this earlier, I was going to ask Dan McWiggins if he thought the same approach would be as good for the Micks as for the “Pals”, but A_t beat me to it. I can only add: and if not, why not?
Why should a people who have already suffered greatly have to pay a blood price for the few fanatics among them?
Because those “few fanatics” enjoy widespread support that enables them to kill Israelis. Sorry about the casualties among those who don’t support the terrorists, but in a war the political leanings of various groups of your enemies has never affected how the war is fought.
Where is the evidence that utterly humiliating a people makes them less likely to want to kill themselves in order to wreak revenge?
The Japanese and the Germans were both utterly humiliated at the end of WWII, and have not sought revenge since. Indeed, it is the partial victories, mediated through diplomacy, that often turn sour. A people that has been conclusively defeated militarily on its own soil rarely comes back seeking revenge.
Would you advocate this solution wherever terrorism happens?
Maybe, if the situation warrants. The Palestinian terror situation is nearly unique, though. Not many communities consistently give such widespread support to terrorists who operate so openly and kill so many. The Israeli/Palestinian situation is a full-fledged war, and under the rules and laws of warfare the Israelis can go considerably beyond the tactics proposed above.
Should we in the UK perhaps get impatient with the lack of any definitive peace agreement in NI,
Yes, you should.
& start taking people, & innocent bystanders out, until “the people” get the message?
If by “people” you mean known terrorist killers and leaders, then, yeah, maybe, if you think you are truly at war with them. I don’t think anyone should kill innocent bystanders as a matter of policy, but depending on the severity of the situation, a certain lack of concern for collateral damage is not necessarily beyond the pale.
This is simply not true. Look at WWI and WWII where the US was able to delay its entry and allow allied European empires (British, French, Russian) to bleed before the US entered the war. If you believe your side is likely to win even if you hold back, then your post war position can be greatly strengthened by allowing your allies absorb the enemy’s initial blows. Of course you want to enter the war early enough to make sure your side wins, and also early enough to be in a good position to share any spoils from the eventual victory.
“Should we in the UK perhaps get impatient with the lack of any definitive peace agreement in NI, & start taking people, & innocent bystanders out, until “the people” get the message?”
Wasn’t this exactely what has been done in NI, bringing to a cease fire ? I mean: 17 of the Catholic leaders have died under “mysterious” circumstances – i.e. unsolved cases. Am I correct ?
Symbolism, manufactured and delivered to us by our media mandarins, infallible interpreters of history’s events.
Maybe. But you can bet they knew that this sort of context-free imagery would be a staple of news coverage.
No, but a biased press corps will certainly oblige.
From the ‘graph:
Yes, symbolism manufactured and delivered to us by our media mandarins, infallible interpreters of history’s events.
Maybe. But you can bet that they knew this sort of context-free imagery would be a staple of news coverage the following morning.
No, but they could count on a hostile press corps to oblige, conflating an innocent vacationer with a stone killer.
Dan:
Interesting idea. How hard do you think they will have to be hit for the message to sink in? In my opinion, this isnt a war like against the Japanese and Germans in WW2; its probably more like the Vietnam war, though this analogy isnt perfect either. For every Hamas/AAMB/IJ leader that Israel takes out, there seem to be hundreds willing to step into his shoes. These guys dont wear uniforms and they dont operate like a classical national army. They are a popular resistance, with emphasis on popular. They cannot be defeated militarily without virtually wiping out the entire Palestinian population. In this sense, I beleive that “wholesale forcible transfer” would probably be the more humane solution.
For the sake of argument, lets assume that your strategy of hitting the Palestinians “hard” was to work. What then? Do you then give them their own state or do you continue to occupy them militarily? Assuming the former, do you allow them to choose their own leaders? What happens if you really dont like the leaders they choose? As far as I can see, you are right back where you started from.
Wouldnt it be easier to actually try and make peace with the Palestinians? Why not offer the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank and Gaza instead of 97%. Has the 3% of land that ultimately proved a dealbreaker at the end of Oslo been worth it in retrospect?
A-t, Guy, Friend,
I don’t think you are really seeing this conflict for what it is. If the Israelis decided this afternoon that transfer was the preferred option, the surviving Palestinians would be out of Israel before next Monday. Israel HAS the power to completely end this problem from their point of view and there wouldn’t be any outside force stepping in on the Palestinian side before the deed was done. Therefore, in all discussions of this matter, that fact should always be remembered. Israel CAN, and given sufficient provocation, quite possibly WILL end this problem by ethnic cleansing mixed with a good degree of extermination.
Does that sound horrible? Yes it does. Still, given the complete Palestinian failure to deal honestly with anyone, much less the Israelis, it’s well up there on the list of likely outcomes because nothing else so far has seemed to work. And if you’re going to tell me it’s impossible, I refer you to Rwanda/Burundi, Kosovo, and Bosnia. It could happen, it could happen quickly, and Israel has the nukes to make it stick. And don’t kid yourself that any serious government player in this affair would not be, quietly, very glad to see this festering sore simply go away. Once it becomes an Arab/Arab problem rather than an Arab/Israeli problem, the spotlight would be much less intense. For example, who pays much attention to the persecution of Sunnis inside Iran or Sudanese in Egypt?
What needs to happen in the Palestinian community is a civil war. This civil war will be between those who want to negotiate a solution with the Israelis and those who want to destroy them. Right now the anti-Israel hardliners are completely in control. Anyone who even mentions the possibility of compromise ends up dangling from a lamppost. Friend, if you really believe that the extra 3% of land the Pals didn’t get in the last negotiation was the deal-breaker, I suggest you look closely at the past record of Pal negotiations. They have NEVER negotiated in good faith with Israel–it’s always been hudna followed by war.
This civil war can only come about if the Israelis make it patently, unavoidably obvious, beyond even the slightest scintilla of doubt, that not only will there never be a Palestinian victory but that, without some serious negotiating on the Pal part, there might, and soon, very easily be no Palestinians at all. Only then will the forces of moderation within the Pal community finally have sufficient motivation to force their way to the fore. I could go into a lot of why this truly is a clash of civilizations, why the Pals are (and should be) so ashamed of their failures, and why Arabs generally mistake Israeli restraint for weakness, but I’ll leave that for you to explore. What is certain is that the Arabs understand strength, and they know that if THEY had the power, they would have finished Hitler’s work long ago. If the Israelis approach the Pals from the same perspective, the Pals WILL respond because they will completely understand both the logic and the emotion.
Will the Palestinians be caught between a rock and a hard place? Certainly. The hangman’s noose, however, has a way of wonderfully concentrating men’s thoughts. If the average Palestinian knew that a) the Israelis were now ready to kill thousands and immediately drive the rest across the borders at the next terrorist outrage, and b) that the hardline thugs and gunmen currently running the WB and Gaza like a protection racket were about to incite that outcome, dumping the surviving Pal remnant like rubbish on the Egyptians and Jordanians (whose despicably bad treatment of Pals they all remember, BTW), he would rise up against the thugs and deny them all cooperation. Faced with such a stark choice between the currently bad situation and an imminent, unfathomably worse one, the average Palestinian would have nothing to lose by standing up against the hardliners.
This would undoubtedly cause, from the current crop of Pal thugs, someone to emerge who was smart enough to realize that seriously negotiating with Israel was the only way to a) assuage the popular unrest, and b) seize power for himself. That fellow would then have to overcome the hardline opposition, something that would be much easier with a population starkly aware that Nakba II–The Final Chapter was waiting on its doorstep if it didn’t face reality RIGHT NOW.
The civil war will undoubtedly be very bloody, but most assuredly not as bloody as expulsion would be. Only because of that blunt choice would it succeed. And only at that point, with the Pals knowing that bad faith means an end to them as a people, will Israeli-Palestinian negotiations really have a chance to work. Until then it’s just an exercise in wheelspinning and wasting time.
Dan, all-knowing Dan… Where do the settlements come into your picture then? What do they mean? Why has the Israeli government tolerated/encouraged their development for decades, even during periods of truce?
You suggest a strategy for calming down the more radical Palestinian elements who would like to see the eradication of Israel, & fair enough; I disagree with your tactics, but agree it’s a worthwhile goal. Such elements are both unrealistic and counterproductive. I’m curious as to how you would suggest dealing with their counterparts on the Israeli side; those who believe all of biblical Israel should be Jewish-run. Perhaps taking them out one by one, with occasional civilian casualties, might be enough to make Israeli citizens denounce these fanatics and ensure they had no influence on the government? If the terrorists targeted only far-right “one israel” fanatics, with occasional collateral damage, would that be an acceptable tactic in your eyes? Would Palestinian assassination of Israeli members of Parliament who advocate transfer be acceptable?
I’m curious as to your response, because I see little difference between the actions I’ve just suggested and those of which you approve so heartily.
A_t,
Israel has already demonstrated its willingness to give land for peace numerous times, as I’m sure you well know. The Israeli Government also prosecutes and punishes right-wing Israelis who commit crimes against Palestinians or Israeli Arabs. Read the Jerusalem Post on a regular basis and you’ll see that. I think you would agree that this Israeli behavior is diametrically opposite to the Palestinian response. The Israelis have proven themselves to be relatively honorable negotiating partners; the Palestinians have yet to honor one accord they have ever made. If the Israelis said they would remove settlements as part of an overall framework for peace, on their past record I’d say it was a good bet they would keep their word. They left Sinai and Lebanon, didn’t they?
Incidentally, the far right in Israel uses as a slogan “no Arabs=no terrorism.” End the terrorism and the justification for wanting to transfer the Arabs across the borders, for the most part, goes away.
One final point: as for my being “all-knowing,” I base my ideas for this solution on a model put in place by Sir Gerald Templer in Malaya. His predecessor, Sir Henry Gurney, was extraordinarily frustrated at the Malayan Chinese tendency to “ride the fence” in the fight between the Communists and the British colonial government. Templer’s solution: “we’ve got to make the Chinese on the fence more afraid of us then of the terrorists.” He did; see Tanjong Malim for an example. It worked. Britain won, the only time a Western government in Asia ever beat a Communist guerrilla insurgency. The situations aren’t completely similar but they ARE close enough for some useful analogies to be drawn.
I hope this answers your question.
Dan:
Well, I agree with you that Israel has the (military) power to effect either transfer or extermination if they wanted to do so. (though I’m not so sure about before next Monday…) Whether an outside force wouldnt step in on the Palestinian side is another matter. Remember what happened to the Serbs when they tried to do the same in Kosovo…
I disagree with you here. IMO the Oslo negotiations were carried out for the most part in good faith.
Also, I question your solution of hitting the Palestinians “hard”. Again, how hard is hard enough? If hard enough means up to transfer and or extermination, I guess I have a better opinion of basic decency and morality on the part of most Israelis than you do (and that’s saying something!!)
Another thing to consider with extreme solutions like extermination and transfer, assuming the Israeli public went along with this, is how world public opinion would react to such events. As I’ve already said, Im sure Israel has the military power to effect this, but what would happen afterwards? Assuming no outside military force stepped in in defense of the Palestinians and the deed was done, who would trade with Israel after the fact? Do you think that the US or Europe, or anyone for that matter, would continue to do business with Israel? My guess is that she would be boycotted right out of existance.
Wasnt this the overt reason for the collapse of negotiations? I realize that there were/are other bigger issues to work out, especially right of return, but if I remember correctly, this was where negotiations broke down.
Friend,
The Serbs succeeded in Kosovo and in Bosnia. They weren’t able to keep their gains, but they didn’t have nukes, either. The Palestinians have alienated everyone through their indiscriminate terror. No one is coming to their aid if the Israelis decide they’ve got to go. Might may not make right in this world, but it damned well insures careful thought on the part of anyone who decides to challenge it.
As for whether you think the Pals have negotiated in good faith, you don’t have to agree with me. I think the facts stand for themselves. You might want to read Steven Den Beste’s blog on this issue today, as well as Francis Porretto’s. Both of these people, as well as Tom Friedman (not today) discuss how internal currents of anger and disaffection among the Palestinians have made it impossible for anyone to speak for them who actually had a constructive answer to the ongoing problem. By definition this means they were not negotiating in good faith.
You call yourself “friend of Palestine.” If you are a friend, you have some idea of what type of grief they have bought themselves through the last fifty years by their refusal to make any kind of peace with Israel. By any rational assessment, it hasn’t been worth it. That’s why I believe, again with solid support from other commenters at the time, that the 3% difference simply wasn’t the deal breaker. The real deal breaker was that Arafat couldn’t deliver the goods he was promising and that his signature on a binding (not Oslo-type) agreement would have guaranteed his assassination in short order–and he knew it.
As for boycotting the Israelis out of existence, all I can say is that you have far more faith in the willingness of people away from the region to take a moral stand than I do. Most Americans despise the Palestinians and have wondered how long it was going to take for the Israelis to do what was necessary to get them to stop blowing up buses and pizza parlors. This latest gambit of getting pre-teen and mentally deficient children to strap on explosive belts isn’t making them look any better, either. No, Friend, I think, as I said before, that the rest of the world would make a token protest and then, quietly but gratefully, ignore the expulsion.
Remember: even the other Arabs hate the Palestinians. Why should the West, particularly in the aftermath of major Muslim terrorist assaults, go out of its way to blame the Israelis for doing what they will undoubtedly claim was the only recourse they had for stopping Pal terrorism. I don’t remember anyone complaining when Kuwait abruptly expelled a quarter-million Pals. For the Israelis, it would be fait accompli, wipe hands, go on to next problem…
One last comment: this situation is truly a disaster of their own making for the Palestinians. Had they possessed leadership in the 20’s and 30’s that chose to work with the Jewish segment of the population, Israel would be the richest state in the Middle East by far and its Arab inhabitants would be living extraordinarily well even by First World standards. Instead, however, of giving a helping hand to those who were bringing the capital and skilled labor necessary to transform their forgotten backwater, they chose to try to kill them. If the Israelis do decide the Pals have to be transferred and act accordingly, the Pals will have no one to blame but themselves because they could have stopped the progress of that train of events any time they chose.
Dan’s principal point seems to be that given Israel has the power to do anything it likes to the Palestinians we should be grateful for its restraint in not doing worse, rather than criticise its actions when we disagree with them (morally or stategically). That way lies the worship of the absolute state, which is a curious thing to find on a broadly libertarian blog.
I note that my question is unanswered. In broader terms: is open, extra-legal violence collectively applied a suitable weapon for a liberal polity in the West too, or is it only acceptable when the subjects are muddy-coloured and a long way away?
Dan:
Well, isnt this ultimately the same thing as failure? If the Israelis succeeded in transfering the Palestinians out of Palestine, but were then “forced” through boycotts or other kinds of pressure to let them back in, wouldn’t this also be a failure?
If they resorted to extermination rather than transfer, then they wouldn’t have this problem, but would likely have problems of a completely different magnitude…
Well, Im American, and know of others like me who have a good deal of sympathy for the Palestinians. But you are probably right when you say “most.” However, Im not sure that most Americans would look favorably on an Israel that embarked on a course of transfer or extermination. My guess is that at this point the calculus would change dramatically.
What about the rest of the world? There are few countries outside of the USA where sympathetic majorities can be found in support of current Israeli policy. If this policy were to harden to one of extermination or transfer, I can only imagine that anyextant sympathy would promptly disappear. Did you know that Israel’s biggest trading partner is the EU?
I disagree. In my opinion Arafat has (had?) the necessary charisma to make a sufficiently reasonable deal stick. He probably could have sold the Oslo deal (as it last stood) to WB and Gaza Palestinians, but the diaspora Palestinians were another matter. I think the remaining 3% of territory, along with some kind of arrangement for the diaspora Palestinians (maybe limited right of return, financial compensation, something along those lines) would have been salable to the majority of Palestinians. This is just my opinion, and I very well may be wrong here…I guess we’ll never know now…
By the way, I had a look at DenBeste as you recommended. This is a little bit off topic, but I wanted to ask something about the Gaza pullout that he mentions. Everything I’ve heard about this is that only the settlers are to be removed; the military occupation will remain in force. DenBeste seems to suggest that the IDF will pull out of Gaza altogether. (& the WB, when the wall is finished) He goes on to say that this will lead to a Palestinian civil war, from which it is implied, Israel will safely be immune. (behind the wall) Don’t you think that the Palestinians will use such a pullout to attack Israel with more advanced missiles,(Qassams) mortars and the like. Why fight each other when they will be in a much better position to attack Israel with standoff weapons? I guess what I am trying to say is that I doubt the IDF will pull out of these areas once the wall is finished. To do so would be foolish from their POV.
Guy,
Sorry you thought I didn’t answer your question. Let me try again. Is open, extra-legal violence collectively applied a suitable policy for a liberal polity in the West?
The answer is “yes”, and I contend that the British used it in Northern Ireland where the terrorists weren’t muddy-colored and a long way away. Read Peter Taylor’s book Loyalists and you’ll see how they did it. The IRA didn’t really come to the table until the UVF and UDF started killing more of them than the security forces. IIRC, Taylor argues that the IRA leadership realized that, while the loyalist paramilitaries couldn’t easily be tracked back to the Crown, they were operating with clandestine military assistance. With that assistance and no holds barred on their part, the Loyalists were beating the IRA at their own game of intimidation and murder, including targeted assassinations of IRA senior personnel.
The IRA proved yet again that it was susceptible to the mailed fist once they had angered Britain enough to take the velvet glove off. If you remember the Bobby Sands hunger strike days, all that stuff stopped shortly after someone (I suspect the name could be Googled) in the Lords asked why the British should show the slightest concern about whether these IRA guys died from starvation. The Lord’s suggestion was that they be allowed to starve themselves, that the hunger strike be given absolutely no publicity, and that, once dead, they be unceremoniously disposed of in an unmarked grave inside the jail.
IIRC, he struck a resonant chord and the hunger strikes stopped shortly thereafter. I believe it was because the IRA thought Margaret Thatcher might just adopt the aforementioned suggestion. It’s important, though, to not lose sight of the very real differences in the two situations.
The IRA, while a bunch of murderous thugs who wrapped themselves in the cloak of Irish nationalism, (again justifying Shaw’s dictum, BTW) were all about power and money. I don’t believe that even if they had been able to obtain a nuclear weapon they would have used it on Britain. Their idea was to have Britain officially leave Northern Ireland, not to have all British Protestants in the six counties destroyed root and branch.
The Palestinian/Israeli fight is more viciously ugly than the British/IRA fight by several orders of magnitude because the Pals make no bones about wanting to see the last Jew dead. Do you, Guy, or you, Friend, really think that if the Pals had a nuke they would hesitate for a moment about setting it off in Tel Aviv?
It’s worth noting that the 1937 Peel Commission report on Palestine stated that the hatred they saw existing between the two communities, Jew and Arab, exceeded anything they had ever experience, including even the hatred between the north and the south in Ireland. These were men with a wide experience of the British Empire, itself very familiar with communal antipathy (Muslim/Hindu in India, British/Boer in SA, etc.). Sounds to me, almost seventy years later, like they had a pretty solid take.
As for giving the Israelis credit about not taking the ultimate vengeance on the Pals, yes, they do deserve a lot of it. I don’t think their patience will last forever. I do not share your optimism that the Palestinians will not commit some act that will drive the Israelis to expel them. I suspect that a mega-terror attack that kills several thousand would be a sufficient spark to set that long-laid powder train alight. I also haven’t the slightest doubt that the Pals are hard at work trying to provide that spark, and I think that sooner or later they’ll succeed. Just as a side note, the Etzion Bloc massacre caused a lot of Pals in 1948 to run for the borders because they feared retribution. Most of them apparently thought Deir Yassin was just the start. If the Pal terrorists succeed in hitting the mega-terror home run they’re continually swinging for, it probably wouldn’t be a wise move to be standing in front of the Allenby Bridge two hours later.
As for worshiping the state, Guy, I’m not genuflecting at that altar. I do accept, though, that when it comes to questions of national defense against a serious and clearly perceived external threat, the state generally legitimately represents the vox populi of its citizens and their society. That’s the primary justification for a state, since any human society has self-defense as its first obligation.
And, one more time, I do not think that Pal expulsion by Israel would bring about the kind of concerted world excoriation/shunning that you do. There are places that have done, and are doing, worse things quite recently (North Korea comes quickly to mind) with far less justification. Life isn’t easy for those countries but they’re still surviving and they don’t have half the excuse or the resources the Israelis do.
Take a good close look at the decade of the 30’s and then look again at what happened after 9-11 and in the runup to the Iraq War. Those periods certainly convinced me that it takes a great deal of unmistakably imminent danger to get the world off its collective duff. With the Muslims in general being tarred with the terrorist brush and the Pals in particular having such a horribly bloody track record of killing innocents, I simply don’t see the necessary outrage emerging. Too many other countries have too much reason to want terrorism in general, and particularly Islamic terrorism, to receive a swift and clearly visible comeuppance. The Palestinians are the obvious poster boy for that role.
One more time, this whole affair has been a self-made disaster for the Palestinians. If they had had one decent leader in the past seventy years, all this bloodshed could have been avoided.
Dan, I disagree with you over perception of the Palestinians. Other commenters were correct to say that your opinion holds true in the US, but not in the rest of the world. The trouble with your “Pals in particular having such a horribly bloody track record of killing innocents” statement is that the number of civilian casualties in recent times have been consistantly higher on the Palestinian side. Israeli soldiers have a horribly bloody track record of killing innocents, & most of the world knows this. If they did so in great numbers, there would definitely be outrage, & Israel, and any country which supported her actions, would probably have to live with closed borders, or borders more secure than any in the world today, in order to avoid horrible retribution by some suicidal fanatic.
I do agree though that economically Israel might survive such action OK; China’s doing fine, & they’re still merrily suppressing Tibetan culture, as they have done for many a year despite various UN condemnations etc.. If you’re powerful, you can get away with all sorts of atrocities that might get lesser powers slapped down.
A_t, Guy, Friend,
I’m going to be away for the next few days so by the time I get back this thread will be history. I’d like to thank you for the way in which your questions and responses have made me sharpen my own thinking on the issues involved in this discussion. While we certainly don’t agree, it has been a real pleasure to debate the matter with intelligent individuals who pose interesting questions while disdaining the useless invective that too often pollutes blogs–particularly on this issue.
Thanks again.
Dan:
Likewise, I enjoyed this discussion with you. I agree that the Israel/Palestine issue is something that people feel passionately about, on both sides, and was glad that this particular discussion didn’t descend into adhom’s and insults.
To answer your question about nuking Tel Aviv, my guess is that the Palestinians probably wouldn’t hesitate to do this. In my opinion, the Palestinians probably think that if they can suceed in eliciting a particularly brutal response on the part of the Israelis, they will ultimately benefit as the world (or a portion thereof) steps in to do something. Then again, the Palestinians haven’t yet escalated beyond the tactic of suicide bombing. It seems to me that one way that they might do so is to start developing and using crude chemical weapons. (This isn’t really that hard to do, as far as I know. There are recipies easily available on the internet, and don’t forget that this has been done before by non-state actors in Japan)
You said:
As I’ve already said, I do agree with this. However, I think there is more to it than this. I think the Israeli leadership recognizes that if they take especially brutal or extreme action, the world will come down against them. I know you disagree with this premise Dan, and you may be right. This is speculation, after all.
I also think that there is finally a “wakening up” on the part of Israel to how bad their situation really is. Maybe the proposed Gaza pullout is a sign of this, though I’m still not sure how this is going to work. Likewise for the WB and the wall. Time is on the side of the Palestinians (demographically) and they know this. Also the image of Israel on the world stage, and especially in the ME is getting worse and worse. The constant images of the occupation as seen on Al-Jazeera and other channels is creating a new generation of Arabs & Muslims which will likely be even more radical than the current one. I do wonder where Israeli leaders and intellectuals see themselves in 10, 20, and 50 years in the future.
Anyways, have a good trip and stay safe.
Dan (if you’re still reading)
Here is an interesting article from the Cato Institute on how things may (hopefully, IMO) turn out:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-04-2.html