http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/keith_kahnharris/2008/03/a_real_peace_movement.html

is it wise [to shoot at Israel]?

It is if you don’t mind sacrificing your fellow Palestinians in order to get Israel bad headlines.

Keith, if they are willingly risking their lives for the cause, they are not really civilians, are they? And if everyone in Gaza really is such a firm supporter of the war with Israel, the Israelis cannot be losing any goodwill when they shell Hamas.

This conversation is beginning to seem slightly surreal. The idea seems to be to start with the conclusion that it is morally and practically wrong for the Israelis to ever shoot at anything in Palestinian territory, and then look for arguments that seem likely to lead to the conclusion.

Does anyone think that Hamas hinder their goals by taking shots at the Israelis? If not, why is it wise for Hamas to shoot, but not Israel?

What concessions have the Israelis made to the Palestinians (or Hezbollah, for that matter), that have led to the recipients of these concessions reciprocating? I cannot think of any, which suggests that the Israelis would not benefit from further concessions.

So if I were running Israel, I would not make any.

I don’t think there is much evidence for that. They aren’t a group that are going to change their view of jews just because they see them behave mercifully. If anything, it will make them feel more contempt for them as they will perceived as weak as well as evil. Remember, they aren’t working with the same underlying concepts of human rights and individual freedom that we are (that is why they completely ignore the material interests of their own people). It is not that these aren’t priorities, they aren’t even part of the objectives of this group.

“If only the politics of the region were as simple as you make it out to be in that one side is completely innocent of all wrong doing as long as they simply don’t fire the guns they’re pointing at their enemy.”

I am not saying the situation is as simple as that, Israel is implicated in bringing about this situation too. There are certainly faults on both sides but the faults within Hamas and the PLO are currently too great to be surmounted by an Israeli peace initiative. I am just specifying what the options for Israel in terms of policy are at this moment. They aren’t any good, I agree. The short term solutions suggested in this thread are mind-blowingly naive. So I am suggesting the long term solution has to be cultural and social. If the Israeli-arab conflict didn’t exist, the ruling class in the Middle East would find it necessary to invent one. That is what we have to tackle.

I’m saying that given the Palestinians have to depend on Israel for jobs etc, and there is no easy movement between the West Bank and Gaza – there needs to be allowance at least to work. We need a viable Palestinian state. The current border controls make that quite difficult, no?

of course they’re difficult. they’re impossible! but every time the israelis relax their restrictions, the militants send over more suicide bombers, not scrupling to use women, children and the disabled to do so – what sort of “allowances” do you suggest? a recent plan suggested a woman hiding explosives under the bump of a *maternity dress*, accompanied by a bloke dressed as a *medic*, who would be the secondary bomber to detonate when help arrived for the first explosion. what sort of border controls allow for this sort of thing, sunny? because if you’ve got an answer, i bet the israelis would love to hear how it can be done. unfortunately i don’t think there is one until the palestinians stop using such tactics.

How do you know they are ‘human shields’? why can’t they be civilians living in an area that gets bombed? None of the latest reports say anything about human shields.

sheesh, sunny, if people like this move a rocket launcher into a flat in your building, they don’t always tell you about it, nor, if they do, do you exactly have the opportunity to object – they fire and then they bugger off, leaving you to get hit by the reprisal. they win both ways – and they have, effectively, used you as a human shield. that is what we’re getting at here.

I think there are steps that Israel can take, as the obviously stronger power, to unilaterally push through policies that force the Palestinians to return the favour.

what steps? please, tell me, i’d love to know. seriously. and, while we’re at it, let’s talk about the palestinians’ “doomsday weapon” here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/957786.html

b’shalom

bananabrain

Yeah because it’s that black and white isn’t it? Israel surround Gaza on three sides, and I’m sure if they could sustainably walk on water they’d try and make it four. There is a contradiction of terms in the situation that means Palestinians are constantly feeling persecuted and as usual peace talks have gone no where. If only the politics of the region were as simple as you make it out to be in that one side is completely innocent of all wrong doing as long as they simply don’t fire the guns they’re pointing at their enemy.

unless you are suggesting that Israel not returning fire, supplying resources to Gaza while under missile fire and then opening their border to Hamas is a serious solution.

. Absent the consideration that a possibly unpopular move is politically dangerous for a democratically elected government, would this be a serious solution? Wouldn’t it take the wind out of Hamas’s sails?

To me, the term ‘human shield’ implies an unwilling volunteer, the classic example of this being the westerners that Saddam Hussein used for the purpose during the first Gulf War. This is not necessarily applicable to the Gaza/Hamas case as there does seem to be a level of popular support for the militia (they won an election) albeit certainly not unanimous.

The concept of human shield is best applied to situations where the shields do not support those they are shielding. All the evidence suggests that in the Gaza case the civilian victims of Israeli attacks are more likely to blame the Israelis.

Very straightforwardly because missiles are fired from civilian areas, close to schools and hospitals.

If 50% of casualties are civilian and 50% “militants” – which are the proportions you see reported (though assume the source is Hamas itself and may therefore be an underestimate of the “militant” proportion) – I would have thought that that shows precisely that the IDF strikes are *not* arbitrary.

And however disproportionate you might believe the IDF response might be, let’s not for one moment pretend that Hamas gives a flying f*ck for civilian lives on either side.

Hell, they run childrens TV shows where giant rabbits encourage 10 year olds to hate Jews and become “martyrs”.

Just wanted to chuck that into the mix…

No, Israel have periodically stopped fighting and have even tried withdrawing from territory. That only increases the missile fire. So for Israel it is a question of fighting and keeping a lid on their own deaths by killing those responsible, or to stop fighting and allowing violence against them to spiral out of control.

“Aha, but I do you see. I think there are steps that Israel can take, as the obviously stronger power, to unilaterally push through policies that force the Palestinians to return the favour. The current situation strengthen’s Hamas’s hand while weakening that of Abbas. The opposite needs to happen. And only pushing forward with peaceful initiatives will that happen.”

And how do you force pallestinians to return the favour? And remember: Abbas isn’t interested in peace either. He discusses it right now because he is currently in a weaker position. But his ideology, when it comes to Israel, is the same.

I’m not saying they should let anyone into the country. I’m saying that given the Palestinians have to depend on Israel for jobs etc, and there is no easy movement between the West Bank and Gaza – there needs to be allowance at least to work. We need a viable Palestinian state. The current border controls make that quite difficult, no?

Ad:
It occurs to me that, traditionally, if some of your human shields got killed,

How do you know they are ‘human shields’? why can’t they be civilians living in an area that gets bombed? None of the latest reports say anything about human shields.

So I wonder why you think it is obviously unwise for the Israelis to shoot at their enemies.

Unwise because it simply perpetuates the conflict, to the detriment of all sides. I don’t want it to be a zero sum game where the side that manages to wipe the other out ‘wins’.

I am saying if a group are firing missiles into Israel, Israel has a right to pursue them

Nick – this is chicken and egg. They could say they’re firing in retaliation for Israel’s actions. No?

None of us have a concrete solution for the moment, unless you are suggesting that Israel not returning fire, supplying resources to Gaza while under missile fire and then opening their border to Hamas is a serious solution.

Aha, but I do you see. I think there are steps that Israel can take, as the obviously stronger power, to unilaterally push through policies that force the Palestinians to return the favour. The current situation strengthen’s Hamas’s hand while weakening that of Abbas. The opposite needs to happen. And only pushing forward with peaceful initiatives will that happen.

Because that is such a strong moral standpoint. “We know you’re going to use civilians to shield you, but will ignore this for the ease and safety of bombarding you indiscriminately from afar.” What a joke.

“So I wonder why you think it is obviously unwise for the Israelis to shoot at their enemies.”

Who are their enemies? This is such a dangerous stance to take and it’s the sort of stance the advocates terrorism. What is different between Israeli’s shooting indiscriminately at Palestinians because *some* of them are launching rockets over the border, and people sympathetic to the forces being fought by the UK and US in Afghanistan and Iraq blowing up a few tube trains and buses? In reality not a whole lot, yet I’m assuming you don’t advocate the latter so readily?

“Wars never end in a way considered just by both sides, because each side believes its cause to be just, and if their causes were not mutually contradictory, there would be no reason for a war.”

At least here we agree

Well note the present tense, Sunny. I am saying if a group are firing missiles into Israel, Israel has a right to pursue them. If they agree to stop firing them, they shouldn’t be pursued. It is a misrepresentation of me if you say I use the word “retaliation” when I haven’t.

But I am not really seeing a point in continuing this. I think we agree with each other far more closely than this thread implies and are quibbling over language and what analogies are relevant. None of us have a concrete solution for the moment, unless you are suggesting that Israel not returning fire, supplying resources to Gaza while under missile fire and then opening their border to Hamas is a serious solution.

How do you know that this sort of tactic does anything to make Israel less popular than Hamas? I should think that if the Israelis are trying to win a PR contest in Palestine they are a lot better off shooting at their enemies than e.g. cutting down the water supply to Gaza.

In the meantime, I am not aware of many historical examples of people refusing to shoot at their mortal enemies because it was perfectly safe to do so.

So I wonder why you think it is obviously unwise for the Israelis to shoot at their enemies.

I think a lot of trouble has been caused by people saying that there must be a “just” solution to this mess. Wars never end in a way considered just by both sides, because each side believes its cause to be just, and if their causes were not mutually contradictory, there would be no reason for a war. Every compromise peace is therefore a compromise with the devil from the viewpoint of either party – and every decisive victory is a victory for the devil in the eyes of the losers.

If you would have peace, prepare for injustice.

i’m a bit mystified as to why you keep going on about gaza being a “big land-locked jail” and citing this as reason for “resistance” – presumably you think the israelis are entitled to operate border controls with a foreign country that is at war with them and, moreover, are entitled to prevent the passage of people and materials that they believe will be used to harm their citizens? the gazans have a border with egypt too, don’t they? and sea borders too, right? so what exactly do you think the israelis should do with their borders? i ask purely for information – you’re a reasonable sort of bloke, i know.

b’shalom

bananabrain

That’s because they have to face the judgement of the people on a regular basis.

“From the short-term perspective, retaliation against Hamas missiles is of course legitimate.”

“I doubt if retaliation as such is either legal or legitimate. Measures, including military measures, designed to stop missiles being fired have some chance of being legal and legitimate.

“However, from a medium to long-term perspective, it creates greater support for Hamas. ”

That remains to be seen.

“The strategy of most non-conventional warfare is to provoke greater oppression in the hope of creating greater opposition. Conventional warriors may understand this but they are trapped in a situation in which they cannot find a way out of the trap.”

correct. this strategy hinges on the belief that the more powerful party will lose its stomach for the fight before the weaker one because it will be obliged to take measures repugnant to its own people and international opinion in general. The weaker party is in big troublle should this belief prove to be unfounded.

“What may be needed is a bold attempt to break the cycle. Withdrawal from the settlements may be such a move. Those who say that withdrawal from Gaza settlements only gave Hamas a more stable base to attack Israel from are right of course. ”

correct

“The problem is that Gaza may be settlement-free, but it has no real independence.”

The Palestinian demand is for a state comprising the West Bank and Gaza. No one on either side is going to support independence for Gaza only.

“Perhaps what is needed is to turn unconventional warriors into conventional warriors. That presumes a fully independent state with its own army (as opposed to militia). If the Palestinians still wanted to provoke a fight, better that it would be a conventional fight – on a battlefield, fought by armies – then the current nihi;listic situation.”

A unified Palestinian state on the west bank and Gaza with a monopoly of the use of violence as soon as possible is in everyone´s best interests.

Hamas is firmly oposed to this.

I didn’t mis-represent you, though you didn’t use that word. But you said: Israel has a right to pursue the individuals firing missiles into their territory…

How would you characterise that?

A number of mine and yours are infringed by British government policy today, sometimes introduced only by abusing the democratic process. Does that mean I should fire missiles at my local police station or at Westminster?

I’m sorry, are you comparing the lack of your civil liberties with that of the Palestinians? And you’re accusing others of ‘wolly’ thinking? This is downright hilarious. If you’re not comparing then please don’t make fatuous analogies.

Palestinians enjoyed significant civil freedoms and had more access to personal education and academic advancement than at any point previously in their history

They still had to deal with illegal settlements, not having their own viable state and checkpoints. Why not compare their brilliant life before the intafada with your own civil liberties first?

But it was the polarising ideologies of Fatah and Hamas (supported by other nations for their own interests) that brought the particularly terrible present situation< ?i>

I acknowledge there is still a radical zionist element in Israel which is protective of any territory

Oh, now you do, that’s nice. I’m afraid this doesn’t go far enough. We still have Benjamin Netanyahu, who is waiting to take over, and only as far back as 2006 attended the 60th anniversary celebration of the King David Hotel bombing. If you’re against the use of violence for political purposes then I’m assuming you’d be against that too. Right?

But every missile fired from Hamas makes that political will more impossible.

So full of solutions aren’t we? And with complete political balance too.

- “In my post, I am not giving Israel the right of retaliation but of self-defence.”

Well, you used the word retaliation above, so one can only assume you meant that. -

Uhhh… no I did not, so far as I can see. The first time I appear to have used the word in this thread was “I am not giving Israel the right of retaliation but of self-defence”. This sort of underlines the “woollyness problem” though. It is hard enough grappling with these difficult issues without interlocutors being carelessly misrepresented as well.

Yes, civil liberties are important to me. A number of mine and yours are infringed by British government policy today, sometimes introduced only by abusing the democratic process. Does that mean I should fire missiles at my local police station or at Westminster? Well I am not because I believe that police (and even civil servants and, to an extent, politicians) are humans with rights of their own. It is also a bad idea because it is counter-productive, likely to make society and the state more violent in its crackdown on discontents.

Obviously, we are dealing with abuses on a different scale in Israel although it is worth noting that before the intifada, Palestinians enjoyed significant civil freedoms and had more access to personal education and academic advancement than at any point previously in their history (plus access to a growing labour market). That was still unacceptable in terms of human rights as they were still non-citizens. But it was the polarising ideologies of Fatah and Hamas (supported by other nations for their own interests) that brought the particularly terrible present situation about whereas passive resistance, negotiation and even proportionate levels of violence directed at legitimate targets would have led to a much improved situation.

Once again, I don’t have a short term answer. My long term answer is to challenge the ideologies that underlie this conflict as many Islamists cannot negotiate on the mere existence of Israel and any ceasefire for them is only ever tactical. I acknowledge there is still a radical zionist element in Israel which is protective of any territory but they managed to get them out of Gaza – they could get out of much of the West Bank too if the political will was there. But every missile fired from Hamas makes that political will more impossible.

Assume you would acknowledge that the “daily checkpoint harrassment” is not being done for the fun of it!

I.e. they were earlier retaliating for occupation then.

In my post, I am not giving Israel the right of retaliation but of self-defence.

Well, you used the word retaliation above, so one can only assume you meant that. But even if it is ’self-defence’, that doesn’t change anything. If a foreign country controlled your whereabouts, economic prospects and kept you in a massive land-locked jail, would you not see that as an infringement of your human rights? Given that you’re campaigning on the right to posess images the state wants to outlaw, one would assume that you’re quite high on affording people civil liberties. Or does that not apply to Palestinians?

no one in Israel is even that tied to the West Bank settlements and happily give them up for peace.

No one is that tied to the settlements? That’s not true, given the furore the last time the settlements were given up. Not only that, Israel has expanded on those settlements since rather than aim to cut them down.

I’m in agreement with Keith on #26.

Brian Klug wrote a paper last year for the Fabians which essentially made the same point. But again, some dismissed it as ‘wolly’ because they’re only interested in seeing why one side ‘retaliates’ than the other.