Is Israel Too Strong for America?

[Fate]

The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).

There was a "real" war in Lebanon only three years ago.

[Jos Theelen]

The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).

There was a "real" war in Lebanon only three years ago.

That was not a war. It was some kind of punishment act from Israel for Hezbollah/Lebanon. You cannot compare these acts with 1948, 1967, 1973 and 1982.

[Malthus]

"The theory that Japanese and Jews have common ancestry" were sold.

Huh? 

Well, technically, they do.  I'd suspect it's a pretty prosaic topic for a book, though.

I don't suspect they were talking about our common Cro-Magnon heritage. 

[Valmy]

The whole situation today is far better than the situation in the last 40 years. The Palestinians have more or less a bit of their own state, the extremists are confined to the Gazastrip. Israelian civilians are much, much safer from suicide bombers. The last "real" war was in 1982 in Lebanon (around 17000 deaths, compare that with the present situation).

This makes perfectly sense. If you work hard to contain conflicts and  make concessions, you can end conflicts, like what happened in Spain, Belfast, Kosovo and other places. Rabin and other Israelian leaders understood that, some Palestinian leaders understand that as well. It will takea lot  more time, but that's what you get in a 50 years old conflict.

The people who think that concessions are futile, have no effect, are contraproductive or are defeats, are wrong. People who don't want to make concessions, have to fight their whole life.

I think you are misrepresenting what I am trying to say.  Key concessions have been made and I was in favor of those.  Eventually though those concessions have to lead to positive results for those making them.  If you keep making concessions based on the expectation certain results are going to be the outcome, you rightly should expect some of those results to occur.  Concessions have to be a two way street.  Israel made a major concession and Gaza was handed over to Hamas.  They are not "confined" to Gaza, they went from being an extremist group to controlling the only unoccupied part of the Palestinian territories.

Things are not better now, only the Israelis are alot more numerous and have cordoned themselves off better and Arab tactics have changed away from massive wars but that is only because those wars were unsuccessful.  I am not really sure if Hamas and Hezbollah controlling their own territories with massive public support is really an indication that things are great and more concessions should be made.

The problem is with the results the way they have been so far, I fail to see how we can honestly convince the Israelis to make more and more need to be made.

[Iormlund]

Jos, no concessions have been made in Spain. There have been several rounds of talks by 3 different administrations, all without bearing fruit.

[Malthus]

The problem it seems is that we all have a narrative in mind about how a peace in the middle east *ought* to go - Israel gives up the WB settlements, the Palestinians get a state, and there is a comprehensive peace.

This is all very well, but it sort of relies on the players on the ground having the same narrative - and not all of them do.

In particular, the Palestinians seem to have a narrative based more on the pattern of the Crusades - Europeans show up in the Holy Land, establish an armed camp, are worn down by years of fighting, and eventually driven into the sea by a Jihad.

In this narrative, all truces and concessions are basically temporary - designed only to gain some advantage for the final confrontation.

The issue is whether by making those concessions and delivering results, those in favour of the first narrative can win over Palestinians who are, it would appear on present evidence, mostly wedded to the second. So far, there is precious little evidence that this will happen, yet its happening is basically an article of faith in left-leaning circles and among most Europeans, who view the "problem" as being Israeli unwillingness to make deep enough concessions to achieve this goal. They view Israeli concessions already made as being too little, made cynically, and reserving the best advantages for Israelis.

The Israelis have by and large come to the conclusion that further concessions will not "work", that the Palestinians are more or less wedded to the Jihadi view, and thus that there is little point to making further concessions. 

[Valmy]

The Israelis have by and large come to the conclusion that further concessions will not "work", that the Palestinians are more or less wedded to the Jihadi view, and thus that there is little point to making further concessions. 

And under the circumstances I cannot blame them.  The Palestinians have to show they are interested in playing along before we can expect the Israelis to concede anymore.

Frankly I would be shocked if what I want, two states living side by side, ever actually occurs.  I am pretty convinced the present state of affairs will continue indefinitely.

[Jos Theelen]

Jos, no concessions have been made in Spain. There have been several rounds of talks by 3 different administrations, all without bearing fruit.

The situation is far better than the situation during Franco. I am not only referring to the ETA. During Franco Spain was far more centralised, languages were forbidden, etc. Most of these things have disappeared.

[Malthus]

The Israelis have by and large come to the conclusion that further concessions will not "work", that the Palestinians are more or less wedded to the Jihadi view, and thus that there is little point to making further concessions. 

And under the circumstances I cannot blame them.  The Palestinians have to show they are interested in playing along before we can expect the Israelis to concede anymore.

Frankly I would be shocked if what I want, two states living side by side, ever actually occurs.  I am pretty convinced the present state of affairs will continue indefinitely.

I dunno; it is always possible that a truly charismatic leader emerges from among the Palestinians, and achieves a major change in policy (without being assasinated). Unlikely but possible.

After all, I'd never have imagined the Soviet Empire could collapse either - and it did.

[Valmy]

The situation is far better than the situation during Franco. I am not only referring to the ETA. During Franco Spain was far more centralised, languages were forbidden, etc. Most of these things have disappeared.

Well...I don't know if "not being fascist" is really a concession.

[Jos Theelen]

The Palestinians  haven't made concessions. They don't need to, Israel is doing that for them. Every settlement that is build on the West Bank, is a Palestinian concession forced upon them. Every Israelian move in East-Jerusalem is a concession forced upon them. Every piece of land taken for the wall is a concession forced upon them.

If Israel wants peace, they have to make concessions. The first one is halt those settlements. But the reason that the USA cannot halt the building of the settlements, is not because they disagree with the Palestinians about it, but because they are afraid for the internal reaction. And that will probably decide the outcome of this conflict. Not the Palestinians, but the people in the US. When they agree with a firmer attitude against these kind of actions, they will force Israel to do the concessions this conflict needs.

For the Palestinians the situation is much simpler. They too have to make some concessions. Like the right to return. However nobody cares if they make that concession. Whether they do it or not, they don't have the right to return and will never get it.

[Iormlund]

Jos nationalist tensions were not alone against the regime. Most people cheered ETA's assassination of Franco's heir apparent (Adm. Carrero Blanco), for example. In fact, despite having not yet been born when it happened, I can still quote the verses of a very popular song commemorating the event. Communists, socialists, liberals (in the European sense) and even religious and military figures advocated the end of the dictatorship.

Anyway, and back to Israel: because of the Fatah-Hamas divide, I think it could be a worthwhile pursuit to further drive the wedge between Gaza and the West Bank. Use the stick with the former, the carrot with the latter (especially when it comes to outside perception). The gains to be made I think justify the attempt, however futile.

[Valmy]

The Palestinians  haven't made concessions. They don't need to, Israel is doing that for them.

That have to make the concession of showing they are interested in making it work in Gaza.  Granted that is not really a concession since they SHOULD do that anyway in their best interests, but that is what they need to do and it is too hard.  Actually all we fucking asked them to do is SAY they are not interested in destroying Israel and Hamas could not even do that.

So when I say Palestinians must make concessions all I really mean is: not be fucking insane and do what is in their best interests for once.

If Israel wants peace, they have to make concessions.

They did: they withdrew, they tore down settlements.  No progress resulted.  In fact the extremists in the Palestinian camp got stronger and the situation got worse.

There is only so much the USA can do right now.  Our plan: having a democratically elected responsible Palestinian government with some legitimacy based in Gaza we could negotiate with went to shit when the Palestinians elected Hamas.  How can we force the Israelis to do anything when we have no plan?

[Malthus]

The Palestinians  haven't made concessions. They don't need to, Israel is doing that for them. Every settlement that is build on the West Bank, is a Palestinian concession forced upon them. Every Israelian move in East-Jerusalem is a concession forced upon them. Every piece of land taken for the wall is a concession forced upon them.

If Israel wants peace, they have to make concessions. The first one is halt those settlements. But the reason that the USA cannot halt the building of the settlements, is not because they disagree with the Palestinians about it, but because they are afraid for the internal reaction. And that will probably decide the outcome of this conflict. Not the Palestinians, but the people in the US. When they agree with a firmer attitude against these kind of actions, they will force Israel to do the concessions this conflict needs.

For the Palestinians the situation is much simpler. They too have to make some concessions. Like the right to return. However nobody cares if they make that concession. Whether they do it or not, they don't have the right to return and will never get it.

The US has seemingly zero political appetite for forcing Israel to make concessions, under Obama at least.

The issue though is, as I've said, whether making concessions will make any difference. Merely saying that Israel must do it does not answer that question. If the Israelis remain of the opinion that concessions will not make any difference, none will be made; if the Israelis are right to think that none will make any difference, merely demanding them isn't going to solve anything.

[Valmy]

The US has seemingly zero political appetite for forcing Israel to make concessions, under Obama at least.

The main reason for this is good: it will probably blow up in our faces and make us look foolish.  Relying on Palestine to behave for your international reputation is a sure loser.