One weird political thought

[xiphias]

So, does the extreme Fatah/Hamas violence make the Israeli occupation look better? I mean, Israel pulls out, and now Fatah and Hamas are using mortars, heavy machine gun emplacements, RPGs, APCs, and throwing each other off of buildings.

I mean, this isn't "skirmishing" or "sporadic fighting". This is a full-scale war effort on both sides.

I think fewer people were dying when Israel was occupying the territories. Does that suggest that Israel really couldn't have done all that much better than they actually did?

Comments

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

It's possible, but you'll never hear that said. If anything, you'll hear the current war be blamed on the Israelis.

My attitude right now? Fatah and Hamas want to kill each other? I wish them both success.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

actually i think i saw that sentiment quoted here

Bassem al-Nabris, a poet from Khan Yunis, in the Gaza Strip, wrote in the Arabic electronic newspaper Elaph that if there was a referendum in the Gaza Strip on the question of whether people would like the Israeli occupation to return, “half the population would vote ‘yes.’ But in practice,” he continued, “I believe that the number of those in favor is at least 70 percent, if not more.”

“If the occupation returns,” Mr. Nabris added, “at least there will be no civil war, and the occupier will have a moral and legal obligation to provide the occupied people with employment and food, which they now lack.”

[ron_newman]

Is there some way to hand it back over to Egypt? Or set up an international protectorate, like in Kosovo?

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Who'd volunteer to stick their hand in *that* blender? I doubt Egypt would even want it back Those people are bugfuck crazy. Anyone trying to lead them to peace is going to get shot at by *someone*. It's the solution they (Hamas, Fatah, and the rest of the militant groups) have to everything they see as a problem. Not that the Likud party or other Israeli militant parties are helping any.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

So long as, by "those people", you mean Fatah and Hamas, and not the Palestinians themselves, I'd agree.

The Palestinians are just trying to keep their heads down.

I can't help but wonder if a competent propoganda campaign at this point couldn't start up a pro-Israel movement . . .

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

"So long as, by "those people", you mean Fatah and Hamas, and not the Palestinians themselves" Well, Fatah And Hamas are Palestinian people, but they're not all fo them, and I feel awful for the onts who get caught in the crossfire.


I can't help but wonder if a competent propoganda campaign at this point couldn't start up a pro-Israel movement . . .

It might work, but intimidating people by threats of violence is damned effective, and Hamas and Fatah are really good at that.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Fatah and Hamas aren't Palestinians? That's news to me.

They're not ALL Palestinians and I like to believe that they don't represent a majority of them, but...

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Can you imagine that anyone in the world would WANT that mess?

In any case, there is just as much fighting going on in Ramalah, which was captured from Jordan, as in Gaza, captured from Egypt. And I can't imagine that either Hamas or Fatah would give up power back to either of those countries, any more than they'd just cede the territory to Israel.

[ron_newman]

A handoff to Egypt would at least raise the possibility of resettling some of the refugees in the adjoining, largely unpopulated Sinai.

[redknight.livejournal.com]

This has been suggested, Efraim Inbar recently wrote about it on bitterlemons.org. See
http://www.bitterlemons.org/issue/isr2.php

[florafloraflora.livejournal.com]

You know, that's occurred to me too. And nobody has ever accused me of being rabidly pro-Israel (or, for that matter, rabidly the other way either).

[paper-crystals.livejournal.com]

There is a theory floating around academia or at least academic circles of people that the states surrounding Israel are not doing anything about ethnic conflicts and the refugees because a large group of unhappy people is more likely to want to attack Israel than otherwise.

Although this beleif is obviously main-stream enough that the economist had an editoral about how the countries surrounding Israel should start taking real responsibility for what is going on there.

Not that Israel hasn't made its own mistakes or anything either.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Lots of political theorists are Not Paying Attention to the fact that the violence is considerably worse since the Israeli pullout in comparison to the violence before. They might note that violence was worse before, but they seem to avoid drawing any conclusions.

I'll note that they did a much better job than the US forces in Baghdad are doing now.

Also remember, people who like to blame Israel will keep doing so. They're having some trouble pinning blame on Israel for the current trouble in Gaza, but they're looking very hard for any shred - like attacks into Gaza against rocket attacks. Not that Israel hasn't made its mistakes, but still.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

So, does the extreme Fatah/Hamas violence make the Israeli occupation look better?

Does the fighting and genocide in the former Yugoslavia make communist rule look better?

Did the Soviet Union make the Czar look better?

[ron_newman]

Does the fighting and genocide in the former Yugoslavia make communist rule look better?

on balance, yes.

[(Anonymous)]

My mother was from the Italian side of the Italy/Yugoslavia border. There was more fighting in her area after the war when the Yugoslavians wanted to annex the area. She always maintained, that no matter what you had to say about Tito, he held the country together and together it prospered.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

She always maintained, that no matter what you had to say about Tito, he held the country together and together it prospered.

And under Mussilini, the trains ran on time.

I guess it's just too bad about the cost in lives for that prosperity and punctuality.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The cost in lives was lower than without them.

It's easy for us to look at other people and tell them what they should think and do. But we're not there.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

The cost in lives was lower than without them.

That's an assertion you're going to have to prove if you want me to take it seriously.

It's easy for us to look at other people and tell them what they should think and do. But we're not there.

Put this into a context for me. Are you saying we should not condemn the reigns of Tito and Musollini? Are there any other dictators we should not condemn while we're at it, because we weren't there? I ask because I can sit here all day coming up with rationalizations for any dictator you care to name, and I really don't think that's the case you're trying to make.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes, and yes.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Yes, and yes.

Does that mean that you would therefore support restoration of the communist regime in Yugoslavia and the Czars in Russia(even if the new Czar wasn't a direct descendant of the old Czar)

Or does that mean that very, very bad is better than very, very, very bad, but still worse than is acceptable? That literally atrocious regimes are not excused just because they serve as a band-aid over older conflicts that must be allowed to resolve?

[(Anonymous)]

In the 1950's the saying was "Better dead than red." As miserable as people's lives might have been under Tito, Saddam, communism or any other dictator they were alive. They had jobs, schools, a working infrastructure, and could find some measure of happiness in their lives. In some cases, the people arose and overthrew the regime. In those cases, it was the people who were ready for the change, not some outside force saying we have given you change, deal with it.

However, to return to the Palestian conflict. There are a number of petty warlords, for lack of a better term, jockeying for position of supreme ruler. Unfortunately, they have sophisticated weapons and are capable of causing extreme casualities to the fighters and innocent civilians. Regrettably, the world has sat back and watched in other locales as similar events have taken place.

I know of no answer to the problem. A question that needs to be raised: Is it better for the situation to work itself out now or have a solution imposed that will only explode later on?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

A question that needs to be raised: Is it better for the situation to work itself out now or have a solution imposed that will only explode later on?

That assumes that, if the situation works itself out, that it won't explode later on.

I don't see any reason to expect that, either.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

If there were no other choices. . . 'course, the real world never has only two choices.

I think that you are not appriciating band-aids enough. Why must older conflicts be allowed to resolve? Having them wither away over generations is just as good.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Having them wither away over generations is just as good.

• Serbs and Croats under Yugoslavia
  
• Russians and Ukranians under the Soviet Union
  
• The tribes of Afghanistan
  
• India and Pakistan under British rule
  
• Sunnis, Shi'a, Kurds, Turkmen, and Turks under British rule and then Ba'athis rule in Iraq
  
• Hamas and Fatah under Israeli rule in Palestine
  

Over and over and over, the lesson is that older conflicts do not wither away over generations, they bide their time until the force that bottles them up is removed and then they explode. The idea that an external power can simply force enemies to make lasting peace rather than cause a temporary reordering of priorities is nothing more than a colonialist fantasy whose time has passed.

A band-aid is not an accurate analogy. A cork in a bottle of champagne that's been shaken vigorously is closer to the truth.

Enemies and Friends

[(Anonymous)]

There is an unwritten corollary to the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". That corollary is -- If my enemy is no longer my enemy, then my "friend" is no longer my friend and is back to being my enemy. Doesn't anyone remember Orwell's 1984? As long as Fatah and Hamas had Israel as a common enemy they were "friends". Take away Israel, and their status returns to adversarial. It should not surprise anyone.

dod

Re: Enemies and Friends

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And bringing it back to the original question, the fact that Israeli rule temporarily distracted people from killing one another so that they could try to kill Israelis instead does not make Israeli rule any better.

[cellio]

I noticed that, too. The Palestinians who talk to the media like to blame Israel for all their problems. Guess what: their problem is... Palestinians. They need to get their own house in order.

When Lebanon went into that Palestinian camp looking for terrorists recently, I found myself wondering (sarcasm on) when I would be seeing the outcry against Lebanon. But, of course, such ire is reserved for only some people...