I am in favor of a negotiated settlement

Yes, that seems to be the refrain of almost everyone here who takes me to task for my views. “I really am liberal. I really do oppose the Occupation. I really am in favor of a Palestinian state.” Just not now. You see, there’s no partner,” etc., etc.

I have one question for you: if you’re in favor of it when do you propose this magical moment happen? And why not now? Because if you’re not telling your PM that now’s the time then you might as well stop telling me how reasonable a person you are. I’m only interested in someone who’s willing to put up or shut up on this question right now.

Please therefore imagine them as separted by a central margin - might make much more sense that way.

Thanks for the link - a very good site.

Do I see where you’re going on this? Correct me if I’m wrong, LeaNder, but are you hoping for a more measured response in all these matters? Traditionally, in the gravest of situations, mankind has resorted to violence as its only way out. Humanity may indeed have within itself this admirable capacity for restraint but its primitive instincts in desperate moments can still dominate; those inbuilt tendencies towards ‘fight or flight,’ more often than not, carry the day. Extreme measures are the ones most likely to be adopted in extreme times; they do seem to surface when other options appear unable to stem the tide.

Still, refraining from the more extreme forms of conflict and passive resistance have had their victories in the past although these have been few and far between. Certainly the moral case for these is much easier to establish. But, perhaps, only in a more perfect world could such a course of action come anywhere near fruition.

I don’t think the arguments on this topic re IDF et al. help all that much. They may be quite valid in their own way but , guys, for all the good it’s doing, you might be better employed working out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Broadly speaking, your core arguments seem to be these.

Cet animal est tres mechant; With the blind leading the blind, we Quand on l’attaque il se defend. shouldn’t be too surprised if both
fall into the ditch.

Somewhere between the span of these two viewpoints there may exist a compromise strong enough to accomodate both. If there isn’t, then this discussion will never be at an end. Perhaps you get to continue it in the hereafter - although by then, I suspect, there won’t be much point.

I really think we are expected to have worked out these things long before then.

You’re an intelligent person but the definition of insanity is someone trying the same behavior that failed previously without learning a single thing fr. their mistake.

First of all thank you for the compliment. Of course many more Israelis and Palestians have been killed after peace negotiations such as the Oslo accords or the failed Camp David talks. Now, I am more interested in Israeli casualties than Palestinian ones as I see the role of the Israeli government and the IDF to protect Israelis even if it is at the expense of Palestinians (providing that it is Palestinians providing the threat. I don’t think Israel should bomb Palestinians in order to send a message to Asad for example). “Summer rain” ended 10 months ago. It would be interesting to see how many Israeli casualties there were in the 10 months following Summer Rain and the 10 months following Oslo or Camp David.
Here is an example - Oslo II signed Sept 28 1995. By March 4 1996 over 60 Israelis dead in a series of suicide attacks.
CampDavid Summit July 2000, Taba talks Jan 2001. By Oct 2001: Dolphinarium massacre, Sbarro massacre, Lynchings in Ramallah, Hadera car bomb attack, Minister of tourism assasinated.

So who’s the one not learning from mistakes.

[Just as an aside, I am in favor of a negotiated settlement]

as I shouldn’t be here - so many urgent matters - I haven’t been over at your blog: The Towers of Yorke for quite some time now.

http://yorketowers.blogspot.com/2007/04/can-it-really-be-beyond-compass-of.html

And yes, I know your design fits perfectly well into Richards perspective, or mine for that matter.

I simply had to react to what felt like utter hybris. You may realize that my reactions on a sentence like: “Geez, never will happen.” must necessarily be strong. As my reactions on the many repetitive occurrences of the word: RESTRAINT, as the main obstacle in the “Benevolent Hegemon’s” war against terror is. Who is bringing democracy to the ME.

Don’t these people realize, how dangerous the larger scenario with the Hegemon securing it’s future resources and Israel delivering the mental software for the useful bias, the useful resentment of the Islamic world, who sits on 2/3 of the world’s oil is?

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/6376

Flava, I felt exactly like you and noticed to my utter shame that it might be more easy to judge, if you are not the target and Richard for many reasons must be. I just tried to forward a longer note but got caught in the Spam-automation or defense shields of Richard’s software. Not that it matters much.

As a German I am caught - from early on - in what feels like a net with no escape: the leaders and their sheep. Or the authoritarians and their followers.

On my reading list in this respect: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

My response was based on the trigger phrase: “Geez, that never happens.” What utter hypris!
And beneath my phrase: “Because of the benevolent hegemon, or because of what? Never?” I was reminded of something that would take to long to explain here. A very special private exchange with the Military Historian Marin van Creveld, whom I once defended against a rather vicious internet campaign against him. At least that was what it felt like, before closer inspection.

In the end I realized that maybe his: No thank you, Israel can help herself, may well have triggered the huge wave of anger.

Can help herself? Could it, tiny as it is, ever continue in its “UNRESTRAINED” ways - to modify another expression above, that catches my attention - survive without the support of the “benevolent hegemon”, who we are told only wants to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1185632-8904627?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Martin%20van%20Creveld

you seem to think they have to achieve 100% mission success. There is no 100% success. You can rest assured that the IDF will study this case and try to improve in the future because they have no interest in allowing children to be killed.

No, not 100% success. But the number of innocent civilians killed by IDF action is huge. I have absolutely no trust that the IDF will learn anything fr. their terrible blunder in this case. They almost never seem to learn fr. mistakes & hardly ever acknowledge any. I’m sure if they actually intended to review their procedures they would’ve said so by now so as to let the world know that they care about killing innocent children. Their silence is more revealing than your certainty that they will learn something. And btw, what will they learn? At the very least they should upgrade their surveillance capability so they can tell who they’re about to blow to bits & whether its a small child or full grown adult.

the IDF has failed in keeping Sderot safe, but the main reason for this is their RESTRAINT, because what Israel needs to do is engage in a major operation against the hamas and Islamic jihad. That’s what any normal country would do after so many attacks on its civilians.

You’re an intelligent person but the definition of insanity is someone trying the same behavior that failed previously without learning a single thing fr. their mistake. Now, I won’t say YOU are insane. But the IDF policy certainly verges on this. You had previous operations against Gaza to do precisely what you claim they need to do now. Remember Summer Rain?? Did that succeed? Of course it didn’t. But you know what: if you & the IDF want to continue in yr insane belief that what failed before will somehow now miraculously succeeed–gesund a heit. Go for it. It only further degrades Israel’s position on the world stage & further discredits its claim it is interested in peace.

I’d argue that if such an operation would succeed or ever did succeed I might speak differently. But by the very nature of this war and all insurgent wars–there are no pure military solutions. And in this case there isn’t even a partial military solution since the IDF flat out is a failure.

Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza strip. What’s left for it to negotiate?

Spoken like a person who is much less intelligent than I believe you are. If you don’t know what there is to negotiate far be it fr. me to enlighten you. Be satisfied in yr blissful ignorance & certainty that Israel is doing the right thing (or would be doing the right thing if it only came down harder on the Palestinians).

I’m all for a Palestinian State, and I don’t like right wingers in any country, but your emotional arguments don’t do your side any good Richard.

First of all, this post contains an entire article by Gideon Levy, which you neglected to deal with at all. There is almost no opinion of mine in this post. Interesting you should choose to criticize me yet neglect the subject of the post. My “emotional” arguments are inspired by Palestinian children murdered at fairly regularly by the IDF. If you don’t like such emotion, then perhaps you’re not the target audience for this blog.

I see the situation objectively. I know what both sides need to do to attain peace. My analysis can be as cool as it needs to be when it needs to be. But when children on either side are murdered coolness is not what is called for. I blame both sides for their various depredations. But what you’re really saying is I’m not sufficiently sympathetic to Israel, which is bogus. I criticize Israel a little too harshly for yr taste. Sorry, but I call ‘em as I see ‘em.

Hi LeaNder,

As you know, the method Richard has frequently and kindly let me put forward here does require that very condemnation by all world bodies - or, at least, a representative sample thereof. Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, this becomes a mandatory part of the whole process. Every nation on earth should be prepared to speak - and speak with one voice - on all such matters.

‘ No man is an island, entire unto itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.’ (John Donne)

Just what is a benevolent hegemon? It sounds absolutely wonderful.