Anyone who would talk to Hamas

Is unfit to defend America …

Exclusive Video: McCain Was For Talking To Hamas Before He Was Against It… - Politics on The Huffington Post

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Well, I agree, … at least one of the candidates who favors talking to Hamas is unfit to defend America.

I could mention that another candidate indicated he would talk to the government of Iran without preconditions, but since candidates aren’t expected to know Sunnis from Shiites, nor Hamas from Iran, we’ll let that one go.

Bonus Round: I disagree with many Bush-ite commenters on this site. IMHO, they advocate policies that are violent, dangerous, authoritarian, bad for America, and bad for the world. Do their comments here, the discussions we have, do these constitute my “appeasement” of them? Am I “appeasing” these dangerous right-wingers, these extremists and radicals, by talking to them?

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    I disagree with many Bush-ite commenters on this site.

    I haven’t seen any “Bush-ite” commenters on this site. Also, the Huffington Post piece obviously distorts what McCain was saying — big surprise there. He made it very clear that he was only for dealing with Hamas if they changed their policies and their committment to the destruction of Israel.

    but since candidates aren’t expected to know Sunnis from Shiites, nor Hamas from Iran, we’ll let that one go.

    I guess they aren’t expected to know how many states are in the U.S. either, but we’ll let that one go too.

    And for the record, I have no particular issue with the U.S. talking to our enemies, depending on the level of talks, the conditions, etc. The main problem comes with people who have unrealistic expectations that such talks are going to accomplish much or are some sort of substitute for other actions.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 10:47 am

  2. Stephen wrote:

    My McCain ESP isn’t working so well this morning, David.

    He made it very clear that he was only for dealing with Hamas if they changed their policies and their committment to the destruction of Israel.

    So, did he say any words indicating “we would deal with them conditionally” (perhaps words omitted by HuffPo?), or is your McCain ESP working better than mine this morning?

    Re: “Bush-ite,” as a Conservative myself, I refuse to surrender the term. Gimme another, less pejorative one, and I’ll use it.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:30 am

  3. Stephen wrote:

    “Depending on the conditions”

    Nice one. :)

    So, if the next POTUS talked to Iran, what “conditions” would satisfy you? Can we be reasonable people and presume that security provisions for the POTUS are implied? (My Obama ESP is working that well this morning.) Beyond that, are there diplomatic preconditions that you would need?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:33 am

  4. David C. wrote:

    Stephen,

    From McCain CNN interview:

    MCCAIN: Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.

    It’s very, very important, though, that they renounce this commitment and I understand that maybe in some parts of their party it’s difficult, but we can’t have a situation in the Middle East where a governing nation or an organization that’s governed by a group of people who are committed to the extinction of its neighbor. It’s an untenable position.

    That sounds pretty conditional to me.

    So, if the next POTUS talked to Iran, what “conditions” would satisfy you? Can we be reasonable people and presume that security provisions for the POTUS are implied? Beyond that, are there diplomatic preconditions that you would need?

    I don’t really see the need for any preconditions for talking to Iran. In fact, I’m not really sure why we haven’t talked to them. It might not do any good, but it probably wouldn’t hurt either.

    Re: “Bush-ite,” as a Conservative myself, I refuse to surrender the term. Gimme another, less pejorative one, and I’ll use it.

    To me “Bush-ite” means someone who would be among the 30% or so that give Bush a postive job approval rating. That wouldn’t be me, and I can’t think of anyone commenting here that would fall into that category. What’s wrong with using “McCain supporters,” “Republicans,” or even “right-wingers.” ? I wouldn’t dispute any of those characterizations.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 12:20 pm

  5. Grim wrote:

    I thought Allah hit it out of the park yesterday when he asked this:

    A serious definitional question: What separates “appeasement” from negotiation generally? The right, I take it, would characterize negotiations with any aggressor as appeasement since it creates a perverse incentive by rewarding a malefactor for misbehavior. Want to talk to President Obama? Simple: Start your own nuclear program, build a proxy army in a neighboring state (or better yet, two neighboring states) and wait for him to beat a path to your door. The left, I’m guessing, would define the term more narrowly, as negotiation with an aggressor without a demand that he concede anything already gained. Signing a peace deal with Hitler in exchange for his promise that he won’t do anything bad from now on would be appeasement; signing a peace deal with him in exchange for his withdrawal from Czechoslovakia wouldn’t.

    My sense is that “appeasement” is just what he says I should think it is — negotiations that give perverse incentives to do harm. If the way to get on the calendar is to keep causing harm until we send some diplomats to give you something to get you to stop, that’s appeasement. It’s paying the Danegeld, as Kipling put it.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 12:23 pm

  6. Grim wrote:

    Now, that said, I thought what Obama did wrong with the Hamas thing was to cut ties with and repudiate the International Crisis Group member who was informally advising him. I know the ICG from Iraq, and their recommendations aren’t bad — I think they rely too much on the UN, preferring to view it as the organ of international diplomacy it was intended to be, rather than the corrupt and wicked servant of kleptocracies that it has actually become.

    But they are internationalists, so it makes sense they would ask for internationalist solutions; and as Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the army you have. The UN is the army they have, the only army they have.

    These are the people Obama is going to need if he’s elected. He should be explaining that he thinks they are right, and he wants to hold these sort of contacts, talks and negotiations.

    Instead, his campaign shoved the guy out of the picture and disavowed him. Kind of like how he pushed his black supporters out of the photographs in venues across the country, because he wanted to put forward the illusion that the crowd is more diverse than it really is. He wants to put forward an illusion here, too: so the very people he’s been asking for advice and help, and who will provide the expertise in his administration if he is elected, are disowned and shoved aside.

    That’s not symbolic of the kind of courage and honesty I want in a president. It’s rank cowardice and betrayal, in fact, betrayal of those who have done the most for you for a small, momentary advantage.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 12:31 pm

  7. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    1) Not everyone who disagrees with us is Hitler.

    2) Most countries/people want to achieve goals important to them (e.g. world peace, destroying Israel, or whatever). Getting a sit-down with the POTUS isn’t really a major factor in how countries develop their policies.

    I’m actually surprised that you and my old friend Allah could indulge in such bizarre thinking.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 1:15 pm

  8. Grim wrote:

    Stephen,

    1) I didn’t mention Hitler at all. All I said was that we should not structure our policies so that our negotiations give perverse incentive to cause harm.

    2) Most countries want to achieve goals important to them, but not all of them use terrorism as a means to the end. What we’re talking about is not “how to resolve differences between nations,” but “how to treat nations that use terrorism as a tool of state policy.”

    3) Furthermore, many goals are negotiable — world peace, trade policy towards Africa, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Chinese RMB, whatever. There’s nothing wrong with negotiations to settle issues of this type.

    Some goals are rather less negotiable — presumably, destroying Israel is one of those goals, at least for Israel. Since President Bush took the opportunity to speak before Israel’s parliament and swear America to the Israeli soldier’s oath — “Masada shall not fall again” — I gather it’s non-negotiable for us, too, at least through January.

    When you’re facing a non-negotiable demand, you really do have to fight. Sometimes fighting is a form of negotiation — it often is in Iraq, for example, where the Shi’a factions are using fighting as part of, but not nearly all of, their negotiations on precisely what role JAM will play in the future Iraq.

    So the question Allah asks is a good one: is the destruction of Israel going to become a negotiable demand for us? Or not? Obama’s advisor says they should put Jerusalem on the table, which suggests that for him, it’s negotiable — at least a partial dismemberment is not merely OK, but to be encouraged by US policy towards Israel.

    Hey, we’re not Israel; the US President has no Constitutional responsibility to defend Israel, as he does to defend America. It’s OK if that’s his policy. But he should say so and own up to it, and let voters decide whether or not that’s the world they want.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 1:25 pm

  9. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    You didn’t mention Hitler? What’s this then?

    Signing a peace deal with Hitler in exchange for his promise that he won’t do anything bad from now on would be appeasement; signing a peace deal with him in exchange for his withdrawal from Czechoslovakia wouldn’t.

    See? Your quoted example of our interaction with people we don’t like is grounded in a reference to Hitler. He was the guy who demanded pieces of Czechoslovakia in 1938. You’re not Kevin James, so I presume you know that.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 1:34 pm

  10. David C. wrote:

    Getting a sit-down with the POTUS isn’t really a major factor in how countries develop their policies.

    It’s also not necessary for the president himself to participate in order to have talks/negotiations with hostile countries. Diplomatically, high-level talks (especially with heads of state) imply a certain type of respect & recognition. There may be no advantage, and there could be disadvantages to having the president personally engage in talks that could better be handled by the secretary of state, by lower level diplomatic officials, or even thru some sort of back-channel.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 2:03 pm

  11. Grim wrote:

    Ah, I see. I had wondered why you even mentioned Hitler; but now it makes sense. It seemed odd to me, but you’re riffing off Allah’s mentioning of him; and Allah was riffing off Bush’s.

    Well, let us leave Hitler out of it. We can agree that far, for certain: not all people who disagree with us are Hitler.

    Take Hamas and Iran for what they actually are, then. Is it appeasement to negotiate with people who use terrorist violence as an instrument of state policy? By “terrorist,” I mean violence using non-uniformed fighters whose basic strategy is to intentionally target civilians in order to push populations toward political surrender.

    I would say that it is appeasement, because it creates a perverse incentive to do harm. If you want concessions out of the United States — for example, if you want the President to pressure Israel to give up parts of, or all of, Jerusalem — you should do as much terrorism as possible; that will ensure you get on the agenda. If you want the US to make concessions to your national goals, start a nuclear weapons program.

    That underlying position makes sense to me: negotiations are a great way to resolve most conflicts, but we must be careful not to pay the Danegeld (which, as you know, is not a reference to Hitler, but to Anglo-Saxon policy towards the Vikings). There are some things that are, and ought to be, non-negotiable; and the use of terrorists is one of them.

    The last thing we can afford is to make the point that, if you want something out of America, terrorism is the way to go. That way lies a number of bad things, worse than anything you’ve seen yet. Chief among them is a washing-away of the defense of noncombatants that is the principle aim of the Geneva Conventions — which were not designed to protect combatants out of uniform, as people seem to have decided recently, but to protect noncombatants.

    That principle was the work of more than a thousand years, from the Peace and Truce of God movements in the Middle Ages through the wars of the 19th century through to the protocols of 1947. So many people now seem to want to do everything they can to undermine that principle: extend the protections specified to uniformed soldiers to unlawful combatants, negotiate with terrorists and states that use terrorist violence, all of these things are united by that common thread. They wear away the single principle that is the underlying concept in the laws of war.

    Some things must be non-negotiable. For those things, sometimes we must fight. Sometimes, even for a long time; even when it’s hard; even when it’s expensive. But the alternative is to surrender something that matters very deeply, not only to us, but to the future of all mankind.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 2:07 pm

  12. Alon Levy wrote:

    I would say that it is appeasement, because it creates a perverse incentive to do harm.

    Not necessarily. The high point of Hamas terrorism was in the mid-1990s; at the time, negotiations with the Palestinians were always with Arafat, and nobody suggested bringing Hamas to the table. The idea of negotiating with Hamas only began when Hamas became the elected government of the Palestinian Authority, and subsequently the de facto government of the Gaza Strip.

    Likewise, the main motivation for negotiation with Iran is cooperation concerning terrorism. In 2001 and 2002, it offered the US help in its fight against Al-Qaida. US-Iranian relationships only cooled after Bush branded Iran an evil nation in the same category as North Korea. Even then Iran tried to negotiate, only to be repeatedly snubbed. That’s one of the factors that helped create Ahmadinejad (the other is that the reformists boycotted the election over the slow pace of reform under Khatami).

    It’s the same with Syria. There’s no inherent ideological motivation for it to be allied with Iran. It would like to have peace with Israel. In fact, previous rounds of negotiations already solved most outstanding issues, including the Golan Heights and water rights. The problem is that Olmert refuses to reopen negotiations because the US branded Syria as a hostile nation; for realpolitik reasons, Syria is then allying itself with Iran and Hamas, so now the US is convinced it’s just a terrorist state.

    In all three cases, the outstanding issue isn’t terrorism or appeasement. It’s realism versus idealism. Neoconservatives in the Bush administration came up with the idea that the US is too good to talk to Iran and Syria, even when they could offer good intelligence about Al-Qaida. The left and the center want the US to drop this notion.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 2:51 pm

  13. canuckistani wrote:

    When we take a look through history, we see an awful lot of nations whose founders did not conform to the accepted “laws of war” at the time. Places like, say, Israel, France, India, China, Spain, Ireland, Vietnam, and the United States, just off the top of my head. Refusing to deal with Iran or Palestine because you don’t like their methods is short-sighted and frankly hypocritical.
    The terrorists you loathe now will be the legitimate suppliers of lead-painted toys for your grandchildren.

    I’ll be blunt here. During the Cold War, the United States has supported too many brutal dictatorships, funded too many death squads and overthrown too many democratically elected governments for you to get on your Moral Purity Pony about governments you don’t like and their unacceptable methods.
    Grow the f*** up, and get over yourselves. America is not so loved and respected that your presence in diplomacy is a victory for evil in and of itself. As far as the government of Iran is concerned, negotiating with the Great Satan doesn’t give them a scrap of legitimacy they didn’t already have.

    Just as a further thought, you do know that your ability to intimidate smaller countries has been severely compromised by your inability to extract yourselves from Iraq, right? Assuming you aren’t going to make yourselves international pariahs by first use of atomic weapons, you may find that negotiation is the only way you’re going to get what you want in the world.

    I am now bracing myself for a bunch of 1959-era no-compromise/black flag/set-an-example rhetoric. Ahh, beer.. is there nothing you can’t solve?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 2:55 pm

  14. EnlightenedLayperson wrote:

    Grim, you are assuming that we never negotiate with countries that play fair (as we, the powerful set the rules), but only with terrorists and terrorist sponsors. IOW, that we wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas if they refrained from terrorism or with Iran if they did not have uranium enrichment. I don’t see where that logically follows at all.

    The whole assumption on your side appears to be that the mere act of negotiation, in an of itself, is giving away almost the whole store, so we must never negotiate until the other side has surrendered. To me, negotiation is a beginning point. Yes, it is assumed that our side will make concessions, in exchange for concessions by the other side. But it presupposes nothing about what those concessions will be.

    As for the destruction of Israel, my answer is simple. Ain’t gonna happen. Hamas does not have anything close to the firepower to destroy Israel, whereas Israel has the firepower to turn Gaza into a parking lot. Hamas knows this perfectly well. What is really at stake is not whether Hamas will destroy Israel, but whether it will keep pretending that that is the goal, far less dramatic stakes.

    I would define appeasement, not as a single agreement that gives away too much (a highly subjective issue), but as a dynamic whereby one side is making all the concessions and each concession simply whets the other side’s appetite for more. That is the best description of Europe’s dealings with Hitler in the 1930’s.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:00 pm

  15. Grim wrote:

    Thanks, Canuck, for your hatred. I sometimes forget just how intensely you loathe me, my country, and everyone I love.

    I am, however, only trying to sort out a philosophical principle: to define precisely what “appeasement” is, as a category of negotiations that should be avoided.

    Your principle appears to be, “There is no such category. Negotiate with anyone, regardless of their methods and whatever incentives it may create.”

    Mr. Levy:

    I would be willing to see us negotiate with Hamas, provided they were willing to simply put their fighters in uniform and prosecute them for war crimes when they intentionally target civilians. That one thing would be enough of a “precondition” for me.

    Hell, I would accept a reasonable pretense that they were doing so. As long as it was enough to shore up the principle, I don’t mind to develop workaround solutions to problems. I’m not opposed to negotiations.

    I do think, however, that there is a category of negotiations that is rightly called “appeasement,” and it is not an empty category.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:06 pm

  16. canuckistani wrote:

    It’s the same with Syria. There’s no inherent ideological motivation for it to be allied with Iran. It would like to have peace with Israel. In fact, previous rounds of negotiations already solved most outstanding issues, including the Golan Heights and water rights.

    Good points, Alon. It’s worth noting that negotiation and compromise also led to peace between Israel and Egypt, which, frankly, flabbergasted me when it happened. I would have ranked that as more unlikely than peace between Israel and Iran with a visit from Santa on top.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:09 pm

  17. canuckistani wrote:

    Thanks, Canuck, for your hatred. I sometimes forget just how intensely you loathe me, my country, and everyone I love.

    I don’t loathe your country or the things you love. I liked America a lot in the Carter through Clinton years, and I expect I’ll like you again in the Obama years. But don’t expect my respect or liking if your foreign policy is predicated in simplistic moral judgements and brute force.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:16 pm

  18. Grim wrote:

    I don’t think I’m being simplistic; I think I’m trying to be precise. Rather than simply painting Obama with a broad brush — “Appeasement!” — I’m trying to sort out exactly what “appeasement” means, so that we can determine fairly whether or not he is engaging in it.

    Of course, this assumes that there is a kind of negotiation rightly called “appeasement,” and that it is to be avoided. If you want to argue against the principle, feel free; but I’d appreciate your not cursing or suggesting that only a simple-minded person or a child could believe otherwise.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:23 pm

  19. Grim wrote:

    I should say, “Not cursing at me and mine,” since what I mean is your statement, “Grow the @#$#@ up!” Feel free to curse all you want otherwise, but I resent (I believe rightly) being insulted.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:25 pm

  20. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    With all due respect, it would be a good thing for the world if you’d take off the blinders. I mean you (and the X% of the country that sees things your way).

    Canuck’s rudeness isn’t the problem. It’s a symptom. I mean a symptom of what we, the U.S., have done in the world.

    Canuck and most people like him really really really do NOT “hate us for our freedoms” nor hate you on some personal level. They’re kinda tired of America’s hypocritical global bullying, and they hate us (or our gov’t) for that.

    And if you can’t see how our misadventure in Iraq is a sort of ‘capstone’ to decades of global bullying, you’re actively and consciously trying to not see reality.

    Sorry to be blunt.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:39 pm

  21. Grim wrote:

    Enlightened Layperson:

    I missed your comment before.

    “The whole assumption on your side appears to be that the mere act of negotiation, in an of itself, is giving away almost the whole store, so we must never negotiate until the other side has surrendered. To me, negotiation is a beginning point. Yes, it is assumed that our side will make concessions, in exchange for concessions by the other side. But it presupposes nothing about what those concessions will be.”

    I think you’re right to say that we give away a lot just by agreeing to negotiate and offer concessions. The #1 thing we give away is that we legitimize the group we’re negotiating with. Unlike Canuck, I think that not only the United States, but any of the major nations has to consider that. If China or France negotiates with a group that’s been setting off bombs in civilian areas, it’s giving them something up front: recognition that setting off bombs in civilian areas is the way to get to the table, and have a chance to win concessions.

    Now, in return for not believing that this is a wise policy, I’m willing to see America (and others) do more with nonviolent groups. I think we ought to pay very close attention to the requests of groups like Indonesia’s NU — what they say ought to matter, precisely because they don’t blow things up to get their way.

    Instead, we’re in a mode where we are showing practical incentives to bad behavior. I think the Left is correct to say that we should do more to listen to nonviolent groups and interests, and reach out to them. But I also think the Right is correct to say that we should not negotiate with people who use terrorism as an instrument of policy. If they are willing to disavow it — even a reasonable pretense, as I said — then fine, let us meet.

    That seems like the right line to draw, to me. If we want to maximize peaceful efforts at change, we should support them by listening to them and being willing to negotiate. If we want to minimize terrorism as a force for driving change, we should refuse to let it be effective as a means for winning what its actors want.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:52 pm

  22. canuckistani wrote:

    Fair enough. The “grow up” comment was not specifically directed at you, but at the school of diplomacy which feels that any compromise or even willingness to talk to ones enemies is an admission of weakness, and is more appropriate for the schoolyard the the real world.
    I apologize if I gave personal offence where none was intended.

    I will trot out my definition of appeasement further down the scale. Appeasement occurs when harmful concessions are granted in a negotiation out of fear, and for no real benefit.

    But, like everything else in diplomacy, appeasement is fuzzy and grey around the edges. Say, for instance, Canada releases a number of former FLQ terrorists without condition. Is that an act of cowardly appeasement, or is it an act of good faith allowing more fruitful negotiations with a legal separatist party to move forward? Or both?
    While Chamberlain’s failure is a classic case of appeasement, it did buy time for the British to finish their radar chain and equip their air force with modern fighters. Given his lack of knowledge about actual German strength, his decision might be a bit more understandable.
    Is there any way you can tell before history has had it’s say? Clear definitions and straightforward morality are exactly what you don’t find in diplomacy, which is why it works so well, and fails so badly in the hands of people like George Bush, who do not understand compromise, subtlety and that being in the right and $4.75 gets you a cup of coffee.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 3:56 pm

  23. Grim wrote:

    Stephen,

    Blunt I don’t mind.

    Canuck’s speech is a symptom of a broad hatred, felt by many people, for what America has done in the world. Fine.

    That said, I knew a Canadian officer in Iraq, who was serving with our division. I knew many British officers who were, and Australians, and Georgians, and others I didn’t get to know well because they spoke little English or French, which are the only languages I know well enough to speak at all — Estonians, for example. We had Salvadorans, and an entire brigade of Poles in our division’s AO alone. At one time or another, seventy nations have sent forces to the Coalition.

    It wasn’t bullying that got them there. It was leadership that their nations’ governments, including Canuck’s, willingly followed.

    Now, he’s just as welcome to disagree with his government’s decision to support us in Iraq as he is to disagree with me, or my government’s decisions. All I ask is that such disagreement be carried out respectfully.

    I’m not trying to play ***-for-tat. I don’t believe that him cursing at me gives me the right to curse back. But I do think it gives me the right to point out that it’s not fit behavior, and to ask him please to stop. That seems reasonable and fair to me: which is what I want to be.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 4:08 pm

  24. canuckistani wrote:

    Canuck and most people like him really really really do NOT “hate us for our freedoms” nor hate you on some personal level. They’re kinda tired of America’s hypocritical global bullying, and they hate us (or our gov’t) for that.

    Thank you, Stephen. 10/10.
    Consider me, if you will, the token voice on this blog of allies alienated by the Bush administration.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 4:08 pm

  25. Grim wrote:

    Canuck:

    Fair enough. I accept your apology. I certainly don’t mean to sound like a black-flag character.

    In fact, at BlackFive, I find I often come in for attacks from some of the regulars for being too willing to negotiate, as for example with the Sadr faction. I understand your frustration.

    I just want to answer the question Allah asked, out of a sense of fairness. If appeasement is wrong, just what is it? I don’t oppose what the ICG is doing, for example — as said above, I think they’re good actors in Iraq, even if I think their hopes for the UN are doomed to disappointment. But they’re not bad people for wanting what they want, and their suggestions are good as far as they go. If Obama wins, he will need them.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 4:14 pm

  26. Alon Levy wrote:

    I think you’re right to say that we give away a lot just by agreeing to negotiate and offer concessions. The #1 thing we give away is that we legitimize the group we’re negotiating with.

    Hamas, Iran, and Syria are already legitimized: Hamas as the elected government of Palestine and now the de facto government of the Gaza Strip, and Iran and Syria as sovereign countries.

    Negotiating doesn’t mean surrender. A good example comes from Ehud Barak’s foreign policy toward Syria. He negotiated with Hafez al-Assad; the negotiations didn’t lead to a peace agreement (though they did lead to agreement on most points of contention) and the state of war continues, but neither side lost any diplomatic assets by trying.

    I don’t think “Stop attacking civilians” is a reasonable precondition for negotiation. It is a good thing to do, but from a realpolitik perspective, it’s terrible. Authoritarian countries and even many democracies routinely target civilians as a weapon of war. Hamas is more explicit about it than most, but it’s noteworthy that Israel has yet to charge and convict a single IDF troop or settler for committing atrocities against civilians.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 4:40 pm

  27. Stephen wrote:

    Allah’s question depended on the assumption that a “negotiations with Pres. Obama” would be a “reward.” (His terms in quotes.)

    Bull. As I said above, Iranians and NORKs and Israelis and Brazilians have their own national priorities. Getting a photo-op with the POTUS isn’t really that big a deal.

    So, his latter distinction, i.e. “giving something up” is the distinction.

    Can you see that:

    1) It contains an incredibly parochial viewpoint, presuming that all countries of the world thinks the sun rises and sets on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    2) It also presumes that all our adversaries are Hitler.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 4:47 pm

  28. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    You mentioned that Hamas should put its fighters in uniform, and I think, you generally mean play by the rules.

    That’s not a fair nor a realistic proposition. From a Palestinian perspective, the U.S. and Israel have all the guns, all the tanks, all the nukes, all the aircraft, etc.

    So, as long as Hamas played by rules that doom them to failure, given the weapons disparity, we might then negotiate with them.

    If they played by such rules, we and Israel would be absolutely guaranteed of military success … forever. You’re kinda big on “incentives,” Grim. Tell me, what incentive would we then have to negotiate with them?

    Your proposition is not even close to reasonable.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 5:03 pm

  29. David C. wrote:

    canuckistani,

    The terrorists you loathe now will be the legitimate suppliers of lead-painted toys for your grandchildren.

    Unlikely. The Palestinians have shown themselves to be little more than murderous barbarians, incapable of creating anything but terrorists. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them to create a productive state. Which is one of the many reasons we don’t need to be talking to Hamas, unless it becomes necessary to deliver an ultimatum. Iran is a different case entirely.

    During the Cold War, the United States has supported too many brutal dictatorships, funded too many death squads and overthrown too many democratically elected governments

    Some for good reasons. And we should continue to do so if necessary.

    As far as the government of Iran is concerned, negotiating with the Great Satan doesn’t give them a scrap of legitimacy they didn’t already have.

    I agree, more or less. Although it isn’t necessary to have the president talk directly to Iran in order to hold a dialogue.

    Just as a further thought, you do know that your ability to intimidate smaller countries has been severely compromised by your inability to extract yourselves from Iraq, right?

    Complete nonsense. U.S. military & economic power is quite capable of intimidating pretty much any smaller country, should we choose to initimidate them. Far beyond intimidation, the U.S. could cripple a country like Iran without any sort of ground invasion, should that become necessary.

    But I agree with you, from an entirely different angle, that we shouldn’t base our foreign policy on taking moral positions. If it is useful to talk to a country like Iran, and it may be, we should do so. Merely holding talks is not appeasment.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 5:18 pm

  30. libarbarian wrote:

    It’s paying the Danegeld, as Kipling put it.

    But the Danegeld was an actual gold payment - not just talk. There is a difference. Talk is a pretty light reward compared to gold. I’m sure there are a lot of things you would do for money that you wouldn’t do for words.

    When wrestling you always want to maintain some body contact with your opponent so that you can feel his movements in addition to just seeing them. Why? Because the more sources of info you have on your opponent, the better you are.

    Talking with other nations is a way of maintaining contact and gives us another avenue of information. This does NOT mean taking what they say at face value. It often means, in fact, learning how they think so that we can see the truth even when they are lying.

    I seriously don’t understand how “talking” - just “talking”, not talking from the point of view of weakness or talking with the naive expectation that your opponent will act in good faith, but just talking while maintaining a willingness to use force - is any “reward” for anyone.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 5:34 pm

  31. David C. wrote:

    Stephen,

    Canuck and most people like him really really really do NOT “hate us for our freedoms” nor hate you on some personal level. They’re kinda tired of America’s hypocritical global bullying, and they hate us (or our gov’t) for that.

    You’ve really swallowed the leftist garbage whole, and have apparently signed on to the “blame America first” view of the world. People have all sorts of reasons for hating America, many of which have to do with the interests of their own countries, religion, ignorance, jealousy, and all sorts of other factors, some of which aren’t even rational.

    Trying to pretend that hatred of America is somehow caused by “global bullying,” is a ridiculously narrow, simplistic view, that also manages to ignore every good thing the U.S. does in the world. It’s about as stupid as if I were to say that people all over the world love the U.S. because of its decades of philanthropy/humanitarian assistance. In actuality, international views of the U.S. fluctuate wildly, due to a wide variety of factors, both internal and external.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 5:36 pm

  32. libarbarian wrote:

    Far beyond intimidation, the U.S. could cripple a country like Iran without any sort of ground invasion, should that become necessary.

    I think you are too optimistic. Iran is very mountainous and it is easy to hide things in those mountains. Have you read Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare by Biddle?

    At Operation ANACONDA in March 2002, an intensive pre-battle reconnaissance effort focused every available surveillance and target acquisition system on a tiny, ten-by-ten kilometer battlefield. Yet fewer than 50 percent of all the al Qaeda positions ultimately identified in the course of the fighting on this battlefield were discovered prior to ground contact. In fact, most fire received by U.S.
    forces in ANACONDA came from initially unseen, unanticipated al Qaeda fighting positions.

    Point: Its really f-ing easy to hide things in rugged mountainous terrain.

    Also, Iran does have retaliation options both in Iraq and outside. During the Israeli invasion, Hezbollah sank two small Israeli boats with advanced Iranian-supplied anti-ship missiles which we did not know they possessed. The boats were nothing expensive and they tipped their hand for a small prize but I don’t think it was because they are dumb. I think Iran wanted a message sent to us - “We can give more of these missiles to more groups than you want to deal with.”

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 5:54 pm

  33. canuckistani wrote:

    Some for good reasons. And we should continue to do so if necessary.

    Realpolitik is something I understand, but it does come with the price tag of not being able to stake out the moral high ground. Machiavelli would approve, but it does little to inspire your friends and allies.

    The Palestinians have shown themselves to be little more than murderous barbarians, incapable of creating anything but terrorists. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for them to create a productive state.

    I wouldn’t have high expectations from people who have been living in refugee camps for 50 years either. But I can see terror-active places like Indonesia, Pakistan and the Punjab becoming sources of cheap labour like China and Vietnam are now. What would you have said about either of them in 1971?

    U.S. military & economic power is quite capable of intimidating pretty much any smaller country, should we choose to initimidate them.

    If I ruled a small country, I’d send concubines by the trainload to Beijing, and any strategic raw materials I had at my disposal in exchange for Sunburn missiles and a promise to sell of some of the massive American debt if there was trouble. I could probably get away with a lot before the American people could stomach the risks involved in attacking me, especially after the costs involved in attacking Iraq. You can already see that sabre-rattling over Iran is not nearly as effective as it was in 2003.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 6:01 pm

  34. David C. wrote:

    For anyone that is interested, take a look at worldpublicopinion.org in the U.S. section and see how world views of the country fluctuated greatly from 2007 to 2008, most of them for no obvious reason — something to be aware of the next time someone advocates a simple-minded theory about why people hate America.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 6:03 pm

  35. David C. wrote:

    I think you are too optimistic. Iran is very mountainous and it is easy to hide things in those mountains

    I said “cripple” not conquer or completely destroy. They can’t hide their electrical grid, their dams, their transportation system, and the rest of their infrastructure.

    Also, Iran does have retaliation options both in Iraq and outside.

    True. There is no doubt that they might have ways to retaliate. But that wasn’t my point, which was that if we chose to cripple Iran, we have the power to do so, without employing WMD.

    But I can see terror-active places like Indonesia, Pakistan and the Punjab becoming sources of cheap labour like China and Vietnam are now. What would you have said about either of them in 1971?

    Very different situations. I don’t think the use of terrorism is what sets the Palestinians apart. It’s more the whole artificial nature/lack of historical identiy of Palestinians as a people, combined with virulent religious fanaticism and an inability to adopt realistic goals.

    if there was trouble. I could probably get away with a lot before the American people could stomach the risks involved in attacking me,

    You may be right But whether we have the will to take action is a different matter than whether or not we have the power to do so. I’m not arguing that a big-stick policy is necessarily politically feasible, just that it’s possible — even with the current military overstretch.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 6:22 pm

  36. Grim wrote:

    As regard 26, 28, and 29:

    I was expecting you to ask me why I was willing to talk to Sadr and not to Hamas. I’m going to go ahead and tell you why, because I think it’s useful.

    The Mahdi Army, more or less, do wear uniforms. Not always, and they sneak around and do bad things out of uniform — but there’s enough of a pretense that I’m willing to take it as a starting point.

    The Mahdi Army have directed their rhetoric, and most of their firepower, against Coalition and occasionally Iraqi troops. They were involved in the death squads of the 2006-7 period, but so was everyone else.

    When JAI finally became tired of it, and wanted to move out of that nonsense and start toward peace, we told them they could be accepted provided: a) they’d wear uniforms, b) they’d sign and obey contracts that specify the rules under which they’d be allowed to operate, and c) they’d surrender heavy weapons to us (for payments — we pretend we don’t know where they got them, and pay them a bounty on each).

    This movement is now called “the Sons of Iraq.”

    Counterinsurgency, of which diplomacy is a critical part, is about managing the movement of groups of the type you mean — to whit, terrorists — into groups that are legitimate political actors. Once they become the latter, all sorts of things are possible — witness all we’ve done for the Sons of Iraq, their communities and their families, and in terms of negotiating on their behalf with the Government of Iraq.

    JAM — and here I am speaking of an organization that has actually shot rockets and mortars at me on several occasions — has crossed that threshhold. The last real question with JAM is whether or not they will be allowed to retain heavy weapons. The Maliki government is negotiating that with them now — sometimes through fighting, sometimes with backchannel discussion. The Maliki government has taken the position that JAM will have to disband, but that won’t be the final position. The final position will be that JAM will be integrated much as the SOIs have been, and either will or will not turn in their heavy weapons as the SOIs have largely done.

    What I mean by all of this is that I’m trying to reason from a certain bed of practical experience. These aren’t, ah, simplistic moral concepts. They’re an attempt to put into words a sense I have of what matters. What matters, with JAM and the SOIs, is that they accept the basic rules of civilized conflict. If they’ll do that, then let’s talk to them, let’s work with them. Even while they were trying to kill me, I felt that way: I’m a legitimate target. I don’t take it personally.

    The guys blowing up bombs in markets filled with women and children? Let’s not talk to them. Let’s kill them.

    So, with Hamas: the question “Should we negotiate with Hamas?” is different from the question, “Should Israel negotiate with Hamas?” Obama’s campaign, again, has said that Israel should put Jerusalem on the table — which I take to mean that, if “we” enter these negotiations, it will be in a position of advocating that Israel do so.

    I would rather we had nothing to do with negotiations than to suggest a sovereign state yield up territory to reward people that intentionally murder civilians as an act of policy.

    Now, if Hamas is willing to act like a sovereign state, put its people in uniform, and take steps to protect noncombatants — then yes, let’s advocate for them. That’s the threshhold.

    We should be trying to get people to cross that threshhold. There are, and should be, incentives enough for doing so — we’ve gone from killing JAI everywhere we can find them, to building schools for their children and advocating to ensure they get a fair shake from their government. We can do similar things for Hamas, if they’re willing to cross the threshhold.

    If they aren’t, well, the threshhold is what we’re here to defend. This is what soldiers are for.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 7:18 pm

  37. EnlightenedLayperson wrote:

    Grim, if you’re still there, I substantially agree with Alon Levy. Hamas, after all, was duly elected to government of Gaza. That sounds like legitimacy to me.

    But beyond that, power has a way of creating its own legitimacy. Consider, you have said you are willing to at least consider negotiations with the Mahdi Army. Why? Surely they are at least as bad as Hamas. I will say that I favor negotiations with the Mahdi Army, murderous as they are, because they appear to have power enough to wreck any peace that does not give them a place at the table, and powerful enough that defeating them by brute force is a bloodier business than I would care to undertake. Cynical? Maybe, but preferable to all-out war.

    In fact, as a general rule, you cannot make a peace settlement that leaves out a major belligerent. Either include all belligerents, however odious, in negotiations, or admit that you are not negotiating a peace, but an alliance to militarily defeat the excluded parties. Sometimes cutting a dirty deal is better than waging a dirtier war.

    The same applies to Hamas. Hamas has more power than Israel is willing to crush by brute force, and to do so would be blood business no one should look forward to. Hamas fires rockets into Israel, deliberately targeting civilians. Israel responds with much heavier fire that does not deliberately target civilians, but kills more actual civilians by collateral damage than Hamas is able to kill deliberately. If Israel’s behavior meets current rules of fair play in war and Hamas’s does not, then face it, those rules were made by the powerful (i.e., those with lots of firepower) to maintain their advantage. Is it really better to let the senseless carnage continue than to negotiate a ceasefire?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 7:26 pm

  38. Grim wrote:

    I gather that comment was being composed at the same time as my explanation re: Sadr. Thank you for asking the question I was expecting someone to ask. :)

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 7:34 pm

  39. EnlightenedLayperson wrote:

    Grim, yes, indeed, our passed like ships in the night. As for your comments:

    Counterinsurgency, of which diplomacy is a critical part, is about managing the movement of groups of the type you mean — to whit, terrorists — into groups that are legitimate political actors.

    Fair enough, but part of counterinsurgency is acknowledging the logic of the insurgents’ position. They are not wearing uniforms and fighting out in the open for a reason — because they are hopelessly outgunned and to do so would be suicidal. They reject the choice between submitting to, well, whatever they are being asked to submit to and fighting “fairly” as the powerful define it and being slaughtered, insurgents choose to fight unfairly because it is the only way they can fight effectively.

    To me, the starting point of when a group is worth negotiating with is something different — are they disciplined and structured enough that a deal you make will actually stick? Most national governments meet that criterion. Hezbollah meets that criterion. The Mahdi Army is working on it, but probably not there yet. Hamas? We don’t know, never having tried. But I favor trying.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 7:55 pm

  40. libarbarian wrote:

    I said “cripple” not conquer or completely destroy. They can’t hide their electrical grid, their dams, their transportation system, and the rest of their infrastructure.

    I thought we were speaking of military targets and targets with military value like nuclear processing facilities.

    1) It is generally a bad idea to start a fight that you know you cannot commit to finishing if the **** hits the fan. Why piss someone off if you know you cant take them out if you should have to?

    2) I’ll have to think but right now, on a gut level, the idea of hitting largely civilians targets strikes me as a bad idea on many levels.

    True. There is no doubt that they might have ways to retaliate. But that wasn’t my point, which was that if we chose to cripple Iran, we have the power to do so, without employing WMD.

    Ok, but my point is precisely that talking about what we might be able to do to them in a vacuum is arbitrary and incomplete. It doesn’t matter if we can hurt them. What matters is if we can compel them to do our will.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:07 pm

  41. Grim wrote:

    EL:

    Fair enough, but part of counterinsurgency is acknowledging the logic of the insurgents’ position. They are not wearing uniforms and fighting out in the open for a reason — because they are hopelessly outgunned and to do so would be suicidal. They reject the choice between submitting to, well, whatever they are being asked to submit to and fighting “fairly” as the powerful define it and being slaughtered, insurgents choose to fight unfairly because it is the only way they can fight effectively.

    I’d like you to notice that you’re saying two different things:

    1) The threshhold that I am pointing to are “rules made by the powerful,” and we can’t expect insurgents to abide by them because they are too weak.

    2) “Power creates its own legitimacy,” and so the insurgent is legitimate because he is strong.

    Here is my point: I will accord the legitimacy implied under #2 to an insurgent strong enough to abide by the rules under #1.

    You don’t have to be all that strong: the American system is ready enough to accept you as an actor. We are doing so with insurgent groups from the MILF in the Philippines to JAI and JAM in Iraq, to those we can disaggregate from the Taliban in Afghanistan. All we ask is that you cross this threshhold, and undertake the soldier’s duty of protecting noncombatants.

    I will also note that you wouldn’t think of applying those principles in reverse, to America or Western armies:

    1) The West has the right to ignore any moral rules that hamper its ability to fight effectively.

    2) The West has the power of deployable armies and nuclear weapons, and “power creates legitimacy.”

    Those are the same principles you are putting forward to defend insurgents, as they apply to Western armies. Neither America nor its critics believes either: the most jingoistic American hawk still believes that at least some things should be prosecuted as war crimes.

    I’m the first to think that America ought to be better than its enemies; but not so very much better that we ask everything of ourselves, and nothing of those who would fight against us, not even that they abstain from murdering innocents as a usual method of waging war.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:20 pm

  42. canuckistani wrote:

    There is another source of legitimacy, which is the voice of the people being represented by their elected leaders. Both the Mahdi Army and Hamas are also political parties who represent the popular will of their constituents. In the case of Hamas, they are the duly elected leaders of the Palestinian Authority. To refuse to deal with Hamas is to ignore the popular vote of the Palestinian people, who surely have a say in their future.

    Granted, dealing with Hamas is tricky in that they do not have full discipline over their populace, and a truce with the People’s Front of Judea will only anger and alienate the People’s Judean Front.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:37 pm

  43. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    EL and I were making the same point. Your distinction between 1 and 2 is pure sophistry. Hamas can’t wage conventional warfare. We and the Israelis would blow ‘em away.

    And you didnt answer my question … if they renounced all levers of power, by playing by the rules you want them to, they would be effectively powerless. What incentive would we (or Israel) have to negotiate with them?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:50 pm

  44. John the Marine wrote:

    This has been a very interesting read, I’m sorry I didn’t join earlier.

    I think there has been one large point omitted from the discussion about negotiations and if they constitute appeasement. Let me use an example that I think many will agree is indeed appeasement and is being commited by everyones’ favorite POTUS, “W”.

    N.Korea is what I for one don’t want to see Obama or anyone else repeat. In the 90’s we made a deal with N.Korea and they broke it by attemping to extort more concessions. So, how does Bush respond? By delivering up more goodies through feckless negotiations. This sad display has all of the major components of appeasement:

    1. There is no hope N.Korea will adhere to any agreement. Recent history proves this.
    2. We granted concessions with no prospect of relizing any gain.
    3. We commited 2 on the basis of being cowed by a rump state when good allies like Japan were willing to stand up to the bully with us.

    In short the Bush administration broke week big time with N. Korea and the situation is now worse than ever.

    The first question in my mind is this: Weather it is Hamas, Iran or whoever, is there a reasonable expectation of them negotiating in good faith? If not there is no need to go further. Making an agreement with another party who has no intention of living up to their end of the deal is a waste of time. Egypt and Isreal made peace under the cover of Camp David because each wanted peace under certain conditions. Therefore there was a basis for each side to sit down and bargain and that provided the reasonable expectation of good faith for each side. That peace has held.

    My second question is: Will the next president, perhaps Obama be a competent diplomat? Or will he rush to give away the store? I think the real fear of the Right, and not wholy unjustified, is that Obama will give up too much for too little. Like say Jerusalem, if Hamas (or the Palestinians in general) is so weak why give them territory? Since when do the spoils go to the pigmies?

    Which leads me to my last point. The Romans had a saying (I paraphrase) “The power to make peace is the power to make war”. Now before Canuck and the rest of you go wild just hold on a second. What this means is your advesaries have to fear you a bit before they will make concessions. If they don’t have any fear they will have no respect. Hamas and Iran really have no reason to fear a U.S. ruled by the Left and at this point they are not too afraid of “W” either. Which is why Iran isn’t giving up its nuke program and why Hamas is firing rockets into Isreal. Why would they stop? No, one is going to hurt them and they know it. In short our enemies know the U.S. has no political will for a fight. Many on the Right feel that an Obama administration will (is going to) be dovish and enhance this perception. I think the are probably correct, we will see.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:59 pm

  45. Stephen wrote:

    JTM,

    Our adversaries are quaking in their boots … yep … having taken care of business in Iraq .. our army all rested and ready ..lotsa fresh equipment .. domesstic support for more wars at an alltime high. … enthusiastic global support … a mountain of destroyed WMDs as evidence of our veracity …

    Yeah, we got ‘em just where we want ‘em.

    As for “your advesaries have to fear you a bit before they will make concessions.” I agree. So does Hamas. it’s kind of a truism. *shrug* So if we insist on anyone we might talk to renouncing all their leverage in advance, it’s not very likely.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 9:08 pm

  46. David C. wrote:

    libarbarian,

    I thought we were speaking of military targets and targets with military value like nuclear processing facilities.

    No, that wouldn’t cripple the country, that would just damage the military. What I am talking about is wrecking the country, inflicting horrible chaos and massive loss of life, without invading or using WMD.

    2) I’ll have to think but right now, on a gut level, the idea of hitting largely civilians targets strikes me as a bad idea on many levels.

    I’m not saying we should do it, or that it would be a good idea. I’m only making a “capabilities” argument. Should the situation require it, we have the capability.

    Ok, but my point is precisely that talking about what we might be able to do to them in a vacuum is arbitrary and incomplete.

    Yes, but I was responding to the argument that we were too weakened by Iraq to intimidate smaller countries, by pointing out that we still retain tremendous uncommitted conventional military power, capable of far more than just intimidation.

    What matters is if we can compel them to do our will.

    Yes, that’s a different issue. I know I have a nasty tendency to argue points of detail and get theoretical.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 9:10 pm

  47. David C. wrote:

    For those who want to talk to Hamas, I have one question: why? What good do you think it is going to do? What evidence do we have that Hamas is even the slightest bit interested in a peaceful solution, rather than just securing some advantage that they think will help them in their quest to destroy Israel?

    Here’s what is likely to happen if we talk to Hamas. They will lie and try to appear somewhat reasonable in the hopes that we will extract some concessions from Israel. Once they get some concessions, they’ll demand more. I’d put the chances of that scenario being true at something like 99.9999999%.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 9:19 pm

  48. Grim wrote:

    EL and I were making the same point. Your distinction between 1 and 2 is pure sophistry. Hamas can’t wage conventional warfare. We and the Israelis would blow ‘em away.

    No, it’s not sophistry. Either they’re so strong that they’re legitimate, or they’re so weak that fairness means we oblige them by waiving the normal rules.

    My point is, you wouldn’t let the US get away with either claim. Neither “those rules would hurt our warfighting capacity, so they’re illegitimate,” nor, “we’re the strong, so our actions are legitimate.”

    You’ve walked into a corner where the US is held to the highest standards, but her enemies are let to do anything. Anything they do is fine with you, because they’re weaker than we are: murder is fine, war has no rules for them. But if we waterboard, it’s evil.

    I want rules for all of us. America won’t be on top forever, but when we step aside, I mean to leave the world with a standard that matters. Noncombatants are not legitimate targets. The strong should protect the weak, not slaughter them to make a point.

    If they really can’t do that, they’re not strong enough to claim to be a legitimate actor. And if they are, and they will, then yes — let’s work with them.

    And you didnt answer my question … if they renounced all levers of power, by playing by the rules you want them to, they would be effectively powerless. What incentive would we (or Israel) have to negotiate with them?

    There is more power left than you realize. The Sons of Iraq are manning checkpoints with uniforms; we could now target them and wipe them out overnight. The fact of accepting the duty to protect civilians makes the allies: the fact that they are now performing that function makes them indispensable.

    I want to see us show a readier willingness to hear from nonviolent actors, like Indonesia’s NU, as I believe I was saying a bit ago. But even if you believe we will listen only under duress, here is the duress: we need the SOIs, both to protect the Sunnis and to placate the Sunnis. If Iraq becomes stable, it will be because we reach a settlement between the GOI and JAM.

    There’s duress enough in this equation. The threshhold doesn’t prevent you from having leverage. It merely insists on a moral standard.

    You’re ready enough to ask them of us, and our allies. Will you ask nothing, nothing at all, of those who oppose us? Not even a pretense that murdering civilians is not their basic method and chief strategy?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 9:46 pm

  49. canuckistani wrote:

    For those who want to talk to Hamas, I have one question: why? What good do you think it is going to do? What evidence do we have that Hamas is even the slightest bit interested in a peaceful solution, rather than just securing some advantage that they think will help them in their quest to destroy Israel?

    I’m hoping it’s because we consider peace without genocide in the Middle East to be a desirable goal.
    I believe that the Palestinian people are, on the whole, at this point willing to concede Israel’s right to exist. But they are not happy with the status quo wrt land, and the encroachment of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. If peace is to be achieved in the Middle East, some kind of accommodation will need to be reached with the Palestinian people. We can either deal with Hamas, their elected officials, or we can dangle the carrot of a fair settlement in front of them and see if electoral pressure from the people will either change Hamas’ view or change the government. If Israel can manage to come to terms with Egypt, Jordan and maybe even Syria, I think peace with the Palestinians is a real possibility.

    Other possibilities: the status quo, or making things worse and waiting for Jesus.

    JTM-
    You are correct, diplomacy is only possible when both sides have a lever they can use on the other. No sane person would expect the US to disarm or to eschew the use of force when its vital interests are threatened, and likewise, no one should be surprised if relatively powerless groups turn to irregular warfare or even terrorism if that is they only lever they can grasp*. As I mentioned earlier, the number of modern states with roots in irregular warfare (or even terrorism) is a long and distinguished one.

    *I don’t approve, of course, but we’re talking realpolitik here.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 9:50 pm

  50. Stephen wrote:

    Ok, then … our enemies are implacable Hitler clones.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 10:08 pm

  51. John the Marine wrote:

    Hamas and Iran really have no reason to fear a U.S. ruled by the Left and at this point they are not too afraid of “W” either.

    Stephen, You must have missed the above when you wrote this;

    Our adversaries are quaking in their boots … yep … having taken care of business in Iraq .. our army all rested and ready ..lotsa fresh equipment .. domesstic support for more wars at an alltime high. … enthusiastic global support … a mountain of destroyed WMDs as evidence of our veracity …

    Yeah, we got ‘em just where we want ‘em.

    Perhaps, I could be more explicit. I don’t think it is a good idea to compound the current administration’s squandering of power through misapplication by switching to a hugs for thugs approach. Maybe it might not be a bad idea not to go from one rectless extreme to a naive extreme.
    Why not use our heads? You know consider all options while being realistic about the world, our enemies, our friends and the scope of our power both diplomatic and military.

    I think the Canuckistani got my meaning.

    You are correct, diplomacy is only possible when both sides have a lever they can use on the other. No sane person would expect the US to disarm or to eschew the use of force when its vital interests are threatened, and likewise, no one should be surprised if relatively powerless groups turn to irregular warfare or even terrorism if that is they only lever they can grasp*.

    To some it up my worry is that we’re replacing a frat boy with a cupcake. Now, I know you don’t share my fear about Obama.

    As for “your advesaries have to fear you a bit before they will make concessions.” I agree. So does Hamas. it’s kind of a truism. *shrug* So if we insist on anyone we might talk to renouncing all their leverage in advance, it’s not very likely.

    Your missing a big part. We have to put a reason before them. Say, for example: Either you, Hamas, play nice and negotiate for real or we will let Isreal do their worst with our overt diplomatic support. But here is the key they have to believe we mean it. Which means we have to be ready to make good if push comes to shove. I don’t think Obama has got that kind of steel and don’t think Bush has had the smarts to apply force where, when and against who it will have maximum effect. Maybe McCain does, and I do mean maybe.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 10:48 pm

  52. Grim wrote:

    Ok, then … our enemies are implacable Hitler clones.

    I’m not saying that. I’m saying we can, and have, moved some of them away from murder as an instrument. If we focus on it, that much we can do.

    Think hard on it. You don’t have to decide today. But think on why you are so ready to accept that our enemies must do whatever power lets them, and whatever power they thereby gain makes them legitimate. That is no moral standard you would accept for yourself, nor for us.

    Why will you take it from them? Fear? No one has asked you to be the one to fight.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:04 pm

  53. Stephen wrote:

    JTM

    “we will let Isreal do their worst with our overt diplomatic support.”

    Israel strikes Hamas targets whenever and wherever it wants. They blow up cars whenever they want. They cut off fuel, etc. What’s the next escalation? Genocide? I’m not being melodramatic. I just don’t see a lot of room for escalation, for “letting Israel do its worst” beyond its current actions, short of genocide.

    Just nuke ‘em all?

    If you disagree, please be specific. Say “Israel could do XYZ.”

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:07 pm

  54. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    You’ve never answered my question.

    So, as long as Hamas played by rules that doom them to failure, given the weapons disparity, we might then negotiate with them. [in your concept]

    If they played by such rules, we and Israel would be absolutely guaranteed of military success … forever. You’re kinda big on “incentives,” Grim. Tell me, what incentive would we then have to negotiate with them?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:18 pm

  55. EnlightenedLayperson wrote:

    I will also note that you wouldn’t think of applying those principles in reverse, to America or Western armies:

    1) The West has the right to ignore any moral rules that hamper its ability to fight effectively.

    2) The West has the power of deployable armies and nuclear weapons, and “power creates legitimacy.”

    Those are the same principles you are putting forward to defend insurgents, as they apply to Western armies.

    Quite the contrary. I am arguing that we are using our strength (i.e., our overwhelming advantage in firepower) to create the rules of what is and is not legitimate. Power creates legitimacy, indeed! I am also arguing that these rules, for instance rules that forbid fighting out of uniform but condone collateral damage from heavy firepower, are stacked in favor of the side with the greatest firepower and may seem unfair to weaker parties that had no role in making them. Since we have the power to set the rules of legitimate warfare, and have set rules that just happen to favor us, I do not think it is asking too much to expect us to abide by our own rules.

    As for your claim that I am not holding our enemies to any principles at all, I don’t see how that follows. Of course I absolutely and unequivocally condemn many things our enemies do and would like to see them punished as war criminals. Setting off bombs in public squares to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible, murdering and expelling civilians for belonging to the wrong religion and torture such as power drills are prime examples. If I don’t devote much space to condemning these things, it is because I just assume that everyone shares these opinions and some things can be taken for granted. But I don’t see fighting out of uniform as unequivocally wrong in the same way.

    My measure there would be closer to Mao’s addage about the people are like water and the army is like fish. When a group like the Fedayeen Saddam uses civilians as shields with no basis of support in the general public, I agree that is a war crime and should be treated as such. But insurgents with serious support of a majority, or even a significant minority of the public are a different matter. I will defer to you on this because you have fought in Iraq and I haven’t, but it was my understanding that in the early stages of the war our soldiers knew when they were about to be ambushed because the streets would be mysteriously deserted, meaning the insurgents had warned the public of the ambush and told them to stay off the streets. That, to me, suggests they had significant public support. That is the sort of power I have in mind as creating its own legitimacy. And it is perfectly compatible with being massively outgunned and therefore unable to fight openly and and in uniform.

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:27 pm

  56. Grim wrote:

    Stephen:

    I did answer that question.

    But even if you believe we will listen only under duress, here is the duress: we need the SOIs, both to protect the Sunnis and to placate the Sunnis. If Iraq becomes stable, it will be because we reach a settlement between the GOI and JAM.

    There’s duress enough in this equation. The threshhold doesn’t prevent you from having leverage. It merely insists on a moral standard.

    We have to negotiate with the SOI, or Hamas, or JAM, in that circumstance because we will still need a competent authority in their region. They still have the power to revert to worse things, and thereby to render a region ungovernable — or governable, at a high cost. So, even if they move to soldierly behavior, there is still incentive for us to deal with them.

    But if we have thereby moved them from terrorists to soldiers, we will have won a great victory for civilization — whatever concessions are conceeded.

    EL:

    …it was my understanding that in the early stages of the war our soldiers knew when they were about to be ambushed because the streets would be mysteriously deserted, meaning the insurgents had warned the public of the ambush and told them to stay off the streets. That, to me, suggests they had significant public support.

    There were non-terrorist Sunni guerrilla groups that enjoyed the support you suggest — many of these are now SOIs. They were at one point enemies, but they were never terrorists, because they did not target noncombatants. I would have been glad to negotiate with them at any point. The wearing of uniforms is not the threshhold — the threshhold is not targeting civilians as a basic strategy. Wearing uniforms — no more than a badge or other identifier is required — is the very next step, so as to ensure that civilians are easy to identify.

    JAM is a group like this as well. I spoke with our Provincial Reconstruction Team leader for economics in Wasit province not long ago. He tells me that there have been no reports of attacks on civilian shipping in Wasit, though trade is a major source of their income (about 30%). Yet Coalition convoys on the roads are in danger of EFP attacks.

    That is legitimate warfighting activity. I don’t hold it against JAM that they use EFPs against us (although I do hold it against Iran that they use JAM as a proxy, insofar as they are using it as a method of waging war against us without having to suffer the consequences of being openly at war — presumably if Iran declared war on us, you wouldn’t mind our striking back; but because they are killing our troops with proxies, we are artificially restrained from any reply).

    The problem with Hezbollah particularly, and Hamas to a lesser degree, is that they still target civilians as their main mode of warfighting. This is a war crime, as you say. If they will leave off of it, I don’t mind to waive prosecutions of previous offenses: but before we enter any negotiations on their side — as for example advocating that Israel surrender part or all of Jerusalem to them — I would have them at least plausibly pretend that they will not use murder as their chief strategy. If they would do just that, it is all I ask.

    If they will not, why should anyone take them as legitimate? What nation state would you accept as legitimate if it claimed the right to kill noncombatants in order to make a point? Well, if you will not take it from a nation-state, why will you accept it from someone who wishes to become a nation-state? If this is not the threshhold, what is?

    Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:43 pm

  57. Stephen wrote:

    Grim,

    Let’s be specific. If Hamas plays by the rules, follows Western standards, that means no rocket attacks on Israeli cities, and no suicide bombers against Israeli civilians.

    What else do we/Israel want from them? Nothing! If Hamas did those things, then they sit in Gaza forever, proud of their “competent authority.” I guess they could deliver speeches in the UN and write angry editorials in Le Monde.

    Please, Grim, this is getting tiresome. Please tell me, as an ordinary thinking, rational, person that you can kinda sorta see how this might be a non-starter for Hamas. They give us everything we want up front, and wait for us to maybe give them something because we need them to run the Gaza Post Office? In fact we don’t; neither we nor the Israelis give a hoot if the mail in Gaza is delivered. When the Gazans freeze or starve and it makes headlines in the world press .. .then we care … Oops, back to that old “we only care when someone has leverage.” Damn, that’s inconvenient.

    Please don’t go off on a riff about Joan of Arc and the Battle of the Herrings and the evolving nature of rules vis-a-vis civilians in combat zones.

    If Hamas followed your rules, we/Israel have a complete 100% victory over them, and no reason to give them any concession at all.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 12:08 am

  58. John the Marine wrote:

    Stephen, my above example is not perfect but it illustrates a point. At anyrate you asked for specifics.

    Isreal could reinvade Gaza and round up the bad palyers and imprison/excute them as War Criminals.

    The could seal off Gaza’s borders and slap a on total blockade of supplies.

    They could bomb Gaza’s cities a lot more harshly.

    None of the above constitute “nuke em all” type options. Since Hamas provides Isreal an almost daily excuse to take action the above actions could be billed as self defense.

    The example I used was simply to illustrate a point that in order for Hamas or anyone else to “give up their leverage” there has to be a compelling reason. So, having their hiny whipped ala the IDF is pretty compelling.

    By the way force is not the only means of compelling an adversary.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 7:37 am

  59. Grim wrote:

    I certainly can see, as an ordinary rational person, that Hamas feels suicide bombers and rocket attacks on civilian targets are an effective way of winning concessions. It appears to me that the policy of meeting with them to offer concessions in order to get them to please stop is likely to underline the point — for them, and any future actors.

    It appears also to be true that Iran may believe it can win influence and possible future concessions through a policy of assassinating Government of Iraq civilian officials they find incorruptable, using EFPs attacks on their convoys. They are allowed to do this while under a flag of peace; and so we grant them the full protections that prevent either an Iraqi or an American reprisal. They, and other observers, will learn soon enough whether or not this policy is a good way to get us to come sit down and offer them something.

    I’m suggesting that we should not do that. Rather, we should condition our participation in any talks on their halting intentional attacks on civilians. That should be a precondition. A ceasefire will do. In Iran’s case, just stopping without admitting their responsibility for previous attacks would do. They can maintain the pretense of being innocent lambs, as long as they stop doing it.

    In Hamas’ case, a condition — not a precondition — of our negotiations should be that they adopt uniforms of some sort. They can always abandon them and go back to shelling markets tomorrow if they really want to — everyone understands they have the capacity to do so.

    That’s the first step. What you or Obama do after that is fine. But I believe that we should get them to cross that threshhold in order to start talking with them. Or, hey, don’t. Go sit down with them without any preconditions and start offering them things. Just don’t be surprised if you find more people engaging in this behavior in the future.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 8:18 am

  60. Stephen wrote:

    This is about played out. I do want to point out, just for the record, that Grim and I (mostly) were having a hypothetical debate about the wisdom of negotiating with Hamas.

    Obama opposes that, i.e. what I have been arguing for here is not what Obama proposes.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 8:50 am

  61. Alon Levy wrote:

    For those who want to talk to Hamas, I have one question: why? What good do you think it is going to do? What evidence do we have that Hamas is even the slightest bit interested in a peaceful solution, rather than just securing some advantage that they think will help them in their quest to destroy Israel?

    Why not? Fatah was officially committed to the destruction of Israel until about 1999. When Rabin negotiated with Arafat in 1994, he didn’t demand that the PLO remove a clause calling for “the liberation of all Palestine” from its program as a precondition for talks. Eventually it did anyway, and by 2006, Fatah’s official policy as well as practice became nonviolent resistance to the occupation. Fatah fighters never donned uniforms, and in 2006 and 2007 they engaged in gang warfare with Hamas, both sides out of uniform. Nonetheless, Fatah has had less civilian blood on its hands in the last few years than any other power broker in the region.

    In fact, negotiations with Hamas now seem more hopeful than with Fatah in 1994. Back then, Fatah spoke with one corrupt voice. Hamas has always been more diverse; as early as 1999 or 2000, its leaders offered truce in exchange for complete withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. This offer has been repeated several times in increasingly more vocal circles within Hamas.

    It’s always easy to see one’s opponents as barbarians committed to nothing but death. The idea that the other side comprises of factions with the same politics and interests as your own can be hard to fathom, but it explains international relations way better. For example, it’s a commonplace in Israel that the Muslim world is united against it. In reality, Saudi Arabia is rooting for Israel as a counterbalance to Iran; Israel, which the US can occasionally restrain, is less of a threat to Saudi power than Iran. Similarly, Hamas, Syria, and Iran are allied in order to fight the common enemy that is Israel.

    The could seal off Gaza’s borders and slap a on total blockade of supplies.

    They already have. People in the Gaza Strip can’t even cross the border to Egypt to get medical care, nor can they get supplies by air or sea unless Israel approves. There’s no capital for local power generation, and Israel would likely bomb it anyway, so the only source of electricity is power plants in Israel, which deliberately creates random power outages in the Gaza Strip. As a result, the people there have increasingly radicalized, and resent Israel more than ever.

    Think about it. The rocket attacks on Sderot haven’t caused the city’s people to demand an end to the occupation; they’ve caused them to demand more military strikes. Why does Israel think turning Gaza into a ghetto will make its residents demand an end to terrorism instead of more terrorism?

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 9:38 am

  62. David C. wrote:

    I’m hoping it’s because we consider peace without genocide in the Middle East to be a desirable goal.

    I’m alot more pessimistic. I don’t think there is any chance of peace in the Middle East given the current attitudes of the Palestinians. Negotiating with them, giving them concessions, and providing them with assistance only serves to harden their intransigence, and rewards them for terrorism.

    I believe that the Palestinian people are, on the whole, at this point willing to concede Israel’s right to exist

    I’m not certain of that. They seem fanatically irredentist and have been raising another generation to not just hate Israel, but to hate Jews. Also, the possible opinion of some of the masses matters less than that of their leaders.

    But they are not happy with the status quo wrt land, and the encroachment of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

    Unfortunately the status quo they aren’t happy with also includes the existence of Israel.

    If Israel can manage to come to terms with Egypt, Jordan and maybe even Syria, I think peace with the Palestinians is a real possibility.

    Egypt, Jordan and Syria are established states without a claim on the core territory of Israel. The Palestinians are a loose collection of people ruled by terrorist bands, who claim the very territory that makes up Israel.

    Other possibilities: the status quo, or making things worse and waiting for Jesus.

    Yes. But in my opinion, negotiating with groups like Hamas falls into the “making things worse” category.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 9:53 am

  63. Stephen wrote:

    When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

    When your only power is guns, all enemies look like Hitler.

    That’s where the right-wingers are. They’re scared; they know (but won’t admit) that America has zero moral authority; they can see our economic power eroding; they know we screwed the pooch in Iraq (but won’t admit it).

    So all they can do is double down. “Bomb bomb Iran.” Approach every conflict and potential conflict by viewing your adversaries as irreconcilable, genocidal, megalomaniacs, who can only be pummeled and nuked into submission.

    It’s a losing strategy guys. The allegedly “realistic,” ones, the ones who pride themselves on being hard-nosed and realistic, and not woolly-headed leftist intellectual dreamers, .. these are the ones who let their emotions drive their political views.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 10:27 am

  64. David C. wrote:

    That’s where the right-wingers are. They’re scared;

    Of what? If you mean of having the country run by a left-winger, then yes. We are scared of that.

    they know (but won’t admit) that America has zero moral authority

    Really? What I “know” is that you are just spouting nonsense and confusing your opinion with some sort of fact. “Moral authority,” is a highly subjective thing. In my opinion, and I would venture to guess in the opinion of most right-wingers, regardless of our mistakes, the U.S. still has a lot more moral authority than most countries. Not that it matters, because I don’t think morality has much of a role to play in international affairs.

    they can see our economic power eroding

    Our economic power has been “eroding” since 1945. But it’s still greater than that of any other country. And it will be for the forseeable future. So no, I don’t think right-wingers are too worried about that.

    they know we screwed the pooch in Iraq (but won’t admit it).

    We know that Iraq was fouled up and we do admit it. But we refuse to adopt the defeatist outlook of the left, refuse to judge the final outcome of an effort that is still in progress, and refuse to adopt a policy of giving up and turning a bad situation into a true disaster.

    So all they can do is double down. “Bomb bomb Iran.”

    Really? That’s what right-wingers want? I think bombing Iran would be a very bad idea. We don’t need to add another war to the list right now. We’ve probably already passed the point where we can realistically be sure of destroying their nuclear program, and there is no political will in the U.S. to make the effort. We are going to have to rely on deterrence after Iran gets its nuclear weapons. And as I said before, we should be negotiating with Iran in an attempt to find a way to settle some of our issues with them.

    Approach every conflict and potential conflict by viewing your adversaries as irreconcilable, genocidal, megalomaniacs, who can only be pummeled and nuked into submission.

    Nice strawman you are building there. How about this instead: approach every conflict by viewing your adversaries as rational, honest, reasonable people, who will do the right thing if only they are treated with respect and given concessions, and then believe their promises. Is that an accurate picture of the left-wing view?

    It’s a losing strategy guys. The allegedly “realistic,” ones, the ones who pride themselves on being hard-nosed and realistic, and not woolly-headed leftist intellectual dreamers, .. these are the ones who let their emotions drive their political views.

    Hmm, sounds like projection to me. The exact same thing could be said about the left — only it would be more accurate.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 11:33 am

  65. David C. wrote:

    Why not?

    Because it’s pointless and counterproductive?

    In fact, negotiations with Hamas now seem more hopeful than with Fatah in 1994.

    Hopeful in what way?

    ts leaders offered truce in exchange for complete withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. This offer has been repeated several times in increasingly more vocal circles within Hamas.

    And you believe them? Why? They consider all of Israel “Palestinian territory.”

    It’s always easy to see one’s opponents as barbarians

    But sometimes they actually are.

    They already have. People in the Gaza Strip can’t even cross the border to Egypt to get medical care, nor can they get supplies by air or sea unless Israel approves. There’s no capital for local power generation, and Israel would likely bomb it anyway, so the only source of electricity is power plants in Israel, which deliberately creates random power outages in the Gaza Strip. As a result, the people there have increasingly radicalized, and resent Israel more than ever.

    That’s all true, and that illustrates my point. Israel made a huge concession and gave back the Gaza strip. Did that help in any way? No. It created even more hostility and excuses for why that hostility is justified. Which is exactly what will continue to happen in the future. The answer isn’t to keep giving concessions to people who will never be satisfied until there is nothing left to give.

    What concessions have the Palestinians made to achieve peace, other than empty promises?

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 11:47 am

  66. Grim wrote:

    Stephen:

    You’re right that the issue is largely played out. I won’t re-engage it. I hope Obama loses, but if he doesn’t, I hope his untested theories — arising from a brief career as a state legislator and part of one term in the Senate — prove to be remarkably wise and inspired.

    Because, you know, I’d like it to be true that all our problems could be solved with a little talk. It’d be nice. If my experience with insurgents is wrong — and hey, even I have more than he does — honestly, that’s great. War is uncomfortable and unpleasant. I’ll be glad to forgo it in the future. As Canuck says, I’d rather sit and drink beer anyway.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 4:13 pm

  67. Alon Levy wrote:

    I’m not certain of that. They seem fanatically irredentist and have been raising another generation to not just hate Israel, but to hate Jews. Also, the possible opinion of some of the masses matters less than that of their leaders.

    Except that every journalist who’s been to Palestine says otherwise. You’ll be surprised how accommodating the Palestinians are. When polled, most say they support the intifada as a means of securing independence for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. That remains true even when the pollster offers the option of “The liberation of all of Palestine.”

    And you believe them? Why? They consider all of Israel “Palestinian territory.”

    The words “Palestinian territory” are my own. In Israel and Palestine, they use the more precise terms “the Green Line” or “1967 borders,” i.e. the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Occasionally the Israeli media reports this as “The territories,” universally understood to mean the territories Israel conquered in 1967 and hasn’t returned.

    You may choose not to believe Hamas. That’s understandable. Likewise, Hamas may choose not to believe Israel when it says it’s willing to negotiate, considering that Israel keeps propping up settlements in the West Bank, which is under Fatah control.

    That’s all true, and that illustrates my point. Israel made a huge concession and gave back the Gaza strip.

    No, it didn’t. It withdrew its military forces from the Gaza Strip. People who’ve actually been there report that it’s like a prison, or a South African bantustan. The Gaza Strip doesn’t control its own airspace or sea space, or even its own border with Egypt; it’s entirely at the mercy of Israeli authorities, which have destroyed all significant infrastructure there and won’t let anyone rebuild it. People have died in the Gaza Strip because Israel wouldn’t let them travel to Egypt for medical care.

    The main reason Israel withdrew from Gaza in the first place was political, not diplomatic. Ariel Sharon was under investigation for severe corruption. In order to distract the media from that, he had to give it a bigger story to cover. Withdrawing from Gaza was a good choice; the Gaza Strip had only 5,000 settlers, compared with about 250,000 in the West Bank, so he’d on the one hand look like a peacemaker while on the other address few of the Palestinians’ grievances.

    Posted 17 May 2008 at 6:14 pm

  68. David C. wrote:

    Alon,

    I think we disagree not only on the possibility of a solution, but on interpretation of all the events and evidence for our positions. I think you are trying to paint a rosy picture of the Palestinians that does not jive with the evidence that we have seen over and over. You dismiss huge Israeli concessions, that include forcibly uprooting their own citizens, and returning territory (whatever the restrictions on that return), to their enemies. Again, what have the Palestinians done to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East? Regardless of the caveats, all the concessions have been one way — unless you count some empty words from the Palestinians as concessions.

    Bascially you want to make excuses for why the Palestinians continue to support terrorism and choose terrorist groups for leaders. Part of that is the fault of the U.S., who has helped pressure Israel to make concessions, that have essentially rewarded the Palestinians for terrorism. We have promoted a “two state solution” despite the evidence that a Palestinian state would be a very bad idea.

    The Gaza Strip doesn’t control its own airspace or sea space, or even its own border with Egypt; it’s entirely at the mercy of Israeli authorities

    As it should be. Why should Israel give unrestricted control to its enemies? How about the Palestinians prove they can build even the rudiments of a functioning civil society rather than organizing murderous gangs, killing their own people, and focusing on launching terrorist attacks on Israel? Is that too much to ask?

    Posted 18 May 2008 at 8:35 am

  69. Alon Levy wrote:

    Yes, it’s too much to ask. Countries under occupation never develop, since the government that is in charge doesn’t have their people’s interests in mind. Under British colonialism, India suffered from famine, riots, and poverty; in fact, its per capita income in 1947 was lower than in 1857. The South African bantustans looked like more relaxed versions of the Warsaw ghetto. 19th century Ireland produced nothing of value.

    Governments have a duty to prevent their citizens from destroying other countries. Fatah mostly shirked that duty in 1994. Lately it’s done more, fighting off Hamas militarily as well as politically. It has been fairly successful for a party that lost the election and never had a monopoly on the use of force to begin with. Indeed, Israelis have little to fear from the West Bank, even though there the Green Line is more porous than in the Gaza Strip.

    Israel’s response to its own extremists is more complicated. Like Fatah now, it cracks down on its own people’s terrorism against Arabs, with more success. However, at the same time, it ignores atrocities committed in the Palestinian territories, especially those committed by individual IDF troops or settlers rather than conspiracies of several extremists.

    The point about the Israeli withdrawal isn’t that Israel uprooted its own citizens. Those citizens were illegally settling in another country in order to colonize it - indeed, they were getting tax breaks for their actions. At the same time Israel removed the settlers from the Gaza Strip, it kept subsidizing settlements in the West Bank. If Hamas hands over one terrorist to Israel while continuing to train others to take his place, is it really giving any concession?

    Posted 18 May 2008 at 5:30 pm

  70. David C. wrote:

    Under British colonialism, India suffered from famine, riots, and poverty; in fact, its per capita income in 1947 was lower than in 1857.

    Really bad comparison that relies only on economics, as if nothing else matters. You want to compare the Congress Party and Gandhi’s peaceful protest movement to what the Palestinians have done? There is no comparison between the Palestinians and other countries, because the Palestinians are not part of a country. They are a stateless people who were orginially forced into that position by the creation of the state of Israel, and have either chosen to remain stateless, or have been forced to by the subsequent wars, and the attitude of the surrounding Arab states. Palestine by any historical definition includes all the territory currently part of the state of Israel.

    The point about the Israeli withdrawal isn’t that Israel uprooted its own citizens. Those citizens were illegally settling in another country in order to colonize it

    What other country? Since when did the West Bank and Gaza ever constitute a “country” ? Israel controlled those territories by right of conquest, conquests which occurred because of wars provoked by its neighbors, who didn’t even recognize its right to exist. As for Israeli settlers, they did that in order to control the land, which was perfectly understandable given their circumstances — the size of their country and the fact they they were surrounded by enemies. Israel’s agreement to withdraw from any of that territory represent major concessions on their part.

    At the same time Israel removed the settlers from the Gaza Strip, it kept subsidizing settlements in the West Bank.

    When you give up territory you control, and forcibly remove your own people despite the internal political difficulties of doing so, then yes, that’s a concession. What you are doing elsewhere doesn’t change that.

    If Hamas hands over one terrorist to Israel while continuing to train others to take his place, is it really giving any concession?

    Yes, that would still be a concession.

    Posted 18 May 2008 at 6:32 pm