Friday, July 21, 2006
‘Learn from us: jaw-jaw is better than war-war’…
LESSONS learned in Northern Ireland need to be learned in the Middle East, Tony Blair said the other day. He told the Commons: “It’s interesting to think ten years ago it looked like the Palestinian peace process was in better shape than that in Northern Ireland. I think the lesson of the last ten years is that unless people are put into a process which ensures continual dialogue then the danger is that the extremes take over because there is a political vacuum there.” So there you go; dialogue, no matter how meaningless, is always better than conflict.
Belfast Gonzo @ 12:02 AM
Absolute nonsense from Blair. As usual.
The lesson from the Middle East process is that unless terrorists are crushed, they will come back for more and more. Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah is exactly the right course to take. Dismantling the terror infrastructure and destroying as many terrorists as possible is exactly the right policy. The cries of protest from the international left further proves this -perish the thought that terrorists perish!
Blair, a natural born appeaser, obviously thinks otherwise. By sacrificing the tenets of democracy to keep the IRA happy, he thinks he has hit on the wonder formula for a peace process. Rubbish. All he has proven here in Norther Ireland is that with sufficient lies and cloaking from the establishment, appeasement can be re-packaged and sold as peace. Clinton did the same with Arafat - from Oslo to Belfast - same tired message.
Nasrallah, like Adams, has no interest in peace. But he knows how to play the game, feign peaceful intent, trusting useful fools will then come along and apologise on his behalf. Nasrallah has the UN and EU to back his terror organisations best interests, and Adams had the GFA lemmings to support him. Happily the majority of Unionists no longer endorse the strategy Blair boasts of - and whilst(Read this s-l-o-w-l-y Sluggerettes) no one seeks the bombing and open warfare of the IRA in these times, since it is a beaten docket - neither should decent democrats tolerate Blair’s pathetic debasement of democracy in order to keep his tatty “peace process” alive.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 02:48 AMDear Mr Vance
Interesting to see that your knowledge of the conflict in the Middle East is as indepth as your knowledge of the conflict in your own country.
Lebanese civilians have been under the constant attack of the state of Israel for several days. The State of Israel, in disregard to international law and the Geneva Convention, is launching a maritime and air siege targeting the entire population of the country. Innocent civilians are being collectively punished in Lebanon by the state of Israel in deliberate acts of terrorism as described in Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.
The Lebanese people feel left out by the world that is turning a blind eye on the savagery of the Israeli state. Israel does not seem to be capable of approaching any problem outside the realm of the military power bestowed on it by the government of the United States of America and other western governments. Innocent children are being slaughtered on a daily basis for no other reason than to boost the ego of the Israeli leaders.
Moreover, anybody with a knowledge of the murder of the Palastinian camp doves over the past thirty years, often at the hands of the Mosad penetrated and manipulated Abu Nidal gang, will know that the Israelis have actually long feared a two state solution to the conflict (ie peace).
Your knowledge of your own conflict falls short I would suggest, because u still do not seem to have grasped the extent to which these people that you refer to as terrorists were merely puppets of the Intelligence services; each outfit was deeply penetrated and manipulated, and steered on a course of action...........wake up and smell the coffee!
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 05:12 AMDV considering the mandate both for Hezbollah and SF, I think it would be mistaken to label their armed wings as simply a “security problem”. They arose from legitimate grievances, in the NI case security-force collusion with Loyalist terrorists (why wasn’t the UDA banned until 1993), pogroms against Catholics (Bombay St), gerrymandering, an unrepresentative police-force, housing-discrimination etc. The ultimate guarantee of continuing terrorism is large-scale recruitment to these organisations. Hence the ultimate solution is to address the legitimate grievances, instead of bombing innocent people to kingdom come and calling it ‘collateral damage’. The latter only creates more recruits for these organisations. I think you have an unduly one-dimensional view of this issue.
Hezbollah, it should be remamebered, was only set up in 1982 after the Israeli invasion. Considering the Nazi-like attrocities against thousands of Palestinian men, women and children at Sabra and Shatilla at the hands of pro-Israel militias, I’d say they were in the right in fighting a foreign-occupation under international law, especially a Zionazi one like this. Now I accept they shouldn’t have captured the Israeli soldiers, and that Lebanon itself was not provoked. However, the Gaza offensive, the occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and Sheeba Farms are arguably a provocation to the Arab and Muslim worlds. The IDF left Gaza. They then bombed Gaza incessantly to target Hamas militants - including during the Hamas ceasefire. This was bad faith on Israel’s part and arguably an attempt to stir things up. It is clear that Israel is looking to expand its frontiers yet further, to form what the late PM Menachim Begin called “Eretz Israel/Greater Israel”. I consider this a form of fascism and therefore unworthy of support from the democratic world.
Blair is absolutely spot on here. I think the pro-Israel lobby control US foreign-policy behind the scenes - including fanatical Christian Zionists who see as a war in the Middle East as the Biblical “Armageddon” that will bring about the “Second Coming of Christ”. The “Prophecies” program on the History Channel I recall mentioned this believe among US Christian fundamentalists. Sounds to me like a bonkers idea every bit as dangerous as Islamic and Judaistic fundamentalism.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 06:47 AMTony Blair: “I think the lesson of the last ten years is that unless people are put into a process which ensures continual dialogue then the danger is that the extremes take over because there is a political vacuum there”
Er, am I alone in noticing that this is exactly what has happened in NI with the eclipse of the UUP and SDLP by the DUP and SF respectively? Seems that a continual dialogue produces political extremes
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 07:05 AMThe comparison with the Middle East is tenuous to say the least. But then again, the Northern Ireland’s Peace Process did not invent this particular wheel.
Robert Putnam’s study of regional democracy in Italy demonstrates that over time the political ‘extremes’ take over new democratic institutions because they have greater committment and passion than the moderates. It also suggests that over a period of time, they move from fundamentalist positions (useful in war, but highly dysfuntional within a democratic paradigm) to more moderate, middle-of-the-road political positions as they work the democratic institutions.
DV is right to note that the willingness of Sinn Fein to sue for ‘peace through process’ is not about open channels, but more to do with further war being a ‘beaten docket’ for them. Back channels had been open for twenty years before. Jaw Jaw only came after the initiation of that process.
The political vacuity of what we are left with, the Peace Process™, arises from the fact that we are still in the ‘war by other means’, as opposed to the democracy, phase.
Sinn Fein’s retention of the undermining of the confidence of a whole community (as opposed to a rival political party) as a major strategic aim shows that we still have some way to go. This is still a fundamentalist, as opposed a democratic, behaviour. But the dumping of IRA arms also demonstrates we have come a very long way from the wanton slaughter of the Shankill Road bomb.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 07:31 AMDialogue only works when both sides enter into it with a common goal, that certaintly did not happen in NI.
One side (the UUP) came into it to reach an agreement the other side (SF)came into it to wring what they could out of it. The ‘agreement’ reached was seen as a stepping stone to a UI by SF and as a ‘final settlement’ by the UUP.
The rest is history DT didn’t know how to say no until it was too late for the UUP.
The lesson is very clear all sides must be commited and open about their goals and apsirations and the result must be black and white, shades of grey and ambiguity will in the end not succeed as they will surely tear the agreements apart.
So in the Middle East I don’t see much hope for a ‘black and white’ settlement.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 08:18 AM“Dismantling the terror infrastructure and destroying as many terrorists as possible is exactly the right policy”
huh? From what I’ve seen over the past few days then, power stations, airports and apartment blocks constitute terror infrastructure then, so I guess its neccessary to destroy the entire country David?
As for destroying as many terrorists as possible, they maybe killed half a dozen, at the expense of a massive number of civilian casualties. Lets see what DV would say if unionist areas in the past had been bombed by the RAF as a resuly of loyalist activities....
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 08:19 AMI haven’t really been following this in the news - is Israel invading Lebanon because it was attacked in some way, or is it just for fun?
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 08:41 AMMick,
Fair points, with which I agree.
Daddy Cool,
Famliarise yourself with the Hezbollah infra-structure in Lebanon and then get back to me. Can you provide me with the source for your claim that “maybe half a dozen terrorists” have been killed? I await your reply.
Frustrated Democrat,
Well said.
Brian Boru,
Hezbollah denies Israel the right to exist. It is Islamofascism incarnate and has NO democratic mandate. The IRA denies the Union the right to exist but has had it’s tail clipped post 9/11 - and thus is a beaten docket which Blair still panders to - against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Shay,
There is a species of political animal here that is in essence an apologist for the barbarism emanating from Gaza and south Lebanon. Your comments indicate where you stand. As for my lack of understanding of the situation both here and in the Middle East, let’s agree to differ. Clearly since you are not linked to the reality based community, any further response may prove wasteful.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 09:02 AM“Hezbollah denies Israel the right to exist. It is Islamofascism incarnate and has NO democratic mandate. The IRA denies the Union the right to exist but has had it’s tail clipped post 9/11 - and thus is a beaten docket which Blair still panders to - against the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland.”
Hezbollah won 35 seats in the last Lebanese elections out of 128 members gaining around 30% of the popular vote so I disagree on them not having a mandate. Also I would contend that if it is true that they are controlled by Syria, then the Israeli occupation of Golan and the Sheeba Farms may be a factor in recent events, strengthening the argument for regional round-table negotiations between Israel and the Arabs and Iran. These talks should focus on a final resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict including withdrawal to 1967 borders.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 09:11 AMBTW here is a source for my claims http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2005/06/lebanons_electi_2.php
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 09:12 AM20 odd years ago i lived Israel. I stayed on a Kibbutz near Nahariaya approx 10 miles with the border with Lebanaon.The bombshelter’s were largely unused apart for volunteer partys on friday nights. Occasionally a Katushya rocket could be heard to land having been fired from the Lebanon. The supposed egalitarian society of which i went to expereince left some as Orwell said “More equal than others”. I worked with Arab and Jew alike (most of the Arabs employed were Christian Druze) and overall the experience was a worhwhile one. As a 20 year old cut loose with peers from many nationalities i perhaps could have learnt more whilst on the kibbutz about the inherent problems of the area (but thats anothe story).
The kibbutz Lochamei Hagetoat, meaning Ghetto survivors, was founded by people who had survived the Warsaw ghetto and the concentration camps. Untill i had seen for myself the mental and physical scaring from the darkness that was the Nazi regime i didnt appreciate just what that was about.
When u see people who could be your grandparents still so traumatised by their experiences 40 odd years on, that they hoarded food everyday in the believe that it could be their last one for a while, you question mankinds ability for cruelty to those less fortunate or advantaged.What about the woman whose twin sister died at the hands of Mengeles’ experiments, leaving her with a severe limp, abnormal breasts, blinded in one eye and her left arm withered because of those same experiments in the name of the reich, just because she was a twin and Jewish?
It was only when i left the kibbutz and moved to the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem that i began to have an understanding of the melting pot that is the Middle East. Indeed it was the first i had heard of the genocide perpetrated by the Tuks on the Armenians. Witnessing at first hand rooftop rioting between monks because of a percieved sleight/ infraction of a longstanding agreement between the two, is pretty depressing. The Yeshiva’s were full of Americans that were on the run from something in the States and had pinned their hopes on their faith and Rabbi’s to help them. These zealots were the ones who ended up in the occupied territories in the contentious kibbutzim. Having a vested interest to stay there, they were the most vocal and demonising of forces in Israel having more to lose perhaps, as witnessed when Israel withdrew earlier this year.
Jerusalem is a beautiful but divided city. The sense of place and history is a little overwhelming tho i did not, as some did, go native by developing a Jesus syndrome!
The point to all this. Well i feel that religion is a far more divisive tool than a unitising one. Lebanese people are being killed because of the war being waged by Hizbollah on Israel.
Whilst Israel had a right to respond to the kidnapping of their soldiers, their repsonse is disproportionate and Lebanon is being pummelled because of a small proportion of their populace. I also think that the Israelis took their eye off the ball in regard to Hizbollah giving them 5 or 6 years relative peace to rearm and find backers.
I groaned when i heard that the first missile to hit Haifa was claimed to be Iranian. This is not a welcome develpoment if true. Certainly the Syrians have an agenda in all of this..they still want the Golan Heights back (not likely) but we have no real way of knowing just what the endgame here is for both sides.Certainly peacefull coexistance isn’t likely for the time being at least.
The most perplexing aspects to all this is how the Isrealis have come almost full circle to inflict atrocities upon their neighbours(i dread to think what goes on behind closed doors).
A bit of a ramble perhaps but i feel that our little difficulty here can be resolved with dialogue and Yes compromise from all sides. The armed struggle is hopefully over now, if not we would be looking at a Balkans scenario with ethnic cleansing and bloodshed beyond belief.Thankfully that should not take place and its down to us all to work towards an inclusive and democratic pluralist societyPosted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 09:32 AMAll
Good morning, and thank fu*k it’d Friday.
David Vance
“The lesson from the Middle East process is that unless terrorists are crushed, they will come back for more and more”.
Well, we’ve had 50 odd years of an Israeli “terrorist crushing” policy and the terrorist continually come back for more and more, nevermind the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Today’s question is a simple one - Have the Israelis been successful in crushing terrorists at any time in the past 50 years?
The answer is simple too - No!
Unfortunately here’s a simple lesson that many people don’t want to learn - policies based on barbarity, stupidity and Judeofascism won’t bring peace to the middle east - they’ll keep the terrorists in business indefinately.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 09:43 AMAnother comparitor with NI is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Current demands from its opponents (Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, to name but a few) are that Israel should cease to exist.
Given the way Israel has dug in since 1948, this would appear to be a deeply unrealistic plan for the way forward. And in the face of such an absolutist demand, it’s not clear how the Israelis can resolve this situarion on a purely unilateral basis.
Again any peace process will needs arise from a votive intent on the part of both protagonists to find a solution through dialogue. If one is not willing, the other is helpless, surely?
I spoke to Colm Sands a couple of years ago about a project he did with an Israeli singer in Israel/Palestine called ‘Talking to the Wall’. The thing he identified as a common link between the two places was that both sides were frozen from reconciliatory action, not through fear of ‘the other’ but through fear of being back stabbed by ‘their own’.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 09:59 AMMick Fealty
“Another comparitor with NI is the Prisoner’s Dilemma...”
Comparisons between Ireland and Israel aren’t any use. But one worthwhile comparison to make is on the timeline of conflict. With colonisation achieved, established and a fact of life Israel is currently, in terms of years, at the stage Ulster was at around the time of the 1641 rebellion.
If Blair had a sensible comparison to make it would be this - Look at Northern Ireland, you are condeming future generations to at least four centuries of festering and recurring conflict.
But unfortunately Blair is not wise, knows little and understands less about middle eastern societies (nevermind Irish history).
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 11:00 AMI have noticed of late those two words extremist and moderate have once again raised their ugly heads.
I doubt few who vote, support or are members of either SF or Hizbullah would consider those organization as extremists. Thus we should all be careful about using such words and take it on board that just because the US and UK governments regard them as such and currently this is especially true of Hizbullah, it does not necessarily make them so.
Of course Mick is correct when he say people who are engaged in a military struggle will use a different strategy when they are about political business alone. One only has to witness what the Israelis are about in Lebanon to understand this, yet Mick you do not call the Israeli government extreme or its members extremists, Why is that?
Before anyone condemns Hizbullah alone for the current conflict, I suggest they clock up the man hours members of the IDF have spent in Lebanon or its skys during the last 35 years and compare it with the hours fighters of hizbullah have spent in Israel, excluding that nations jails of course. Look at how Israel’s surrogate militia behaved down the years in the shia areas of south Lebanon, if you were to do this in an honest manner, you might get some understanding of why millions of shia support hizbullah, guns and all.
Finally I would just add that at a time when the PLO came around to supporting a two State solution and Hamas was on the verge of acquiescing to it via the prisoners document, and the Israeli people had voted overwhelmingly against the parties who opposed such a solution. The Israeli State by its over the top reaction to what were minor problems [in the scheme of this conflict] has blown a sunder any real hope of this happening in the foreseeable future.
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves what has motivated it to do this, could it have been the green light given by GW Bush and his yelping lap dog Blair gave to the IDF, which they hoped would negate them reaching any agreement with the Palestinians, possibly by drawing the US into a major middle east conflict involving Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran that would last, a la Iraq for decades.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 11:10 AMShuggie
He knows enough to understand the point made by the historian Simon Schama on This Week last night - namely that Iran is conducting a war by proxy through Hizbullah.
That’s the kink in any attempt at comparisons.. and it goes some way to explaining why there are fewer calls for Israel to unilaterally cease-fire than some claim to want.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 11:14 AMPete,
So by your theory the US is fighting a proxy war against the people of Lebanon by arming and financing the Israeli state. Why do you people never understand that people can make their own decisions as to when and why they fight against what they see as a great injustice.They do not need a greater power to do it for them.
You would never make such a comment about Israel and the US, yet the former funds and arms Israel to a degree that would make Iran’s support for hizbullah small beer.
In the war in the north it was always the yanks are behind it all or those down south, or the nationalist/republican communities were stooges of IRA godfathers. Why can you not show people some respect as to how they make there decisions in life.
Yes hizbullah may turn to their co-religionists in Iran for support, why should they not, this is what Israel does in the USA.
That is how life works, but if the US State were to tell the Jews of Israel to do something against their best interest, they would not consciously do it and not would hizbullah, not if it wished to maintain any support that is.The problem with the USA and those who take its word as gospel, is its government down the years has brought with the mighty dollar so many satraps around the world, they presume we are all for sale, whereas some people are not. Myself I would definitely place Hizbullah in this not for sale category; and by saying this I am not giving that organization support, just stating it as I see it. The one thing you can say about both Hamas and hizbullah is they are open and honest, hence the support many people who are not strict muslims are willing to give them.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 11:46 AM“you people”
Just the kind of rational and reasoned argument that’s all too common from you people.
Instead of creating a strawman argument, where you pontificate on my point of view.. just deal with what I actually say.. it’ll make for a more interesting and productive debate.
“I would definitely place Hizbullah in this not for sale category”
Right.. so you’re in favour of a cease-fire followed by negotiations then…
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 12:18 PMPete,
As to an immediate ceasefire, yes I favor it and all that is needed to put such a ceasefire into practice is for an immediate truce to be declared by both waring parties. However the terms of any negotiations beyond this would have to be decided by the two parties fighting, as too will what the negotiations will encompass. I see no more point in these being about the disarming of hizbullah than I would if the aforementioned were demanding the decommissioning of the IDF weaponry.
As the war is claimed by the Israelis to be about their two service men captured by hizbullah, an exchange of prisoners between the two sides should be a simple thing for the red cross to arrange.
Finally Pete, you can stamp your feet all you like, but it will not negate the fact that you refused to deal with any of the issues I raised. especially about your, sorry George Bush’s proxy
war theory. Of late during any exchange between us you seem to wish to personalize it, which I find sad as we used to be able to disagree without resorting to straw man type comments.Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 12:48 PM“Of late during any exchange between us you seem to wish to personalize it, which I find sad as we used to be able to disagree without resorting to straw man type comments”
Read through the comments again Mick.
I pointed to a comment made by the historian Simon Schama.. in my response to someone else.
You directed a strawman argument at me which began, “Why do you people never understand..”
You can characterise my comments as stamping my feet all you like, it’s no different from the ad hominem comments you’ve made in many other threads on similar topics aginst those you disagree with.. but it’s not discussion.
Take care.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 12:59 PMPete,
Just to get some clarity as I am a bit confused by what you mean, are you saying you disagree with the simon sharma point you quoted and you do not support the proxy theory about Iran and hizbullah?
Pete as is you right you can disagree with the points I make, but this does not make them unworthy of debate as you claim, as this is merely your opinion. Indeed I would suggest the fact you replied to them proves otherwise, plus that they irritated you due to being in direct opposition to your own position on the West’s attitude to muslims means they struck home as intended. Which surly is part of the cut and thrust of debate.
regards
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 01:19 PMI think the last thing Israelis/Lebanese would like to hear is encouragement to adopt an approach that would result in the type of society that exists in Northern Ireland.
No wonder they’re bombing the shite out of each other! They’d rather fight to the last drop of blood and produce a clear winner either way than live in the type of poisonous, shitty little world inhabited by people who can’t even seem to enjoy peace after it comes to them.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 01:27 PMThere is little or no similarity between the situations in the Middle East and in Northern Ireland, therefore thinking that you can learn from one and aply to the order is simplistic nonsense.
Due to its localation Israel is at the forefront of the fight fundameltalist Islamic terror, which is probably the greatest current threat to global peace and the global economy.
We should all support Israel in its fight.
Lebannon chose to put represtatives of terror into its government and made no attempt to disable Hizbollah as was required as part of the deal which saw Israel withdraw from that country.
Unfortunatly today the people of Lebannon are paying the necessary price for this.The time for a ceasefire is not yet at hand. Israel must be given the opportunity to do what the Lebanese were unwilling to do and tackle Hizbollah head on.
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 01:42 PMDavid Vance.
“Blair, a natural born appeaser, obviously thinks otherwise. By sacrificing the tenets of democracy to keep the IRA happy, he thinks he has hit on the wonder formula for a peace process. Rubbish.”TENETS OF DEMOCRACY
And I always thought there was a variation between unconscious comedians and blood-thirsty loons over at ATW. Seems dishonesty is now pre-eminent. A quick perusal of said s(h)ite would lead me to believe that tenets of democracy were not that important to some.
The saddest thing about the current situation is that regardless of blame, innocents are dying. And in the chess game, the world must wait for the Israeli’s to act and do the dirty work of the neo-cons in Washington. Blair and others are gagged on the say-so of right-wing loons in the states. I have sympathy for Israel being forced to act, but why have we arrived at the currant situation. Is this the modern “great game”
Posted by on Jul 21, 2006 @ 02:02 PM
