quote:If they can actually change their ideology and stop committing acts of terrorism, then it makes sense they should keep their weapons.
I don't see how that follows. There definitely needs to be a "de-Nazification" (to use the only analogous term that I know) in such a situation, else how would the Israelis possibly trust such a group?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they have no weapons, and aren't committing terrorism, they are just a hunk of defenseless land in the on the Med, with a very angry neighbor that has a long memory of the last 50 years that has a penchant for military incursions at the slightest provocation.
You're saying Palestine doesn't have the right to have defensive weapons?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, getting what you want is only a victory for you if you want something that's actually good for you.
Well, here's my question. While it's unclear to me if Palestine is actually another country legally, let's for the sake of argument say it is. If this is so, and the majority government of that country has pledged to wipe you off the face of the earth, is this a de facto declaration of war?
If we say that it's not the government but rogue elements in the country striking at Israel, then what is a reasonable amount of time for Israel to wait for Palestine to reign in those rogue elements before it takes matters into its own hands? Do things change if more or less people are killed, and if so, what is the threshold at which a country can invade. I'm thinking of how this applies to the U.S..
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hasn't North Korea more or less proclaimed its desire to see America wiped off the face of the earth?
Iran HAS declared its desire to see Israel wiped from the map, and that apparently didn't constitute a declaration of war.
Or does it only constitute a declaration of war if the person 'declaring' it is weak enough to be conquered, in the case of Palestine and Israel.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, I was just listening to FDR's "Arsenal of Democracy" speech, and this line really struck me:
quote:In other words, the Axis not merely admits but the Axis proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy -- their philosophy of government -- and our philosophy of government. In view of the nature of this undeniable threat, it can be asserted, properly and categorically, that the United States has no right or reason to encourage talk of peace until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.
For the sake of curiousity, exchange "Axis" for "Hamas(Palestinians)" and "United States" and "the world" for "Israel."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hasn't North Korea more or less proclaimed its desire to see America wiped off the face of the earth?
No idea, but it sounds reasonable. What's your point?
quote: Iran HAS declared its desire to see Israel wiped from the map, and that apparently didn't constitute a declaration of war.
It may or may not.(edit: I would say it does.) Just because Israel, for whatever reason, hasn't declared war on Iran doesn't make Iran's statement not a declaration of war.
quote: Or does it only constitute a declaration of war if the person 'declaring' it is weak enough to be conquered, in the case of Palestine and Israel.
You say this as some kind of gotcha, but reasonably, how else could it be? 'I declare war on principle, despite the fact that you are going to kick my ass!' Sounds silly. (edit some more: actually, I guess that could happen if the country being attacked had no choice in the matter. That is, it's going to be war whether it chooses or not.)
quote: As an aside...[etc.]
I'm not sure of your point here, whether you are asking a question, or just being flippant in making whatever the point is that you're making as this sentence
quote: For the sake of curiousity, exchange "Axis" for "Hamas(Palestinians)" and "United States" and "the world" for "Israel."
scans oddly to me.
Making a stab and doing what you suggest, if I 'exchange Axis', etc., I would think that if there can be no expactation of peace, then logically that leaves only one avenue--war.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I thought you meant generally, does that mindset and declaration count as a de facto state of war. If it does, we're at war with North Korea, and Israel is at war with Iran, it's just that neither side is doing anything about it.
For Palestine...
Haha, yeah, you're right. I didn't mean it as a 'gotcha' in that sense, but you're point is right on the money.
As for the aside -
It had nothing to do with the previous argument at all, it was just that, an aside, a non sequitor, a random thing I came across that is relevant to the current discussions being held.
And yes, that's what I was suggesting, not necessarily that I agree with that stance in the case of the current situation. But that struck me as an interesting parallel between America's position in the 40's and the position of many of the hawks in Israel right now.
I wasn't trying to make an "ah ha!" in any sense, it just seemed interesting to me as a comparison.
Edit to add: Yeah, I knew that, but forgot to incorporate it into my argument. Legally there's no peace, but there's been a cease fire for the last fifty years, and if I remember correctly, we never actually declared war on them. But those are all neither here nor there. Regardless of a lack of peace treaty, Korean War hostilities ended five decades ago, legally the war is between North and South Korea.
If it makes you feel better though, I'll retract the North Korea part of my statement from before and leave it at Iran/Israel, it's more fitting anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:mindset and declaration count as a de facto state of war.
I believe that mindset and declaration count as worse than a declaration of war, they count as a declaration of total war, war of annihilation.
That's not a kind of war the West is thankfully no longer familiar with, for the most part. The trouble is, that kind of mindset and declaration open of the can of worms labeled, "OK, then. That just means we'll do whatever the hell it takes to make sure you fail," and it's justified because the alternative to forcing them to fail is, well, endless warfare and eventual destruction.
Now I expect someone will chime in here and say, "Well it doesn't really mean they can do anything," but if someone should chime in I would have to ask: how many suicides have you committed for principle?
Anyway, formal declarations of war...in many ways, they're things of the past. The methods and intensities of warfare have changed so dramatically in recent history that it's quite possible for one nation to wage a war on another and have that other nation-and the rest of the world-know who's behind it, but be unable to prove it.
That's not a commentary on whether or not formal declarations of war should be things of the past, just a perception of reality as I see it. The USA, for instance, has done an awful of of fighting with its military in the past fifty years, without declaring war.
quote:Regardless of a lack of peace treaty, Korean War hostilities ended five decades ago...
What happened five decades ago was stalemate, not a cessation of hostilities. Both sides (three if you decide to include the USA who still mans an awful lot of that border) are staring at each other through the deadliest No Man's Land in the history of warfare, and both sides would love to resume the war if it could be won.
You may think I'm nitpicking, but I regard the difference between "hostilities ended" and "stalemate" as pretty major. If hostilities have ended, then if circumstances change and one side or another has an advantage, then the war might not fire up again. But in a stalemate, if circumstances change and one side has a winning advantage, then the war definitely fires up again.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wholly agree with you when it comes to the irrelevance of a 'declared' state of war. I was thinking about what I said after I said it and declarations really are a thing of the past, regardless of whether or not they've been officially abandoned. War for the forseeable future will simply happen when one side attacks the other. Western nations might attempt a moral highground by warning that nation beforehand, but declarations are a moot point, and have been for decades.
So far as I can remember, the US has done ALL of it's fighting in the last fifty years without a declared state of war.
I have a problem with your divisions between "stalemate" and "hostilities ended" however. Major combat operations ended in Iraq years ago, and still there's heavier fighting there than America has been engaged in since Vietnam.
I don't see how you can really say that hostilities between N. Korea and America HAVEN'T ended, when the most hostile thing we've traded with them in the last fifty years are grumpy diplomatic emails. The biggest hostile action we've taken was when Bush called them a part of the Axis of Evil. And hell, we've traded angry words with a ton of countries over the last fifty years, but there aren't current hostilities between us.
While I agree the end of that conflict was a stalemate, and while LEGALLY there may still be a de facto state of war or whatever between is. For all intents and purposes, the war is over. Hostilities are over.
You'll have to more carefully define the differences if I'm to recognize where you're coming from.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Interesting. An army to do what, exactly? A Palestinian army cannot hope to defeat Israeli occupiers...certainly not in open battle, at least. It would be a welcome change if they used the kinds of tactics against the military that they've been reserving for civilians. I would certainly have more respect for Hamas (my current level is 'none') and Palestinians as a people (minimal).
quote:On Friday, the deputy chief of the Hamas political bureau, Moussa Abu Marzouk, set a high standard for discussions regarding disarmament. "Europe and the United States must ask Israel to withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, according to international legitimacy, before they ask Hamas to disarm," he said.
This is laughable. Israel has offered these things-almost all of it, in fact-in the past and been rejected. Furthermore, how stupid do they think Israel is? Hamas is an organization which has declared its permanent goal to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. So...why exactly should Israel give them anything?
Hamas is more nakedly ambitious and land-grabbing (or land-taking-backing, depending on your point of view) than Hitler ever was, and it was obvious to everyone but fools that Hitler wasn't going to stop with anything short of European domination. Hamas actually has it down on paper, "We're not going to stop until you're gone." Hamas has forced Israel into a posture from which it cannot possibly negotiate.
This gives them the opportunity to say, "We're freedom fighters, they don't want to negotiate." And so many saps fall for it.
quote:Mashaal said that while Hamas refuses to recognize Israel, "not accepting them doesn't mean that we cannot deal with their realities ... Let Israel end their occupation or this struggle will continue."
Another blatant lie. Hamas's state goal is not just the end of occupation. It's the end of Israel.
quote:"If you want to punish the Palestinian people for practicing democracy, then the American administration should punish Americans for choosing President Bush," he said. "Please remember that you were the one who created the Palestinians' crisis."
I don't know if he's speaking to the West or America in particular, but we (America) certainly didn't create the Palestinian crisis. And although we had a hand in it, they have not acquitted themselves admirably.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Interesting. An army to do what, exactly? A Palestinian army cannot hope to defeat Israeli occupiers...certainly not in open battle, at least. It would be a welcome change if they used the kinds of tactics against the military that they've been reserving for civilians. I would certainly have more respect for Hamas (my current level is 'none') and Palestinians as a people (minimal).
Just because they can't win doesn't mean they still don't have the right to have an armed forces. Even Japan has self defense forces, and their constitution disallows a standing military. And at this point, Japan could probably invade and take over Palestine due to the disparity in forces.
Also, having it be a national army will hold the government directly accountable for their actions. I'd say it's in Israel's best interest for that to happen in fact, it gives them far more leverage.
As for the rest of what you said, I agree with most of it, and am especially confused by that last quote where they apparently blame us for the Palestinian crisis. Like most Middle Eastern problems, it's actually Britain's fault. Blaming the US is just more popular.
Edit to add: Something I thought of later, but didn't want to create a whole new post for. Hamas is in control of their government, but more than a third of the Palestinians still voted for Fatah, who the rest of the world has dealt with for forty years. Cutting off aid to ALL the Palestinians, declaring war on ALL the Palestinians, etc etc to all of them, isn't really fair.
You're either forcing them into civil war, or punishing the innocent. They elected Hamas to their government, they didnt' ALL JOIN Hamas. There has to be another way. How can everyone make so many blanket decisions only two days later without waiting to see how this will unfold?
posted
So far the only official decision is to "reevaluate" aid-a non-blanket decision. But it seems inevitable that a party which won 2/3s of elections will take control of the government.
We cannot give money to a government controlled by Hamas until they publicly-in many languages-their goal to eradicate Israel and their stance of murdering civilians.
They have a right to a military, but that wasn't what I asked. What will they do with it? Furthermore, I somehow think it unlikely Israel will regard the formation of an army by the enemy who's been murdering their civilians and sworn to destroy it as a good thing. And frankly I don't trust any such group at all, period. Not what they are doing, nor what they will do. Trust is earned.
As for Japan, what their constitution allows is debated in Japan. The relevant part is Article 9 from 1947.
quote:Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
quote:They have a right to a military, but that wasn't what I asked. What will they do with it?
It doesn't do anything. That's the beauty of it!
Seriously, just about any sovereign nation -- Iceland excluded -- has a standing army. Most don't use it for anything except parades and general deterence. However, a key to the stability of a country is that the central authorities maintain a monopoly on organised violence, and a unified army would probably work better in all kinds of ways for Palestine than the current system with "security forces" and every other organisation holding with their own armed men.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But any army is not used for domestic violence. An army is used for conquest or defense against other armies. Not for maintaining a monopoloy on organized violence domestically. That is the province of police forces.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people are already there, they already have guns. Letting them officially call themselves an army isn't going to change the nature of the threat against Israel, and it's silly to think it will. Israel can only gain from Palestine forming an official army. Consider, they aren't even going to just give up their weapons and trust Israel. Asking them to do that is like asking the same thing of Israel, only to trust Palestine. We might not agree, but to THEM, that's how they see it.
So let them form an army. Fixed targets, people in uniform, international political fallout...there are only benefits in that for Israel. Either way, no one has the right to tell them they can't form an army for defensive purposes. Some of the smallest nations in the world still have a defensive military, even if they have no hope of ever winning a battle.
I question a great deal of the sincerity of much of what al-Zahar is saying. But there's some hope in those words. I didn't see a demand for Jerusalem as part of his demand for a truce, it seems the things he's asking for are things that Israel has been willing to give up in the past.
I still think what is needed is a neutral third party to guarantee whatever peace the two of them set up. If Hamas were to disarm, someone that Palestine trusted would be needed to ensure their safety, and that eliminates most of the West. Russia comes to mind, but I'm not sure if they'd be willing. Likewise, Israel won't give up the territory without assurances that Hamas won't move in and set up new bases to launch attacks from.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either way, no one has the right to tell them they can't form an army for defensive purposes. Some of the smallest nations in the world still have a defensive military, even if they have no hope of ever winning a battle.
I disagree that every nation has the right to a defensive military just by default. Like individuals, there are things nations can do to negate this right.
The difference between an army and a de facto army is, for instance, the way money is spent. Hamas cannot have transparency when it funds terrorist operations, but when it funds "defensive military training"-even if used for the same purpose-it can.
I certainly don't trust Hamas to start issuing uniforms and housing its terrorists in buildings that say things like "Terrorist-Martyr munitions dump".
No, what would likely-just a guess, of course-is that the same people would be in the army, but they wouldn't be wearing uniforms then they blew up some women and children in a restaurant. Possibly they'd even be linked to a "PDF", led by Hamas, which would say something like, "We're not responsible for Israel infuriating and oppressing our soldiers to the point that on their own, without orders, they take action."
What you're telling us is that Israel should think it's a good thing for Hamas "fighters" (fighting mostly unarmed civilians) to actually be the official army of Palestinians.
Hamas isn't stupid. They're not going to suddenly maintain and fight with a conventional army. Why on Earth should they? Unconventional warfare (terrorism) has served them so well. Israel knows this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hamas is composed of radical Islamists who have planned and carried out acts of unspeakable brutality in cold blood.
They reportedly won this election because the Fatah party is so corrupt that people who don't really give a flip about the intifada were tired of being governed by incompetents and crooks.
Hamas filled a void.
Sadly, they are capable of doing a lot of really bad things to retain power. And the frequency of elections in the PA is not very encouraging (one every 10 years...whether they need it or not?)
There are forces that may cause Hamas to become more reasonable and act like a government: - The west will not invest in the PA, or work on real development in the region if their government appears to be so unstable, or if they are just a front for militant Islamists. - Now that they have a taste of "legitimacy" they may find that they actually like it. Hey, it's possible. Doubtful, but possible.
Sadly, there are many more things that would tend to make Hamas nothing but a political front for terrorism: - The really deadly folks are the extremists within the organization. The ones who won't let the political leaders go "too far" before they turn the weapons on them in addition to the Israelis. - It's not like they've learned any valuable lessons yet about statecraft. They've simply found themselves in a good position to exploit a political void created by the crappiness of the Fatah party. - Poverty, deepening poverty, is a better recruiting tool for radicalism than it is for working within the system. Hamas knows one way to help young Palestinian males vent their frustration. I'd be surprised to learn that they have other, more productive ideas.
My fear for the Palestinian people has ratcheted up about 1000% after this election. Seriously, I didn't meet a single one when I was there 10 or so years ago who had anything positive to say about Hamas. They all knew the bombings were counter productive. But they hated Fatah party and Arafat back THEN, and look at what's happened.
If ever there was a people stuck in a barrel about to go over the falls, it IS the Palestinians.
Now...I know some of you are going to say "well, why don't they just elect reasonable leaders who will make THE RIGHT choices?"
Honestly, I don't know that I have a good answer for you if you feel that way. I wonder why we don't seem to be able to elect leaders who can't find other ways to solve problems besides violence and covert operations. In some vague general way I think there's just a lot of incompetence and shared evil in the world, and it maybe infects those most who wish to lead governments.
On the other hand, I also see that the Palestinians aren't really looking at a bunch of good choices for people to elect. I mean, as much as I complain about President Bush and his inner circle, I would never say that they are as bad as the people leading the PA, or those who have run for election there.
Maybe the really good people, the sane ones, would never run for office there because they're afraid they would be killed.
I don't know. But I do believe that democracy is a great system of government, unless it gets hijacked by people who are afraid.
Then it can be capable of just as much nastiness as any form of government.
Maybe even more, because it can hide longer behind a veil of popular support.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything is at a pause right now. Both sides consider the ball in the other's court, but that won't last forever. Once Israel sorts out its political situation, they'll take action.
Then we'll see which way this thing is going to go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
