Operation pillar of cloud. Israeli assault on Gaza

[elbows]

Another interesting dimension:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/palestinians-israel-gaza-idINDEE8AL08L20121122

Jubilant crowds celebrated in Gaza, most waving green Hamas flags, but hundreds with the yellow emblems of the rival Fatah group led by Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
"Today our unity materialised, Hamas and Fatah are one hand, one rifle and one rocket," senior Hamas leader Khalil Al-Hayya told several thousand people in the main square of Gaza.
Nabil Shaath, a senior Fatah figure, even shared the stage with leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions.
The striking images of reconciliation broke a prevailing pattern of bitterness since Hamas gunmen drove Fatah from the Gaza Strip in 2007, politically reinforcing the territory's physical separation from the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Abbas was sidelined in the Gaza crisis, taking no part in the indirect negotiations in Cairo that produced the truce.
But he called Hamas's Gaza chief and prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, to "congratulate him on the victory and extend condolences to the families of martyrs", Haniyeh's office said.

Although if you read the full article you will see the sort of language that reminds us that some Palestinians do not exactly want to live side by side in peace with the Jewish people, and that Hamas hasnt recognised Israels right to exist.

 

[elbows]

And this article sums up well the ideological & rhetorical divisions within the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt:

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-brotherhood-leader-blasts-peace-israel-125928181.html

"The enemy knows nothing but the language of force," said Mohammed Badei. "Be aware of the game of grand deception with which they depict peace accords," he said in a statement carried on the group's website and emailed to reporters.
His statement was a sharp deviation from the role played by President Mohammed Morsi in the last week. Egypt's role in brokering the deal has been hailed by U.S. officials.
The Brotherhood sometimes delivers conflicting messages, depending on its audience. There are also ideological and generational divisions within the movement, with older leaders like Badie often seen as more conservative.

 

[wreckhead]

Is this Israel's Suez moment? Literally.

I read that as Suarez and thought it was a diving analogy

 

[dylans]

Another interesting dimension:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/palestinians-israel-gaza-idINDEE8AL08L20121122



Although if you read the full article you will see the sort of language that reminds us that some Palestinians do not exactly want to live side by side in peace with the Jewish people, and that Hamas hasnt recognised Israels right to exist.

Claims of wanting to drive Jews into the sea etc are impossible dreams but recognition of Israel's "right to exist" is something that has to come as part of any real peace negotiations. It can not be a precondition for starting them as Israel often insist.

Juan Cole addresses this question of "recognising Israel's right to exist" very well here

Israel must cease demanding that people recognize it before negotiations begin. There is something pitiful about being that insecure, or too clever by half in being that Machiavellian. For Palestinians, some forms of ‘recognition’ involve giving up basic claims and rights that they believe should be part of the negotiations.

The Israelis are trying to set things up so that the Palestinians have to give away most of what they want to negotiate about before they even get to the table. The PLO recognized Israel as part of the Oslo accords. It was rewarded by being marginalized, emasculated and betrayed. Why should any other Palestinian political force wish to be taken for a ride that way?

As for Israeli complaints that Hamas wants to destroy them, that is ridiculous. It is not ridiculous that Hamas might have such aspirations in the long term, it is ridiculous that a tiny poverty-stricken and militarily virtually non-existent entity like Hamas should be taken seriously as a military threat to nuclear-armed Israel.

http://www.juancole.com/

 

[elbows]

Yeah, if various arab countries couldnt destroy Israel in 1948 its not bloody likely to happen now or in the recognisable future.

And recognising the difference between rhetoric of organisations and their real position is kind of important, whether its Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood or indeed for that matter Ahmadinejad. But thats partly why I have no desire to shy away from mentioning the rhetoric when it is used, better that than pretend nobody is saying it. (not suggesting anyone has done that here)

 

[weltweit]

it is ridiculous that a tiny poverty-stricken and militarily virtually non-existent entity like Hamas should be taken seriously as a military threat to nuclear-armed Israel.

But it serves Israel very well that they can claim - this is the aim of Hamas - therefore they are beyond the pale. Personally I think it is a mistake on Hamas's part, they should change it to be specific against the jewish state rather than jews in general.

 

[SpineyNorman]

But it serves Israel very well that they can claim - this is the aim of Hamas - therefore they are beyond the pale. Personally I think it is a mistake on Hamas's part, they should change it to be specific against the jewish state rather than jews in general.

There clearly is a lot of antisemitism in Hamas but in the official releases I've read it's been Israel and Zionism they've talked about rather than Jews.

But as far as its relationship with Israel is concerned it's irrelevant because the demand is that they accept the legitimacy of the 'Jewish state' (not a term I like - it implies that Israel represents all Jews and therefore aids those who would like to claim that any opposition to Israel constitutes antisemitism - I prefer the zionist state myself) not that they accept the right of Jews to live in peace or whatever - in fact I strongly suspect that if this was the demand it would have been accepted long ago.

I do agree that Hamas would improve their image globally if they were clearer in differentiating between Jews and the state of Israel though - might not do them as much good domestically though.

Note: Any missing capital letters are the result of typographic error rather than ANTISEMITISM

 

[sunny jim]

I think there should be one state - with the right of return for refugees to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine, equal rights for all peoples and one person-one vote. Muslims get on OK with Jews in London, why not in the new country called Israelastine, if you want. Other names could be open for voting on.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Last ine?

 

[Buckaroo]

There clearly is a lot of antisemitism in Hamas but in the official releases I've read it's been Israel and Zionism they've talked about rather than Jews.

But as far as its relationship with Israel is concerned it's irrelevant because the demand is that they accept the legitimacy of the 'Jewish state' (not a term I like - it implies that Israel represents all Jews and therefore aids those who would like to claim that any opposition to Israel constitutes antisemitism - I prefer the zionist state myself) not that they accept the right of Jews to live in peace or whatever - in fact I strongly suspect that if this was the demand it would have been accepted long ago.

I do agree that Hamas would improve their image globally if they were clearer in differentiating between Jews and the state of Israel though - might not do them as much good domestically though.

Note: Any missing capital letters are the result of typographic error rather than ANTISEMITISM

"Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Damascus-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders", provided that Palestinian refugees hold the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be the new nation's capital."


The rhetoric clouds the issue as always but real positions have changed, slowly, definitely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there should be one state - with the right of return for refugees to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine, equal rights for all peoples and one person-one vote. Muslims get on OK with Jews in London, why not in the new country called Israelastine, if you want. Other names could be open for voting on.

I also think that one state is the only way to bring peace, although I don't see any signs of it becoming closer. Looks like it is decades away, although once change begins, it can come very quickly.

However, the creation of one state would necessarily involve painful compromises, and one of those would have to be that there would not be a blanket reversion of land ownership to pre-Israel patterns. There can't be. You have two sets of people claiming the same land, and a resolution of that is, of course, the biggest stumbling block. Working out who owns what in the new state will be very hard, and it will have to involve a fair bit of land remaining in the possession of those who are there now, not the descendants of those who were turfed out.

The only way forward in this, imo, has to be that both sides recognise each other's right to be there (the whole of Israel/Palestine), and start working from there towards an equitable division of resources. I fear that it could dribble on for another 40 years, though.

 

[two sheds]

And with talk of a 'holocaust' and the like from the Israeli side (along with the continual land grabs), I think a fair few Israelis don't recognise Palestine's right to exist. I'd say that's as bad.

 

[DotCommunist]

Note: Any missing capital letters are the result of typographic error rather than ANTISEMITISM

stalinist

 

[elbows]

For some reason the rather ugly (in my opinion) name Isratin seems to pop up a lot in one state solutions, and I presume not just because of Gaddafis support for this solution.

I found the wikipedia article about it to be quite fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratin

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Looks like Mursi has used his popularity as cover to grab some more power for himself...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For some reason the rather ugly (in my opinion) name Isratin seems to pop up a lot in one state solutions, and I presume not just because of Gaddafis support for this solution.

I found the wikipedia article about it to be quite fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isratin

Yes, very interesting indeed. tbh, I'm surprised that as many as 18 percent of Israelis supported it when polled. It's interesting how there isn't a simple left/right division over it either.

On the Israeli side, this quote from Begin's chief of staff sums up a stumbling block:

I would prefer they were Israeli citizens, but I am not afraid of a bi-national state. In any case, it will always be a Jewish state with a large Arab minority

On the face of it, it sounds like he's being reasonable, but he only favours a single state if there is a Jewish majority. That is no way forward at all, and until such a time as a majority of Israelis no longer fear a potential Arab majority, it can't happen. By comparison, I'd be interested to know figures for support of apartheid among white South Africans, and how it changed over time. Many had similar fears - fearing being a minority.

In the end, a new identity that can be shared by both Jews and Arabs would be needed. They would not need to think of themselves as identical, but there would need to be at least some aspects of their identity that they felt in common with each other as opposed to non Israeli/Palestinians. In his own small way, the work of the likes of Daniel Barenboim, with his Israeli/Palestinian orchestra help nudge things in this direction. By accepting honorary Palestinian citizenship, Barenboim tries to show a way in which these two peoples can live together.

A binational state sounds like a bad idea, tbh. Federal, sure, but not binational. A simple single state, with institutions to cater for both sides - something similar to Belgium - is what I would envisage. Yes, a lot of Belgians hate each other, but they don't fight each other.

 

[dylanredefined]

I think there should be one state - with the right of return for refugees to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine, equal rights for all peoples and one person-one vote. Muslims get on OK with Jews in London, why not in the new country called Israelastine, if you want. Other names could be open for voting on.

They never have before though. Start with two states and when the Palestinians can meet the Israel's as equals then you can have one state. As it is it would be Israel having to give up and getting little other than a promise of peace.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

I like Gideon Levy

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/to-gaza-i-did-not-go.premium-1.479701

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They never have before though. Start with two states and when the Palestinians can meet the Israel's as equals then you can have one state. As it is it would be Israel having to give up and getting little other than a promise of peace.

'little other than a promise of peace'? That's not little.

One of the problems with two states is that the resultant fragmented Palestine would be utterly dependent on Israel. Two states is already failing as a solution, as people on both left and right point out, due to settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

 

[Buckaroo]

I think there should be one state - with the right of return for refugees to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine, equal rights for all peoples and one person-one vote. Muslims get on OK with Jews in London, why not in the new country called Israelastine, if you want. Other names could be open for voting on.

There are seven million Palestinian refugees. Population of Israel is eight million with two million non Jewish citizens. Gaza has 1.7 million people in the biggest prison in the world. One state, two state, it's bollocks. There should be a no state solution everywhere. Everything else is bullshit.

 

[dylanredefined]

'little other than a promise of peace'? That's not little.

One of the problems with two states is that the resultant fragmented Palestine would be utterly dependent on Israel. Two states is already failing as a solution, as people on both left and right point out, due to settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Well at the moment the Israelis have the IDF which keeps them safe.Trading that for the promise of not being massacred by people who have been chanting death to them since 1948 does not seem a deal worth making.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

So, chances of this ceasefire holding are...?

 

[DexterTCN]

short term good, long term bad

 

[Buckaroo]

So, chances of this ceasefire holding are...?

Zero.

 

[Buckaroo]

So, chances of this ceasefire holding are...?

Zero.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So, chances of this ceasefire holding are...?

Zero.

 

[Pickman's model]

So, chances of this ceasefire holding are...?

Snowball's chance in hell

 

[dylans]

So, chances of this ceasefire holding are...?

Short term maybe. Long term no chance. Nothing has changed to alter the fundamental nature of the conflict.Israel entered this conflict in order to change the status quo in its favour. They failed to do that but the status quo remains. I do however think the battlefield may be moving and there are signs of the West Bank re-entering the struggle. The next round will see Israel considerably more isolated and politically weaker and the resistance stronger.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Short term maybe. Long term no chance. Nothing has changed to alter the fundamental nature of the conflict.Israel entered this conflict in order to change the status quo in its favour. They failed to do that but the status quo remains. I do however think the battlefield may be moving and there are signs of the West Bank re-entering the struggle. The next round will see Israel considerably more isolated and politically weaker and the resistance stronger.

How long would you say short term is, days, weeks, months? It's been four years since last time and this time didn't go anywhere near the same as last.

 

[likesfish]

November 2013 round whatever