Bush blithely backs Sharon plan

[Golgot]

Bush has basically just become the first US president to endorse Israeli settlements in the West Bank. (Here's the shortest, and most pertinent article you're gonna read on the subject...
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=493237&section=news )

Withdrawls from the comparitively piddling Gaza Strip, and some areas of the West Bank, count for next to nothing if legitimacy is leant to the West Bank settlements that remain.

To have supported this position if it arose from a negotiated truce between the Israeli's and Palestinians would have been acceptable. To blaze in like this is just giving more ammunition to the extremists, and is about as likely to facilitate the peace-process as a ban on religion :rolleyes:

Odds on this has made the whole islamic-terrorism-vs-the-US situation worse, and won't please anyone.

[Yoda]

I'm a bit confused; what's wrong with upsetting terrorists? If they're angry, doesn't that mean we're doing something they don't want? I thought the goal was to oppose them and their aims?

Andrew Sullivan put it best: all the concern is placed on what makes other people mad. This kind of philosophy gives all the benefit of the doubt possible to the enemy. And, surprise surprise, there's none left over for America.

Maybe the discussion should be about what's right, rather than what will cause the least amount of animosity. I'm trying to move away from quoting people as argumentative supplement, but this quote fits the situation far too well to not reproduce:

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

[Golgot]

I'm a bit confused; what's wrong with upsetting terrorists? If they're angry, doesn't that mean we're doing something they don't want? I thought the goal was to oppose them and their aims?

You don't get it do you. It's not about upsetting terrorists. It's about upsetting moderates through an immoderate action. (i think you're beginning to get sucked in by the simplicity of the term terrorist Yods. This is a frighteningly simplistic argument you're putting forward)

It's not as simple as opposing their aims. It's about undermining their support groups through breaking the steretypes that fundamentalists build up. But it's also about pulling back from certain actions that are genuinely unjustified as well, and cause justifiable anger.

It's also sensible to be slightly subtle. The image this sends resonating out throughtout the muslim world (muslim mark you) is that Bush and Israel are bosom buddies. That they don't need an international community to broker deals. That they don't need to respect international law - like the ones invoked in 1441 etc to justify war in Iraq.

Basically - Bush has just reinforced up all the items of leverage that extremists use to turn moderates against the US etc. The idea that they support Israel unquestioningly, and want to rule the Middle-East. Pretty hard to argue with these ideas given Bush's actions while in power.

Now if by doing all this he'd advanced a solution to some of the central conflicts of Israel, then this would all balance out long-term. But the fact is that this action looks liable to achieve very little good, but spur on a lot more bad..... (issues below...)....

Andrew Sullivan put it best: all the concern is placed on what makes other people mad. This kind of philosophy gives all the benefit of the doubt possible to the enemy. And, surprise surprise, there's none left over for America.

Maybe the discussion should be about what's right, rather than what will cause the least amount of animosity. I'm trying to move away from quoting people as argumentative supplement, but this quote fits the situation far too well to not reproduce:

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

Ok, well then this action is wrong. Wrong because it doesn't solve the problem, and indeed looks very likely to simultaneously make it yet worse.

But don't float off into entirely into the theoretical man. You've got to work with the practical to achieve a moral outcome.

Let's just agree that the most "moral" and "right" solution is the one that causes a cessation of violence and the establishment of a stable environment for both Israelis and Palestinians. Yes?

The problem with the approach Bush has adopted are multiple:
-It doesn't bring the Palestinians to the table - so it doesn't advance negotiation.
-Complete US endorsement of an Israeli leader's plan which is aimed at appeasing Israeli voters does nothing to advance the required compromise which is needed - and also reinforces the idea that the US is bizarrely tied to letting Israel do what it wants (hence making true compromise seem ever less likely)
-Sharon's plan leaves out vital sections of the "roadmap" idea that provide balance and...well...a way forward. - notably the fact that the "matrix" (yes, politicians have called it that ;)) of control that Israel exerts of the West Bank has not been removed. A new Palestinian state would find itself in the untenable position of having Israel able to run its affairs, and apply altered laws for its citizens still living within the borders.

And on and on. I've got work...but here's a brief summary of what's missing from this big-step-backwards...


Nobody has a perfect solution for for Israel. It's probably the most difficult geopolitical problem in the world. The "roadmap", and various spinoffs, seem to tackle the core areas of contention, and the contingent stumbling blocks. And these aspects are all pretty much requirements of it as i understand it...:
-In negotiating a solution, Palestinian authority does probably have to be bipassed to an extent, coz of their ineffective and unreliable infrastructure of command. But they still have to be engaged.
-Israel, as the dominant party in this particular dance, must also make certain sacrifices. They have the responsability to break the chain of violence, because they are better placed to do so.
-This in turn, they probably won't do unless forced to from the outside. So i'm afraid little things like slightly disproportionate funding by the US (in the face of numerous Un sanctions against Israel etc) needs to be used as a stick to force compliance.

These kind of actions...forcing both parties to walk down the "roadmap" path, are what would both advance both sides to a potential solution, while simultaneously taking away many of the arguments fundamentalistys use to whip up support.

Bush has failed spectacularly to engage on any of these basic principles, let alone the fine details.

It's just not good enough. I'm genuinely not lacking goodwill for the Bush-admin coz it's all been given to "the enemy". It's because they're messing it up again.

[WelshBint]

You don't get it do you. It's not about upsetting terrorists. It's about upsetting moderates through an immoderate action.
Spot on... I was appalled when I saw the news last night. And of course poodle Blair has now gone over to talk Iraq, and will no doubt be drawn into supporting this ridiculous action.

The world is becoming a terrifying place, and the terrorists are winning as people live with fear and paranoia. Actions like this just make the matter a whole lot worse and just play into their hands.

[Golgot]

I honestly don't think there is any realistic way to solve this other than through complete war, which is basically where we are headed.

I don't think that Israel will give Palistine back all the post-1967 lands, because numerous Palistinian officials have stated that those lands are their trojan horse for the destruction of Israel.

I would be the first to beg Sharone to give the land back if I thought it would do one of two things:

A) Please the palistinians and stop the war.
B) Get rid of all public support (must include arab support) for the Palistinian cause once they continue launching terrorist attacks against Israel from their newly formed state.

A, imo, doesnt have a chance in hell of happening. Too much hatred and too much history between these two for people to forgive and forget.

B, imo, doesnt have a chance in hell of happening either. The arab world has been using palistinians for the past 40 years to launch their war against Israel, after they lost a couple outright wars against them. They arent just going to stop pulling the strings once the Palistinians get their land back, since arabs care absolutely nothing for the Palistinians (if you disagree I can expand on this point). So, not only do you have the arab world obviously against you still, you will continue to have a large portion of the world against Israel because they don't see the problem in the Gaza Strip/West Bank, but it lies solely that there is an Israeli state. With this continuing international and domestic support, the palistinians will be able to continue legal terrorism against the Israelis, and we will be in the exact same position as before.

So what do I think is the solution? There are only 2:

A) Things continue as they are going now. Israel gives back some land, then take it back after a terrorist attack and then bomb a couple hamas leaders, and the circle remains unbroken.

B) War

Regardless if Palistine gets back the West Bank/Gaza strip, these are still the only two things that will possibly happen.

As for my support of Israel 99%, I will agree that they have done just as much against the Palistinians as they have done against Israel (probably more) but imo Israel has been doing it out of defense whereas the Palistinians have been used as pawns to continue a war against Israel that has been going on for the past 60 years. One that they tried to win by force, and lost. Israel gained the land fair and square through wars which were started by the arab world. We may as well redefine the borders of the entire world while we are at it.

There is actually another way to resolve this issue, and it is being implemented as we speak. A huge wall separating Israel and Palistine. Jews brought prosperity to Palistine during the 30s/40s, so muchso that the region was able to basically double the amount of Palistinians living in the area. Once they get their own country, they are going to turn into a third world nation, they will continue to live in poverty, and somehow this will all be Israels fault, so be it. A huge wall separating the two countries will basically be war, since it will mean the destruction of the palistinians since they wont have an economy, and they wont be able to launch attacks against Israel. Of course this isnt a fool proff idea, since there isnt much international support for the idea, since it does basically mean death to the Palistinians.

Indeed indeed. It's a very tight spot. (I'm not quite sure what you mean by "war" tho, coz surely the Israeli army would slaughter any attempt at mass uprising by the Palestinians? And surely no Islamic country is going to join in such a war with the US camped en masse so close? Do you mean a widening of the Islamic/'West' 'terror war'?))

Barricade the Palestinians in and it does seem to mean death through lack of resources/infrastructure/potential-for-economic-self-sustenance.

But i imagine that wouldn't be the end of Israeli/'Arabic' conflict by any means. The Palestinians would become symbolic martyrs (an excuse for further violence) to an even greater extent; a trapped Israel would be as dependant as ever on outside help (i'd imagine); anti-Israeli violence could extend to widespread violence against jews in general if it couldn't be perpetuated against Israel.....

Indeed, all this bad feeling would almost certainly continue to exacerbate Islamic/'Western' bad relations, that most poisonous of "wars".

Solutions are pretty thin on the ground. I have a bad feeling that these things only truly come to an end after generations of death lead to a set of generations that can stand no more. That's what seems to have happened in the tiny microcosm version of Ireland.

And although we Brits often handled that affair badly, (and altho not giving in to terrorism is also the right way to go about it i think), we did get one aspect right over time that the Bush-admin seems to be getting wrong in their spearheading (hijacking) of the "fight against terrorism", in Israel and elsewhere. We stayed away from a policy of sanctioned assassination for the most part. (If we'd applied such an approach consistantly, i don't think we'd be at the peaceful conjucture we're at now, or that hatred of the hatred would have had a chance to win out amongst those who sustained the extreme terrorist elements).

The Bush admin's endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan, not to mention the recent assinations, seems to embody how not to handle these things. At the very least, they've ignored the international community yet again, and at worst, they're pursuing a tactic that will worsen the situation (making the hatred forever point at the enemy, and never at the shared heart of the conflict).

Personally i subscribe to the idea that the assassinations have a Hydra effect. Sure, the Israeli's won't look weak when they pull out of Gaza. But they sure as hell won't get any peace after either. Out of all those outraged Palestinians there's plenty of future terrorist-leader potential.

Spot on... I was appalled when I saw the news last night. And of course poodle Blair has now gone over to talk Iraq, and will no doubt be drawn into supporting this ridiculous action.

The world is becoming a terrifying place, and the terrorists are winning as people live with fear and paranoia. Actions like this just make the matter a whole lot worse and just play into their hands.

Round and round we go eh? And hey, yeah, you guessed Blair's walkie time ;)

I think the bridge metaphor is fairer for Blairy. He tries to bridge all sides, and ends up getting walked over. (as much as i'm angry with him for his messianic simplicity, i still think the wee bugger thinks he's doing right. Whether he is or not is another matter. But the 'roadmap' was partially his baby, we shouldn't forget that. We should just roll our eyes at him lying and saying Bush and Sharon sweeping away critical parts of it is a step forward. Join me.... :rolleyes: ;))

[Yoda]

You don't get it do you. It's not about upsetting terrorists. It's about upsetting moderates through an immoderate action. (i think you're beginning to get sucked in by the simplicity of the term terrorist Yods. This is a frighteningly simplistic argument you're putting forward)Yes, I know it's simplistic. But I've noticed a very clear, consistent effort among more liberal-leaning individuals to give the enemy virtually every benefit of the doubt.

Allow me to illustrate (literally):

http://www.movieforums.com/misc/United.jpg


It's not as simple as opposing their aims. It's about undermining their support groups through breaking the steretypes that fundamentalists build up. But it's also about pulling back from certain actions that are genuinely unjustified as well, and cause justifiable anger.But that's not what you said. You only referred to the fact that it would cause anger. That's my point: the focus is on the fact that they'll be mad. I don't think it should be. If the act is unjustified, their anger isn't needed as an argument against it. If it is justified, their anger is more or less irrelevant.

It's this kind of timidness that genuinely bothers me. We're not in Bible Study here. The goal is not always to make nice with everyone, no matter what. Sometimes the goals of different groups of people are too different to avoid anger without abandoning your principles. John Adams said it best:

"We're in a war, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!"


It's also sensible to be slightly subtle. The image this sends resonating out throughtout the muslim world (muslim mark you) is that Bush and Israel are bosom buddies. That they don't need an international community to broker deals. That they don't need to respect international law - like the ones invoked in 1441 etc to justify war in Iraq.

Basically - Bush has just reinforced up all the items of leverage that extremists use to turn moderates against the US etc. The idea that they support Israel unquestioningly, and want to rule the Middle-East. Pretty hard to argue with these ideas given Bush's actions while in power.It's hard to argue with the idea that Bush is behind Israel, yes. But he is. It's the truth.

You seem so convinced that such firm stances will only incite more terrorism. But why? It seems just as plausible to me that such resolve and consistency would deter terrorists. Taking on the United States is no easy task, after all. From what basis do you insist that anger is a greater motivator than fear? Machiavelli thought otherwise.


Ok, well then this action is wrong. Wrong because it doesn't solve the problem, and indeed looks very likely to simultaneously make it yet worse.

But don't float off into entirely into the theoretical man. You've got to work with the practical to achieve a moral outcome.Absolutely true. There's a balancing act between principles and pragmatism.


Let's just agree that the most "moral" and "right" solution is the one that causes a cessation of violence and the establishment of a stable environment for both Israelis and Palestinians. Yes?Most definitely. With the caveat that whatever resolution leads to that stability must be fair/just.


The problem with the approach Bush has adopted are multiple:
-It doesn't bring the Palestinians to the table - so it doesn't advance negotiation.Correct me if I'm wrong, but "negotiation" with the Palestinians seems to have utterly floundered thus far. It is only through utter military defeat that they've even been persauded to come to the table, in my opinion.


-Complete US endorsement of an Israeli leader's plan which is aimed at appeasing Israeli voters does nothing to advance the required compromise which is needed - and also reinforces the idea that the US is bizarrely tied to letting Israel do what it wants (hence making true compromise seem ever less likely)Let me ask you something: if one side is in the right, should we compromise anyway, simply to end the conflict? Peace over justice? I realize you don't believe Israel is "in the right," but I'd like your views on this concept as an abstract.


-Sharon's plan leaves out vital sections of the "roadmap" idea that provide balance and...well...a way forward. - notably the fact that the "matrix" (yes, politicians have called it that ;)) of control that Israel exerts of the West Bank has not been removed. A new Palestinian state would find itself in the untenable position of having Israel able to run its affairs, and apply altered laws for its citizens still living within the borders.What land Israel has conquered it has done so under provocation. If your country were being repeatedly attacked from an area just outside of their borders, they'd be well within their rights in fighting back and perhaps occupying that area to prevent it from happening again.


Nobody has a perfect solution for for Israel. It's probably the most difficult geopolitical problem in the world. The "roadmap", and various spinoffs, seem to tackle the core areas of contention, and the contingent stumbling blocks. And these aspects are all pretty much requirements of it as i understand it...:
-In negotiating a solution, Palestinian authority does probably have to be bipassed to an extent, coz of their ineffective and unreliable infrastructure of command. But they still have to be engaged.
-Israel, as the dominant party in this particular dance, must also make certain sacrifices. They have the responsability to break the chain of violence, because they are better placed to do so.
-This in turn, they probably won't do unless forced to from the outside. So i'm afraid little things like slightly disproportionate funding by the US (in the face of numerous Un sanctions against Israel etc) needs to be used as a stick to force compliance.Your second point, I think, is a reasonably good one. Israel is in the position of power, and therefore should take some responsibility for helping to end this, perhaps above their share.

However, the fact that they're in the driver's seat speaks for their side of the matter, as well. If they wanted to, they could crush Palestine. They've demonstrated that their military is vastly superior. Yet they haven't. Palestinians have demonstrated a willfull intent to utterly destory Israel. Israel did not initially display the same intent in response. Is there any doubt about this? Palestine's goal has been to conquer Israel. Israel's goal, ultimately, has been to exist without harassment. They both have blood on their hands, but Israel has not been hell-bent, overall, on demolishing their enemies' very existence. Throw in the fact that they're a successful Democracy in a very volatile part of the world, and I think there's ample reason to side with them.

[Golgot]

Yes, I know it's simplistic. But I've noticed a very clear, consistent effort among more liberal-leaning individuals to give the enemy virtually every benefit of the doubt.

Allow me to illustrate (literally):

Erm, i'm afraid there's an equally consistant tendancy amongst "conservatives" to give the benefit of doubt to all our own actions.

That picture you posted spoke more of pacifism fears to me, and i agree it's unrealistic. But so is the line you're pursuing of "physically oppose all things terrorists stand for" - coz as i've mentioned, one of the things they "stand for" is Islam.

But that's not what you said. You only referred to the fact that it would cause anger. That's my point: the focus is on the fact that they'll be mad. I don't think it should be. If the act is unjustified, their anger isn't needed as an argument against it. If it is justified, their anger is more or less irrelevant.

Anyone who comes from my side of thought on this would realise what i meant by that - the anger of moderates. **** the extremists, they're angry already. I'm not talking about pacifying them. I'm talking about engaging with those who can affect them and who are prepared to engage. The moderates.

As it goes, the only related comment i can find on this thread is that i said this action would give the extremists more ammunition. Again, by that i meant that they will gain more grass-roots support from otherwise moderate muslims who normally wouldn't condone their actions.

And Yods, the anger is absolutely fundamental to this arguement, coz it's the feeling of "righteous" anger that sustains this situation.

The willingness of people who come from your side of the argument to completely ignore the human dynamic is the truly frightening thing. You seem quite happy to think your approach must be right, simply coz it's confrontational, without seeming to care who you confront. What are you gonna do? Fix the middle east by blowing it up? We've gotta help the Middle East to fix itself, as Iraq and Afghanistan is proving. But Israel is the nub, and the place where moderates from all sides need to be helped to sort things out.

Well...it's either that or completely kill or remove one side. Not a very constructive ultimately.

It's this kind of timidness that genuinely bothers me. We're not in Bible Study here. The goal is not always to make nice with everyone, no matter what. Sometimes the goals of different groups of people are too different to avoid anger without abandoning your principles. John Adams said it best:

"We're in a war, dammit! We're going to have to offend somebody!"

You've gotta understand that this isn't timidness, this is practicality. It's only if you assume that Israel has absolute right to the land, and to do what it wants to the residents, that your argument becomes in anyway justifiable. And even then it's not going to leave them free to act that way.

One problem is that i'm on neither side. I believe both religions/creeds have a claim to the land and should have access. Christians too.

The problem is that religions make people dogmatic and incapable of compromise on certain key points. But as extremist opinions generate more suffering in reality, so moderate opinion will win out over time. Ideally. (That's what happened in Ireland to an extent)

Ultimately tho i think the place is ****ed.

It's hard to argue with the idea that Bush is behind Israel, yes. But he is. It's the truth.

The question is why ultimately. It certainly won't help his mission to pacify the Middle East. Quite the opposite. And winning hearts and minds is what such a mission is all about. You can't force people to think what you want at gun point.

Maybe he's one of those insane believers in the Rapture, and necessity of Armageddon starting with Israel taking over the Middle East. Who knows.

All i know is he's pursuing the destructive one-sided route over the constructiveness-enforcing multilateral appraoch.

You seem so convinced that such firm stances will only incite more terrorism. But why? It seems just as plausible to me that such resolve and consistency would deter terrorists. Taking on the United States is no easy task, after all. From what basis do you insist that anger is a greater motivator than fear? Machiavelli thought otherwise.

Wrong, i think firm stances supporting only one side of this debate will incite more terrorism, for the grass-roots-affecting reasons i've given.

And since when did people who are prepared to blow themselves up get discouraged by fear?? You'll drive the extremists further into the frothing levels of indignation which fuel them, and provide an indignant peer-group who will actively support them.

The Islamic world as a whole won't be scared into submission - yet that's eactly how the US is painting itself, as you say - as the the determined enemy of Islam. Not a clever move.

I believe we need to be firm in forcing both Jewish and Islamic residents of that region to accept the presence of the other. That's accepting the "realities on the ground". That's the type of firmness the area needs.

Most definitely. With the caveat that whatever resolution leads to that stability must be fair/just.

About the only way it could come about if it were so - for all. Which will involve compromise too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "negotiation" with the Palestinians seems to have utterly floundered thus far. It is only through utter military defeat that they've even been persauded to come to the table, in my opinion.

Well, neither side has shown willingness to negotiate, until forced into it by the international community. There is a military stalemate between israel and the palestinian-supportic arabic states, certainly. We should take advantage of that.

Let me ask you something: if one side is in the right, should we compromise anyway, simply to end the conflict? Peace over justice? I realize you don't believe Israel is "in the right," but I'd like your views on this concept as an abstract.

Very much dependant on the details. If the compromises are relatively small, and leave the "right" solution mainly intact, then yes - so long as it's the only real way to bring about the resolution.

But as you say, i don't think that's the situation here.

What land Israel has conquered it has done so under provocation. If your country were being repeatedly attacked from an area just outside of their borders, they'd be well within their rights in fighting back and perhaps occupying that area to prevent it from happening again.

Well again, historically "they started it" by occupying the area in the first place. But that doesn't get us anywhere...

One argument against expansion as a form of resolution is...where do you draw the line? Israel would ideally like to control a far larger area - it will always border arabic states that would rather it wasn't there at all. Who has more right to defend themselves then? It just becomes a case of might-is-right. And when israel is heavily backed by the US, it becomes an international affair, with wider repurcussions.

Address the fundamentals - the religious differences and how some form of compromise concerning access to sites can be reached. That's the nub of the issue. All the rest is window dressing.

Your second point, I think, is a reasonably good one. Israel is in the position of power, and therefore should take some responsibility for helping to end this, perhaps above their share.

That's the ideal. And those nations that help maintain Israel is a position of strength should use their leverage in turn to help facilitate this.

However, the fact that they're in the driver's seat speaks for their side of the matter, as well. If they wanted to, they could crush Palestine. They've demonstrated that their military is vastly superior. Yet they haven't.

Well, let's be fair. They couldn't. There would be both an international outcry (from everyone except the US :rolleyes: ) and a concerted backlash from Islamic states. In the Israel-vs-Islamic states terms, the "fight" is far more even, and far more deadly. Even tho Israel could just pull out the nukes. It's still not an outcome anyone wants. Well....only extremists.

Palestinians have demonstrated a willfull intent to utterly destory Israel. Israel did not initially display the same intent in response. Is there any doubt about this? Palestine's goal has been to conquer Israel. Israel's goal, ultimately, has been to exist without harassment.

The point is that, as i understand it, Israel is in possession of some areas that are of religious import to the three monotheistic faiths (Jerusalem. Places like Hebron etc.). That's a bit like moving into a shared flat and saying "hey, i just want to be left alone", having kicked everyone else onto the street and changed the locks. You shouldn't be suprised if someone tries to kick the door down.

They both have blood on their hands, but Israel has not been hell-bent, overall, on demolishing their enemies' very existence.

Both sides want the others out of the areas they wish to control. Pretty similar in end result. Both sides kill unacceptable numbers of the other side, while feeling they're justified.

Throw in the fact that they're a successful Democracy in a very volatile part of the world, and I think there's ample reason to side with them.

Well, they're very reliant on outside aid, so i'm not quite sure how you're defining successful - but yeah, sure, there's a democratic process. But then againm there's no real oil there to screw up the process of power-sharing that forms democracies.

Unfortunately, supporting the Israel perspective alone will probably lead to more carnage across the Middle East, and force further miltancy on governing bodies in Israel. That undermines this point on many levels.

Suffice to say.... if you want Armageddon in the Middle East, support Israel unconditionally. If you want a chance at reconciliation, inter-faith respect, and a sustainable Judeo-Christian-Muslim populace in the region - force all sides to be intolerant of extremist-intolerance ;):)