Official "Tzipi Livni: Hot or Not?" Thread

[tha]

I decided to wait before posting a a message here on the situation in Gaza. There are other more specialized forums better equipped to handle this. But now that it is here let me join. Since the situation did get out of hand long before the Israeli invasion at the years turn and will continue afterward I decided to restart a thread under a new name. Hopefully more people will feel more comfortable with a broader thread title.

Of course there is a slaughter going on in Gaza. We have a lot of mathematicians here so let us try to use some logic reasoning here, even if most of us have not traveled extensively in the region or spend our days reading intelligence reports and discussing the conflict with the leaders involved.

To answer the question on who is responsible for the slaughtering that is definitely going on let us try to judge the parties involved based on some characteristics. There was a time when all countries in Europe did nothing but invade and conquer each other using similar techniques. It went on for centuries and they stopped doing that in 1945 and lived happily thereafter ever since. Why did they make war and why did they stop? The short answer is power used to be distributed unequally within each country; whereas those who had the access to the limited resources could only remain at the top at the expense of others within their nation/state/fiefdom. Additional power could only be gained by seizing other natural sources. After the industrial revolution power got heavily based on workforce participation and therefore spread more equally. It took two more wars and US intervention, but now a Europe has been build that can be described as a number of democracies intensively and successfully cooperating.

The Middle East has not made this transition. Power used to be based on who had access to the water wells. (See the movie 'Lawrence of Arabia', a masterpiece very loosely based on the life of T.E. Lawrence.) If the Arabs would have been given a few more decades they would have made the transition to an industrialized world too, with equal power distribution as a result. However, the oil reserves provided a new source of power to the local rulers, preventing the societies to make a transition to the day of today. Notice that Jordan, which lacks oil reserves, is by far the most egalitarian Arab country. It has extensively cooperated with Israel and other Western states.

For a ruler other than in a democracy, where the rulers are more like coordinators, it is important to divide, partly by instilling fear among all groups about a time without the ruler. Wars and heightened conflicts serve as such. That is why the Arab world today still looks like the old Europe. Israel is the only noticeable exception since the recreation of the state in 1948 was heavily influenced by an elite of people who had participated in the power redistribution in Europe (modern Israel started out as a social democratic, almost communist state. It thrived very well in terms of economic achievement due to the successful equal distribution of power and access to economic sources of wealth. It made the transition to a modern market economy flawlessly in the late sixties ans seventies.)

A democracy is a bigger threat to a dictatorship than a dictatorship is to a democracy. Democracies instill hope in the minds of the people in a dictatorship that a better life, with more control over ones self, is achievable. Any form of power redistribution, any form of democracy, in the Middle East is therefore the target of the ruling powers. Lebanon, once called 'The Switzerland of the Middle East' has been destroyed by outside forces (mainly Syria). Israel is under continuous attack. The attempt by the US to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq and modernize it was futile without invading neighboring Iran simultaneously. Iran was very quick to spot the fighting between France and the US over Iraq (with Germany being AWOL and Turkeys cooperation with the US obstructed by France) and exploit it.

By far the biggest threat felt in the Middle East is an Arab state in the former British mandate of Palestine that successfully copies Israels democratic institutions. The Arab people on the West bank and even in Gaza are fully capable of doing so after generations of successful cooperation with Israel. It is the constant interference of outside forces that prevents a two state solution, Iran currently being the main force keeping the Arabs in former British Palestine from a modern state next to Israel. Todays war in Gaza is not in the interest of Israel nor in the interest of the local Arab population. It does serve the interests of the ayatollahs in Tehran.

Hamas, serving the interests of Tehran, has kept the conflict going without trying to force an end. Israel has mostly ignored thousands of missiles being shot at it, save for some raids directed at Hamas leaders and firing crews. Even now, after the Israeli invasion Hamas is hardly present on the battlefield. It's fighters a hiding under the civilian population. Only booby traps and a few snipers hinder the army of Israel in it's crush on Hamas military and support infrastructure. Hamas correctly concentrates on reestablishing power after the Israeli's will leave, which one way or the other they will, for they do not want to occupy the area. Hamas has spent the past days killing potential competitors to power, dozens of people who can be expected to affiliate with Fatah. This should be indicative for Hamas representing the interests of the people in Gaza. Hamas knows that Israel will leave Gaza on the terms that best position Hamas for a new term of power if pressure from Europe and the US is put on Israel. However, Europe and the US only turn to the situation in Gaza if there is humanitarian suffering and civilian casualties. Hamas is willing to provide them because it is a double edged sword. It helps to instill fear among the local population. Firing shells from a schoolyard is just an example.

Anyone who has served in the Israeli army and any army of a NATO state will be able to tell you that Israel fully (actually even better than the US, on par with the British) understands it has strong interests in a good standing with the local Arab population and is very keen to avoid civilian casualties among its opponents. Instructions so are thoroughly given and policies implemented. The local people certainly have noticed.

So I put the blame on Iran, not on the poor Arab people in former Palestine, not on the Israeli's. If you want to help stop this conflict, concentrate on Iran.

To prevent a return to the situation that led to this invasion the following cease fire agreement has been supported by the governments of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Germany, the US and Israel.

1. Israel gets to keep the area in Gaza it conquered for a period of time, about two to three months, after which it redraws. (read: gets some time to destroy tunnels etc.)
2. All of the Gaza strip gets under Jordanian and Egyptian rule for some period of time after which it will be returned to the local people.
3. Israel will stop the blockade of goods into Gaza. This blockade has been imposed because of the many shipments of weapons and will no longer be necessary since all shipments can then be checked and checkpoints will no longer be fired upon by militants.

Yesterday, Khaled Mesha'al in Syria, the leader of Hamas, prevented the Hamas rulers in Gaza from signing or negotiating any seize fire.

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

One thing the article repeatedly fails to mention is that all these regimes are dictatorships. Hamas was perhaps the only government in the Arab world which was elected democratically in a generally free and fair election.

Unfortunately this is based on a gross misunderstanding of the Middle East. The Arab population of former British Palestine in the ninety's was not ready to hold elections. The PLO and it's main body Fatah had held the local people hostage to gross misconduct, corruption and extreme violence. Also it had eradicated any opponent save for Hamas which it tried to wipe out. Hamas could count on the vast support as well financially (billions and billions of mainly Iranian dollars)as military (a steady stream of weapons also paid for by Iran). Also it used hiding and training places outside the territories (Syria and Iran). During the ninety's the US and Europe jumped the gun and wanted to create a preliminary state next to Israel that later could be converted into a real state. Israel warned both the US and Europe that the local people lacked the institutions to hold such elections. The US and Europe had the successfully brokered transition in South-Africa in mind and wanted to repeat the same trick. Any differences between South-Africa and the Middle-East, specifically outside forces, were wavered by the politicians in the US and Europe.

The US and Europe had expected and fully counted on Fatah and associates to win the election with a majority comparable to the ANC and than be forced into the international frameworks through pressure with the funds. It was believed this could be done because the Gulf states no longer supported the PLO since the Gulf war of 1991. The elections had to be judged as fair by the international observers because they would be used as a new fact for policy changes. Of course everyone, even the people with only remote knowledge of the Middle East knew there was no way to let the local Arab people organize themselves around different political ideas or even have meetings. Many residents have been killed for less than political aspirations outside the PLO bodies. But recognizing the defacto rulers was seen as the unavoidable starting point.

Of course Fatah and the PLO obtained no more than a few votes, much to the dismay of the leaders of Europe and the US. They had no way to sell a new state to the Israelis if it was run by a body that called for the destruction of Israel. So they walked away from it, leaving both the Arab people in former British Palestine and the Israelis with the rubble. It can be stated therefore the elections were held with two participants, both which relied on using heavy force against it's own people and one of them run by a foreign government, a dictatorship. By no standard can this be called a fair election. Or more precise, it can only be called a fair election if it was predetermined to be a fair election regardless of the maneuverability of the voters.

Hitler never got elected to power in the thirty's but even his ascent to power was more democratic than that of Hamas. It did not rely on a foreign power, only internal violence.

I have the feeling this is an asymmetric discussion. In only one sentence one can bring a dangerous misunderstanding into the world whereas it takes several paragraphs to clarify events and policies.

[garo]

The Arab population of former British Palestine in the ninety's was not ready to hold elections.

Right! They don't get democracy because they are not ready for it. And who decides who gets democracy and who doesn't?

Sorry but that doesn't cut any ice. It also doesn't explain why the Israeli Army herded civilians into a house and shelled it. Or why despite being given GPS co-ordinates of two UN run schools the Israeli Army shelled them killing 40 civilians. Or why they refuse to allow international journalists to enter Gaza.

By the way, it is interesting that you cite the transition in South Africa in your post. The ANC was widely decried as terrorists by the US and UK until the late 1980s. And Israel was a major ally and partner of the apartheid regime in South Africa. No wonder people see parallels between the apartheid regime and Israel.

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

Right! They don't get democracy because they are not ready for it. And who decides who gets democracy and who doesn't?

Sorry but that doesn't cut any ice.

You are now cutting text from my posting, rephrasing it incorrectly and putting it in a weird context. That does not constitute a contribution to a discussion. I hope you learn your daughters to understand phenomena through study rather than to direct seemingly uncontrolled anger.

All people are entitled to democracy, each in a form that suits them. The local Arab population of former British Palestine was not ready for European style elections since they had not been given time or any other resource to organize themselves into groups supporting favored ideologies.

Originally Posted by garo

It also doesn't explain why the Israeli Army herded civilians into a house and shelled it. Or why despite being given GPS co-ordinates of two UN run schools the Israeli Army shelled them killing 40 civilians. Or why they refuse to allow international journalists to enter Gaza.

Three questions, three answers.

- I wasn't present at the house but in war time soldiers even shoot their comrades, it is called 'friendly fire'. Some Israeli soldiers got killed by it this conflict. It happens to every army. Another likely event could be that there has been fired from the house after the Israeli army directed the civilians in. Hamas puts it guns within densely populated areas such as schools, hospitals, UN compounds etc. It certainly would fit their pattern if it happened on this occasion. Most advanced weapons these days return fire to rather exact places automatically even before the shells have landed, by employing detailed radar and fast electronics.

- After the school was shelled many people got killed. The type and amount of injuries raise suspicion though as it is not consistent with the ammo that was used. Maybe secondary explosions caused the many casualties. Today photos were released by how another school was booby trapped, again could be the same pattern.

- About the journalists. When Hamas took power all western journalists were kicked out of Gaza. One British journalist tried to stay, but two days later he decided he wanted to stay alive and left as well. War is ugly, a war against a group that terrorizes it's own people is even nastier. Sorry, but the Israeli's have reversed their policy after the previous war.

Originally Posted by garo

By the way, it is interesting that you cite the transition in South Africa in your post. The ANC was widely decried as terrorists by the US and UK until the late 1980s. And Israel was a major ally and partner of the apartheid regime in South Africa. No wonder people see parallels between the apartheid regime and Israel.

Again, you rephrase incorrectly. The US and western Europe did support the former regime in South-Africa, although it called for changes. It did not want to trade in the lack of freedom for colored South-Africans for lack of freedom to all South-Africans under a Soviet run leadership. Remember that the ANC heavily depended on Moscow at that time. The very moment Moscow reversed its cold war policies under Gorbatsjov US and European delegations brokered a transfer of power in South-Africa. This 'velvet revolution' was the same as used in Czechoslowakia.

[garo]

tha, I would request you to please read the article I posted and the one that Xyzzy linked before we carry on this conversation any further. Also, please do not attribute things like "uncontrollable anger" to me without any evidence for the same. And thank you very much for your concern for my daughters' education but it is not welcome. I'm sure your children (if any) have benefitted very much from your measured and logical approach and are indebted to you for it.

Regarding your responses to my three questions, you have evidently not read the articles I linked as they seem to refute your contentions. The ICRC is as apolitical a body as you get, witness to a lot of war and it too has seen fit to protest the conduct of the Israeli Army including not allowing medics to go near the injured.

I's like to ask one more question. Do you then see this as a war? If that is the case Hamas is a party to the conflict and should be bound by the Geneva convention but the same must also hold for the Israelis, no?

"International criticism of Israel's conduct of the war grew, with Human Rights Watch saying it believed Israeli troops were using white phosphorous munitions over densely populated areas of Gaza in violation of international humanitarian law."

Finally, a bit of Math:
Number of Israeli soldiers killed by friendly fire: 3
Number of Palestinian Children killed by Israelis: At least 275 and counting

Yes, friendly fire happens in all wars. Mistakes happen in all wars.

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

tha, I would request you to please read the article I posted and the one that Xyzzy linked before we carry on this conversation any further.

I did before I reacted. Both articles indicate a cultural background of the writers having grown up in continents with no regional conflicts and stable internal democracies. Anthropologists have determined that no culture can sustain contact with any hostile culture if it has been living in harmony for only six generations. History shows no example to the contrary. I always recommend people to take some time to live in rude dictatorships and learn to appreciate the various mechanisms used to maintain internal order. I am not impressed by how democracy is taught to youngsters in Europe and the US. It is woefully inadequate to maintain the values we have fought so many battle for.

The article linked by Xyzzy has a few correct analysis but misses to include a number of important events and situations which leads to dangerously wrong conclusions.

Originally Posted by garo

Regarding your responses to my three questions, you have evidently not read the articles I linked as they seem to refute your contentions. The ICRC is as apolitical a body as you get, witness to a lot of war and it too has seen fit to protest the conduct of the Israeli Army including not allowing medics to go near the injured

I had the privilege to by invited by the chairman of the ICRC for a long conversation over international politics. We both appreciated each others way of moving around. Mentioning the term 'apolitical' would not advance ones career in any NGO body such as the ICRC but shows lack of understanding. Israel has only recently (dec. 2005) been allowed by some Arab states to join the ICRC. The US had to compensate them for, it was not a gesture. The ICRC has a lot of interests and they can be hurt really bad if they would not take into account the interests of regimes not found anywhere near the Geneva hq.

Originally Posted by garo

I'd like to ask one more question. Do you then see this as a war? If that is the case Hamas is a party to the conflict and should be bound by the Geneva convention but the same must also hold for the Israelis, no?

This is turning definitions upside down. Using military style weapons for a conflict does not make you a partner in war. To have a war you need two countries both recognized by the international community. I don't think the world is ready to accept two Arab states west of the Jordan river, one of them not recognizing Israel nor the other Arab entity. I do believe the population of Gaza suffers as much as in a nasty war. As far as the rulers in most Arab countries are concerned Geneva is a city in Europe. The amount of freedom of press and the right of citizens to organize unhindered in a country determines the need or lack thereof to adhere to the convention.

Originally Posted by garo

"International criticism of Israel's conduct of the war grew, with Human Rights Watch saying it believed Israeli troops were using white phosphorous munitions over densely populated areas of Gaza in violation of international humanitarian law."

HRW is another NGO. This was an attempt to classify smokescreens as chemical warfare. Failed miserably. Don't launch missiles from the city center if you are the local terrorist group and don't like it. Stay inside your house as requested and advised by the leaflets dropping from the sky if you are a local citizen.

Originally Posted by garo

Finally, a bit of Math:
Number of Israeli soldiers killed by friendly fire: 3
Number of Palestinian Children killed by Israelis: At least 275 and counting

If those numbers are correct that makes the score 278 for Hamas versus 0 for the local residents and the Israeli army. I bet the claimed 275 included the teenagers trapped in the smuggling tunnels and underground weapon caches among other similar groups.

[tha]

Instead of playing the blame game, let us help resolve the conflict. Formulate a ceasefire agreement, this forum and thread will do. Really, if you can formulate an approach that caters to most of the needs of the parties involved, you will be receiving personal answers from the leaders that manage this crisis. Daily dozens such initiatives are received and the majority get answered by the staff of these people, usually a number of relevant paragraphs of previously stated policies. Real new initiatives showing or implying insight are answered personally by the leaders themselves, even if you are only a foreign citizen. Once the initiative here is bearing fruit I will be happy to provide anyone the addresses of the offices, which also can be found on the net. If you don't waste their time with the obvious or unworkable, you will find their attention very rewarding. Civilian initiatives have played important roles before.

Try to formulate a deal that you think you can sell to Israel, the people of Gaza, to Egypt, to Hamas, to Teheran, to Saudi Arabia, to Abbas, to the people in the West bank, to Jordan, to the US and Europe. Start with the main points typically a number of diplomatic statements easily fitting on one page. If promising the specification can be written and should fit in a few dozen pages. You have competition from other groups so work hard and efficient.

[tha]

[Moderator's Note: I had originally titled the thread Slaughter in Gaza, but after a suggestion from cheesehead the title was changed and the thread merged with Gaza Situation thread started by tha. Upon reflection I have decided to undo this.]

I did start a new thread under a neutral title because I felt insulted by the original title and then agreed to have it mixed with this thread because its title had become more neutral than previously. Later I did further contributions to this thread. I feel deeply betrayed by undoing the change in the title. I have moderators privileges for some parts of this forum. I feel pressed to take steps to protect my rights, which may result in this thread becoming as explosive as the situation in Gaza. I don't want that to happen because it could spill over to other parts of the forum and the GIMPS project. I demand the thread title to be restored to the previous title.

[garo]

As I said, let us know which posts you want separated into a new thread and any of the moderators will do so for you. No need to threaten the GIMPS project or other forums.

[tha]

Originally Posted by garo

As I said, let us know which posts you want separated into a new thread and any of the moderators will do so for you. No need to threaten the GIMPS project or other forums.

Simple, all posting stemming from my original thread, all posting from me in this thread after the merger, and all postings from others in which my text is quoted or responded to and all posting by people addressing me. The title of the thread should be 'Gaza situation'. 'War crimes committed by and inflicted upon Gaza people by Hamas despite Israeli care to protect citizens of both Arab and Israeli origin.' might better describes the actual situation a lot better but it may shy away some people.

[S00113]

Originally Posted by tha

'War crimes committed by and inflicted upon Gaza people by Hamas despite Israeli care to protect citizens of both Arab and Israeli origin.' might better describes the actual situation a lot better but it may shy away some people.

Just a reality check: Do you mean that Israel isn't committing war crimes, or that their crimes are by any means justifiable?

Bombing houses full of civilians, bombing civilian infrastructure, not helping children who are dying next to their dead mothers 80 meters from a Israeli military post (and also refusing aid workers access to them!), refusing access to media, shooting at clearly marked ambulances and shooting at civilan police, are all war crimes. It does not make any difference if it is true that Hamas is hiding there or not. Killing civilians is a war crime, and so far Israel has commited more than 1000 of them. In addition to all the bombed civilian infrastructure and the usage of illegal weapons. I'm expecting nukes any time now. Also using civilians as human shields, which has been standard tactics by Israel for years. (Locking civilians inside a house, and using the house as base for snipers.)

Do you think Israel is going to pay for their crimes? Pay for the rebuilding of civilian infrastructure? Probably not. Currently innocent people are paying. Harrassment of Jewish children by other children has become a big problem in my country during the last couple of weeks. For the youth witnessing Israel's genocide in Gaza, the picture of a roughe apartheid state will be very hard to get rid of. Israel will need a total system change, like Germany after WWII. Otherwise I think we are going to see civilian casualties in more countries, and it will probably not be arabs.