The Israeli Strategy

reply to post by dontreally


Eager to believe Hamas? Not so much and I don't really understand what that means. Politics isn't coloured in shades of black and white for me like it is for you. I'm eager to support a contention based on practical evidence. The evidence being, that despite the picture many Israelis paint of Hamas, it is clear that they are open to negotiation and they have acquiesced into some of Israel's demands.

We see it in this latest round of violence. Hamas has enforced the ceasefire, and despite the recent shooting of a Palestinian man and 10 others, Hamas has not even blamed it on Israel. Clearly, as Hamas has expanded from a non-governmental fundamentalist organisation into a quasi-government like organisation their mandate has developed and as such they have become more pragmatic over time. We just now need Israel to bring them into the tent for discussions. We've seen Egypt and Jordan change their position on Israel overtime, why not Hamas? We've seen Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE change their position on Israel over time, why not Hamas?

As for the lack of Palestinian unity. It is undeniable. We saw it clearly with the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. But if that really did block the two state solution, why did we not see a settlement with the Palestinians from 1967 to 2006. Even more pertinently, why was there no settlement from 1993 to 2006 with Fatah at a time where they had renounced violence and proved to be pragmatic and fair. We saw it in the round of discussions at Madrid where the Bush (senior) administration observed that the Israeli delegation was intransigent and militant, whereas the Palestinians were to only delegation that truly shined conveying ideas of peace and settlement.

Now lets look at the real reason Hamas has gained influence and power and may even continue to do so. From 1967 onwards, no Arab country managed to negotiate a peace settlement with Israel that would establish an autonomous Palestinian state where the Palestinians would live in peace and dignity. Then from 1993 to 2006, the PLO and Fatah renounced violence and peacefully negotiated with Israel, to no avail, due to Israel's intransigence. These ideas of intransigence aren't in my head, they were in George Bush's head when his administration withheld American loans to Israel to force them to simply talk to the Palestinians. So essentially, Fatah failed to peacefully achieve a peace settlement. Then Hamas gained political clout and through their use of violence, Palestinians felt they were the only group that was doing something to protect their interests. Similar to the way many Israelis feel that their government is supporting their interests when they kill Palestinians. In summary, essentially, Israel gave birth to a demon and now they have to be courageous enough to man up and figure out the best way to deal with them, which I tell you isn't killing Palestinian civilians. That will only empower them and gain them more support.

Whether you like it or not, Hamas is here to stay and you can assign a large part of the blame to the Israeli leaders you so much support. Netanyahu included.

reply to post by SimonPeter


Firstly, I'm not a Muslim. I'm not religious.

Secondly, what?

Thirdly, the only part of that post I could decipher is you saying Hamas broke the ceasefire. This lie has been proven to be wrong time and time again so I won't even bother debunking it at this point. Look at my past posts.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Eager to believe Hamas? Not so much and I don't really understand what that means. Politics isn't coloured in shades of black and white for me like it is for you.

Eager means to ignore evidence that contraindicates the hoped for goal i.e your belief that Hamas could turn out to be a workable partner with Israel.

The evidence being, that despite the picture many Israelis paint of Hamas, it is clear that they are open to negotiation and they have acquiesced into some of Israel's demands.

So, ignore their past contentions? Ignore their ideological characteristics? And therefore, shine a positive line on their supposed "willingness" to work with Israel??

Seems like there's a great deal of ignoring, and something about "practical evidence" (which somehow to you excludes ideological basis as evidence)

We see it in this latest round of violence. Hamas has enforced the ceasefire, and despite the recent shooting of a Palestinian man and 10 others, Hamas has not even blamed it on Israel.

This proves nothing. It only shows Hamas is becoming adept at playing by the rules of the game. Does that obviate their intentions? There's this enormous jump in your logic from isolated event which contradicts their founding logic (their Jihad against Israel) and a belief that they mean to permanently live at peace with Israel. Have you ever heard of "one step back, two steps forward"?

I gave you a perfectly sound explanation for what Hamas would be likely to do with political power in a future Palestinian state; look at the Muslim Brotherhood, who set a practicable precedent in Egypt for Hamas to follow against Fatah.

We've seen Egypt and Jordan change their position on Israel overtime, why not Hamas?

False examples. Egypt's "change of attitude" toward Israel was that of a secular regime; same thing with Jordan.

Islamists and Hamas are unambiguously and incorrigibly in a different category.

Even more pertinently, why was there no settlement from 1993 to 2006 with Fatah at a time where they had renounced violence and proved to be pragmatic and fair.

Simply because Israel never trusted Arafat, for good reason. At no point did Arafat give them reason to believe that he could be trusted.

Also, are you not aware that the Al Aqsa Brigades are connected with Fatah?

From 1967 onwards, no Arab country managed to negotiate a peace settlement with Israel that would establish an autonomous Palestinian state where the Palestinians would live in peace and dignity.

Why wasn't one established by Egypt or Jordan between 1949 to 1967? That's a deeper question that sheds much light on the Arab Leagues agenda against Israel. If the issue wasn't fixed then - when a state could have been established, why did they dawdle for 19 years, letting the issue go unsolved? Back then, it was because they considered all of Israel Arab territory. When the Jews took control of Palestinian territories after the 6 day war, the Arabs - after another military failure in '73 - resorted to propaganda - a much slower route - ultimately with the intention of establishing a Palestinian state.

Would you be willing to qualify your language and admit that an Israeli agreement to a Palestinian state along 1967 lines, with a capital in east Jerusalem, (but without the clause of return) would likely result in a situation that currently exists with Hamas in Gaza? Imagine the temptation for the Islamists! The proximity to Israel's economic heartland. The geographical altitude of the central hills in the west bank relative to the low lying coastal plains where Israel's population is mostly concentrated.

No worries you say?

Here's where I think Israeli policy is going in the next few years: annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, and rewarding Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizenship with it's economic perks.

To just briefly open up another can of worms:

I find it hilariously ironic that Europes attitude towards Israel-Palestine is essentially self contradictory. They oppose the outdated concept of nationalism, as Tony Judt noted. Hence, the euro-states which de-emphasize nationality contradict themselves by supporting Palestinian nationality (which is superficial relative to Jewish national claims, which are based in a unique language, history, and religion) yet oppose Israeli nationality. Explain the logic in that. In European socialist logic, economic well being trumps all other concerns, particularly a sense of tradition and peoplehood. Yet, if Palestinians were incorporated into Israel's nation-body, they would be economically benefited, would live far better than most if not all other Middle Eastern peoples.. So whats the complaints? Why are the Irish, Portuguese, etc, who oppose the Euro on nationalistic grounds, forced to accept it on grounds of economic well-being (when it often does the exact opposite), yet Palestinians are supported on grounds of nationalism, yet, a one state solution which would benefit them economically, is opposed?

reply to post by dontreally

So, ignore their past contentions? Ignore their ideological characteristics? And therefore, shine a positive line on their supposed "willingness" to work with Israel??

At no point did I say they should ignore Hamas' past indiscretions. All factors should always be taken into account. But if Israel cannot adapt to the changing landscape and realities, their statesmen have failed their country. Bringing Hamas into the tent of political participation much as the PLO was brought into this same discussion (although to an inadequate level) would ensure it wouldn't have to resort to violence in order to have its demands met.

A large array of Middle Eastern observers and politicians from Israel itself believe Hamas is malleable and can be negotiated with. This doesn't mean a peace settlement must be attained immediately. Why not just bring Hamas to the table and hear what they have to offer? The answer is simple, if Hamas presents a rational, calm, collected and fair settlement, and Israel refuses to concede and acts in an intransigent way, much like it did at the Madrid conference and in subsequent negotiations at Camp David where it argued with the Palestinians on things as small as the formalities and the proceedings of meetings, then Israel will be exposed to the international community as the intransigent state it is.

It only shows Hamas is becoming adept at playing by the rules of the game.

Isn't this exactly what Israel wants? The same occurred with Egypt, Jordan and the PLO. It's better Hamas plays the game and becomes more moderate rather than it become even more radicalised by Israel's intransigence and continues to hurl rockets into Israel.

There's this enormous jump in your logic from isolated event which contradicts their founding logic

Lets not forget Hamas roots. It was founded as a charity and acted as a charity. As such, it got support from Israel as an alternative to the PLO. It was only radicalised in 1987.

I gave you a perfectly sound explanation for what Hamas would be likely to do with political power in a future Palestinian state

My contention is that the practical realities contradict your misguided beliefs. Hamas launching rockets into Israel? Firstly a Palestinian state would be demilitarised. I see no alternative, Israel would never accept otherwise, not to mention arms suppression agreements would surely be negotiated. So if Hamas were to plan some surprise attack, it would only have flimsy rockets. Firing them would be the death of the organisation and the Palestinians. International sympathy would fall on the side of the Israelis who would be granted freedom to reign terror in Palestine.

Moreover, the statements and actions of Hamas contradict your views. If the group was so hell bent on destroying Israel, why have they officially ceased to use suicide bombings and opened itself to negotiation with Israel. Pragmatism and reality rules in conflict politics.

Simply because Israel never trusted Arafat, for good reason. At no point did Arafat give them reason to believe that he could be trusted.

There's always some new excuse and there always will be. If Hamas laid down its arms you'd say we cannot trust them so we will continue subjugating Gaza.

Why wasn't one established by Egypt or Jordan between 1949 to 1967? That's a deeper question that sheds much light on the Arab Leagues agenda against Israel.

I love that you always find a way to deflect the facts.

Here's where I think Israeli policy is going in the next few years: annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, and rewarding Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizenship with it's economic perks.

If those are your thoughts I think you are misinformed and without trying to be rude, I don't value them at all since all the evidence points to the contrary. Granting Palestinians full citizenship would ensure Israel is no longer a Jewish state, but a bi-national one. The Palestinian birth rate is far higher as well.

Israeli politicians have not hinted to this at all. If they treat African immigrants so inhumanely and refuse to grant them asylum despite their well founded claims (in accordance with the 1951 Refugee convention), what makes you think they would integrate millions of Palestinians? No real evidence hints your belief will in any way be true. In fact, any well learned Middle East observer, analyst or statesmen (i.e. Brent Scowcroft - former Secretary of State under Bush Snr) would laugh at this contention. It is not founded in fact and I have no clue how your mind came to it.

In fact, times have been getting harder for Palestinians who have Israeli citizen ship and are living in Israel proper. Why would Israel ever integrate millions of Palestinians when reality shows they wont?

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


You must have spent most of your life reading and getting bullied . Don't try to bully people here . Maybe if you actually read the post and who it is to you would have understood it . I'm not impressed with your brilliance but I am amazed with your arrogance and the way you displayed your OCD and inpatients . Go play!

That strategy would work if they attacked iran now, but if they delay it a month, two months, gaza will probably just make more. And if they attack iran they'll have more to worry about then fertilizer rockets. Iran is not Iraq, Israel would not even get into Iranian airspace.

Israel's strategy is, let's act like war mongering morons because we can't even defeat an area the size of washington d.c. despite having a top rated military vs prisoners in a concentration camp.

Well, that's netanyahoo's strategy at least.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

At no point did I say they should ignore Hamas' past indiscretions.

Is there no difference between past indiscretions and ideological substance? I keep stressing what they believe, but you keep ignoring it. And rightly so: to acknowledge it dismantles your entire argument. How can one expect to live in peace with a party that has a religious obligation mandated by the Shari'a to oppose your existence?

The same occurred with Egypt, Jordan and the PLO.

Again, Mubarak - secularist. A little weak on the ideological side, so therefore, able to modify his governments policies to political reality. Sadat-Mubarak were the regime Israel made peace with. Nasr banned the Brotherhood; because of it's popularity in Egypt, Sadat had to cajole himself up to the Brotherhood - to a point - which he passed when he made the peace treaty with Israel, which resulted in his being assassinated by an Islamist.

The difference between the more extreme wings of Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood (and by extension, Hamas) is political methodology. Egypt, and it appears Hamas too are willing to bide their time, play the political process, wait for perforations in Israels armor, before they strike. There is no "coming to terms" with Israels existence for them. Since believing so assumes that they aren't "really" Islamists, but just political realists like everyone else. The fallacy here is obvious: political realism is based on a substratum of skepticism, secularism. A different philosophy of life supports the type of actions the regime in question will take. The MB, or Hamas, may wait, bide their time, and not act too recklessly, but it would be idiotic to imagine they've just thrown away their political goals.

What would be the purpose of political power if you were powerless to effect your political goals? The most vociferous antisemites - the ones who directly imbibed the antisemitic propaganda of Haj Amin Al husseini's Arabic broadcasts from Berlin - were primarily Islamists.

Therefore, Cozying up to Israel's existence is probably not on their agenda.

Lets not forget Hamas roots. It was founded as a charity and acted as a charity.

And that was the strategy of Sheik Yassin. The Muslim Brotherhood followed the same evolution.

Firstly a Palestinian state would be demilitarised.

Getting around demilitarization won't be a problem. There's a blockade on Gaza, but still, tunnels enable Hamas to smuggle rockets into the country. If "peace" is made with Hamas, some "rogue" Islamist splinter group which won't countenance the policies of Hamas will commit terror in their name. Who knows, this might be a strategy of their's.

If the group was so hell bent on destroying Israel, why have they officially ceased to use suicide bombings and opened itself to negotiation with Israel.

Perhaps the blockade on Gaza, the difficulties in coming in and out of the Palestinian territories, is the reason? Which, by the way, regardless of the context in which the blockade was put up (to prevent terror attacks), people have "forgotten" the initial reasons and have proceeded to excoriate Israel for maintaining the blockade.

So imagine that. You chalk up Hamas' decrease in suicide missions to a change in Hamas' policy, when it's the result of Israeli policy - the blockade - that is the chief cause of a decline in suicide bombings against Israelis. Meanwhile, people demonize Israel's blockade of Gaza ignoring the context which justified its being set up.

I love that you always find a way to deflect the facts.

Isn't it relevant to mention? Why didn't the Egyptians or Jordanians seek to establish a Palestinian state? Why did they "occupy" the Palestinian territories for 19 years without deciding to establish a Palestinian state for the Palestinians? You mentioned the subsequent period of 1967 onwards, asking why Israel didn't broker peace with the Palestinians. My argument - which goes unnoticed to people with dementia - is that the policies of 1947, '48, and 1948-'67, sheds much light on the intentions of the Arabs. From '67 onwards, there was never any party who was willing or even able to secure peace, so long as Palestinians were divided between practical secularists and religious Islamists. The situation has not changed, is my point.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Israeli politicians have not hinted to this at all.

Which goes to show that you don't quite follow Israeli politics as keenly as you imagine yourself to.

2012 Presidents Conference (there are English segments interspersed in the lectures.. just fast forward to check)

I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 years from now Natanyahu begins to assert Israeli sovereignty in Gaza and the west bank.

Israeli right think tanks are pondering this alternative much more than they were in the past. They have tested the waters of a two state solution. It has been spoken about for 60 + years now. If anything, it has grown less plausible, given the increased radicalization of Palestinian politics thanks to Hamas and its push towards relevancy by Eurocrats and leftists.

Hamas' increased relevance as the leader of the Palestinian people increases the odds that Israel will look upon a two state solution as implausible and improbable, and so will legitimate - thanks to the international consensus which regards Hamas as a terrorist organization - a one state solution.

You see. I'm already apprised of something that you hardly know about.

It is not founded in fact and I have no clue how your mind came to it.

First, the population numbers are exaggerated. Second, Palestinian birth rates are about equal to that of Israelis; Thirdly, and perhaps most germane, the orthodox religious population has the highest birth rates of all. The reason why this alternative seems so attractive is because Israel could do better with annexation and integration of Palestinian Arabs than with what they have now

From a recent New York Times article by Jodi Rudoren

Hamas’s strengthened position might even pave the way for unilateral actions by Israel sought by some on the right — annexing parts of the West Bank, for example, or shutting off Gaza more completely — that redraw the political landscape, analysts say.

“I see many on the Israeli right who have an interest in this reality,” said Shlomo Brom, director of the program on Israel-Palestinian relations at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. “If, like Netanyahu, you don’t want an agreement or you don’t believe in one,” he added, “it is very comfortable for them that Hamas is there.

Link

And this sort of pernickety rhetoric won't help ease Israel's suspicions:

Still, Mr. Yousef, a former Haniya adviser who now runs a research organization, House of Wisdom, offered some hints at moderation himself. He said Hamas, which has opposed the United Nations bid almost as vociferously as Israel, would no longer speak against it. Asked about his vision for a Palestinian state, Mr. Yousef’s contours echoed those of Mr. Abbas: 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital. As for recognizing Israel, he said, “We’ll talk about it when we have a Palestinian state.”

So when the Palestinians have gained international legitimacy, they'll "reassess" the state of game, and consider whether Israel should be recognized.

Is this a good start? They won't even admit beforehand what should be the conceptual basis of a two-state solution: an acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.