Harry’s Place

It is clear that changing attitudes took, according to your viewpoint, ~ 70 years, when talking about the Soviet Union. The Soviet State was a secular fascist state (although some may argue Communism = Religion). However, I contend the difference is that Islam is a religion. It is nominally the religion of 1.5 Billion people. Therefore, it has a mass, an energy, a synergy that is hard to stop.

The problem with the Islamic World is … it is a failed civilization. Since the 1800’s and even before, the remnants of the Ottoman Empire has been a global problem. How to deal with this huge mass of humanity! It wants to continue its life but … at every turn it’s a failure. Christianity, morphed into its present form over the centuries. Can we, in this time of weapons of mass destruction, sit back while Islam morphs into a ‘harmless religion’? I don’t think so. It’s a far different world from that of 1000 ACE! Waiting a millenium for Islam to reform is an unthinkable solution. We can’t wait. Iran is eager for the nuclear bomb and sooner or later there will be a ‘dirty’ bomb attack somewhere in the Middle East. It seems inevitable. How sad to say that? You think Global Warming is an issue that needs a quick response? Think of nuclear proliferation! That’s the end of mankind. It’s got to end and it needs to end satisfactorily for our side ie the West. We need to impose a solution on the Islamists. They’ve got to be wiped out wherever they exist no prisoners taken. They will not desist from their goal. We have to keep our shoe directly on their collective neck until … we win over more and more muslims through education and enlightenment. What a goal! We get to go through the Enlightenment ourselves.

Let’s be assured, we are right and our dream righteous.

The real loser in this war is Europe. There was a level of Jew hatred revealed all over the continent that it’s hard to see how Jews will ever feel at home here again.

Who said there limitations on what Israel can do in the time of war? Saddam Hussein thought he could not lose because someone like George Gallagher, told him the Americans would not accept 10,000 dead in battle.

We need to impose a solution on the Islamists. They’ve got to be wiped out wherever they exist no prisoners taken.

If you are talking about Islamist terrorists, I would tend to agree.

If you are talking about Islamists, as in Muslims who believe in an Islamic state, you are talking about many, many thousands (millions?) of people.

You are talking about the terrorists, right?

Israel’s struggle whatever you think of the tactical rights or wrongs of this particular battle, is our struggle because we cannot allow Islamists to defeat a liberal-democracy.

But Hamas are in no position to defeat Israel, which is sort of the point of a lot of the opposition to the scale of this operation.

One expects some blowback when Britain is involved in a conflict, but I have to admit that I’m not too keen on taking bombs for Israel’s rather dubious, counterproductive military operations that are of no benefit to this country. This military operation has been a crushing blow to British moderate Muslims, as some may have seen on BBC Newsnight last night where people from the Quilliam foundation were interviewed.

Trying to link this old land dispute with the war on terror doesn’t really wash for me.

In part we took out Saddam Hussein to help Israel; perhaps it’s time they paid us back by easing life for Palestinians in the west bank and entering into real negotiations with Fatah that will strengthen Abbas. It’s simply not sustainable to launch these pointless wars every few years that, ends up hurting their allies, and expect continued support.

Israel has got nowhere in the last few years because its policies resemble a kind of Harry’s Place thinking writ large. Increasingly militaristic and rightwing (Labor Zionism dead and buried years ago), its turned to rubble tracts of land to its north and south, and not least killed thousands: the price for peace, we were told, but its the price of failure. It has achieved nothing. Its not thinking.

The Amnesty International motto says it is better to light a candle than berate the darkness. We can berate the darkness, seeing antisemitism and danger everywhere. But we must also ask why folk may be a bit pissed off with Israel other than the usual formulation of a vast conspiracy of antisemites. Uts a dead end.

Of course, Israel need not pursue a two state solution. It need not deal with the reality of its opponents with anything other than high explosive air to surface missiles, killing and thousands. It could slip further still into militarism, gradually brutalising itself as it shrugs of the protests of the international community that it increasingly hates, or the limp wristed humanitarians. It can carry on with wars for some time to come; it doesn’t look like the US welfare cheque is going to run out anytime soon, and war is profitable.

So that is an option. However, it won’t actually solve anything. Hamas is awful, and violent, has a nasty Covenant, and its leaders make blood soaked speeches. Moreover, they have some democratic legitimacy. This makes them good partners for peace. The offers on the table. Its not a case of “embracing” Hamas. It’s possible to negotiate a two state solution with Hamas on the 67 borders. They will negotiate that. Two states will be created and Hamas will be just one party in Palestine. It may want to continue with its aim of destroying Israel, although the aim is wholly unrealistic. The forces of moderation will be strengthened in the new situation, in a state that has to work fully independently for prosperity. Hamas decrying Israel and hating Jews is nothing new; that it will do so in a new situation that is fertile earth for moderation, rather than the current one that favours extremism, is a step forward. Increased engagement by Hamas naturally changes it to a degree, there were already signs of that happening. They have already negotiated with Israel.

At the moment, Hamas hates Israel and issues blood soaked decrees within a situation that favours it. Israel’s addiction to militarism, its killing of Palestinian children, the international opprobrium, all favour extremism in Hamas and bolsters its more extreme rivals.

If Israel’s political elite were a bit more savvy, it would negotiate with Hamas; Hamas’s Jew hatred, its Covenant, and its lack of recognition of Israel are all irrelevant to negotiations. Israel need not negotiate with people that like it, or are moderate; in fact there is less point in doing that.

Hamas’s expressed positions are advantages to Israel which is in a position of strength. Hamas, especially an armed Hamas, will make a very good partner for peace, and then the dynamic will change.

We need to move forward to a position of creating Palestinian state, and reduce the number of non-state actors. Hamas has to be dealt with within the context of a fully formed Palestinian state - that is the way to deal with Hamas.

Shabba Goy makes some good points on Islamism though, and of course Islamism is responsible for Hamas’ continued defiance. It’s just that Israel didn’t give anything to Fatah either,so trying to link this conflict to Islamism - like it’s a struggle against the Taliban or something - doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny.

Shabba Goy, We don’t have to come to terms with islamism, period. You would have been one of those people saying, if you had been there, we should have come to terms with the nazis in the 30s, would you not? You are making the assumption, that people like yourself always make, that everyone ‘thinks’ just like you, that everyone is a defeatist, just like you.
This may come as a shock to you Shabba Goy but there is a massive and growing resentment worldwide against Islamism because you see, the islamists don’t want be “like us” which would be fine except they don’t want ‘us’ to be ‘like us’ either, which simply means you either submit or fight. Which of the two options will you choose and please don’t say your being a ‘realist’ it would simply make you sound obtuse.

We need to impose a solution on the Islamists. They’ve got to be wiped out wherever they exist no prisoners taken.

That is not practical. There are obvious humanitarian arguments too - certain complications, shall we say - but I feel they will cut no ice with you, old boy. So ‘not practical’ will suffice.

The Islamists also will have a big say, maybe the decisive one, in how things unfold. There are two possible models to be followed: a relatively short open and direct confrontation as in WW2 or a long war of atrition with avoidance of a decisive battle between the main parties, as in the Cold War. The US and Europe clearly prefer the Cold War model, but is this the option of the Islamists too? I mean, can they agree to disagree and be, up to a point, pragmatic, or will they rather behave, intentionally or by miscalculation, like the Nazis? I don’t know, but I guess that we are one nuclear explosion away from the answer.

By the way, it would be mistake to lump Hamas in with the Jihadists. Hamas’s relationships with the Jihadists have strained recently. Hamas seeks to create some type of Islamic state, the nature of which is unclear at this stage - and looking at the Gaza situation right now may not accurately serve as a good litmus test.

However, Israel is perfectly capable at living at peace with Islamic states, should the new state of Palestine become one. Palestine also needs to have the freedom to develop whatever political system, within certain parameters, that it sees fit. The key point is, of course, is that it is much easier to make peace with states than with bands of non-state actors festering in an environment that bolsters extremism.

Well, Shabba Goy - your post here exposes the cul-de-sac you Euston Manifesto fools have gotten stuck down:

You say here, about your fading hope for democracy in the middle east:

“The first sign that we might have over-estimated the strength of democratic forces came in Iraq, a country with a strong secular tradition. The overthrow of Saddam resulted in a bitter and violent battle involving varying degrees of Islamist organisations…”

Well, that’s because Saddam’s dictatorship was not really overthrown from below, but decapitated from above. ‘Overthrown’ really suggests to me an an act of liberation from below, by a popular uprising or mass movement. And indeed, if that had been the case, the Baathist dictatorship could have been replaced by a more progressive and democratic kind of society in Iraq.

That’s because only mass movements from below generate the kind of civil society institutions that can fill the vacuum. That’s what happened in South Africa - where years of resistance to a brutal and violent state apparatus generated trades unions like COSATU and myriad democratic grassroots organisations. There were just as many threats of tribal civil war between Zulu Inkatha and the ANC that could have lead to a similar syndrome as in Iraq. Yet a new, united and democratic South Africa was born, because the regime was changed from below, by the people, not from above. You can repeat the story from Argentina to Brazil. Marx once said that revolution is necessary not only because it is the only way to overthrow the existing order - but because through its process it is the only way the masses can clear their heads of the accumulated shit of the past, and become fit to found society anew. Clearing that shit includes religious ideologies - which persist and flourish because of the material conditions of exploitation and suffering, and form an opium, a painkiller. The solution is not more pain, bombings, wars, which just generates more need for the opium of the masses, - it is a material change in the situation.

But in Iraq, the regime was decapitated from above, not overthrown from below. This made it inevitable that the result would be sectarian civil war.

There was that line in the old ‘internationale’ that went: ‘No Saviours from on high deliver, No faith have we in prince or peer’. If neither prince nor peer could liberate the masses, the certainly neither could the imperialist intervention of the USA accompanied by the former colonial power, Britain, delivering only missiles from on high.

The idea that the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq would bring democracy was always laughable - and was one central reason to oppose the war.

You have hope in the growing democratic aspirations and sensibilities of the youth of Tehran - well so have I. One thing sure to crush these tender democratic buds, and make them mutate into yet more Islamist thorns is the threat of military action against Iran by either the USA or Israel.

Israels current actions in Gaza, and its wider strategic trajectory repeat the same foundational error that the US has made with Iraq. You have acknowledged the mistake of the latter - now its time to do so with the former.

Is it a cold war or a hot war?

Hmm, good question.

For the Islamists, it’s obviously a hot war. In fact, it’s “total war”, prosecuted to the most violent extent they can manage. Hence the suicide bombing - waging war like there’s no tomorrow.

Unfortunately, for the likes of Benji, Shabba, and pretty much all at HP, they’d much prefer a cold, low intensity war. They’re squeamish like that. They like to think that there’s a nice, democratic and civilized way to fight a war against an implacable, barbaric opponent. They remind me of Michael Dukakis, when asked what he felt about someone breaking into his home and trying to rape his wife. Dukakis suppressed his instincts — no caveman him! — and hesitated giving the obvious answer, that he would kill the rapist first, waffling about not taking the law into his own hands and so forth. At that point he lost all respect. And so goes the Western humanitarians, embroiled in a debate that only exists, and is only of interest in, the West.

I expect the present era will drag on until the Islamists get hold of nuclear weapons, or at least pull off another “spectacular” like 9/11, something that kills thousands — or tens of thousands. It seems that only something like this can really galvanise the enervated West into a serious, aggressive and unapologetic defense of its civilization.

Then the real war will start, in much less promising conditions, and we will be cursing ourselves for leaving it so late, and not conducting it a decade earlier, when victory would have come so much easier.

Isn’t that always the way?

And indeed, if that had been the case, the Baathist dictatorship could have been replaced by a more progressive and democratic kind of society in Iraq.

No it wouldn’t. It would have been like Iran in the early 80s, and would likely have dragged all the Sunni-leaning countries into a regional conflict.

Why on Earth would we want to trust the prognostications of Communist idiots like yourself, when you’ve never managed to correctly call a single trend or event in the last 150 years?

‘in Iraq, the regime was decapitated from above, not overthrown from below’

I believe something similar happened in Germany in 1945. Was that a bad thing too?

By the way, all the governing institutions and the rest of “civil society” in South Africa was negotiated between the interested parties — at the top.

What was the bottom of society doing at the time? Boarding commuter trains and hacking each other to pieces.

Get fucking real you clown.

But. while Israel is fated to face the brunt of Islamist hatred for years to come, it won’t only be Israel that has to learn, in the absence of choice, to reluctantly to live with, deter and cleverly try to subvert Islamism until that wretched, inhuman creed follows its totalitarian cousins fascism and communism into the historical dustbin.

And if it doesn’t melt away then you just have to kill those who attack you until they get the message to stay in their own patch and stop killing your neighbours.

We have been TOO soft on Islamism.

Black Cat

You have point regarding South Africa, to a degree, but I still think Barry Kade makes some important points. There has to be space created for people to make their own decisions. Too much heavy superimposing of democracy does not allow that, and is ersatz.

‘There has to be space created for people to make their own decisions.’

How was anyone supposed to do that in Iraq in 2003 other than by removing Saddam?

“along with of course”

That is when Palestinian deaths are mentioned. Cursory, necessary for rhetorical purposes.

Palestinians aren’t fully human in your book.

They remind me of Michael Dukakis, when asked what he felt about someone breaking into his home and trying to rape his wife. Dukakis suppressed his instincts — no caveman him! — and hesitated giving the obvious answer, that he would kill the rapist first, waffling about not taking the law into his own hands and so forth.

Just to pick up on your point on Dukakis. Dukakis clearly and swiftly said he opposed the death penalty, which is a straightforward and principled decision. I am not quite sure why such an absurd question was asked of him, but there you go. It bears no relation to your other points about the war on Islamism, anyway.

As for your notion that opposition to war is simply “squeamish”, that’s possibly the most woeful statement I have read in this place for some time.

If you think the answer to Islamism is total war, then you won’t end up with a solution - you’ll end 101 other problems, and quite possibly fascism of different variety, quite apart from your position being outright fantasy.

If you think the answer to Islamism is total war, then you won’t end up with a solution

If 100 people think that violent Jihad is the answer to spread Islamism. How many do you need to kill before they decide it isn’t worth it?

All I know is that if you end up killing 100 then that 100 won’t try it again. If it recruits 100 more with the same idea then if they are killed….. etc.

If people won’t take “No for an answer and insist on killing anyone who says No then its better to kill them first.

In WW2 we had to kill Germans to stop them.

This was an excellently-argued and thought-provoking original post, and one of the best and least hysterical comment discussions I’ve seen on HP for some time. Just one question:

The key will be to effectively deter the Islamist states from expansionist or nihilistic violence while fostering and nurturing the internal opposition. Which sounds, I have to admit, a rather similar strategy to the cold war.

Would that be the “internal opposition” to Communism that was “fostered an nurtured” in places like El Salvador?

Barry Kade: “And indeed, if that had been the case, the Baathist dictatorship could have been replaced by a more progressive and democratic kind of society in Iraq. That’s because only mass movements from below generate the kind of civil society institutions that can fill the vacuum.

You mean like the popular uprising in Iran swept the Shah away and installed a progressive, democracatic government?

“This was an excellently-argued and thought-provoking original post, and one of the best and least hysterical comment discussions I’ve seen on HP for some time.” – Joe Muggs.

I agree.

Islam represents that portion of the globe which either avoided or refused the Modern world following Industrialisation.

I pin my own hopes on the fact that, by embracing modern technologies such as television and the internet, chiefly to propagate medievalist doctrine, the Moslem world will be increasingly exposed to influences it cannot control, even with fatwas. Islamism in its ancient form is in its death throes but that does not mean there will not be a long period when it refuses to die. I neither care nor envisage what will replace it, simply wish to see that it is replaced.

The journey we have to make will be difficult but might begin by being rather less conciliatory to threats against us – like those aired by Moslems in Britain on Newsnight last night – and more supportive of those institutions and social reforms which have made western democracies a magnet for immigration from the Islamic world and a centre of developed ideas about human society.

‘Overthrown’ really suggests to me an an act of liberation from below, by a popular uprising or mass movement. And indeed, if that had been the case, the Baathist dictatorship could have been replaced by a more progressive and democratic kind of society in Iraq.

This is bollocks. The Sunni insurgency and Iranian-backed militias would still have arisen if the Saddam regime had fallen naturally, as would Al Qaeda in Iraq.

All three would still have had the same interests in controlling Iraq as they do now. The Sunni insurgency to protect their supremacy in Iraqi society, the Shiites in order to prevent a Sunni dominance (and who thinks Iran were only funding them because Americans were there, rather than because of their wider strategic interests in the region), and Al Qaeda because they still require a base of operations in the area (was their attempt at forming an Islamic State essential to attack Americans? I think not).

These forces would have had the same detrimental effect on academics, the middle classes, the intelligentsia, trade unionists, and other parts of civil society regardless of the international presence. In fact, it is the continued presence of troops on the ground during the surge that has given Iraq a chance to develop a civil society, rather than preventing one forming. You are making the same mistake as some of the people in the Bush administration in underestimating the responses of reactionary forces in Iraq.

On Shabba Goy’s main point, I think he is being perhaps too pessimistic (although I can understand why at the present time). Islamist parties have not performed well in recent elections in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and polls in the Islamic world have seen falls in support for extreme positions (Bin Laden’s “approval rating” is lower than it was after his post-911 highs.

In addition, polls have consistently shown that there is widespread support for democracy in the Middle East, and they do not mean one man, one vote, one time. This isn’t to say that places like Syria might become Islamist states in future, or that the struggle against Islamism won’t take 70 plus years, but that it will be a more fractured situation with differing nations taking differing routes - rather than a monolith that suddenly falls in 2089.

How about if the beautiful people in the west, instead of marching to support Hamas and Hezbollah started to work to inculcate middle easterners with the benefits of human rights, democratic institutions, rule of law, tolerance, suppression of hate speech, respect for minorities, modern economics and got their hands dirty finding out just what forces are preventing such institutions from functioning (hint, in southern Lebanon it’s Hezbollah).

Then maybe you could stop whining that the choice is between bombs and Hamas/Hezbollah because you’d actually be engaged in the underlying problem and with those people in the region who have sane ideas and goals - you know, the people you WANT to gain more power.

But I bet once you DO come to understand the scope of the actual problem you will find that bombs are necessary too - you can’t defeat arms without arms. And you can’t bring civil society into existence in the middle of a Hitler-youth camp.

I think you need to differentiate different strains of Islamism better. Palestinians have very real grievances with Israel which need to be addressed and is completely different than say, someone living in England who wants to establish an Islamic state there.

I agree with Neil D, Shabba is being far too pessimistic. Islamists may be popular under dictatorships and corrupt rule but in general as soon as they get power and impose their draconian laws and murderous violence on society they rapidly become very unpopular (see eg the Taliban and the various extremists in Iraq where they had the upper hand).

I can see moderate Islamism like in Turkey being popular but that is really a movement IMO more like Christian Democracy in Western Europe and not a threat to the rest of the world.

Re Hamas I think like Hezbollah after this war their violent conduct will be effectively neutered. The real issue is Iran and whether it will next be forced to go for an open attack on Israel after the effective defeat of its proxies.

By your logic, Gabriel, Turkey should claim Palestine, not the Arabs. However, arabs should claim spanish territories.

“Yet a new, united and democratic South Africa was born, because the regime was changed from below, by the people, not from above.”
Barry Kade

This is not really my impression. Brett should be more authoritative on this subject as he was there long after I had gone. I think the change came from outside and above. There was the economic pressure of sanctions. The protagonists of the apartheid regime knew that their position was no longer viable, let Mandela out of prison and started negotiating their own surrender. If change came from below, this was due more to economic factors: keeping the blacks separate was economically unviable; they would be ever more present in unskilled and skilled labour in nurturing the economy and society.

The tragedy is that Islam does not have any Nelson Mandelas. (There are some Mandela Arabs on the Internet).

I don’t think it matters which way Saddam Hussein might have been removed. The boiling cauldron of sectarian hatreds would have exploded anyway. A revolution ‘from below’ would, in all probability, have led immediately to a theocratic regime, as it did in Iran.

The hour of Marxist revolution from below has struck. It is no longer an option in the way Marx conceived it. He was, however, perfectly right about the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat. We have all been living under it for decades, though he had far greater hopes for it. “When the lightning of thought strikes the naive ground of the people”, he thought, we would see cultural wonders as never before.
Now we need a revolution against this dictatorship and that can only come from inside, from the greater critcal enlightenment of the mind, from what Adorno - dare I mention his name - called determinate negation.

I have gone somewaht off thread, but not really. All these things are inter-connected and part of the puzzle that has to be put together in order to oppose retrograde regimes and Leftists who, abracadabra, have found themselves supporting Hamas. Surreal!

Nice post.

I’m on record here as saying that I believe things will get worse - maybe a lot worse - before they get better. I don’t expect this boil to be lanced until there’s a major conflagration in the ME involving several states. Time and epcentre is anybody’s guess, and mine is Iran circa 2015.

The difference between Israel and the rest of world’s liberal democracies is that Israel, I think, already recognises this. What nauseates the hell out of me are glib statements from comfortable westerners who, in displays of remarkable geopolitical insight, explain that Israel cannot bomb her way to a solution. Israel knows this, but Israel also knows that it cannot afford to show any sign of weakness, or rather show any sign of what the likes of Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Syria, or Iran perceive to be weakness.

I don’t and won’t always agree with everything Israel does, or how much force she uses when doing it. But I’ll never agree with my smug contemporaries in the first world who implicitly argue that Israel, by dint of its history and location, just has to suck it up; commentators drowning in their moral certitude who deride the aspirations of ordinary Israelis to be able to send their children to schools without bomb shelters.

“Come, come, you must expect the occasional rocket on your head/bomb in your pizza parlours/abduction of your citizens…you are Israel, after all.”

It’s precisely this hanging out to dry of Israel that has ensured this sore has festered for as long as it has. I’m convinced the Islamists are convinced that we, in the west, will one day give up on the whole ‘democracy in the ME’ project as simply not worth the money and the blood.

It’s not difficult to see why they are encouraged.

Benjamin, the Halevy line does have some pragmatic, utilitarian appeal.

However, it doesn’t address the idealogical nature of Hamas, because to take the Halevy approach requires the assumption that Hamas are fundamentally reasonable and rational and are not the adherents of an irrational, genocidal death-cult.

But Hamas would swear that they love the struggle and love death more than they love their children. And until that changes in their hearts, it’s difficult to see how any progress can be achieved.

Although that doesn’t mean that Israel shouldn’t engage, at a least in a double-think kind of way, with Halevy’s ideas and give Hamas every chance to moderate.

And also to continue the diplomacy by other means as Israel is currently doing. But there should be carrots as well as sticks.

But we must also ask why folk may be a bit pissed off with Israel

I suspect the only answer you’re willing to hear is something to do with the actions of the Israeli government. However, saying ‘whatever’ to anti-Semitism and Arab propaganda instantly makes debate with you futile.

war is profitable
Israel’s addiction to militarism

You sad man. You really think Israelis like sending their kids off to war? You think they like being reservists? You think Israel is making a profit out of its existential battles?

an armed Hamas, will make a very good partner for peace

You just don’t get it, do you Benji? Peace is not Hamas’s or more importantly Iran’s goal. It is in Iran’s interest - as well as many of the Arab states’ - to keep the Palestinian issue alive. And if there were to be negotiations, it would have to include, eventually, Iran. But only once Iran has been shown it has no alternative. And that involves military strength.

What Brownie said - spot on.

Does anyone think that Israel will ever remove the Settlements in the West Bank, withdraw to the ‘67 line and agree to share some part of Jerusalem and part fund a Palestinian State

Serious question because undertaking that process is the only way it will ever have any real, meaningful security…………

Whilst I dislike Hamas and all its works without Israeli action on the above we will not see peace.

I do not have much faith in the Israeli State to actually do any of it to be honest. I used to but it has faded away………..

Benjamin, it’s a key mistake by the way is to think that “it would be mistake to lump Hamas in with the Jihadists”.

The 1930s and 1940s were a very grim time in the Middle East, as well as Europe, and the Islamist and violent Palestinian rejectionist movements, represented by Al Banna and Husseini, developed at the same time, supporting each other and with the high-level support of the nazis.

For both of them, Palestine was to be the central rallying point of the Islamic jihad for the rejection of modernity and all its works, as symbolised by the Jews.

They are two sides of the same coin.

In addition, polls have consistently shown that there is widespread support for democracy in the Middle East, and they do not mean one man, one vote, one time.

The problem is that democracies are very difficult to establish when societies are taken over by militias. That isn’t always the case. Israel was a militia-ised society. But, pretty much, the second that they had any sort of state to govern, they (a) formed a regular army to repel the attack; and then (b) focussed on institution building, and the creation of a civil society.

By contrast, Hamas in Gaza took power, and then eliminated all opposition. Instead of focusing its energy on building legitimacy, working to normalise relations with its neighbours, ceasing rocket attacks so that the borders could open and the Gaza economy flourish, and so on, it began a missile launching campaign at Israel.

Now, Hamas should be taken to know that missile attacks would, at best, result in borders staying closed, and at worst, lead to attempts by Israel to diminish Hamas’ ability to carry out such attacks. So why did they do it?

Some might argue that they’re stupid. Others produce non-answers such as “it is an important symbol of the resistance”. I’m sure that some people think that Hamas was put into a position in which they had to defend themselves by firing rockets at Sderot, or something: and so Hamas’ predicament was forced upon them.

I think that Hamas absolutely needs to continue to fire rockets into Israel; because they have realised - correctly - that without the crisis, they’re lost. Yes, in theory, Hamas could call a 50 year ceasefire, use that time to develop an army that could invade Israel, wait until they get their hands on weapons that could take out Tel Aviv, and so on. However, their fear is that to do so will result in them losing the initiative and going the way of the Arab Nationalists. As the example of Israel shows them, a country that is prosperous and whose citizens have something to protect will defend: but they will not attack. Hamas badly doesn’t want a happy, content Palestinian society that will defend the 1967 borders. It wants one which is desperate and will sacrifice all, to cross those borders.

That, I think, is why Hamas is utterly terrified of peace and reconstruction. They know that it spells the end of them. They know that, after a few years, the kids will be more interested in video games and pop music, than in sacrificing themselves for Allah. They know that local businessmen will be fucking furious with them, if they launch another mortar that screws up their next quarter’s profit figures. They know that there will be an international and domestic uproar if, during peace time, they try to shut down an opposition party, or a trade union, or a rival TV station. So they can’t remain the sole power, unchallenged, in the state, without an external crisis to justify what they do.

So - ironically - they will always need a level of warfare, to keep things ticking over for them.

In these circumstances, what can Israel (and Egypt) do? Closing the borders is one option; but that just compounds the misery of Palestinians, and fuels Hamas. Added to which, Israel is unlikely to continue to elect governments that do not respond at all to a barrage of Qassams. Opening borders, and dismantling checkpoints is also no option. Hamas will continue to send suicide bombers through. Allowing Hamas to get bigger and better weapons, with a further reach, that they will use when things get too quiet, is also not an option. Hamas know all of this.

On a final note, there’s another more serious problem with a militia-ised society. The only people who live in such a society are those who can’t get out. In other words, EVERYBODY with transferrable skills leaves as quickly as they can: professionals, businessmen, and so on. The society ends up being run by militias, and funded by the fruits of the militias black market activities, hostile foreign governments, and international aid. And that takes years and years to remedy. It may never come right.

David T,
I think that that is the problem with in a nutshell.

Sooooooo why doesn’t Israel, the international community and the PA push rapaidly ahead with a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Deomonstrate what can be achived - look at how far the Kurds have come in a short time in N.Iraq. None of this will be easy but if done right Israel could give the Palestinians a reason to reject hamas other then fear of the IDF.

Are there people posting/commenting here that seriously believe that Palestinians shouldn’t have issues/grievences with Israeli policy since 67?

Hands up who thinks that the Settlers are right and land grabs are legitimate?

Similarly is there anyone hear who supports the Palestinians think that any of the bombs, violence and murders have been remotely productive?

“Sooooooo why doesn’t Israel, the international community and the PA push rapaidly ahead with a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Deomonstrate what can be achived - look at how far the Kurds have come in a short time in N.Iraq. None of this will be easy but if done right Israel could give the Palestinians a reason to reject hamas other then fear of the IDF.”

Absolutely this is what must be done.

There is no justification at all for settlement expansion. It has undermined, symbolically, Fatah’s position. Fatah should be able to say:

“Look what we’ve achieved by negotiation”

Settlers should be able to choose whether to return to Israel proper, or to live as Palestinian citizens under the PA. The PA should protect them, as it protects all its citizens.

I read something chilling on Marburys Blog - there was a piece in Newsweek where a senior US foreign service officer who had served under six SoS - Dem and GOP - and at no point did he know of any substantive discussions between US and Israeli Officials on the Settler movement question and how this has damaged Israel.
That really is quite incredible when you think about - one of the central issues of the I/P conflict - the theft by Israel of land beyond the 67 border and in over twenty years this has not even been discussed at senior levels……..

that without the crisis, they’re lost.

The same as what I’ve been saying, and it was the same for Arafat’s PLO too. These organisations were borne out of a resistance footing; they’re not designed for day-to-day management or government. They’re populated by violent, paranoid and confrontational staff who have survived the Darwinism of resistance and organised crime culture by being the most violent, paranoid and confrontational - skills that don’t necessarily make you a good politician.

Condi: ‘Me? Make A Mistake?’
From an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell:

QUESTION: Was it a mistake for the United States to encourage the elections in the first place that led to Hamas? There was a report written by Elisabeth Bumiller in her book, in her biography of you, that you and the U.S. Government were really surprised. You were exercising one more morning and found out that Hamas had won control of Gaza, and that this came as a complete surprise. Was this a failure of analysis, of intelligence, foresight?
[ ]

QUESTION: Was it a mistake?

SECRETARY RICE: No, I believe – what was the alternative? That the people of the people of the Palestinian territories don’t get to vote for representation? I might note also that we were – one reason that people were surprised is that all the predictions, including those, by the way of Hamas, were that the Palestinian Authority would – that the Fatah would, in fact, win in those elections……….

http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/01/condi-me-make-mistake.html

Re DavidT, I was going to use the nutshell metaphor as well. It’s the Real IRA all over again. Omagh - the RIRA’s biggest success - was at the same time an act of utter desperation. A relatively settled, properous and (for a while at least) self-governing NI with republicans in Stormont was and is their wrost nightmare come to pass. They needed war just like Hamas do.

The tragedy is that Gaza should have been easier to solve than the West Bank, with the Jerusalem problem at its core. What Neil is advocating in the West Bank is pretty much what Israel delivered in Gaza when they pulled out in 2005. What did they get in return? Rockets on their heads….rockets that can now erach 24 miles into Israeli territory.

Now take a look at a map, see what the same rockets fired from the West Bank could hit, and it’s not difficult to realise why some Israelis baulk at Neil’s suggestion.

“What Neil is advocating in the West Bank is pretty much what Israel delivered in Gaza when they pulled out in 2005.

Perhaps Israel should pull out of the West Bank now and say “right, you have a state, make it work. We’ll help. But if you choose the path of Gaza, our response will be what you’ve just seen.”

“”What Neil is advocating in the West Bank is pretty much what Israel delivered in Gaza when they pulled out in 2005. What did they get in return? Rockets on their heads….rockets that can now erach 24 miles into Israeli territory”"

No, this time the Israelis would have to put serious cash in and not impose a trade embargo. The Israelis owe the palestinian civilians a serious debt for their actions since 67 and it is long past time they made serious about paying up.

The Gulf States need to step in and help develop civil society also, ten thousand UAE, Omani, Bahraini police and troops for five years would go a long way to assisting this, as one example.

Benjamin, the Halevy line does have some pragmatic, utilitarian appeal.

I believe in Halevy because you basically call their bluff and you negotiate with the tough guys with the weapons and the nasty ideology. Take the bull by the horns. He’s a smart guy, Halevy.

Establish a totally secure, independent Palestinian state, with Israel alongside it. Just totally straight bat, all the institutions everything. This gives something to moderates. If Hamas continues to fire rockets, then Israel is in much stronger position to deal with it.

Plus a proper state changes the dynamic within Palestine. Suddenly its a whole new ball game.

I strongly believe this is the solution. Will it happen? Probably not.

Perhaps Israel should pull out of the West Bank now and say “right, you have a state, make it work. We’ll help. But if you choose the path of Gaza, our response will be what you’ve just seen.”

Could work. To be clear, I’m not saying that Israel shouldn’t do what Neil advocates - certainly, the settlements have to come down - just outlining what I imagine are the genuine concerns of many ordinary Israelis. Seriously, everybody, look at a map. Qassams fired from the Lebanese border, Gaza *and* the West Bank turns Israel turns into a nation of troglodytes or alternatively the entire population relocates to the Negev.

“Establish a totally secure, independent Palestinian state, with Israel alongside it.”

Fantastic idea. Jerusalem becomes an International City, shared. Israel, Gaza and the WB run as a sort of mini EU, Great stuff.

Except all it takes is fo one or two groups not to be happy with this peaceful and workable solution. And, as we see in Iraq, the suicide bombs and the carnage continue.

100 people go to watch the opera. One decdes to heckle. The fact that 99 out of the 100 agree to be quiet is irrelevant. That’s the problem with a negotiated settlement in I/P.

Longer term though, how can the position and strength of Islamist forces be weakened in Muslim majority countries?

Go for the source - attack and vilify the Muslim religion relentlessly for the vile, hate mongering, superstitious, imperialist, violent, intolerant medieval tosh that it is. Treat it and its symbols as the Nazi-ism that it is.

Stop ‘bigging up fluffy Islam’. There are plenty of people pushing a “fluffy Islam” message. It is wrong. The Muslim religion is not ‘fluffy’.

Stop the appeasement of Muslims for their vile political religion forthwith, stop presenting the Muslim religion as what it isn’t ….. the bullshit of Islam as a fluffy, peace loving philosophy.

No, this time the Israelis would have to put serious cash in and not impose a trade embargo.

No embargo, total Palestinian control of airspace, shipping, tax, the whole thing. Israel’s security guaranteed by its far superior forces, and the US and others. I think the whole thing should be negotiated through Hamas, preferably.

No, this time the Israelis would have to put serious cash in and not impose a trade embargo.

What do mean “this time”? It might have happened first time around, in Gaza, if Hamas hadn’t sent a barrage of rockets into southern Israel in repsonse to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal. And what was the rest of the world doing while this happened, and immediately before it happened? Where was the genuine engagement by the west with Gaza that offered Palestinians the sort of future all right-thinking people know they are entitled to?

Brownie, Brett

But the point is other state actors guarantee thge security of Israeli and Palestinian civilans - the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan etc etc.

Yes there will be violence but counter insurgency policework lead by the above guarantors will keep this to a minimum.

Things cannot go on as they are and the Palestinians are at present hostage to totalitarean thugs in Hamas. Israeli is going to have to move first, as are other state actors.

Things have to change or the entire region is going to slide inexorably into a nasty mixture of Iraq at its worst with hints of Somalia here and there.

‘This time’ - because we are dealing with the PA lead by Fatah then the likelihood of a barrage of rockets is far far less, as does the presence of security forces from the rest of the Muslim world.

Things have to change.

It might have happened first time around, in Gaza, if Hamas hadn’t sent a barrage of rockets into southern Israel in repsonse to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal.

No way. Gaza was in limbo from the start, well before Hamas. Its never been a recognised state by anyone, nor recognised as part of any other state. Its in a most bizarre situation. Israel controls its borders, airspace, shipping, and tax - again it always has done. Plus its not seen as even a potential state by the Palestinians, partly because of Israeli behaviour (see above) and partly because its not big enough. Remember this was Sharon’s baby, he didn’t negotiate it as part of a wider settlement. So it was really a non-starter, still born.

“”Where was the genuine engagement by the west with Gaza that offered Palestinians the sort of future all right-thinking people know they are entitled to?”"

That is a very good question - Without Messrs Bush and Blair on the case there is much more of a chance of meaningful engagement this time…..

‘This time’ - because we are dealing with the PA lead by Fatah then the likelihood of a barrage of rockets is far far less, as does the presence of security forces from the rest of the Muslim world.

No way. Don’t deal with the nice guys. Deal with the crazy guys with guns and rockets. They must be brought in. They will implement a ceasefire - yes they can do that on 67. No point in speaking to the guys who can’t control the rocket men.

Neil W asked “Does anyone think that Israel will ever remove the Settlements in the West Bank, withdraw to the ‘67 line and agree to share some part of Jerusalem and part fund a Palestinian State”.

Yes, definitely, Israel would take huge risks and make massive compromises for peace. That’s why it has consistently agreed to partition proposals, eg: in 1937, 1947, 1967, 1979 and 2000.

But to properly answer your question, and re also Brownie’s comment as to where things are heading - which I hope is wrong, but I fear may not be - I think it’s necessary to look at what each of the parties in the current conflict most fears.

Israel’s greatest threat is that constant low-level terrorism will make normal civil life in Israel impossible, causing the country to collapse in upon itself and die. And this is the hope of Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran. Israel’s aim in the current conflict is not to stop all terror, which would be impossible, but to change the strategic reality so that Hamas, etc. is deterred from acts of terror: deterred by the threat of death.

Egypt’s greatest threat is that its government will be taken over by the Muslim brothers/Hamas. Islamic history is full of examples of radical movements based in the periphery of empires taking over – eg: the Abassids, the Ottomans, the Wahabis. And this is perhaps Hamas’ greatest hope and objective. Control of Egypt would give Hamas and the Muslim brothers the political and cultural leadership of the Arab and Islamic worlds, and would enable them to launch a real jihad of scale and ferocity against modernity.

The PLO/Fatah’s greatest threat is that they will become irrelevant and lose power to Hamas. If they also lose power in the West Bank, there will be no coming back. For Jordan, Saudi and the Gulf states, the greatest threat is the Muslim brothers. Again, there will be no coming back for the Jordanian, Saudi and Gulf royals if they lose power to the Islamists.

For Hamas, and for Iran, the greatest threat is peace itself. The conflict is their reason to exist. It is also their political strategy, just as it’s been the political strategy of all Arab demagogues since Husseini, to appeal for support by being more radical and extreme than their competitors. One of Said Qutb’s most influential ideas was that the blood of martyrs feeds the cause. If Hamas thinks like this, then it also believes that the counterpoint is true: without the blood of martyrs, the cause will wither and die.

It seems to me then that we therefore have not only an alignment of fear, but also an alignment of interests. Israel, Egypt, the PLO/Fatah, Jordan, Saudi and the Gulf states are aligned in needing Hamas to suffer a defeat, and Israel, Egypt and the PLO/Fatah each suffer grave existential threats from Hamas to motivate this thinking.

Based on the known diplomatic contacts before the current conflict started, and the statements made over the past three weeks, I think the reality if that an anti-Hamas alliance, constituted by Israel, Egypt and the PLO/Fatah, and supported by Jordan, Saudi and the Gulf states, is in the process of forcing Hamas to join a Palestinian National Unity government.

The presidency of the Palestinian National Unity government will be held by Abbas, and its immediate purpose will be to negotiate and finalise the terms of a two-state solution. As Said Erakat, the PLO’s chief negotiator, has said recently, everyone knows what the solution is going to look like: 1967 borders with some land-swaps to accommodate settlements like Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim that are within the security wall; Jerusalem will be divided into Israeli and Palestinian capitals; and the old city will also be divided so that each side has control over its own holiest places. It’s not complicated really.

We’re all going to feel miserable about the fudge that allows Hamas to participate in this without rejecting its covenant. And radical wings of Hamas (not under their control, allegedly) will continue with as much terror as they can to disrupt the process. As they have done in the past.

But if Hamas can be managed, then there will be hope for peace.

Although the night may look darkest before the dawn, Hamas has unified its enemies to ally and act in concert against it. And they each appear to understand, for their own reasons, that they have no real choice but to work for the success of the alliance, and for peace.

But the point is other state actors guarantee thge security of Israeli and Palestinian civilans - the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan etc etc.

My point is that when Israel is conciliatory, the response from militant Palestinians is violent for the reasons DavidT supplies. And the world more or less looks the other way. When Israel is confrontational, it’s only then that the EU, UN and major state actors in the region have something to say.

Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with what you say, but I think encouraging a belief amongst Israelis that we’re in solidarity with them instead of giving them the impression we think they’re no better than Hamas is the way forward.

Why is it only Palestinians who need the carrot?

“the second that they had any sort of state to govern, they (a) formed a regular army to repel the attack; and then (b) focussed on institution building, and the creation of a civil society.”
In fact, under the Jewish Agency even before the state, there was a fully fledged up and running civil society with civil institutions all ready to go.

” all the governing institutions and the rest of “civil society” in South Africa was negotiated between the interested parties — at the top.”

Even more elitistly, Mandela started talking with the government all on his own while still in prison, without even consulting or informing the ANC, never mind all his subsequent emollient declarations of being always a disciplined cadre of the ANC.

Said Erakat

Ah, yes, I forgot about that dude. He’s a smart Alec, so perhaps a Fatah-Hamas unity ticket, but Hamas must be brought in, and Israel must deal with them.

as does the presence of security forces from the rest of the Muslim world.

Who are these Muslim countries lining up to police West Bank? Egypt didn’t even want to police its own border with Gaza until Israel’s latest action.

The only ones I can think who might be interested in doing the job are precisely those who Israel would object to strongest, and for bloody good reason.

We need to impose a solution on the Islamists. They’ve got to be wiped out wherever they exist no prisoners taken.

If you are talking about Islamist terrorists, I would tend to agree.

If you are talking about Islamists, as in Muslims who believe in an Islamic state, you are talking about many, many thousands (millions?) of people.

You are talking about the terrorists, right?

No, Shabba Goy. When they say “the Islamists” they mean “the Muslims.”

but Hamas must be brought in

Benji is fixated on names. What is the precedent for a democratic state negotiating a peace plan with a terrorist organisation that was still sworn to its destruction and still actively engaged in acts of terror? The GFA followed a ceasefire and was only possible because Sinn Fein signed up to the Mitchell Principles (look them up, Benji). It wasn’t fucking Enniskillen that brought HMG to the table. Why does Israel have to do what no other first wolrd democracy would countenance for a nano-second?

The problem is not the name ‘Hamas’, but what they currently stand for. The name is irrelevant - Israel will talk to my auntie Doris if there’s some point to it.

No embargo, total Palestinian control of airspace, shipping, tax, the whole thing. Israel’s security guaranteed by its far superior forces, and the US and others. I think the whole thing should be negotiated through Hamas, preferably.

Do you realize how probable that makes a real holocaust for the Palestinians?

The more powerful the weapons in the hands in Hamas, the more horrible the response to attacks by Hamas have to be in order to deter them.. If Hamas has the ability to put together modern weaponry then the response to the first attack by modern weaponry has to be fucking daisycutters! You’re basically suggesting genocide against the Palestinians because Hamas is made of a bunch of mystics with no connection to reality. If they get their hands on modern weapons there is a good chance they’ll use them, then 100,000 people will go up in smoke.

Doesn’t all of thise just illustrate the abject failure of nationalist projects to secure peace and human rights?

What is the precedent for a democratic state negotiating a peace plan with a terrorist organisation that was still sworn to its destruction and still actively engaged in acts of terror?

This isn’t any dispute. Look, Israel need not worry about the scary stuff in Covenant etc. It need not worry about Hamas’s formal lack of recognition of it. Yes, Hamas needs to implement a ceasefire first, then period of calm, everyone has a shower, then get down to some negotiating.

You need to look at it from a different angle, lads. Not the threat of Hamas, but its advantage.

“By contrast, Hamas in Gaza took power, and then eliminated all opposition. Instead of focusing its energy on building legitimacy, working to normalise relations with its neighbours, ceasing rocket attacks so that the borders could open and the Gaza economy flourish, and so on, it began a missile launching campaign at Israel.”

Hamas’ take over of power in Gaza exactly followed Hitler’s programme of democratic appointment, followed by the top-down imposition of its revolution and the murder of all opposition.

Josh

If, buts, and maybes are not the stuff of conflict resolution. Deal with the now.

Josh,

Did you misunderstand me?

When I said:

Israel’s security guaranteed by its far superior forces, and the US and others.

I meant that Israel has far superior weaponry, and the state is also guaranteed by the US. I was not saying that fancy bombs should be given to Hamas.

“perhaps a Fatah-Hamas unity ticket, but Hamas must be brought in, and Israel must deal with them.”

Benj, that’s the plan! Glad you’re onside with it

“Hands up who thinks that the Settlers are right and land grabs are legitimate?”

Yo!

Really? What a small mind you are then.

Or just being trollish. Care to elaborate?

I meant that Israel has far superior weaponry, and the state is also guaranteed by the US.

But that’s already the case, and it doesn’t stop the rockets or the cross border attacks. The logic certainly doesn’t seem to apply to Hizbollah.

“Or just being trollish. Care to elaborate?”

The land of Israel belongs to the Jews, it is a duty to settle it. It’s called “Zionism” and if you don’t believe me, just peruse the words of, say, Moshe Dayan.

Furthermore, I can’t think of any benefit whatsoever in establishing yet another state in the Middle East run by gangsters, hoodlums and lunatics. It won’t benefit me, it won’t benefit Israel, it won’t benefit the West and it won’t benefit the Palestinians who, until the Gaza pullout, had much higher than average living conditions than the rest of the region and, indeed, more liberty. This was, of course, far more the case between 1967 and the Oslo accords, which were the most prosperous years in the history of the West Bank and Gaza in history. The best solution for everyone is to continue the occupation indefinitely and, obviously, this will be a more secure arrangement the more Jewish settlers there are.

The only possible reason for supporting a Palestinian State is if you believe in the racist proposition that people are better off being misgoverned by people of their own race than well governed by people of other races. This primitive, backwards principle has been the source of infinite misery over the past 60 years. It is profoundly cruel to want to visit this misery upon the Palestinians as well.

“No, this time the Israelis would have to put serious cash in”

Because Israel is just swimming in surplus lucre!

How about YOU put in some serious cash if it matters to you so much, okay?

This isn’t any dispute. Look, Israel need not worry about the scary stuff in Covenant etc. It need not worry about Hamas’s formal lack of recognition of it.

Well that’s the population of Israel reassured. Why didn’t you mention this earlier?

Yes, Hamas needs to implement a ceasefire first, then period of calm, everyone has a shower, then get down to some negotiating.

Well, this is a start. What it’s not reasonable to do is to tell Israel to remove all trade retrictions on Gaza and pretend that it is Belgium before it can expect Hamas to play ball. Why should Israel suppose that Hamas would do anything other than use unrestricted trade routes to re-arm?

No, at the very least, Egypt does what it should to ensure its border does not remain Hamas’ main arms supply route, and other states can police the Med. When Israel is persuaded that a ceasefire can’t be used by Hamas to replenish its supply of rockets (and worse?) then I think progress can be made. Without at least that, we’re pissing in the wind.

“Doesn’t all of thise just illustrate the abject failure of nationalist projects to secure peace and human rights?”

Yes. If the British Empire had been decent enough to rule the Land of Israel as a protectorate for the settlement of Jews everything would be infinitely better. Unfortunately, they decided to herd Jews into concentration camps in Cyprus instead.

Said Erakat (sp): Saeb Erakat

G.: “The only possible reason for supporting a Palestinian State is if you believe in the racist proposition that people are better off being misgoverned by people of their own race than well governed by people of other races.”

I really think that you need to think your arguments better.

“I really think that you need to think your arguments better.”

Huh? Why do you support a Palestinian State that will be
a) either governed by an organised criminal syndicate that professes pan-Arab nationalism, or a organised criminal syndicate that actually believes in messianic salafism.
b) poorer than the occcupied territories are now
c) less free than the occupied territories are now
d) Judenrein
e) crime ridden
f) a source of terrorist attacks upon Israel and the world
g) a complete fucking shithole

?
Enquiring minds want to know.

Doesn’t all of thise just illustrate the abject failure of nationalist projects to secure peace and human rights?

As opposed to what, the outstanding success of supra-nationalist projects? I know a few Bosians who might want to talk to you about surpa-nationalist projects and their consequences.

Nationalism works, by and large (and is certainly better than the alternative) because it is the closest modern day alternative to that biological imperative, the tribe (and the only collectivist institution I’m prepared to tolerate, since it is in our genes and driven by our evolution). Where it hasn’t worked, and produced conflict is almost always due to the borders being drawn wrong, or not enough borders being drawn, i.e. not a problem with the nation states themselves.

In the long run, ideologies which fail to recognise this, for example, Communism and Islam , are doomed. The problem is, of course, as was pointed out in this excellent post above, how many people must die whilst the ideologies wither away.

Yes, I’m being strangely optimistic today. Must be the 2l bottle of diet coke I consumed this morning with great alarcity.

And it must be reiterated again: I do support a ‘Palestinan’ state. East of the River Jordan, where one exists already.

Perhaps you simply hate Arabs and wish to see them in Zimbabwe type situation. However, you should remember that cholera crosses borders.

When Israel is persuaded that a ceasefire can’t be used by Hamas to replenish its supply of rockets

The rockets are manufactured in the Gaza strip. Its important that Hamas remains armed at this stage.

The rockets are manufactured in the Gaza strip.

No. They are imported from Iran.

The longer range ones are Iranian made. The other ones are made in the Gaza strip.

Morgoth,
Imagine I am a Palestinian Arab who lives in the West Bank, away from the pre 67 war border, say near Hebron. My family have farmed olives on the same small but well kept and profitable farm since before Ottoman times.

Now, explain to me why I have to live under Israeli rule?

In short - like Bolshevism, Islamism will have to fail before democracy can succeed. And sadly, that’s not going to happen this generation, or the next.

That, I think, is why Hamas is utterly terrified of peace and reconstruction. They know that it spells the end of them. They know that, after a few years, the kids will be more interested in video games and pop music, than in sacrificing themselves for Allah.

The Mullahs of Iran are in a similar bind, and probably appreciate, thus, all of the sabre rattling coming from The West. These thugs need a permenant external crisis to keep themselves in business.

<iStop ‘bigging up fluffy Islam’. There are plenty of people pushing a “fluffy Islam” message. It is wrong. The Muslim religion is not ‘fluffy’.

I completely agree. Also, we should never allow Islam to ingratiate and legitimise itself in The West by engaging with it in interfaith dialogue and such.

Magdi Allam has some very good thoughts on that.

Islam is an ideology and not a religion, and the fact the ‘values’ it promotes are completely at odds with those of most other religions means it should be shunned and portrayed as ‘alien’. The radicals are constantly demanding ‘dialogue’, both as a means of prosletysing and as a means of legitimising Islam as being part and parcel of The West, and so we should be very wary of any extended hands and careful to avoid ‘cumbaya’ sentiments.

However, I think the biggest obstacle to combatting Islamism is oursleves. The profits the various Gulf States glean off of western purchases of oil is what finances all of this. The Saudis, according to some estimates, have spent hundreds of billions building madrassas and mosques and promoting Islamism the world over. Some of those same billions have no doubt been spent killing innocent poeple.

Without oil money islamism will wither on the vine. When there no longer is any economic or social benefit to be gained by associating with Islamists, when there is no more money for the families of suicide-bombers, terrorist attacks and ‘martrydom’ operations, the probleme will disappear.

Oh, one other thing, we should implement a complete halt to Muslim immigration. Yes, I know the majority are peaceful, but the fact remains that there is no litmus test or foolproof way of distinguishing the peaceful from the radicals. Whether the radicals are only 20 or even 10% of the total changes nothing; the greater the number of Muslims in any country, the greater the number of islamists.

“Imagine I am a Palestinian Arab who lives in the West Bank, away from the pre 67 war border, say near Hebron. My family have farmed olives on the same small but well kept and profitable farm since before Ottoman times.”

Imagine I was pink elephant living, say near Haifa, my family have owned a candy floss mill since King Og was the head honcho. Why should I…

Get the point? Of course you don’t because you believe lies.

In any case, the answer is that this is the only way Israel can be secure and, further, that living under Israeli rule is better than living under either Hamas or Fatah rule so you should quit bitching.

Neil W, replace “Palestinian Arab” with “Sudeten German”. See the problem?

Your question should be asked to the Arab Governments and Islamic movements who made your position untenable in Judea and Samaria by their genocidal actions over the last 60 years.

So you won’t then.

Telling.

Now, explain to me why I have to live under Israeli rule?

Because the entirely of Israel, including Judea and Samaria is the last refuge of a people that have been horribly persecutated for thousands of years. It is the entire planet’s responsibility to ensure the security and wellbeing of the Jewish people. It will not make up in any way for what has been done to them, but it is essential and morally correct.

Israel, incorporating its constitutent parts Judea and Samaria are the homeland of the Jewish people.

Its as simple as that.

Your Ottoman farmer ancestors probably came from modern-day Syria anyway.

There is my answer, Neil.

Furthermore Neil, if it had been up to me, I would have expelled every Serb from the entirety of Bosnia.

And thereby guaranteeing no security for anyone in the region?

Israel will not find genuine security unless there is a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian State situated on the West Bank. Why is this so hard to realise for both Jew and Arab? The how will be difficult but it is a journey that must be undertaken. Ejecting yet more people from their homes as you suggest just adds yet more misery. Both the road you suggest - conquest by force majere (spelling?) to ‘guarantee’ security - and the current trajectory of Israel and Hamas offer - little promise of that much needed security.

I think the problem is militia-isation.

All the people who “realise this” leave if (a) they can and (b) they’re not mad.

“Israel will not find genuine security unless there is a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian State situated on the West Bank. Why is this so hard to realise for both Jew and Arab?”

It’s not hard to understand. That’s the premise of Zionist peace movements such as Peace Now. The only way to truly secure the future of Israel is to be at peace with the Palestinians, and for that to happen, there must be a prosperous Palestinian state living alongside Israel. See? I am a Jew and a Zionist, but it’s not hard for me to grasp.

I think the problem is militia-isation.

Well, the prophet and his ‘companions’ were precisely that; a 7th century militia that maintained its power through sheer violence and intimidation, and which distributed the goodies based on cronyism.

What other political model can Islam offer?

Islam just doesn’t contain, even at its very core, the moral or ethical building-blocks of a civil society.

“there must be a prosperous Palestinian state living alongside Israel”

You might as well say the only way to secure Israel is to turn lead into gold.

Perhaps if your *solution* is impossible you should stop looking for solutions and start trying to cope rationally, reasonably and responsibly with the shit that is human existence? However, to do that would entail ditching the infantile mindset that lies behind all prgressive politics.

(B’tselem etc. have a role to play by the way, as obviously if the occupation is to continue, it is necessary that the civil righs of arab subjects be protected.)

“Ejecting yet more people from their homes as you suggest just adds yet more misery.”

Indeed. Your orange T-shirt is in the post.

“Islam just doesn’t contain, even at its very core, the moral or ethical building-blocks of a civil society”

Historically the levels to which that is not true are staggering.

Traditionally between C7 and C16 Islam was very capable of producing a highly civilised society (Especially for the time), nurtured by classical civilisation and bedrocked by, at the time, a highly civilised legal system, a respect for science and an urban approach to society (baths, commerce and sewerage systems). Islams systemtic weaknesses stem from an inability to renew itself when presented with ‘outside context problems’ - Mongols, modernity and machine guns (Ok - external threats, industrialisation and enlightenment values but you know what I mean).

“You might as well say the only way to secure Israel is to turn lead into gold.”

No, that would only be the case if I was saying that it’s possible to secure Israel’s future with nothing but bombs and bullets. Israel can, and has the undeniable right to stop the rockets with force, but that’s only a short term fix. It’s not infantile to suggest that real security comes with peace.

And thereby guaranteeing no security for anyone in the region?

It took the overwhelming and utter defeat of Imperial Japan to produce the required psychological mindshift to allow Japan to realise that it must co-exist with everyone else in the Far East. A similar such psychological mindshift needs to be enforced upon Israel’s Arab enemies.

Look at what happened to Germany post WW1 - a certain young corporal in the German army used the myth that Germany was stabbed in the back and was never ‘truely’ defeated to fuel his rise to power. As long as the rejectionist Arab psychology clings to hopes of just needing “one more push” to destroy Israel, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

And a further expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank won’t create yet more material for the extremists to use? More myth making as you so colourfully put it?

And how many more Israeli and Palestinian civilans have to die in the mean time? How much more hatred will be generated on both sides?

This military operation has been a crushing blow to British moderate Muslims, as some may have seen on BBC Newsnight last night where people from the Quilliam foundation were interviewed.

Look, billboards sporting underwear adds can radicalise ’sensitive’ Muslims.

Traditionally between C7 and C16 Islam was very capable of producing a highly civilised society (Especially for the time), nurtured by classical civilisation and bedrocked by, at the time, a highly civilised legal system, a respect for science and an urban approach to society (baths, commerce and sewerage systems). Islams systemtic weaknesses stem from an inability to renew itself when presented with ‘outside context problems’ - Mongols, modernity and machine guns (Ok - external threats, industrialisation and enlightenment values but you know what I mean).

Any success those societies experienced was largely due to their non-muslim inhabitants. Islam can be likened to an elaborate and parasitic protection racket with the caliph as the chief mafia don. Protection rackets produce nothing, and when they run out of people from whom they can extract protection money, they collapse. The apparent brilliance and prosperity of classical Islam was kited on both the intellectual and financial resources of various subjegated peoples.

Baths are not the purvey of desert inhabitants, but rather something inherited from the Romans.

And as far as commerce is concerned, the Arab world still uses the ‘Dinar’, a direct descendant of the old Roman ‘Denari’…hardly innovative.

And as for sewage systemes? Right up till the 1960s Istanbul was still almost entirely reliant on the aqueducts and sewer systems built by Justinian.

When it comes to Islam’s accomplishments, there’s no ‘there’ there.

No, Shabba Goy. When they say “the Islamists” they mean “the Muslims.”

Jesus, one could cut your paranoia with a knife.

One suspects you’re of the opinion that no distinctions should ever be made between moderates and radicals because no distinctions exist.

Are you saying that ALL moderate Muslims are closet-islamists?

John P.
There is plenty of there, there.

Where to begin…..baths and sewers…I said nurtured by classical civilisation…..Cordoba had over 400 bathhouses and a sewerage system when it was the most important city in the world in C10/C11.

Classical Islamic civilisation - long before the extremists took over - was a synthesis of Arab, Jewish and Levant Christian peoples at its heart and was at its best in Al-Andalus and Pre Mongol Abbadic Mesopotamia.

And you don’t think Arabs have been innovative in commerce? Really. A people who built a trade empire from Spain to Afghanistan? Do you realise that the blue dye in Cordobab came from Lapis Lazuli mined in Afghanistan…..in the 900s. And could be bought and sold with promissory notes valid anywhere in the Caliphates economic sphere of influence. Thats not innovative?

Your grasp of history is as laughable as you are bigoted. Your loss.

And a further expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank won’t create yet more material for the extremists to use? More myth making as you so colourfully put it?

Neil, as you have seen from recent HP posts, the very existance of Jews worldwide, indeed the existance of anyone other than themselves on this planet is mere justification for Hamas et al to carry on butchering and slaughtering.

Replace the Middle East references with references from Central Europe 70 years ago and you’re saying exactly what the Appeasers said back then.

And how many more Israeli and Palestinian civilans have to die in the mean time? How much more hatred will be generated on both sides?

To paraphrase the late Golda Meir, when the Arabs learn to love their own children more than killing Israeli children, there will be peace.

P.S. Neil W - you’re shaky on history yourself. Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan has been found in pre-dynastic settlements in the Nile Valley. I wouldn’t use that as an example of Islam’s supposed civilisation or lack there of.

P.P.S. is this offtopic anyway?

Where to begin…..baths and sewers…I said nurtured by classical civilisation…..Cordoba had over 400 bathhouses and a sewerage system when it was the most important city in the world in C10/C11.

IN the 10th century Constantinople, with more than a million people, contained at least 5 times Cordoba’s population.

“Nurtured by classical civilisation”.

I don’t wish to get into this at all. Islam’s so-called accomplishments and Golden Age are largely myths. The Great Mosque of Cairo, for example, is often cited by teary-eyed, liberal westerners as a proof of Islam’s architectural brilliiance, but those liberals are ignorant of the fact its designers and architects were Egyptian Christians. And that other jewel of classical Islamic architecture, The Great Mosque of Damascus, began its existence as a Byzantine Basilica.

If Islam is to be graced with any ingenuity at all, it would have to revolve around its talent for retro-fitting both individuals and artifacts with islamic identities they never really had.

During the period of Classical Islam, the majority of the inhabitants of the lands under Islam’s control were non-Muslim. When the numbers of non-muslims, due to oppression and forced converions, sank below the critical limit needed to generate the revvenues necessary for the maintainence of a ‘civil soceity’, that classical age tanked.

And John, it was Sulieman the Magnificent who commisioned large scale improvements to the cities water supply in the 1500s that improved on the existing Roman and Byzantine (pre 1000) infrastructure.

How about ending this particular interchange here, as we’ve done it many times before?

Classical Islamic civilisation - long before the extremists took over - was a synthesis of Arab, Jewish and Levant Christian peoples at its heart and was at its best in Al-Andalus and Pre Mongol Abbadic Mesopotamia.

You’re projecting western values on this. When one is subjected to harsh taxation, second-class status and forced to convert to a religion you detest, the word “synthesis” is completely inappropriate.

You artsy-fartsy “synthesis” is but naked exploitation and oppression.

The Arabo/Muslim world committed cultural genocide against the peoples it conquered.

I suggest you battle and conquer your fear of being labelled racist it you’ve any intention of truly appreciating islam’s acxcomplioshments.

How about ending this particular interchange here, as we’ve done it many times before?

Heh, even I’m bored somewhat of this topic.

I did like the opportunity to get my oar in on pre-dynastic Egypt, my favourite period of history. Don’t get me started on the Pharoahs though….

P.S. Neil, John P, how about taking a Turkish bath together to make up?

“IN the 10th century Constantinople, with more than a million people, contained at least 5 times Cordoba’s population”

Cordoba had half a million.

Anyway, ‘Classical Islamic civilisation - long before the extremists took over - was a synthesis of Arab, Jewish and Levant Christian peoples at its heart’ was probably a clue?

The one thing I won’t disagree on is that when Islam began its slow slide into inward looking conservatism then it waned. For example, the Guild of Caligraphers in the Ottoman Empire fought successfully for the banning of the printing press that it arrived en masse around a hundred years after its widespread adoption in the West. I would date the start of this decline to the fall of Bagdhad to the Mogol Ilkhante and the destruction of the universities and libraries therein in the 13th century but the rot really set in in the late 17th centrury when it finally afflicted what had been the most vigorouspolity in the Old World for the preceeding three hundred years - the Ottoman Empire.

Morgoth,
Paid for by promissory notes? Anyway, the point is that successive civilisations/cultures build upon existing ones. Classical Islam is no different from others in this respect and yet you say this is something to be denegrated and by extension to deny it ever did anything of note? Bizarro.

Did you misunderstand me?

When I said:

Israel’s security guaranteed by its far superior forces, and the US and others.

I meant that Israel has far superior weaponry, and the state is also guaranteed by the US. I was not saying that fancy bombs should be given to Hamas.

No, you were saying that Palestine should become a successful state with Hamas in charge. If that were possible, Hamas would take this as pause to rearm, but this time they’d have a real tax base and an ever growing base of technical expertise in the countryside, and thus would eventually have modern weapons and ability to deploy them.

It wouldn’t be instant death for anyone but it would be the fulfillment of Arafat’s dream of turning Palestine in to an engine of genocide to fulfill it’s purpose some time in the future. Arafat tried but he failed. But with the help of farseeing men like yourself on Israel’s side, Hamas could become the “successful” heirs to that dream. “Successful” enough to doom their own people and slaughter innocents in numbers far greater than they can imagine now.

Josh

If, buts, and maybes are not the stuff of conflict resolution. Deal with the now.

Conflict resolution as taught in many university departments (”peace studies” and the like) seems to be a pastiche of wishful thinking masquerading as knowledge. A dogma more reminiscent of a religious text than of a science in that it is nothing more than unproved assertion that is believed by leap of faith, because people want so fervently to believe it.

Note one survey found that 46% of Peace Studies departments are related to religious schools - I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

“P.S. Neil, John P, how about taking a Turkish bath together to make up?”

Well, I’m up for a big soapy one if John is!

N8-)

Paid for by promissory notes? Anyway, the point is that successive civilisations/cultures build upon existing ones. Classical Islam is no different from others in this respect and yet you say this is something to be denegrated and by extension to deny it ever did anything of note? Bizarro.

Neil, I do not believe I have commented at all upon the merits or otherwise of Arab/Islamic civilisation on this thread other than on the specific matter of exotic gem traderoutes.

One instance where I am happy to give credit to the immense contribution Arabs have made to our knowledge and to the progression of knowledge is of course Knowledge. Most of our common star names today come from Arabic.

However, to claim Islam has anything to do with this would be like claiming Newton’s Three Laws was an argument for his Arianism.

stupid fucking HTML. only the word “arab” should be bolded above.

“is of course “Astronomy”. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

“It’s not infantile to suggest that real security comes with peace.”

It’s not that I object to, it’s the talk of a “prosperous palestinian state”.

There will not be a prosperous Palestinian state, not in your lifetime, not in mine. Not while Hams AND Fatah. are the big players in town. There might be an un-prosperous Palestinian State; indeed there already is one in Gaza, but it will not be a source of peace, only war.

Everything was better before Oslo: for the Jews, but even more so for the Arabs. In the 80s there weren’t airstrikes killing Gazan children, now there are. The whole peace process has been a calamitous and unambiguous failure. The root to dealing sensibly with Israel’s security problems lies in realising this.

I had a conversation at college last night with a fellow student who had attended Sunday’s pro-Hamas demo. He seemed very vague about who Hamas actually were and expressed surprise that they had a website. As we discussed the situation, two things dawned on me. Firstly, he thought that the representatives from Neturei Karta he’d met were “Orthodox Rabbis” (no doubt they describe themselves thus) and secondly, that Israel had no right to exist. We were, essentially, discussing the philosophy of Hamas which had percolated into this perfectly nice chap’s consciousness without once engaging his brain.

I also felt the need to correct him when he condemned Egypt for closing the border and “penning them in to be bombed”, by observing that Egypt closed the border with Gaza yonks ago.

The blame for every single innocent death is this wholly avoidable conflict lies first with Hamas, but secondly with those who favoured the peace-process and in particular the Gaza withdrawal.

Your side has spent a lot of time demonising the Israeli Right for causing bloodshed, but all this is 100% your fault. Think about what you’ve done wrong, resolve to reform and give up your stupid dreams that only bring death.

This military operation has been a crushing blow to British moderate Muslims, as some may have seen on BBC Newsnight last night where people from the Quilliam foundation were interviewed.

But the Elephant in the Room here is the simple question: are there people in Britain whose religious affiliation to a global religion is stronger than their patriotism to this country?

Are there people whose identity is primarily Islamic, and this trumps, or obliterates their identity as British?

If it takes this conflict to bring this issue to a head, I’m grateful, because if it’s not resolved soon we’re going to see some very ugly scenes soon, even uglier than the site of ten thousand tea-towelled men rioting through London shrieking “Allah Akbar”.

Israel will not find genuine security unless there is a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian State situated on the West Bank. Why is this so hard to realise for both Jew and Arab? The how will be difficult but it is a journey that must be undertaken.

In response to someone who remarked about the I/P conflict:

“There’s no light at the end of the tunnel”

a certain Israeli statesman replied:

“There’s plenty of light; just no tunnel”.

You might say the same of Jews, or Tamils.

I must tell you the story of my “interesting experience” in a Turkish bath in Istanbul one day. John P may enjoy in particular.

Inside the Muslim communities in Europe, the horrors of Islamist terrorism in previously unimaginable locations such as Madrid and London, has not resulted in an awakening of a new, progressive voice among Muslims to challenge the extremists but has instead seen the continued rise of Islamist groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those honourable attempts to challenge the extreme-right, whether it be from ex-Islamists or from ex-Muslims turned secularists, welcome though they are, are tiny and insignificant compared to the street-mobilising ability of the MB affiliates.

I share the pessimism. Am I alone in ‘telling myself so’ when the names Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz appeared as co-signatories to the letter to GB from members of Diversity Ltd.

The government has been a fairly active participant in the slow, quick-quick, slow process of Islamification since 7/7. From dishing out tax-payers money left, right and centre to ‘deradicalisation’ initiatives, setting up a de facto Met. Muslim police unit, to setting up a special interest group advisory panel, the pincer movement of Islamist community organisers, violent extremists and hand-wringing quangocrats have set their sights on a visible Islamic presence in the public space.

The government has been bending over backwards to accomodate the often violent and intolerant mediaeval mindset so despised by the natives. This is in sharp contrast to the relentless undemocratic advance of European integration, state orchestrated social and cultural change and internal offshoring labour policies, all of which are opposed by a substantial majority of UK citizens.

The policy of ‘engaging’ with Islamism is doomed to failure as long as the government fails to acknowledge the role played in radicalisation by its destructive immigration policies. Muslims will continue to identify themselves primarily in terms of their religion as long as the government communicates their acceptance of this.

Difficult issues like inter-religious, inter-cultural marriage need to be addressed. Unless Muslims allow their daughters to marry non-Muslim men, integration will continue to be cursory and peripheral. The same is true with regard to many Hindu and Sikh households: Jews, Protestants, Catholics and Methodists, Anglo-Saxons and Caribbeans all seem to have intermarried and integrated well enough, why can’t the same be true with regard to people with roots in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

“There will not be a prosperous Palestinian state, not in your lifetime, not in mine.”

Well, before all this hoo har started in Gaza, there were reports about an economic surge in the West Bank: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702390538&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

If it’s OK with you, I will allow this report to give me the teensiest little feeling of infantile optimism.

It is not optimism that is infantile, it is the belief that the predicament of human existence can be broken up into a series of discrete problems that can then be solved.

That surge will within two years of the West Bank becoming independent. Your link only validates my conclusion that the best of the available course in the short to medium term is continued occupation.

To be utterely simplistic about this, really it is time for Islamism to learn to live with economically and democratically and psychologically free society, where women and gay people have rights, and we are not ruled by fanatical preachers from their pulpits, who are probably suffering from some psych-sexual repressive related mental issue. And we in Ireland would know all about that.

*will end.

I am, of course, happy, as any human should be, about the improved economic situation for Yesh (unfortunately not Yesha) Arabs.

I read something earlier in this very interesting thread about “bigging up fluffy Islam”.

I’m not sure about this - if there are Muslims who want to participate , accept the give and take of the world, and above all understand that not all disagreements between Islamic and non Islamic countries arise because the latter want to “destroy Islam” that is all tothe good and to be encouraged.

One thing I do think we need to do when we deal with the history of Islam however is to ask some questions. One I want to highlight here involves some of the kind of TV programmes that deal with the advance of Islamic culture and progress in medieaval times. There are a number on at present. I suspect they are popular because they go to the trend of a liberal minded intelligentsia to be inclusive and in some cases appease “Muslim rage” and what have you. (I leave out of account here the more overtly political red green coalitionising)

There is nothing wrong in principle with these programes (it isn’t just TV - there are all sorts of books, articles, exhibitions and what have you on the same lines).

My problem is that they never seem to ask the question “what went wrong - why did this advance stop”. And I think in the answer to that lies a considerable part of what went wrong with Islam itself.

You will also note that economic development in the occupied territories within a framework of continued occupation, is a policy advocated by Likud. Kadima and Labour, by contrast, wish to turn it into a dilapidated violence-ridden hellhole by giving control to Fatah.

I must tell you the story of my “interesting experience” in a Turkish bath in Istanbul one day. John P may enjoy in particular.

I certainly hope it didn’t involve bending over. And if, on the outside chance, you did, I do hope you hung a “no-entry” sign over you bottom.

I would date the start of this decline to the fall of Bagdhad to the Mogol Ilkhante and the destruction of the universities and libraries therein in the 13th century but the rot really set in in the late 17th centrury when it finally afflicted what had been the most vigorouspolity in the Old World for the preceeding three hundred years - the Ottoman Empire.

Neil W, we tend to ‘commit’ to the islamic world qualities and properties it never had, so that we can fit it into some sort of continuous flow of history and thereby make some sense of it. Islamic warriors may have dominated large swaths of the civilized world for many centuries, but the few true cultural, technological and artistic contributions they may have made are largely irrelevant to human history and human progress.

When Islam first appeared in the 7th century, what is now considered the religion’s heartland…the Nile Valley, N. Africa and the MId-East…were far, far more advanced, enlightened and wealthy in relation to the rest of the globe than they are today.

I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

One can’t ignore Stan’s comment. We’ve already had to abandon containment - once in Afghanistan and once in Iraq (let’s leave aside Somalia and Lebanon for the moment). There is every chance of further implosions or explosions with opportunities for Jihadis (I prefer that to the rather vacuous concept of Islamism).

Our overall strategy has to be to prevent Jihadis combining into an effective state. We see in Iran the dangers of letting them get control of state apparatus.

I note a comment somewhere above about the deaths of children in Gaza. I reflect that when a 14, 15, 16 year-old fires aan AK-47 or plants bombs they are a Hamas Terrorist but if they get killed they revert back to ‘children’.

Well, remember Hamas Summer Camps? http://www.teachkidspeace.com/doc1021.php “8 - 14″.

Remember the child soldiers of Vietnam/Cambodia, Hitler Youth and various African conflicts? I belive the Iraq/Iran war used ‘children’.

Can we please reframe this word ‘children’ in thses contexts. Of course I accept that the majority of children killed/wounded are genuine unfortunate civilians and my point doesn’t ameliorate that.

Yes, I am sceptical about this 250 figure from the UN for deaths of children - at least as perceived in the West (small children dying in their homes or schools).

All deaths are to be regretted, soldiers as well, child soldiers certainly…but we have to guard against becoming YET AGAIN the victims of clever UN-Palestinian propaganda as happened in Jenin and with the case of the child supposedly killed by the Israeli army (remember the libel case in France).

What DavidT and Brownie said. Every single damn word.

“If 100 people think that violent Jihad is the answer to spread Islamism. How many do you need to kill before they decide it isn’t worth it?”

Maven, the point is that they are unlikely to realise that it isn’t worth it even as the last man standing dies, and they will wreak as much havoc as possible in that period because of narcissistic rage. Look at the glorious Hamas government, whose Health Minister is currently appearing on CiF, arguing that Hamas’ struggle is not with the Jews but with Israel, and shoring up that argument with the attendant rubbish that his mate Mahmoud Zahar was mistranslated and misquoted when he threatened to kill Jewish children worldwide.

The only way he could possibly argue that is if he totally believed it, in spite of the evidence to the contrary in the Hamas Charter.

Mark, the contribution of Islam to civilisation ground to a halt because of the destruction of its Caliphate and the attendant narcissistic injury caused by that which crippled Islam in every sphere. The resulting belligerent self-pity and explosive narcissistic rage is evident to this day. They feel ill-used and cannot fathom why, if Muslims are beloved of Allah and the most exalted among nations, why did he abandon them?

Narcissism is a fundamental failure of emotional development beyond toddlerhood and Hamas, Al Aqsa et al have less impulse control than a three year old. According to Vaknin “..Pathological narcissism is an infantile defence against abuse and trauma, usually occurring in early childhood or early adolescence. Thus, narcissism is inextricably entwined with the abused child’s or adolescent’s emotional make-up, cognitive deficits, and worldview. To say “narcissist” is to say “thwarted, tortured child”.

To be bested by Israel causes a deep narcissistic injury to Hamas and it reacts with narcissistic rage and a wish to destroy the source of narcissistic injury. “As a specific manifestation of narcissistic rage, terrorism occurs in the context of narcissistic injury,” writes Crayton (1983:37-8). For Crayton, terrorism is an attempt to acquire or maintain power or control by intimidation. He suggests that the “meaningful high ideals” of the political terrorist group “protect the group members from experiencing shame.”

To be bested by Israel causes a deep narcissistic injury to Hamas and it reacts with narcissistic rage and a wish to destroy the source of narcissistic injury

I happen to agree that the Arabs around Israel have suffered so many defeats that they just wish they could win one. But, as Muslims they also believe that they are superior and that the rest of us aren’t worthy, except to be Dhimmis.

What will happen is that Muslims will push the envelope as far as they can. They will point to the West wanting to destroy Islam and cite Israel’s action in Gaza as more proof.

Eventually the other 97% in the UK say “No! Stop pushing your minority agenda on us and acting anti-democratic by threatening a bombing”. Tony Blair actually did say something like “If our ways and our society don’t fit your requirements then go elsewhere”. It seems like Islam only wants to integrate on its own terms and that is to establish a foothold where it can dominate. Other minorities struggled to integrate with the terms they were given - and made a sucess.

Its patronising to keep appeasing Islam. Its kinder to say No so they know where we all stand.

If there is a war of survival then we have to use our weapons superiority to say No and if that means killing enough of them to take No for an answer then that is unfortunate but I am sure they would kill as many of us as it takes for us to surrender.

Even Hamas aren’t stupid enough to continue to the last man/woman/child standing - are they? Howver, Israel will stop when Hamas are no threat. Hamas aren’t the Knight in Monty Python and The Holy Grail who lost all his limbs and said “I’ve had worse, come and fight you coward”

Even Hamas aren’t stupid enough to continue to the last man/woman/child standing - are they?

In a war of attrition it wouldn’t matter that they’re willing to sacrifice every life, because eventually those other Palestinians will have had enough and kill off Hamas themselves - you that would be a good ending.

I meant “you know that would be..”

A war of attrition isn’t a good ending, but the Palestinians taking responsibility to end the militias would be.

Maven, it’s not a matter of mere stupidity. Hitler in the last days of the Third Reich behaved as if Germany would win the war and, when it was obvious even to a madman like him that it would not, he not only preferred to die rather than be shamed by failure but insisted that his acolytes follow his example. Few of them did, however.

There is an analogy here with the Hamas leadership. Even allowing for the fact that they dare not admit that they cannot win because it would cause them such shame, they seem (very literally) to be hell-bent upon taking their people with them into the ruination their actions have crafted rather than have to admit to the world that they have failed to wipe out Israel. Their narcissistic injury must be exacerbated by the fact that no-one in the Arab world seems to be in much of a hurry to come to their aid.

Their callousness is no surprise since they are malignant narcissists and being so have always viewed their people as mere objects and means to their own ends. Their criminal neglect and gross inhumanity towards their own people by using civilians and even children as human shields, and their cynicism in parading those dead children in the hope of swaying world opinion against Israel, and using children as military aides, is yet more evidence of that. We are not talking here of a government which takes its civic duties seriously.

That being the case, the leaders at least will be very willing for their men, women and children to fight until the last although the leadership will, if it can, scuttle away to Damascus.

John P. There are always so many things I want to disagree about with you, but I’ll be limiting myself to just one on this occasion.

The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus has a much more complicated history than you suggest and it was also a much more Islamic achievement than you suggest.

The first building there was a pagan temple to Hadad, which became a Roman temple to Jupiter of the Damascenes. This was far bigger than the present mosque but eventually fell into disrepair and a small Christian Church to John the Baptist was built in part of the space where the Roman temple once stood. When Damascus was conquered in 636 a mosque was built, also in the space where the temple once stood - probably a fairly ramshackle affair against the wall of the Christian church. The separate Christian church remained. Wikipedia repeats a myth that one building was shared by the two religions, this is incorrect.

In the time of Walid I, these two buildings were destroyed and the Umayyad Mosque built (706-715). Whilst the Byzantine emperor may have sent some materials for the mosaics and other tools to assist the construction, the vast majority of workers were Muslims from Syria and Egypt, although there were also Christians and people of other religions involved.

The mosque was and is one of the greatest architectural achievements of Islam and, returning in the most superficial of ways to the topic of the original post, will remain so long after we’ve all stopped worrying about Islamism and are worried about something quite different.

Gsirrah
I’d be curious to know what your source is that suggests that the Mosque of Damascus was built by a majority of Muslim workers?
As far I understand, at this period the state’s language for official records etc was still Greek and the majority of the inhabitants in Syria and Egypt were still Christian.
Additionally, there are strong arguments to suggest that the Mosque was based on Byzantine-Syrian styles (some basilical churches in Syria were converted to mosques), based on the Al-Aqsa design (they bear some interesting similiarities) and possibly was influenced by the church for St Symeon Stylites (now ruined).
As to the shared thing - it is incorrect if understood to mean that they shared a church. Both religions did share the space of the older pagan site which was significantly larger than either of their respective places of worship.

John P
When Islam first appeared in the 7th century, what is now considered the religion’s heartland…the Nile Valley, N. Africa and the MId-East…were far, far more advanced, enlightened and wealthy in relation to the rest of the globe than they are today.

This is essentially true, the Arab/muslims, being in advace of us woadies, discovered global warming and climate change five centuries before us.

Comstock
What are you talking about - all that was in the revelation to Mohammed (PBUH) and is recorded in the Koran.

Islamist Nationalism will make some gains in the Middle East maybe it will take Egypt but this is the beginning of the end for the Jihadi headbangers in our streets.

What is most striking about the above thread is that everyone, some with caveats, has finally accepted that we are living in an age of the clash of civilisations.

If we do not see this as Christendom vs Islam we recognise that it is now in a very real sense Western Civilisation or Modernity being violently rejected by various strands of totalitarian Islamist nationalism.

of course the existing regimes stand to lose out by this revolutionary islamist nationalism, but they have done little to stop it, on the contrary for various reasons most muslim regimes have made us of Islamists, even when persecuted domestically, to fight proxy wars against, mostly regional oponents.

Israel has been manipulated by Muslim regimes to give them International political traction in what was a cold war world.

That this political contigency has now become internationaised by Islamist internationalism, propagated to a frenzy of anti-semitism by cells of islamist nationalist operating in non-Muslim nations that have allowed large scale migration from Muslim lands.

As the new anti-semites the new islamist nationalists and internationalists are settled populations often 2nd or 3rd generation migrants, they have been lost to any nationalist control from the old rab and Muslim dictatorships.

The fact that their militant energies are now being directed by Islamists, as virulently opposed to national Muslim governments (and repressed there) has become a nightmare for the Muslim world of the wests making.

The FCO strategy (that made the old covenant of secuirty) of huggin the MB and other islamists tight because they might come to power has merely strengthend their hand.

16 years ago on 29th December 1992 I survived Al-Qeda’s first terrorist attack (I was a direct target).

In my ‘debriefing’ by US military personnel I expressed my belief that the attack had come from a Saudi based islamist terrorist group with close ties to traditionalist wahabi groups and that it was a response to the defilement of the sacred Arabian peninsula by western especially US infidels resulting from the 1st Iraq war.

I have spent most of the intervening years trying to raise western consciousness enough to prevent what was the probable but not inevitable chance of a Jihadi inspired clash of civilisations from occuring.

I have failed, because as we have seen, the only way that European governments, for the main part, have dealt with the threat is with ever greater forms of licence, and permission and inclusion of national sseggregation and the erosion of a unified national polity and civic culture.

At the heart of Islamism is a theo-political nationalism, a toatl rejection of any other political system than the refusal to share a polity with other faiths other than by a very restricted licence of dhimmitude.

Salafi Jihadism is an Islamist Caliphist nationalism, whose only territorial geo-political goal is the restoration (and actual extension) of a caliphate.

Muslim Brotherhood islamist nationalism being more gradualist sees its self as an expanding theo-political state Ummah, however central to its beliefs is a redusal to be ruled or even to rul equally with other confessions.

Is real is therefore a replacement of the insufferable insult to the victorious faith, a polity of the ummah by conquest, of the Crusader state of the Kingdom of jerusalem.

This is obvious by the frequent reference to Israel as the US/Zionist crusader state.

Islamism is nationalism a totalitarian theocratic nationalism, more similar to nazism and Fascism than Communism but sharing many features of all.

It is the predestination of the inevitability of islamist nationalism, that i most akin to the Nazi’s third Reich,though that was based on the telos the inevitable victory of the supeior race or folk.

Neil W asks why should a peasant who has decended from those farming since before the Ottomans (when they were Christians or Jews, Talmudic or karaite, or Samaritans or Mandeans or) be ruled by Israel?

Why the hell not, if they were ruled by succesively by Turks and mamelukes, Syrian Christians and the Caliphate, Sassanids, Romans,Seleucids,babylonians etc?

To most peasants as long as they have a right to land and are not taxed cruelly or subject to conscription or requisition of land and food, have cared little about the exact nature of the literate administration that taxes and governs them.

Many of us are ethnic minorities ruled by another, the world cannot be divided without terrifying bloodshed and fragmentation into a world of ethnic nation states.

Of course to an Islamist the Palestinian peasant cannot, must not be ruled by a Jew.

The West’s retreat from multiethnic democratic states under a unified rule of law and a shared public civic cultural consensus that allows a large degree of domestic cultural and religious difference, has undermined itself with ethnically segregating social and legal policies that create increasingly autonomous communal polities.

If we show ourselves unable to build stable states where a Bosniak can be ‘ruled’ by a Serb and vice versa, then we have lost our sense of a robust democracy that can make this possible.

We have failed, so Islamist Nationalism is the big political story. Transcendent Utopian notions of just rule and universal justice (note Ahmaninejad’s alternative Christmas message) are presented as easily achievable and entirely pragmatic.

In a way they are all you need is (the right sort) of faith.

We must not forget here that the stable modernist institutionally (but not culturally) secular nation Turkey was achieved (with the admiration of the Western Powers) between 1915 and 1923 by the complete extermination of the entire Anatolian population (thousands of years old) of Christians; Greek, Armenian ,Chaldian catholics,Syrian Catholics, and Nestorian/Assyrian Christians.

This genocide of some 3.5 million christians is usually seen as an ethnic Pan-Turkic nationalism, but all Turkeys enemies were Christians and the modern Turk was to be a Muslim only.

So Islamism is at war and it is a nationalist or internationalist war.

Is this to be a cold war or a hot war?

Well if it was up to the gradualist Islamist Internatonalists like the Muslim Brotherhood, then it would be a long Cold war with various proxy wars like Israel, Chechynia etc until it gained state control of somewhere like egypt then it would get very hot.

The spanner in their works though is the Salafist Jihadis.

No wonder their strategy is to cosy up to government saying ‘give us more power we can control them’.

The Jihadis expose the Islamist International aim and its uncompromising totalitarian theo-politics.

No wonder they wish to distance themselves. They take a more Jesuitical view of the long game in history.

The Jihadis expose the core of their beliefs and risk bringing about a backlash that will prevent the gradualist MB types gaining enough real military and economic power from waging the ultimate war for Islamist revival.

No wonder they protest a backlash that is nothing like it could be, and detention centres, that are nothing like they could become.

Why some of us have spent so much time arguing against a clash of civilisations, is that it is not that hard to induce but then the very civilisation we prize will last as a culture but not a democracy.

Imagine if some of the planned but thwarted Jihadi terrorist outrages in the UK had happened, a suicide bomb at a Man United game, in a crowded nightclub,

The governments policy of engagement will not survive a massive reaction against such outrages from a minority of 2% of the population.

If there is a major atrocity at the Olympics, then heavy restrictions, large scale internment, and legal sanctions against a mere 2% of the population will be a ‘small’ price demanded by a big majority.

The warm weather solidarity of the Guardian liberals will vanish in seconds if any of their children are blown to smithereens by Takfirs with Northern or Essex accents shouting Alah-hu Akh’bar.

Thee process that will reinforce this resurgence of domestic culturall nationalism will be the increasing economic anti-internationalism of the new economic protectionist order decending upon us.

Every western nation is likely to become rather more 30’s like in their economic nationalism.

Expect energy security to be the policy term that heralds this nationalistic return to politics.

There will be no Brownie points for being anti-national self interest, nationally disparaging and multiculturally diversity obsessed.

I fell like Cassandra but I feel reasonably certain that this will come to pass.

I will be sorry to see the gains of a more open and pluralist society to be lost, but nationals survival and self interest will become dominant themes once more and not seen as the preserve of a far right but of an inclusionary national austerity politics.

There will be no political point of leverage for cultural separtism at a time of national austerity where everyone else is going to have ‘to tighten their belts and pull their weight’

Ordinary people will have no patience for religious zealots attacking the place of their birth screaming hate alongside spoiled brats attacking national institutions, much admired by working and middle class people alike, Marks and Spencers.

A time of Bye Bye Bunting is upon us

Metta’s fabulous post deserves to be a post in its own right.

That’s a very good posting, Metta. The scenario you present is similar to ideas I,ve had over the last few years.

Radical islamists who were encouraged to immigrate by liberal multiculturalists brandishing a programme of social engineering will be the very agents to put an end to the multicultural dream of these same liberals.

You depiction of the MB and the negative effects of terror attacks on its strategy of gradualsim are spot-on as well.

The fact that there of 1000s of jihadists who simply cannot controle their bloodlusts and refrain from terror attacks and who, thus, continuallly expose the game, could actually be of some advantage to The West

I’ve said this many times, but can you imagine what the Middle East would be like today if the Arabs & Muslims had accepted Israel as a valid state and decided to live in peace with them in 1948? Instead, they attacked immediately, and have realized absolutely nothing in the last 60+ years. What have they gained? How many tens of thousands have died in their misguided struggle to destroy Israel? Look at their misery and poverty and corruption today - and not just Gaza under Hamas. Look at what Israel is today vs what their conditions were in 1948, and you see a democratic and thriving country, more technologically advanced that any country on earth.

Finally, what support have the Palestinians received from their fellow Muslims and Arabs?

I’d be curious to know what your source is that suggests that the Mosque of Damascus was built by a majority of Muslim workers?

My main sources have been two histories of the Umayyad Mosque which I have come across, Ali Tantawi’s “al-Jami’ al-’Umawi fi dimashq: wasf wa tarikh” and
Doctor ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Rihawi’s “Jami’ dimashq al-’Umawi: al-tarikh wa al-turath wa al-fann al-ma’ari”. Although you have to be careful with al-Tantawi as he tends to rather uncritically repeat traditional versions of events.
Oleg Grabar’s article “Islamic Art and Byzantium” I think also has some useful material on these matters.

there are strong arguments to suggest that the Mosque was based on Byzantine-Syrian styles (some basilical churches in Syria were converted to mosques), based on the Al-Aqsa design (they bear some interesting similiarities) and possibly was influenced by the church for St Symeon Stylites (now ruined).

1) there are strong arguments to suggest that the Mosque was based on Byzantine-Syrian styles (some basilical churches in Syria were converted to mosques)You are right to a certain extent, some basilical churches were converted. And in Homs a church was, post arrival of Islam, shared by Muslims and Christians - there are tales of similar happening elsewhere as well, most of which are probably apocryphal. Either way, this did not happen in Damascus, where a new building was constructed (although some of the lower walls of the church may have remained and the foundations of two of towers which were then built upon).

2) based on the Al-Aqsa design (they bear some interesting similiarities)
The Umayyad mosque and the one which stood on the al-Aqsa site which was the rebuilding of which was completed by al-Walid I and stood until an earthquake in 746 were both based on the plan of Muhammad’s house in Medina. Also, many of the skilled workmen (especially the experts on mosaics - who were sent with materials provided by the Byzantine emperor and who worked on Church of the Nativity in the 690s then on the Dome of the Rock then moved to Damascus) from the rebuilding of al-Aqsa may well have gone to assist in the construction of the Umayyad mosque. For more on the differences and similarities between the two mosques, I’d suggest Grafman and Rosen-Ayalon’s article “The Two Great Syrian Umayyad Mosques: Jerusalem and Damascus.”

3) possibly was influenced by the church for St Symeon Stylites (now ruined)
Influenced yes, but only to a small extent and certainly not a copy thereof. Part of the rationale for the construction of the dome in Damascus was to make one bigger and better than the one at St Symeon’s. However, ruined as St Symeon’s is, it is still very recognisably a Roman style basilica which wouldn’t look out of place anywhere in the western Christian world. The same certainly can not be said of the Umayyad mosque, the layout of which was used as a prototype for many other mosques around the world and, as I said before, was itself based on the Prophet’s mosque

4) As to the shared thing - it is incorrect if understood to mean that they shared a church. Both religions did share the space of the older pagan site which was significantly larger than either of their respective places of worship. You are correct. There is a widespread tale that one building was shared and the Muslims faced in one direction and the Christians another - Wikipedia repeats this myth.