• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Negotiate and/or be damned ... ?

It's more than a year since Israel launched its immoral attack on Gaza ...

I'm all for political discussions (despite Mad Cyril's pub car parks scenario) but perhaps the discussion here is circumscribed in Shlaim's first line and his use of the word 'immoral.' Politics may indeed be 'the art of the possible' but we're on shaky ground when we start conjoining it with morality. It is often about 'might is right' and there is probably no mightier state in the world than Israel on a 'pound for pound,' proportionate basis. An opportunity for negotiations may have been missed, but it takes a real leap of imagination for the leadership of a state immersed in 'realpolitik' to negotiate from a position where they're running the show. Without wishing to get too Orwellian, perhaps the Israeli leadership has a 'vested interest' - to quote one of your favourite phrases - to perpetuate their state on a war footing.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for political discussions (despite Mad Cyril's pub car parks scenario) but perhaps the discussion here is circumscribed in Shlaim's first line and his use of the word 'immoral.' Politics may indeed be 'the art of the possible' but we're on shaky ground when we start conjoining it with morality. It is often about 'might is right' and there is probably no mightier state in the world than Israel on a 'pound for pound,' proportionate basis. An opportunity for negotiations may have been missed, but it takes a real leap of imagination for the leadership of a state immersed in 'realpolitik' to negotiate from a position where they're running the show. Without wishing to get too Orwellian, perhaps the Israeli leadership has a 'vested interest' - to quote one of your favourite phrases - to perpetuate their state on a war footing.

I'd say that's a given. Israel are surrounded by it's enemies, Egypt & Jordan may have peace accords but no country surrounding Israel would should a tear at its destruction. As I've said before on these threads if you accept Israel has a right to exist then you must accept it has a right to defend itself. Even when at times they may be taking a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.
 
'It ain't why, it just is ...'

I'd say that's a given. Israel are surrounded by it's enemies, Egypt & Jordan may have peace accords but no country surrounding Israel would should a tear at its destruction. As I've said before on these threads if you accept Israel has a right to exist then you must accept it has a right to defend itself. Even when at times they may be taking a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

... which relates also to the 'morality' point I was making earlier, H. This has been about who is 'the big dog on the block' here probably since '67. I doubt if there will be any peaceful resolution of this in our lifetime, sad to say. As for that 'Roadmap,' has there ever been one with so many dead-ends and 'no entry' signs ? :unsure:
 
This is getting to be a rather tiresome,circular argument.:headbang:
I've already answered the point about the ANC.There were elements in the ANC who would have been happy to drive the whites into the sea before Mandela began his charm offensive on them.
I suggested you look at John Carlin's Playing the Enemy or Mandela's own Long Walk to Freedom for confirmation of this.Do so and you'll find I'm right.
But you still haven't shown me where in the ANCs constitution it says rid SA of all whites, whereas I have shown you that both Hamas and Fatah have it in theirs. Regardless of that, I think the fact that you've not bothered to even argue the same point re the IRA means you're in agreement there?

Either way, I still don't see how Israel can be exptected to negotiate with people that want their entire nation killed. There is a quote from Yassir Arafat (that I haven't been able to find as yet) where he says pretty much that. He says something along the lines of pushing all Israeli's into the sea...and that's the guy whose party you seem to think is "moderate".
As to the point about Fatah and Hamas.Hamas are the majority, elected representatives of the Palestinian people in Gaza.It is they who Israel will have to negociate with if they want a settlement.I've already said this too.:)

In Gaza, yes, but that is enforced. In the West Bank Fatah are in control, and Israel is talking to them. As I said, Fatah don't talk to Hamas because even they think they're extreme. It's like the difference between the IRA and the Real IRA. Please explain to me why you think Israel should talk to this organisation when the other half of the Palestinians simply won't.
 
Last edited:
Without wishing to get too Orwellian, perhaps the Israeli leadership has a 'vested interest' - to quote one of your favourite phrases - to perpetuate their state on a war footing.

That was certainly my impression in my stays there back in the 70's and from what I've read and seen since in the news etc not much seems to have changed at all, up to and including, Israel's recent clumsy(and IMO immoral) attempts at regime change in Gaza.

BTW I'm not so sure that "vested interests" is in fact one of my favourite phrases as such though where I have used it, I hope I've used it appropriately.:)
 
Last edited:
You make a good point here.It's also something that seems to have been rather knocked off the agenda of late.I seem to remember that nice Claire Short saying only just last week that it was one of the main reasons why she didn't resign at the same time as Robin Cook when the war with Iraq was declared too.;)
 
Last edited:
QUOTE=londonblue;1103065]But you still haven't shown me where in the ANCs constitution it says rid SA of all whites, whereas I have shown you that both Hamas and Fatah have it in theirs. Regardless of that, I think the fact that you've not bothered to even argue the same point re the IRA means you're in agreement there?<[QUOTE

You're rather missing the point of my comparing Hamas with the ANC and the IRA.
My point is not to compare their respective constitutions(that's your idea not mine).The point, as far as I'm concerned, is to show that powerful nations eventually have to negociate with groups they once branded as terrorists.
Granted, a more accurate comparison with Hamas in the case of South Africa, would be that of the PAC(Pan Africanist Congress).It's worth bearing in mind that the PAC (back in the 60's)almost became the dominant force in black politics.It's to Mandela's credit they didn't, as they were an openly racist party, whose slogan in 1994 was "One settler,one bullet".
Incidentally, in the elections of '94 they obtained just 1% of the vote-leading to the ANC joke- "one settler,one per cent."

While we're on this subject I wonder if you remember our own PAK back in the 60's led by Charlie Benson and Dave Brabbing? :)

"Either way, I still don't see how Israel can be exptected to negotiate with people that want their entire nation killed."

See the answer to your previous point above.
The mere fact that Hamas were prepared to negociate a ceasefire with Israel(despite what their constitution contains)indicates that once they had taken power at the ballot box they were prepared to be a little more pragmatic and and a little less dogmatic.
Ipso facto(I would have thought)if you're prepared to negociate a ceasefire with another state then you do (at least) implicitly recognise the existence of that state.


"In Gaza, yes, but that is enforced."

What does this mean exactly?
Hamas are the democratically elected majority party in Gaza.Don't all elected Governments enforce their rule by use of the Police,Courts and the Army,where and when necessary?

" Please explain to me why you think Israel should talk to this organisation when the other half of the Palestinians simply won't."

Once again, as I've said before, :headbang: because they are the democratically elected leaders and majority party of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
 
Last edited:
I've given up quoting because you seem to be missing some HTML, and it's getting messy!

To answer some points:

No I don't remember the 60's. I wasn't born!

I understand your point about having eventually to talk to the Hamas terrorists, but my point is that the IRA (let's use this as an example, we've done the ANC to death!) ceased fire before hand, and kept to it. Moreover, they didn't ever want to destroy England and/or the English at any point. Even with an organisation such as that (that are positively gentlemanly in comparison to Hamas) it took about 30 years for there to enough trust. Why do you expect Israel to just talk to these people so soon? It just defies any kind of logic.

As for enforced. What I mean is that they control by force. Once they took power (legitimately) they then went about ridding Gaza of anyone that protested against them.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not blindly supporting Israel here. Sometimes their responses are over the top, although I do understand why. I just think it's important to understand the stresses the Israelis are under.

For example, the whole world is condeming them for blockading Gaza without once even mentioning that a fair proportion of the Gaza border is with Egypt, and Egypt are doing the same. It seems it's OK for one, but not the other.
 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not blindly supporting Israel here. Sometimes their responses are over the top, although I do understand why. I just think it's important to understand the stresses the Israelis are under.

QUOTE]

I don't consider myself to be anti-Israel either though I am certainly anti- Zionist.
In fact I went over to Israel twice in the mid-seventies to see a young female Israeli that I'd fallen in love with.
To paraphrase an old Woody Allen joke I was trying to do to her what Israel was doing to the rest of the Middle East.;)
 
Last edited:
it took about 30 years for there to enough trust. Why do you expect Israel to just talk to these people so soon?

.

And it might take that long(or indeed much longer) for trust to be established between Israel and her Palestinian and other Arab neighbours too.
There's no time limit here.But they will have to talk to Hamas eventually.And the sooner the better(IMO).
 
I don't consider myself to be anti-Israel either though I am certainly anti- Zionist.
In fact I went over to Israel twice in the mid-seventies to see a young female Israeli that I'd fallen in love with.
To paraphrase an old Woody Allen joke I was trying to do to her what Israel was doing to the rest of the Middle East.;)

I think you'll find the rest of the middle east are trying to do that to Israel. I don't remember Israel starting a war...but more importantly, did you get anywhwere?
 
Back
Top