Negotiating with terrorists

[solicitr]

Well, Jny, it does seem to me that this sorry episode (did you notice that Hez horribly mutilated the soldiers' bodies as a final insult before returning them?) very heavily reinforces the point that you cannot negotiate with these people--and by extension nor with their puppeteers in Teheran, which Obama has stated he wants to do.

[solicitr]

Violence is always better and quicker.

Vis-a-vis Hezbollah, it is. There is no negotiating position Israel can take, because there is nothing Hezbollah wants except Israel's complete destruction.

As Churchill said, "It's easy to get the lion to lie down with the lamb- as long as you put in a new lamb every day."

[superwizard]

Violence is always better and quicker.

Vis-a-vis Hezbollah, it is. There is no negotiating position Israel can take, because there is nothing Hezbollah wants except Israel's complete destruction.

As Churchill said, "It's easy to get the lion to lie down with the lamb- as long as you put in a new lamb every day."

Do you really think so? Look if you're looking for a hizballah supporter you'll have to look elsewhere but I do maintain that they, like most people, do what's best for them. Look at their past; they were not always such avid Palestine supporters and in fact there were clashes between them and Palestinians during the Lebanese civil war. No I believe they are using the whole Palestinian issue as a rhetorical device to try and get supporters but that with the right incentive you can maybe not turn them around but at least soften their stances. Its happened before.

[solicitr]

I agree that Hizbollah (being after all a Shia group) aren't singing from the same hymn-sheet as the Palestinians- but their goal- the complete destruction of Israel- is repeated and trumpeted every day over and over ad nauseam. It's Hez' only reason for existence- all right, their secondary purpose is to take over Lebanon, which is partly achieved- but even that is only a step toward the primary goal: "sweeping the Jews into the sea."

What stance could they soften?

And another question- morally, why should their continued existence be permitted?

[superwizard]

I agree that now after Israel has left Lebanon they have latched unto the Palestinian cause as an excuse for their continued existence but I do think that they can with time change their tactics and become a political group instead of an armed militia but only if the circumstances force them to do that and they must be ideal.

I see no reason for their continued existence on a moral perspective but practically trying to disarm them right now would be catastrophic for Lebanon!

[solicitr]

At the moment, their existence as an armed force serves as a deterrent against Israeli action WRT Iran.

Remember, since the 2006 war Iran (and to a lesser extent Syria) have re-armed Hez with more and longer-range rockets than they had before. Those can have only one purpose.

[superwizard]

I see your point and I understand it completely but even Iran can be persuaded to change its stances. Wise diplomacy is the key to fixing these messy issues I firmly believe that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

An argument can be made that Senator Obama would take a different approach to this issue than Senator McCain would, and that is certainly grist for discussion.

But it would have to be made independent of any of Obama's statements about Hamas because they are consistent with McCain's (I discount the argument that some have made that McCain has actually argued for negotiating with Hamas because that was taken out of context).

But I am not going to tolerate any more veiled slurs and insinuations.

No, we are not.

[vison]

Good. Because I am saddened and sickened by some of the comments made in this thread. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Talking is not negotiating. Talking is talking. Talking is recognizing that the person you are talking to is a human being like yourself. Talking does not mean "surrender", except to surrender hatred for reason, aggression for calm discussion.

It might lead to nothing - but what if it leads to a good place?

[River]

Just to augment vison:
Talk
[url=ttp://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=negotiate&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00000000000]Negotiate[/url]

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[solicitr]

Couple of mild pedantic quibbles:

even though the west of Jordan is, as you know, part of the original Palestine.

Actually, all of Jordan was part of the original Palestine. However, given the diplomatic tangle involving Britain, France, the Hashemites and Abdul Aziz after WWI, the Brits wound up subdividing the Palestinian Mandate and giving Hussein of Mecca's son Abdullah a consolation-prize emirate in East Palestine, redubbed Transjordan.

In 1948, Abdullah invaded and annexed the Arab Partition of (West) Palestine- the 'West Bank,' and shortened the now-inaccurate name 'Transjordan' to 'Jordan.' Abdullah was thus the person most responsible for denying an independent homeland to the people later to call themselves 'Palestinians.'

Forty years later, Abdullah's grandson Hussein, in a well-intentioned but possibly ill-advised gesture, ceded the West Bank to the PLO.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But it would have to be made independent of any of Obama's statements about Hamas because they are consistent with McCain's (I discount the argument that some have made that McCain has actually argued for negotiating with Hamas because that was taken out of context).

Voronwë, I'm sorry, I did not understand what you were saying here. Are you referring to statements made by Senator McCain that he was willing to hold talks with Hammas? I had not heard this claim by him.

This was something that was passed around on some of the left-wing propaganda sites a month or two ago, Jn. There was an interview a couple of years ago in which McCain talked about talking with Hamas because they were the elected government. Here is an article about from the Huffington Post. But it was a classic case of taking something out of context, a good example of how idealogues on the left are just as guilty of that kind of thing as idealogues on the right.

In any event, my main point is that Obama's position has always been that he would not negotiate or talk to Hamas until they accepted Israel's right to exist and renounced violence. Any suggestion to the contrary is a distortion of his views. The only argument to the contrary is to say that since Obama has stated that he would talk with the government of Iran, and Iran is a sponsor of Hamas, that is the de facto equivalent of talking to Hamas. I don't agree with that argument, but at least it is rooted in the truth. Saying that Obama has stated that he will negotiate with Hamas is not rooted in the truth.

[superwizard]

Jny I must say that was some of the most eloquent posts I've read about the current situation going on in the Middle East and especially Lebanon.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the moment that a an actual Palestinian state becomes likely I honestly believe that support for radical groups will fall. I base this off of many discussions I've had with people who support these groups and very frequently when I point out that these people are doing completely unethical and despicable acts against fellow human beings they retort by exclaiming that that is the only thing that these people can do and its an act of desperation and that somehow that makes it ok. Now frankly I don't buy the argument one bit (the quote in my signature quite accurately states my opinion) but that does not mean countless others do. If you want to decrease support for extremists all you have to do is inject hope-hope that has long fled these people and I honestly believe that the majority of them will turn around.

I should know really seeing as I'm a decendent of some of those 3 million Palestinians camped out in Lebanon.

[Túrin Turambar]

Well, Jny, it does seem to me that this sorry episode (did you notice that Hez horribly mutilated the soldiers' bodies as a final insult before returning them?) very heavily reinforces the point that you cannot negotiate with these people--and by extension nor with their puppeteers in Teheran, which Obama has stated he wants to do.

I don't think that you can take the position that far. For all it's faults, the Iranian Government is elected, legitimate (there is no other more so) and has a stake in promoting its interests by lawful and legitimate means. It isn't reasonable to compare it to a terrorist organisation, even if it does sponsor terrorism.

[Jnyusa]

Swiz, thanks! I've forgotten more history than I've remembered, but the Jewish and Lebanese populations in the US were once very closely allied. My grandmother's closest friends were Lebanese. I have the most fond memories of that community and of the years I spent living in the Arab community of Detroit. If I know how to cook anything edible today it's because of them!

[removed]

[vison]

As always, Jnyusa, interesting and informative posts. Thanks.

As mentioned in another thread, a senior diplomat, William Burns, is to meet with a high level Iranian and Ms. Rice is to meet with Korea's foreign minister.

Maybe too little too late, but maybe Mr. Bush and his cadres have finally come to their senses. Thinking about "the legacy", more likely. As if a couple of months of rational behavior could make up for 8 years of stupidity.

[halplm]

oh,this is most certainly a continuation of said stupidity.

[JewelSong]

oh,this is most certainly a continuation of said stupidity.

Because...?

[solicitr]

Jny, I repectfully disagree.

Abdullah did not invade the West Bank in 1948; it belonged to him under Sykes-Picot, which gave all of Palestine and Jordan to the Hashemites under British mandate

This is simply counterfactual.

Sykes-Picot was a bilateral Franco-British treaty to which the Arabs were not parties, and makes no mention of how each Power might or might not set up tributary rulers. (It really represented the Foreign Office' betrayal of the Arabs behind High Commissioner McMahon's back)

In 1921 (five years after Sykes-Picot), the British decided that Abdullah would administer East Palestine (the trans-Jordanian territories) on behalf of the (British) administration of Palestine. The independent Emirate of Transjordan was not established until 1923, and consisted of- the Transjordan. The name would have been nonsensical if the territory extended west of the Jordan Valley. Britain reserved the cisjordan (West Palestine) for itself, and the UN partition of the Palestine mandate did not (and legally could not) involve any of Abdullah's territory. It was indeed in 1948 that he invaded and annexed the Arab Partition, driving out its Jewish population in the process.

the war was fought (on the Arab side) by Palestinian irregulars from the cisjordan

Just the locals? Really? What of the Arab Liberation Army? The Army of the Holy War? The Iraqis under Nur-ad-din Mahmoud? The ten thousand Egyptians under al-Mwawi? The Syrian 1st Infantry Brigade?

"Five of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time, namely Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon and Syria, backed with Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents invaded the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948"

Some 23,000 Arab League troops were engaged, over and above the Palestinian militias (albeit the 8000 men of Abdullah's Arab Legion were only used to secure the Arab Partition for Amman, not to attack Israeli forces or intrude into the Jewish Partition).