Violence is not the reflexive resort of Palestinians. There are mountains of evidence to show that they have been far more willing to negotiate than Israel has been over the last 30 years.
1) I'm talking about leaders not the population at large & 2) so long as we're clear that's it's cos negotiation is more likely to bear fruit for them than armed conflict & not cos they're just inherently more open to negotiation than the (violent, negotiation-subverting) Israelis - tbf perhaps I should have just read this from your first post on the matter.
And what do the other Arab states have to do with the statement I was responding to? The last time an 'Arab' state used violence against Israel was in the first gulf war.
do they not have a major,. if not the prime, role in making sure that causes which drive the causes of violence (josef's 2nd tier) continue to exist? by refusing to aid the Palestinians or to take any of them in except in places where the govt is too weak to keep them out (& even there both countries eventually kicked the PLO out at gunpoint).
Israel has had an overwhelming advantage in terms of force against all other states in the region since the 70s if not earlier, and of course this idea of Israel fighting against a 'sea of (hostile) Arab states' is a perennial myth. Nearly all the states surrounding Israel have either been absorbed into a regional framework dominated by the US (Egypt, Jordan), have shown a willingness to accept Israel in return for territory (Lebanon - and recently Syria), or have been neutralised as a military threat (Iraq). That leaves Iran, which despite the rhetoric and support for Hezbollah, have displayed far less hostile intent to Israel than Israel has to Iran.
I guess though that it is fair to say that some form of hostility from neighbouring states (or their populations) is an occupational hazard of colonialism.
no it's not a myth. jesus christ. I didn't say "hostile Arab states" I said sea of Arabs. that's not to meant to be derogtary before you get your dander up. tho it's true that it's more nuanced - there have always been relatively good relations with Jordan for example. I'm also dubious about your assertion about Egypt (Mubarak, sure, but how much control does his regime have) & surely you understand why being "accepted" in return for bribes of land isn't exactly something to leap for joy about - tho I'm sure the Israelis will continue do it if it makes sense - they're nothing if not pragmatic.
& where's the home empire then that the
pied noirs will go back to when this all comes crashing down? I find flippant remarks about colonialism to be pretty specious - especially as if any of the neighboring Arab states could give two shits about the Palestinians other than as a public relations tool - another fact that has mountains of evidence behind it.
So Israel was 'restrained'...Speaking of perspective - Apartheid South Africa was certainly 'restrained' in comparison to Nazi Germany, but what does that tell us?
you know what I meant. & I stand by it. you don't have to list off Israel's sundry crimes mate...I'm well aware of them, my dad's a rightwing religious Israeli nutbag...of course the Nazis have to get dragged into it. I dunno tho, what do
you think that tells us, since you brought it up?
I take your point, but Id add that its always possible to point to other conflicts as being worse or more brutal, but without context you end up comparing apples to oranges. Obviously global public opinion does have an effect on Israels policies, but mainly in relation to how it effects US perception of their actions. Israel is not restrained in any way by the UN, and I don't think its too ridiculous to state that the only state that could restrain them has chosen not to - and in fact supplies them with massive military aid despite their actions.
that's exactly what I intended, to put it in context. you're perhaps thinking by "restrained" I meant morally justiifed. I just meant they physically have the ability to inflict greater damage & they choose not for a variety of reasons, some of which have to do with outside influence, others with segments of their population or other self-serving interests.
