Polycarp, your example supports my point, not denies it.

1986, US attacked Libya. It was not supported by European countries. Although the attack planes flew from UK, France, Spain, Italy refused air space. The jets flew through Maltese air space without approval. (What arrogance!)

Libya claimed “US had fallen prey to the arrogance and madness of power. It charged that any party that did not agree to become an American vassal was an outlaw, a terrorist, and a devil.” (Wikipedia). It is difficult to deny that claim, no matter what we think of Libya. (“Axis of Evil”,”You’re either with us or against us”)

“Some observers held ……. that UN Charter set limitations on the use of force in exercising the legitimate right of self-defense in the absence of an act of aggression, and affirmed that there was no such act by Libya. It was charged that the US did not bother to exhaust the Charter provisions for settling disputes”. (Wikipedia). Brutal militarism before diplomacy, and who cares about the rules, except when it suits us?

2008, US paid $300million in war reparations.

Two years after the 1986 bombing, Libya and its agents were responsible for the “Lockerbie Air Disaster”. Polycarp, the US bombing does not seem to have done much good.

Sanctions were placed on Libya in 1990s. “The full lifting of the sanctions, contingent on Libya's compliance with UN resolutions, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation, was passed in 2003, explicitly linked to the release of up to $2.7 billion in Libyan funds to the families of the Lockerbie attack's 270 victims.” (Wikipedia)

“2003, Libya announced it had agreed to reveal and end programs to develop WMD and renounce terrorism. Gadafi has made significant strides in normalizing relations with west since then.” (Wikipedia)

Polycarp, if you feel that the US aggression in 1986 was the principal reason for Libya’s turnaround, you live in a wonderful world. Perhaps it did play a part, but even you would have to give more than 90% of the credit to diplomacy.

Continued ...

Polycarp, you are really an inveterate misrepresenter. Of course there is blame. I am having to repeatedly make the point that blame is now irrelevant; conciliation is the issue. Finding someone to blame does not help. That’s kindergarten stuff. “He hit me first, Miss”.

BushBred, I have harboured no ill-feeling. You thought I had been criticising you when I was really railing against an ill-mannered contributor to these posts, and you were justified in “firing” back on that basis. I think you realise now what the position was.

You have been complimentary enough to seek my opinion on the issues you have raised concerning matters raised in the WA press. I really don’t feel I can comment without seeing all the items referred to. I have commented before in these posts concerning the creation of Israel. I do believe it has been handled badly, though I do agree, on balance, with the establishment of a Jewish state (though my dislike for religion is strong. We cannot ban it and stay democratic, but we can argue against it).

By the way, are you aware that Western Australia was once put forward as a location for the new Jewish state?

I note Hilary Clinton is today saying how US foreign policy will now change with an emphasis on diplomacy (reminds us of ‘Walk softly, carry a big stick’), but she says she won’t negotiate with Hamas until they renounce their policy towards Israel. The illogicality of her approach will eventually catch up with her. Diplomacy and negotiations are needed to encourage Hamas to change policy (remember Libya); they cannot be pre-requisites to negotiations. The problems of the Middle East have not been helped by this ostrich approach. “We won’t negotiate a settlement until you have agreed to our terms”. Not a good start, Hilary. Does US want peace?

You cannot negotiate with Hamas, my detractors say, but we don’t know for sure. It certainly will be very difficult, but you must invite them to the negotiating table and try, and try, and try again. Remember Libya.

Dear Harry.... you forcefully make the point "Blame is not the issue now but conciliation is" (paraphrase)

I agree. The 'blaming' for the Gaza situation is more for our own benefit and sense of moral outrage than anything else.

But.. while conciliation is noble, it cannot proceed if there are insurmountable barriers in the way.

The primary barrier is the HAMAS CHARTER and it's diabolical content.
(Last hour.. Muslims kill Jews etc)

I suppose people could romantically and idealistically 'claim' that it's violent, genocidal, murderous words are just 'posturing'..but for the Jews.. even sympolic or indirect posturing has more significance that for most of us.

But when murder and genocide are specifically spelt out..and linked to what are considered eternal ideas (Allah/Mohammad/Resurrection/Islam) then we have a most serious problem that no amount of diplomacy will ever solve.

This is clearly evidenced by the words of Abu Obeida, chief thug in the Kassam brigades of HAMAS.

"You can do what you like.. you haven't damaged us. we will continue to fire our rockets at you and their range will reach further and further into Israel"

Now..given the amount of carnage already experienced by the residents of Gaza, these kind of words are worse than inhuman.

The only words we should be hearing from Hamas are 'We surrender' just like we demanded from and received, from the Japanese and Germans
If they don't surrender, then they should get their wish of matrydom and a quick ticket to hell.

You don't negotiate with the likes of Abu Obeida, or Ismael Haniya or Khalid Mishaal or HAMAS type organizations.. you destroy them, without hesitation...and the problem goes away.

The Israel/neighbours problem will only ever be managed by force or the threat of force and balance of power...the core issues are unresolvable politically.

Polycarp, just as I have forcefully made the point that “blame is not the issue but conciliation is”, you have also forcefully made the point, that the “primary barrier is the Hamas charter”.

The Hamas charter is unpleasant, but it is only a barrier if it suits your political attitude. Hamas would love to get rid of Israel, but reality is more important. I don’t want to downplay the charter too much, but I think you are overplaying it. It suits Israel/US to take the stand off position and say they won’t negotiate with terrorists, or with Hamas because of the charter, but is that helping the situation?

Cheers

Norway has kept communications open with Hamas, and recognised their government. Norway was prominent in the nearly successful Oslo Accord; Norway has gained approval for its efforts as the honest broker in Sri Lanka. Norway is not “hung up” on the Hamas charter, and does not use it as an excuse for failure to negotiate.

The offensive Hamas charter should not be used as an excuse, but as a challenge.

“We will not communicate with Hamas because of their offensive Charter” is a specious, pathetic argument, a sophistry. I implore you to think again.

Whilst we disagree over this issue, I am not dogmatic enough to say that there is no circumstance under which you can be right. I can understand your solution, but see it as a solution only of last resort. There are situations when I would “unleash the dogs of war” but we are nowhere near a last resort while diplomacy has hardly been tried. Twenty years of Republican policy from the US out of the last 28 has not helped.

If we lose respect for life, what hope is there for us?

Are you just a realist, and I am just a dreamer? We’ll have to reflect and introspect in our quieter hours.

It will be interesting to see how Gaza plays out. How sweet it would be if cool heads and a negotiated peace were to win in the end. What a giant step for mankind!

Harry G.

You say >> “Finkelstein ... makes no effort to make us understand the plight of the Palestinians or the hatred of the Hamas militants”

Finkelsteins article is an Opinion piece. He is arguing the validity of his point, not asserting it as incontravertble fact. Finkelstein has not set out to convince us of the righteousness of Israel’s motives and actions(indeed he criticises them at times), he has attempted to explain them. So the need to explore Hamas’s motives and the plight of the Palestinians is nonexistent.

His central point, which is that many Israelis legitimately feel that they cannot rely upon the goodwill of the West to keep them safe, is backed up with historical reality. Alas, time and again, the Jews have learnt that no-one will come to their rescue. If they want to survive they need to take matters into their own hands.

UN resolutions regarding Israel are a joke. I won’t go into the statistics again, but suffice it to say that the UN and its many organisations are dominated by the enemies of Israel. Finkelstein makes the point that if the liberal opinion, which champions the UN to protect the rights of people such as the Jews, worked, there would have been no need for Israel in the first place.

These two pivotal paragraphs in Finkelsteins article resonate strongly with me.

>> “ The poverty and the death and the despair among the Palestinians in Gaza moves me to tears. How can it not? Who can see pictures of children in a war zone or a slum street and not be angry and bewildered and driven to protest? And what is so appalling is that it is so unnecessary. For there can be peace and prosperity at the smallest of prices. The Palestinians need only say that they will allow Israel to exist in peace. They need only say this tiny thing, and mean it, and there is pretty much nothing they cannot have.

Yet they will not say it. And they will not mean it. For they do not want the Jews.

TBC

cont'

Again and again - again and again - the Palestinians have been offered a nation state in a divided Palestine. And again and again they have turned down the offer, for it has always been more important to drive out the Jews than to have a Palestinian state. “

You say >> “He is being a little loose with the truth when he claims that Israel is ”no longer in Gaza, having withdrawn unilaterally and taken the settlers with it”. Israel still controls borders, taxes, airspace, supply of goods etc.

Yes, Israel still controls the airspace, borders etc for Gaza. Since there is no established Palestinian state, and since the many of the Palestinian organisations are hell bent on wreaking havoc on Israel, it seems highly prudent that Israel did not hand over total control of Gaza. Certainly the ensuing events reinforced the judiciousness of that decision. The Gazans did not use this opportunity to begin the road to statehood. They took it as a military victory which they hastily followed up with renewed rocket attacks from their new vantage points, closer to Israeli towns.

You say >> “Israel did not withdraw out of the goodness of its heart, or as part of an established peace plan”

This is simply preposterous. Do you really believe any of the parties are acting out of the “goodness of their hearts”? Israel voluntarily made a significant concession to the Palestinians.

Was it everything the Palestinians wanted? No. Was it a final offer from Israel? No.

Whatever Israel’s motives, the fact remains that the Israeli gov’t faced down a massive backlash from the religious and right wing elements in Israel for their policy of evicting (using force when needed) settlers from Gaza in order to return land to the Palestinians. This WAS a move towards peace that was not reciprocated.

Finally, you argue that the Hamas charter is used as excuse. But this is nonsense. Its not the words, it's the intention. Whilst Hamas are committed to the destruction of Israel, giving them concessions will merely encourage the violence, not stem it.