7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict

[umair127]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

[umair127]

I disagree with the author’s assertion that this is a tribal conflict. Having followed tribal conflicts in many other states like Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia the Israeli-Palestinian struggle lacks many aspects that define traditional tribal struggles. Just to use as an example, the power dynamics are not very tribal. Hamas isn’t a familial or local structure, nor is Fatah / the Palestinian Authority, nor is the Israeli central government, and likewise their power structures are not based on the same flexible loyalty systems that seek to check power dominance that are seen in heavily tribalized conflicts. Tribal conflicts rather depend on weak central governments, and Hamas and the Israeli government have much stronger centralized powers than tribes do. Hamas with its loose militant coalition allies that don’t always listen to it might be more ‘tribal’, but Israel certainly isn’t in its execution of conflict.

Do you agree, then, that we shouldn't pick sides?

What do you think of this line?

    Choosing sides in these kinds of conflicts fuels them further and deepens the polarization. And worst of all, you get blood on your hands.

[sana8410]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them?

[umair127]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them?

That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target.

[zolace]

I disagree with the author’s assertion that this is a tribal conflict. Having followed tribal conflicts in many other states like Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia the Israeli-Palestinian struggle lacks many aspects that define traditional tribal struggles. Just to use as an example, the power dynamics are not very tribal. Hamas isn’t a familial or local structure, nor is Fatah / the Palestinian Authority, nor is the Israeli central government, and likewise their power structures are not based on the same flexible loyalty systems that seek to check power dominance that are seen in heavily tribalized conflicts. Tribal conflicts rather depend on weak central governments, and Hamas and the Israeli government have much stronger centralized powers than tribes do. Hamas with its loose militant coalition allies that don’t always listen to it might be more ‘tribal’, but Israel certainly isn’t in its execution of conflict.

Do you agree, then, that we shouldn't pick sides?

What do you think of this line?

    Choosing sides in these kinds of conflicts fuels them further and deepens the polarization. And worst of all, you get blood on your hands.

I would not agree. I do pick sides for example. I just think that they should be more nuanced than "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israel". I find those definitions of sides to be too generic and not very productive in terms of analyzing where the problems are. I would also argue that the right 'side' would be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine because it would be pro peace and stability rather than pro-insert some specific or arbitrary goal here (like driving Israel into the sea, or establishing greater Israel).

[sana8410]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them?

That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target.

How do you know what side to pick? The U.S. has a long history of picking the wrong guy--Sadam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, the list goes on.

[umair127]

Your point would have been better if we weren't already involved, but we are and have been from the get go. Ignoring the reality of that involvement isn't very prudent when it comes to national defense.

[zolace]

There is nothing anti-Israeli about asserting that a two state solution is needed, and there is nothing anti-Palestinian about asserting that the use of Al Qassam rockets is a war crime.

[umair127]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them?

That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target.

How do you know what side to pick? The U.S. has a long history of picking the wrong guy--Sadam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, the list goes on.

Well that's where the discourse and the current debate comes into play.

[sana8410]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them?

That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target.

How do you know what side to pick? The U.S. has a long history of picking the wrong guy--Sadam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, the list goes on.

Well that's where the discourse and the current debate comes into play.

I just do not trust that any level of discourse and debate will help. We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.

[zolace]

I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.

It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests.

Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them?

That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target.

How do you know what side to pick? The U.S. has a long history of picking the wrong guy--Sadam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, the list goes on.

Polarization occurs naturally over time as conflict persists, but I think it is also made more (or less) potent by how the conflict is publicly discussed. Choosing a side doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that, though it can depending on how you want to define the 'sides'. If we simply paint this as a shallow Islam vs. Judaism conflict or Jew vs. Arab conflict then yeah, that is naturally going to be pretty polarizing over time (and we have seen this especially with the latter). The ironic thing is that this author cautions against polarization, but then uses heavily polarizing rhetoric when labeling this conflict as a religious one. I'd say that reductionism is a big culprit here for polarization.

[sana8410]

We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.

[umair127]

We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.

I think you are forgetting here that we are already very involved in this issue and have been for decades. Ignoring that fact and not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It seems that perhaps your stance is though that we shouldn't be involved at all? Which is fine, but that is far removed from 'not caring'.

[sana8410]

We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.

I think you are forgetting here that we are already very involved in this issue and have been for decades. Ignoring that fact and not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It seems that perhaps your stance is though that we shouldn't be involved at all? Which is fine, but that is far removed from 'not caring'.

I am not saying we have to drop everything in medias res, but I would like us to start to back away, slowly.

[umair127]

We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.

I think you are forgetting here that we are already very involved in this issue and have been for decades. Ignoring that fact and not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It seems that perhaps your stance is though that we shouldn't be involved at all? Which is fine, but that is far removed from 'not caring'.

I am not saying we have to drop everything in medias res, but I would like us to start to back away, slowly.

Which is fine, but in order for that to happen, we have to talk about it and promote wider open discourse on the subject. We have to put forth strong arguments on why we shouldn't be involved (or less involved) if we are to overcome entrenched long standing mechanism / groups that have kept us there and kept us so active, in the first place.

[noviapriani]

bottom line is that there is no end in sight. And not likely to be one in our lifetimes or even longer.

Hatred is taught on both sides by the families if not the government. As long as that happens it will continue.

Both sides might want to look at the Northern Ireland situation. If not completely successful it has gone much better - and the hatred there was every bit as great.

[umair127]

1.) The Gaza Strip isn't occupied by Israel

Boston Globe: "Israeli-imposed buffer zones.. now absorb nearly 14 percent of Gaza's total land and at least 48 percent of total arable land. Similarly, the sea buffer zone covers 85 percent of the maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, reducing 20 nautical miles to three." Human Rights Watch: "Israel also continues to control the population registry for residents of the Gaza Strip, years after it withdrew its ground forces and settlements there." B'Tselem, 2013: "Israel continues to maintain exclusive control of Gaza's airspace and the territorial waters, just as it has since it occupied the Gaza Strip in 1967."


2.) Israel wants a ceasefire but Hamas doesn't

Al Jazeera: "Meshaal said Hamas wants the 'aggression to stop tomorrow, today, or even this minute. But [Israel must] lift the blockade with guarantees and not as a promise for future negotiations'. He added 'we will not shut the door in the face of any humanitarian ceasefire backed by a real aid programme'." Jerusalem Post: "One day after an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire accepted by Israel, but rejected by Hamas, fell through, the terrorist organization proposed a 10-year end to hostilities in return for its conditions being met by Israel, Channel 2 reported Wednesday.. Hamas's conditions were the release of re-arrested Palestinian prisoners who were let go in the Schalit deal, the opening of Gaza-Israel border crossings in order to allow citizens and goods to pass through, and international supervision of the Gazan seaport in place of the current Israeli blockade." BBC: "Israel's security cabinet has rejected a week-long Gaza ceasefire proposal put forward by US Secretary of State John Kerry 'as it stands'."


3.) Israel, unlike Hamas, doesn't deliberately target civilians

The Guardian: "It was there that the second [Israeli] shell hit the beach, those firing apparently adjusting their fire to target the fleeing survivors. As it exploded, journalists standing by the terrace wall shouted: 'They are only children.'" UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay: "A number of incidents, along with the high number of civilian deaths, belies the [Israeli] claim that all necessary precautions are being taken to protect civilian lives." United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 2009: "The tactics used by the Israeli armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it.. appears to have been precisely what was put into practice."


4.) Only Hamas is guilty of war crimes, not Israel

Human Rights Watch: "Israeli forces may also have knowingly or recklessly attacked people who were clearly civilians, such as young boys, and civilian structures, including a hospital - laws-of-war violations that are indicative of war crimes." Amnesty International: "Deliberately attacking a civilian home is a war crime, and the overwhelming scale of destruction of civilian homes, in some cases with entire families inside them, points to a distressing pattern of repeated violations of the laws of war."


5.) Hamas use the civilians of Gaza as 'human shields'

Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: "I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields." The Guardian: "In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay." The Independent: "Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields." Reuters, 2013: "A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields."


6.) This current Gaza conflict began with Hamas rocket fire on 30 June 2014

Times of Israel: "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn't fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012." The Nation: "During ten days of Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank [before the start of the Gaza conflict], Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011."


7.) Hamas has never stopped firing rockets into Israel

Jewish Daily Forward: "Hamas hadn't fired a single rocket since [2012 Gaza conflict], and had largely suppressed fire by smaller jihadi groups. Rocket firings, averaging 240 per month in 2007, dropped to five per month in 2013." International Crisis Group: "Fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001, and nearly all those that were fired between the November 2012 ceasefire and the current crisis were launched by groups other than Hamas; the Israeli security establishment testified to the aggressive anti-rocket efforts made by the new police force Hamas established specifically for that purpose.. As Israel (and Egypt) rolled back the 2012 understandings - some of which were implemented spottily at best - so too did Hamas roll back its anti rocket efforts."


8.) Hamas provoked Israel by kidnapping and killing three Israeli teenagers

Jewish Daily Forward: "The [Israeli] government had known almost from the beginning that the boys were dead. It maintained the fiction that it hoped to find them alive as a pretext to dismantle Hamas' West Bank operations.. Nor was that the only fib. It was clear from the beginning that the kidnappers weren't acting on orders from Hamas leadership in Gaza or Damascus. Hamas' Hebron branch -- more a crime family than a clandestine organization -- had a history of acting without the leaders' knowledge, sometimes against their interests." BBC correspondent Jon Donnison: "Israeli police MickeyRosenfeld tells me men who killed 3 Israeli teens def lone cell, hamas affiliated but not operating under leadership.. Seems to contradict the line from Netanyahu government."


9.) Hamas rule, not Israel's blockade, is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip

US State Department cable: "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.. Israeli officials have confirmed.. on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge." The Guardian: "The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza's daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010, according to files the defence ministry released on Wednesday under a court order.. The Israeli advocacy group Gisha.. waged a long court battle to release the document. Its members say Israel calculated the calorie needs for Gaza's population so as to restrict the quantity of food it allowed in."


10.) The Israeli government, unlike Hamas, wants a two-state solution

Times of Israel: "[Netanyahu] made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.. Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, 'I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.'"


11.) All serious analysts agree it was Hamas, and not Israel, that started this current conflict

Nathan Thrall, senior Mid East analyst at the International Crisis Group, writing in the New York Times: "The current escalation in Gaza is a direct result of the choice by Israel and the West to obstruct the implementation of the April 2014 Palestinian reconciliation agreement." Henry Siegman, former national director, American Jewish Congress, writing for Politico: "Israel's assault on Gaza.. was not triggered by Hamas' rockets directed at Israel but by Israel's determination to bring down the Palestinian unity government that was formed in early June, even though that government was committed to honoring all of the conditions imposed by the international community for recognition of its legitimacy."


Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...gaza-israel

[Rigon]

This is why I don't really have a side in that conflict. I see both sides as crazy, religious/cultural fanatics that would rather die than come to a rational compromise. The ones that remain there are nuts. They live to propagate the hatred.

[umair127]

This is why I don't really have a side in that conflict. I see both sides as crazy, religious/cultural fanatics that would rather die than come to a rational compromise. The ones that remain there are nuts. They live to propagate the hatred.

I've always had a problem with this kind of stance. I've heard a lot of people make such comments before and they always seem like cop outs to me; some vague attempt to appear 'balanced' or 'moderate'. But such a stance rarely has any real depth to it. such catch alls don't work in this issue (they rarely do in conflict in general). Just like the "it's both sides" argument. It's very clearly more one side than the others here when it comes to barriers to peace. There is also more than two sides, so the breaking of the conflict into only two pieces I find shallow in general.

[Rigon]

I also agree the best answer is for the US to gradually withdraw, leaving the status quo in place, and letting both sides know they deserve each other. Neither side can really win without a complete genocide, and that will reap it's own problems. As Umair127 mentioned, it needs to be properly discussed, and the consequences need to be clearly laid out...mostly for the benefit of the Israelis/Palestinians, who will not be happy with that outcome.