The problem with a cease fire...

[cigsandcoffee]

There have been countless cease-fires between Israel and Hizbolla/Hamas. Heaps of them. But not one has brought a lasting peace, and some could even argue that the problem grew worse in the long run.

What if a cease-fire had been declared between the axis and allied powers in WWII? Would that have led to as many years of general tranquility in the West that we had in the wake of that conflict? Or if the North and South in our own Civil War had declared a cease fire before a winner was evident, do you think it would have done anything for the national cohesion of our union?

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I'm pretty much content to see Israel and Hamas/Hizbolla slug it out to a bitter end. Not because I like war, and not because I'm in any way happy to see innocents die, but because I really can't see any other solution for a lasting peace over there other than the people picking up the ashes of defeat and moving in a different direction.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. Reluctantly, I concur nt/

[Zhade]

37. Pretty easy to do when it's not YOUR kids in the crossfire.

NT!

[malaise]

49. Bingo - it's just

brown people messing up the US/Israeli agenda.

[cigsandcoffee]

61. Or when it's not your kids blown up in discos, of course...

[hlthe2b]

2. re: "I'm pretty much content to see ....slug it out to bitter end"

Good God.... CONTENT? Jeebus help us all.... (going to go throw up now)

[cigsandcoffee]

4. Well, while you're upchucking...

...maybe you could think of a time when one of the countless cease fires in that neck of the woods did a damn thing to move the people there toward a peaceful relationship. I sure can't.

[kenny blankenship]

6. You don't remember the 90s apparently

[cigsandcoffee]

9. Sure I do. Lots of negotiations.

How'd they work out?

[kenny blankenship]

23. A Shitload better than war and they should be resumed

[hlthe2b]

7. Well, hell... restraint be damned... pull out the Nukes!

I mean, you are willing to let it go to its bitter end. At least the rapturists will be happy...:eyes:

[cigsandcoffee]

13. I could only hope it wouldn't come to that.

As long as Hizbolla doesn't have nukes themselves, I doubt it would.

[hlthe2b]

18. It only takes a few nuts to look upon the situation as hopeless...

and to unleash the nightmare scenario. There is no nation or faction that is free of such potential "nuts." That includes quite obviously, the US, Iran, and Israel. We can only pray the majority of sane people can restrain the few nuts. But, continuing to escalate the "eye for an eye" is a sure way to push the envelope... You just might get the bitter end you never wanted, but advocated.

[kenny blankenship]

3. maybe Israel could agree to negotiate final status w/ Palestinians

instead of constantly killing them? Then Hezbollah's grievance disappears and Israel could be given a chance to live up to the rhetoric of their propagandists by halting the destruction of Lebanon the instant Hezbollah stops firing rockets.
Wouldn't that be better than seeing Lebanon turned into Somalia?

[cigsandcoffee]

8. There have been lots of negotiations for just that...

Lots of them. Diplomacy up the ying yang.

And where are we today? Right back where we started. It's a vicious circle, and I fear that the eternal negotiations are just prolonging the killing and violence for generations.

I don't feel this way about world conflicts in general, but I am at a loss to see another path in this particular conflict.

[kenny blankenship]

12. No the KILLING is prolonging the killing and violence for generations

You realize you're advocating genocide ???

[cigsandcoffee]

16. I am not advicating genocide.

I'm throwing my hands up in the air and saying "whatever, just fucking slug it out and try to god damn well do something with the ugly aftermath."

Indeed, the killing has prolonged the struggle, especially the way it comes every so often in big drips and drabs, but not enough to foster real change. Perhaps that controlled boil is exactly what's prolonging the damn killing in the first place.

[barb162]

31. Actually it's not genocide at all

Is killing a suicide bomber genocide or self-defense? You're not going after a whole population, but the ones actively trying to kill you. Turkey going after the Armenians is genocide.

[fujiyama]

63. Killing suicide bombers

in covert operations is one thing (which is why I never had a major problem with Israel assassinating individual terrorists), but bombing civilian population centers is still a tactic I find reprehesable, even if the civilians aren't the "intended target".

It's worth remembering that individuals BECOME suicide bombers. I still haven't figured out how this recent Israeli incursion will help it against terrorist groups. Even if Hezbollah is formally "destroyed" as an organization, it will be back in another form, lobbing more rockets into Israel.

[Postman]

5. As far as WW II...

If republicans had been in control, there probably WOULD have been a cease-fire with Germany.

Roosevelt was hounded by the corporate rightwing loonies as being a "socialist" due to his programs.

You think they wouldn't have cut a deal with Hitler if they had the chance?

[hlthe2b]

10. Sadly, this bit of history has been lost to most...

The Republicans did everything possible to undercut FDR...

[cigsandcoffee]

11. I don't know, maybe.

Do you think it would have given us a lasting peace between the powers? I doubt it.

[rucky]

14. While I strongly oppose this approach...

this is how both sides appear to want things.

[Jim__]

15. Of course, using that logic, ...

:sarcasm:

... we should have let the Serbs slaughter the Muslims in Bosnia. After all, they had been fighting and killing each other for hundreds of years; and now, after Tito sat on them and kept a peace for 50 or so years, as soon as he's gone, they're back at it. So what's the point of stopping the slaughter?

For that matter, wasn't Hitler really right about killing off the Jews in Europe? After all, Christians and Jews had been fighting in Europe for hundreds of years. It has to end somehow. It's not that I want to see anyone killed; but let's be realistic, it's been going on for hundreds of years.

And, of course, you're right. Hizboolah been around for almost 25 years now and there's no lasting peace. What's the point of trying to find a peaceful solution? So a few innocent Lebanese get in the way. Hey, you can't make an omelet without smashing a few eggs.

And, of course, if Israel wipes out Hizboolah, well, that will be the end of fighting and killing in the Middle East, won't it?

[MadHound]

17. Go read your history friend, that solution was tried before

And it didn't work then, and it won't work now. What was the result of the '67 War? Or the Yom Kippur War? All that happened was another generation was brought up hating each other, laying the groundwork for future wars and future atrocities. Sorry, but laying waste to the land and declaring it peace is not a viable, moral or ethical decision.

Rather, the UN has got to step in and seperate the two sides, and bring everybody in the region to the negotiations table and hammer out a lasting peace. This is going to require all sides to give on some things. Hamas and Hezbollah are going to have to recognize Israel's right to exist, in peace. Israel is going to have to give up some of its land to create a Palestinian state. And the US is going to have to stop selling arms to both sides in order to make an almighty buck.

Besides, letting this war continue simply plays into Bushco's hands. Because the longer this drags on, the greater the chance that Iran or Syria will become involved in some way, thus providing the perfect excuse that Bushco needs to invade those countries and fulfill all of their PNAC dreams.

Sorry, but the furtherence of death and destruction is not an option.

[cigsandcoffee]

20. Been there, done that.

Those wars also ended in cease fires and negotiations. And round we go again....

Your wish list is a wonderful thought, but I see no evidence that the countless times negotiations have been tried has worked to do anything but continue the violence. Why would Hizbolla and Hamas suddenly decide to recognize Israel's right to exist? What's their motivation, if not to stop an ongoing punitivee war?

[MadHound]

27. Technically ALL wars end with a cease fire

Generally followed by a negotiated end, with the victor walking away with the spoils. Let's witness who walked away with what after the Six Day War. Israel got the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It is apparent that they were the winner in that conflict. Yet what good did that do them? It set the stage for the Yom Kippur war, and bred the next generation of Palestinians with a deep seated hatred of Israel.

Same deal with the Yom Kippur war, Israel repulsed the attacks, and went on to win the war. Yet what good did it do? Another generation of terrorists were born, and even the US suffered the blowback for our support of Israel, or have your forgotten the Arab oil embargo?

Sorry friend, but like I said earlier, laying waste to the land and declaring it peace is not an option. All it does is breeds future generations bound for war and revenge. Like Ghandi said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I understand your frustration with the situation, and what prompts your "solution". But it is an immoral and unethical solution, and one that will only breed more bloodshed in the future.

And as far as successful negotiations go, simply witness the peaceful relations between Jordan, Egypt and Israel. Negotiations and ceasefires can bring about peace. In fact they're ultimately the only way that true longlasting peace can be achieved. To think otherwise is simply deluding oneself, or just giving in to despair and evil.

[cigsandcoffee]

34. Some wars end with unconditional surrender

Such wars seem to result in the longest peace afterwards.

[MadHound]

42. That's open to debate also

WWI ended with unconditional surrender, and it led directly to WWII. The American Revolution ended with conditional surrender, yet it led to the War of 1812. Meanwhile Korean War ended with a cease fire that has held for over fifty years(granted there have been flare ups here and there, but all in all it has been a fairly peaceful resolution).

However looking at the ME specifically wars that have ended in total Israeli victory have always led to violence and further armed conflict on down the road.

[hlthe2b]

22. Exactly... the legacy of violence and death is further violence and

death...


Paraphrasing Einstein: the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over, yet expecting a different outcome....

[Finder]

19. Ireland. n/t

[cigsandcoffee]

21. Still divided. It's only "halftime" there.

[hlthe2b]

25. Ahh so all those years of peace and freedom from fear of

random violence is not a success... Yearning for the good ole days of bombs and revenge killings?


How can we NEVER learn from our mistakes? :shrug:

[cigsandcoffee]

46. The IRA were marginalized by their own people.

There is no such danger of that happening to Hamas and Hizbolla. And don't think for a minute that the Irish Nationalists aren't biding their time, anyway.

[atreides1]

28. The Protestants chose to remain with the UK

"Treaty recognised the two-state solution created in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Northern Ireland was presumed to form a home rule state within the new Irish Free State unless it opted out. Northern Ireland had a majority Protestant population which feared becoming a minority in a majority Catholic state. Not unexpectedly it opted out of the new state and chose instead to remain part of the United Kingdom. A Boundary Commission was set up to decide on the boundaries between the two Irish states, though it was subsequently abandoned after it recommended only minor adjustments to the border. Disagreements over some provisions of the treaty led to a split in the Nationalist movement and subsequently to the Civil War. The civil war ended in 1923 with the defeat of the Anti-treaty forces."

There is no half-time with Ireland, until the Catholics become the majority at least. Ireland seems to be very happy and not all that concerned about Northern Ireland at this point in time. It could be because they realize the problems it will cause.

[Demit]

24. What bitter end? It's not like there's a static number of enemies, and as

soon as they're dead the words "game over" flashes on the screen. Each round of hostilities produces a fresh set of enemies who hate each other, all set to finish off the other once and for all, all over again.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cigsandcoffee]

32. You misspelled "you're"

But that's not a personal attack, either.

And anyway, you may want to sharpen your debating skills if you plan on being convincing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. I'm convinced.

[TahitiNut]

29. Well, then, while they're at it, we should give Hezbollah and Hamas ...

... more accurate rockets. After all, we see how much better the IDF does in avoiding 'collateral damage' (killing children) so it'd save the lives of children if Hezbollah had more accurate rockets, right?

[katinmn]

30. Mr. Bolton agrees with you.

[Bake]

35. I share your pessimism if not your conclusion

Frankly, I'm not exactly optimistic that either negotiations OR war will result in a lasting peace. The only solution that seems acceptable to either side is the complete destruction of the other. Were I an Israeli, I would suspect that the Arab states, bottom line, want me dead. Some have called for the complete destruction of Israel. How exactly does one "negotiate" with that sentiment?

I think Israel has shown itself to be open to negotiation, and to concessions in the interest of peace. The other side has been less willing to concede anything. While I am certain that all-out war will not result in peace, and must be avoided if at all possible, neither am I optimistic about negotiations.

With whom should Israel negotiate, when there is no "state" officially involved? There will be no peace as long as there are militant groups like Hezbollah which recognize no national borders.

Bake

[Zhade]

36. So, not only is the Israeli government's killing of civilians dismissed...

...but now DUers are advocating AGAINST a cease-fire?

Are you SURE you're on the right forum? And no, I'm not suggesting THAT place, but this is a progressive board, and progressives generally DON'T support more war and death.

[cigsandcoffee]

40. A progressive advocates what works, and not wishes

I don't see any evidence that the multitude of negotiated cease fires in this neverending conflict have done anything but extend the misery.

Is it progressive to advocate a demonstrably failing policy of negotiation that results in nonstop attrition? Or is it just wishful thinking?

[Zhade]

41. It may be both, and certainly less cavalier with OTHERS' lives.

NT!

[cigsandcoffee]

44. Who is being cavalier?

Far from seeking more killing, I am wondering whether things have to really explode before true healing can begin. Like you, I seek a lasting peace.

Or do progressives have to be ideological pacifists even if they think such a tactic will result in a neverending cycle of killing?

[Zhade]

52. Well, when civilians are being indiscriminately bombed...

...progressives don't tend to encourage the situation that causes said bombing, I think.

[mmonk]

38. You're so right. Keep on killing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Re: Your flag. How many cease-fires before peace in Ireland?

I recall a seemingly endless war in Northern Ireland, and countless cease-fires, but it eventually ended without a "clear winner".

Nor did the Brits find it necessary to bomb Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Belfast or Londonderry.

[cigsandcoffee]

43. Apples and oranges

Dublin, Limerick and Cork were in the Republic. To the best of my knowledge, no attacks came from the Republic on the British mainland. Of course, the British had already pulverised those areas during rebeliions before nationhood, and I'm sure they would have had no problem doing so again if it were merited.

As to Belfast and Derry, I don't know why the British would bomb their own possessions instead of doing what they did - rolling in the army and slaughtering or incarcerating as many combatants as they could find.

Rest assured that if the Republic had been mounting rocket attacks from their land against British soil, England would have responded brutally. That's just their way. As it were, the IRA became a mostly toothless organization after years of attrition by British forces, and a wariness of the bloodshed from people on both sides. No such conditions are at play among Hizbolla and Hamas, whose radical goals enjoy much popular (and state) support. They can not be compromised the way that the IRA was.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Bollocks.

The situation is comparable.

The IRA was based in the Republic, transported arms and explosives into the UK, even committed terrorist acts in London itself. Sinn Fein held, and still does, seats in the Dail - just as Hezbullah does in the Lebanese Parliament. Atrocities were committed on both sides and both sides manipulated long held hatreds. Just as both sides are doing now in the Middle East fanned by the intervention the US. Just as Irish Americans, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant preachers fanned the flames in the Republic and UK.

Your call for "letting them slug it out" in the case of the Republic vs Britain would have had the same effect that the bombing and invasion of Lebanon is going to have. Cooler heads and tough negotiations, often fruitless, with agreements, often broken, finally resulted in peace.

My grandmother was born and raised in County Mayo and fled the poverty brought on by the Brit overlords and hated them to her dying day.

Despite the miserable history of violence and hatred in the ME, at some point, they're going to have to actually talk to each other and work out a way to live together. Just as has happened in Ireland.

[mmonk]

45. They can keep killing or stop killing. The rest is spin.

[cigsandcoffee]

47. Oh, God, if only it were that simple.

I wish it were.

[mmonk]

51. They first have to decide. Then some intermediaries

need to help. Unfortunately, it's real hard. Especially since Hezbollah isn't answerable to anyone. But someone somewhere could lean on them and stop weapons flows.

[Bridget Burke]

48. Is that people stop dying for a while....

I can see why that would be a problem for SOME people.

I'm not one of them.

[Spazito]

53. I always find it, oh, I don't know, interesting when I see this...

"I'm pretty much content to see (insert appropriate country/"terra-ist group) slug it out..." when the person is safely ensconced, far, far away from the death and destruction they are "content to see".

I can only ask if you are planning actually join up somewhere where you can be "content" close up?

You may not be able to join up with the IDF or the Hezbollah but there is always Iraq or Afghanistan.

Edited to correct spelling error.

[cigsandcoffee]

54. What a lame little bit of "holier than thou."

Gee, you're for peace and the laying down of arms by Hezbolla and Israel. What a brave and reasonable position that is. Damn. Why didn't they think of that?

I suggest you go run for office in either place, and float your simple and wonderful proposals there. See how well it works for you.

[Spazito]

56. Wow, seems I hit a sore spot, gee......

I wonder why?

[cigsandcoffee]

59. Because it's a moronic comment.

It's like saying: "What? You won't join me in saying that Hezbolla and Israel should join hands and sing Kumbaya instead of fighting? Warmonger! Go join the fighting and die!"

We all want peace. I'm afraid that the diplomatic and peace process route is doing nothing but continuing the killing for generations. If you're not, then fine.

[Spazito]

66. So more killing will bring peace?

but stopping the killing won't. Wow....just wow.

[bigtree]

55. horrible endorsement of violence

We should advocate and work for peace. Violence is more likely to spread than it is to consume itself.

[cigsandcoffee]

58. No, no. I'm not for peace.

I like war. More war!

Of course I want peace there. Who doesn't? But I think that the eternal forced negotiations keep things at an ongoing boiling point, and actually PROLONG the killing. Have you considered this?

[bigtree]

64. nonsense

you are advocating more violence.

The negotiations are not forced. Cease-fire would allow negotiations without having more killings further inflame things. You can't ignore the violence that spins off of these conflicts either.

Remember the hijackings in the '70's?

[Spazito]

57. Here is an interesting graphic that puts the question in perspective

(thanks to xultar)

Middle East Crisis:
Who backs an immediate ceasefire?

21 July 2006





http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=699486

[cigsandcoffee]

60. A ceasefire would be nice, wouldn't it?

Why, who could be against that?

The people who are sick of being killed in terrorist attacks, for one. I wonder what Norway or Canada's position would be if the rockets were headed their way, and suicide bombers were blowing up their elderly diners at seaside restaurants.

[Spazito]

65. They/we would be for a cease fire, a resolution

It seems you are in a very, very select group, a tiny group, in your support of more death and destruction, thank goodness.

[fujiyama]

62. I see your point

to some extent.

But at what point does Israel "defeat" Hezbollah? Hezbollah is integrated within the state, but has plenty of support outside of it as well.

Even if Israel destroys Lebanon and much of it is now, will that eventually bring about a lasting peace? This isn't a traditional war with a traditional peace, where some Hezbollah "general" will negotiate the terms of a surrender.

Unfortunately I think the recent attacks by Israel will not be one step closer to defeating an enemy that sees little hope in life anyways.