Carrol Cox writes:
Marvin Gandall wrote:
Whatever the Israeli government's immediate objectives - it seems mostly
to
be responding in panic to resurgent military and right-wing pressure
within
the country in the wake of the kidnappings - the lasting significance of
this episode may well be the abandonment of its plans for unilateral
withdrawal from the Palestinian areas of the West Bank.
After 50 years in which the intentions of Israel to expand have never
waned; after 50 years in which every single one of Israel's calls for
"security" has been a cover for aggression, can you really say with a
straight face that Israel's concern is security?
=============================
I wrote the following earlier today in reply to a similar contribution on
the LBO list:
"--------- wrote:
Marvin thinks, ``In order to effect any kind of withdrawal, though,
Israel needs security guarantees...''
We certainly know from past experience that all Israel ever wanted was
security guarantees, and peace would break out like small pox all over
the Middle East. After all the only secure Arab is a dead Arab.
What are we waiting for? Let's start handing out blankets.
=========================
I don't understand your point. Probably you didn't understand mine.
What has this to do with smallpox-laced blankets?
I wrote that the raids and shellings may convince the Israelis that they
can't expect to unilaterally withdraw and have secure borders unless they
come to some kind of accomodation with Hamas instead of trying to overthrow
it by force - endorsing what seems to me to be a realistic assessment of the
current situation by Ben-Ami, the former Israeli foreign minister. Hamas has
a parallel interest, which it has stated openly, in an extended ceasefire
and international political legitimacy which would allow it to rebuild
Palestinian society.
This being the case, I said "though it may be hard to see through the
current fog of war and high emotion, it's not to be ruled out that the logic
of a mutually exhausting stalemate will push both parties in the direction
he (Ben-Ami) outlines."
It can't be glibly ruled in either, but why do you so glibly dismiss it out
of hand? It could be that neither the Kadima/Labour nor Hamas leaderships
have the political will or the strength to overcome the hatreds and
irredentist forces (Likud, "rejectionist" Islamists) on both sides - but
these are still open questions.
Maybe this explains our differing perceptions. A part of the left has an
unfortunate tendency, IMO, to see only catastrophic crises and decisive
struggles ahead. This has often blinded it to the fact that in both the
political and economic realms the contending parties mostly but not always
conclude that the outcome of a "final conflict" is uncertain, and therefore
not in their respective interests to pursue to the end.
Even the very worst black-hatted capitalists and imperialists do their sums,
and things in the Middle East are not presently adding up for them as they
hoped at the onset of the Bush and Sharon administrations. So, as a once
avid poker player, I'm not as convinced as others on this list that the US
and Israelis are going to dramatically up the ante on what they (and their
opponents) increasingly perceive as a losing hand - ie. a wider war with
Iran.
Unless things really spin out of control, I think it's more likely that the
Israelis will move in the other direction after venting their fury and
flexing their muscle against safer Lebanese and Palestinian targets. We'll
see."
