Well, we all predicted some kind of "incident" in the Persian Gulf after this ramp up in Naval sabre rattling.

So now we have a bunch of Brits taken captive (and apparently tortured into "confessing" to crimes) by Iran.

And yet, watching the news, I can't find any stories about anything other than Anna Nicole Smith.

So I can't tell if the Anna Nicole necrophilia is supposed to be distracting me from Abu Gonzoles, or the Gulf of Tonk-, er I mean Persian Gulf incident. . .

The parties have not reached their "Northern Ireland" consensus yet. The moment at which the leadership on both sides are determined enough to end the violence that they keep moving through provocations and atrocities. It takes vision, guts and determination.

Incidently this is why Rabin was assissinated. His political ennemies on the far right saw someone who was determined and could bring the people with him. We may all moan about the poverty of the Palestinean leadership, but Isreal does not exactly have leaders capable of leading through the storms right now.

Sorry but there's an implicit equivalence here that simply doesn't apply. Israel may do something stupid or provocative, but if they do the point will be that the government doesn't want to deal at this time. If someone on the Palestinian side does something, the point will be to demonstrate that the PA doesn't have the power or authority to deal.

During the Northern Ireland negotiations, there were repeated attempts by IRA splinter groups (e.g. "the Real IRA") to derail the talks, and these efforts didn't succeed because all sides saw them for what they were.

However, the Israeli political establishment will hold the Palestinian government responsible for any attack, which means that even if the Hamas part of the coalition government agrees to play ball and renounce violence, some faction will not, and this will be taken as an excuse to stop the talks.

nobody is willing to acknowledge it up front and agree to keep forging ahead even when the extremists on the other side do something inflammatory.

At least a few of the "moderates" want the process to stall out when the extremists lash out.

At least a few of the "moderates" want the process to stall out when the extremists lash out.
Posted by: dj moonbat on March 26, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

If it would be possible to be an Extremist Moderate, then I think that would be a good description of me.

The Extremists on both sides should all be marched out into a field somewhere, and shot, their corpses left to feed the rats and birds; so that those of us in the middle can get on with life.

The Extremists on both sides should all be marched out into a field somewhere, and shot, their corpses left to feed the rats and birds; so that those of us in the middle can get on with life.
Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld

My step-father, a veteran of the War in the Pacific, always told me: 'True believers are inherently dangerous. They start the wars but they are never around to clean up the mess afterward.'

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. -George Orwell

Israel may do something stupid or provocative, but if they do the point will be that the government doesn't want to deal at this time.

You think Israel acts as a monolith, while the Palestinians are composed of different factions competing for influence? What exactly leads you to think this way? What do you mean by "the government", in speaking of Israel? It's a writhing mess of different factions with different policy outlooks; the idea that the Meretz cabinet members are on board with the Shin Bet's decisions about timing on airstrikes against Hamas leaders seems pretty baseless to me. If you're going to start getting into the complexity of different factions and their interests, do it evenhandedly.

Kevin's hinting in the right direction: this problem will only start moving towards real solutions when bold leaders (and publics) on both sides stand for peace and negotiation even after trouble happens.

...this problem will only start moving towards real solutions when bold leaders (and publics) on both sides stand for peace and negotiation even after trouble happens.
Posted by: Neil B. on March 26, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

This will only happen when voters stop electing people who profit from conflict. You know - paying attention to simple things like ethical conflicts of interest (example: Cheney getting paid by Halliburton - Dick may CLAIM that this is not a conflict of interest, but someone claiming they have no conflict, don't make it so).

If such a thing happens, Israel will be the perp.

Israel will be the perp. Thomas Ware at 1:24 PM

There's some truth to what Brooksfoe says. And there are players outside the Israeli government as well, of course, who can provoke (Sharon at the Temple Mount, or, G-d forbid, some madman like Baruch Goldstein).

However I stand by my larger point. Whatever provocations may occur on the Israeli side, I don't think anyone questions that government of Israel has the authority to make binding decisions and the power to execute them. I don't think the Arabs question this. Provocations by Palestinian extremists, on the other hand, do raise exactly this question with regard to the Palestinian Authority. That's on top of the emotional issues that any provocation would bring (on both sides). And it's actually a lot more serious.

Kevin wrote: everybody knows this is exactly how it will play out, but nobody is willing to acknowledge it up front and agree to keep forging ahead even when the extremists on the other side do something inflammatory.

In fact, Palestinian terrorits have never stopped attacking Israeli civilians, although the number of attacks has been reduced thanks to the fence. So, contrary to Kevin's allegation, Israel has been seeking a lasting peace for many years in the face of continuing unprovoked violence against them.

Very,very rarely, some Israeli has made an unprovoked attack against Palestinians. These attackers are arrested and prosecuted by the Israeli government. OTOH Palestinians who attack Israelis are lauded. They are heros at home.

I hope Kevin considers violence against Israelis to be "inflammatory." That is, I hope he's simply unaware of the ongoing Palestinian attacks against Israelis.

Still, his false equivalence of "extremists on both sides" rankles. Israel has been willing to live in peace with its Arab neighbors from 1948 on to today. Meanwhile various Arab countries have continually attacked Israel.

The U.S. has the most to lose if peace breaks out in the Middle East - Where are all of our defense contractors supposed to sell ther weapons of war? Peace is not good for Amercan business.

By the way -- Where in the hell is that roadmap to Peace??

This just shows, again, the urgency of Rabin's old policy: to "pursue the peace process as if there were no terrorists and pursue the terrorists as if there were no peace process." (I paraphrase.) Of course, sticking to such a policy—let alone stating it out loud!—requires wisdom, courage, and a great sense of irony. I don't know whether any Middle East political leader right now, in government or outside it, has any of these qualities, let alone all of them. As for George W. Bush, well...

trying to get some bonus oracle points for predicting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Funny you should say that, Kevin. I was thinking the exact same thing about you and the Practicing for a Showdown piece yesterday.

I am curious about whether Dan include's Israel as one of the "many armed groups in the region with a vested interest in maintaining the festering status quo." ? Past experience suggests it probably should be included in this group but from who he thinks the victims of this attack would be he seems to have excluded it.