Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (25777)	8/2/2006 1:40:47 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542054

If things were reversed - a gang of nasty Israeli teenagers sneaked across the border to kill Lebanese families and a powerful Lebanese armed forces leveled Haifa killing innocent Israelis - how do we negotiate a peace so that the conflict does not become WWIII. Do we bring the teenagers to the peacetable? I don't know what WWIII has to do with anything so I'll just ignore that part. If Israel can stop the "nasty band of teenagers", than Israel is responsible for them. You demand Israel stop them, or you negotiate for Israel to stop them. If they won't potentially you even go to war with Israel, or risk going to war with them by waging war against the "teenagers", if the damage and risk from the "teenagers" is great enough and if you think you can win. If the teenagers have a "state within a state", and have their own army which includes heavy weapons, control a large part of the country, receive assistance from other nations, and are not under the effective control of the Israeli government, then Lebanon would have to fight them, negotiate with them, or just be a passive victim to them. If Hamas, before it won elections, had initiated a terrorist campaign against the US, and instead of fighting it (or in parallel to the fighting) we negotiated, would we negotiate with Israel or the PA? Only if we were negotiating how they would fight it. If we were willing and able to solve the situation through negotiations, those talks would have to be with Hamas. To Israel Hezbollah and Hamas are probably people with whom it can't negotiate at this time. It could try to appease them, but anything short of disbanding Israel might not be enough appeasement. The Lebanese government is almost irrelevant. Its not totally uninvolved but it doesn't have power over Hezbollah or Israel. You have to negotiate with someone who has the power to do something. If this really became WWIII, than Hezbollah might be left off the table, but the Lebanese government would be left off too, or it would get a token seat with little real influence as to the final outcome. A real world war is one where the existence of major powers is in danger. If the major powers are in danger the pipsqueaks get pushed around. If 10 million have to die to push around the pipsqueaks than ten million die. Fortunately we aren't in a conflict like that. This whole conflict isn't even a bad hour during WWI or WWII. Right now a mid ranked power (Israel), is fighting one of the tougher pipsqueaks (Hezbollah). You either have them at the table or you have someone who can control them at the table. The US can influence Israel but doesn't really control it. Syria and Iran influence Hezbollah, maybe you could negotiate with them but it doesn't seem very promising. The Lebanese government is part bystander and part victim. To a small extent (at least rhetorically) it has supported Hezbollah, and in the past parts of it have fought against Hezbollah. At neither time did it control or even have a great deal of influence over Hezbollah. No solution is not a solution. That is taught in Solutions 101. I offered everyone incentives to stop the violence. Everyone but one of the combatant parties. Hence it is also "no solution". I did not include Hezbollah because to exclude them there is much more likely chance to succeed. Possibly more chance of agreement, but very little chance of having that agreement mean anything. If you and I negotiated how to solve the conflicts of the Middle East there is some chance we might reach agreement, but no one would care. The PA and the Lebanese government are a more powerful and relevant to the conflict than we are but not enough to be meaningful. Richmond is close to Antarctica than DC, but if I drive to Richmond I shouldn't expect to see any Penguins except maybe at a zoo. He would bring in an International peace keeping force to ensure both side live up to the agreement. Something with the type of size and firepower of the US force in Iraq? Or a few hundred marines who can sit in their barracks until someone blows it up with a truck bomb?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (25777)	8/2/2006 2:44:50 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542054

How do you negotiate a cease fire, if you think that the ones that are doing the firing have to be eradicated ? Exactly. Which is why I challenged your proposal in the first place. I don't think that Baker could negotiate a peace because one of the parties wants something impossible. Since you are so keen on a negotiated settlement I challenged you to suggest what terms might get Hezbollah to stop shooting at Israel given that their aim is to destroy Israel. I don't think there are any. So you sidestepped that and proposed that instead Baker negotiate with Lebanon to control Hezbollah. That's all well and good if it stops Hezbollah from shooting. But Lebanon already agreed to do that as part of the previous deal under which Israel pulled out of Lebanon and perhaps has been doing so to the best of its abilities or perhaps hasn't been trying very hard. In any event, it has been unsuccessful. So what's the point of sending Baker to get Lebanon to agree to something that it has has already agreed to do but can't or won't do? Is that too simple? No, not too simple. It's just that we've been there, done that, didn't work, no reason to expect it will now. I offered everyone incentives to stop the violence. You have NOT offered any incentive to one of the two shooters in the current violence, the Hezbollah half. Show me where you have offered them incentives. but if you include them there is no chance to succeed. True. Your response to that reality is to send Baker off to have talks without Hezbollah, which also has no chance to succeed. My response, which is where I started this discussion, is that having sending Baker is a waste of time because it can't be successful. Now I know how fond you are of doing something just to be doing something, as in global warming, but I find that a waste of energy. a gang of nasty Israeli teenagers Nasty teenagers? More like the Cosa Nostra in its prime and even that is way inadequate. If you think of Hezbollah as the equivalent of rowdy teenagers, no wonder you're dismissing them.