Reply #20: I'm going to reply with a post I wrote on another msg board earlier today

[anigbrowl]

The background is that we were talking about the peace process in Norterhn Ireland how it compares to the situation in the middle east. The first quote is from a conservative on the message board who I was discussing this with.

ILikeHardPlay:
The bottom line is that no one at the table was talking at the same time they were engaging in or encouraging violence. That there was a declared cease-fire by the parties involved in talks....prior to their being seated at a table. Which certainly qualifies as a PRECONDITION.

For some people that wasn't enough; they wanted the IRA to completely renounce violence and destroy all their weapons before holding any talks, while the IRA types were adamant that there could be no solution to the political process until the troops were removed.

going back to the original political context, they've had numerous cease-fires down in Israel between them and the Palestinians, but that isn't good enough for some conservatives, who complain that ceasefires have collapsed before and they must have XYZ from Israel or the Palestinians before talks can even begin. Iran isn't even at war with anyone at present, but conservatives here demand that they do something to mollify us before we can have any discussions with them.

You rightly point out that acts of violence that went on during the peace process were largely renegade attempts to derail or do an end-run around the talks that were going, but when we're discussing Israel and Palestine you always demand that absolutely all violence must cease and blame the Palestinian leadership for any outbreaks or ceasefire violations.

I mean look at this timeline of events in Northern Ireland (which is pretty accurate and comprehensive): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_peace_process - there were all sorts of false starts, derailments, and breakdowns, with plenty of violence and terrorism and 'I told you so' to go round. It's far from smooth sailing, and it's not as if Northern Ireland today is an oasis of peace and good feeling. But the general consensus is that we seem to have arrived at a long-term solution that will last for the foreseeable future.

If this is good enough for Northern Ireland, then it's good enough for Israel and Palestine. I reject arguments along the lines of 'but they're muslims, they have some crazy martyrdom complex' - the whole time I was growing up, there was endless talk of IRA martyrs and allegations that the Pope was happy for protestants to get killed and so on. The conflict was deeply ingrained into society - growing up in the south of Ireland you knew which of you neighbors were involved with the IRA and how to spot unmarked police cars. I could take you round to places and say 'this house used to shelter terrorists, that pub over there was used for fundraising and money laundering'.

The situations are really not all that different. From what I see Hamas is the best chance for Middle Eastern peace in a long time and are seriously interested in working things out with the Israelis. All this debate about appeasement and preconditions is wank from an administration and its backers who can't deal with the fact that their policies have failed, so they're objecting loudly to anyone who proposes trying a different approach.

Well, too fucking bad, Mr Bush - you had your chance and you blew it. It's time for a fresh approach, and I believe the one that involves talking to people like Hamas, Iran etc. is the one that has the best chance of succeeding. Yeah, it'll mean having tea and cakes with people who have blood on their hands. That's the nature of politics. Northern Ireland was exactly the same way, but now the regional government there is headed by two guys who spent decades encouraging their followers to kill each other and swore up and down that their side wouldn't blink first, no way would they allow their followers lives to be sacrificed for nothing yadda yadda yadda.

When it gets down to it, conflicts like this are not about how many people were died or injured along the way. Everybody dies sooner or later anyway. If it's not a bomb it could be a car acciedent or a disease. What really upsets people is being humiliated by their enemy. That's a psychological injury that never heals properly. People on both sides of a conflict tend to perpetuate not because they really have a burning desire for revenge but because they're afraid that if they do agree to a compromise and it doesn't work out, they're going to be on the receiving end of mass collective humiliation.