I think the problem with most analysis of the conflict is that it inherently misunderstands the incentive structure in place. Basically you have a lot of people who have a vested interest in a peaceful solution, but the two most important players aren't among them. To both Hamas and the Israeli government, continuing the conflict is an end in and of itself. For the former, an end to the conflict largely means an end to their existence, or at least of their popular support and power base. To the latter, an actual peace means ceding the West Bank to the Palestinians, Golan to Syria, and thereby losing control of the Jordan headwaters and the main lever of regional power.

So, to make a long story short, both sides are fighting just to fight at this point, and neither party wants a peace deal.

This fight began before Israel was recognized as a country, and has deeply religious roots. The short answer is that everybody wants peace. The long answer is that no one is willing to give up the fight for territory, strength, and independence that they have been fighting for for the past century. This has been an epic game of Risk - with a repeating pattern of blockade, attacks, and short-term ceasefires.

wherever you take away the dignity, hopes and human rights of people, you create a breeding ground for hate and despair.
the bottom line is, you cannot treat people as less than human.
when people feel wronged and have nothing to lose, bombs wont silence their anger and desire for revenge.
bombing the hell out of innocent people brings hell into the world.

i hope this does not lead to world war three.

because of this conflict/war, if oil prices surge now, with people hurting and our economy in shambles, , it can create a very bad scenario.

Wouldn't it be easier if we just killed all the Palestinians? They are lemmings any way.

neither party wants a peace deal.

That is the essential nature of the situation however, both sides represent people that do want a peaceful resolution, or at least would benefit from such an arrangement. I think the problem is that process is easily captured by bad faith actors that can poison the process and fracture the would be peace making coalition.

Ezra,

I think it’s important not to point that there is a competing narrative and timeline of events, but that the narratives which justify unethical and unproductive actions are intrinsically invalid, not just incomplete.

In the case of the recent bombing campaign, you have a massive humanitarian cost, the disproportional character of the action, and the unlikelihood of actually increasing the security of Israeli citizens. None of those things should be seen in terms of the Palestinian narrative.

I really don't much care which side is right. I just wish that the entire region could get over itself and live in peace. I am forever thankful that I was born in America where, for the most part, we are able to maintain a peaceful multicultural soceity.

don't forget that Egypt also has a border with the Gaza and it is also closed.

The problem with both narratives (as described) is that they explain what they're responding to, but not how the hell those responses are supposed to improve the situation.

Palestinians suffer under a blockade? Shoot rockets at their civilians! That'll make them stop.

Safety of your citizens compromised by rockets from your neighbors? Blow up their government buildings and political infrastructure! Then they can't shoot rockets anymore. Wait, they can?

According to this logic, at least the blockade that Hamas "reacted" to more or less had a security impact, in so far as it kept out Palestinians from Gaza -- rockets preferable to suicide bombers.

None of which makes Israel's latest "response" any less stupid, or, to the degree that civilians are harmed, any less of a humanitarian disaster.

I'll be glad for Israel when Olmert leaves.

Plus, Cecil makes a good point.

I realize this is not with the sentiments of many here --

But, to my understanding, Hamas has been rocketing Israel throughout the year, while Israel was, at the very least, pursuing peace negotiations (politicians made a big deal out of not taking retaliatory action to do so). Now I don't pretend to know to what degree these were good faith efforts, but still... Throw in Mahmoud Abbas castigating the Gaza government for refusing "plea after plea" to cease the attacks.

Bottom line, it looks like Hamas was the one to break the truce and throw off the peace deals. So whatever the inappropriateness of their reaction -- as far as the current incarnation of the crisis is concerned, Israel's version of "who started it" is more accurate.

I think Marty F'in Peretz has it basically right. Colonialism does not work if you keep the natives around. It didn't work for Europeans in the Americas, it didn't work for the Turks in Armenia, it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya, it didn't work in South Africa. If you want to maintain your cultural identity and politcal control, you have to exterminate the natives.

Since the entire idea of Israel is as a Jewish state, it can not fully incorporate its population. Either the Palestinians have to go, or the idea of a Jewish state has to go.

For the past year or so, following Hamas's victory in the Gaza elections, Israel has sealed the border to Gaza, cutting off both humanitarian aid and commercial traffic. In June, a coalition of eight international non-profits released a report demonstrating that conditions in Gaza were worse than at any point since 1967. 80 percent of the residents were now on food aid, more than 40 percent were unemployed, water and sewage systems were in collapse, and hospitals were suffering power shortages of up to 12 hours a day. The situation has only worsened. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) has been unable to get needed medical supplies into Gaza for more than a year because of Israel's blockade on border crossings. It is this enforced poverty and immiseration that Hamas's rocket fire was a response to.

Gaza shares a border with Egypt. No rockets into that country. So can we just call this "Palestinian narrative" bullshit and move on? Israel is Jewish state, so they get the rockets. Egypt is an Arab state, so they get none. Its pretty much that simple.

UN: Israel violated truce 7 times in one week
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560972,00.html
June 20 violation, one day after the ceasefire.

Then comes US election night. When we were glued to the television sets, the IDF entered a refugee camp in Gaza to destroy a tunnel, then fighting broke out, where one Palestinian was killed. Then Hamas fired mortars, killing 0, and Israel launches airstrikes, killing 4 more Palestinians. Then things started to ramp up.

"Gaza shares a border with Egypt."

A New Reality on the Egypt-Gaza Border(p) (Part I): Contents of the New Israel-Egypt Agreement
By Brooke Neuman
September 19, 2005


On September 1, 2005, following lengthy negotiations, Egypt and Israel signed the Agreed Arrangements Regarding the Deployment of a Designated Force of Border Guards along the Border in the Rafah Area (the Agreed Arrangements). This agreement was designed to enable Israel to evacuate the Philadelphia corridor, an eight-mile (thirteen-kilometer) military zone along the Gaza-Egypt border, through the deployment of Egyptian border patrol forces to the Egyptian side of the border in order to prevent smuggling into Gaza. In eighty-three clauses, the agreement describes the mission, weaponry, infrastructure, and obligations of the parties.

Gaza's doors are slowly closing again, however. Under mounting pressure from the United States and Israel, Egypt has dispatched additional border guards armed with water cannons and electric cattle prods to try to regain control.

BLG--

I was going to say that you should read other articles about Egypt's role in Gaza, but fortunately your own cited source concludes the same thing:

Working together, Hamas and the people of Gaza have forced Egypt's hand and made much more visible than ever before the role it had been playing all along in the Israeli occupation and strangulation of Gaza; now that its role in assisting Israel has been revealed, it will be difficult for Egypt to go back to the status quo.

So again-- where are the rockets into Egypt?

Hamas doesn't need to send any rockets into Egypt -- they got some allies (Muslim Brotherhood, anyone?) working their case from the inside.

I have a better idea than Marty F'in Peretz's: I propose that both he and inkadu go off and kill all the Palestinians and all the Israelis too... just depopulate the entire disputed zone, from corner to corner, salt the earth with Cobalt-60, and put up signs designed to last for sixty thousand years as a warning to future generations against trying to build a goddamn temple there.

Or maybe not... maybe that would be a little extreme.

Maybe.

Much has been made of Israel sealing the border with Gaza, Israel moving in to destroy a tunnel under the border and so forth. It's interesting how those reports never mention that the border closures are direct response to arms smuggling, and to keep bombers and kidnappers from plying their trade.

Israel has been willing to work on a two-state solution if its own security could be assured, but it is rather difficult to do so when the touchstone of Hamas' existence is the destruction of Israel. The contrast between the Gaza violence and relative calm in the West Bank is pretty telling.

Yes. And after a while, one starts to feel like a kindergarten teacher: "I don't care WHO started it! Both of you STOP it NOW!" Unfortunately, there is no entity in a position to be able to say that and make it stick.

@s9: The idea has been considered before:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27915

Regarding the current situation -- it does seem to me like most of Israel's bullets are going straight into their own feet. It becomes almost impossible to sympathize with these current efforts to seemingly reach a "final solution" to the Palestinian problem, no matter the moral cost.

"The provocations and cassus belli travel as far back as anyone might care to trace."

Actually, that's not true. There is a logical beginning point to this clash. It starts in the late 19th century, with the beginning of Zionism. Before Zionism, there was no Jewish claim to the entirety of the land. Arabs (Muslim, Christian, and Jewish) and Jews (both Arab and European) shared the space under the auspices of the Ottoman Empire. Shared it, I might add, with many others.

The idea that the Arab population somehow didn't belong there was a European Zionist idea. While that movement started a long time ago, it is not since time immemorial.

The Balfour Declaration and the resolution of WWI are two additional data points that are worth reviewing, when trying to understand the current crisis.

As to neither side wanting "peace" - wouldn't the depend on what "peace" meant?

Colonialism does not work if you keep the natives around. It didn't work for Europeans in the Americas, it didn't work for the Turks in Armenia, it didn't work for the Russians in Chechnya, it didn't work in South Africa. If you want to maintain your cultural identity and politcal control, you have to exterminate the natives.