The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[Moldran]

If you decide to do this suicide attack your life stinks so incredibly and you are without hope that it is the only thing you want to do. If you kill yourself, why not take with you some of the "enemy", that is how they think.

This is what many people think, because it sounds like a relatively rational cause for suicide bombings, but it is simply not true. A good amount of the suicide-bombers of the recent intifada are actually relatively well-off people.

disagree. This conflict is all about religion, neither side can see through their blinders. Suicide bombers do what they do because they are "promised" (read brainwashed) by their leaders. It's these same religious leaders that run the countries, and if it's not a religious leader, you can be sure that there isn't one far away somewhere in the administration of that leader. The suicide bombers are nothing more than tools.

If this conflict is all about religion, how do you explain the fact that a good part of the Palestinian terrorist movement consists of secular groups like PFLP ?
And the majority of the Israeli population is not very religious, either, nor are the Israeli decision-makers.
No, this conflict is not all about religion. Nor is it about territority. It is fueled by a number of circumstances, but the core reason today is ideology. The problem is the ideology currently dominating in the Arab world (not only among religious Arabs), which will never accept the very existance of Israel, no matter how much territory Israel hands over.
The conflict can only be solved if this ideology changes and the more rational voices in the Arab world gain influence. Some recent developments can be seen as small, very small causes for hope. Arafat's slowly fading poltical influence and the willingness of the Arab governments to at least officially accept Israel's right of existance. The end of the Baath regime in Iraq may also help.

Yikes. Either both sides have the right to "defend" themselves, and this is going to continue until Israel is destroyed and the Arabs ruined, or both sides are going to learn Mr. Gandhi's lessons, and the killing might stop.

What you miss is that one side (the Arab terrorist movement) is only attacking and the other side (Israel) is only defending.
The Arab side has no right to "defend" itself, because it is not attacked. Noone in Israel seriously demands the extermination of all Arabs. But what the terrorists strive for is the complete extermination of Israel (As a side note: When groups like Hamas speak of "the occupation", they always mean Israel as a whole, not only the officially "occupied territories" - this is important in order to understand what their statements actually mean).
It was pointed out before, but I want to make it clear once again: There is a fundamental difference between the suicide bombings and Israeli revenge operations: The intent of the bombings is to kill as many civilians as possible. The revenge operations may accept civilian deaths as a side-effect, but it is not their intent.
One can argue that some of the Israeli actions are not right, not well executed or politically stupid, but they are definately not the same as the terrorist attacks on civilians.


A huge majority in Israel wants peace with the Arabs. Opinions within that majority differ about the acceptable cost for the peace. But in the Arab world, hardly anyone wants peace with Israel. I know it does not fit your nice "both sides are guilty" scheme, but this is the current reality.

Moldran

[Jonathon Spectre]

This is truly my last contribution to this thread.

>>Do you honestly put these two paragraphs together without noticing that they openly contradict each other?<<

Well, let's look at them.

"The Israelis respond to terrorist attacks with military force because they have to. No self-respecting country, hell, no self-respecting HUMANS, would simply sit idly by and let their citizens be killed over, and over, and over, and over ad infinitum without doing everything possible to kill those responsible."

and

"If the "Palestinian" "leadership" had the least bit of interest in actually accomplishing their goals of giving their subjects a home, peace, and prosperity, they would adopt the non-violent tactics of M.Gandhi and M.L.King Jr."

How do those contradict each other again? The "Palestinians" are not responding to terrorist attacks. The Israelis are not carrying out terrorist attacks on "Palestinians." The Israeli military carries out military operations against terrorists in retaliation for terrorist attacks. Terrorists are criminals who intentionally target civilians. Do you remember the last time the Israeli military bombed some "Palestinian" pizza parlor just to inflict civilian casualties? No? What about the last time an Israeli climbed onboard a "Palestinian" bus and sent two dozen "Palestinians" to their slave-girl rewards? No? Perhaps there's a reason you don't remember events like that.

The Israelis attack because the "Palestinians" won't stop attacking. If the "Palestinians" wanted to kill those responsible for their suffering, they would kill Yasser Arafat and every murderous Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. thug that infested their neighborhoods. Instead they are content to cheer their "martyrs" and curse the "Zionists" for not just meekly offering up their throats. And then they enjoy the power and water those accursed "Zionists" provide for them. What a culture! Incapable of ever creating anything like an industrial plastic shredder, but eager to buy one to feed their enemies into. It's sad. No it's not. It's sickening.

Remember the Jenin "massacre?" Probably not. Let me refresh your memory. The Israelis sent their soldiers into a booby-trapped hellhole of a "Palestinian" city called Jenin based on intelligence that several dozen Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists were holed up there. The Israelis were well aware that yes, the guys were there, and yes, they were terrorists, and yes, they'd spent the last few days turning Jenin into a booby-trapped fortress. And yet rather than take the Spectre approach ("I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.") the Israelis sent their guys in to fight hand-to-hand, house-to-house to minimize "Palestinian" civilian casualties.

For emphasis: They let Israeli soldiers die to save the lives of "Palestinian" civilians.

Are you intellectually dishonest enough to say the "Palestinians" would have given a flying f**k about Israeli civilian casualties? This one battle, alone, in a nutshell, tells you absolutely everything you ever need to know about this conflict.

A bit more history. After the Battle of Jenin was finished, the "Palestinians" began wailing about a massacre. Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of Palestinians were executed by the Israelis! Their hands were tied behind their backs, they were forced to dig their own graves, the Israelis were raping and killing and-

What's that?

None of that was true? Oh. Well. In fact, it turns out the only thing that got massacred at Jenin were some Islamic Jihadists who had stained the surface of the Earth with their foul rot for too long anyway and the journalistic integrity of many, many newspapers. Of course, newspapers around the world (especially in oh-so-cosmopolitan Europe) carried news of the Jenin "massacre" on page A1 above the fold in 196-point font. ISRAEL KILLS THOUSANDS. EXECUTION-STYLE HORROR MURDERS OF THE ISRAELI HELL-FIENDS. THE CHILD-KILLERS OF SHARON'S DEMON ARMY. The corrections ("Sorry, we were 100% wrong in every way possible") were on page E12, just below that ad that says, "Do this prayer six times a day for six days and you will have good fortune from Jesu Cristo!" or whatever. Funny how that works, but being relatively conservative I'm used to outrageous media bias. Whoa, can't get off on THAT tangent, back to those evil Israeli terrorists.

The two sides are not morally equivalent. The Israeli military are not terrorists. That's the only way my statements can be said to contradict each other.

Or will you actually say here publicly the Israeli military's missions of retaliation, provoked entirely by terrorist attacks launched by "Palestinians" against Israeli civilians, are no different in any way from nail bombs on buses full of kids and old people? Madness. When an Israeli Apache blows up a car carrying some Hamas sh*tf**k who has the blood of literally hundreds of Israeli citizens on his hands, and some poor "Palestinians" are accidentally killed in the crossfire (a crossfire caused 100% by the terrorist attacks carried out by his fellow "Palestinians"), is it functionally identical to a "Palestinian" walking into a Passover dinner and turning it into a charnel house? Good God.

Now will you wail about the Israeli "occupation?" Go read up on it. Find out how it started. Find out why it started. Find out why the Israelis aren't real eager to give the land back. Find out what Syrian artillery captains on the Golan Heights used to do for fun. I know, KNOW, you won't do this. It's too much work, and it's too easy to just act like you know what you're talking about. Hey, it worked for Bill Clinton!

It is common knowledge amongst those who have studied this new intifada that those brave "Palestinians" blowing themselves up in crowds of Israelis dipped their shrapnel in rat poisons and pesticides. It is also common knowledge that Yasser's martyr recruiters placed a high priority on finding human bombs infected with hepatitis and other disease, so that even those poor Israelis who even got nicked (for the high crime of, for instance, going to dinner, or the grocery store) by a nail, or a chunk of hot metal, or whatever, would get to live the rest of their lives with a disease. I forget the last time the Israelis used biological/chemical weapons against Palestinian civilians. Or for that matter the last time the Israelis targetted civilians. Or the last time they sent some tanks into the West Bank just for the hell of it. Terrorist attack, retaliation. Terrorist attack, retaliation. One of these things always follows the other. Always. See what I'm getting at?

Probably not. After all, I said you need to be able to discriminate between good and evil. You need to be nasty and harsh enough to >gasp< MAKE A JUDGMENT. Maybe, in time, you will be able to.

>>Either both sides have the right to "defend" themselves, and this is going to continue until Israel is destroyed and the Arabs ruined, or both sides are going to learn Mr. Gandhi's lessons, and the killing might stop.<<

One last time. The Israelis are the ones defending themselves, against terrorists. The "Palestinians" are the ones carrying out the terrorist attacks. If you are intellectually honest, this is unarguable. Or do you think the U.S. actions in Afghanistan were terrorist attacks?

Have you ever actually read anything about the roots of the Israeli-"Palestinian" problem? If not, you should. You might find out why I always put "Palestinian" in quotes. You might discover there's no such thing. You might find out that if not for Israeli mercy, there would never have been "Palestinians." You might find out that Arabs actually created the "Palestinian" problem, and that the Arab states could end the "Palestinian" suffering in a heartbeat but don't, because they are a useful hammer against Israel and a way to kill Jews cheaply without starting an all-out war. But I don't expect you to do any reading on it.

The last word is all yours. Enjoy!

JS
Who knows right from wrong and good from evil... but still wants to play for the Empire in SWG...

[Jester]

"Have you ever actually read anything about the roots of the Israeli-"Palestinian" problem?"

Yep.

Jester

[Jester]

"Maybe I misunderstoof him but he never said Israel should be given as much latitude as possible, he's trying to show you that the so called oppression of the Palestinians is an act trying to defend Israeli civilians and not simply trying to kill Palestinians"

Read his reply to me. Considering his arguments, can you say that is not precisely what he is arguing? Yes, it's dressed up very nicely in all sorts of strongly worded phrases and excuses for everything the Israelis have ever done. Reading his post, one would wonder if they are a nation state, or just a flight of misunderstood angels walking the earth, stoically sharing a land with the worst humanity has to offer.

Yet, since the Palestinians are terrorists (can a bankrupt non-state have a standing army?) and the Israelis are the legitimate rulers of the region excersizing their power, he is arguing for exactly what I said: The Israelis are not and should not be restrained in their power by anything but their goodwill. Perhaps, with his rather extreme version of events (not supported even by open statements of hawkish Israeli leaders, let alone a more balanced account of events), this is more than enough.

I don't think so. I don't think most people in the world think so. The UN certainly doesn't. And, perhaps most importantly, the Palestinians absolutely, positively, not-in-twenty-thousand-years-for-twenty-thousand-virgins-in-the-afterlife will not accept any road to peace that starts from anywhere near there.

So, unless one is willing to accept the annhilation of the Palestinians as the fundamental precondition to peace, Mr. Spectre's position is, at best, correct but completely impractical. At worst, it is the opinion that has kept the dead piling up since the founding of Israel.

Jester

[Jester]

"What you miss is that one side (the Arab terrorist movement) is only attacking and the other side (Israel) is only defending."

Yeah, and occupying territory acquired through conquest. For thirty years. Against dozens of UN resolutions, or near-resolutions vetoed by the US. And setting up further and further settlements into land initally controlled by Palestinians, then claiming the right to defend those settlements, thereby annexing large tracts of land for reasons that seem to be little more than religious (Golan Heights, anyone?).

Sorry, Moldran, it's not so easy. Israel has all the sophistication and power of a modern democracy. Palestine is scarcely past the tool age, except for their expertise in blowing up civilians. Israel need not resort to methods as barbaric to attain ends that are no more justifiable. Maybe if Palestine had a nuclear detterent and 6 billion dollars a year from the US, they might pick up some of the more modern tricks themselves. Certainly they'd find the attack helicopters pretty spiffy. Fly 'em by Ariel Sharon's house, and claim the resulting explosion was "retaliatory elimination of a known Zionist-terrorist leader." I'm sure it would go over great on Al Jazeera.

Jester

[TaiDaishar]

Read his reply to me. Considering his arguments, can you say that is not precisely what he is arguing? Yes, it's dressed up very nicely in all sorts of strongly worded phrases and excuses for everything the Israelis have ever done.

Did he really say what Israel did was good? No, he pointed the fact that civilian casulaties caused by Israeli military are accidental and are never wished for.

Reading his post, one would wonder if they are a nation state, or just a flight of misunderstood angels walking the earth, stoically sharing a land with the worst humanity has to offer.

So I take it that you say Israel is NOT defending itself? Israel is intentionally killing civilian citizens? Israel did not try to get peace with offers some would even say suicidal?

(can a bankrupt non-state have a standing army?)

A very good question, especially because Arafat does have an army.

and the Israelis are the legitimate rulers of the region excersizing their power

The Israelis do have a legitimate rule over Israel and they're not just "excersizing their power" they're protecting their people from terrorist attacks and in order to make the defence more successful they're moving it to the enemy's court and just for the mere fact soldiers are there less Israeli civilians will be hurt.

The Israelis are not and should not be restrained in their power by anything but their goodwill.

They pretty much were like that for a long time now, no one has put any leash on the Israeli army since 11/9, what prevents Israel from testing how far they can go (and probably very far since USA is still in quite a shock from 11/9)

Perhaps, with his rather extreme version of events

And please, do tell the "real" version of events, either you say that or don't speak

not supported even by open statements of hawkish Israeli leaders

What leaders are you refering to? And what events are they not supporting? Either way it matters nothing, politicians are politicians and some times if you'll stick a dead rotting corpse below their nose they won't say a thing about it

Yeah, and occupying territory acquired through conquest. For thirty years. Against dozens of UN resolutions, or near-resolutions vetoed by the US. And setting up further and further settlements into land initally controlled by Palestinians, then claiming the right to defend those settlements, thereby annexing large tracts of land for reasons that seem to be little more than religious (Golan Heights, anyone?).

First of all, let me put into the record that the UN is a bunch of lazy idiots who just sit on their asses and if they see something wrong in their eyes at today's newspaper they go right out and say it's wrong, sorry but the UN is a paper and don't even have any reason to actually exist.

You seem to also forget that those settlments are illegal in Israel and the Israeli army and police do a lot in order to evacuate them (sometimes with force) and even though they are illegal, the settlers are still Israeli citizens and still require protection.

So, unless one is willing to accept the annhilation of the Palestinians

This lone sentence just made me realize you're just as bad as a lot of Palestinian leaders I saw on TV, saying Israel is destroying them but not giving any damn good argument why and where or how.

[Moldran]

Yeah, and occupying territory acquired through conquest. For thirty years. Against dozens of UN resolutions, or near-resolutions vetoed by the US. And setting up further and further settlements into land initally controlled by Palestinians, then claiming the right to defend those settlements, thereby annexing large tracts of land for reasons that seem to be little more than religious (Golan Heights, anyone?).

Israel did not occupy a single square-kilometer of land in an act of agression. Not one. Every bit of land Israel has occupied since 1948 was the result of Arab agression. Had the Arabs never started war against Israel, Israel would be alot smaller today.
Little more than religious reasons to occupy the Golan Heights ? LOL. The Golan Heights are of HUGE military and strategic importance. Israel occupied them after it had to experience for years how easy it was for the Syrian artillery positioned there to fire upon large parts of Israel. One more time, the occupation of that area was the result of Arab agression.

Israel need not resort to methods as barbaric to attain ends that are no more justifiable

What do you think are Israel´s ends, other than protecting its citizens ?

Sorry, Moldran, it's not so easy. Israel has all the sophistication and power of a modern democracy. Palestine is scarcely past the tool age, except for their expertise in blowing up civilians. Israel need not resort to methods as barbaric to attain ends that are no more justifiable. Maybe if Palestine had a nuclear detterent and 6 billion dollars a year from the US, they might pick up some of the more modern tricks themselves. Certainly they'd find the attack helicopters pretty spiffy. Fly 'em by Ariel Sharon's house, and claim the resulting explosion was "retaliatory elimination of a known Zionist-terrorist leader." I'm sure it would go over great on Al Jazeera.

You still fail to realize the fundamental difference between the Israeli and the Palestinian actions. One side tries to protect its citizens. The other wants to exterminate what it thinks is the enemy.
I am #$%&ing glad the Palestinian nutcases are not better equiped. Had they nuclear weapons, they would not use them as a deterrent, but probably fire them upon Israeli cities. That is the difference.

Moldran

[Jester]

Perhaps I misspoke. The argument was as follows.

(assumptions)

Any peace process will require the cooperation of both sides, or the annhilation of one. Annhilation, having been stipulated as the exception, will no longer be included in the argument.

Anything which one side will not accept under any circumstances cannot lead to peace, since that would necessarily disallow the cooperation of one side.

(argument)

Palestinians will not accept any road to peace which considers them as no more than a stateless gaggle of terrorists. Neither will they accept the corollary, that Israel has no blood on its hands. Perhaps Palestine is delusional. However, since it is they (delusional or not) who must participate, their opinions must be given weight. Mr. Spectre's argument, as even the most cursory glance will indicate, would not be acceptable to the Palestinians, regardless of its correctness. Likely, they would not even sit down at the table with that being the Israeli position.

This having been established, there can therefore be no peace without leaving behind positions such as Mr. Spectre's, unless you are willing to embrace the alternative: Annhilation. This has been wished for on both sides many times. Since it is a completely horrifying and revolting solution, (not to mention either completely ironic or doubly horrifying considering Jewish history), I reject his position as impractical. It may be correct. I very much doubt it.

In response to a few of your other questions (there are certainly too many to answer, since you question my every line, often twice)...

It would be completely incorrect to say Israel is not defending itself. It is defending itself perhaps more than any nation in the world. What would be more precisely my point is that Israel is not _solely_ defending itself. It has also, historically, pursued a religiously motivated plan for the expansion of "Greater Israel" that led to the settlement of areas that were hotly contested and condemned by the UN as occupied territory. Attempts at peace were largely scuttled on both sides by Israeli expansionism and Arab (note: NOT Palestinian, in this case) resistance to a negotiated peace with Israel. The Americans were of little help either, since they tended to support a position even more hawkish than Israel itself. This is old news, long passed into history.

The tactics used there, where civilian expansion creates the necessity for protection, which justifies military control, thereby further reducing the state of the Palestinians, have been refined, and deployed as the fundamental tactic in the conflict. This is quite unnecessary, and very dangerous. There is no solid reason Israel requires more territory, or further settlements; that this persists despite its obvious antagonistic effect on Palestinians points either to agressive or suicidal tendencies.

Why, then, is this policy pursued? It is my contention that there are those in Israel, as there certainly are in Palestine, who secretly practice the worst branch of terrorism: deliberately provoking hostility, creating a situation worse for all involved, in order to demonstrate how much worse your enemy is than yourself. Further, they have great tools at their disposal, far more than the Palestinians, although they cannot be so open about their aims. They have the support of the US, even in the face of the UN (much of the US distaste for the UN draws from this single issue). They have loyalists, such as Mr. Sharon, who will always be ready to defend Israel, even if that means a mythologically determined Israel. They have the memory of the Holocaust, and the paranoia (not at all undeserved, but still very real) that all who oppose you seek your annhilation. They have the image of a democracy, although they manipulate fear and outrage in the manner of tyrants.

It is also my contention that people like Mr. Spectre arm these people with their support. They are as dangerous to lasting peace in Israel/Palestine as any Hamas leader. They look much nicer than the dirty, screaming Palestinian, irrationally angry, like an anti-semite from a past millenium. They usually wear suits. But so long as these people drive the process, it will cyclically fail. Even the most equitable seeming solution will be fundamentally undermined by the desire to see the Palestinians (or, of course, from the other side, the Israelis) subjugated and humiliated. That was certainly what killed Oslo, at least from the perspective outside of Israel or the US.

These people (on both sides) fail in the basic prerequisite for peace: the shared assumption of cooperative justice for all as the primary goal. They see the other side as disposable, or perhaps worse. And nothing irritates the other side quite like denying that such people exist on your side of the fence.

Jester

[Jester]

"What do you think are Israel´s ends, other than protecting its citizens ?"

It is impossible to provide a complete list of ends for a complex entity. What are the ends of Israeli peaceniks? Mostly to stop the killing. What are Ariel Sharon's ends? To provide a peace by the end of his life without compromising his legacy as a defender of Israel. What were the original aims of Israel? To provide a safe homeland for Jews. What are the aims of the "Greater Israel" movement? To control the entirety of the (vaguely defined) Israel of yore, and to establish unquestioned Jewish hegemony. What are the aims of the US, vis a vis Israel? To protect an invaluable ally in the unstable middle east, it being assumed that such a friend would have to be armed to the teeth.

What, of these, dictates Israeli policy? All of them, at most times. Are they wildly contradictory? You betcha. Same with most states, but with Israel, they walk a much finer line, with much more serious concequences.

What are important are the results.

Nations are not permitted, by international law established by the UN, to obtain territory through war. That the occupying power was not the aggressor in the war does not alter this concept, nor effect its underlying reasons. Strategic value of the territory involved does not alter this concept (see: Alsace and Lorraine).

Certainly you have provided a valid reason for the colonization of the Golan Heights. I concede the point. Two points remain, however. First, regardless of how good an idea it is from a tactical standpoint, it remains illegitimate. Second, this tactic is far from restricted to that area. At what point does it cease being strategy, and start being merely provocation?

There was a time when Israel could have stopped it, or at least seized the ethical high ground. Had they decided against a "Greater Israel" policy in the aftermath of '73, things would be different. Either some equitable peace would have emerged, or it would be clearly on the heads of the surrounding Arab countries, with no particularily good arguments to the contrary. The UN certainly wouldn't hold the position they do today. A little magnanimity goes a very long way. The aftermath of WWII shows this, and WWI shows by contrary example. So long as "they hit us first" is sufficent excuse for the expansion of Israel, this is never going to stop until one side drops dead.

As you say, I too pray that Palestine never gets the tools to fulfill that prophecy.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Yeah, and occupying territory acquired through conquest. For thirty years. Against dozens of UN resolutions, or near-resolutions vetoed by the US.

1. You will note that the language of most Security council resolutions that pass in re Israel enjoin "both sides" to do ____XXX. Resolutions aimed solely at Israel would tend to get a veto. It takes two to tango.

2. Thirty years? Referencing that time horizon is a crimson fish. The Israel/Arab conflict is a continuum that starts AT LEAST in 1948, but really sooner. What happened in 1967 and 1973, in re occupied territory, is a directly traceable child of the failed 1948 attempt to wipe Israel off the map completely by a combined Arab effort. It is intellectually bankrupt to choose a "start the clock" in 1967. Without occupying X territory, the invasions and shelling would continue as before. What happened there was the "fruit of the poisoned tree" of 1948 and 1956, and even before that, the 30+ years of the British failure, during its administration of the Palestinian Mandate, to find a way to iron out an agreement that allows peacefule coexistence between Jews and Arabs in that bit of real estate. The attempts were many, the parties intractable.

That said, you would be correct in your assertion that there have been opportunities missed by Israeli leadership. Like most democratic countries, Israel's policies have moved about depending upon who is PM, etc. The "colonization" of the West Bank has been a particular thorn in the side of the peace process in the time frame you mention. The land for peace deal, Sinai for peace, with Egypt was a deal made between two nations. "The Palestinians" are not playing from the same point of reference, so the solution will require a bit more subtlty.

What strikes me as the most damning bit of evidence against the Arab position was the punishment of Anwar Sadat for his participation in the Camp David Peace accord.

Assassination was his reward for his role as a man of peace. That was a wake up call to every leader, and IIRC, the Ayatollah was influential in that effort. (Memory fuzzy)

What momentum Jimmy Carter might have built upon after Camp David, or even Ronald Reagan had he been so disposed, was stymied by the message sent to every Arab capital: peacemakers will be assassinated, we know where you live, and we will take you down! King Hussein walked a very fine line for a number of years before he warmed up a bit with Israel and made some progress on his own behalf. You will note that his example has not been followed by many.

Reagan's attempt at intervention in Lebanon, IMO, pretty much guaranteed that any peace overture similar to Carter's would be greeted in the Arab world with a pretty large grain of salt while he was in office. Given that he had Iran to deal with vis a vis the Arab world, he armed some "new friends" against Iran and I think mistook their agreement to that for friendship. It took The Wall coming down, IMO, for Pres Clinton to have a shot, with the threads from the Cold War somewhat withdrawn from the MidEast, at an accord similar to what Carter achieved. He tried, and failed. Just like the Brits in the 1930's.

To keep on trying is, IMO, the only course of action available. For anyone to stop trying would be an immense mistake, unless the status quo is considered acceptable.

[Jester]

... in trying to start the clock anywhere. The British dominated the area before the Israelis, and their (and the general western) acceptance of wiping Israel ON TO the map certainly has a whole lot to do with this mess. As does French imperialism in the surrounding area. And Ottoman imperialism in the preceding centuries, lasting far longer than it should have, and supressing the development of progressive nationalism even as it swept the rest of the world. And before that, Islamic imperialism, and Persian imperialism, and Roman imperialism, and Egyptian imperialism...

It's dangerous being a Middle Eastern leader. I've found, citing the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Middle Africa and South America as examples, that protracted imperialism leaves terrible governments in its wake, regardless of whose side they support. Democracy and citizen involvement are either minimal or irrelevant, and corruption is a way of life, assassiantion a common end of a political career (India and Gandhi? The examples flow over). This is sadly true of the Arab states. Israel, of course, takes the blowback for centuries of colonialism; it would have been a much wiser course for them to stick to a humbler course of action. Nothing says imperialism to the Arabs quite like permanent occupation, even if it was their own stupidity that got them into the mess. The easiest way to jeopardize Israel's long term survival is to maintain the perception, in the eyes of the Arabs, that they're just the latest colonial power come to keep them under the imperial boot.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

The veneer of civilization is thin. Kenya is a favorite example of mine, where a well established native administrative class was unable to prevent entropy.

What either will or will not take place in the Mid East, and globally, is: folks will change their world view to fit that of the western model, which tries to spread all over the globe, or they won't. If they don't, an ideological conflict will continue, similar to the ideological conflicts from the centuries before.

How "should" the world be? That is the basis for ideological conflict.

That's been the basis for a great many wars over the past, ooh, thousand years.

Conflict is natural. What is fantasy is the belief that all conflict can be resolved amicably. History shows that it is an admirable goal doomed to failure due to a fundamental human motivation that is more or less universal :

"I want it my way." It takes a profound set of cultural assumptions and conditioning to overcome that.

Can conflict be totally elimitated? Not any time soon.
Can it be contained? Maybe.

That is reality.

[Jester]

... but the answer is always synthesis.

When two forces oppose each other, the positives almost always emerge when they combine to form something positive, rather than locking horns in permanent opposition. Israel/Palestine could be a model of cooperation in the middle east, an exemplar for progress for the decrepit regimes surrounding it. Israel certainly represents a higher level of democracy; that could be a tremendous positive if it could be shared or taught, rather than lorded over the Arabs, or used to justify hostilities.

I don't think history has shown that permanent opposition has ever created progress. Quite the contrary, I think its most successful moments have been when cooperation, moderation and tolerance have moved forward, for one reason or another. It was the Marshall plan, and not the Treaty of Versailles, that liberated Europe form centuries of infighting. My own country failed worst when various groups tried to dominate, or to separate, in an attempt to squelch pluralism and diversity. The successes have almost always come from the most synthetic solutions.

Magnanimity is almost always the first step. The powerful must willingly yield to the weak, not out of ethics, but out of practicality. It is the only first step that works.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

a dialectic, perhaps. Magnanimity, or even generousity, can pay enormous dividends down stream. Marshall Plan, anyone? :)

In Hegel's model, as I recall, the thesis and antithesis tended to "run into each other" (I call that conflict) and when that conflict gets resolved, a third thing, the synthesis, is the new condition. I'd be misquoting Hegel by asserting that the meeting of thesis and antithesis MUST be conflict, however, change is rarely without price, and the development of the synthesis always come with a price. There is no free lunch.

Does the price always need to be blood?

No, but it often is.

[Moldran]

In Hegel's model, as I recall, the thesis and antithesis tended to "run into each other" (I call that conflict) and when that conflict gets resolved, a third thing, the synthesis, is the new condition.

And that synthesis can very well be identical to either the thesis or the antithesis. You misunderstand Hegel if you apply the colloquial definition of synthesis. The synthesis is not (at least not necessarily) a "mixture" of thesis and antithesis :P

Moldran

[Chaerophon]

Yeah, but Occhi, the Jews, what about the Jews!

Can't... withstand... Jewish... mind control..... Must... resist... evil... Jewish... doctors....

Give me an effing break.

[Medicine Man]

Seeing the way forward from the current status quo in the West Bank is a really bleak endeavor. Considering the ideological entrenchment of the participants, the only realistic scenario I can see is both sides exhausting themselves (and their support) and having no other alternative but to seek reconcilliation. Paid for in blood indeed...

[Occhidiangela]

I called it the result of the collision/conflict. When two pool balls collide, they don't mix, but the outcome may be that one changes condition: it falls into the pocket rather than remaining on the table. They may also just butt heads, or they may Beavis . . . whatever that means. :P

If Thesis or Antithesis is more powerful than the other, your "overtaking" synthesis being identical to one or the other sure makes sense in a purely theoretical sense.

However, in a less theoretical sense, when the 'Thesis' and 'Antithesis' collide and an outcome occurs, even an "overwhelming" thesis/antithesis will generaly emerge slightly changed for having had the encounter.

Having not read Hegel in the original German, and indeed having found Hegel extremely tough going in general, I'll not pretend to be an authority on matters Hegelian.

I am not a member of the Philosophy Department, but I do know that

"Emanual Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable" :D

And wasn't it Manny_Pratt who said: ""I twink, therefore I am?"

.

[Occhidiangela]

Am I supposed to give you a break, or is our esteemed colleague from the University of Wankerage, eppie, being asked?

I chose to address only the arms industry comment, as I know a little bit about that.

As to "The Jews"

Which ones? :D

There are plenty of folks here in the U.S. who are convinced that the US government is a puppet for Jewish interests, and I have gotten tired of hearing that song. What is correct is that, like many interest groups in our country, "The Jews" (whoever the hell that really is) take their shot at being heard and at peddling influence on Capitol Hill. American support for Israel does not happen in a vacuum. :)

Also peddling influence are Arabs, Chinses, Brits, Mexicans, Canadians, Baptists, Mormons, oilmen, cattlemen, carmakers, widget makers, and tree huggers. Did you ever wonder at why the US supported the defense and creation of a Muslim Client State on continental Europe? Think on that conundrum for a while, and sort out how that fits into the Jewish agenda, if you can. :D I sure can't!

Maybe there needs to be some lateral thinking done on the Palestine issue here in America. Maybe there is a future Nike ad to sell the Yassir Arafat line of sneakers, with Spike Lee doing the tag line:

"It's gotta be The Jews!"

Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would doubtless support the ad campaign, right alongside their friends in the KKK and the American Nazi Party! :P

[Chaerophon]

The U of W alumnus (not you Dragoon :) ) was the intended 'break-provider', and not yourself, Occhi.

Merely attempting to express my derision (evidently not very clearly) for those whose intellect is incapable of sifting through the facts and prejudices of the blame game in order to arrive at conclusions that, on the intelligibility scale, fall at least a short distance beyond the erection of ambiguously identified scapegoats.