The Israeli Palestinian conflict

[TaiDaishar]

Argh, how can I join the discussion when I can't understand the damn words?!

Little Israeli kid gets headaches from big words... :)

Ah well, it's dictionary-mania time.

[Occhidiangela]

I failed to notice your tongue being gently inserted into your cheek.

My Bad! :o

[Jester]

... that, while the American government is obviously not a puppet of the Secret Israeli Conspiracy ™, there is a very strong lobby, not merely for Israel, but for an extremely hawkish Israel. They have many powerful backers, not in any "secret society" sense, but in a Realpolitik sense: influential Jews want to see their homeland succeed, and influential neo-conservatives want a powerful ally in the middle east. That's one seriously powerful alliance.

The Palestinians, meanwhile, have dreadlock-clad hippies out on the street, which, in Washington, don't mean a whole hell of a lot. They have nothing to compare with Israel's lobbying power, except the occasional (very occasional) liberal paying them lip service.

It's not too difficult to see who's going to have their say and who isn't.

Jester

[Chaerophon]

Self Edit - I won't take it that far - don't worry, wasn't taking shots at you Jester. Post would have done more harm than good. AKA, it was a semi-troll.

[pakman]

You want to know how Jesse Jackass really works? Read the book Shakedown. You will be disgusted at how he works.

[Occhidiangela]

That resurfaced when Rev Jackson was presenting his presidential platform some years ago for the Rainbow coalition. It went along these lines:

James Earl Ray was the world's worst shot: even with a hunting rifle and a high resolution scope, he failed to hit the guy he was aiming at. (According to this joke, that would be Rev Jackson.) The reference is to MLK and Rev Jackson being in fairly close proximity when that assassin squeezed of the round that took Dr King from us.

I well remember that event, I was awakened the next morning listening to WMAL news, as my older brother and I did every morning, to learn that Dr King had been shot and killed. 'Twas a rough year, as that same radio station alerted us to the death of RFK one morning, just after we woke up.

Better for us all if James Earl Ray had stuck to deer hunting, IMO, and stayed out of politics. Why he did not get the Death Penalty is, to me, one of the great misacarriages of justice ever.

[Occhidiangela]

The "Palestinians" were used as a foil, as a cause celebre by the Arab world, when the illusion of Arab unity was still fashionable, to justify the invasion and destruction of Israel. That goal, by the way, has not been universally discarded, all rhetoric to the contrary considered. Politicians will often say anything to pursue an end, and Yassir Arafat is a politician, whatever else he may be.

The 1948-1973 wars proved conclusively that armed victory was not going to succeed, and Sadat's aggreement to the Camp David accords shattered the last illusion of Arab political unity, or Pan Arabism. OPEC restored a bit of that, but The UAR is dead. The Palestinians, who you will note did not get from the Hashemite leaders of Jordan any sort of commitment for autonomoy on the West Bank, were left swinging while the illusion lasted, then were used as a foil. IMO, they have been the saps for the rest of the Arab world since about 1947/1948. Arafat and other Palestinian factions dug their own PR grave from 1960-1983. The only way they could seem to draw attention to themselves was by acting out. Predictable response, I suppose, as they were often treated, by Arabs and others, as "children to be seen not heard while the adults were talking over dinner."

Munich 1972. Hijackings of a variety of airlines. Acts of violence. It is no accident that the word "Palestinian" carried the connotation "terrorist" to anyone not from the Mid East, and for some there as well, for about 20 years. It is no surprise that it takes little for that label to resurface, and to re stick, now. That was all they had to offer in terms of progress in their struggle to gain at least the West Bank/Gaza, per original UN Resolutions that created Israel, if not more. It was allegedly on their behalf, though, that 1948 through 1973 wars were fought, so that stain too was all over the righteousness of their cause.

The problem Arafat had was having to appeal to both those who would have settled for a West Bank/Gaza state, and those who insisted on cleaning out Palestine "from the river to the sea." You will recall that in 1948 Egypt took over Gaza, Hashemites in Jordan took over West Bank, and those Arabs did NOT provide "Palestinian" autonomy. The illusion of Arab unity was still strong enough to justify that, I suppose. It took defeat without hope of victory for Arabs to grope about for victory "by other means" which role Arafat and his folks among the expatriates, and those still living in Gaza and West Bank, were available to fill.

The Palestinians dancing in the street after 9-11 is an image I will neither forgive nor forget, nor do I forgive or forget Munich 1972, nor do I forgive or forget the numerous hijackings 1970-1989 around the globe, and the occasional American passenger who was killed "to make a political point." That stain on the "Palestinian" cause is permanent, even if the post-1967 occupation and colonization of West Bank, and the isolation of Gaza, by Israel is a fundamental political and moral error. (Which I believe it is.)

I am not Israeli, I am not Arab, I am a product of the Enlightenment and the societies it created. So is the state of Israel. None of the Arab nations is, though some may be headed that way in time.

Why was the USSR one of the first governments to recognize the State of Israel? Think about it. What was post WW II all about? Dismantling old Empires and reviatlizing nationalist movements in their place, of which Zionism was but one example. This was consistent with the Enlightenment and Revolutionary ideas that spawned Socialism, Republicanism (old meaning) and Communism.

The cultural tension at hand in Palestine today, using the pre 1947 land definition, is in my opinion a methaphor for a fundamental conflict between the Enlightenment and Tribal modes of civilization that has been in continuing conflict for over 300 years. The aristocratic/feudal model in pre-revolutionary Europe was a Tribal/Clan model. It took the age of revolution and the age of industrialization to remake Europe into an Enlightenment based model. Blood was the price paid, 1789-1914, and on through 1945. The Arab world (not "the Muslim world," big difference) is STILL stuck in the Tribal/Clan model of civilization, whereas Isreal is, even if Zionism is rooted in a Tribal/Clan basis, a child of the modern, Enlightenment version of world. Ironically, Saddam Hussein and Haffez Assad of Syria have a bit in common with Attaturk in their attempts to pull their countries toward the Enlightenment model, though they both had their feet sqaurely rooted in the Clan/Tribe mode. The Hawkish Jews in America have their feet in the Clannish/Tribal past as well.

I reject the Clan/Tribal model as valid in the modern world, and I point to how the Clan/Tribe model screws up my own nation. The gangs in our major cities, from the old New York Irish and Jewish gangs, to the Mafia, to the current gang structures featuring Chinese, Korean, Jamaican, Mexican, Anglo, and Black gangs, are pure tribal associations that attempt to establish their own rules and laws, in a finite area, as supreme over secular law. Gangs enforce street justice, society calls it murder, extortion, or aggrivated assault. Gangs, like the Logan Red Steps in San Diego, are into their third and fourth generations, with habits passed down from generation to generation. They are in direct conflict with the concepts and principles that fomr the core common cultural assumptions of our society.

History moves forward. Time moves forward. Going back to the Tribal model is regression and social devolution. The necessary common cultural assumptions necessary for rapproachment and peaceful coexistence simply do not exist, at present. The Arab world is still very much in a state of transition, or potential transition, regarding the momentum away from Tribes/Clans and towards the modern, Enlightenment based models that are the cornerstone assumption of the United Nations Charter.

The hypocrisy that any feudal, non-representative government is allowed to be a member in good standing of the U.N. strikes me as a fundamental weakness that exposes the U.N. for what it was, and has become: a dream of the future, not a "one size fits all" tool of the present. (Too bad, really, someday the dream may come closer to reality, I'd like to see it in my lifetime.)

The U.N., which gave Israel political legitimacy (a favorite term of yours Jester :) ) was initially the tool of the victorious powers of WW II, a club. It was a political tool aimed at preventing WW III and for remaking the world on a non-imperial model, even though it was founded by 5 "noveau imperial and old school imperial" nations and their allies. :P It was even then contaminated by the various agendas of its founders, and it cracked early, in Korea. It has never, in my view, recovered from that crack. (That said, the UN has not yet reached it full potential, and does some great work.)

Arafat and many Palestinians chose, for their own reasons, to pursue the path of war: Total war. The infatadah is, IMO, akin to the operating social and cultural antipathy behind the USSR/NAZI war on the Eastern front and the Civil War in Rwanda: "This Continent, Town, Country, Strip of Land, aint big enough for both of us. We cannot coexist peacefully."

For their part, any number of Israeli administrations (Sharon, anyone?) have taken a similar view. The longer this continues, the more socialized, the more Orwellian the mind set will become in the youngsters growing up today, both on the "Palestinian" side and the Israeli side. (By Orwellian I refer to the warfare state of 1984. Possibly a clumsy usage.)

Consider a similar conflict in Europe: Bosnia. The bad blood goes back some 100-500 years in the minds of some of the participants. That field of battle, the hearts and minds of those involved, is the toughest to engage on. What did it take, other than rivers of blood, to partially resolve that conflict? There are but 60 years of similar mental phantasms to deal with in The Holy Land, and look how intractable the parties are now.

In the Bosnia case, the so called leaders were locked in a room, with Pres Clinton and Warren Christopher, for a few days in IIRC Ohio, and weren't let out until they would agree on "a line in the sand." The foreign troops are still there, just as in Cyprus, Sinai, and elsewhere.

What's it going to take in the more complex arena of Paletsine/Israel? Probably something similar. Who will be busily working to undermine the whole thing?

I can predict that Iran, who had some 200 + agents provocateurs in Bosnia in the mid 90's -- sources vary, order of magnitude about right -- has at present a polotical stake it not letting it settle down unless it goes down "their way." Who else? Not sure, but there are doubtless others, both in the Hawkish Jew camp and the Palestinia Irredenta camp.

The basis for the conflict, real estate aside, and the bleak prospect for rapproachment is fundamentally cultural, as I see it.

If the common cultural assumptions are not changed, nothing else will change.

[Jester]

"Why was the USSR one of the first governments to recognize the State of Israel? Think about it. What was post WW II all about? Dismantling old Empires and reviatlizing nationalist movements in their place, of which Zionism was but one example. This was consistent with the Enlightenment and Revolutionary ideas that spawned Socialism, Republicanism (old meaning) and Communism."

Or maybe they smelled a strong red streak in some of the original makeup of the Zionist movement, and the somewhat socialist character of the new state, and thought "Hey! Natural ally!"? Probably a bit of both.

"If the common cultural assumptions are not changed, nothing else will change."

This is very true. But it can't be one sided. This is not just a matter of pulling Arabs up by their bootstraps. Palestinians need to learn the basics of living in a modern, peaceful, multicultural society. Israelis have to actually let them, rather than treating them like Native Americans, inconveniences that just happen to occupy your sovereign land. That means learning a pretty serious measure of tolerance, by both sides. Moral rants and finger pointing make everything very bleak. Perhaps some version of South Africa's justice system, after the fall of apartheid, where all greivances can be brought out, dealt with, and forgiven? I dunno.

"This Continent, Town, Country, Strip of Land, aint big enough for both of us. We cannot coexist peacefully."

The Palestinians certainly have to accept enormous responsibility for their occasional adoption of the ridiculous Arab world slogan, "Death to Israel". Israel isn't going to die, and wishing for it is only going to make things worse. However, the Israelis tend to be content with "Palestinian reservation" or "Tiny, impoverished refugee camps" as fulfulling their obligations to coexist peacefully. I don't find it in the least surprising that the Palestinians view this treatment as a complete non-solution, and, while I reject violence, I too would certainly be very angry about such treatment.

"The Arab world is still very much in a state of transition, or potential transition, regarding the momentum away from Tribes/Clans and towards the modern, Enlightenment based models that are the cornerstone assumption of the United Nations Charter."

The Arabs had a magnificent civilization while Europe was still "Tribes 'n Clans". That they have fallen so far in the centuries of Ottoman rule (and, to be fair, the later centuries of their own) is tragic, but it's not like we just found these people in Darkest Peru. We know them to be, culturally, capable of civilization on the level we have. Arabs, and Islam in general, could be a tremendously positive force for civilization. But, like all religions that have grown too old, or gone without renewal (like, say, the Catholic church, at a similar date in its own life), it has stagnated, and their whole society has gone with it. Since Arab nationalist movements, thanks to their happening in the middle of the Cold War, were entirely channeled to non-productive activities (like trying to wipe out Israel... thanks, Nasser. Thanks a bloody lot...), we gotta wait for the next regenerative "wave". I think Al Jazeera, painful as it is to watch, is the spearhead of that wave. If all goes well, we should be looking at a collapse of most decrepit Arab regimes, and, when that's done, maybe Israel will decide that it's the time for some Grand Gestures, and start things back off on the right foot.

We can only hope.

Jester

[TaiDaishar]

If all goes well, we should be looking at a collapse of most decrepit Arab regimes, and, when that's done, maybe Israel will decide that it's the time for some Grand Gestures, and start things back off on the right foot.

We can only hope.

Jester

I'll drink for that!

If I was able to buy drinks of course... damn age :)

[Occhidiangela]

The Palestinians certainly have to accept enormous responsibility for their occasional adoption of the ridiculous Arab world slogan, "Death to Israel". Israel isn't going to die, and wishing for it is only going to make things worse. However, the Israelis tend to be content with "Palestinian reservation" or "Tiny, impoverished refugee camps" as fulfulling their obligations to coexist peacefully. I don't find it in the least surprising that the Palestinians view this treatment as a complete non-solution, and, while I reject violence, I too would certainly be very angry about such treatment

.

I mentioned Iran for a reason. They bankroll Hamas, and others.

You make a good point, though, and there is reason to belive that some Palestinians do accept responsibility like that and are as sick of the bombs and rocks as any Israeli. They are, I estimate, the rare peacemakers. Their voice is, and has been for some time now, drowned out by those who look for any excuse, any imperfection in Israeli policy -- of which there is usually a supply available -- as their justification to the destruction of Israel as the Only Solution.

They see no third way. Tribal view, me or you.

There is, for them, either victory or defeat, detente and peaceful coexistence are not on the table. As a rule, Hamas won't talk without a bomb going off. That, IMO, is why the situation has devolved back to the 1970-1975 condition of : "No one listens to us until something blows up" with a difference. When the Russians backed the PLO then, it was with secular nationalist ideals backing them. When Iran backs them now, it is on a religious socialogical basis. That is a different appeal, since the religious basis is less likely to accept compromise as a valid course of action, where a secular approach will.

Then, the bombers were trying to get anyone's attention at all, and were backed as a "national liberation movement" which is secular and Enlightenment driven, now you are dealing with a pre Enlightenment model.

They also speak to a slightly different audience. Now, they are speaking as much to whatever Palestinian authority is dealing with Israel and The West as they are to Israel and "the rest of you folks out there in TV land." But the message has changed, and their message is clear.

"No compromise, and until it's done our way, the bombs will continue."

This puts Palestinian moderates and progressives, the non tribal sorts who will be willing to work out a sustainable deal, into an impossible position. Their credibility with the Israeli's is nill, because Hamas and its spiritual brother organizations, funded by Iran and some Arabs, like Osama, as the PLO used to be funded by the USSR, will veto with a bomb whatever terms or conditions are not suitable to their constituency. That is not negotiation, that is "My way or the highway."

Imagine your own government. The PM and his party, let's say Labor, are pursuing some new educational policies. The Conservative party disagrees, but does not even debate it in the Commons. One of their operatives blows up the PM's summer home.

That is the kind of transaction that is happening far too often.

No matter what Israeli PM is at the table, you can't make a deal with people who won't even discuss compromise, who won't even discuss "a third way." The excuse often used by the Palestinian side is that "your chance for compromise came and went in "1982,9183,1989,1994"

Pick a year. There is more than a grain of truth in that charge, in that the Israeli leadership have missed many an opportunity to move forward, but they would not pay the price since they knew that any compromise would cause their government to fall. Their own political future was, IMO, put ahead of the future of Israel. (I imagine many an Israeli will take issue with my opinion on that.)

"We don't think you'll even compromise, you'll just (for example) keep importing Russian "Wetback Jews" into the West Bank." (Insert other suitable cause du jour.

If an Israeli tries the Rodney King sound byte: "Can't we all get along" they are told "Sure, right after you leave."

When Arafat blew the deal Clinton offered, because he was trying to cut a perfect deal that satisfied every single sub element in the far flung Palestiniam constituency (or because he did not really want to cut a deal, hard to say what was going on behind the scenes) he opened the door for two obstacles to further progress;

1. He proved that he could not negotiate in good faith, which means accepting some quid pro quo, some tit for tat

2. He gave the veto to anyone with a bomb who disagreed with him.

In short, he did what any number of Israeli PM's from 1967 to present did: he did not actually negotiate, becaue he felt he had enough hole cards that he did not really have to.

Is it any surprise that President Bush set as a precondition for any American support to a negotiated settlement be that Arafat "leave the stage?"

On one level, it is practical, the man can't bargain in good faith, he has not the power base, but on another, it must be personally insulting to an enormous number of Palestinians: this guy was their cause's leader, the guy who got the money from guilty Arabs for decades, the guy who then funded the Palestinian dole. He is, to the older generation at least, a combination of George Washington and FDR.

Who does any Palestinian leader speak for? The older generation.

The young one's have no perspective on pre-1980', before the PLO got hounded out of Lebanon, their one time privileged sanctuary. They know Gaza, Hebron, and the barbed wire, the Shin Bet, the middle of the night invasions of privacy.

Hamas speaks to them, loud and thunderous.

If you want to recruit suicide bombers, recruit teenagers: they already have enough hormonal rage potential provided by mother nature to be easily tapped. The habits of the Israeli security forces provide enough fuel for a fire.

Risk reward.

If Israel gives up the West Bank, will that end anything? If it does not, they are right back to 1967, except they still hold the Golan Heights from which Syria won't shell their cities.

Would that move stop "the war?" I have no idea, but if someone told me that Texas had to give the Nueces Strip to Mexico, I'd get out my guns and simply say:

"Over my dead body."

I don't see a solution until Iran chooses to cut off the money for Hamas, and until any and all Arabs cut off their aid to the other bombers. Otherwise, the explosive veto will stand, and with that veto, there is no movement possible.

[Occhidiangela]

The Arabs had a magnificent civilization while Europe was still "Tribes 'n Clans". That they have fallen so far in the centuries of Ottoman rule (and, to be fair, the later centuries of their own) is tragic, but it's not like we just found these people in Darkest Peru. We know them to be, culturally, capable of civilization on the level we have. .

I disagree, the Arab world you refer to is a romantic fiction, it was a Muslim world, which included enormous Persian cultural influence. It assimilated some Greek influence, and later adopted Turkic influence. Ottoman period was a furtherence of that civilization, in a similar vein to how America is a furtherence of the Enlightenment of Europe. It was then, and is now, driven by the Tribes and Clans model, or have we forgotten just how quickly the inheritors of Mohamed split over who had the rights to the Caliphate? The familial heirs of Mohamed or the more traditional "wisest of the wise?" They never got secular, so their Tribes and Clans were able to deal with European Tribes and Clans for centuries: they spoke each other's political language beautifully, absent that minor point on religion, which they all agreed belonged as a cultural infusion into the state. The Muslim world had an advantage of not hiding from learning. Being placed in "the cradle of civilization" helped, don't you think? :)

1. What have they done for "civilization" lately? Nothing, they are trapped in anachronisms, trapped in the past. OK, for culture, the Arab world can still split hairs over Islam with the same energy as the Westerners can split hairs over Christianity. Bravo.

2. The "Arabs" are not at present, IMO, culturally capable of our "level of civilization" due to the fundamental tension of theocracy versus secular government, due to the legends, lore and myth mismatch between the cultural roots in the Arab world and the ones at work in the West. Arabs who have become Westernized are just that, Westernized.

The cultural shift, the shift and change in the back story, has not come about. Could it come about? I think so, the great cosmopolitan cities of Al Andalus: Toledo, Granada, Cordova, Seville, showed that the Arab, or at least the Moore, could if he GOT FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM "HOME" become as cosmopolitan and worldly as anyone. Same is true for hillbillies from Arkansas or West Virginia. The same was true for Crusaders. Once they got exposed to the ideas foreign to their own, Europe was not going to be the same.

"Once they've seen Paris, you can't keep them on the farm."

If you suggest that the potential is there, yeah, I agree. Cairo, Bagdad and Damascus of the Crusader Era were certainly centers of civilization, learning and thought, which spread to Europe slowly via Spain, and via trade exposure.

Of course, that was before the Mongols put paid to that little soire. :P

It's always something, isn't it?

Moscow in the era of USSR was a center of great arts, one of the world's finest ballets, and a global center of education. Does that mean any Russian yearns for a return of deapotism, or that I should consider despotism as an equivalent good to the Western approach?

I don't think so. To restore the Caliphate is a step backwards into clans and tribes, even if it brought a slightly brighter light with it. The foundation of that brilliance was laid by the non modern root.

[Jester]

"1. What have they done for "civilization" lately? Nothing, they are trapped in anachronisms, trapped in the past. OK, for culture, the Arab world can still split hairs over Islam with the same energy as the Westerners can split hairs over Christianity. Bravo."

Well, there have been plenty of "lately" times when Christianity has done nothing positive whatsoever for humanity. Like I said: They had a tremendous civilization. They have certainly fallen far.

"I disagree, the Arab world you refer to is a romantic fiction, it was a Muslim world, which included enormous Persian cultural influence. It assimilated some Greek influence, and later adopted Turkic influence. Ottoman period was a furtherence of that civilization, in a similar vein to how America is a furtherence of the Enlightenment of Europe."

Yeah, and christian civilization is no more pure. The Arabs swept aside a decandent and collapsing Persia; they certainly presided over a great revival in the many centuries of rule, and I think it would be foolish not to give them a great deal of credit for their civilization. Sure, the Romans stole a whole lot from the Greeks, and the Persians as well. Does that really dig in to their accomplishments? Not really. Contextualizes them, yes.

The Ottoman Empire is only a furtherance of the Arab civilization in the sense that the Third Reich is a furtherance of Napoleon's empire; same territory, totally different rulers, with the Arabs resenting the Ottomans, rather than the Turks resenting Arab rule. Turks and Arabs are no more the same "civilization" than the French and Germans, perhaps even less.

"Moscow in the era of USSR was a center of great arts, one of the world's finest ballets, and a global center of education. Does that mean any Russian yearns for a return of deapotism, or that I should consider despotism as an equivalent good to the Western approach?"

Well, some do. And, no, you shouldn't. But, accepting the right to self determination of the peoples involved, you aren't the one who needs to be convinced. If the Russians want a new Stalin, then all we can do is try our best to persuade them otherwise. If the Arabs long for a long lost dream of the great rise of Islam, which very many of them do (though perhaps not more than the Enlightenment thought back to the Rennaisance), we cannot deny them that simply on the basis that we prefer our own model. I don't think either their history or their religion prevents them from developing a just modern civilization, perhaps even more than ours. They just have to sort it out for themselves. Much of the problem this whole thread is dealing with is the inherent difficulty assimilating one fully formed western democracy into a developing middle eastern context, acknowledging that it may be impossible, or damaging, to transform one into the other.

Jester

[Tiffany_Scott]

I often think of how nice and peaceful it would be in this world if there were no such thing as religions

In the Middle East thingy, I don't think there is a "good and evil" or "right and wrong" side in the conflict. They're all wrong and they're all evil. OK that might be pulling it a little too far, but both sides are killing off innocent people, and unless one of them breaks the spiral of violence it will just keep going.

Nice and peaceful. :blink:

This world all throughout the 20th century right on up to the present day has been subjected to numerous forms of government--most notably the old Soviet Union and still today China--which attempted to enforce your prejudicial views of religion onto their respective populaces. They utilized guns and gulags and guards and german shepherds, but most of all they used the deadliest weapon which modern governments currently possess in their arsenals: PUBLIK SKEWLS. et al, brainwashing kids via government-chosen propaganda with the intent of making all of them share the same skewed (many would simply say "left-wing") attitudes towards human beings and human behavior...

And...


...all those attempts...


...FAILED.


Miserably.

The death, despair, destruction and despondency which forced atheism helped bring about to these countries still sickens me whenever I think about it. You sound like that long-dead rock star John Lennon, singing your own version of "Imagine there's no Heaven, it isn't hard to do."

Without Heaven in at least SOME people's hearts you wind up with a literal Hell on Earth. History has shown us this, yet amazingly there is never any shortage of people around who claim that religion is the world's REAL problem, and the secret to true happiness lies in a Godless world filled with Godless people all cheerily buzzing away headed only toward the blackness of the grave as the final and forever end to their existance... :(

[Jester]

"You sound like that long-dead rock star John Lennon"

23 years isn't that long. And, as the man says, he's not the only one. He'll live on long after you and I are dead.

"History has shown us this, yet amazingly there is never any shortage of people around who claim that religion is the world's REAL problem, and the secret to true happiness lies in a Godless world filled with Godless people all cheerily buzzing away headed only toward the blackness of the grave as the final and forever end to their existance... "

Nobody's arguing with the individual's right to practice religion, or even any collective right to organize into apolitical congregations. The problem is religion and politics riding (a la Herbert) in the same cart. Atheism is only a possible cure for the last, and, as you say, history has shown it to be a remarkably bad one. Nothing in this thread is about the first two.

I would also point out that you ARE headed towards the grave, and that it likely IS your final and forever end to existence (as a consious entity), and that nothing you say, do or believe will alter this. Perhaps that is a more reasonable cause for the problems of the world; when people screw it up, they know they won't have to live to see the concequences.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

"1. What have they done for "civilization" lately? Nothing, they are trapped in anachronisms, trapped in the past. OK, for culture, the Arab world can still split hairs over Islam with the same energy as the Westerners can split hairs over Christianity. Bravo."

Well, there have been plenty of "lately" times when Christianity has done nothing positive whatsoever for humanity. Like I said: They had a tremendous civilization. They have certainly fallen far.

Well, my original frame of comparison is "enlightenment versus tribal" and The Enlightenment was as lethal to Christianity as its successors may be to other models. And the civilization was not Arab, it was Muslim. <== That point is, IMO, oftenmissed, since it took some spreading of what was a synthesis of a new Arab's idea, mixed the sensibilities of the town and nomad, and as it spread it appealed to a surprising mix of audiences.

"I disagree, the Arab world you refer to is a romantic fiction, it was a Muslim world, which included enormous Persian cultural influence. It assimilated some Greek influence, and later adopted Turkic influence. Ottoman period was a furtherence of that civilization, in a similar vein to how America is a furtherence of the Enlightenment of Europe."

Yeah, and christian civilization is no more pure. The Arabs swept aside a decandent and collapsing Persia; they certainly presided over a great revival in the many centuries of rule, and I think it would be foolish not to give them a great deal of credit for their civilization. Sure, the Romans stole a whole lot from the Greeks, and the Persians as well. Does that really dig in to their accomplishments? Not really. Contextualizes them, yes.

That Arabs hardly swept away the Persians. What they did was give them a new religion, what Persia gave them, and the Muslim world, was the societal framework that allowed Islam to grow and achieve empire. The Turks fell in on that, an already established Empire that was built along Persian organizational lines. The Persian social influence on the various Caliphates is well documented. You can win a war, but it is not uncommon that part of the conquered people rubs off on you. Tortillas, anyone? Sushi, anyone? Frankfurters, anyone? :)

The Ottoman Empire is only a furtherance of the Arab civilization in the sense that the Third Reich is a furtherance of Napoleon's empire; same territory, totally different rulers, with the Arabs resenting the Ottomans, rather than the Turks resenting Arab rule. Turks and Arabs are no more the same "civilization" than the French and Germans, perhaps even less.

The French and the Germans we know today both grew from Germanic peoples of Western, Northern, and Central Europe, and both, in time, evolved into Enlightenment based societies. Funny you picked the French and the Germans, they are a funny pair of cultural siblings, and both cultures spawned important Enlightenment thinkers. The French language is a Germanic/Frankish corruption/modification of Latin, just as Spanish and Italian are different corruptions/modifications of Latin. Napoleon as "new Holy Roman Emperor" was a very valid comparison, given his Catholic heritage and his coronation. (OK, he put the crown on himself, but he did invite the Pope. ) Hitler as a "new Holy Roman Emperor" along the lines of Charlemagne or even Napoleon, is not that broad of a reach, however, he was post Enlightenment and post industrial, Napoleon was proto industrial, and as such colored by that significant change from "family/clan/God/religion" to "state" as foundation of a nation. His Aryan principles were IMO a fusion of pre and post Enlightenment mythology.

"Moscow in the era of USSR was a center of great arts, one of the world's finest ballets, and a global center of education. Does that mean any Russian yearns for a return of deapotism, or that I should consider despotism as an equivalent good to the Western approach?"

Well, some do. And, no, you shouldn't. But, accepting the right to self determination of the peoples involved, you aren't the one who needs to be convinced. If the Russians want a new Stalin, then all we can do is try our best to persuade them otherwise. If the Arabs long for a long lost dream of the great rise of Islam, which very many of them do (though perhaps not more than the Enlightenment thought back to the Rennaisance), we cannot deny them that simply on the basis that we prefer our own model. I don't think either their history or their religion prevents them from developing a just modern civilization, perhaps even more than ours. They just have to sort it out for themselves. Much of the problem this whole thread is dealing with is the inherent difficulty assimilating one fully formed western democracy into a developing middle eastern context, acknowledging that it may be impossible, or damaging, to transform one into the other.

Glad we agree on some of this, and I agree that nothing prevents forward movement . . . except maybe a people's own psychic traps. The very existence of many progressive non- fundamentalists is strong evidence in support of your point. :)

Two problems:

1) They won't be left alone to sort it out for themselves, history and time move forward, and IRL there are no Time Outs. The world shrank in 1993, forever, for better or worse. I won't say I much like the rate of change, but that does not alter the fact that it exists. Future Shock is still very much in place, thirty years after the term's invention. (Toffler coined it, and wrote a book of that title.)

2) The hard part: how do you convice those who need to be convinced? <== the first one to figure that one out gets my vote for the Nobel Prize, the one Bill Clinton was after.

[Jester]

"That Arabs hardly swept away the Persians. What they did was give them a new religion, what Persia gave them, and the Muslim world, was the societal framework that allowed Islam to grow and achieve empire. The Turks fell in on that, an already established Empire that was built along Persian organizational lines. The Persian social influence on the various Caliphates is well documented. You can win a war, but it is not uncommon that part of the conquered people rubs off on you. Tortillas, anyone? Sushi, anyone? Frankfurters, anyone?"

Obviously, we're dealing with a synthesis here. The Mongols attacked the Chinese, and became Chinese. But they were still Mongols as well. Who can say whose empire it is? The obvious answer is that it was the Mongolians'. But it all blurs too much to tell.

The Arabs, who are unquestionably the first people of Islam, went-a-conquerin'. They (not the Persians) brought forth the ideas of Monotheism, justice and order. They conquered and converted in a time honoured manner. When you assimilate a people as old and as proud as the Persians, you will obviously change, just as the Romans did when they took Greece. The Persian administration was assimilated. Persian poetry mixed with Islamic faith to produce one of the great poetic revolutions. All sorts of junk went on.

But the fact remains: Mohammed was an Arab, Islam was Arab first, and it was they who came out of the desert (as the Mongols came out of the steppes) to found a new empire. The ideas of justice and civilization, while refined by the Persian system, originated in the Sharia, for which only Arabs could seriously be given the credit, since they were the only ones around at its creation.

My point with the Arab/Turk vs. French/German comparison was this: They are historically related peoples. They follow the same religion. They occasionally get along. They speak similar languages. But mostly, they hate each others' guts. Domination of one by the other is always loathed, then reversed, then loathed on the other side. Only from the outside would this appear to be one system.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Check your history on this score:

Obviously, we're dealing with a synthesis here. The Mongols attacked the Chinese, and became Chinese. But they were still Mongols as well. Who can say whose empire it is? The obvious answer is that it was the Mongolians'. But it all blurs too much to tell.

Try around the time of the Crusades, 1200 ish, Ogadai shows up, son or nephew of Kublai Khan, and kicks ass in Damascus and Baghdad. :) It took the Fatamids in Cairo, Suliman the Great, some Mamaluks, not to mention political strife at home, to slow his arse down. He cut a wide swath from Samarkand to Damascus.

But the fact remains: Mohammed was an Arab, Islam was Arab first, and it was they who came out of the desert (as the Mongols came out of the steppes) to found a new empire. The ideas of justice and civilization, while refined by the Persian system, originated in the Sharia, for which only Arabs could seriously be given the credit, since they were the only ones around at its creation.

Don't you mean "the Islamic ideas of justice and civilization?" The most relevant claim to empire, by the Arabs, is the spread of the Arabic language, which being the only authorized language of the Koran, became a standard. (See also Ancient Greek and Latin and Slavonic as 'official' Christian languages. Martin Luther did not show up until the 1400's.) Those ideas on "civilization" are a few millenia older than Islam. Credit to The Prophet for his synthesis, and for expanding on monotheism learned from the Hebrews, Christians, and a few others. :P He did not make it up. Credit also to him, and his followers, for some new slants on the social contract. *tips caps* I am all for public beheadings.

But when the Arabs and the Bedouins spread out, and as you note assimilated Perisia, a funny thing happened. Persia rubbed off. The era you referred to initially was a reference to the golden years of Islam, and the Persian influence had been imbedded for some time by then. Victory from within, but a victory on style. Shiite = Persian Islam. (Hmm, a bit simplistic there.)

Greece, Rome and Persia, even Egypt, were civilizations long before Mohamed ever went into that cave, and for that matter, Egypt was a civilization when he showed up with Islam.

Islam? Offered some new ideas on how to be a civilization. It worked for a while, and like most great ideas, changed over time.

Yes, Mohamed was an Arab, but the Arabs lost control of Islam to the Turks, after the Persians had already, from within, changed it, particularly as it related to Empire. The Turks lost out when Attaturk threw the Caliphate out as a premise for government. It took The West and WW I to give it back to the Arabs, and I'd suggest that the Ayatollah's contest the matter of who is in charge. You have heard of them, have you not? You know, those Persians? :)

My point with the Arab/Turk vs. French/German comparison was this: They are historically related peoples. They follow the same religion. They occasionally get along. They speak similar languages. But mostly, they hate each others' guts. Domination of one by the other is always loathed, then reversed, then loathed on the other side. Only from the outside would this appear to be one system

Peoples related because they ran into each other and changed each other. And yes, for sure, the "hate each others guts" theme is consistent throughout history. Hurrah for mankind, consistent to the end!

Before I go, "The West" rediscovered a lot of Greek culture because it had been kept as reference material by the wise men of the Muslim world. Great librarians, those Arabs of the towns, and good for them. :) Who do I write to, these days, to thank them for Algebra?

[Jester]

"Try around the time of the Crusades, 1200 ish, Ogadai shows up, son or nephew of Kublai Khan, and kicks ass in Damascus and Baghdad. It took the Fatamids in Cairo, Suliman the Great, some Mamaluks, not to mention political strife at home, to slow his arse down. He cut a wide swath from Samarkand to Damascus."

What? Yeah, this happened. I think I missed how this has to do with the Mongolians being Chinese (or any of the other peoples they conquered). I didn't realize I needed a Mongolian history lesson. Of course, speaking of Islam, Tamerlaine's empire assimilated Islam (or the other way around, depending on how you look at it). Always a synthesis.

"Don't you mean "the Islamic ideas of justice and civilization?" The most relevant claim to empire, by the Arabs, is the spread of the Arabic language, which being the only authorized language of the Koran, became a standard. (See also Ancient Greek and Latin and Slavonic as 'official' Christian languages. Martin Luther did not show up until the 1400's.) Those ideas on "civilization" are a few millenia older than Islam. Credit to The Prophet for his synthesis, and for expanding on monotheism learned from the Hebrews, Christians, and a few others. He did not make it up. Credit also to him, and his followers, for some new slants on the social contract. *tips caps* I am all for public beheadings."

Yes, and it all dates back to the Code of Hammurabi, and back before that to some unknown code of laws at the dawn of time. Mohammed was responsible for a major advancement, a powerful and new iteration of the notion of law and order, purifying the ideas of monotheism (only halfheartedly practiced by the Christians, and practiced somewhat supersitiously by the Jews, and from the vantage of a "chosen people", an idea largely missing from Islam) and justice into a very compact package, for its time. Obviously he did not reinvent the wheel, or invent the entire concept of justice whole cloth.

"Yes, Mohamed was an Arab, but the Arabs lost control of Islam to the Turks, after the Persians had already, from within, changed it, particularly as it related to Empire. The Turks lost out when Attaturk threw the Caliphate out as a premise for government. It took The West and WW I to give it back to the Arabs, and I'd suggest that the Ayatollah's contest the matter of who is in charge. You have heard of them, have you not? You know, those Persians? "

You say this as though it was an afternoon. This process took a whole millenium! Sure, Persian influence grew over time; Persia is a natural administrative centre, with a rich, developed society and a connection to the east. Sure, the Ottomans took over, after a very, very long run; empires come and go. The Arabs were the driving force behind the entire business for at least a couple centuries, possibly longer. The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.

Yes, every victory is qualified. Yes, all the Arabs (or anyone) achieved was also attributable to a synthesis or assimilation with another culture, either older (in decline, but still with a rich culture) or newer (with a fiery spirit, the kind that drives an empire).

But the Arab civilization was not a "romantic fiction", at least insofar as any individual nation or group can claim exclusive credit for anything, which is not very far at all.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

What? Yeah, this happened. I think I missed how this has to do with the Mongolians being Chinese (or any of the other peoples they conquered). I didn't realize I needed a Mongolian history lesson. Of course, speaking of Islam, Tamerlaine's empire assimilated Islam (or the other way around, depending on how you look at it). Always a synthesis.

I misinterpreted your initial comment in re synthesis. I checked back, and your question on Mongols was not pointed at their ending 'the soire.' My error.

. . . (only halfheartedly practiced by the Christians, and practiced somewhat supersitiously by the Jews, and from the vantage of a "chosen people", an idea largely missing from Islam)

Not buying your characterization of Jews and Christians. The picture you paint is derogatory, and you can't back it up with fact. You just spouted a bit of Mohamaden propaganda, or did you not realize that?

You say this as though it was an afternoon. This process took a whole millenium! Sure, Persian influence grew over time; Persia is a natural administrative centre, with a rich, developed society and a connection to the east. Sure, the Ottomans took over, after a very, very long run; empires come and go. The Arabs were the driving force behind the entire business for at least a couple centuries, possibly longer. The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.

I made no reference to time, I was explaining a cycle of transition. I disagree with you on how early and deep Persian influence was significant, and for how long, no matter. At this point, I don't much care: we disagree. But please refer back to my original point of disagreement.

The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.

Which Romans? West or East? And as far as America, we are carrying on the globalism of the Age of Empires (1500-1920) via maritime trade, page out of the UK book, with European Enlightenment ideas as guiding principles. We have been at it for less than 100 years, which is roughly about how long ago we started to take on on the mantle from the Brits. The problem with time frame comparison vis a vis Romans and Arabs? Rate of change. In 100 years, the Indians might be writing brilliant treatises on how America rose and fell, in Sanskrit. Who knows?

But the Arab civilization was not a "romantic fiction", at least insofar as any individual nation or group can claim exclusive credit for anything, which is not very far at all.

The era that you first addressed, the era of the Islamic World being the pinnacle of civilization, was centuries after the base line Arab movement started, and well into the Persianization. That was my point in the first place. ;) Ponder this question, while you are at it. What was an Egyptian before Mohamaden's showed up with their jihad?

Did Mohamed change the world? Yep. Did he base it on a tribal model? Yep. Is a tribal model suitable to the post Enlightenment-Age? Nope. Why? Among other reasons, the weapons are simply too destructive.

Is there possibly a better synthesis between a pure Enlightenment model of the world and a purely tribal model than anything we have seen yet.

Gawd, I hope so!

[Jester]

"You just spouted a bit of Mohamaden propaganda, or did you not realize that?"

I would be in a very unusual position if I was, since I no more believe the Islamic faith than I do the Christian faith, or the Jewish faith. However, it is theologically accurate that, while the Christians saw fit to introduce a Three-in-One god, plus a whole pantheon of heavenly creatures (angels, seraphim, whatnot) and enough saints to fill the Hindu pantheon, Islam remains more or less committed to a One God, One Religion standpoint. The Jews... well, their religion has evolved with their context. Now it is Monotheism, in a more or less pure form. Then? Their god was the biggest, not the only. His grace was reserved for his Jews, not for whomever should believe in him. He was the god of the Jews first, god of the universe second. That, to me, seems to be a lesser concept, at least in terms of a just religious order. This is, of course, from the standpoint of someone who only cares about the social impact of beliefs, not their accuracy.

This is not propaganda. This, as far as I can see, is theology.

The rest, I think we've hacked out as far as it's going to go, without detailed theses on middle eastern history, which I, for one, am not educated enough to provide.

Jester