Middle East Mess
by KevinJuly 17th, 2006
I hate writing about the Israeli/Arab conflict for several reasons, one of which is the inevitable river of flame that such posts generate. Within minutes of posting it, all rational conversation gets swamped by viciousness and hate. Pretty soon, the thread is little more than anti-Semites and anti-Arab bigots shouting at each other. I have no patience with this, as I have no patience for the justifications for either side on this issue any more. Both sides, at this point, have devolved into collective punishment as their sole means of operations. Israeli soldiers are captured, so Israel bombs Lebanon, knowing that there will be civilian causalities and for the express purpose of getting the Lebanese government to fight with Hezbollah, knowing that will start a civil war. Israel captures or kills a Hamas leader, Hamas blows up a night club or shopping market. Hamas captures an Israeli soldier, Israeli destroys the infrastructure of Gaza, leading to civilian death. On and on and on it goes, with neither side having the willingness to ignore its extremists.
If the leadership of Hamas in the territories and the Israeli government had the strength and the foresight to realize that the abduction in Gaza was the result of Hamas extremists trying to veto the progress that was apparently being made, then things would be much better right now. But neither side did. If the US and Israel had any foresight, after the Cedar Revolution — a revolution that Israeli and the US are now putting at grave risk — they would have worked diligently to rebuild the armed forces of the federal government of Lebanon, so that Hezbollah could be contained. Would Hezbollah be willing to provoke Israel if the Lebanese army was on par with that of the Israelis? Probably not, but neither Israel or the US had the intelligence to create a Lebanon equal to that task, very likely because no one in the current governments of Israel or the US can imagine a peace through anything other than dominance.
Both sides have decided, against all history, all reason, and all experience, that if they just beat on the other side long enough and hard enough, they will give in. No one is giving in. The blows are just absorbed and remembered for justification the next time. Breaking out of the pattern is not going to be easy, but it is the only way to actually achieve anything. Having outside pressure would be one way to give the needed cover for both sides to back down, but the US no longer seems interested in doing that. They neo-cons still believe that they can bloody few noses and control the Middle East. The experience of Iraq, apparently, has taught them nothing.
The only question now is how many people are going to die and how much damage will be done as justification for the next round.
Categories: General |
The only thing new this time is the weapons being used. There seems to be an escalation in them, kind of like bow and arrow to gun, flint lock to machine gun. Rockets have changed the landscape of violence. Amazing how far away North Korea seems to be yet they can lay a city terminating nuclear warhead on San Francicco with a rocket. Rockets will rock you I guess.
Maybe a little understanding of us will help. What makes people even want to terminate other people’s cities? There’s a new page at the hoax-buster web site, “understanding us.” Maybe it will help understand the problem.
Learning lies and believing them is worse than no education at all. That’s negative education. Are our educational institutions graduating experts that are more ignorant than before they before the started? Turmoil in the mid east is easy to understand from that vantage point. http://www.hoax-buster.org/aboutus
“Both sides have decided, against all history, all reason, and all experience, that if they just beat on the other side long enough and hard enough, they will give in.”
Actually if you look at history this ALWAYS works. It only fails when it isn’t hard enough. But hard enough usually means hard enough that almost everyone with any will to fight on the other side is dead. “Carthago Delenda Est”. Less hard than that, as you say, doesn’t work. When you look at how much it really takes, not many situations justify it.
“:Actually if you look at history this ALWAYS works.”
No, it never works short of genocide — unles shard enough meant genocide. Even if it occasionally provides a respite, the resentments remains and flare up again and again.
Kevin,
I agree with you 100% on this, and am equally depressed by it.
It is ironic that in some ways Israel and Palestine depend on one another; Many Palestinians rely on Israel to find work, and Israel relys on their labor. And you’re right that the voices of reason somehow have to marginalize extremists on both sides. It is interesting that some Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, voiced criticism of the recent Hamas attacks, something that would have been unheard of in the recent past.
Kevin: “No, it never works short of genocide — unles shard enough meant genocide. Even if it occasionally provides a respite, the resentments remains and flare up again and again.”
To repeat my earlier comment, “But hard enough usually means hard enough that almost everyone with any will to fight on the other side is dead.” Is that genocide? Sometimes. I could see that description in Rome vs. Carthage. Which of these apparently settled issues is not really settled or was genocide: WWII Allies vs. Axis, Napoleonic French imperialism, America vs. British Empire?
Interesting to note that in every one of these examples, they had to do it again, usually harder, before it was settled.
“The Lebanese Situation”
The Lebanese-Israeli situation looks serious. We’ve all been through this movie before and seen earlier episodes. Let’s hope there is a prisoner exchange between all parties: the Hezbollah, Hamas, and Israel. A cease fire is needed—especially at this moment—between Hezbollah and Israel. Hamas appears ‘dug in’ in Gaza, so I don’t know what is to happen there either. Israel appears to have its hands full and is about to dirty other nations hands. The UN is going to have to get involved in the Lebanon thing sooner or later. A prayer goes out to our Lord for all currently in the Mid-East lands. Good time to stay inside and away from the heat—in more ways than one. Hey, when is the state department going to call me up and ask for my advice? ( A Joke) They never answered me back when Powell was in office…I wrote a letter about a compromise solution for Palestine, et al…
EC wrote: “Interesting to note that in every one of these examples, they had to do it again, usually harder, before it was settled.”
Before what was settled? The struggle over competing markets? Regional rivalry?
Europe is an interesting example, paricularly the rivalry between France and Germany. After two world wars, it appears they’ve decided to re-direct their rivalry into a more cooperative form as the EU. Your assumption that regional conflict can only be resolved by one side beaten into submission is a little too social-darwinist for my taste. The world is too small, the ramifications of such continual conflict, particularly among nations with nuclear weapons, is too great for that to be acceptable.
What happens if Israel gets what it wants? Security
What happens if Hezbollah gets what it wants? Death to all Jews in Israel.
Which side do you want to win?
Sigh. Why can’t I also resolve the world to a series of bumber sticker slogans?
Ted, instead of insults, why not say which one you prefer. What are the other choices?
Also, Ted, why don’t you do some homework and find out what the goals of Hezbollah are? You will find that all their goals lead to one goal — the destruction of Israel and its Jewish population. Is Irael’s goal the destruction of Moslems?
EC: “WWII Allies vs. Axis, Napoleonic French imperialism, America vs. British Empire?”
Janusz: “Before what was settled? The struggle over competing markets? Regional rivalry?”
I suspect I cannot be understanding you correctly. Europe is no longer part of the Third Reich or the French Empire; America is no longer part of the British Empire. You see these, which I see as resistance to imperialism, as nothing more than regional rivalry or the struggle over competing markets? Life would pretty much be the same in, say, Czechoslovakia, if it were still a part of Grosse Deutschland, would it? Or do you think it would be better if non-German Europeans, Middle Easterners, Africans and western Asians had re-directed their rivalries into a form more cooperative with Nazism?
For any who aren’t well-versed in history, and wonder why I mention resistance to imperialism rather than prevention of genocide for WWII, the genocide part was almost unknown until the end. There were rumors of the Holocaust, but it was so preposterously horrible no one could believe it until the camps were actually found by armies of witnesses with cameras.
Enough of this talk of genocide…The United Nations must get involved. Back to the future, unless the Middle East is going to become “a bed of stones”. The “Holy Land” has been a battlefield in most of the modern era. We need a solution that is to last at least one hundred years. Why can’t there be a partition of “palestine” and let one side be repatriated by Jordan while the other side, divided lengthwise at the prominent ridge, is under Israeli administration? This was thought of before by my father in the 1950s. Why wasn’t it ever put into practice. The idea of a two-state solution does not take into the account the interests of Jordan. Southern Lebanon should be a permanent UN mandate until Hezbollah is routed out. Gaza should be returned to Egypt. There is no room for a “palestinian” state which was a Roman creation to begin with and is originally a part of Jordan in the modern era.
After the fall of Rome, things got sticky. The natural boundary is at the large geographical ridge which splits the West Bank. Do I hear a “10-4″ or all you “wikipedia” educated folks gonna bail on me? This thing has been going on for at least 1000 years. Let’s someone acknowledge this and let’s get some kind of solution that the WORLD can live with. The “Holy Land” is OUR sacred land, too. No more killings, no more genocides. Let’s get together with the United Nations and impose a solution like the Russians and Germans did with Poland in the 1790s. “Palestine” has demonstrated that it has no right to be a sovereign state. All three main religions in the area: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a stake in the Holy Land not becoming a “bed of stones”. Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan ahould have fixed, and defendable borders, not to be divided up like swiss cheese. (This place is NOT Bosnia, and should not have a Bosnian type solution. Wake up–is everyone like race horses with blinders on?) Condi, are you listening?
Steve:
I agree with you that a two-state solution is probably the best, as most players in the Middle East, including Israel, have bought into it. I also agree the UN needs to get involved, Jerusalem should be divide (de jure, as it is already de facto divided into Arab and Israeli sections) with the Old City under international supervision.
I don’t understand your objection to a Palestinian state, though. How would aligning the Arab part of Palestine with Jordan end conflict if the Palestinians perceive themselves as distinct. Decades of Israeli rule has given the West Bank a more western cultural outlook than Jordan. Jordan probably would not appreciate Al Fatah as a political force.
My reasons for raging against the current diplomatic machine of the the last forty years is that it is not working. “Palestine”
continues to be a thorn in the side of Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. Time to partition this “palestinian” fractious bunch who squabble worse among themselves than shiites and sunnis. The two state solution should be between Jordan and Israel. “Palestine” is NOT a nation-state and cannot survive on its own without massive assistance from both Jordan and Israel.
The “palestinian” economy is in shambles and will continue to be.
Like Taiwan is to China, “palestine” is a breakaway state from the main body of Jordan mainly the result of the Six Day War. Palestinians ARE Jordanians. Furthermore, the Israelis would much prefer defensable borders and have said as much many times. If people continue to fund and defend the “palestinian” state, they are barking up the wrong cedar tree. It would be better to build up the Lebanese army against Hezbollah!
Steve, can you please expand on your statement that “Palestinians ARE Jordanians”. Not arguing, am interested in your reasoning.
Now I get your analogy to 19th century Poland.
Did the partition of Poland end the aspirations of the Polish people? Are the Kurds any less nationalistic, and not worrisome to Turkey and Iran (and Iraq) because they are divided among three countries?
All in good time, kind folks, all in good time… Yes, Jordan once owned the West Bank, “wikipediaites”, and Poland eventually DID get their independence after World War I but they had to fight another war–World War II and get out from under communism to FINALLY be independent.
There is no getting what one wants on the diplomatic dream sheet. However, if we partition “palestine”, the whole world will benefit. Let’s hope it lasts 150 years instead of two weeks. The “Oslo Accords” didn’t do much at all except aggravate the situation. We need a lasting solution beyond our collective lifetimes.
Yes, the Kurds are still restless in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. However, some countries must be partitioned or not allowed to be nation-states if they show no inclination to be able to govern. It was a decision approved by all concerned.
Unfortunately, tribal squabbling persists.
Israel, on the other hand, has had a strong government ever since they came into existence. The Jews have been in the Middle East since the 1870s and before. Israel was their original homeland in which the Jewish people gained their independence by fire in 1948.
Steve: “Jordan once owned the West Bank”
I fail to see the significance of this. When Israel was created, land was also designated for Palestinians to “own”. True, they and the other Arab countries rejected the plan, but then the Palestinian land was divvied up among the surrounding countries, two of which were just-created nations themselves.
The way I see it, Palestinians have been screwed out of a homeland. Until that is fixed, I can understand (which is different than condone) their unrest.
In my view, “palestinians” may choose between being Jordanians and Israelis. Folks in Gaza may choose to be Egyptians. I realize I am going against the flow. However, that is how I see it. “Palestine” was part of Jordan and Israel and needs to remain so. “Palestinians” sold their land to the Jews more than a hundred years ago when the second great immigration took place.
They were glad to get the money then, and now more than a hundred years later are trying to take back “their land”. Sorry, we didn’t give Manhattan back to the Amerindians either.
That is where I stand. Israel has a right to exist and “palestinians” are usurping that right. Many “palestinians” would welcome becoming a part of Jordan. Some would even become Israelis so they can get jobs. The Muslim world is stubborn about Jews even existing in Israel. I think the USA should continue to be Israel’s ally along with others. Palestine was a Roman name for Israel designed to “wipe out” all traces of Hebrew culture after the destruction of the main temple. Another example: After the Jewish people were forced out, the Arabs took over the whole of the Middle East in the name of “jihad” and eventually under the Turks took over the Byzantine Empire which was a Christian Eastern Romanized country. The muslims took over Hagia Sofia Cathedral and turned it into a mosque. Should Turkey now give this back to Greece? Tell me about it. No, I have no sympathy for the “palestinian
cause”. What’s done is done. ‘Nuff said.
Wow. Seems if a Jew is on some land, it is his and he deserves to have a country as well. But a Palestinian - well he is different, he gets to “choose” to be part of some other country - even though his ancestors have lived on the land for 1000s of years, and the two countries in question did not even exist 100 years ago. I don’t know what the answer is, but you clearly have zero sense of fairness, or history.
Am unfamiliar with the “Palestinians willingly sold their land to the Jews” history. Anyone have any unbiased documentation on this? I (an American) recently bought property in Canada. I wonder if that gives me the right to make that land part of the US.
Ted, you sound like one of those “wikipediates” I’ve been harping on.
Of course I’m biased. History is written by the victors.
Steve, I don’t understand your reference. Are you implying personal experience and bias are more informative than researce and study when trying to understand a centuries old situation involving millions of people of disparate religious and cultural heritage?
Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself to be victorious over?
I’m implying that I have my bias. I support Israel 99 % of the time. Perhaps you should become familiar with the sale of arab lands in the late part of the 19th century and the early twentieth century. There was a mass return of jewish settlers to the Middle East around the current Israeli areas. Then, instead of always taking the side of the arabs, you would realize that the jewish settlers have a personal stake in the matter at hand.
A relative of mine is currently in Saudi Arabia and this mess may affect him.
Your curiosity is to who is the victor in this case. I am not the victor in this cause. This is an old metaphor you must not be familiar with either. History is in the eyes of the beholder. It is there for everyone to partake of. It is especially true to those who are reveling in the moment of their hard won cause and then they see it in print. When the Jewish people won their independence in 1948, for example, they were the victors.
Western civilization has been victorious for years. Hopefully, history will continue to be written by such as us. This includes all of you.
Steve, couple of things. I don’t “always take the side of the arabs”. And of course jewish settlers have a stkae in the situation. As does everyone in the area.
“History is wriiten by the victors” is not a metaphor. And the common meaning is not that history is in the eye of the beholder, but rather that those that are victorious dictate the future after their victory. FWIW.
Steve, you still haven’t explained how linking Palestine with Jordan is going to resolve the situation, or why Palestinians would be any more comfortable in Jordan than in Israel, particularly given the shaky history between the Jordanians and the Palestinians in the late ’60’s.
Steve Plonk wrote: “I’m implying that I have my bias. I support Israel 99 % of the time.”
That’s all fine and good, but I think the only way to resolve the situation is through negotiations, and they need to address Palestinian grievances or nothing will be resolved. The current situation is untenable. And to approach negotiations favoring one side over the other would render them meaningless. If the creation of a Palestinian state within contiguous borders offers the Palestinians the identity they want, and Israelis a resolution to conflict, I think it should be pursued. Linking the Palestinians to another country will only continue the resentment and the conflict.
Kind folks and gentle people, there is really nothing else to explain. You either get it or you don’t. The current negotiations are not working. Other methods must be deployed. The Middle East is not Bosnia and history IS written by the victors whether any of you think it is a metaphor or not. I am through addressing this subject. Tribal warfare is tedious and it is time a solution was imposed on those who cannot get along. The body count is rising as we speak. It is time the United Nations and/or NATO got involved and impose a solution on all parties involved. Condi, et al, have my plan for “compromise” and they can take it or leave. However, if they leave it, things will not get better. “My plan” was proposed in the fifties originally by my Father. ;No one gets what they want in it, but the world gets what is needed for peace. To hell with the “palestinians”, Hamas, and Hezbollah and their ilk. When all is said and done, they will be a footnote in history.
With all respect to all of you,
I have noticed that even the most leftist people in the US tend to see the situation to be 50/50. That is 50% Arabs are wrong, and 50% Israeli are wrong. While of course a majority of democrats and republicans , see something like more then 90% support for Israel. Since YOU are seriously interested in knowing SOME truth about this topic, there is something that YOU need to ask yourself : WHERE DO I GET MY INFORMATION FROM ? the answer will determine most of the time your point of views. Knowing this, if I tell you, that IT IS A KNOWN FACT, that the US MEDIA is abuot 99% biased toward ISRAEL, what would you do ? will you try to verify my claim ? ( as a start video google Peace , Propaganda and the Promised land) Or will you try to look for books, other media to know more about the history of the region ?
Cause seriously, I am from there, and I understand that it is very confusing for you already to know about this region, and I prefer to spurr the quest of truth rather giving my opinions..
I just think that americans should liberate themselves from media lobbies ( as well as pharmaceutical lobbies, military lobbies.. )