a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Baker said:
I think the real reason was that they just couldn't be bothered coming up with a lame excuse this time.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
And Hamas and Sharon are now gleefully scratching each other's backs, with the PA left out in the cold. So much for optimism. Now the IDF are seeming to say they have been planning a major series of assassinations, and no peace process was going to get in the way. Settlements are being dismantled and put straight back up again - I wonder, will ten settlements taken down five times become fifty settlements removed? Time to find out if the US commitment means anything. Angry words from Powell might put a scare into some people, but then the Israeli Foreign Office apparently wasn't even warned of yesterday's attacks so they aren't likely to exert much influence. Another sad day.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Guardian Article
Keep an eye out for the public comments of the generals and the heroes. Always in the light of how much of the population is Russian, and how many recent immigrants there are.
From the article:
Perhaps the blatant brutishness that Sharon finds necessary to placate his (in his perception) most dangerous audience is too great for placation of the real great danger - the majority, living-in-Israel, ordinary people who want a normal life. To quote an Israeli parliamentarian:
Perhaps the best hope is in the anger of the Israeli people. If that really starts to tell - and general strikes by public workers realising that the iron rice bowl they were promised is history, a 55%of GDP public sector and new generations in the diaspora who aren't buying the "Israel is the victim" line any more suggest that it will - a whole new situation could easily appear from the smoke. A situation that includes a majority of Israelis and a majority of Palestinians putting down the rest, and giving up the past and the absolutism in exchange for a better future.
The actual behaviour of the US may not turn out to be that crucial. The internal dynamics of Israel are the crux. If the US turned off the money tap today, Sharon could continue on whatever path he's chosen for months or years. If Israeli reservists just stopped turning up, in large numbers, the rule of law is screwed and the government falls. Lets face it, the government system was never designed to be stable except when there was one unquestionably dominant party. Which was supposed to be Labour, ben-Gurion's legacy, but the rights of inheritance turned out not to be a sufficient argument. A party has to keep track of what the constituencey becomes, not what the program says they will. This may all seem a little arcane, but it is actually very pertinent to the current situation.
The democratic system of Israel is supposed to reflect the views and interests of the people - it's a prominent claim of Israel that it is democratic. So if there is good evidence that the will of the majority is being flouted a major claim on the loyalty of the diaspora will be lost. And that represents a very large capital flow; just what it represents in relation to the US subsidy is a a mystery, but I would be surpirsed if it wasn't at least equivalent. The diaspora is changing demographically, just like every other societal group, and the new generations don't have the same buttons to press. I would venture to suggest that fundie Christianity is more Zionist than under-35 Jews in the US right now, and those Jews don't think the Christians have suddenly fallen in love with the Christ-killers. In truth, the greatest threat to large numbers of Jews today is from Christianity - just like it's always been. How far is it from "the Bible has given them that land" to "they don't belong here"?
Sharon may get squeezed between a rock and a hard place. To keep the non-fundies on-side he has to appear as something the fundies won't accept. As a result, he may be removed by a pragmatic majority. It could be the only solution - after all, Arafat has been removed in all but name, and Israeli Prime Minister is a famously transient post. The whole position of Prime Minister - President was neutered in the constitution - is experimental, having been non-elected then elected then assassinated then non-elected again, all within a decade or so.
Starting to get optimistic again.
I will now read recent posts and probably lose that feeling.
Keep an eye out for the public comments of the generals and the heroes. Always in the light of how much of the population is Russian, and how many recent immigrants there are.
From the article:
Perhaps the blatant brutishness that Sharon finds necessary to placate his (in his perception) most dangerous audience is too great for placation of the real great danger - the majority, living-in-Israel, ordinary people who want a normal life. To quote an Israeli parliamentarian:
Perhaps the best hope is in the anger of the Israeli people. If that really starts to tell - and general strikes by public workers realising that the iron rice bowl they were promised is history, a 55%of GDP public sector and new generations in the diaspora who aren't buying the "Israel is the victim" line any more suggest that it will - a whole new situation could easily appear from the smoke. A situation that includes a majority of Israelis and a majority of Palestinians putting down the rest, and giving up the past and the absolutism in exchange for a better future.
The actual behaviour of the US may not turn out to be that crucial. The internal dynamics of Israel are the crux. If the US turned off the money tap today, Sharon could continue on whatever path he's chosen for months or years. If Israeli reservists just stopped turning up, in large numbers, the rule of law is screwed and the government falls. Lets face it, the government system was never designed to be stable except when there was one unquestionably dominant party. Which was supposed to be Labour, ben-Gurion's legacy, but the rights of inheritance turned out not to be a sufficient argument. A party has to keep track of what the constituencey becomes, not what the program says they will. This may all seem a little arcane, but it is actually very pertinent to the current situation.
The democratic system of Israel is supposed to reflect the views and interests of the people - it's a prominent claim of Israel that it is democratic. So if there is good evidence that the will of the majority is being flouted a major claim on the loyalty of the diaspora will be lost. And that represents a very large capital flow; just what it represents in relation to the US subsidy is a a mystery, but I would be surpirsed if it wasn't at least equivalent. The diaspora is changing demographically, just like every other societal group, and the new generations don't have the same buttons to press. I would venture to suggest that fundie Christianity is more Zionist than under-35 Jews in the US right now, and those Jews don't think the Christians have suddenly fallen in love with the Christ-killers. In truth, the greatest threat to large numbers of Jews today is from Christianity - just like it's always been. How far is it from "the Bible has given them that land" to "they don't belong here"?
Sharon may get squeezed between a rock and a hard place. To keep the non-fundies on-side he has to appear as something the fundies won't accept. As a result, he may be removed by a pragmatic majority. It could be the only solution - after all, Arafat has been removed in all but name, and Israeli Prime Minister is a famously transient post. The whole position of Prime Minister - President was neutered in the constitution - is experimental, having been non-elected then elected then assassinated then non-elected again, all within a decade or so.
Starting to get optimistic again.
I will now read recent posts and probably lose that feeling.
Hey Capel Dodger!
Do you think that Thomas Friedman lurks here and steals my ideas for his articles?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/opinion/15FRIE.html
The Reality Principle
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Have you noticed how often Israel kills a Hamas activist and the victim is described by Israelis as "a senior Hamas official" or a "key operative"? This has led me to wonder: How many senior Hamas officials could there be? We're not talking about I.B.M. here. We're talking about a ragtag terrorist group. By now Israel should have killed off the entire Hamas leadership twice. Unless what is happening is something else, something I call Palestinian math: Israel kills one Hamas operative and three others volunteer to take his place, in which case what Israel is doing is actually self-destructive. [...]
The fact is, the only time Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade has been when Palestinian security services disciplined their own people, in the heyday of Oslo. Unfortunately, Yasir Arafat proved unwilling to do that consistently. The whole idea of the Bush peace process is to move Mr. Arafat aside and replace him with a Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who is ready to rebuild the Palestinian security services, and, in the context of an interim peace settlement, corral Hamas.
and look how he concludes
Do you think that Thomas Friedman lurks here and steals my ideas for his articles?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/opinion/15FRIE.html
The Reality Principle
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Have you noticed how often Israel kills a Hamas activist and the victim is described by Israelis as "a senior Hamas official" or a "key operative"? This has led me to wonder: How many senior Hamas officials could there be? We're not talking about I.B.M. here. We're talking about a ragtag terrorist group. By now Israel should have killed off the entire Hamas leadership twice. Unless what is happening is something else, something I call Palestinian math: Israel kills one Hamas operative and three others volunteer to take his place, in which case what Israel is doing is actually self-destructive. [...]
The fact is, the only time Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade has been when Palestinian security services disciplined their own people, in the heyday of Oslo. Unfortunately, Yasir Arafat proved unwilling to do that consistently. The whole idea of the Bush peace process is to move Mr. Arafat aside and replace him with a Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who is ready to rebuild the Palestinian security services, and, in the context of an interim peace settlement, corral Hamas.
and look how he concludes
And this is what the "opponents" think about Friedman's article.
I know that this will sound cheap from my part but after reading this I can't help thinking that there is a good reason for their not having a country still...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1610.shtml
Illuminating Thomas Friedman
M. Shahid Alam, The Electronic Intifada, 17 June 2003
A webpage on Thomas Friedman, maintained by Farrar, Straux & Giroux, declares that as the foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, he is in a "unique position to interpret the world for American readers. Twice a week, Friedman's commentary provides the most trenchant, pithy, and illuminating perspective in journalism." [...]
Consider his column, "The Reality Principle," from June 15, 2003. With a quote from an Israeli political theorist, Yaron Ezrahi, he argues that only the United States, "an external force," can rescue the Israelis and Palestinians from their self-destructive war against each other. United States of America is the "only reality principle." Only United States can save the day "with its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops."
How illuminating is this?
Is United States altogether "an external force" in its dealings with Israel? This is not a subject that any politician or mainstream columnist, concerned for his or her career, can safely bring into the public discourse. It is much safer to take the position that Israel is a client state of the United States, a strategic asset that polices America's friends and foes alike in the oil-rich Middle East. This is also the premise behind Friedman's description of United States as the "only reality principle" in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
I know that this will sound cheap from my part but after reading this I can't help thinking that there is a good reason for their not having a country still...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1610.shtml
Illuminating Thomas Friedman
M. Shahid Alam, The Electronic Intifada, 17 June 2003
A webpage on Thomas Friedman, maintained by Farrar, Straux & Giroux, declares that as the foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times, he is in a "unique position to interpret the world for American readers. Twice a week, Friedman's commentary provides the most trenchant, pithy, and illuminating perspective in journalism." [...]
Consider his column, "The Reality Principle," from June 15, 2003. With a quote from an Israeli political theorist, Yaron Ezrahi, he argues that only the United States, "an external force," can rescue the Israelis and Palestinians from their self-destructive war against each other. United States of America is the "only reality principle." Only United States can save the day "with its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops."
How illuminating is this?
Is United States altogether "an external force" in its dealings with Israel? This is not a subject that any politician or mainstream columnist, concerned for his or her career, can safely bring into the public discourse. It is much safer to take the position that Israel is a client state of the United States, a strategic asset that polices America's friends and foes alike in the oil-rich Middle East. This is also the premise behind Friedman's description of United States as the "only reality principle" in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
This is not an intellectual post -- no surprise, given the source.
This is also not a considered opinion or any "real" position held by me. But it was a visceral reaction when the latest rounds of bombing and retaliations began after the announcement of great progress, etc etc.
It came to me as a theory as I sat in my car feeling the horrible - but not unexpected - sinking sensation when the first round of (successful) violence after the meetings was given play on the radio. Not unexpected, because -- lets face it -- how many times have similar accords and agreements and attempts and ideas have all been blown to hell?
Here's the theory that flashed into my head for a full half-minute: "They just like killing each other. They just like it. Its been 30 years and 3 million meetings and 3 billion words and people keep dying and they -just- -must- -like- -killing- -each- -other-. Build a %^%$ wall $%^^# fifty feet high around the whole thing and let 'em at it, because it will never stop; they JUST LIKE KILLING EACH OTHER."
It took 30-40 seconds before reason took over and that irrational response was exorcised from my head. I was left with a terrible sadness; I also felt guilty for allowing that emotional reaction when I am thousands of miles away and not having to deal with the reality of it.
I just wish someone could prove the theory wrong. I wish to God someone could prove it wrong.
NA
This is also not a considered opinion or any "real" position held by me. But it was a visceral reaction when the latest rounds of bombing and retaliations began after the announcement of great progress, etc etc.
It came to me as a theory as I sat in my car feeling the horrible - but not unexpected - sinking sensation when the first round of (successful) violence after the meetings was given play on the radio. Not unexpected, because -- lets face it -- how many times have similar accords and agreements and attempts and ideas have all been blown to hell?
Here's the theory that flashed into my head for a full half-minute: "They just like killing each other. They just like it. Its been 30 years and 3 million meetings and 3 billion words and people keep dying and they -just- -must- -like- -killing- -each- -other-. Build a %^%$ wall $%^^# fifty feet high around the whole thing and let 'em at it, because it will never stop; they JUST LIKE KILLING EACH OTHER."
It took 30-40 seconds before reason took over and that irrational response was exorcised from my head. I was left with a terrible sadness; I also felt guilty for allowing that emotional reaction when I am thousands of miles away and not having to deal with the reality of it.
I just wish someone could prove the theory wrong. I wish to God someone could prove it wrong.
NA
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Cleopatra said:
It is an opinion just as valid as any other. Is the US policy manipulated by Isreal? You only have to look at the influence of other successful lobby groups to see that this is so.
Friedman is writing from his own point of view. A country that is threatened by advanced American subsidised weapons is going to see things differently.
As for whether or not this means they are not entitled to a country, on the basis of what one person writes, is not really fair. I can find you any number of loony, fundamentalist Zionists who would make this guy sound like Gahndi.
Oedipus: " Catharsis? What is the ritual of catharsis and which is its process"?
Kreon: " By ostracicm or by retaliating blood with blood..."
[Sophocles, Oedipus Rex]
Nozed Avenger
No, none is enjoying killings but there is so much blood that has been accumulated over the years,that everybody feels obliged " to retaliate blood with blood"
When the second Intifanda broke out, after Sharon's visit on Mount Temple, palestinian guerillas entered a police station in Hebron, grabed two Israeli soldiers and lynched them.Afterwards, they dipped their hands in their blood and they showed them to the screamming crowd...This was a very ancient ritual and the message was clear to those they knew some History... This time, this Intifada, wasn't about the Liberation of Palestine only,it was about paying old debts...
You know, when you have lost your child, regardless whether you are a Palestinian or an Israeli, you want the blood back. Nothing can satisfy you as much as seing the responsible dead or exiled.
I am afraid that many people on both sides have crossed the borders and they have moved to the land of endless hatred. The Road Map might proceed but you must not really expect that the killings will stop just like that.
To many people-on both sides those killings are a debt that they must pay. This is very sad but very true , I am afraid.
Kreon: " By ostracicm or by retaliating blood with blood..."
[Sophocles, Oedipus Rex]
Nozed Avenger
No, none is enjoying killings but there is so much blood that has been accumulated over the years,that everybody feels obliged " to retaliate blood with blood"
When the second Intifanda broke out, after Sharon's visit on Mount Temple, palestinian guerillas entered a police station in Hebron, grabed two Israeli soldiers and lynched them.Afterwards, they dipped their hands in their blood and they showed them to the screamming crowd...This was a very ancient ritual and the message was clear to those they knew some History... This time, this Intifada, wasn't about the Liberation of Palestine only,it was about paying old debts...
You know, when you have lost your child, regardless whether you are a Palestinian or an Israeli, you want the blood back. Nothing can satisfy you as much as seing the responsible dead or exiled.
I am afraid that many people on both sides have crossed the borders and they have moved to the land of endless hatred. The Road Map might proceed but you must not really expect that the killings will stop just like that.
To many people-on both sides those killings are a debt that they must pay. This is very sad but very true , I am afraid.
a_unique_person said:
The reason I mentioned that sometimes I have the feeling that they do not deserve a country, is because they insist on critisizing what they Israelis or Jews say, instead of composing an opinion on their own.What do they think? What do they want?
The Palestinian part desperately needs a palestinian Friedman, somebody who will " sell" their agenda to the West and will have the status to criticize the palestinian leadership too.
This is how business is done in our days and not by pulling bombs.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Cleopatra said:
I know. Its been going so long and been so bloody that I find it hard to summon any hope when new announcements are made.
I didn't expect an end to the violence. There are extremists on both sides -- with Hamas and two or three similar organizations being the more prominent and less fettered of those -- that want to derail the peace process and will double their efforts to inflict casualties or harm on the other side.
I think what saddened me more than the initial news was the automatic reaction -- immediate reprisals and promised reprisals. I understand the need for both sides to "respond," and to avoid looking like they are just going to let the other side run roughshod over them -- but it all leads back to the same, oh-so predictable dance.
As individuals, people are making choices that may well make sense. Collectively, it leaves everyone in the same quicksand that has swallowed every peace initiative to date.
The sands are hungry; the sands will never be satiated.
NA
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Cleopatra:
(I've only read your quotes from Friedman, not the full article)
I agree with Friedman (no surprise), but I also sympathise a little with the idea that the Israeli is the tail wagging the US dog on occasions. That said, when the US takes matters seriously they can get results. Unfortunately the results tend to be undermined when attention wanders (and US attention does wander). That is Friedman's substantial point.
Getting a solution without outside interference would be extremely difficult, given the nationalist and religious passions that have been roused. There are those on both sides - as ever, in this kind of up-close, communal conflict - who declare any deal unacceptable after what the enemy has already done. Apart from anything else, even negotiation is "rewarding terror" to these people. You see the same kind of thing in Northern Ireland.
The only solution is to give a majority of both parties good reasons for believing that a better future is possible if a deal is done. If those majorities can co-operate and bring real change and improvement in peoples lives the ultras can be at least marginalised.
I'm sure there's a majority in Israel for an end to conflict, and a majority amongst the Arabs. Unfortunately Sharon doesn't seem to represent the Israeli majority in this, and he - like many who post to this forum - chooses to view Hamas as the Arab representative, not the PA. It seems increasingly unlikely that the Sharonistas want peace. That means the Israeli majority for peace need to change the regime - which, in a democracy, should be possible.
(I've only read your quotes from Friedman, not the full article)
I agree with Friedman (no surprise), but I also sympathise a little with the idea that the Israeli is the tail wagging the US dog on occasions. That said, when the US takes matters seriously they can get results. Unfortunately the results tend to be undermined when attention wanders (and US attention does wander). That is Friedman's substantial point.
Getting a solution without outside interference would be extremely difficult, given the nationalist and religious passions that have been roused. There are those on both sides - as ever, in this kind of up-close, communal conflict - who declare any deal unacceptable after what the enemy has already done. Apart from anything else, even negotiation is "rewarding terror" to these people. You see the same kind of thing in Northern Ireland.
The only solution is to give a majority of both parties good reasons for believing that a better future is possible if a deal is done. If those majorities can co-operate and bring real change and improvement in peoples lives the ultras can be at least marginalised.
I'm sure there's a majority in Israel for an end to conflict, and a majority amongst the Arabs. Unfortunately Sharon doesn't seem to represent the Israeli majority in this, and he - like many who post to this forum - chooses to view Hamas as the Arab representative, not the PA. It seems increasingly unlikely that the Sharonistas want peace. That means the Israeli majority for peace need to change the regime - which, in a democracy, should be possible.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Cleopatra:
Absolutely right. Arab culture has its head stuck way up its fundament, and seems determined to shove it ever deeper. This has been going on since the 13th CE, so the posture is getting pretty painful by now.
Now what???
You see what I was telling you. Why now? What promises did they get? Immunity? Of course I strongly doubt if anybody can control the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030627/wl_nm/mideast_dc_534
You see what I was telling you. Why now? What promises did they get? Immunity? Of course I strongly doubt if anybody can control the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030627/wl_nm/mideast_dc_534
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Celopatra:
Hamas are the more problematic movement, since there is some question as to how unified its Gaza and West Bank parts are.
There is also the possibility that there will be a lot of Palestinian casualties in the near future. Also any claims that are made that Hamas has been "beaten" will be dangerous.
All that being said, it looks like there is progress. There also seems to be a continuing US involvement at a high level, with Condoleezza Rice taking an active part. This is all good news.
Al Aqsa were actually late-comers to suicide-bombing, so we can probably expect them to stop such attacks. Their stated aim is the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, not the end of Israel. Israeli withdrawal will go some way towards satisfying that.
Hamas are the more problematic movement, since there is some question as to how unified its Gaza and West Bank parts are.
There is also the possibility that there will be a lot of Palestinian casualties in the near future. Also any claims that are made that Hamas has been "beaten" will be dangerous.
All that being said, it looks like there is progress. There also seems to be a continuing US involvement at a high level, with Condoleezza Rice taking an active part. This is all good news.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
On the surface thinsg seem quite promising, but there are some worrying signs.
Israel defies peace plan with land grab on West Bank
And guess what:
Israeli army chief attacked for victory claim
To quote from the land-grab story:
Israel as a state seems to have no sense of obligation to stick by agreements. Is there too much pressure not to sign? OK, we sign, but we don't feel obliged to stick by it. No wonder Sharon was smiling Mahmoud Abbas.
Israel defies peace plan with land grab on West Bank
And guess what:
Israeli army chief attacked for victory claim
To quote from the land-grab story:
Israel as a state seems to have no sense of obligation to stick by agreements. Is there too much pressure not to sign? OK, we sign, but we don't feel obliged to stick by it. No wonder Sharon was smiling Mahmoud Abbas.
This should at least put to bed the argument about Arabs being deliberately evicted in 1948.
Capel Dodger
It seems that we have a problem indeed. I kinda knew it, that's why in my very first post in this thread, this is what I wrote. This is what I expected from the Road Map Plan. I did not expect magical solutions. I 'd hope that it would be a good start for people- at least in Israel- to use their brains, for a change :
Moi, from the my first post in this thread:
So. If they want the War and bloodshed to continue , they know the infallible recipe...
It seems that we have a problem indeed. I kinda knew it, that's why in my very first post in this thread, this is what I wrote. This is what I expected from the Road Map Plan. I did not expect magical solutions. I 'd hope that it would be a good start for people- at least in Israel- to use their brains, for a change :
Moi, from the my first post in this thread:
So. If they want the War and bloodshed to continue , they know the infallible recipe...
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Cleopatra said:
And as I have also pointed out, like in Norther Ireland, even if the majority wants peace on both sides, it only takes a few renegades with no wish for peace to keep the kettle boiling.
The worry about the land grab that Capel refers to is that this was an official, Isreali government act.