charley_bigtime
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 482
Dual post - ignore
Israel-Palestine: The Solution
- Thread starter DanishDynamite
- Start date
-
- Tags
- solution
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
While I certainly agree that there are a lot of websites that put out less than reliable information, I would think that a reprint of a news paper story should be judged by the paper that first printed it and not the website that reprinted it. Wouldn't you agree?
charley_bigtime
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 482
Mycroft said:
Absolutely.
But, unfortunately, I stand by my original post.
charley_bigtime
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 482
It has had it's moments. Same as any other media source as you eloquently mentioned.
charley_bigtime said:
Every newspaper has two sections. The one in which it reports news and the other section that hosts OP-ED columns.
You call a medium biased if the way it reports the news is coloured with bias.
For example, if the news is " Sharon met Arafat yesterday" and this fact is reported " Sharon met the leader of the Palestinian murderers" then I agree that the medium is not be taken seriously. I haven' t found JP reporting news that way but it's good to be skeptical in everything you read.
charley_bigtime
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 482
Cleopatra said:
I tend to read as many sources as possible before forming an opinion and as you say am skeptical of a lone source. Of course, with such a volatile subject, any reference to any source being even slightly biased is bound to nark someone somewhere.
Not that it has happened here.
Mycroft, Cleo - have a pleasant evening. I'm off down the boozer.
egslim
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2002
- Messages
- 1,858
I haven't read the entire thread, so if this has been brought up before I apologise. But this tidbit sounded interesting:
These should have sufficient numbers and equipment to do patrols, keep checkpoints, and present a credible deterrent against both Arab/Palestinian and Israeli millitary intervention. That way the inhabitants of the zone could feel safe from whoever they fear. I would propose US troops to guard the Israeli part of the zone, and Saudi troops to protect the Palestinian part. This way, all protectees would be protected by troops they feel they can trust. While at the same time cooperation between US and Saudi troops shouldn't be a problem either. Egyptians could be an option too.
I think this would relax the atmosphere enough that a political solution becomes more viable, since clashes between Israeli's and Palestinians would be much more rare.
Israelis and Palestinians don't trust each other, so maybe some neutral but trusted parties could be brought in. I'm thinking about a large demillitarized zone, where no weapons whatsoever are allowed. With the exception of foreign troops.
These should have sufficient numbers and equipment to do patrols, keep checkpoints, and present a credible deterrent against both Arab/Palestinian and Israeli millitary intervention. That way the inhabitants of the zone could feel safe from whoever they fear. I would propose US troops to guard the Israeli part of the zone, and Saudi troops to protect the Palestinian part. This way, all protectees would be protected by troops they feel they can trust. While at the same time cooperation between US and Saudi troops shouldn't be a problem either. Egyptians could be an option too.
I think this would relax the atmosphere enough that a political solution becomes more viable, since clashes between Israeli's and Palestinians would be much more rare.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
davefoc said:
I think that one of the things that make it so that you find it unclear is that I don't really have a point, in the sense of some sort of partisan justification for one side or the other. In this thread, I'm going by what I percieve to be the intent of this thread, which is to discuss what might be a possible solution, and I'm operating on sort of a meta-level here.
In any event, I'm still waiting for an answer, an explanation about how things were better in oh, pick a date before Sharon. This I haven't seen. I've seen statements that it's even worse right now, but while that may be logically similar to saying that it was better before, there's a huge psychological difference.
I'm primarily interested in the dynamic of Western criticism, because I have easy access to it. I think there are some funny things about it, and I like to explore these. Since there seem to be a lot more critics of Israel, or at least a lot more that I see, criticism of Israel is particularly interesting.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what is the motivation of Israel (any given administration or the electorate) to trust this idea? Let's take the ethics and benefits separately.
As far as I can tell, the people who make ethical criticisms of Israel make them at about the same volume all the time, except for a very brief period around the time of the Oslo accords. Many of them probably believe that they want their criticisms to affect the behavior of Israel, but they pretty much keep the volume turned up to eleven all the time. They will say that things are worse or even worse, but they hardly ever are willing to say that things are better, or even clearly that they were better in the past. From the point of view of behavioral psychology, this is useless in modifying behavior. There has to be relenting and some positive reinforcement, or else it just becomes a blur. When that happens, the patient, whether a human being or a dog or a nation, inevitably just becomes belligerent.
What is the motivation for Israel to respond to ethical criticism by people who give all impressions that they consider Israel to be completely unethical all the time?
As for the other aspect of your assertion, the practical, what is the motivation for Israel to trust an assertion that it will be to their benefit? You offer them no guarantee. Nobody offers them a guarantee. Also, as far as I can tell, many of the criticisms made by Westerners are almost guaranteed not to give the impression of verisimilitude to Israelis.
So, putting the two back together, my guess is that Israelis see a barrage of criticism by people who give the impression of a) having decided Israelis are unethical scum, and b) not understanding what is going on. The fact that Western critics may perceive themselves as having a clear understanding of the ethical and practical situation, even assuming that they are right, is irrelevant. If people don't feel that their concerns are being addressed, they aren't going to listen. This is why diplomacy is so hard and, not incidentally, requires a lot of lying and half-truths.
And this is what I think happened, which was related to the election of Sharon. One can rant about how the settlement offered in 2000 as an opening offer wasn't a perfect deal until monkeys fly from one's butt, and it's all irrelevant. What matters is how these events were perceived by the Israelis and the Palestinians, which are both totally different from what we're told. What I think is that Israelis perceived them as "damned if you do, and damned if you don't, might as well be hanged as a wolf as hanged as a lamb," while Palestinians perceived them as "hah! Israel is making offers, which proves they're weak and can be destroyed."
Again, whether these perceptions are accurate or not (if, indeed any political perception can be called accurate--it's not as if you can do an experiment in a lab to test them) is irrelevant. Any possible solution, other than maintaining the status quo, must necessarily be able to address both of them.
This may, of course, turn out to be impossible. But it's certainly impossible without addressing the perceptions, by pointing more fingers, by talking about who is justified, or by declaring that what's Really True™ is whatever Noam Chomsky or whoever said on Pacifica Radio last week.
I don't know what the set of solutions contains, if anything, other than the status quo, if you call that a "solution." I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain anything that involves waving a magic wand and making everyone happy overnight.
Now, I must point out that this should not be taken as a statement that I approve of Israel's actions, although in my experience it inevitably is. Also, a disclaimer such as this, in my experience, inevitably taken to mean that I approve of Palestinians' actions, which is likewise false.
It has escalated markedly since Sharon came to power...
(snip rest of post)
What are you doing replying to posts in this forum, AUP?
Didn't you tell Mycroft, when he asked a question you couldn't answer about Oslo (e.g., when he asked if the Palestinians kept their obligations under Oslo), that you "have a life to live and my family needs me", and that you will research the Oslo agreement when you have the time?
(See this thread).
Apparently, AUP, you "don't have time" to learn anything about the Oslo agreement, but you DO have the time to blame Sharon for its failure.
You think you are some sort of original, brave thinker. In reality, you're simply one of the millions whose view is "I don't know much about X, but I know it's all the jews' fault."
(snip rest of post)
What are you doing replying to posts in this forum, AUP?
Didn't you tell Mycroft, when he asked a question you couldn't answer about Oslo (e.g., when he asked if the Palestinians kept their obligations under Oslo), that you "have a life to live and my family needs me", and that you will research the Oslo agreement when you have the time?
(See this thread).
Apparently, AUP, you "don't have time" to learn anything about the Oslo agreement, but you DO have the time to blame Sharon for its failure.
You think you are some sort of original, brave thinker. In reality, you're simply one of the millions whose view is "I don't know much about X, but I know it's all the jews' fault."
davefoc
Philosopher
Skeptic said:
Skeptic, for what it's worth, I tend to be something of a conservative and often agree with you.
But there is nothing that you have ever said, that I more thoroughly disagree with you on then your constant suggestion that there is some underlying anti-semetic motivation in everybody that disagrees with you about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
What a staggering insult it is to your intellect and to the logic of your pro-Israeli views that you need to constantly roll this crap out. In case you hadn't noticed, AUP is often critical of American foreign policy outside of the middle east. Does this make him anti some American ethnic group or in that case is it possible that he can arrive at a critical opinion without having an underlying racist driver? He has also been critical of Australia's treatment of its native population. Is it possible that he arrived at that view without an underlying racist driver? Why do you think that to be critical of Israel can't be based on Israeli actions without some underlying anti-semetic driver?
One possible answer to the last question that you might consider is that you have become so thoroughly wrapped up in the constant drum beat of pro-Israeli propaganda in the US that you have lost any ability to step back and objectively view the conflict. Therefore, in your mind, anybody that disagrees with you must have some hidden subconcious reason because the facts are so clearly on your side and that subconcious reason must be racism. One thing you might try when you feel the need to call somebody anti-semtic the next time somebody disagrees with you is to actually read what they say and not to go digging for some non-existent racism.
Skeptic, for what it's worth, I tend to be something of a conservative and often agree with you.
But there is nothing that you have ever said, that I more thoroughly disagree with you on then your constant suggestion that there is some underlying anti-semetic motivation in everybody that disagrees with you about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
What a staggering insult it is to your intellect and to the logic of your pro-Israeli views that you need to constantly roll this crap out. In case you hadn't noticed, AUP is often critical of American foreign policy outside of the middle east. Does this make him anti some American ethnic group or in that case is it possible that he can arrive at a critical opinion without having an underlying racist driver? He has also been critical of Australia's treatment of its native population. Is it possible that he arrived at that view without an underlying racist driver? Why do you think that to be critical of Israel can't be based on Israeli actions without some underlying anti-semetic driver?
One possible answer to the last question that you might consider is that you have become so thoroughly wrapped up in the constant drum beat of pro-Israeli propaganda in the US that you have lost any ability to step back and objectively view the conflict. Therefore, in your mind, anybody that disagrees with you must have some hidden subconcious reason because the facts are so clearly on your side and that subconcious reason must be racism. One thing you might try when you feel the need to call somebody anti-semtic the next time somebody disagrees with you is to actually read what they say and not to go digging for some non-existent racism.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Dave I have to point out here that Skeptics message isn't directed towards everyone who's critical of Israel, it's directed towards AUP.
Criticizing Israel doesn't make one anti-Semetic, however anti-Semites do express their anti-Semitism in the form of political criticism of Israel. It's not always easy to tell them apart. In my opinion, it's not as important to make the distinction as it is to make the distinction between criticism that is fair and criticism that in unfair or biased.
epepke and davefoc:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by davefoc
I am not sure what exactly what epepke's point is but I think it is that when Israel had more peace oriented leadership there was still violence so if more peace oriented leadership didn't lead to absolute peace then maybe a more agressive leader like Sharon might.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that one of the things that make it so that you find it unclear is that I don't really have a point, in the sense of some sort of partisan justification for one side or the other. In this thread, I'm going by what I percieve to be the intent of this thread, which is to discuss what might be a possible solution, and I'm operating on sort of a meta-level here.
In any event, I'm still waiting for an answer, an explanation about how things were better in oh, pick a date before Sharon. This I haven't seen. I've seen statements that it's even worse right now, but while that may be logically similar to saying that it was better before, there's a huge psychological difference.
I'm primarily interested in the dynamic of Western criticism, because I have easy access to it. I think there are some funny things about it, and I like to explore these. Since there seem to be a lot more critics of Israel, or at least a lot more that I see, criticism of Israel is particularly interesting.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what will be the end result of this Israeli strategy? They will occupy land surrounded by people who hate them in perpetuity. What I think most of us that have participated in this thread have been saying is that Israel must unilaterally break this pattern for ethical reasons and for the benefit of the Israeli state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what is the motivation of Israel (any given administration or the electorate) to trust this idea? Let's take the ethics and benefits separately.
As far as I can tell, the people who make ethical criticisms of Israel make them at about the same volume all the time, except for a very brief period around the time of the Oslo accords. Many of them probably believe that they want their criticisms to affect the behavior of Israel, but they pretty much keep the volume turned up to eleven all the time. They will say that things are worse or even worse, but they hardly ever are willing to say that things are better, or even clearly that they were better in the past. From the point of view of behavioral psychology, this is useless in modifying behavior. There has to be relenting and some positive reinforcement, or else it just becomes a blur. When that happens, the patient, whether a human being or a dog or a nation, inevitably just becomes belligerent.
What is the motivation for Israel to respond to ethical criticism by people who give all impressions that they consider Israel to be completely unethical all the time?
As for the other aspect of your assertion, the practical, what is the motivation for Israel to trust an assertion that it will be to their benefit? You offer them no guarantee. Nobody offers them a guarantee. Also, as far as I can tell, many of the criticisms made by Westerners are almost guaranteed not to give the impression of verisimilitude to Israelis.
So, putting the two back together, my guess is that Israelis see a barrage of criticism by people who give the impression of a) having decided Israelis are unethical scum, and b) not understanding what is going on. The fact that Western critics may perceive themselves as having a clear understanding of the ethical and practical situation, even assuming that they are right, is irrelevant. If people don't feel that their concerns are being addressed, they aren't going to listen. This is why diplomacy is so hard and, not incidentally, requires a lot of lying and half-truths.
And this is what I think happened, which was related to the election of Sharon. One can rant about how the settlement offered in 2000 as an opening offer wasn't a perfect deal until monkeys fly from one's butt, and it's all irrelevant. What matters is how these events were perceived by the Israelis and the Palestinians, which are both totally different from what we're told. What I think is that Israelis perceived them as "damned if you do, and damned if you don't, might as well be hanged as a wolf as hanged as a lamb," while Palestinians perceived them as "hah! Israel is making offers, which proves they're weak and can be destroyed."
Again, whether these perceptions are accurate or not (if, indeed any political perception can be called accurate--it's not as if you can do an experiment in a lab to test them) is irrelevant. Any possible solution, other than maintaining the status quo, must necessarily be able to address both of them.
This may, of course, turn out to be impossible. But it's certainly impossible without addressing the perceptions, by pointing more fingers, by talking about who is justified, or by declaring that what's Really True™ is whatever Noam Chomsky or whoever said on Pacifica Radio last week.
I don't know what the set of solutions contains, if anything, other than the status quo, if you call that a "solution." I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain anything that involves waving a magic wand and making everyone happy overnight.
Now, I must point out that this should not be taken as a statement that I approve of Israel's actions, although in my experience it inevitably is. Also, a disclaimer such as this, in my experience, inevitably taken to mean that I approve of Palestinians' actions, which is likewise false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to begin by separating the Israeli Government from the Israeli people. Simply using "Israel" doesn't provide a useful analysis.
The Israeli people perceive themselves to be subject to massive criticism and to be a people under siege. This is fairly accurate and I can empathise. A friend of mine emailed me yesterday to let me know that, although she heard it, she wasn't near yesteday's bombing in Jerusalem. For people like her the "piguas" (attacks), are a weekly routine.
The Israeli people are very ill-informed about what goes on in the Occupied Territories (not allowed to enter them), and are subject to the propaganda of the state and the psychological pressure of a government which claims to be doing it`s best to protect them from a fearsome and unreasonable foe (this is simply a heightened version of the same fear the US and UK governments are trying to keep us in). This said, there are many courageous Israelis who have made an effort to understand and oppose what is done in their name (this should be no suprise as, historically, jewish people have proven themselves to be a very decent, enlightened, and humane people -often in the face of dreadful hostility). The Israeli people are tired, psychologically damaged by the conflict, and heavily propagandized.
The Israeli Government, however, successive Israel governments in fact, know the score. That is why I can't really accept davefoc`s distinction between Sharon's administration and those that were more "peace orientated" (though I accept your semantic point). "Peace" for the Israeli government has never meant a viable state for the Palestininians and reparations for the injustices they have suffered. "Peace" effectively has the same broad definition as is used in western media. It means a contained Palestinian people with limited self-administration, locked up in bantustans as in South Africa. It means using Arafat as a regional governor, administering an enclave of second class citizens who are handy as a pool of cheap labour and little else. It has not and does not mean treating Palestinians as equals in either their own state or a larger, secular Israel. This is not "peace", it is containment and domination. Each and every "peace process", if one examines them carefully, has been premised on this need to keep the Palestinians as a subjectified subgroup.
The reasons for this are simple enough. Firstly, one cannot deny the religious colouring to the problem. The Zionist project is inextricably bound up with the idea of a Jewish state. This is simply a racist, chauvinist concept so long as it entails greater rights for one ethnic/religious group over others. This is how Israel currently is: the term apartheid state is harsh but it is an accurate one. So long as one class is, de jure, the privileged class (property rights etc), and also, de facto, the privileged class (socio-economic discrimination massively favours Jews), it will be accurate to label Israel in such a way.
This religious/cultural reason is not sufficient to explain the situation, though. There are huge economic motivations. The Occupation is simply an imperial project to control resources, without which Israel would struggle and Israelis' standard of living would decline. Without its little empire, Israel would be deprived of an important source of water. It's about as simple as that. The irony is, like most empires, the Occupation is actually a net drain, much like the British Empire was. In our case, the costs of empire were born by the working classes. In Israel's case, it is US subsidy which prevents the true cost being felt. If Israeli had to support itself, the sudden jolt would be staggering.
One also has to take into account the US's role in this. I do not have time for the details but, as I've said before, the US does not want a peaceful Israel because a peaceful Israel would not serve the purpose for which the US currently uses Israel. That is why the US has prevented a genuinely peacful settlment and favours either a "contained" (but still potentially threatening), Palestinian enclave. So long as the Israeli people feel threatened, they will feel dependant on the US and this empowers the Israeli government to be a useful US client (this is why Kissinger imfamously wanted a situation of "stalemate" rather than peace: the status quo favours US interests). The moment the threat is gone, the Israel people will start to question what US military "aid" has done to their country, or why such a tiny country should be armed to such a staggering degree. The Israeli Government know this, of course: they are totally complicit. That is one of the most repugnant truths of this whole situation: that the Israeli and US governments are willing to allow ordinary Israelis to die and live in fear, in order to fulfill their own selfish objectives.
This is the broad schematic of the problem and the reason why there has not been a peaceful settlement. The Israeli Government and the US Government do not want "peace" in any civilized understanding of that word, they want containment. The Israel people mostly, do not see this because they are kept in the dark so they resent the Palestinians for their actions. The Palestinians have to live with it on a daily basis, so they cannot but avoid seeing the truth.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by davefoc
I am not sure what exactly what epepke's point is but I think it is that when Israel had more peace oriented leadership there was still violence so if more peace oriented leadership didn't lead to absolute peace then maybe a more agressive leader like Sharon might.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that one of the things that make it so that you find it unclear is that I don't really have a point, in the sense of some sort of partisan justification for one side or the other. In this thread, I'm going by what I percieve to be the intent of this thread, which is to discuss what might be a possible solution, and I'm operating on sort of a meta-level here.
In any event, I'm still waiting for an answer, an explanation about how things were better in oh, pick a date before Sharon. This I haven't seen. I've seen statements that it's even worse right now, but while that may be logically similar to saying that it was better before, there's a huge psychological difference.
I'm primarily interested in the dynamic of Western criticism, because I have easy access to it. I think there are some funny things about it, and I like to explore these. Since there seem to be a lot more critics of Israel, or at least a lot more that I see, criticism of Israel is particularly interesting.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what will be the end result of this Israeli strategy? They will occupy land surrounded by people who hate them in perpetuity. What I think most of us that have participated in this thread have been saying is that Israel must unilaterally break this pattern for ethical reasons and for the benefit of the Israeli state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what is the motivation of Israel (any given administration or the electorate) to trust this idea? Let's take the ethics and benefits separately.
As far as I can tell, the people who make ethical criticisms of Israel make them at about the same volume all the time, except for a very brief period around the time of the Oslo accords. Many of them probably believe that they want their criticisms to affect the behavior of Israel, but they pretty much keep the volume turned up to eleven all the time. They will say that things are worse or even worse, but they hardly ever are willing to say that things are better, or even clearly that they were better in the past. From the point of view of behavioral psychology, this is useless in modifying behavior. There has to be relenting and some positive reinforcement, or else it just becomes a blur. When that happens, the patient, whether a human being or a dog or a nation, inevitably just becomes belligerent.
What is the motivation for Israel to respond to ethical criticism by people who give all impressions that they consider Israel to be completely unethical all the time?
As for the other aspect of your assertion, the practical, what is the motivation for Israel to trust an assertion that it will be to their benefit? You offer them no guarantee. Nobody offers them a guarantee. Also, as far as I can tell, many of the criticisms made by Westerners are almost guaranteed not to give the impression of verisimilitude to Israelis.
So, putting the two back together, my guess is that Israelis see a barrage of criticism by people who give the impression of a) having decided Israelis are unethical scum, and b) not understanding what is going on. The fact that Western critics may perceive themselves as having a clear understanding of the ethical and practical situation, even assuming that they are right, is irrelevant. If people don't feel that their concerns are being addressed, they aren't going to listen. This is why diplomacy is so hard and, not incidentally, requires a lot of lying and half-truths.
And this is what I think happened, which was related to the election of Sharon. One can rant about how the settlement offered in 2000 as an opening offer wasn't a perfect deal until monkeys fly from one's butt, and it's all irrelevant. What matters is how these events were perceived by the Israelis and the Palestinians, which are both totally different from what we're told. What I think is that Israelis perceived them as "damned if you do, and damned if you don't, might as well be hanged as a wolf as hanged as a lamb," while Palestinians perceived them as "hah! Israel is making offers, which proves they're weak and can be destroyed."
Again, whether these perceptions are accurate or not (if, indeed any political perception can be called accurate--it's not as if you can do an experiment in a lab to test them) is irrelevant. Any possible solution, other than maintaining the status quo, must necessarily be able to address both of them.
This may, of course, turn out to be impossible. But it's certainly impossible without addressing the perceptions, by pointing more fingers, by talking about who is justified, or by declaring that what's Really True™ is whatever Noam Chomsky or whoever said on Pacifica Radio last week.
I don't know what the set of solutions contains, if anything, other than the status quo, if you call that a "solution." I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain anything that involves waving a magic wand and making everyone happy overnight.
Now, I must point out that this should not be taken as a statement that I approve of Israel's actions, although in my experience it inevitably is. Also, a disclaimer such as this, in my experience, inevitably taken to mean that I approve of Palestinians' actions, which is likewise false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to begin by separating the Israeli Government from the Israeli people. Simply using "Israel" doesn't provide a useful analysis.
The Israeli people perceive themselves to be subject to massive criticism and to be a people under siege. This is fairly accurate and I can empathise. A friend of mine emailed me yesterday to let me know that, although she heard it, she wasn't near yesteday's bombing in Jerusalem. For people like her the "piguas" (attacks), are a weekly routine.
The Israeli people are very ill-informed about what goes on in the Occupied Territories (not allowed to enter them), and are subject to the propaganda of the state and the psychological pressure of a government which claims to be doing it`s best to protect them from a fearsome and unreasonable foe (this is simply a heightened version of the same fear the US and UK governments are trying to keep us in). This said, there are many courageous Israelis who have made an effort to understand and oppose what is done in their name (this should be no suprise as, historically, jewish people have proven themselves to be a very decent, enlightened, and humane people -often in the face of dreadful hostility). The Israeli people are tired, psychologically damaged by the conflict, and heavily propagandized.
The Israeli Government, however, successive Israel governments in fact, know the score. That is why I can't really accept davefoc`s distinction between Sharon's administration and those that were more "peace orientated" (though I accept your semantic point). "Peace" for the Israeli government has never meant a viable state for the Palestininians and reparations for the injustices they have suffered. "Peace" effectively has the same broad definition as is used in western media. It means a contained Palestinian people with limited self-administration, locked up in bantustans as in South Africa. It means using Arafat as a regional governor, administering an enclave of second class citizens who are handy as a pool of cheap labour and little else. It has not and does not mean treating Palestinians as equals in either their own state or a larger, secular Israel. This is not "peace", it is containment and domination. Each and every "peace process", if one examines them carefully, has been premised on this need to keep the Palestinians as a subjectified subgroup.
The reasons for this are simple enough. Firstly, one cannot deny the religious colouring to the problem. The Zionist project is inextricably bound up with the idea of a Jewish state. This is simply a racist, chauvinist concept so long as it entails greater rights for one ethnic/religious group over others. This is how Israel currently is: the term apartheid state is harsh but it is an accurate one. So long as one class is, de jure, the privileged class (property rights etc), and also, de facto, the privileged class (socio-economic discrimination massively favours Jews), it will be accurate to label Israel in such a way.
This religious/cultural reason is not sufficient to explain the situation, though. There are huge economic motivations. The Occupation is simply an imperial project to control resources, without which Israel would struggle and Israelis' standard of living would decline. Without its little empire, Israel would be deprived of an important source of water. It's about as simple as that. The irony is, like most empires, the Occupation is actually a net drain, much like the British Empire was. In our case, the costs of empire were born by the working classes. In Israel's case, it is US subsidy which prevents the true cost being felt. If Israeli had to support itself, the sudden jolt would be staggering.
One also has to take into account the US's role in this. I do not have time for the details but, as I've said before, the US does not want a peaceful Israel because a peaceful Israel would not serve the purpose for which the US currently uses Israel. That is why the US has prevented a genuinely peacful settlment and favours either a "contained" (but still potentially threatening), Palestinian enclave. So long as the Israeli people feel threatened, they will feel dependant on the US and this empowers the Israeli government to be a useful US client (this is why Kissinger imfamously wanted a situation of "stalemate" rather than peace: the status quo favours US interests). The moment the threat is gone, the Israel people will start to question what US military "aid" has done to their country, or why such a tiny country should be armed to such a staggering degree. The Israeli Government know this, of course: they are totally complicit. That is one of the most repugnant truths of this whole situation: that the Israeli and US governments are willing to allow ordinary Israelis to die and live in fear, in order to fulfill their own selfish objectives.
This is the broad schematic of the problem and the reason why there has not been a peaceful settlement. The Israeli Government and the US Government do not want "peace" in any civilized understanding of that word, they want containment. The Israel people mostly, do not see this because they are kept in the dark so they resent the Palestinians for their actions. The Palestinians have to live with it on a daily basis, so they cannot but avoid seeing the truth.
But there is nothing that you have ever said, that I more thoroughly disagree with you on then your constant suggestion that there is some underlying anti-semetic motivation in everybody that disagrees with you about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I never claimed anything of the sort. I often disagreed with you, as you noticed, but I don't recall I claimed you're an antisemite.
I claim antisemitism is the real position, not of critics of israel in general, but of those whose criticism fits a specific mold. I mean those whose criticism is shown in their view that israel should be destroyed for the good of the world; those who report every fable about "israeli atrocities" as if it were fact; for those who accept far-fetched conspiracy theories about the power of the "zionists" to cover up their "evil crimes" (e.g., the USS Liberty conspiracy theory); for those who think jewish victims of terrorism "had it coming" (including two-year-old "extremists"--AUP's term--blown up on a bus); and so on.
THIS is the kind of criticism AUP uses against israel. It's not hard to see that this isn't really factual criticism, but merely a rehash of the age-old antisemitic views about the "all-powerful jewish conspiray", the "they had it coming" excuse of violence against jews, or, in this case--blaming Sharon for the failure of the Oslo process despite admitting that one knows nothing about the Oslo process to start with--the "blame the jew first and ask questions later" view.
AUP, like many antisemites, simply replace "jew" with "israeli" or "zionist" as being more socially acceptable.
What a staggering insult it is to your intellect and to the logic of your pro-Israeli views that you need to constantly roll this crap out. In case you hadn't noticed, AUP is often critical of American foreign policy outside of the middle east. Does this make him anti some American ethnic group or in that case is it possible that he can arrive at a critical opinion without having an underlying racist driver?
Why, yes, AUP's criticism of America DOES make him anti-American. He obviously hates Americans as a nation, just as much as he hates jews as a nation.
Why? Well, In a recent thead, AUP blamed America for a). not giving North Vietnam the aid it promised it under the 1975 peace process, and b). not giving Kim Jong Il nuclear reactors. When I noted that the US was hardly obliged to honor its treaty after the North violated it by invading the south and killing hundreds of thousands, AUP claimed it doesn't matter and the US is still to blame for not sticking to a treaty broken by the other side. He also claimed Australians live in fear of US intervention.
Absurd? Insane? Not in AUP's la-la land, which lives by the rule of "whatever the US does is wrong."
It is of course quite possible to be critical of America without hating Americans; I submit, however, that it is impossible to claim the US is at fault for not giving Ho Chi Min aid and weapons, or to claim Australians live in fear of the US, witout being driven by hatered of America that totally distorted one's view of America.
Similarly, while it's quite possible to criticize israel without being antisemitic (you're one example of just that), I submit that it's impossible to call two-year-olds "jewish extremists" and claim blowing them up is an act of "liberation" without being driven by hatered of jews that totally distorted one's view of israel.
I never claimed anything of the sort. I often disagreed with you, as you noticed, but I don't recall I claimed you're an antisemite.
I claim antisemitism is the real position, not of critics of israel in general, but of those whose criticism fits a specific mold. I mean those whose criticism is shown in their view that israel should be destroyed for the good of the world; those who report every fable about "israeli atrocities" as if it were fact; for those who accept far-fetched conspiracy theories about the power of the "zionists" to cover up their "evil crimes" (e.g., the USS Liberty conspiracy theory); for those who think jewish victims of terrorism "had it coming" (including two-year-old "extremists"--AUP's term--blown up on a bus); and so on.
THIS is the kind of criticism AUP uses against israel. It's not hard to see that this isn't really factual criticism, but merely a rehash of the age-old antisemitic views about the "all-powerful jewish conspiray", the "they had it coming" excuse of violence against jews, or, in this case--blaming Sharon for the failure of the Oslo process despite admitting that one knows nothing about the Oslo process to start with--the "blame the jew first and ask questions later" view.
AUP, like many antisemites, simply replace "jew" with "israeli" or "zionist" as being more socially acceptable.
What a staggering insult it is to your intellect and to the logic of your pro-Israeli views that you need to constantly roll this crap out. In case you hadn't noticed, AUP is often critical of American foreign policy outside of the middle east. Does this make him anti some American ethnic group or in that case is it possible that he can arrive at a critical opinion without having an underlying racist driver?
Why, yes, AUP's criticism of America DOES make him anti-American. He obviously hates Americans as a nation, just as much as he hates jews as a nation.
Why? Well, In a recent thead, AUP blamed America for a). not giving North Vietnam the aid it promised it under the 1975 peace process, and b). not giving Kim Jong Il nuclear reactors. When I noted that the US was hardly obliged to honor its treaty after the North violated it by invading the south and killing hundreds of thousands, AUP claimed it doesn't matter and the US is still to blame for not sticking to a treaty broken by the other side. He also claimed Australians live in fear of US intervention.
Absurd? Insane? Not in AUP's la-la land, which lives by the rule of "whatever the US does is wrong."
It is of course quite possible to be critical of America without hating Americans; I submit, however, that it is impossible to claim the US is at fault for not giving Ho Chi Min aid and weapons, or to claim Australians live in fear of the US, witout being driven by hatered of America that totally distorted one's view of America.
Similarly, while it's quite possible to criticize israel without being antisemitic (you're one example of just that), I submit that it's impossible to call two-year-olds "jewish extremists" and claim blowing them up is an act of "liberation" without being driven by hatered of jews that totally distorted one's view of israel.
davefoc
Philosopher
Cleopatra said:
Cleopatra,
Actually, I was doing research on an answer to epepke. I intend to answer him, but I wanted to investigate some of the issues that he brought up before I posted an answer.
The epepke post made me think, the skeptic post just annoyed me. It's easier and takes less time to respond to posts that annoy me than it is to respond to posts that make me think. That's why I answered out of order. If this reality about me has reduced your view of me in your eyes, I am sorry for that. But alas you would have found out sooner or later, I have an emotional side which makes me less than a purely intellectual being.
Best Regards,
Dave
Skeptic,
I appreciate the sincerity of your response.
Actually you have called me anti-semitic, which perhaps led me to be a little sensitive about the issue here. But I will say I have also seen you quite sensitive to my feelings, which made me a little uncomfortable also. So I think you can see that making me happy is a bit of a complicated venture, but I appreciate your efforts in this regard.
As to AUP, I see his generally critical view of America and other non-Israeli issues as an example that he can be critical without any underlying racist biases, since the targets of his criticism don't seem to have a common racial or religious characteristic.
You seem to be saying that since some of this criticism is clearly irrational (as I tend to agree with about the no Vietnam aid issue) that it is based on an underlying anti-American bias and since his anti-American views are driven by his anti-Americanism and not by the facts that his anti-Israeli views are driven by his anti-semitism and not the facts. Personally I think this is a real stretch.
It's your last paragraph that made me think:
I don't know in what context AUP said those things, but in fact the suicide bombers are a difficult issue for those of us that believe that Israel needs to unilaterally remove settlements and make concessions for peace. The fact is I suspect, that some violence against Israel will continue for generations to come even if Israel does what we believe is right and removes the bulk of the settlements. Who are we to suggest such a thing when it is the Israelis that are being blown up. I don't have a short answer for this but I sort of see this as the point of epepke's post and it was that post that I was thinking about and researching an answer to when your post showed up.
Best Regards,
Dave
Cleopatra,
Actually, I was doing research on an answer to epepke. I intend to answer him, but I wanted to investigate some of the issues that he brought up before I posted an answer.
The epepke post made me think, the skeptic post just annoyed me. It's easier and takes less time to respond to posts that annoy me than it is to respond to posts that make me think. That's why I answered out of order. If this reality about me has reduced your view of me in your eyes, I am sorry for that. But alas you would have found out sooner or later, I have an emotional side which makes me less than a purely intellectual being.
Best Regards,
Dave
Skeptic,
I appreciate the sincerity of your response.
Actually you have called me anti-semitic, which perhaps led me to be a little sensitive about the issue here. But I will say I have also seen you quite sensitive to my feelings, which made me a little uncomfortable also. So I think you can see that making me happy is a bit of a complicated venture, but I appreciate your efforts in this regard.
As to AUP, I see his generally critical view of America and other non-Israeli issues as an example that he can be critical without any underlying racist biases, since the targets of his criticism don't seem to have a common racial or religious characteristic.
You seem to be saying that since some of this criticism is clearly irrational (as I tend to agree with about the no Vietnam aid issue) that it is based on an underlying anti-American bias and since his anti-American views are driven by his anti-Americanism and not by the facts that his anti-Israeli views are driven by his anti-semitism and not the facts. Personally I think this is a real stretch.
It's your last paragraph that made me think:
I don't know in what context AUP said those things, but in fact the suicide bombers are a difficult issue for those of us that believe that Israel needs to unilaterally remove settlements and make concessions for peace. The fact is I suspect, that some violence against Israel will continue for generations to come even if Israel does what we believe is right and removes the bulk of the settlements. Who are we to suggest such a thing when it is the Israelis that are being blown up. I don't have a short answer for this but I sort of see this as the point of epepke's post and it was that post that I was thinking about and researching an answer to when your post showed up.
Best Regards,
Dave
egslim:
"Israelis and Palestinians don't trust each other, so maybe some neutral but trusted parties could be brought in. I'm thinking about a large demillitarized zone, where no weapons whatsoever are allowed. With the exception of foreign troops.
These should have sufficient numbers and equipment to do patrols, keep checkpoints, and present a credible deterrent against both Arab/Palestinian and Israeli millitary intervention. That way the inhabitants of the zone could feel safe from whoever they fear. I would propose US troops to guard the Israeli part of the zone, and Saudi troops to protect the Palestinian part. This way, all protectees would be protected by troops they feel they can trust. While at the same time cooperation between US and Saudi troops shouldn't be a problem either. Egyptians could be an option too.
I think this would relax the atmosphere enough that a political solution becomes more viable, since clashes between Israeli's and Palestinians would be much more rare. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The points you mention here have been under discussion in places like this (not online but in homes, bars, cafes etc), for years.
Your suggestion of a demilitarised zone would be contingent on certain factors. An equal threat to each state would have to be assumed. Israel is a state which is not really under threat despite what the media would have us believe. Palestinian bomb attacks while horrific act simply as terror and often as ammunition for the Israeli government. The ironic and tragic effect they have is to give the Israeli government moral kudos in the eyes of many. They use this as an excuse for negotiating in bad faith. Also the state of Israel with its military strength and United States propped up economy does not need to negotiate on any issue other than terror attacks. They seem quite happy to provoke more and more of them by forcing the Palestinian people to confront the very real possibility that as a nation they may never again exist. They hold all the cards, why should they accept a demilitarised zone when militarily they are overwhelmingly superior.
It would be like playing football and being 4-0 up and letting the other team score a goal just to make a game of it. Silly really if you consider their objective.
So, while wholly sensible and logical, your suggestion assumes that people don't want a continuation of violence but, sadly, many of those whose decisions count do!
"Israelis and Palestinians don't trust each other, so maybe some neutral but trusted parties could be brought in. I'm thinking about a large demillitarized zone, where no weapons whatsoever are allowed. With the exception of foreign troops.
These should have sufficient numbers and equipment to do patrols, keep checkpoints, and present a credible deterrent against both Arab/Palestinian and Israeli millitary intervention. That way the inhabitants of the zone could feel safe from whoever they fear. I would propose US troops to guard the Israeli part of the zone, and Saudi troops to protect the Palestinian part. This way, all protectees would be protected by troops they feel they can trust. While at the same time cooperation between US and Saudi troops shouldn't be a problem either. Egyptians could be an option too.
I think this would relax the atmosphere enough that a political solution becomes more viable, since clashes between Israeli's and Palestinians would be much more rare. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The points you mention here have been under discussion in places like this (not online but in homes, bars, cafes etc), for years.
Your suggestion of a demilitarised zone would be contingent on certain factors. An equal threat to each state would have to be assumed. Israel is a state which is not really under threat despite what the media would have us believe. Palestinian bomb attacks while horrific act simply as terror and often as ammunition for the Israeli government. The ironic and tragic effect they have is to give the Israeli government moral kudos in the eyes of many. They use this as an excuse for negotiating in bad faith. Also the state of Israel with its military strength and United States propped up economy does not need to negotiate on any issue other than terror attacks. They seem quite happy to provoke more and more of them by forcing the Palestinian people to confront the very real possibility that as a nation they may never again exist. They hold all the cards, why should they accept a demilitarised zone when militarily they are overwhelmingly superior.
It would be like playing football and being 4-0 up and letting the other team score a goal just to make a game of it. Silly really if you consider their objective.
So, while wholly sensible and logical, your suggestion assumes that people don't want a continuation of violence but, sadly, many of those whose decisions count do!
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Skeptic said:
You are the one in la-la land. I did not claim we live in fear of the US. I said we are pissed off that the US sought to influence domestic, democratic politics. Fortunately, Australia came of lightly, we did not have to suffer the coups of Chile, Greece, or other countries that amounted to civil war with thousands brutally killed and tortured.
Now, what is not to dislike about that?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Mycroft said:
How did you find out? What did I do to give myself away. Oh, well, back to the Hitler Youth for some re-education.