Ron Paul is still right, and you are still wrong.

[JoeEllison]

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

This last paragraph embarrasses me. I do not think it is accurate. I think I fell into the trap of overstating my case because I am more comfortable with a black and white situation than the reality of a situation with shades of gray.

Israel is obviously not without enemies of substantial military capability and I do not believe that military and economic aid to Israel is completely without benefit to the US.

Despite these facts, I continue to believe that the American aid to Israel is driven principally by politics and that it for the most part has a destabilizing effect on the conflict and given the nature of the American aid it is in net more harmful than beneficial to most Americans and it is in net more harmful than beneficial to the average Israeli.

I think that, combined, these two comments point out a fundamental flaw in America's strategy in this conflict. America is basically funding and pushing Israel in a "Israel vs. the entire Middle East" direction, which is not entirely incorrect. The flaw arises from the fact that the Palestinians don't represent the entire Middle East, and don't enjoy the support of the entire region, when it comes to financial support for growth and development. So in the current situation, we have such a large asymmetry in place, that asymmetrical warfare including terrorism is really the only option given to the Palestinians.

From my perspective, whatever money given to Israel by America should be matched by money to Palestinians, and fast-tracked by the immediate creation of a unified Palestine(and Israeli ambitions be damned!) The Palestinians already have something worth dying for(and Israeli behavior makes them believe they'll die whether they resist or not), so why not give them something to live for?

We have the ability to provide hope. Hope beats hopelessness any day, and hopelessness has got to be a main contributor to suicide attacks.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think that, combined, these two comments point out a fundamental flaw in America's strategy in this conflict. America is basically funding and pushing Israel in a "Israel vs. the entire Middle East" direction, which is not entirely incorrect. The flaw arises from the fact that the Palestinians don't represent the entire Middle East, and don't enjoy the support of the entire region, when it comes to financial support for growth and development. So in the current situation, we have such a large asymmetry in place, that asymmetrical warfare including terrorism is really the only option given to the Palestinians.

From my perspective, whatever money given to Israel by America should be matched by money to Palestinians, and fast-tracked by the immediate creation of a unified Palestine(and Israeli ambitions be damned!) The Palestinians already have something worth dying for(and Israeli behavior makes them believe they'll die whether they resist or not), so why not give them something to live for?

We have the ability to provide hope. Hope beats hopelessness any day, and hopelessness has got to be a main contributor to suicide attacks.

Why should America be paying any nation?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I suppose this is a sarcastic comment implying that you think that Israel only grabs land as a matter of its national security. If that is what you believe then I doubt there is anything that I could say to change your mind. It is so obviously not true that only an individual that willingly embraces self delusion could believe it.

As opposed to your implication that they grab land to oppress people in the off season from tying helpless damsels to railroad tracks. And I see you are here because you think it's been bestowed upon you to change people's minds. Keep living a fantasy.

I have never seen an Israel critic make that claim. It is common for the Israeli apologists to put it forth as a strawman argument though. Generations of conflict were guaranteed when a bunch of Europeans thought it would be cool to create a colony for European Jews on land occupied by others. Peace is not a likely prospect for years to come no matter what Israel does.

So you like to blame the whole issue on Israel taking the land, but yet don't think that it's because Israel took the land? And did you call me delusional earlier? Now THAT is irony.

Oh and I am an apologist now because I don't go along with your ******** arguments trying to pretend that the whole issue is about Israel having that land? It's kind of funny seeing you use a strawman argument to claim a strawman argument.

Maybe, just MAYBE you might want to learn a little history first. Israel did not begin after WWII. It began before recorded history. The Jews lived there before Islam or Christianity ever existed. So let's cut the crap here and stop living in a fantasy. Stop pretending that they just picked a random piece of land to put all the displaced Jews. They chose Israel because it is their homeland.

This is the problem. People like you who don't understand the situation and simply using it as a political tool. How can you have an argument about this if you don't even understand the issue in the first place?

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

What would happen? They would suffer much greater losses in lives due to the constant attacks. But what is the point in this question? Why would you think that I think Hamas would defeat Israel? And why is this an issue? Why do you have a problem with Israel being given aide?

And it's not about defeating their opponents. That is what you call spin. And more ironic since you are accusing me of spin, when YOU are the one spinning BS. That money goes so they can DEFEND themselves form the constant attacks. The attacks that happen on a daily basis but you won't hear about in the press. And what's worse is people like you PRETENDING you actually care about either party in the situation when the truth of the matter is that you are simply using it as a political tool.

Israeli expansionists? You're such a con artist. Don't go accusing people of spin and delusion buddy. You're so full of it.

 

[Richard Masters]

Trying to claim that the violence is simply the result of someone else creating those conditions? It's ********.

You might have misunderstood my response. I never claim that violence is simply the result of someone creating those conditions. If you read my last post you will note I said it is multifactorial.

While outside factors have an influence, that's all it is. It's not a cause. And there will always be violence no matter what is done, and those creating the violence will always have an excuse for it.

Outside factors are, to varying degrees, causes. Whether people creating violence have an excuse or not is irrelevant to my argument.

Again, it's like saying that women dressing suggestively deserve some of the blame for rape.

I think you are still misinterpreting my argument. Nowhere do I suggest the victim is fully responsible.

Simply because the rapist claims it as their motive. Trying to bend to those creating the violence is not the answer. Hey, maybe if we would just give criminals our belongings they would stop robbing us. Maybe if we would stop locking money up in banks and gave it to robbers they would stop robbing us.

If you can change the conditions fairly and within reason, you should. The above absurdities fulfill neither. On the other hand, it is reasonable to avoid wearing gold jewelry in a bad neighborhood. It is reasonable not to taunt gangsters as you are walking past them. It is reasonable not to fund their rival gang.

And there's no winning. If we were to not be in the middle east then we would be criticized for not helping.

True. However, said criticism could be subdued by explaining that we would side with Israel due to excessive bias and it would not be fair to intervene. I can assure you relations with most Middle Eastern countries would improve and we would have more leverage in the area.

While the US has done many wrong things, that's inevitable. But people are simply using the US's position as a scape goat. An easy target to blame for everyone's problems. And they would do it no matter what policies were in place. that's the down side to being the biggest target. Same reason Microsoft in the computer world is the most criticized. They are the biggest target.

The violent people will be violent no matter what. It just helps to have a scape goat.

Really? Then give them one less excuse to be violent.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Honest question here... do you think it would be feasible for the US to agree to lend its (financial and military) muscle to some third-party mediator who is recognized both as being interested in peace and as not having a stake in either party coming out ahead in an eventual peaceful solution?

Honest answer:

I don't think so. Any other such party would likely be seen by one side, or both, as a sock puppet.

DR

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Honest answer:

I don't think so. Any other such party would likely be seen by one side, or both, as a sock puppet.

DR

Why should America be paying any nation?

 

[Darth Rotor]

You are still making the assumption that a mediator will solve the issue.

No, you don't seem to understand the words being used here. A mediator does not solve anything. Mediation acts as a lubricant so the gears of deal making between to two parties to a dispute have an opportunity to come to a solution they both buy into. What the mediator's function is, in any mediation, is to keep the parties engaged, so that they don't keep walking off in a huff.

It's not a guarantee of any sort of success, but it is often a necessary step in getting two parties to the table.

See a few hundred examples of management labor relations disputes in the US for the past fifty years for case studies on what mediators provide to the process.

As davefoc commented, the US gives them an incentive to continue fighting by subsidizing their violence.

Who is "they" in your statement? Vague.

I note the rhetorical device of "subsidize the violence" and with you'd stick to the point I have been trying to get you to discuss with me. Care to open your mind, Richard? The blinders on, deliberately obtuse ploy is an obstacle to moving forward.

Maybe we need a mediator here.

Thus, your assumption that a mediator is going to make things better

Until you learn what words mean, and stop trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say, kindly cease and desisit in trying to fabricate a position I am not advocating, nor the fantasy that anyone in this thread, particularly me, has claimed that a mediator or peace deal broker is a simple, magical solution.

Also, please look up the word, and the function of: mediator.

If you want a recent example of a modestly successful political mediation, see Bill Clinton and the three parties in Bosnia, mid 1990's. The Dayton Agreement.

Did it solve anything? No, not by itself, it allowed a process to move forward that had been in a political deadlock for some years. It was a key step in the process. It took, and will continue to take, further work for a lasting "solution" to sustain, though the past ten years has shown some progress.

Back to my question to you: who can act in the capacity to aid and assist the Pals and Israelis move forward? We can both assume the US cannot be an honest broker to fulfill that function, so that role can be filled by

Whom?

Why do you keep dodging that question?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why should America be paying any nation?

Good question. Who said America should?

Not Me.

That was a suggestion, or a thought experiment, by Chaos.

Ask him, eh?

DR

 

[davefoc]

I'm not sure where you are going with your questions DR.

I think Richard Masters view is that the Palestinians and the Israelis might be able to work out their problems without a mediator if some of the meddlers just got out of the way.

My first suggestion was essentially that also, although you might disagree with the idea that a peace agreement is possible without mediators it is none the less what Richard Masters and I are suggesting. We don't have proof for this notion. Who knows, a mediator might help.

That is why in my second suggestion I suggested a consortium of Europeans. You might not like that suggestion either. I don't have any proof that it is a good idea and am quite ready to acknowledge that your idea (assuming you put one forward) might be better.

My principal supposition about the conflict which I have made many times in these discussions is that the US needs to get out of the conflict before the beginnings of a real peace are even possible. Public opinion on the conflict is strongly divided in Israel with Israelis that want an end to all Israeli colonization activity being at least a significant minority. Every year that the US subsidizes the Israeli colonies and the Israeli military is another year that the Israeli segment that favors an end to the colonial activity has the rug pulled out from them. It is very hard for them to argue the economic necessity of ending the subsidy of the offending colonies when the Americans pay for them and provide even more economic and military aid to Israel.

 

[Richard Masters]

No, you don't seem to understand the words being used here. A mediator does not solve anything. Mediation acts as a lubricant so the gears of deal making between to two parties to a dispute have an opportunity to come to a solution they both buy into. What the mediator's function is, in any mediation, is to keep the parties engaged, so that they don't keep walking off in a huff.

You are assuming the parties need to stay engaged.

It's not a guarantee of any sort of success, but it is often a necessary step in getting two parties to the table.

See a few hundred examples of management labor relations disputes in the US for the past fifty years for case studies on what mediators provide to the process.

See the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past fifty years to see what "mediators" bring to the process.

Who is "they" in your statement? Vague.

The parties involved in the conflict. The conflict is that which this topic is about.

I note the rhetorical device of "subsidize the violence" and with you'd stick to the point I have been trying to get you to discuss with me. Care to open your mind, Richard? The blinders on, deliberately obtuse ploy is an obstacle to moving forward.

Maybe we need a mediator here.

And a grammar check. I already told you there are few adequate mediators, and therefore I would not choose a mediator for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I would choose the opposite of a mediator.

Until you learn what words mean, and stop trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say, kindly cease and desisit in trying to fabricate a position I am not advocating, nor the fantasy that anyone in this thread, particularly me, has claimed that a mediator or peace deal broker is a simple, magical solution.

Then what are you saying?

Also, please look up the word, and the function of: mediator.

If you want a recent example of a modestly successful political mediation, see Bill Clinton and the three parties in Bosnia, mid 1990's. The Dayton Agreement.

Bill Clinton is not in office. If he was, we probably wouldn't be having this argument.

Did it solve anything? No, not by itself, it allowed a process to move forward that had been in a political deadlock for some years. It was a key step in the process. It took, and will continue to take, further work for a lasting "solution" to sustain, though the past ten years has shown some progress.

What moral authority does a nation that starts needless wars have? Who are we to tell the Palestinians or the Israelis what is right and what is wrong?

Back to my question to you: who can act in the capacity to aid and assist the Pals and Israelis move forward? We can both assume the US cannot be an honest broker to fulfill that function, so that role can be filled by

Whom?

If you want a mediator then find someone chosen by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. If they cannot agree on someone then your question is irrelevant, because any "mediation" will be counterproductive.

Why do you keep dodging that question?

DR

I've answered the question at least three times. But since I don't buy into your assumption that there must be a mediator, the answer does not help you advance your argument.

Which is why you keep asking it.

 

[Richard Masters]

I'm not sure where you are going with your questions DR.

I think Richard Masters view is that the Palestinians and the Israelis might be able to work out their problems without a mediator if some of the meddlers just got out of the way.

Exactly.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I seem to be hearing from you that the US has no role in the process by which the Pals and Israelis find a way toward dealing with each other in a less sanguinary manner.

If the US is too biased, which the US might well be, who do you suggest as a moderator, an honest third party?

The Japanese?

DR

I think the suggestion is that we should be an honest third party and not the bias one we have become.

That is also what Ron Paul was implying as well, but everyone since to ignore his common sense.
Ron Paul does not like anything we do in the middle east nor does he want to be involved in these forgien affairs. Still he realizes the complexity of the situation and that we are stuck with this now and only asked that what we do with one side during a given situation we do the exact same to the other.

Basically No Bias!

 

[OneShotKi11]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased. Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter? Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

Why would you force this question back down his throat when he already stated he doesnt believe there should be a Moderator?
He already agreed with you that all Moderators would be bias.

Isnt that what you were looking for????

 

[Ziggurat]

I think Richard Masters view is that the Palestinians and the Israelis might be able to work out their problems without a mediator if some of the meddlers just got out of the way.

I'm actually sympathetic to that idea. But it doesn't really get you anywhere, because there's no chance that Iran, for example, is going to stop meddling. Why would they? What motive do they have to stop interfering? And given that certain external factions will not "just get out of the way", the relevant question is whether or not only us getting out of the way is going to help. I have no reason to think it will, and a number of reasons to think it won't.

 

[Richard Masters]

I'm actually sympathetic to that idea. But it doesn't really get you anywhere, because there's no chance that Iran, for example, is going to stop meddling. Why would they? What motive do they have to stop interfering? And given that certain external factions will not "just get out of the way", the relevant question is whether or not only us getting out of the way is going to help. I have no reason to think it will, and a number of reasons to think it won't.

I have no reason to think meddling by the United States is going to get you anywhere either. Not with our current standing in the world, or our current foreign policy.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no reason to think meddling by the United States is going to get you anywhere either. Not with our current standing in the world, or our current foreign policy.

What counts as "meddling", anyways? We're supporting an ally in Israel. Supporting allies has frequently gotten countries quite a bit. You'd have to be a lot more specific if you want to argue otherwise. But don't bother, because the fact of the matter is we're not going to agree about basic assesments of the situation and of likely outcomes for a given action.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You are assuming the parties need to stay engaged.

If they don't, no progress forward can be made.

See the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past fifty years to see what "mediators" bring to the process.

Nice myopia. Ever hear of Jimmy Carter and the Camp David accords? That is part of the fifty years of history on this, as are wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 where third parties had to step in to stop the war.

You are dead in the water.

And a grammar check. I already told you there are few adequate mediators, and therefore I would not choose a mediator for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I would choose the opposite of a mediator.

What? A rabble rouser? Who do you have in mind? Care to be specific? Your vagueness remains an obstacle, or a dodge.

You tell me which it is.

Bill Clinton is not in office. If he was, we probably wouldn't be having this argument.

Based on what? His failure to get Arafat and the Israelis to close the deal before he left office?

(Note: I've read a few comments on the Clinton efforts from the Pas side that indicated a sense that US Israel was on side, Pal the other, and there was no honest broker.)

What moral authority does a nation that starts needless wars have? Who are we to tell the Palestinians or the Israelis what is right and what is wrong?

Red herring. I made no stipulation of moral authority. I am addressing the practical problem of conflict resolution via negotiation. It often requires a third party to keep the parties in play.

If you want a mediator then find someone chosen by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

I once again ask:

Who would you suggest for that role? Your reliance on generalities is where we came in.

It is not a matter of who I want, but who the parties themselves would accept.

If they cannot agree on someone then your question is irrelevant, because any "mediation" will be counterproductive.

Counterproductive? Are you taking the position that the state of play to date is productive?

I've answered the question at least three times. But since I don't buy into your assumption that there must be a mediator, the answer does not help you advance your argument.

I am not making an argument, I am, again asking a question, which you find yourself unable to answer, or you choose to dodge.

We are back to your position, absent further thought on your part, being:

"Y'all kill one another until you get tired of it, let us know when you are done."

or

You are content for the impasse to continue, since your position is that there is not need for a mediator, and the parties have yet to demonstrate the ability to solve their dispute on their own.

Popcorn sales in the lobby.

DR

 

[Richard Masters]

What counts as "meddling", anyways? We're supporting an ally in Israel. Supporting allies has frequently gotten countries quite a bit. You'd have to be a lot more specific if you want to argue otherwise. But don't bother, because the fact of the matter is we're not going to agree about basic assesments of the situation and of likely outcomes for a given action.

I define meddling as uninvited interference with the aim of influencing an outcome. It's not always bad unless you have ulterior motives and one of the affected parties opposes your involvement. It's especially bad if the interference is unfair to the affected or counterproductive to the stated goal.

 

[Richard Masters]

Darth Rotor,

Have you ever resolved a conflict without a mediator?

Have you ever tried to help someone and made things worse?

Do you want me to give you a name? Would that satisfy the question?

If you want someone specific, I would choose Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, maybe The Netherlands. Bill Clinton, Oprah, Teller, some random kid from a playground, the neighbor next door.

 

[Ziggurat]

I define meddling as uninvited interference with the aim of influencing an outcome.

And how does that apply to Israel? They welcome our assistance.

It's not always bad unless you have ulterior motives

Um, NO. Motives aren't what make something bad or good. Results are. The best intentions in the world can lead to ruin, and selfishness can sometimes benefit all mankind.

and one of the affected parties opposes your involvement.

When one party does welcome involvement and another doesn't, does that mean we shouldn't be involved? But that just means we should never get involved in any conflict between two external parties. So much for NATO. Sorry, but that's not a good guideline for evaluating our actions.

It's especially bad if the interference is unfair to the affected

It wasn't "fair" for us to side with England against Germany in two world wars (couldn't we have switched sides once?). "Fairness" is a vague term, and as such not terribly useful as a guiding principle in international affairs.

or counterproductive to the stated goal.

Well sure. It's generally not a good idea to do something which is counterproductive to your goals. But the evaluation of when this is or isn't the case is... contentious.