Kerry's Israeli/Palestinian peace talks

[Walsingham]

For such a large block of text, that was actually quite readable, Rosti.

 

However, you seem to be saying three somewhat contradictory things:

 

1) The terrorists arise from personal misfits meeting a sympathetic but pathological ideology

2) You can't stop people coming into contact with these ideologies provided they have access to the internet.

3) Personal misfits need to be tackled by random acts of kindness

 

My responses are:

 

1) They become radicalised by contact with the ideology. They become weaponised by specific conditioning.

 

Imagine your 'iceberg' as being flour, eggs, sugar, and butter below the waterline, and cake above the waterline. Same materials, important difference.

 

2) I agree and would go further. Pathological ideologies will always exist. They're part of the psychological ecosystem. We're not going to ever solve the problem. Just tone it down in certain areas until some other ideology waltzes in.

 

3) I agree that sometimes random acts of kindness can have surprising impact. However, the nature of that impact has to be considered carefully. In your example, if the bloke had been given an engineering degree I suspect he would have just been a more effective terrorist.

 

~

 

We're not going to stop pathological ideologies, we're not going to stop young men from being misfits or having a sub-optimal life. What we can stop is them being baked into cakes.

 

OK that got out of hand.

[Wrath of Dagon]

But there are lots of Messianic Jewish sources on the net who says that it's OK to eat pork. Just Google "messianic jew pork" yourself. I can't believe you proceeded in this discussion without doing that.

 

Of course there are those who do follow kosher rules for cultural reasons, it's just no requirement for being a Messianic JewNevertheless, I don't really care about this detail, since it has nothing to do with my initial statements and arguments.

My point was that "Messianic Jews" aren't really Jews, and shouldn't call themselves such. It's a minor point, as you said yourself. Edited December 12, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rostere]

 

But there are lots of Messianic Jewish sources on the net who says that it's OK to eat pork. Just Google "messianic jew pork" yourself. I can't believe you proceeded in this discussion without doing that.

 

Of course there are those who do follow kosher rules for cultural reasons, it's just no requirement for being a Messianic JewNevertheless, I don't really care about this detail, since it has nothing to do with my initial statements and arguments.

My point was that "Messianic Jews" aren't really Jews, and shouldn't call themselves such. It's a minor point, as you said yourself.

 

 

Yeah, I can agree with that. They are called so but it doesn't make much sense. That's why I initially referred to them as Christians, because that's what they are, strictly speaking.

 

For such a large block of text, that was actually quite readable, Rosti.

 

However, you seem to be saying three somewhat contradictory things:

 

1) The terrorists arise from personal misfits meeting a sympathetic but pathological ideology

2) You can't stop people coming into contact with these ideologies provided they have access to the internet.

3) Personal misfits need to be tackled by random acts of kindness

 

My responses are:

 

1) They become radicalised by contact with the ideology. They become weaponised by specific conditioning.

 

Imagine your 'iceberg' as being flour, eggs, sugar, and butter below the waterline, and cake above the waterline. Same materials, important difference.

 

2) I agree and would go further. Pathological ideologies will always exist. They're part of the psychological ecosystem. We're not going to ever solve the problem. Just tone it down in certain areas until some other ideology waltzes in.

 

3) I agree that sometimes random acts of kindness can have surprising impact. However, the nature of that impact has to be considered carefully. In your example, if the bloke had been given an engineering degree I suspect he would have just been a more effective terrorist.

 

~

 

We're not going to stop pathological ideologies, we're not going to stop young men from being misfits or having a sub-optimal life. What we can stop is them being baked into cakes.

 

OK that got out of hand.

 

I'm extremely sorry for this mess Walsingham, but you will have to trudge through another massive post if you're interested in continuing this discussion.

 

Essentially what I'm saying is that a terrorist movement consists of two fundamentally different kinds of people. Let's talk about Islamists: Type 1 are people like Tamerlan Tsarnaev, desperate people of dubious mental health who constitute approximately 100% of those who commit terrorist acts in Western countries. Type 2 are just angry ordinary people, angry at certain injustices, who passively support the Type 1 guys and create the sense of a legitimate struggle. During the 2000's the US foreign policy was built on the idea that if we create a system to monitor suspected Type 1s at home, enter the countries where the Type 1s get their inspiration, and shoot all the bad dudes in sight, you will have solved the problem. Kind of like if terrorism was a simple infectious disease, or if terrorists were some separate species which could be made extinct. This is of course completely erroneous. Type 1 terrorists have no fundamental connection whatsoever to any specific country or regime targeted during the "War on Terror". Type 1 terrorists are motivated in part by harmful ideology (which cannot be directly brought down), but also out of their own personality (like I wrote above). So a direct "War on Type 1 Terrorists" (the ones who are actually dangerous to us, because they exist in our societies) only, without taking others into account, is very hard to wage, if not impossible. And if you were to wage such a war, your only weapons would be building a surveillance state, and constructing welfare programs to ensure nobody ever gets unhappy enough to do some sort of terrorist attack, ruining their own life.

 

You are in part right when you write that if it were not this particular ideology, it would be some other one. But you have not understood what that really means. It doesn't mean that whatever we do, there will be a constant stream of adherents to harmful ideologies (the neo-conservative pop-a-mole model of global politics). It's not which ideology angry people choose, it's the fact there are angry people at all that is relevant. When people are upset and mad as hell, they just will flock to the easiest reachable ideology which justifies the fulfilment of vengeance. For the purpose of terrorism, militant Islamism is just "thing which justifies violence against those I'm mad at". You can't fight (as in shoot or bomb) militant Islamism in itself in any meaningful sense. It's just a flag that any Muslim who is mad as hell at people who happen to be non-Muslims can pick up. As long as this happens, militant Islamism will get more adherents. The type 2 adherent of a harmful ideology can never be fought directly, because any spilled blood on their side will just create more Type 2s. In the case of the IRA, the Type 2s were the passive supporters who were angry at current injustices. In the case of militant Islamism, the Type 2s are ordinary people in/from Islamic countries who have spent their whole life in the shadow of injustices: Western colonialism, West-backed dictators, embargos, and so on. As long as there are injustices, there will be people who support people who oppose these injustices with indiscriminate violence, following harmful ideologies. The only way you can truly fight terrorism, is to fight the injustices which cause it. I'd say that US sanctions against South Africa was the best "war" they have ever fought against terrorism (in spite of Reagan's "Israeling" of Apartheid SA), because afterwards when Nelson Mandela was released, the entire ANC were no longer "terrorists".

 

You can't ever stop any harmful ideology in itself directly, but you can always change the circumstances which enable harmful ideologies to flourish. Let me compare two different countries.

 

French Indo-China was languishing under barbaric French colonial rule, with it's citizens lacking equal, democratic rights. In this struggle, several Vietnamese (such as Ho Chi Minh and Phan Chu Trinh - please read about Trinh if you have never heard of the guy before) travelled to Versailles at the end of WW1, appealing to Woodrow Wilson and the French representatives for the establishment of an independent, democratic Vietnam citing the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the French national values. They certainly made an interesting case - appealing to the "white man's burden" of the French, they wanted to obtain a democracy under French guidance. To my knowledge, this is one of the most humble attempts at gaining national independence ever. Nevertheless, they were almost entirely ignored. Ho Chi Minh and his adherents among the pro-Independence democrats were radicalized as they increasingly started to see the French as an enemy, and Western democracy as bigoted, all in contrast to the old guard (Trinh and others) who wanted to continue their peaceful path to being seen as equals in the eyes of the colonialists. So increasingly as time went on, all the Vietnamese who wanted independence were essentially pushed into the arms of the Communists, conveniently an ideology which allowed for indiscriminate violence against the "imperialist" Frenchmen. There is absolutely nothing "inherently" Communist about Vietnam, it was just fair and square the malevolent political decisions of the Western powers which created the necessary breeding ground for an extremist revolutionary ideology. Yeah, and everybody probably knows the rest of the story with the Vietnam War and everything. Obviously this was a miscalculation from France and the US - the costs of the entire Vietnam War could have been prevented (and the Allies could have gained a valuable ally during WW2 in an independent, francophile, modernized Vietnam!).

 

Now there is another example of what could happen if you start acting differently: Algeria. During what was to become Algeria's final days as a colony (in 1963 - fighting had escalated to a civil war since initial clashes in 1954), De Gaulle went into talks with the US to assure himself of US diplomatic and military support in a protracted Algerian war of independence. However, due to either a sudden inspiration of wisdom or just some coincidence JFK gave him an entirely different answer (see this as well): "Algeria's independence will be inevitable - if we help them achieve their freedom, they will not be pushed in the arms of Communism in their struggle." (paraphrased). And lo and behold: Algeria has had mostly excellent relations with the US, and has in several ways reapproached France. Algeria mediated the release of American prisoners after the Iranian revolution in 1979, was one of the first countries to offer the US their support in fighting Al-Qaeda after 9/11, and has participated in NATO naval exercises. Considering Algeria had a 8-year independence struggle against a capitalist and democratic country, that's a pretty good outcome. Although Algeria has yet to become a paragon of democracy, they have certainly been both independent and a bulwark against extremist ideologies, both Communism and militant Islamism.

 

In other words the only things you can ever do for or against your cause in an abstract "War on [insert harmful ideology]" is either to perpetuate injustices and thus help harmful ideologies gain (Type 2) adherents, or treat people like equals and listen to them, which does not create any supporters of harmful ideologies. Regardless of what you do here, there are always going to be the Type 1 guys. If you indirectly incapacitate the ideology they are inspired by, you might stop some most of them (who would just remain "ordinary" psychos who don't blow themselves up). Some others however might have made some kind of suicide attack anyway and the ideology is just a sticker they put on so they can pretend to be freedom fighters and not mental cases.

 

When people talk about militant Islamism, they only talk about it as presented by the lunatic Type 1 people (concepts that come to mind are: "Global caliphate", "strict sharia law" et cetera). They never talk about the actual injustices which push people into sympathizing with such extremism in the first place. That is a pretty big issue in my mind.

[Walsingham]

I read through as much as I could, Rosti. It's not your fault the sodding forum insists on using white on black text. Although you could have gone easy on me and sectioned it up a little. I shouldn't be so lazy, though.

 

If I contract my response it's not because I don't think you deserve. I'm just trying to be concise.

 

1a) It occurred to me that you are essentially arguing the same as many terrorists, only from a very different perspective. Crappy situations breed terror. Many terrorists deliberately wreck everything in order to polarise and create more terrorists.

 

1b) Not sure I rate the theoretical reasoning skills of many terrorists. not least because all that approach does is destroy for its own ends. It has no creative plan at all behind it, and is about as close to a definition of political evil as I can think of.

 

2) Unless my memory fails me, Algeria has had extensive political violence. It may not have been directed at the West, but it's been a very bloody business involving lots of terrorism.

 

3) Many countries are poor or have problems, but don't have terrorist movements. i suggest this because they lack the active 'type 1' terrorists.

[Rostere]

I read through as much as I could, Rosti. It's not your fault the sodding forum insists on using white on black text. Although you could have gone easy on me and sectioned it up a little. I shouldn't be so lazy, though.

 

If I contract my response it's not because I don't think you deserve. I'm just trying to be concise.

 

1a) It occurred to me that you are essentially arguing the same as many terrorists, only from a very different perspective. Crappy situations breed terror. Many terrorists deliberately wreck everything in order to polarise and create more terrorists.

 

1b) Not sure I rate the theoretical reasoning skills of many terrorists. not least because all that approach does is destroy for its own ends. It has no creative plan at all behind it, and is about as close to a definition of political evil as I can think of.

 

2) Unless my memory fails me, Algeria has had extensive political violence. It may not have been directed at the West, but it's been a very bloody business involving lots of terrorism.

 

3) Many countries are poor or have problems, but don't have terrorist movements. i suggest this because they lack the active 'type 1' terrorists.

 

1) I'm not sure what I understand what you mean. But crappy situations do breed terror, as long as people come up with someone to blame for all the crap. Imagine someone gave you a lot of crap. How long would it take for you to resort to violence to protest? That is the birth of terror. And then organized terror efforts also need some ideology to go, to recruit and motivate active terrorists.

 

2) Yes, but crucially the state has been independent and by their own free will on the West's side (generally speaking) and not the other way around. That's pretty good for a country which fought against the West (France) during 8 years for independence.

 

3) Yes, exactly. This in part maybe because they might not be really clear on who they want to blame for their troubles (or lack a leader with a relevant ideology).

[Gorth]

IIRC, the violence, such as it is, in Algeria is mostly a conflict between the state and radical islamists, mostly based in the south (which just so happens to share borders with Mali, who also has their share of  very similar problems on their side of the border)?

[Rostere]

IIRC, the violence, such as it is, in Algeria is mostly a conflict between the state and radical islamists, mostly based in the south (which just so happens to share borders with Mali, who also has their share of  very similar problems on their side of the border)?

 

Exactly, that's how it is today. Although in the nineties the government fought a larger campaign against Islamists in a situation similar to the current one between the MB and the military in Egypt.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, the FIS won the election and the military stepped in, net result was tens of thousands dead. I wouldn't really use Algeria as an example except in the very narrow sense of being a 'good' western ally, you have to disregard rather a lot otherwise.

[Rostere]

Here's a new article from the Jewish Daily Forward.

 

There was a brief time, from 1989 until Rabin’s assassination in 1995, at which there was real hope in Israel, as in South Africa. In both places, historic enemies had come together in a way that few had thought imaginable. [...]

 

Those were heady years, impossible to convey to young people — right-wing and left-wing — who know Israel only as a quasi-pariah state. I grew up with Mandela a prisoner, and Arafat a wanted terrorist. Suddenly, Mandela’s former oppressors were negotiating how to share power with him, and Arafat shook hands with the Israeli prime minister. Apart from racists and separatists in South Africa, religious zealots in Israel, and the “Israel Lobby” in the United States, the world cheered. Dominos fell: peace with Jordan, Palestinian autonomous zones, the end of apartheid.

 

But then the paths diverged.

 

In Israel and South Africa, the far right and far left threatened the processes of peace. Yet in South Africa, Mandela moderated his former stances — embracing the Americans who had tried to keep him in prison, alienating the separatist nationalists in Inkatha, and steering toward socialist capitalism, rather than communism. Most importantly, he chose negotiation over violence, and gave in on critical points, such as allowing South Africa’s National Party to retain significant influence in the government.

Israel and Palestine were not so lucky. Arafat was a weaker leader than Mandela, and while he publicly renounced violence, he privately allowed it to persist, and even encouraged it with double-meaning speeches and anti-Israel rhetoric in textbooks and state media. Emboldened by a leader too weak to take them on, Palestinian extremists flourished.

 

And Israel’s extremists, of course, assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, egged on by massive rallies at which he was hung in effigy and denounced as a traitor. And yes, Benjamin Netanyahu sometimes spoke at those rallies. So did many of the people now in his government.

 

What do you think? When will the drift towards the far-right in Israeli politics make the work of the "Israel First" lobbies impossible?

[Rostere]

So, this is very interesting. The Palestinian MK Hanna Swaid (a Christian) proposes to put a Christmas tree at the Israeli Knesset during the holiday, to "celebrate the religious diversity of Israel" and show sympathy with the Christian minority.

 

Hanna Swaid is a member of the leftist Hadash party, a Jewish and Arab Socialist political party whose main platform is equality and removal of ethnic/racial discrimination. This entire proposal is in part a provocation to raise a debate about the steadily increasing influence of far-right elements and the nature of Israel as a "Jewish" state (whatever that means).

 

Naturally the far-right Jewish MKs already have steam blowing out of their ears from the audacity of this proposal. A few of the comments on the article offer small hints about what's going on: "Christians are guests in the land of Israel, as Jews are guests in every other country. As a guest in my home, you are invited, however, you don't bring your furnishings when you are visiting." Which is met with the appropriate retort by an American: "I thought the Christians in Israel were citizens, not "guests." In other countries, America for instance, we don't refer to our Jewish citizens as "guests." They are citizens, and menorahs are displayed in public along with Christmas trees and Kwanzaa symbols. There's something very skewed about your perspective."

[Walsingham]

But Rosti. The more isolated Israel becomes the further right it _has_ to shift, or accept annihilation. Shifting right is self-reinforcing.

 

I'm a bit embarrassed on the subject of letting the exuberance of one's diatribes overmaster common sense. But I fear you're in danger now. There is no right or wrong answer to the israel/palestine issue, because there is no way to deliver such an 'answer'. Whatever happens is likely to be an accident of other circumstances, changing the context of the problem.

 

You really should find a more useful outlet for your undoubted brains.

[Rostere]

I'm a bit embarrassed on the subject of letting the exuberance of one's diatribes overmaster common sense. But I fear you're in danger now. There is no right or wrong answer to the israel/palestine issue, because there is no way to deliver such an 'answer'. Whatever happens is likely to be an accident of other circumstances, changing the context of the problem.

 

Surely there's no reason to get angry?

 

I believe indeed that there is a "right" long-term ideal situation. The way there will be very difficult, however. When you say "there is no way to deliver such an 'answer'" I'm afraid you might be thinking in the wrong time-scale, and avoiding action because it makes you feel uncomfortable. How would you "solve" the escalating situation in Asia in 1935 or end WW1 in 1915? Typically, there are never easy solutions which work instantly, nonetheless it's important to move, if ever so slowly, in the right direction. This is the moral imperative - if we fail to take a stance we will have to deal with a worse situation later on, when postponing solving it becomes unavoidable. It's not just a question of being spineless or principled, it's also a question of economy: laxity in the face of injustice will only increase the energy required to eventually solve the problem. We can't ignore the conflict in Palestine, just as much as we can't ignore gangrene in our toes, distant as they may seem (having said that, trying to solve very difficult problems too fast or without a long-term plan will also be harmful).

 

Nevertheless, I recognize that posting without responses is not the point of these forums. Right now it seems that nobody else is interested in discussing this matter. So I guess I'll stay put until something dramatic happens, or somebody else raises the subject (if you want, you can think of it as my Christmas present to you). I'll just post one recent nightmarish video from "The Nation" (Trigger warning: racism):

 

[Walsingham]

I respectfully, but fundamentally disagree. the motivation for your injustice was the righting of a perceived injustice. The British administrators wanted to end persecution of the jews and give them a country. They thought that was important to fix.

 

By contrast the things you specifically mention - escalation in Asia '35, or ending the war in '15 - those things are practical instances at the times you mention. Presumably you're assuming this is from the perspective of the British Empire in both cases. Many folks, including imperil Japan or Germany, or the communist international would have been very happy intervening in those situations in very different ways.

[Rostere]

I respectfully, but fundamentally disagree.

 

OK.

 

 

the motivation for your injustice was the righting of a perceived injustice.

 

You know, when you think about it, the source of almost every injustice is the righting of a perceived injustice. I know you believe in the possibility of objective evil. Personally, I would like to formulate that differently - I believe in the possibility of doing objective harm. Both Mao, Lenin and Hitler were doing nothing but righting wrongs in their own minds. So the intent of anyone is not interesting when we're discussing a single issue. I don't intend to judge the British administration, just criticize the results of their actions.

 

 

The British administrators wanted to end persecution of the jews and give them a country. They thought that was important to fix.

 

This is incomprehensible to me. If there is one lesson you could learn from the rise and fall of the Nazis, it is that we must fight nationalism and all try to live together. Forcing a certain people to move to make "lebensraum" for others is a sign of BAD things. And yet the entire existence of Israel builds on the massive immigration wave after WW2 and the forced displacement of Palestinians who lived there before 1948 - otherwise the Jews would never have been a majority, not even inside the 1948 borders. If you're saying that the Jews need a country of their own you're essentially saying the same thing as Hitler - different peoples cannot live in the same nation, but must live ethnically separated. That is extremely dense and short-sighted, I'll give the US as an example of a very successful nation which consists of more ethnicities than I can count. I don't think that being a heterogeneous nation has been harmful to them, do you?

 

So even if we discount the fact that the British were giving somebody else's nation to the Jews, it's long-term waste to give any ethnic or religious group their own nation. Even then, the Sikhs would stand first in line for having a nation of their own, since they are almost double as many as the Jews and have also been historically persecuted (also, from the British perspective they have served loyally in the British Army).

 

 

By contrast the things you specifically mention - escalation in Asia '35, or ending the war in '15 - those things are practical instances at the times you mention.

 

Well? This is a practical instance now.

 

 

Presumably you're assuming this is from the perspective of the British Empire in both cases.

 

Not really since I'm not really trying to look at it from anyone's perspective in particular, but it doesn't matter.

 

 

Many folks, including imperil Japan or Germany, or the communist international would have been very happy intervening in those situations in very different ways.

 

Indeed. But since you believe in objective evil, you'd be a hypocrite if you would say there was not certain better ways of solving these issues.

[Mor]

@Rostere, you mentioned that we "must fight nationalism and all try to live together", its interesting because I have been reading some of your post here and they stink of right wing radical who has nothing todo other than post smear post against Israel.. I wonder ...

 

Also I don't agree with your characterization of the situation. I hope you are not trying to suggest that Israel and Palestinian actions paint the former as THE nationalistic among the two and the later as the one who want to try to live together.

 

 

I believe indeed that there is a "right" long-term ideal situation. The way there will be very difficult, however. When you say "there is no way to deliver such an 'answer'" I'm afraid you might be thinking in the wrong time-scale, and avoiding action because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

While I understand the motivation behind some the actions taken by the international community at the time, I also think that many of them has proved counter productive in the long term, and served only to solidify and exacerbate the conflict.

[Walsingham]

Mor illustrated a point that I was about to make. If nationalism is all wrong, what cost surrendering your nation to someone else? I mean the whole thing is childish after all. Just a flag and few daft local customs. Far easier and less bloody to simply surrender. Ein reich of brotherhood and loveliness. Why not blame the Palestinians for wanting a state that doesn't currently exist? Surely that makes even less sense than supporting one that currently does?

 

You're quite correct about me believing in objective evil, though. Why don't I assess the objective evil of Israel/Palestine and schwack the transgressors? For the same reason I don't advocate collective punishment of the people of Rochdale for 'permitting' a massive child sex ring to operate.

 

If you said "i want to set up a unit to investigate and prosecute  - even if in absentia - indiidual persons who have committed crimes against humanity during the Israel/Palestine conflict" then I'd think you were sane. But you seem to be saying roughly the same thing, and proposing deportation of one 'side' or the other afterwards.

[Rostere]

@Rostere, you mentioned that we "must fight nationalism and all try to live together", its interesting because I have been reading some of your post here and they stink of right wing radical who has nothing todo other than post smear post against Israel.. I wonder ...

 

Hello Mor, and welcome to the thread.

 

I have absolutely no idea what makes you think I'm a "right-wing radical". I understand that I must take into account you don't know me personally, but even people here on the forums who don't know me IRL would likely roll their eyes at the description of me as a "right-wing radical". In every situation, I take a firm stance against nationalism, a firm stance against every type of racism, and a firm stance against social conservatism in general and for equality, feminism, HBTQ rights and so on. So I'm really at a loss for words regarding why you perceive me as a "right-wing radical". You might read through the thread again in the light of these statements, thoroughly and carefully this time.

 

Regarding "smear posting" - please stick to more concrete accusations - do you think I have posted anything that is not factually true? In that case, please give me such an example. It might be that you feel that I'm posting only awful stuff about Israel. That has to do with two things - one, that tolerance and pacifism in Israel is pretty much going down the ****ter in every way imaginable right now, because of their current policies and government. Two, the image of Israel in most American mainstream media is extremely distorted (ironically Israeli media is generally much better), so if that's what you're comparing to, no wonder you're confused.

 

 Also I don't agree with your characterization of the situation. I hope you are not trying to suggest that Israel and Palestinian actions paint the former as THE nationalistic among the two and the later as the one who want to try to live together.

 

Please do not try do simplify this very complex situation.

 

On both sides, there are multiple actors taking the forms of political parties, NGOs and external (based in another country) organizations.

 

So there's no way you can just generalize like that. If you read through my posts, you will find references to "far-right parties", "far-right government members", "far-right MKs" and so on. These are the culprits, it's them and their supporters I'm trying to implicate regarding the current developments.

 

Polls have shown that regarding a two-state solution, Israeli Jews living in Israel and Palestinians living in the West Bank are about as inclined towards a solution based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (the UN consensus). Palestinians living in Gaza are slightly less friendly towards this solution, and Israeli Jews living in the occupied territories of course generally prefer no kind of peace process. Palestinians living inside Israel are typically the ones who are most in line with the UN consensus. Sadly, recently all voting groups' interest in constructive peace talks seem to have dwindled. This in spite of Israeli terror casualties being virtually nil, so the cause for that is a very interesting debate in itself.

 

That being said, the foremost proponents of any constructive peace are typically parties and NGOs open to both Palestinians and Jews - in Israel we have Hadash, Meretz, Balad, Hatnuah and Ta'al, arguably the United Arab List, and depending on current leaders Kadima and the Israeli Labor Party. Excepting the latter two, these parties control only 23 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset, and most have never been in government. If these parties were in power for one term or two, boy would we have serious peace discussions. That's however about as unrealistic as me suggesting that you want the next president of the US to be from the Green Party, or George McGovern with Barry Goldwater as VP. On the other hand, if the Israeli Labor Party gets enough votes, and those are not "stolen" from the other pro-peace parties, we'll have a very interesting and promising situation. This is essentially what happened in 1992 (an election with the largest ever Arab participation), but shortly afterwards then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a far-right Jewish terrorist, other politicians took over and the peace process was killed. We also have the NGO B'Tselem which keeps track of all the human rights violations in the West Bank, effectively the best ally the Palestinians there have got.

 

So in short, none of the sides is particularly homogeneous. I'd rate Fatah as historically being as open for peace as the Israeli Labor Party, however their current leader is very much interested in constructive talks. There is a group of several smaller Palestinian parties which are even more progressive, however these are even more marginalized than their counterparts in Israel.

 

While I understand the motivation behind some the actions taken by the international community at the time, I also think that many of them has proved counter productive in the long term, and served only to solidify and exacerbate the conflict.

 

Would you kindly like to elaborate on this? The international community is not single actor, you know.

[Rostere]

Mor illustrated a point that I was about to make. If nationalism is all wrong, what cost surrendering your nation to someone else? I mean the whole thing is childish after all. Just a flag and few daft local customs. Far easier and less bloody to simply surrender. Ein reich of brotherhood and loveliness. Why not blame the Palestinians for wanting a state that doesn't currently exist? Surely that makes even less sense than supporting one that currently does?

 

Indeed, a democratic one-state solution would be ideal in the long run. Sadly, a single democratic state is currently the political territory of the Communist and crypto-Communist parties in Israel and Palestine . I guess I can only blame nationalism again for people wanting their own state.

 

But this is all really beside the point, the most important issue is that Palestinians inside Israel live in a country which considers its Jewish character more important than its democratic aspect, and that Palestinians in the occupied territories live under a de facto fascist colonial regime, where their land is confiscated, their homes demolished, where they have no freedom of movement (making "Papers Please" look like a rosy fantasy), where they have "Jews only" roads and towns and where they can be detained for any amount of time without criminal charges for protesting against this. FIRST this has to end, then we can afford the luxury of a discussion about whether we want a one-state or a two-state solution.

 

 

You're quite correct about me believing in objective evil, though. Why don't I assess the objective evil of Israel/Palestine and schwack the transgressors? For the same reason I don't advocate collective punishment of the people of Rochdale for 'permitting' a massive child sex ring to operate.

 

No, but I'm not talking about collective punishment. I'm talking about a group of politicians in Israel (and in the US) who actively support the ongoing war crimes. I know as well that you don't advocate collective punishment, you would rather not want to punish all the Iranians (for example) because their government might want to obtain nuclear weapons (right?), and I don't either. In the same way, we don't want to inflict collective punishment on the entirety of Israel because their current government violates the Geneva Convention in the ongoing continuous ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. We both prefer to avoid collective punishment, but I think the least we can do is to NOT SUPPORT ongoing war crimes. Right? So my list of no-brainers if I was the President of the US would be:

1. End all military support to Israel
2. Boycott all companies and goods which are active in illegal settlements or who utilize unregulated labor from the Palestinian ghettoes
3. End tax exemptions for donations to US organizations which fund illegal settlements
4. Support parties which advocate a secular (not Jewish or Islamic), democratic state in the entirety of Palestine

These are all simple actions I think we all can agree on. Personally, if I was American, I'd also want to end tax exemptions for donations to political lobby groups (I can't believe this exists in a democratic nation in the first place, it's a wonder the US isn't more ****ed up than it is).

 

 

If you said "i want to set up a unit to investigate and prosecute  - even if in absentia - indiidual persons who have committed crimes against humanity during the Israel/Palestine conflict" then I'd think you were sane. But you seem to be saying roughly the same thing, and proposing deportation of one 'side' or the other afterwards.

 

What? That couldn't been further from the truth. In fact, I've said that I don't think the settlement housing itself forms that of an obstacle for peace. Collectively, the houses of Jewish illegal settlers in the West Bank take up less than 1% of the area. The long-term problems are (that is, not counting the immediate problems I've stated above) the sharing of arable land, and of water.

[Walsingham]

Well, you make some interesting suggestions. But I put it to you that your attempts to fine tune a response will be instantly scuppered by one factor: Vlad Putin.

 

Cutting US support to the right in Israel would gift wrap them for Putin's _existing_ foreign policy platform of backing 'conservative'/right wing groups anywhere within spitting distance. A Russian-aligned Israel next to a Russian aligned Syria (as looks likely) would be a nightmare for us, and for the Palestinians.

 

The morality of what you're trying to change would be moot. Because it wouldn't change. If anything I imagine the Israeli right wing would go completely bananas.

[Rostere]

In the news recently from Israel/Palestine:

 

From gay Jews down to goys - the hierarchy of the human species as told by Eli Ben Dahan
 

What will you do if a law for single sex marriages is proposed [in the Knesset]?

 

“No, under no circumstances. A Jew and a goy can also not marry.”

 

Is that the same thing?

 

“We don’t recognize either of them. In any case, a Jew always has a much higher [level] soul than a goy, even if he is a homosexual."

 

"Goy" plural: "goyim" is a derogatory Hebrew term for non-Jews. Eli Ben Dahan is the current Minister of Religious Affairs in Israel, who decides over matters regarding implementing Judaism in the law. Naturally, stances such as his are fiercely opposed by the waning largely secular Israeli Left, however the current Nationalist-dominated government have taken a conservative turn in thinking about this, only partially held back by the Yesh Atid party. Currently, homosexual couples are not persecuted actively in any way, although the state does not recognize homosexual marriages officially. This development is very sad and shows the deepening divide between the progressive, modern cosmopolitan class in Tel Aviv and conservative, nationalist settlers and their supporters who are increasingly dominating the political scene.

 

Here's from another article about the same dude:

 

This is Eli Ben Dahan’s second move against those wishing to meet the requirements of Jewish law in various spheres without involving the rabbinate. His first move was to add a clause to the “Tzohar Law” mandating prison terms for Jewish couples who married in private wedding ceremonies without registering with the rabbinate, and those who officiated at such weddings.

 

So a Jew who unofficially marries a non-Jew or a Jew of the same gender in Israel can now be thrown into jail. I wonder what these conservative nutjobs will come up with next.

 

Well, you make some interesting suggestions. But I put it to you that your attempts to fine tune a response will be instantly scuppered by one factor: Vlad Putin.

 

Cutting US support to the right in Israel would gift wrap them for Putin's _existing_ foreign policy platform of backing 'conservative'/right wing groups anywhere within spitting distance. A Russian-aligned Israel next to a Russian aligned Syria (as looks likely) would be a nightmare for us, and for the Palestinians.

 

The morality of what you're trying to change would be moot. Because it wouldn't change. If anything I imagine the Israeli right wing would go completely bananas.

 

Well... This certainly is a funny "what if" scenario.

 

Parts of the Israeli Right consists of a lot of Russian emigrants, and there are definitely cliques which would like to gravitate closer to Putin's Russia. At the time however, (49% of Israelis believe Israel should seek other allies than the US) official efforts are much more oriented towards China than Russia. What exactly would Israel have to offer Russia or China? By and large nothing, except for military technology, which is in turn largely either 100% American, or created through scientific collaboration with the US (the sharing of technology between Israel and China is already taking place, much to the embarrassment of US leaders - also here). So if Israel was to steer too close to China or Russia, that "selling argument" would be moot, because Israel's technological edge hinges on scientific and economic (especially the latter) ties to the US. Not that Russia or China WOULDN'T want a friendly-aligned state in the ME, it's just that it wouldn't be worth any particular effort - we've got to remember that in the context of global politics, Israel is a piddling statelet with a mere 9 million inhabitants.

 

I'm surprised you say that it would be a "nightmare" for either the US or the Palestinians. For the US, such a development would only be close to a "nightmare" if this new state went amok, attacking Lebanon or Egypt. Naturally, Israel has zero hope of winning a military conflict aligned against the interests of NATO, but such a conflict would nevertheless be costly. The mere fact of an Israel not aligned with the US would not even be a liability for the US - I bet the stability gains and investment possibilities in Arab or Muslim countries would far outweigh the loss (but in either case, we're talking small pros and cons here). For the Palestinians, things can't really get much worse than the current situation, short of outright genocide.

 

But that's already too much time spent with fantastic speculations. The situation you describe is simply NEVER EVER going to happen. Here's why: economics. Almost all of Israel's exports go to Europe or the US. All big Israeli employers are completely dependent on the American and European market. Without American bizarrely one-sided support for Israel in international affairs, things would have gone the way of South Africa long ago. Already the threat of European boycotts loom over them if the current peace talks fail. If Israel would be cheering Putin or Communist China along, I think American politicians' support for Israel would fall like a house of cards. Imagine Israeli economy without US and EU companies, and without US and EU exports. What would remain? Election consultants in Zimbabwe, the non-Western (and non-Muslim) diamond market and shechita-slaughtered meat? The Israeli economy would be completely annihilated.

[Mor]

^ Ohhh here you go again...

 

I have absolutely no idea what makes you think I'm a "right-wing radical". ... In every situation, I take a firm stance against nationalism, a firm stance against every type of racism, and a firm stance against social conservatism in general...

 

Regarding "smear posting" - please stick to more concrete accusations - do you think I have posted anything that is not factually true? ...

For the purpose of conversation right-wing/left-wing makes no difference, a radical is a radical, you can't reason with one. As for my opinion of you, it was solely based on your post here, on this page. Though, I wondered if I am to waste my time and go over all the whole thread, will i find similar spontaneous "firm stance" taking regarding the Palestinians as well? or only when its inline with your POV..

 

It doesn't mean that what you posted isn't factually true, only that in the context of this thread topic, it read as obsessive nitpicking that, completely and utterly lacks perspective e.g. even if your was right that "that tolerance and pacifism in Israel is pretty much going down the ****ter", it is still heads higher in every way imaginable than anything you'll find in the Palestinian/Arab arena(and more likely to be a symptom shared by both)

 

Speaking of your POV. Reading this(snip of the rest of your post below) and other post on this page:

 

 

 

Also I don't agree with your characterization of the situation. I hope you are not trying to suggest that Israel and Palestinian actions paint the former as THE nationalistic among the two and the later as the one who want to try to live together.

 

Please do not try do simplify this very complex situation.

 

On both sides, there are multiple actors taking the forms of political parties, NGOs and external (based in another country) organizations.

 

So there's no way you can just generalize like that. If you read through my posts, you will find references to "far-right parties", "far-right government members", "far-right MKs" and so on. These are the culprits, it's them and their supporters I'm trying to implicate regarding the current developments.

 

Polls have shown that regarding a two-state solution, Israeli Jews living in Israel and Palestinians living in the West Bank are about as inclined towards a solution based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (the UN consensus). Palestinians living in Gaza are slightly less friendly towards this solution, and Israeli Jews living in the occupied territories of course generally prefer no kind of peace process. Palestinians living inside Israel are typically the ones who are most in line with the UN consensus. Sadly, recently all voting groups' interest in constructive peace talks seem to have dwindled. This in spite of Israeli terror casualties being virtually nil, so the cause for that is a very interesting debate in itself.

 

That being said, the foremost proponents of any constructive peace are typically parties and NGOs open to both Palestinians and Jews - in Israel we have Hadash, Meretz, Balad, Hatnuah and Ta'al, arguably the United Arab List, and depending on current leaders Kadima and the Israeli Labor Party. Excepting the latter two, these parties control only 23 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset, and most have never been in government. If these parties were in power for one term or two, boy would we have serious peace discussions. That's however about as unrealistic as me suggesting that you want the next president of the US to be from the Green Party, or George McGovern with Barry Goldwater as VP. On the other hand, if the Israeli Labor Party gets enough votes, and those are not "stolen" from the other pro-peace parties, we'll have a very interesting and promising situation. This is essentially what happened in 1992 (an election with the largest ever Arab participation), but shortly afterwards then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a far-right Jewish terrorist, other politicians took over and the peace process was killed. We also have the NGO B'Tselem which keeps track of all the human rights violations in the West Bank, effectively the best ally the Palestinians there have got.

 

So in short, none of the sides is particularly homogeneous. I'd rate Fatah as historically being as open for peace as the Israeli Labor Party, however their current leader is very much interested in constructive talks. There is a group of several smaller Palestinian parties which are even more progressive, however these are even more marginalized than their counterparts in Israel.

 

 

It seems like your idea of this "very complex situation" simplified to blaming it all on Israeli, while the Palestinians are being innocent by standers, who just want peace and your help. In the picture you paint, the Palestinian are kept being associated with terms such as: "peace", "left, "Open for peace.. current leader is very much interested in constructive talks.. several smaller Palestinian parties.. even more progressive".

 

Even Hamas, basically your run of the mill religious fundamentalist, militaristic group, who govern Gaza, since it took it over by force, gunning down their political rivals in the streets. A separate Palestinian entity, who doesn't recognize Palestinian authority in west bank, PLO role as the official UN representative of the Palestinian people or the peace efforts(other than gaining more land). Whose charter equates nationalism to a religious creed and state they will not rest until complete annihilation of Israel, who had no qualms over targeting population centers and their state building is basically based on hate and hatred.(investments, schools, media even terrorist summer camps for kid..) You simply describe as "slightly less friendly toward" a solution! Though immediately contrasting them with Israeli who prefer no kind of solution.(as if the Israeli minority in the west bank who will have to abide by any Democratic decision is in anyway comparable to hamas  )

 

While in your post Israel associated with right-wing(or rather always "far"-right). Based on your political "expertise" they are anti-peace, who can't conduct serious or constructive peace discussions. A lot more about their "far"-right, linking with apartheid, mentions of Jewish terrorist, of Israeli human rights violations, intolerance in general and racism and unsympathetic with Christian minority in particular (I think I got most of the negative associations that you manged to cramp in your stance taking)

  

Soo.. I hope I am reading this out of context( e.g. you got carried away with your argument with Walsingham or something), but from a bystander POV the picture your posts paint is come off completely biased, not as in lack of perspective, but as in WTF are you talking about?! and I haven't even started with your assessments of the situation and convenient poll data.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

The belief that the Israeli right is not interested in peace is based on a tricksome thing called 'reality'. They have what they want already, any peace would require compromise and giving stuff up, which they don't want to do.

 

You're also countering someone else's opinion based on your own opinion as if yours were generally accepted fact. Even your facts aren't actual facts. Hamas won the last Palestinian election which people like George Walker Bush and Condoleeza Rice described as fair (the day before the results were announced, of course) while strangely enough Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas has been able to get away with having zero elections since.

[Mor]

 

While I understand the motivation behind some the actions taken by the international community at the time, I also think that many of them has proved counter productive in the long term, and served only to solidify and exacerbate the conflict.

 

Would you kindly like to elaborate on this? The international community is not single actor, you know.

 

How about the standard refugees vs unique "Palestinian refugees" definition in the world? Which I see as purely political move to create pressure over Israel. Politics aside, the problem is that over the decades, instead of helping the refugee population to assimilated into their new surroundings, instead they created a never ending problem, that have been festering for years creating new generations of "refuges". A welfare class that drinking billions of UN money in refuge camps(iirc they received far more than what they lost in assets and far far more than Europeans got after ww2) and with help of all the media attention, its almost as if they believe that they are only people who have been wronged, forgetting their own involvement or that for perspective Israel had as much Jewish refugees from Arab lands, only with less whining.

 

IMO for the Palestinians this has also backfired, because with time their political bargaining chip, became apolitical chain, their leaders can't afford to backdown which will make him weak in the eyes of the people, especially in light of their internal conflict with Hamas in gaza, but neither them or Israelis can afford this to be anything other than symbolic.

 

The belief that the Israeli right is not interested in peace is based on a tricksome thing called 'reality'. They have what they want already, any peace would require compromise and giving stuff up, which they don't want to do.

I am not certain what are you addressing here, because I haven't touched on that, my point was about how a biased person characterize this situation i.e. ignoring one side of the conflict as if its a vacuum and compromise shouldn't be made on both sides, by who he defines as far-right(compared to Palestinians some of his choices are are almost leftist), by his interpretation of who is interested and overall his "summary" which IMO frankly insulting after that speech about complexity of the situation.

 

You're also countering someone else's opinion based on your own opinion as if yours were generally accepted fact. Even your facts aren't actual facts. Hamas won the last Palestinian election which people like George Walker Bush and Condoleeza Rice described as fair (the day before the results were announced, of course) while strangely enough Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas has been able to get away with having zero elections since.

That just strawmen mouthwash... The Palestinian elections were never put to question. Here read again what I said:

 

..Hamas, basically your run of the mill religious fundamentalist, militaristic group, who govern Gaza, since it took it over by force, gunning down their political rivals in the streets. A separate Palestinian entity, who doesn't recognize Palestinian authority in west bank, PLO role as the official UN representative of the Palestinian people or the peace efforts(other than gaining more land). Whose charter equates nationalism to a religious creed and state they will not rest until complete annihilation of Israel, who had no qualms over targeting population centers and their state building is basically based on hate and hatred.(investments, schools, media even terrorist summer camps for kid..) You simply describe as "slightly less friendly toward" a solution! ....

 

We were talking about the Peace process i.e. willingness\ability to find solution and compromise between the Palestinians and Israel. Other than referencing Rostere selective "stance taking" on nationalism\etc, and his POV twisting reality about who is willing. The problem that I highlighted was that there are two Palestinian entities(Hamas/Gaza,Fatah/Westbank), that do not recognize each other. so the Palestinian Representative on behalf of all the Palestinians, barely represent half of them. As well as hinting that Hamas policy/actions are much more than usual comments/crap you can find from far-right nuts, negotiation posturing and position improvement in every conflict on all sides.

 

p.s. I am really not surprised that Israel demand guaranties. Following a short lived democratic process, the fallout of giving autonomy to Palestinians, resulted in an armed coup(a conflict resolution with guns if you wish) among the two Palestinian political parties and couple of hostilities among Israel and Gaza(though their negotiations are with Westbank group :wako: )

Edited January 4, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

It certainly wasn't an armed coup if Hamas won the election and Fatah illegally kept power, it was a... well, there isn't really a word for it. If the international community had honoured its commitments there would be no WB/ Gaza divide but they disliked the results, so set them aside for to favour their horse in the race.

 

Accusations of 'selective stance taking' and the like are not in the least bit constructive either, since your 'selective stances' will tend to be anything said that you (or indeed I, if operating in reverse) disagree with. To illustrate, you, for example, ignore that half of Jordan's population is Palestinian refugees, you want them- a poor country with little in the way of resources- to basically "deal with it" and absorb them no matter what the practicalities are. I dare say if the US got 300 million refugees, or the UK 60 million they'd happily accept them... let alone Israel allowing them their right of return to and integration in their actual country.

 

There is an argument that refugees should be integrated, but it's usually made by those far separated from the actual place expected to accept them and by those who do not have to deal with the problems associated with such a policy, and always seems to involve them being integrated somewhere 'over there', Not In My Back Yard.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Mor]

Well, you make some interesting suggestions. But I put it to you that your attempts to fine tune a response will be instantly scuppered by one factor: Vlad Putin.

 

Cutting US support to the right in Israel would gift wrap them for Putin's _existing_ foreign policy platform of backing 'conservative'/right wing groups anywhere within spitting distance. A Russian-aligned Israel next to a Russian aligned Syria (as looks likely) would be a nightmare for us, and for the Palestinians.

 

The morality of what you're trying to change would be moot. Because it wouldn't change. If anything I imagine the Israeli right wing would go completely bananas.

To sum it up more or less, it wouldn't be constructive toward a peace between the two sides. (and IMO those "no-brainer" suggestions show lack of understanding that it takes two sides to make peace and both of them need to compromise and both need encouragement) Edited January 8, 2014 by Mor