Finn Again's Wake

The BBQ Pit
981

Malthus and Jack; endless back and forth not being idea of conclusive debate, I leave you with the following debate on the Mearsheimer & Walt book. Suffice it to say that I agree with them on the main.

If interested, readers can watch it and come to their own conclusions:

The Israel Lobby: Does it Have Too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy?

For those with slow Internet connection, or not patient to listen to the debate, here’s a transcript of same:

Transcript – The Israel Lobby Debate

Doubt there’s anything more I’d like to add to this thread, thus unless my views are grossly misinterpreted (which seems like a theme), this is where my participation ends.

Enjoy whatever comes next.

982

Um.

"I am a Friend of Israel. I love you, brother! Peace?

It’s all on you.

And perhaps more than existing as a nation?

Remember dear friend Israel, it’s all on you. No effort or sacrifice is required of anyone else.

And of course in elucidator-world, no one else exists other than Israel and the Palestinians.

Nooo, there is no one else in the region with the slightest hostile intent as regards Israel, secure as it is knowing that elucidator is its Friend. Syria? Who dat? Iran? Never heard of it. All those who use the Palestinians as pawns in their strategy of blaming Israel for everything that goes wrong in the region, in order to prevent unrest from being turned against their regimes? Nonsense.

It’s all on Israel.

That’s what a true Friend like the honest elucidator requires. No one else besides Israel is possessed of lighter fluid and matches, nor the will to employ them. No other need sacrifice or lay aside its hatreds.

It’s entirely on you Israel, dear dear Friend that you are.

I would have commented on his post earlier, but I was too busy wiping tears from my eyes after reading elucidator’s honest, heartfelt words.

But such wonderful, realistic expressions of Peace should not go unrecognized.

983

Your contempt for my views is a crushing blow, Jack. I can only hope I will find, someday, the strength to get over it.

Ah! Well, that didn’t take long!

984

The capacity for caricature of your actual words is … very elastic. Well if you wanted an illustration of 50% of the problem, viola.

985

Can everyone agree, then, that if two enemies truly wish peace that the vastly more powerful of the two enemies by rights should bear a larger portion of the burden of at least initiating/facilitating the process?

It certainly seems logical to me. I don’t necessarily agree with everything elucidator said in his post, but at least he clarified his position in (at least, to me) an honest fashion. It was more enlightening than his humorous one-off’s that he and VinylTurnip are in competition for being the best at.

I don’t think Israel should bear all the burden. But I do think that they should have to shoulder more of it, since they are more equipped to do so, having a modern nation, a good economy, well-fed population, strong military, etc. I don’t think the Palestinians have much of any of that. Maybe that’s part of the problem, what breeds some of the terrorism. Poverty. A lack of a national identity. Living in crowded, shitty conditions.

986

I suspect that the use of the word should will lead to non-agreement.

Restated as it is more realistic and practicable that the more powerful in its own interests should take the initiative…

On the last, yes. And we can add also that the fine slap-in-the-face caricature response also took two red-herrings in for the game as well (Syria, Iran: certainly both are enemies, but Syria clearly wants to do a deal, Iran of course being far away amuses itself in fucking around with all the responsibility of a 12 year old boy).

Anyway, that response was an illustration of part of the problem, the Eternal Enemy type narrative that the No Camps on both sides like to play.

987

Our own “civilised”, raised in peace children turn out to be little shits if they don’t have their youthful exuberance harnessed in a positive manner. What chance do the children over there have? Come on, won’t someone think of the children?

988

Certainly, in an ideal world, where people of goodwill sit down honestly to a discussion of how peace (a goal both parties have equally in mind) is to be achieved. In that world, the prescription for peace is not particularly controversial: the stronger party mangnanimously gives the weaker the support it needs to form a viable state, and the weaker in turn promises the stronger not to continue the struggle but to work earnestly towards peace. Questions of 'entitlement" do not enter into the equation - since this plan would go forward, Marshal-Plan style, regardless of any “fault”, neatly sidestepping the endless debate over historical injustices. All outside parties, being equally of goodwill and earnestly working towards the same goal, support these worthy endeavours. Peace is achieved, the end.

Again, in the perfect world, this would not be controversial.

Where this pleasing and simple narrative falls down is in the fact that this is not the perfect world, not even close. In the perfect world, there is a single peace partner known as “Palestine” which, if a good enough deal is offered, has the ability to offer a comprehensive peace deal. No such peace partner currently exists. Rather, what does exist is a variety of competing Palestinian groups and factions, none of whom have that ability. The PLO is unpopular and discredited, riddled with corruption; it lost popular elections to Hamas, mostly because the Palestinians were disgusted by their continuing petty corruption and incompetence. Hamas in contrast has a reputation for small-scale local honesty and integrity; alas, it is also totalitarian in method and has zero interest in peace; it openly seeks Israel’s total destruction.

Unilateral concessions by the Israelis in the past have not, contrary to theory, strengthened the PLO’s hand against Hamas and other peace-hating fanatics. On the contrary, they have strengthened the fanatics’ hand against the PLO. Handing over Gaza, clearing out the settlers there led, not to increased PLO legitimacy and renewed drive for peace, but the opposite: the concession was taken as weakness forced by Palestinian resistance, Hamas won the resulting battle with the PLO, and rules Gaza as its fief - leading to further war with Israel.

This situation in turn has seriously discredited the large and vocal faction in Israel that is quite willing to offer concessions in return for peace and has no love for settlers, and has emboldened guys like Bibi, who may talk about concessions but is unlikely to ever willingly offer any.

These are the facts, and theories should be adjusted to fit them. It is no use insisting that it should be otherwise; it is equally no use assigning blame. I agree, it should be otherwise; but it’s not.

989

I think it’s the other way around. I think that it’s the weaker party that should take the first steps toward piece, because they have more to gain from the peace and more to lose from continued conflict. This current conflict hurts the Palestinians a lot more than it does Israel, so it should be a much higher priority for the Palestinians to end it than it is for Israel.

990

If the UK has taken this logic with Ireland, we’d still be hacking it out with the Catholics in Northern Ireland.

The reality is that if the weaker party has its back up against the wall, conflict resolution literature suggests that this isn’t merely something unique to that situation.

Of course the attitude certainly makes for such sunny chances of resolution over there.

991

This is a good post, and I agree. I confess to a certain level of ignorance regarding whom has offered to do what for the other over the years this conflict has been going on (as well as the history of the matter…it seems a lot of the information being disseminated about this topic can be quite biased depending on who’s doing the telling), and I was mostly just expressing a general sentiment of wishful thinking moreso than having a real firm grasp on the volatility of the situation and how it can be resolved.

I’m not sure it ever can be. Perhaps the religious/ethnic hatred is too deeply entrenched into each side’s overall worldview to root it out.

I thought of that when I posted my last reply, and you can certainly make that argument. The Israelis certainly can’t like the situation they are in, but they are much better equipped in every way imaginable to endure attrition than the Palestinians are.

992

Perhaps my proposals are nothing more than the delusions of a fuzzy-thinking peacenik, all maypole dancing and kumbaya. Are the hard-headed realists offering anything? Will despair somehow prevent disaster?

The status quo is unsustainable, it is a *Guns of August *scenario, revisited. All of Israel’s enemies, both real and symbolic, have contingency plans for total war. Of course they do, its what military men do, they plan for contingencies. The battle plans are set, the mobilization orders are already cut, if the balloon goes up, the massacre begins.

If Achmedinijad or Netanyahu were the bloodthirsty madmen that their enemies portray them as being, we would already have that. And it would not take the wretched cooperation of them both, only one would be needed. Either they are not, or they are under the restraint of cooler minds, from our lips to the Ears.

But it only takes one, one madman, one deranged fool, and streets of the Middle East will be littered with carrion.

Is it insane to demand peace, to accept nothing less? Well, then, is what we have now any less insane? After sixty years, has hard-headed realism brought us any closer? Or are we still sitting around smoking cigars in a powder magazine, trusting in our realism to prevent us from being blown to rags and scraps?

If I give the impression that I think this will be easy, forgive my failure of clarity, it will not. But is it possible? Yes, because the streets of Belfast no longer run with blood. Is there another answer, a practical, realistic solution? I wait with bated breath.

It can only happen when peace is more important than any other consideration. There will be no victory, justice for the aggrieved is only slightly less likely. Jack asks if the survival of the nation of Israel might be sacrficed. But which nation does he mean? The nation that exists for the benefit of one religious and ethnic group, and all others are permitted only on sufferance, that they not pretend to equality, that they offer their loyalty to a nation that scorns them? If that state of injustice and oppression is what you mean when you say “Israel”, then no, that state will not continue. Not in that form, no, Israel must redefine herself. As must those people called “Palestinian”.

And if your loyalty to an ethnic or religious subset of humanity exceeds your loyalty to humanity itself, then you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And if that loyalty is to Shiite, or Sunni, or Sephardic, or Ashkenazi, then you must overcome it, you must set it aside. And if your God/Allah insists otherwise, you must ignore Him. A God that urges you to oppress or slaughter your brother is not worthy of worship, but only scorn.

Is this all warm-fuzzy peacenik idealism? Perhaps. You have something better, something practical, something that will assure that we are not headed for another massive harvest of corpses. Well, then, I beseech you, in the name of God, tell us quickly what it is, how it might be done.

And, failing that, listen to us wierdos. The crazy idealists fool enough to end thier missives with

Peace.

993

The problem is that wishing that people and situations are other than they are is not a prescription for peace, but one for blaming and further war. If everyone who has loyalty to their ethnicity, religion or tribe is “part of the problem”, if their religion is “worthy of scorn”, what then? What does pointing fingers and scorning pretty well everyone in the ME accomplish - other than a righteous glow? What is accomplished by de-legitimizing the state of Israel (one that, in my opinion, is not objectively worse - but rather, considerably better - than its fellow nations in the neighbourhood) other than spreading more hate - which is hardly conducive to peace?

If you were to ask me what practically could be done, I’d say the following is absolutely necessary:

Offer quality aid to stregthen those Palestinian groups which are committed to realistic Palestinian nation-building. The object must be to compete with and to replace the quality infrastructure - madrassas and social support - offered by Hamas and its ilk. The Islamicists are winning this battle because they have long-term goals and offer quality education in Islamicist-funded insitutions, and because they are widely perceived as less corrupt. They then get an opportunity to spread their indoctrination. Those who oppose them must do so with long-term goals exactly opposite in mind - offer quality education and social systems, un-linked to Islamicist fanaticism and offering serious opportunities to the young.

This aid must be offered without “strings” (other than to ensure against corruption or diversion) so as not to appear to be simply a counter-manipulation. The real “manipulation” must be in the difference between free inquiry and economic opportunity vs. coercive control and Islamicist fanaticism.

Moreover, contrary to the notion that we must all work towards some utopian goal where ethno-nationalism doesn’t exist, it should be made clear that the goal is the creation of a free and powerful Palestinian state - which can only be guaranteed by secular and democratic education, nationalism and politics. The goal eventually is a first-world type state where ethno-nationalism fades away, but it is unrealistic to think that any Palestinian state created now will be free of ethno-nationalism. Oppose national success against religious fanaticism.

Only once there exists a strong PLO or other group that is actively seeking to create a state (rather than seeking the unrealistic goal of a “right of return”, or rather, displacement of Israel), then the hard bargaining can commence - what concessions can it wring from Israel over the borders of said state?

In short, what is needed is not to tear Israel down, but to build the Palestinians up; to help create, or rather to help the Palestinians create for themselves, a Palestinian national entity that can actually bargain, that can build a nation, that does not seek impossible or purely symbolic victories but rather nation-building. This will no doubt be a long hard task, but it is certainly not impossible.

994

Ah, in elucidator-land there is no such thing as Arab citizens of Israel, no voting rights, no representation in Parliament etc. That’s not the real world, but it’s what elucidator wants us to believe.

“Palestinian Arabs sat in the state’s first parliamentary assembly; currently, 12 of the 120 members of the Israeli Parliament are Arab citizens, most representing Arab political parties, and one of Israel’s Supreme Court judges is a Palestinian Arab.”

Nice to have elucidator confirm that the destruction of the state of Israel is on the table as far as he’s concerned.

No. They’re the views of someone with a pronounced anti-Israel agenda, presented under the guise of being a “Friend of Israel” and a starry-eyed yet ultimately practical visionary of peace, who professes the belief that an acceptable peace strategy is having one side make all the concessions, and who suggests that his political opponents may well be treasonous Fifth Columnists and compares them to exponents of International Communism. :rolleyes: (need vomiting smiley here as well).

You’re so cute when you beseech.

I haven’t got the grand solution; if I did I’d be collecting the Nobel Prize along with my regular checks from Mossad and International Jewry, Inc. I’m not proposing anything as stupid as your “Surrender Dorothy” strategy for Israel, or the equally nutty Abbas proposal to have the U.S. “impose” a solution on the opposing parties. As for the latter, when has either side shown a willingness to accept anything less than a perfect, painless solution (for them, of course, never mind the other guy)? The Palestinians could have had a state some years back, but the Israeli proposal got rejected because it just wasn’t good enough. There aren’t enough Israelis willing to make even elementary painful steps like halting the building in East Jerusalem, because there’s a sizable element that wants the whole cake too.

In an ideal world, my previously stated idea of withholding financial support from Israel and using diplomatic pressures until it agreed to a flat out building/settlement expansion freeze and other concrete steps, along with Palestinian “mentors” pressuring Hamas and the PLO to stop stockpilling and using weapons and make other concessions, would eventually push both sides to mutually make the painful decisions required for peace. Even in the unlikely event that such pressures from without are felt by both sides, it’s doubtful that they’ve felt enough pain yet to give up their cherished delusions.

We can make our moves (and should), but the current mess will probably exist for quite awhile longer.

Cello, brother. :cool:

995

This issue is extremely frustrating. For one, its possibly the most important issue going forward for America and Israel VERSUS the radical Muslim world. As long as the status quo is maintained, we (the USA) will always be perceived as an evil entity because we support Israel.

OTOH, we also support many Muslim nations (some of which are either openly or quietly hostile to Israel) with aid and our economic dollars (Saudi Arabia).

I simply cannot understand why some type of agreement hasn’t been reached by now. Aren’t both sides sick to death (literally) of this shit by now?
I mean…what the fuck? Can’t anyone figure out this morass, or does the blood have to keep spilling?

996

This should be preserved for students and noobs, as a textbook example of selective citation. We are offered a link to verify a quotation, apparently to support a case that “Palestinians” are fully empowered and accepted as citizens of Israel. We are to note that fully 10% of the Israeli Parliament is made up of “Israeli Arabs”.

And the same article advises that “…As of 2008, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country’s total population…”. Or, in proportion, their population is twice the ratio as their representation. We are not offered an explanation.

One odd note in the same cite, discussing the Druze people of the Golan Heights:
“…Unlike other Arabs, the Druze are drafted into the Israel Defense Forces, just like Jews…”

Do I read that right, Jack? That unlike other “citizens” of Israel, “Palestinians” are not considered proper subjects for drafting into the armed services? Why would that be, if they are treated as equal citizens? Might it be suspicions as to their loyalty? Or simply that they are not considered full citizens, and therefore not subject to the same obligations?

You have the right to remain citeless, but if you give up that right, and use a cite, then that cite can be used against you. Students and noobs, take note.

Lets do it like this: I’ll tell you the truth as best I can, and you believe whatever you fucking well please.

Peace on you.

997

Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are different groups of people. Palestinians don’t have any real rights in Israel. Israeli Arabs have, with the exception of military service, pretty much full rights in Israel. (The Druze, who are Arabs, are, as you mentioned, required to serve in the military, and the Bedouin, who are also Arabs, are allowed to serve in the military, but not required to).

998

This statement would be accurate if it referred to your own post. In case you’ve forgotten, you previously said:

Clearly you were ignorant of or deliberately overlooking that such is not the case in Israel, where Arabs do have citizen status. Rather than acknowledging your misrepresentation, you now complain that some Arabs are not required (like other Israelis) to serve in the armed forces, though a few do (it’s weird to hear you of all people complaining about how onerous it is that military service is not required). You do acknowledge that citizens of Israel who are Palestinian Arabs serve in Parliament, though that’s apparently meaningless to you since the percentage who serve is less than the percent of the population who are Israeli Arabs.
Tell me, do you censure every democracy (including your own) in which not every minority group/women are precisely represented in parliament/Congress as “nation(s) that exist for the benefit of one religious and ethnic group, and all others are permitted only on sufferance, that they not pretend to equality, that they offer their loyalty to a nation that scorns them?”

I think your angst is rather selective.

So you were wrong and can’t admit it. What else is new?

I beseech you though to be more careful of your “facts” next time.

999

Wait…Arab citizens of Israel are suspected of dual loyalty based merely on their ethnicity?

Surely Jackmannii and FinnAgain will share my outrage at this expression of racism!

:dubious:

1000

This made me laugh.