How can there ever be peace in the ME?

[David_Simmons]

@mswas

Not really. Secularism is antagonistic to Islam. I know in the West we think of Secularism as being ‘neutral’ but it’s not neutral if part of your religion is a set of legal proscriptions for governing a healthy society.

I think the ME will be more PeaceFUL if we leave them alone and let them decide how to govern themselves. In the end it’s not up to us, it’s up to them.

Secularism is ideally suited for a predominantly Judeo-Christian society both having a tradition of separation of the spiritual aspect of their religion from the Temporal power, but in Islam no such separation exists.

The notion that the people of the Middle-East have less history than the west is pretty ludicrous anyhow. Around the time of the Crusades they were ascendant and the west was low, and we had moralists in the Latin nations complaining about the infiltration of ‘Eastern Decadence’.

I don’t think a linear model of progress is in any way meaningful.

Whoa. No one said that the ME has less history than Europe, or anywhere else. And as far as secularism being antagonistic toward Islam, true. But it also was antagonistic toward Christianity in 1200 and to an extent still is. The history of Islam is about 700 years shorter that the history of Christianity. Give it time.

And, as has been the subject of numerous other posts, the mere presence of Israel is also a big factor in ME turmoil.

[Little_Nemo]

Nemo, during periods when Israel has appeared relatively serious about moving towards granting Palestinian statehood, Palestinian support for terrorism has declined. This has not necessarily led directly to a decline in terrorist attacks, because such attacks are not carried out by “the Palestinians”, but by criminal organizations which do not base their strategies on public opinion polling. Indeed, these groups, which oppose any peace plan involving the continued existence of Israel, have typically responded to movements towards peace by intensifying their activities in the hopes that Israel will respond by collectively punishing the entire Palestinian people, thus fueling anti-Israeli resentment and extremist recruitment. Sadly, Israel has more often than not played right into their hands. As far as concessions by the Palestinians, the PLO did revoke the clause of their charter calling for Israel’s destruction in 1996 and reiterated that revocation in 1999. It is certainly true that Arafat contributed greatly to the failure of Oslo by not cracking down harder on terrorists; his capacity to do so was questionable, but at the very least he could have consistently and unequivocally condemned their actions. On the other hand, Israel was not moving to close settlements, crack down on settler violence, or make daily life less oppressive for Palestinians, either.

I think Israel is justifiable in viewing many Palestinian promises as having minimal value. Israel might surrender real concessions like land for the promise of no future terrorism. But such promises have often been broken - either by unsanctioned terrorists or Palestinian authorities who ignore terrorist activity or just a change in Palestinian policy. Israel will ask why it should accept promises until it knows these promises will be kept.

Numerous Posters, given that the vast majority of Palestinians today had not been born in 1948, I don’t think it’s relevant or appropriate to keep repeating that “they” had a chance at a state in 1948 but turned it down.

Very true. But equally true is that the vast majority of Israelis today were born after 1948. Yet many people act like today’s Israelis personally threw the Palestinians off their land.

A lot of the disputed territory has been inhabited by Israelis for almost sixty years now. Most of them were born there and have a reasonable view that this is their home. Yet they’re being told that somebody else, who has never set foot there, has a better moral claim to the land because his grandfather lived there sixty years ago.

[Puzzler]

@sqweels

The first Intefada ended in 1991. The second began in 2000. How can the first Intefada be said to have ended if there was just as much violence and unrest among the Palestinians as in the preceding years?

Names do not define the periods. A period without name is not “peaceful”.

Check, for example, this list of suicide attacks carried out by Hamas. In the 90’s alone the death toll was 133.

Note that this list does not include non-suicide attacks (shooting, stabing…). Also note the Hamas is but one of multiple organozations targeting Israeli civilians.

[sqweels]

@xtisme

There was a thought that IF Israel would just make a unilateral gesture then the Palestinian’s could back down and still save ‘face’. In fact, even today, even on these boards, there are plenty of people who think Israel should make MORE unilateral gestures toward the Palestinians.

But why on earth should they be unilateral?

@Thing Fish

I believe that Sharon sold the Gaza pullout to his own public not primarily as a gesture toward peace but as a strategic retreat that would allow the IDF to focus its resources on better defending Israel proper and the West Bank settlements. Of course, by using this argument, he lessened the chances that it would be perceived as a generous gesture by the Palestinians, and allowed Hamas to claim that it was in fact a victory for their terrorist strategy.

No kidding. After all this concern about “appeasement”, Israel goes ahead and–no matter how you spin it–retreates in the face of pressure from militants and appeared to vindicate their policy of “resistance”.

What I would have suggested is that the Israelis begin by agreeing in prinicple to an initial concession–the Gaza settlements–pending a period of calm for, say, 6 months. After that, one West Bank settlement would be removed for every month of additional calm. Send this message to Hamas through backdoor channels to get their reaction, then publicize it among the Palestinians in general as part of national conversation. “Negotiations” need to be people-to-people, not just leader-to-leader. Make sure the rank-and-file know who to blame if things fall apart. Strengthen the moderates without getting too cozy with them–triangulate.

Your notion that the Palestinians would have blamed Israel’s use of “the stick” on Hamas rather than on Israel itself strikes me as, um, improbable.

Well, didn’t Muslim militia in Lebanon begin attacking the PLO for bringing on the 1982 Israeli invasion? And haven’t forces of the PA at times come to blows with Hamas? The onus can be brought down upon the extremists, but it’s a very complex thing to engineer, but an essential ingredient is being able to offer them hope.

[Thing_Fish]

The problem with tying withdrawal of settlements to total cessation of terrorist activities is that it gives veto power to the most extreme elements; under the system skweels proposes, even if the majority of Hamas leadership committed to peace, it would only take a handful of nuts to derail the whole process. Besides which, it would be rather unfair to the settlers to tell them “Well, you might or might not have to move next month”!

All Israel can reasonably ask is that the Palestianian leadership reject terrorism and make a sincere effort to prevent it; making its total cessation a precondition for peace makes peace impossible. Granted, given the current political climate in Palestine, this is a lot to ask, but it is IMO what the Palestinians will have to do if they really want peace. Worst case scenario, Israeli oppression would continue unabated and they would then gain more sympathy and support from the world community.

[Little_Nemo]

All Israel can reasonably ask is that the Palestianian leadership reject terrorism and make a sincere effort to prevent it; making its total cessation a precondition for peace makes peace impossible. Granted, given the current political climate in Palestine, this is a lot to ask, but it is IMO what the Palestinians will have to do if they really want peace. Worst case scenario, Israeli oppression would continue unabated and they would then gain more sympathy and support from the world community.

I agree. Any Israeli requirement for zero terrorism would be unrealistic. But a requirement that the Palestinian government take effective action to counter terrorism is a realistic one.

[Uzi]

@David Simmons

And, as has been the subject of numerous other posts, the mere presence of Israel is also a big factor in ME turmoil.

I would have agreed completely with this in the past, but lately I’m rather doubtful that it would make the region more peaceful even if Israel disappeared overnight. If you read the local papers (at least in Yemen) there is a lot of press on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the government makes lots of noise on the subject. Yet the people of Yemen are no better off than the typical Palestinian and, from my experience, there is as much racism between the different groups in the ME vs. any other group in the world.
The governments in the ME use the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis as a distraction from their own policies and excesses. If the local populations of these countries didn’t have that conflict (and the one in Iraq, etc) to focus on they might start looking at how lousy their lives are and start expecting their governments to do something about it. It is not something the local governments want to have happen, so it is in their best interest to see the conflicts in other areas continue unabated.