Damned if I know how to solve it. I don’t think, though, that application of the Bush Doctrine, which is what Israel seems to be doing, is the answer. I don’t think that the US wild overreaction (my opinion) to 9/11 is productive of any good result and I don’t think Israel’s action in response to the kidnappings will be either.
From what I gather, Lebanon doesn’t want the Hezbollah but their police and military are too weak to do anything about it. So maybe someone should have made an effort to strengthen the Lebanese government and its police and military.
It is so thoroughly messed up now that any resolution is next to impossible. Those doing the job ignored protests made at the time and just barged ahead with the establishment of a new nation where others were living and told the locals to get out. Offering some sort of land to the Palestinians is sort of like offereing to give someone back $50 of the $500 you just stole from him. That’s water over the dam but that’s the crux of the problem.
It would appear that the only solution, if Israel is to exist, is for them to take over all Arab nations on their borders plus Iran and run them with extreme regard for justice for a few hundred years until the hatred falls off to a tolerable level.
And it’s just possible that there isn’t a good answer to this mess, suppose?
You’ve got me. I have failed miserably. I lost my magic wand.
Translation : They are not us, therefore killing millions is not only our right but our duty, and we’ll pat ourselves on our backs with our genocidal bloody hands about how we are better than they were . . . somehow.
If you want to figure out who the genocidal maniacs are here, ask yourself this hypothetical question:
If an alien race came by and used their advanced power to magically remove every weapon from the hands of every Arab in the middle east, what do you think Israel would do?
Answer: Go on and live in peace, tend their businesses and farms, and breathe a sigh of relief.
Now imagine the aliens totally disarmed the Israelis. What do you think would happen to Israel?
Suuuure. They’ve never cared if their target was armed before, or had anything to do with whatever excuse they are using to kill people. They’d just kill with less risk.
They’d overrun and kill the Israelis of course. Were you under the impression there is a “good guy” in this ?
Parallel to the post above comparing this to NI- if the Irish Republican Army and supporters were disarmed somehow permanently in th 1970s, then there would have been ‘peace’ in NI. If the British Government had been stopped (say by the UN) from intervening miltarily in Ni, then the ‘war’ would have continued. Does this mean that the Brits were right and the IRA wrong? No the underlying injustice would still have been felt.
Neither Israel nor the Arab states are monolithic. There are many strands of opinion. Over time it is possible (as per NI) that the more moderate strands on both sides can be brought together. A full generation where the attacks by Palestinian extremists decrease and the over-reactions by Israel diminish, a chance to find a common solution that is agreed upon, is what is needed. But the bottom line is that as in NI, both sides will need to compromise. The israelis will need to accept the return of the occupied teritories and the Arab States and Palestinians will need to accept the permanence of the state of Israel. This ill take time amd patience.
If the British Government can accept the eventual cession of NI to the Republic and the IRA can declare that ‘the war is over’, then IMHO anything is possible given time.
If the situation continues as it is at present with guerilla attacks sporadically affecting Israel, and Israel reacting as it has recently, then that is a recipe for generations of such exchanges- there is no way that a justified resistance force is going to go away- it is entrenched. That is the realpolitik of the situation. The choice is not between wiping out ‘terrorist groups’ (and living happily ever-after :dubious: ) and 'giving in to the terrorists and putting the safety of the state at risk. It is between continued Palestinian aggression, no matter what the state of Israel does, and the gradual approach to a peaceful settlement. To achieve such a long term goal, some short terms changes in behaviour- slowly at first- will be needed over a generation. Israel may need to limit its thirst for vengeance and the Palestinians may need to soften their line on the destruction of Israel and limit the targets it chooses in some way. Dialog will be necessary.
You probably mean ‘when the majority of the population of NI agrees to unification with the republic’ the British government won’t block it but that line reads like they’ve done a secret deal with Republicans etc to me.
That the state of NI was artificially created to have a Protestant majority and all the ramifications from that is the subject for a different thread.
I understand that. It was not the details that I was pointing at, but the very fact that the British Goverbment was willing to allow that to happen. Do you think that the US would agree to, say, the People’e Republic of Massachusetts leaving the US to avoid a further move to the right, even if the majority of the population wanted it. Was there not a little problem with this in the 1860s?
What states are not ‘artificially created’? How does that affect the de facto and de jure position that NI is part of the UK. Another country used to claim it as part of their terrirtory (the RoI) but they had to formally give up that claim in 1973 and change it into a long term aim for reunification.
Oh, and is not Israel similarly set up to have a Jewish Majority? Note that there is undoubtedly a demographic timebomb under NI- Catholics will eventually overtake Protestants. Some people argue that in a generation or two the same thing might happen in Israel with the Arab population overtaking the Jewish population.
Sure, it just seemed a little unclear when I first read it. The Good Friday Agreement was definitely a step forward, for all sides.
By that I meant that the nationalist population has regularly told that we have to respect the wishes of the majority of the population of the territory constituting Northern Ireland, something that was accepted with the ratification of the GFA, but the circumstances under which the state was created and subsequently run render that assertion contestable to say the least. Why should we put any great faith in a democratic majority that was specifically created to deny the aspirations of the newly constituted minority?
For what its worth I voted for the GFA agreement myself, but not without several reservations, legitimising the majority-vote being among them as well as the Republic giving up their claim to the territory.
As for the Catholic population overtaking the Protestant population thats probably but by no means certain, and the time-frame in which it would/will happen is hotly debated. In addition I was thinking about this myself in light of the massively increased immigration into the area after the end of the troubles. Said immigrants probably have no great views on the situation either way and if they are British citizens and therefore have a say in a referendum on the matter it could throw an additional spin on things.
I would also be interested to see whether the Unionist/Loyalist population would quietly accept the democratic will of the majority if such a scenario does come to pass.
But this is sidetracking the main topic of the thread, I’d be happy to take it to another thread if you, or anyone else, wants to debate the subject further.
The story so far: It appears to be a minority position that the current political/military issue in the Levant is uninteresting, or less so than its other diversions.
Yet its fundamentally unimportant quality bears thinking about. Exlcuding naturally the nations directly involved, who probably do care. The conflict is purely local and has no wider significance, the parallel with the Northern Ireland situation is a good one. This is not an observation that requires special powers of critical reasoning, yet it is often obscure in the newspaper and TV hubbub. It is as if Israel matters in a broad sense, when of course it does not. To re-iterate: Distinct ethno-religious groups emerge and submerge all the time, and it’s no tragedy when they do.
By contrast, some may have forgotten that there is war barely any distance further East. Iraq really matters for global political stability. It is at the heart and lifeblood of commerce. Does it help US foreign policy, that its Israel/Palestine policy is fiercely inimical to the opinions of peoples it really needs to have on-side? Or, if I may be so daring, (may I?) are the aims of the US impeded? The latter seems the better conclusion.
It is of course possible that the view advanced here is mistaken and that it is a moment’s work to number the many benefits to the Iraq project and regional stability that the present American policy brings?
I think that the Republic had to give up its formal claim to NI in 1973 on acession to the EEC- no stste can become a member if it is making a claim on the territory of another member state.
FWIW I wish the problem had been sorted on a One Ireland Basis in 1980, 1973, 1915/1890/1870 etc… It just was not paossible given the politics.
Now, it makes little difference where you live on these Isles and we can all come and go virtually as we please. I recently moved form England to Scotland. A move to the North or to the Republic would be no more difficult. Those as old as me can also virtually choose their nationality (Terry Wogan suddenly decided to be British so he could be called Sir Terry! Living and working between the two polities has never been easier. The Irish have the better of it in that Irish citizenship entitles them to virtually every benefit of British citizenship; not quite the same in the other direction except for those born in the island of Ireland.
I can’t agree. It has much wider significance for the following reasons:
Much of ME politics is founded upon hating, envying, and opposing Israel.
ME countries then use the Israel issue as a fulcrum for hating, envying, and opposing the US and other Western countries.
Jews and many others in the US generally support Israel, and this issue is fed back into US politics.
The real “aims” of the West are, or ought to be, complete pacification and control of the ME. If it is not locked down good and tight pretty soon, the dead-enders are going to lob a nuke at someone, and then all hell is going to break loose.
The major powers of the world (US, EU, China, Russia, and India) should form a treaty by which they agree to pacify the region and manage its resources for the benefit of themselves, the local populaces, and the rest of the world.
The conflict has a wider significance because the whole world thinks and acts as if it does. Millions of Muslims living far away from Jerusalem are affronted by the existence of non-Muslim state on what they consider the indefeasible territory of Dar al-Islam; and seeing infidels ruling over Muslims makes it all the more galling – in their world-view, that’s never supposed to happen! Israel matters to most Jews in all countries, and many Americans and Europeans sympathize with them on that point. (And then there are the Christian Zionists, of whom the less said the better, but there’s no denying their influence.)
It might seem silly – it seems very silly to me – that the troubles of a patch of land the size of New Jersey should heat up so many tempers the world over, but so it is, it’s not about to change, and that fact does not owe its existence to media hype.
Cite? I thought they were mostly families that had been living there since the Crusades or longer. Heck, they’re probably descended from ancient Canaanites and Hebrews and Philistines, etc., all mixed together, with sprinkings of Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Europeans, and Turks.
H.G. Wells once described the pre-Diaspora Jews in Canaan* as being in the position of “a man who insists on living in the middle of a busy highway.”
*Canaan! Now there’s a good name for that land! A neutral name!
My post you cite was in response to this exchange with FinnAgain.
I was merely pointing out that even if they had only lived there for the 25 or so years since WWI and regardless of who owned the land, they still lived there and had been forcibly removed. I realize that the history of many of them goes back centuries.
You either keep misrepresenting the facts, or you continue to misunderstand them. The local Arabs were not forcibly removed – they left voluntarily at the urging of their bretheren, with the idea that doing so would clear the way to the annihilation of the dirty Jews, and they could come back and take over all the land instead of just what they’d been previously inhabiting before.
Besides, what makes you think there were no Jewish “locals” in the region at the time? It’s not as if they were just plunked down in the middle of some random location where they had no roots, history or current population.
The land was Britain’s. They offered it to the Jews and the Arabs to share. The Arabs said no, then left. What, you just wanted the Jews to say, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and leave, too?
Some Jews were living in Palestine under the Ottoman Empire, to be sure. But most of those who founded the state of Israel came from Europe, or various regions of the Ottoman Empire or the Arab world outside it, and had no roots, history, or current (non-immigrant) population in Palestine.
The land was offered equally to Jews and Arabs, but it was to be a Jewish national homeland wasn’t it? It seems to me this represents what Arabs would have faced in a Jewish state:
Israel is a success and I hope it makes it long term. However its beginning wasn’t all the peaches and cream, fairly offered opportunity you make it sound like.
You misunderstand. The bottom line is the fact that, regardless of their relative numbers to each other, Jews and Arabs already shared that land as residents under the rule of other nations. When Britain set out to establish a “home” for the Jews following their mass murder in Europe, those Jews who did emmigrate did not “forcibly remove” the local Arabs from their homes. Jews have an equally long and rich history as residents in that region as Arabs do. To claim or imply that they moved in (where they didn’t belong) while simultaneously kicking the locals out is either a gross distortion or an utter misunderstanding of the facts. Mr. Simmons can pick whichever one best describes his continued misstatements in this thread.
Cite? I thought they were mostly families that had been living there since the Crusades or longer. Heck, they’re probably descended from ancient Canaanites and Hebrews and Philistines, etc., all mixed together, with sprinkings of Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Europeans, and Turks.