<p>This is one of those issues where singing Kumbaya together would be a signfiicant advance. ;)</p>
<p>mini, because this christian song is so meaningful to jews & muslims? ;)</p>
<p>Or maybe because the words are meaningless to them. (Maybe they could just hum…:))</p>
<p>It’s basically a conflict over land that has devolved into a religious one.</p>
<p>Both sides need to do a better job of compromising to get to a settlement. </p>
<p>While the hard-liners of Hamas are problematic - Israel (being the side with the “upper hand”) shouldn’t shut off all communications/negotiations.</p>
<p>The horrible conditions in the Palestinian territories are producing a young populace that is increasingly radicalized (with some taking up the beliefs of Al Qaeda - which is new development).</p>
<p>Most of the Islamic world is willing to fight to the last Palestinian to regain lands lost to the kafir. Very touching and emotionally inspiring as long as you are not the one bleeding. The Arab countrie which still will not grant citizenship to third and fourth generation Palestinians living within their borders are the real bad guys if you ask me. There is room enough for two states there and two prosperous ones if they would settle down and recognize each other.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Hamas & Fatah are more interested in fighting than in banding together to build a stable, peaceful society of any type. In the last round of infighting, they bombed each other’s main universities. Saddest thing I ever heard. (I forget which city each university is in–this was an NPR report I heard part of, but they seem to be trying to keep each other in the ditch. And the only way to do that is to stand on the person in the ditch.)</p>
<p>Openly ignoring Palestinian complaints and/or shutting off all communications/negotiations will generate a current of anger and outrage within the barba… I mean within the Arab&Muslim community that would harm us (civilized nations: USA, Israel, UK, …etc) politically and economically. </p>
<p>It would be more practical and beneficial for us to ACKNOWLADGE the complaints and provide room for ‘talks’, and stop at that. Then proceed with our plans regardless.</p>
<p>We also might have to compromise smaller things to achieve bigger targets.</p>
<p>The same good ol’ game which had been played for ages.</p>
<p>Oh, BTW, did you guys know that the vast majority of puritanical Muslims or “Wahabis” aka Salafis in the Arab world support a treaty of peace with Israel? They base this on a treaty their prophet established with the pagans of Mecca (pact of Al-hudaybiyah, 628 A.D.). Only a decreasing few of “Whabis” oppose to this.
That’s one reason to encourage this dominant, non-violant form of whabism, as we’re advocating non-puritanical practices of Islam: islamic mysticism (two contradicting words) aka Sufism, islamic feminism, and islamic liberalism among Muslims to enlighten those poor dark things/people.</p>
<p>Ok, that was a tad off topic, Im glad Im born to be American anyway!</p>
<p>mini, the Kumbaya thing is fantastic. Wanna start a cyber bed-in? ;-)</p>
<p>I hope you don’t have anything against The Beatles either, mini?</p>
<p>I think it is pretty nonsensical to even throw around the question of whether Israel has the right to exist, as if taking such a thing seriously. I won’t even entertain the question, and I base my position on Israel’s long and significant history-- history that stretches back far beyond 1948, one that affects the world to this very day, and that in many extraordinary ways defines me personally. No person of conscience will just sit by and deliberate whether a nation of people, many of whom wish for peace, can be legitimately wiped out. It is pure lunacy.</p>
<p>But Melbusefi makes a very good point. When we dismiss the claims of others by saying “get over it”, we are really declaring that the only way to deal with disagreements is to change the reality so that we ourselves are in position to say “Get over it”. If we employ the “get over it” solution to problems, then we ought not be surprised to find other people trying to employ it too. Basically, we are saying that when you sense you are down, you have no choice but to war and struggle relentlessly, until the people who harm you come crashing down. You have no choice because the people who harm you, at best, will simply tell you to “get over it”. I think this is what terrorism is all about. I tell you we are about to lose life as we know it. The world cannot and will not continue as it does forever.</p>
<p>And slavery is indeed linked to it for the reasons melbusefi has mentioned. Melbusefi was not claiming Israel, as a nation, is as morally baseless as slavery. He is saying that much harm has come out of the creation of modern day Israel, that this harm has created unresolved claims against the state, and that we tend to deal with these claims in the same way we deal with claims created by slavery. It is not a civilized approach to conflict.</p>
<p>Melbusefi, my hat is off to you, sir. I marvel that you are pushing this button, and I hope many people will see your point. I marvel about it because it is the precise point I made here several weeks ago, but to absolutely no avail.</p>
<p>melbusefi: “What I wrote doesn’t imply equating the creation of Israel to anything at all… Rather, I was signaling a particular type of widespread behavior --a paralogism often practiced when one or more of these issues are discussed, and a COMMON false approach to UNEQUAL matters. Therefore, I don’t agree that mine was an attempt to obfuscate.”</p>
<p>I see, thanks for clearing that up. But I also was presenting a paralogism that is often used in these discussions - the view that, because Western countries or individuals have in the past or are still engaged in activity that may be deemed unethical, representatives of these countries cannot criticise similarly unethical acts by other countries or peoples. THAT is the obfuscation I referred to, which I thought you were engaging in. Apologies if that was not the case! </p>
<p>“In fact, i think your presentation of the matter IS the obfuscation here. You’re oversimplying a serious, gravely ideology-founded conflict and trying to dilute it to be viewed as a matter of nothing more than living conditions and infrastructure.”</p>
<p>I may be cynical, but my personal belief is that living conditions and infrastructure have a profound effect on ideology. Ideologies do not arise from a vacuum. They are intimately influenced by the lives of those who create them. </p>
<p>“Furthermore, many of PA supporters wouldn’t accept your likening the PA-Israel conflict to to N.Ireland.”</p>
<p>No doubt. I suspect they would equate it to the Holocaust. Nevertheless, the parallels between the Troubles and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are there.</p>
<p>
Wrong. What we are declaring is that one should deal with the existant reality. This does not mean one should not regret present circumstances, or not work to change them. However, it does mean that one should not sacrifice present and future welfare (especially of one’s children) in the name of psychological and political martyrdom. Over the past century millions of people have been displaced from their homes to refugee camps. Most of them do not still live there.</p>
<p>
I hardly think most people would derive as much compassion and concern from of the mere words “Get over it” as you suggest here. Even so, I suspect the Islamists have long doubted that they should be the only ones forced to deal with existant reality in the way you’ve described. They want to create an existant reality that you have to deal with too.</p>
<p>All is fair, ultimately. One man’s “psychological and political martyrdom” is perhaps another man’s tool of war. If terrorist technique can work over long periods of time to make everyone’s lives miserable, to eventually force in people a willingness to make compromises they were previously unwilling to make, then it can be argued that the technique has value. If the technique can work over long periods of time to make everyone’s lives miserable so that people begin to doubt whether living as usual is worth the daily pain they incur, then it can be argued that the technique is valuable whatever it’s cost.</p>
<p>We Americans sacrifice our children for certain political and military ends. Others do likewise. Who can objectively declare that our method of sacrifice is morally superior to theirs? It is not exactly in our power to declare what is ultimately of value to others.</p>
<p>The idols we carry around in our minds are every bit as real as those we construct of blood and stone.</p>
<p>Ah, Drosselmeier, but I didn’t think we were discussing the merits of terror tactics as a political means. I thought we were discussing the reality of the state of Israel. </p>
<p>The state is a reality. That’s the “get over it part”. Whether it was a wise decision to move Holocaust survivors to a land in the midst of 22 hostile Arab nations is actually moot at the moment. In hindsightt, perhaps this was a terrible idea. You would be neither the first nor the last to claim it so.</p>
<p>But the fact is, Israel exists. Palestinians were expelled to make way for the new country. That Jews (close to a million) were also expelled from neighboring Arab lands in 1948, with no compensation either, is rarely discussed when people talk about refugees and right of return.</p>
<p>Another fact: a good portion of the Palestinian population considers ALL of greater Palestine their right, and their resistance, as it is, is not directed solely at the occupied terrorites, but at all of Irael within the green line as well. The Hamas charter certainly has not “dealt with” the reality of Israel.</p>
<p>Whether or not one agrees with the formation of the state of Israel, or many of their oppressive tactics used in the OT, the fact remains that Israel is a reality. The Palestinians are never going to get “right of return”, no matter how many buses they blow up. They are never going to take back all of Israel. The whole of the middle east will turn to glass first.</p>
<p>So it seems that dealing with the facts on the ground would be an important step. As it is, life for the average Palestinian is significantly worse than it was before the first Intifada, before there was a concrete wall and checkpoints at every corner. Palestinians used to travel freely back and forth to Israel to work. They could support their families more easily. </p>
<p>Terror techniques have wrought much more misery, not less, on their people. So, perhaps it is time for the Palestinian people to really “get over” the fact that greater Palestine, free of Jews, will ever be theirs. Do the Palestinian people deserve sovereignty and dignity? We all agree. Should Israel disappear? There’s the problem in a nutshell.</p>
<p>It is true that the state of Israel is a reality, one I personally think ought to exist, even where it currently exists. I don’t wish anyone to misunderstand me here. Were I king, I would not do anything that would harm the rights of others. But Israel is in its position. Its people number in the millions, and many of those people had no choice but to be where they are. “Wiping them out” is simply not an option any person of conscience can even consider in my view. That is how I value Israel, and life generally.</p>
<p>Still, I see that to address those who have claims against the state with the words “get over it” is not exactly helpful. It tells them that no possible recourse exists for them, except either to accept what they have, or fight. Many have and will continue to fight because the alternative available to them are as filled with injustice and misery as anything else. We may disagree with their valuations, but those valuations are truly not ours to make. If Jews have unresolved claims against Arabs due to historic mistreatment, then the same applies to them, should we tell them simply to “get over it”. I think this is something we ought not tell hurting people, especially if we can actually see that their claims are legitimate.</p>
<p>It seems to me the fact that we see the legitimacy of the claims (you know, within our own value systems) should serve as a basis for discussing how we might resolve them. On the other hand, the fact that Israel exists and slavery happened, and America was stolen from the Native Americans, and the Armenians were massacred by the Turks, and the Japanese harmed the Chinese, etc., are facts that cannot be eliminated, and therefore they must be considered in any negotiation toward a resolution of any claim. I do not think one depends upon the other. If we see we have caused harm, we ought not require our victims to acknowledge our desires and perceived rights before we are willing to sincerely admit the harm we have caused. The admission itself can serve as a basis for productive discussion. We have all felt the natural release of a claim that takes place once those who have hurt us have acknowledged their wrongs.</p>
<p>We may say “The Palestinians are never going to get ‘right of return’, no matter how many buses they blow up. They are never going to take back all of Israel. The whole of the middle east will turn to glass first.”, but we should realize that prior to 1948 vast numbers of people claimed Israel would never be in its current home. Moreover, it could be that the Palestinians would prefer glass to being forced to “deal with reality” in the way we think they should. I suspect that once enough power accrues to them so that “creating glass” becomes distinctly possibility, someone among them is going to create this reality. When I adopt many of the Palestinian valuations about which I have read, and then push them to their final conclusions, I do not see that any other choice exists. </p>
<p>I understand it is your value that one should “deal with the facts on the ground” rather than doing anything else. I share this view. I also see, however, how one might see this “dealing” you mention here as just code for unilateral “acquiescence” and then reject it out-of-hand. Again, I personally would seek to “deal with the facts” as you’ve described, but that is only because my upbringing has taught me to have enough faith to work within the system that causes my pain. Nevertheless, my pain itself causes me to understand why someone would wish to “cut bait” and destroy the system for everyone, including themselves. I think we blind ourselves when we fail to see how others sincerely and radically differ from us, even over issues concerning the value of life and society. While I may be willing to forego my rights, by faith, in order to preserve the rights of others, other people would rather die and kill everyone else as they do it, than accept what they think is severe injustice.</p>
<p>
I am not trying to communicate either compassion or concern. Rather, as I have noted, history is full of injustice, and yet by far the majority of aggrieved peoples have not chosen multigenerational poverty and conflict as its consequence.</p>
<p>
One is not “forced” to deal with existant reality; existant reality “is”. We call those who deny existant reality delusional. </p>
<p>
I want the Easter Bunny to be real, but it is not.</p>
<p>
I see this quite clearly. I do not sympathize with it.</p>
<p>I don’t think Islamists are denying reality. They are creating new realities, whether we sympathize or not. As technology flows toward them, they will create even bigger realities.</p>
<p>
Translation: when they get nukes, they will use them. Which will take care of who gets to live in Israel and Palestine: no one, as it will be one big radioactive crater. Suicide bombing, writ large. Historical injustice rectified. 70 virgins for everybody.</p>
<p>Thoughtful post, Dosselmeier.</p>
<p>What disturbs me about it (as well as the extensive reading I have done, and extensive discussion with my friend whose husband is Palestinian), is that this type of conclusion…concerning destroying themselves, along with others, rather than deal with injustice, only exacerbates or fuels the notion that Muslims are barbarians. People think this, as you know, and an entire illegal war has been predicated on this notion.</p>
<p>However, history is full of power, oppression and injustice. While I am not excusing the injustices that have been delivered to the Palestinians, their suffering is not worse that that of the Jews, forced from every country for 2000 years, who lost half their population in the Holocaust. Their suffering is not worse than African slaves, or entire groups who have suffered from genocide. Why is their sense of injustice such that blowing up the world is the better solution? Other oppressed people have simply “gotten over it”, have they not? Why are Islamists different?</p>
<p>And, if you don’t mind answering, how would you see that problems in I/P could be solved diplomatically?</p>
<p>“concerning destroying themselves, along with others, rather than deal with injustice, only exacerbates or fuels the notion that Muslims are barbarians.”</p>
<p>You are what you do. If you pack a car full of explosives and then send it through a checkpoint with two children in the backseat because you know the people manning the checkpoint will assume nobody would be barbaric enough to purposely blowup a car with their OWN children in it, as happened the other day in Iraq then you are a barbarian.</p>
<p>The real problem with asymetrical warfare is that sooner or later it can get really asymetrical when the stronger military power gets tired of taking it in the groin. When the gloves come off and both sides sink into barbarism the decisions ends up being made on the basis of the preponderance of military power i.e. who can kill more, better and faster. It does not invariably go there because the stronger power doesn’t always see the outcome of the struggle to be life threatening. Charlie was never going to come to New York so the US could throw the towel in to end the Vietnam war. Israel probably doesn’t have that choice and in the titanic clash of cultures between Islam and the rest of the world it is not clear. The USA may be able to retreat across the sea but for African Christians and animists, Asian Hindus and Buddists, and the secularist societies in Europe and China the jury is still out.</p>
<p>Waging asymetrical warfare on the rest of the world is about as dangerous a game as you can play and suggests a cultural psychosis might be at work.</p>