A New Palestine?

[caldrail]

It came as something of a suprise to me that the US is brokering a peace treaty that aims to create a peaceful settlement in the Middle East for a deomocratic palestinian state. This suprise is not that the treaty has been brokered - western nations have done this sort of thing before, and this brokering is one of the reasons for the end of the Cold War.

 

What suprises me is that there is an expectation of 'victory' for a disenfranchised population who generally don't see the US as a friend. One might argue the US is doing this to further its interests in the region, and if true, who could blame them? Militants have long described the US as the 'Great Satan', and atrocities such as Beirut or 9/11 have left americans on the sharp end of politically inspired zealotry. For the american government, such a settlement carries with it the aura of benign assistance offered in friendship. They no doubt hope that the Middle East will therefore begin to see the west in a positive light, to counteract the often violent messages of islamic militancy.

 

However, is it realistic to assume that a new homeland (or at least a treaty that makes one possible) will win the hearts of the militants? The culture of hatred against the States has important ramifications.

 

Firstly, our latent aggression as a species often emerges in tribal conflict. We see this ritualised as war, in all its brutality. Whilst so many of us prefer a peaceful world, a secure existence free of threat, there is nonetheless a part of humanity that likes to fight. Since the demographic problems of the Middle East have become institutionalised in sectarian violence, this naturally attracts the hot-headed and naturally aggressive personalities, many of whom derive status and a feeling of self-worth from continuing their armed struggle.

 

Secondly, it has become a rallying call, a source of inspiration, a common enemy against which rabble rousers can seek to lead people against this implacable foe. It is, in their eyes, a clash of culture in which they are the just defenders. It has already reached self-perpetuation. It is, in an older way of seeing things, a blood feud.

 

On the international scale it is difficult to see whether the various armed sects would be prepared to cease violence on the basis of such a treaty. Although it gives them a reason to be peaceful, it also conflicts with the miltants need for self-worth, expressed as an armed struggle. They're not weary of the war; far from it, they continue to thrive and some are progressing beyond the casual (and poorly performing) citizen freedom fighter.

 

The problem with hatred is that it never goes away. This was illustrated by the break-up of Yugoslavia, in which old tensions were brought to the surface, and exploited in some cases, with the civil war and ethnic cleansing that followed. Hitler of course used his hatred of jews as a rallying call, a common enemy to struggle against in much the same way that modern islamic fundamentalists pour scorn on America. What these fundamentalists lack however is a strong leader. Their sects are very vocal and even unco-operative to the point of fighting each other as happens in the Middle East.

 

So, can America bring peace to the Middle East? They will define the boundaries of a future settlement, of that I'm sure, and their efforts to resolve the political crisis there are to be applauded. Where they will fail I think is to win the hearts and minds of the public there, and for that reason, the sectarian violence will continue, because ultimately the hot-headed young men enjoy their armed struggle.

Edited November 29, 2007 by caldrail

[Northern Neil]

I think this initiative will be about as sucessful as making Tony Blair an envoy to the Middle East. When will western democracies learn that forcing Middle Eastern countries into becoming western democracies never works? Do we really think that imposing a puppet Western - style government on the Palestinians is going to get us anywhere at all? In the 60's right through to the 90's Arafat kept a lid on the internal disputes between Palestinian sects, but we attempted to de-stabilise him. Now he is gone, of course, and it is folly to think that a Western imposed settlement is going to meet with anything but disdain.

 

For decades mainstream Palestinians stated they would grudgingly accept Israel's right to exist if Israel got back behind its pre - '67 borders. Like the UN said it should. Thus removing most of the reasons for conflict. If we in the West did a u-turn and started to put pressure on Israel to do this, and allowed Arab countries to sort out the factional battling we might get somewhere. But I rather think we have missed the boat.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Melvadius]

I think this initiative will be about as sucessful as making Tony Blair an envoy to the Middle East. When will western democracies learn that forcing Middle Eastern countries into becoming western democracies never works? Do we really think that imposing a puppet Western - style government on the Palestinians is going to get us anywhere at all? In the 60's right through to the 90's Arafat kept a lid on the internal disputes between Palestinian sects, but we attempted to de-stabilise him. Now he is gone, of course, and it is folly to think that a Western imposed settlement is going to meet with anything but disdain.

 

For decades mainstream Palestinians stated they would grudgingly accept Israel's right to exist if Israel got back behind its pre - '67 borders. Like the UN said it should. Thus removing most of the reasons for conflict. If we in the West did a u-turn and started to put pressure on Israel to do this, and allowed Arab countries to sort out the factional battling we might get somewhere. But I rather think we have missed the boat.

 

 

I tend to agree that this is in reality very little, very late although it is finally trying to use American influence with Israel to broker potentially a lasting peace so I would add a note of cautious optomism. It is possible for groups that have been in conflict to turn away from violence as the instant answer to all problems. Northern Ireland is a case in point examplifying that in an area with such a prior history the normally silent majority can be influential in maintaining a drive forward to stability and almost exclusively peaceful co-existence.

 

I suspect that the key to Arab/Israeli co-existence is however likely to require a return to the UN agreed borders no matter how this may dismay the religiously and militarily inclined on both sides. How likely that is to occur is another matter but will require a lot fewer sound bites decrying terrorism on one side against what can be seen as the 'facist' style illegal occupation of Arab land on the other.

 

I am old enough to know that both sides are guilty of aggression and terrorist acts but as my old Granny would say 'two wrongs do not make a right' so this needs negotiation, tact and ultimately trust to have any chance of success.

[Primus Pilus]

Personally, I don't think it's got anything to do with borders, except for the one that shows the existence of the state of Israel. The UN, the UK, the US or whomever can draw as many lines in the sand as they like, but reverting those lines to the map of 1967 won't make people live in harmony. We as outsiders might see this as a fairly equitable solution to assuage the grievances of the Palestinian side and create a sense of finality, but I'm quite sure that the Israelis would fear "pre-1948" as the next rallying cry.

 

Edit: Of course, I don't mean to suggest that the attempt shouldn't be made, I just don't have a great deal of optimism in this regard.

[Kosmo]

The palestinians voted en masse for Hamas. The so called palestinian authorities don't represent anybody and are despised by everybody. How binding will be their peace agreement?

[Gaius Octavius]

One of the biggest problems between the parties is water rights. We seldom, if ever, hear this discussed in public. Settling this problem will go a long way towards settling affairs. I often think that it took about 70 years for the USSR problem to be amended. We are working some 60 years with this problem, and there is no end in sight.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Kosmo]

Israel it's a nice place once you get used with all those police checks. I was there in 2002 during the Second Intifada and I remeber seeing from Mount Carmel the israeli aviation hitting Hezbollah in South Lebanon. The expensive life there it's worse then the fear of attacks

The price of a shower there it's a good lesson about the need to save water.

[Ludovicus]

The US is overwhelming on the side of Israel. So "America" is not exactly a neutral party in the peace talks. One example is Israel's growing illegal settlements in the West Bank. Since the US is Israel's only ally in the world, why hasn't Washington used its leverage to achieve a halt in these expanding settlements? I"m not entirely pessimistic, tho. Washington must bring more pressure to bear on Israel. Just the opposite has been happening this past six years.

[spittle]

"The US is overwhelmingly on the side of Israel..."

 

The Israeli lobby is the strongest lobby in American politics. Any American politician who criticises Israel finds a sudden rival with inexhaustable funds canpaigning against them.

The last time the US seriously deviated from Israel was during the Suez crisis of the 50s.

 

A large number of Israeli inhabitants have absentee ballot voting rights in US elections. Another strong reason for US politicians to keep Israel happy.

 

I wonder how many Palestinians have the right to absentee voting in American elections?

[Nephele]

The Israeli lobby is the strongest lobby in American politics.

 

Spittle, please cite your source for this statement. I don't know of any particular corporate or religious group called "The Israeli Lobby."

 

A large number of Israeli inhabitants have absentee ballot voting rights in US elections. Another strong reason for US politicians to keep Israel happy.

 

Again, will you please cite your source for this information? I'd be interested to know precisely how "large" this number is, in comparison to that of other dual-nationality citizens with voting rights in the U.S.

 

-- Nephele

[M. Porcius Cato]

A large number of Israeli inhabitants have absentee ballot voting rights in US elections. Another strong reason for US politicians to keep Israel happy.

 

You must mean that a large number of AMERICANS have absentee voting rights, and that this is a reason for US politicians to keep their constituents happy--whether their constituents are visiting Israel, Gaza, Mecca, or Rome. If this is what you mean, then so what? If this is not what you mean, then what is?

[Rameses the Great]

Peace in the Middle East? A mere Western dream I suppose. Middle East hatred stems from thousands and thousands of years of disputes over territory and redemption. This isn't like Pakistani and Indian conflicts that lasted 1300 years following Islam coming to the South Asian subcontinent or the 500 years that Britain and France have been at war, this is 3 thousand years of hatred between civilizations.

 

We'll be fighting until the day the world ends, that's just the way it is. It's nothing new, it was only the world's business when they saw the atrocities happening in the Middle East but we've been doing this for 3 thousand years!

[Ludovicus]

There is no "Israeli lobby" in the US Congress. There is, tho, a very powerful pro-Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It's membership is composed of US citizens of various religious and ethnic backgrounds.

http://www.aipac.org/

 

 

From the Washington Report on the Middle East:

 

"A forthcoming edition of Fortune magazine ranks the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as the second most powerful interest group in Washington...The pro-Israel lobby, which the magazine called 'calculatedly quiet,' has for years been successful in encouraging members of Congress and the administration to support U.S. foreign aid to Israel and other issues related to the U.S.-Israel relationship."—Daniel Kurtzman, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 1997.

 

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0198/9801065.htm

Edited December 6, 2007 by Ludovicus

[spittle]

A few months ago, on this site, someone posted a link to a 'youtube' article.

It was an ex-congressman talking about the Pro-Isreali Lobby and the underhand methods and financial backing they had used to replace him when he refused to go along with certain foreign policy's.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific.

 

As for absentee ballots I must admit thats an assumption of mine BUT after seeing a host of WASP democrats and republicans, wearing skullcaps whilst addressing Floridian Jewish seniors about how "There is no greater friend to the US than the state if Israel...." It seems obvious to me that basic fairness from American politicians concerning Israel's warcrimes against palestinian civilians is along way off.

 

On a more disturbing note I am noticing similarities between the Israeli's treatment of Arabs (walling them into ghetto's) to the Nazi's threatment of Polish Jews in the early occupation of Poland.

[Kosmo]

The Palestinian problem it's just a PR thing for most arabs. What's new it's that from heroic it's becaming embarrasing and dangerous with the Hamas takeover in Gaza.

It's such a problem because in the last century arabs had to choose beetwen nationalism at a state level, panarabism and panislamism. They have a bad case of identity confusion.

Egypt had no reason to fight Israel other then to promote panarabism like Nasser did. Peace was needed when the arab union failed and the egyptians made their country a priority.

As long as Egypt it's led by nationalists and not by panarabists or panislamists Israel it's safe.

Israel position it's the best ever now, but the tide of radical islamism it's a growing danger.