"What would things be like for Palestinians now, if Israelis or Americans thought like Arabs? They wouldn't be like anything at all, of course. There wouldn't be any Palestinians." --Glenn Reynolds (instapundit.com, Augist 1, 2002)
The problem with your example is that Israel is not a foreign power. If the Arab states had wanted to, the Palestinian problem could have been solved long ago. Instead they would rather use these people to cause unrest and murder. At this point the Palestinians have lost their moral ground. If they don't find a way to stop the violence, they will soon be correctly seen as terrorist and delt with as such. I would hope they could change that future, but I am not hopeful.
Ask 100 Palestinians whether Israel is a foreign power. You already know the answer. Nelson Mandela, the terrorist, is now Nelson Mandela, the senior statesman and peace prize winner. Where exactly have the Palestinians lost the moral ground? In America where they have never had any support, ever. I certainly don't believe that Hamas is acting reasonably, but the acts of terror are not in isolation. There are reasons for them.
I will disagree with you on this one. As an unbiased observer of events in that region for about a quarter of a century, I will confidently say that blames should be squarely laid on both sides for the currents state of events in that region. Israel is a key ally of the US and as a result, no one expects most Americans to be unbiased about Israeli/Palestinian issues. Also, 9/11 tragedy did not help the situation.
middle east politics and shifting sands Does the USA celebrate violence. Certainly. The WWF is violence. Football is violence. Many movies have violence. All three are celebrated. WWF promotes political leaders (who was on stage with one of the presedential candidates)? Do football fans cheer and take pride when their team knocks a competitor out of the lineup? How many movie stars became famous in violent movies, and have political leanings? The middle east, which represents a sizable portion of the globe and world population has many people who follow some fairly predictable beliefs. If you look at the old testament and the "...eye for an eye..." there is a fairly different set of assumptions than "...turn the other cheek..." Can such diverse groups live in peace? The USA became a big player in the region, largely for oil. Largely supporting dictatorships who often use religion to prop up their regimes. The former USA friend, the Shah of Iran, did not get religion behind him. It cost him The regime that followed him I would argue was at least as cruel as the Shahs. The suicide bombings in Israel have been remarkable in that very few foreigners were killed. The latest bombing at the Hebrew College sounds like Hamas is declaring war on the USA. Clearly Hamas knew there would be Americans there. Hamas is taking the credit. Hamas claimed to be retaliating for Israels bombing of a house with a Hamas leader and women and children, from a USA made plane. The current USA administration has played into the fears of many middle eastern leaders. George "W" declared a "crusade" immediately fueling the fears and suggesting he was declaring his version of a jihad. "W" declared Iran to be a very bad state. Again, hurting those in Iran who want to westernize. The USA declared war on a middle eastern country for "harboring" terrorists Yet when Spain and France would not extradite terrorists to the USA, the USA did not declare war on them. Middle easterners are keenly aware of these differences in foreign and war policy. Finally, during the Afghani-Soviet war the USA allied itself with Bin Laden. Now he is our enemoy. During the tension with Iran, the USA allied itself with Saddam. Now he is our enemy. The USA currently has allied itself with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, China etc. to combat terrorism. I'm sure there are experts who expect most of these alliances to fade just as quikly as our past alliances in the middle east. And a further finally. Pror to the end of WWII most of what is Lebonan, Isreal etc. was part of Turkey and Jordan. There was no Palestinian state as such. The 1940's produced the spear shaped Israel and a couple of enclaves on the West Bank and Gaza. Shifting sands. All the best!
I empathixe with a "pox on both your houses" judgement. But the facts refute it. The notion that Israel somehow "stole" land from "Palestine" is a myth conjured up by palestinian propgandists to curry western favor. Of course, in Europe--the notion of people denied their soveriegnty, what with their northern Irish and Balkan conflicts--goes over very well, thank you. But it's false on several counts. First, while historical references to "Israel" are of ancient, "paletine" is very recent. Second, we, through the UN, have tried to give the #^&!* Arabs a "Paletstine" two-state solution since 1947! What happened? Surrounding Arab nations denied any post-colonial right to creat either state; several wars since, Israel has won the right to this land by right of conquest, since Arab state like Jordan, Syria, and Egypt lost every time. These nations have long denied "palestinians" any right to any "homeland" within their own territories, and have only changed their collective tune in acceptance of the fact that they cannot defeat Israel, but by weilding a "club" western states acknowledge might bring their foe to bay (i.e., they are merely acting in their self-interest)! Third, Clinton's negotiators with Arafat and Israel say that he was offerred 95% of all the territorial loaf the PA wanted; he didn't even counter-offer but left the negotiating table! Fourth, if what the IDF says is true, Arafat has worked in concert with Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist terrorists sponsored by the fundamentalist Islamic state of Iran! THESE folks are the Shiite alies of our Sunni foe led by Bin Laden! Fifth, most Israeli's are actually Arabic in origin; they are the true victims here! Since the creation of Israel, almost ALL jews have been forced to flee their native-born Muslim lands for Israel (from almost one million to now about 25,000); Saudi Arabia, our "aly" (sp?), doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country. Fianlly, what keep this charade going is Arab culture, buttressed by the doctine of Jihad, Holy war. Piety over peace or profit!!! Our backward Muslims hate modernizing, which would mean abandoning the fogotten pillar of Islam, Jihad--the duty of all True Believers to cast out the Infidel (i.e., non-Muslims, i.e., non-submitters to Allah's Will)! --Orson
The never ending story When Pope John Paul visited the middle east several years ago he tried to emphasize that Christians, Jews and Moslims all recognize and worship the god of Abraham. According to the ancient book, when Moses led the Israelites to the promised land, it was already inhabited. So they drove out the inhabitents. This seems to have been going on ever since. All the best!
Re: The never ending story YES indeed, Irat. And it's depressing. However, if the doctrine of Itijhad (sp? interpretation of the Koran according to the lights of reason--something ended in Islam 500, 700, or more years ago--I foget precisely when), can be restored, and the doctrine of Jihad purged, then peace, progress, and prosperity will be possible in Muslim lands and peoples. If not, it will just keep going, depressingly: a Muslim nuke will be met by Israeli nukes. On the (unstated) other hand, will such a drastic revision of Islam result in religious wars, such as the West has already survived? If our history is any guide, yes! (I hope we'll stand asside for that one.) But upsetting all these intractable, if inevitable, eventualities is the march of global capitalism. Right now the labor intensive "workshop" of capitalism is east Asia. In 20-40 years it will be Muslim lands--what then? What happens when major maufacturers, who depend upon cheap labor, find their plants blown up by fanatical anti-western Muslim terrorists? What will the developed world do then? --Orson
the Islamic term is "Ijtihad" The Islamic term is spelled (transliterated, of course) "Ijtihad," the abandoned doctrine of interpreting the Koran according to the lights of reason. (I MISPELLED it above.) --Orson
Re: middle east politics and shifting sands The question was: "What if US celebrated terror LIKE the palestinians?" Football and the WWE have what to do with blowing up civilians in pizza parlors and collapsing buildings full of people? These are acts which many palestinians have celebrated. While those who dance in the streets at the news of more civilian deaths may or may not represent a majority of palestinians, I would like to point out that the civilian deaths which resulted from the Israeli attack were both unintentional and regretful. Hamas killings are never unintentional nor regretful. It calls into question the "unbiased" opinions of some who fear how Arabs are being portrayed, but seem to be indifferent to how Jews have been portrayed for centuries. Dealing with Europe presents a special problem in this case, given the continent's strong anti-semitism.
Re: The never ending story I don't believe that the Isrealis drove out the "Palestinians" when Isreal was created following WWII. As I understand it, many Arabs live in Isreal to this day. Those who left, did so willingly, as they believed the new nation would quickly be destroyed by neighboring Arab states. Arafat himself came from Algeria, and was not displaced by Israel.
Where are the pragmatists? I don't believe that Israel is immune from criticism because of past injustices to Jewish people any more than I believe that the Palestinians are immune. Neither side is going to have an internationally acceptable military victory or even a domectically accepted peace. The Palestinian side has walked away from opportunities for peace, probably because they knew it was politically undigestable. The leadership would be replaced in a wink. The Northern Ireland issue was stupidest damn thing. I made the mistake of offering this opinion to an Northern Irish Catholic lady and if she had a bomb I would have been digesting it in reverse. Just the thought that there were two sides to an issue was more than she could bear. I think the issue in the Middle East has such passion to the participants that any reasonableness is long passed and we better prepare for at least another 50 years of war. Alternatively, maybe Israel should declare victory, withdraw to defendable borders and totally cut themselves off from Palestinian affairs, except to shell the presidential palace when there is a border incursion.
NO John Dewey HERE! Don't look at me!--After all, John Dewey was an unprincipled sod! Of course not--but they DO have a superior religion, culture, economy, military, and political system on their side! The abject failure of Arabs and palestinians to figure this out and reject its imitation only reveals to me how besotted with envy they are--envy here understood as a vice, one of the seven deadly sins, no less. Neither side is going to have an internationally acceptable military victory or even a domectically accepted peace. No--not benignly "replaced"--but killed! Murdered! Assasinated! SUCH is how virtually every Egyptian leader has ben "replaced." As Milton Viorst patiently explains in his horrifying account of Islamic terrorism and it's roots "In the Shadow of the Prophet: The Struggle for the Soul of Islam," merely to criticise Islam led to Dr. Farouk's divorce (by his wife in the 1920s since he was thus an "unbeliever"), followed by his assassination. A culture that cannot countenance dissent has no future. The recent UN report on Arab development had the shocking figure that fully buttressed Bernard Lewis' latest book: that all of Arabia, in 1000 years had not even translated as many books as Spain does today in one. It isn't Islam that's the problem; it's what Arabs have done to Islam that sucks. YES--I call this the "reservation strategy"--The West will show up in ships with 10 foot poles, leave cash for oil, and never the Arabic twains shall meet us! (That way no one can blame us for contaminating their culture, as bin Laden did in the '70s, as Qutb did in the 50s.) See today's Wash Post (Tuesday August 6, front page) for a story about how the White House now looks to call Saudi Arabia out, or else abandon our sixty-years long ally. Why? Their endemic sponsorship of terrorism against the West and anti-semitism against Israel. Another complimentary perspective is offered by Ralph Peters (see his latest book): engage Islam on the margins (Turkey, Indonesia), but abandon the heartland of Islam (i.e., the Arab world). Take your pick--it's all depressing. However, realism leads me to be depressing about these people: how can any people have a future if your ideal only exits in the medieval past? --Orson PS I'm not happy to have thunk myself to these "realities." It's not normal to think so badly of humanity, much less a billion people. But where is enlightenment coming? After we're all dead, perhaps.
enlightenment The arabic world is full of innovations and periods of enlightenment. Who invented the "zero"? Up until the war got out of hand, Lebanon was a model of a modern enlightened state in the 1960's. It was really torn apart by Hamas and Syria leading up to the Isreal invasion. I wonder if you can draw parallels to the fundamentalist movement in the USA to that in the middle east? Both would separate children based on religion, so there wouldn't be public schools. Both yearn for an earlier simpler time. Both feel morally superior. Both believe in carrying guns. Both would return the woman to the role of homemaker. The USA may not be as far from the middle eastern upheavel as many think. All the best!
Re: enlightenment So your hypothosis is that, because of the Christian Fundamentalist movement in America, America may soon become much like the Middle East? If some are guilty of painting Muslims with to broad of a brush, you are guilty of painting Christians with too broad of a brush. The extreme fringes of the fundamentalist Christian movement in America are tempered by many things. Not the least of which are America's tradition of democracy and mainstream Christianity's evening influence over the whole--no Arab nation has a democratic tradition and mainstream Islam is appearently unable or unwilling to exercise control over the more radical sects of that religion. You speak of Christian Fundamentalism's desire to segragate children based upon religion. It is my view that, on the whole, they want the opposite. Many fundamentalists have non-Christian friends whom they charish dearly. Most fundamentalists even send their children to public schools, just like other parents do. The most radical fringes of the Christian Fundamentalist movement have segragated themselves from the main, and cause harm to no one. Many children from less radical backgrounds live in homes in which both the mother and father work outside the home. By the way, I might add that there are many women who choose to be homemakers, and--in a terrific irony--feel belittled by some factions of the women's lib movement for making that choice. When you deride Christian fundamentalists because they "believe in carrying guns" I can only surmise that this derision is based upon some prejudice, since many non-Christians believe in carry guns as well. If ownership of guns is the issue here, I would like to point out that citizens of the United States have the Constitutional right to own guns. The biggest difference I can see between Muslim fundamentalists and even the most radical Christian fundamentalists is that the latter chooses gun ownership as a way of keeping trouble (which may never come) at bay and most will likely never have cause to use their weapons against another human being. The former, on the other hand, seem all to often to carry guns as a means of exercising control, inspiring fear, and committing murder. I suspect that in most Arab nations only the powerful are allowed to carry guns, thus making them unanswerable to the weak.
