The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture

13468915

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Fr Tielhard said:
    We can't *go*back* to the status quo ante, but can only go forward, starting with the facts on the ground ...

    But that is what Gramps was doing. His post is an attempt to look at the Palestinians and ask where is the opportunity for peace. Your reference to the Grand Mufti's statement in 1918 refers to one of the many barriers to peace. Why do you do that?

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be putting Palestinian recognition of Israel as the necessary thing that must happen before peace negotiations can begin, when peace negotiations have been going on for many many years, and when one major framework agreement has already been negotiated and failed on the ground.

    I'm sure you remember as I do that the peace agreement already negotiated established the PA, and that Israel voluntarily and against the will of many of its citizens abandoned settlements as part of that deal. Surely you remember the remarkable pictures of young Israeli soldiers literally dragging fellow Israelis out of their homes and bulldozing them.

    Why is it only now that Israel must have recognition as a precondition of negotiations?

    I'm simply recognizing the facts of past history which include present facts on the ground ...
    The Israelis are not going to negotiate away the Jewish State of Israel in exchange for a couple of peaceful neighborhoods in Tel Aviv ... and maybe one in West Jerusalem ...
  • Excellent. So recognition is not a precondition to negotiation, but it would need to be an outcome of an overall peace agreement.

    Following up on Gramp's post, I think I have heard that Fatah is prepared to recognise Israel. Do you think that the Israeli-Saudi detante has the potential to bring Hamas around, and to staunch the flow of money and arms to it and the Jihadists? I linked an article way back which talked about how Hamas is funded - through one of the Gulf States via Israel.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Excellent. So recognition is not a precondition to negotiation, but it would need to be an outcome of an overall peace agreement.

    Following up on Gramp's post, I think I have heard that Fatah is prepared to recognise Israel. Do you think that the Israeli-Saudi detante has the potential to bring Hamas around, and to staunch the flow of money and arms to it and the Jihadists? I linked an article way back which talked about how Hamas is funded - through one of the Gulf States via Israel.

    I think that the realistc hope for eventual peace -- either cold or luke warm at best -- is that (1) The Jewish State of Israel simply survives and continues to prosper while waiting for honest negotiating partners to show up, (2) which likely will happen only when and if the citizens of Middle East societies finally force some degree of liberal democracy on their own corrupt leaders, who will then no longer be able to blame their own countries' problems on "the Jews" ... and America ...
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Excellent. So recognition is not a precondition to negotiation, but it would need to be an outcome of an overall peace agreement.

    Following up on Gramp's post, I think I have heard that Fatah is prepared to recognise Israel. Do you think that the Israeli-Saudi detante has the potential to bring Hamas around, and to staunch the flow of money and arms to it and the Jihadists? I linked an article way back which talked about how Hamas is funded - through one of the Gulf States via Israel.

    I think that the realistc hope for eventual peace -- either cold or luke warm at best -- is that (1) The Jewish State of Israel simply survives and continues to prosper while waiting for honest negotiating partners to show up, (2) which likely will happen only when and if the citizens of Middle East societies finally force some degree of liberal democracy on their own corrupt leaders, who will then no longer be able to blame their own countries' problems on "the Jews" ... and America ...

    The irony of this statement when comparing with the militarised right wing kleptocracy led by Netenyahu is quite something. Netenyahu clearly has no issue negotiating with tyrants and despots when it's politically convenient.

    Plus, while nobody should be blaming "the Jews" for anything, folk in Egypt (for example) have good cause to blame America for the replacement of its fledgling democracy with a new dictatorship favourable to its interests (and supportive of Israel). You can hardly be surprised when you repeatedly conflate Jews and Israel that Israel's neighbours then do the same thing. You seem to have picked up the Likudnik rhetorical trick of using Jewish identity to shield the Israeli state from criticism.
  • Something I wonder (and being a Gentile Christian American who's never been to the area, my wonderings may be worth something like (- infinity) ):

    Do Palestinians and Jewish Israelis *have* to be stuck forever with a framework set up by strangers something like 80 years ago?

    --Is there a way to get people from both sides together--leaders, decision makers, everyday people, kids--and really talk things out? Breaking into discussion teams--maybe some with people from each of the types I mentioned? Maybe (and this may be too...whimsical) have everybody in the area who's not in the direct discussions follow along and discuss with each other, like some cities have a city-wide discussion of one book. And yeah, they'd be discussing it anyway; but a framework might help.

    --There are already international peace camps for kids from both sides, so they can get to know each other. Maybe they would have ideas and people to offer?

    --Maybe people who've dealt more successfully with similar problems in their own places could help? (E.g. the Irish troubles, S. Africa

    --After all that, maybe some progress and changes could be made to help everyone.

    --Any non-Jewish Israeli citizens should be included at some point. (Possibly from the beginning; but I'm thinking in terms of getting the primary groups together. Would non-Jewish Israeli citizens be a distraction?? Note: I'm not familiar with Israel's current demographics, or who is allowed to be a citizen.)

    --Other affected groups in the area could be included. Maybe Druze and Yazedi. I don't know if/how the P/JI situation affects them.

    I don't mean this as a "wouldn't it be luvverly" fantasy. Just trying to think through.

    FWIW, YMMV.
  • Plus, while nobody should be blaming "the Jews" for anything, folk in Egypt (for example) have good cause to blame America for the replacement of its fledgling democracy with a new dictatorship favourable to its interests (and supportive of Israel).
    Sure, because America is obviously fully in control of everything that happens in the Middle East.

  • Dave W wrote: »
    Plus, while nobody should be blaming "the Jews" for anything, folk in Egypt (for example) have good cause to blame America for the replacement of its fledgling democracy with a new dictatorship favourable to its interests (and supportive of Israel).
    Sure, because America is obviously fully in control of everything that happens in the Middle East.

    No but it sure as hell bankrolls a lot of it.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Plus, while nobody should be blaming "the Jews" for anything, folk in Egypt (for example) have good cause to blame America for the replacement of its fledgling democracy with a new dictatorship favourable to its interests (and supportive of Israel).
    Sure, because America is obviously fully in control of everything that happens in the Middle East.

    Not fully in control, no, but it sure as hell put its thumb on the scales in endorsing and partially funding the 2013 coup in Egypt. It is US support that props up the House of Saud. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he thought he'd got tacit approval from the US. Who the US supports and how matters. They don't seem to care that Egypt has another brutal leader in the Mubarak mould so long as he's friendly to US interests and keeps Gaza locked down.
  • Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?
  • .
    ... the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law

    The Jordanian seizure of the nascent Palestinian (almost) State in 1948 was illegal, as were the attempts in 1967 and 1973 to wipe a UN Member State (The Jewish State of Israel) off the map ...
    WHEN the Nations officially recognize the borders of The Jewish Stat of Israel then thee can be meaningful discussions of WHERE Israeli citizens may build their communities ...

    To my mind, the existence of the settlements undermines Israel's own position. If Israel considers the West Bank to be an integral part of its territory, then it already accepts that Jews have only a precarious majority in its territory. If Israel does not consider the West Bank to be part of Israel, then it has no business building settlements there.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen

    A war that they would largely be unable to pursue if not for the help of US and UK military technicians looking after their heavy equipment.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    No, no, no. Nobody ever criticises any nation in the Middle East other than Israel. Didn't they give you the secret memorandum?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Plus, while nobody should be blaming "the Jews" for anything, folk in Egypt (for example) have good cause to blame America for the replacement of its fledgling democracy with a new dictatorship favourable to its interests (and supportive of Israel).
    Sure, because America is obviously fully in control of everything that happens in the Middle East.
    Not fully in control, no, but it sure as hell put its thumb on the scales in endorsing and partially funding the 2013 coup in Egypt.
    Reference? I suspect the Egyptian army was quite capable of executing a coup on its own.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Excellent. So recognition is not a precondition to negotiation, but it would need to be an outcome of an overall peace agreement.

    Following up on Gramp's post, I think I have heard that Fatah is prepared to recognise Israel. Do you think that the Israeli-Saudi detante has the potential to bring Hamas around, and to staunch the flow of money and arms to it and the Jihadists? I linked an article way back which talked about how Hamas is funded - through one of the Gulf States via Israel.

    I think that the realistc hope for eventual peace -- either cold or luke warm at best -- is that (1) The Jewish State of Israel simply survives and continues to prosper while waiting for honest negotiating partners to show up, (2) which likely will happen only when and if the citizens of Middle East societies finally force some degree of liberal democracy on their own corrupt leaders, who will then no longer be able to blame their own countries' problems on "the Jews" ... and America ...

    The irony of this statement when comparing with the militarised right wing kleptocracy led by Netenyahu is quite something. Netenyahu clearly has no issue negotiating with tyrants and despots when it's politically convenient.

    Plus, while nobody should be blaming "the Jews" for anything, folk in Egypt (for example) have good cause to blame America for the replacement of its fledgling democracy with a new dictatorship favourable to its interests (and supportive of Israel). You can hardly be surprised when you repeatedly conflate Jews and Israel that Israel's neighbours then do the same thing. You seem to have picked up the Likudnik rhetorical trick of using Jewish identity to shield the Israeli state from criticism.

    LOL the "fledgling democracy" installed in Egypt by popular vote after the downfall of Mubarak was ... the "Muslim Brotherhood" ...
    (As American learned in 2016, a free and fair election isn't necessarily going to provide good government ...)

    As to the "conflation of 'Jews' and 'Israel'" ...

    Well, ask the family of Leon Klinghoffer about that ...

    or review the History of Israel, 1800 BCE to the Present ...

    Really ... Trust me on this one -- the State of Israel isn't about providing a safe and secure Homeland for Swedish Methodist refugees from Iowa ...
  • The Israelis keep voting for Netenyahu. I didn't realise it's only democratic if we like the results.
  • The Israelis keep voting for Netenyahu. I didn't realise it's only democratic if we like the results.

    Not really. The Israeli politic is very fractured into many small parties. Netanyahu has been very adept at forming coalitions.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Israelis keep voting for Netenyahu. I didn't realise it's only democratic if we like the results.

    Not really. The Israeli politic is very fractured into many small parties. Netanyahu has been very adept at forming coalitions.

    Those Israelis voting for the smaller far right parties in Israel know they're voting to prop up Netenyahu. Just because the deals are done after the election doesn't the voters don't know pretty well who'll line up with who.
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    The Israelis keep voting for Netenyahu. I didn't realise it's only democratic if we like the results.

    Re: "elections" and "democracy" ...

    2006 - Gaza
    2016 - USA ...
    2012 - Egypt ...
    1999 to Present - RUSSIA ...

    No, indeed, an "election" is NOT the same thing as "democracy"
    (unless one regards Germany, 1933-45) as genuinely "democratic" ...
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.

    The Saudis are no fools, nor are they constrained by any ideology or moral code. Like any absolute monarchy, survival and prosperity is their guiding principle. Their position as custodians of the holy places of Islam gives them enormous prestige in the Muslim world, and that does limit their freedom of action, especially concerning Israel. But there are other sources of weapons and implements of torture and other sources of diplomatic protection.

    Your assertion strikes me as an untested assumption. I don't discount the possibility that you are right, but I would like to see the argument in detail. Do you have any sources that put it well?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Israelis keep voting for Netenyahu. I didn't realise it's only democratic if we like the results.

    Not really. The Israeli politic is very fractured into many small parties. Netanyahu has been very adept at forming coalitions.

    Those Israelis voting for the smaller far right parties in Israel know they're voting to prop up Netanyahu. Just because the deals are done after the election doesn't the voters don't know pretty well who'll line up with who.

    I'm sorry to rely on Wikipedia, but this article sets out the position following the 2020 election quite well, and in the heading "Aftermath" describes the negotiations and maneuvers together with the major events impacting on them succinctly. Its a very good primer. I want to summarise more, or even extract a reasonably sized chunk, but it is too complicated to do it justice, and I worry that my own ignorance will distort things.

  • And the latest government has fallen
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    @Golden Key wrote:
    --Is there a way to get people from both sides together--leaders, decision makers, everyday people, kids--and really talk things out? Breaking into discussion teams--maybe some with people from each of the types I mentioned? Maybe (and this may be too...whimsical) have everybody in the area who's not in the direct discussions follow along and discuss with each other, like some cities have a city-wide discussion of one book. And yeah, they'd be discussing it anyway; but a framework might help.

    --There are already international peace camps for kids from both sides, so they can get to know each other. Maybe they would have ideas and people to offer?

    My understanding based on ONE visit to Israel for two weeks organised by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council a decade ago is that the opportunity for Arab Israelis and Palestinians to mix with other Israelis is limited by the way the country is set up and by community attitudes to each other. People are well aware that this is a major impediment to ground-level peace making.

    [edit: I am only aware of community initiatives between Israeli Arabs and others. I think there are major impediments effectively preventing interaction between Palestinians living in the West Bank and ordinary Israelis.]

    I know of one initiative to have Israeli and Palestinian children attend kindergarten together, and tertiary education is integrated as between Arabs and others who are citizens of Israel AIUI. But mutual distrust is endemic, especially between Palestinians living in the occupied territories and Israelis. There is open hostility too, especially from those Israelis who seek to actively displace Palestinians from their homes and land.

    There is also the sort of blind hatred that allows individuals to justify the intimidation and violence necessary to evict people without openly relying on the backing of the State. Amongst those people there is a deliberate refusal to see Palestinians as they are, in all their diversity. So mutual distrust is probably the best that can be hoped for in all but those Israelis and Palestinians who have a thirst for peace as intense as their instinct to keep themselves and their dear ones safe in a volatile environment. I met some of them.

    I was in an unusual situation on a tour organised with the express purpose of putting the Israeli side of the situation to a group of Australians. On one occasion, I was weary of touring some Roman ruins and in need of a cigarette. I wandered over to some bus drivers to bot a fag and started talking to them. The tour guide discovered that I had gone rogue and hussled me away, warning me that doing that sort of thing put me in danger. I reckon that was kind of bulldust and it was about controlling the narrative, but maybe she really believed it.

    My view of ground level peacemaking is that it is definitely worth the effort. If you look at the 2020 election results I linked above, a large number of Israelis are voting for parties that advocated for peace talks directly with the Palestinians, instead of relying on the Netanyahu and Trump attempts to exclude them. I'm not sure where the Russian Jewish party stands. I think they are more interested in particular issues relevant to their constituency, but if you exclude them, I count roughly 45% of the electorate voting for the centre left blue and white coalition, socialist and Arab list parties, 25% for Likud and Netanyahu, and 20% for conservative religious and settler parties.

    The community level peace initiatives seem like trees in a hurricane sometimes. It would help if more Israelis could get behind genuine efforts for peace. As the British left found at the last election, 45% doesn't cut it, and we know that many of our British shipmates oppose Brexit. It would really help if the politicians could give people some hope that peace was possible. Then community level peacemaking would become critical.

  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    Americans -- maybe Brits too -- (1) don't like to take deep history into account, and (2) are impatient with the looong slooow process of history, thinking that these problems should be readily fixable with a few conferences and meetings and a couple of treaties ... and ... voila' ... !!!
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    Americans -- maybe Brits too -- (1) don't like to take deep history into account, and (2) are impatient with the looong slooow process of history, thinking that these problems should be readily fixable with a few conferences and meetings and a couple of treaties ... and ... voila' ... !!!
    That response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    People -- like very many Americans -- who are (1) impatient with the pace of history, not least because they (2) don't *get* the realities of *deep*history* are likely to "overestimate the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries ..."
    and so, *they* tend to imagine -- DEMAND -- that longstanding problems should be fixable with a couple meetings and conferences and treaties and ... VOILA' ..

    Got it ... ???
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    People -- like very many Americans -- who are (1) impatient with the pace of history, not least because they (2) don't *get* the realities of *deep*history* are likely to "overestimate the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries ..."
    and so, *they* tend to imagine -- DEMAND -- that longstanding problems should be fixable with a couple meetings and conferences and treaties and ... VOILA' ..

    Got it ... ???
    Again, nothing to do with what I wrote.
  • Problem with relying on the "long slow pace of history" is all the suffering in the meantime. Problem with trying to force change in the short term is it's often a mess--or a Gordian knot, and people use violence as a shortcut. All of *that* causes suffering.

    So people tend to muddle around in the middle, for fear of increasing suffering. Sometimes, they flail at and flirt with the above. Sometimes, by work and sheer luck and compromise/capitulation, they stumble on to something that kinda works for a while. If they're very lucky, they manage to more or less maintain that bumpy status quo for a decent stretch of time.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Problem with relying on the "long slow pace of history" is all the suffering in the meantime. Problem with trying to force change in the short term is it's often a mess--or a Gordian knot, and people use violence as a shortcut. All of *that* causes suffering.

    So people tend to muddle around in the middle, for fear of increasing suffering. Sometimes, they flail at and flirt with the above. Sometimes, by work and sheer luck and compromise/capitulation, they stumble on to something that kinda works for a while. If they're very lucky, they manage to more or less maintain that bumpy status quo for a decent stretch of time.

    "Relying on 'the long slow pace of history'" isn't about preferences or policies, it's simply a fact, like (only) 24 hours in a day, (merely) 365 days in a year, snow in Minnesota in winter (whether I like it or not) ...

    Of course, now and then impatience with the pace of history leads to a bloody revolution, as in France in 1789 ... or an explosion, as in Oklahoma in 1995 ... or hijacked airliners in 2001 .
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    People -- like very many Americans -- who are (1) impatient with the pace of history, not least because they (2) don't *get* the realities of *deep*history* are likely to "overestimate the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries ..."
    and so, *they* tend to imagine -- DEMAND -- that longstanding problems should be fixable with a couple meetings and conferences and treaties and ... VOILA' ..

    Got it ... ???
    Again, nothing to do with what I wrote.

    whatever
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Fr Teilhard: Of course, now and then impatience with the pace of history leads to a bloody revolution, as in France in 1789 ........

    I would have thought that the French Revolution was the consequence of the inability of its aristocracy to adapt incrementally to the need for change over a long period of time, causing a severe fracture when the stresses on its rigidity could not longer be absorbed, rather like an earthquake. One might also argue that 'history' does not lead to inevitable ends over the course of time because timing, the pace of history, affects the outcome. Had the French aristocracy been more amenable to change a bloody outcome might have been avoided, as was the case in Britain. It has been claimed that the British Whigs understood that things had to change to remain the same, perhaps that is what the Israelis might profitably consider.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    People -- like very many Americans -- who are (1) impatient with the pace of history, not least because they (2) don't *get* the realities of *deep*history* are likely to "overestimate the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries ..."
    and so, *they* tend to imagine -- DEMAND -- that longstanding problems should be fixable with a couple meetings and conferences and treaties and ... VOILA' ..

    Got it ... ???

    This is just patronising BS. Recognising the strength of US power in the region, not in terms of direct control but in terms of how it influences the decisions of other actors, is simply a matter of observation. History influences goals and world views, but actions are influenced by present realities too.

    And, as it happens, conferences, negotiations and treaties can help resolve conflicts. Not neatly, not immediately, not completely or necessarily permanently, but they can. I could point you to the Good Friday Agreement; or the Peace of Westphalia; or the various Cold War arms control treaties; or the Dayton Accords. None of them perfect. All of them worthwhile.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Peace emerges from justice. Full social justice. They are synonyms. That cannot be obtained without Israel baring its throat and there are a lot of dhabihah knives out there.

    In other places and at other times the cessation of hostilities has been a necessary pre-condition to even starting a conversation about social justice.

    That cessation will never come, apart from by aging out asymptotically over the century. And then not. Israel is an imperialist infidel beacon of haram privilege. And a queen on a chessboard with nothing else but pawns and the odd rook. A cool hand in the poker game. It could never walk naked among Muslim neighbours and not be butchered. Neighbours who 'luckily' have their own self interests above those of the Palestinian diaspora. The Saudis need the Israelis. The Russians and Turks need the Israelis. Power needs the Israelis.

    What would games theory advise? In a game where the wildcard of global warming already destabilized Syria, where the great leveller of drought will roll for three hundred years. In a game where the far greater concern of economic growth must traverse negative climate change in a region most susceptible to it.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    History is what human beings do. If human beings don't do anything history won't do anything for them.

    Besides, as Keynes said, in the long run everything may be sorted out but that's because in the long run we're all dead.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    .........and Keynes after Gilbert:

    Life is one closely complicated tangle:
    Death is the only true unraveller!
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    History is what human beings do. If human beings don't do anything history won't do anything for them.

    Besides, as Keynes said, in the long run everything may be sorted out but that's because in the long run we're all dead.

    Aye, human beings do little with their heads, except backup their hands. That combo got us from pottery to silicon chips in 30,000 years. I'm still a cock-eyed optimist that that process, flatlined as it is, will continue to slowly level up for the living. I wonder if the Church can have anything to do with that? For certain the next ice age maximum will have seen the resolution of the Jewish problem.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Fr Teilhard: Of course, now and then impatience with the pace of history leads to a bloody revolution, as in France in 1789 ........

    I would have thought that the French Revolution was the consequence of the inability of its aristocracy to adapt incrementally to the need for change over a long period of time, causing a severe fracture when the stresses on its rigidity could not longer be absorbed, rather like an earthquake. One might also argue that 'history' does not lead to inevitable ends over the course of time because timing, the pace of history, affects the outcome. Had the French aristocracy been more amenable to change a bloody outcome might have been avoided, as was the case in Britain. It has been claimed that the British Whigs understood that things had to change to remain the same, perhaps that is what the Israelis might profitably consider.

    Yes ... History moves far too slooooowly for many ...
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it true that the US props up the House of Saud? Do you mean by weapons sales and the like?

    Weapons sales, deafening silence over human rights abuses, the war in Yemen, tacit approval of Saudi funding of Wahhabist preachers.

    I agree with all that, but I thought you meant supporting in the sense that the House of Saud wouldn't survive if not for US backing. Did you mean that?

    I did. US and UK support for the regime has allowed them to crush internal dissent with complete impunity (and supplied them with torture equipment) and given them almost complete immunity from external threats.
    Plenty of governments are shitty to dissenters without help from the US and UK. I think you are again vastly overestimating the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries.

    People -- like very many Americans -- who are (1) impatient with the pace of history, not least because they (2) don't *get* the realities of *deep*history* are likely to "overestimate the power of outsiders to determine what happens in Middle Eastern countries ..."
    and so, *they* tend to imagine -- DEMAND -- that longstanding problems should be fixable with a couple meetings and conferences and treaties and ... VOILA' ..

    Got it ... ???

    This is just patronising BS. Recognising the strength of US power in the region, not in terms of direct control but in terms of how it influences the decisions of other actors, is simply a matter of observation. History influences goals and world views, but actions are influenced by present realities too.

    And, as it happens, conferences, negotiations and treaties can help resolve conflicts. Not neatly, not immediately, not completely or necessarily permanently, but they can. I could point you to the Good Friday Agreement; or the Peace of Westphalia; or the various Cold War arms control treaties; or the Dayton Accords. None of them perfect. All of them worthwhile.

    Oh, I'm *all*in* with conferences, meetings and treaties ... but they take TIME ...
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    History is what human beings do. If human beings don't do anything history won't do anything for them.

    Besides, as Keynes said, in the long run everything may be sorted out but that's because in the long run we're all dead.

    Ashes to ashes, dust to dust ... The endless cycle ...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    My understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli problem is based primarily on my son's first had experience with the Palestinians. He lived in Ramallah for a year and has returned there twice since. He taught English at a Palestinian High School. It was a short term program
  • My understanding the the *situation* is based on a long experience of the history as it has unfolded and also my own friendships with people on both sides of the issues ...
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    My understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli problem is based primarily on my son's first had experience with the Palestinians. He lived in Ramallah for a year and has returned there twice since. He taught English at a Palestinian High School. It was a short term program

    What an amazing experience, and what a great contribution. Is he the same son who is a pastor in Kenosha?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    My understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli problem is based primarily on my son's first had experience with the Palestinians. He lived in Ramallah for a year and has returned there twice since. He taught English at a Palestinian High School. It was a short term program

    What an amazing experience, and what a great contribution. Is he the same son who is a pastor in Kenosha?

    Yes, he is in Kinosha,

    Here is an interesting article from the New York Times about why having the Arab countries recognize Israel might be to Palestinian advantage.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!
  • Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I think Palestinians would find that article profoundly depressing: Israel threatened to annex the occupied territories, so Arab states responded by normalizing relations with Israel. The Israelis made no concessions - they got what they had long wanted, and the Palestinians got nothing. The threat worked!

    No ...
    THE question for the Israelis is the existence of The Jewish State of Israel, which is increasingly -- reasonably -- accepted as a fact on the ground ...

    The Palestinians can/may/should have a proper state of their own as soon as they come around too ...
    This has nothing to do with what I wrote.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with what I wrote.

    Welcome to this thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.