The sudden assertion of human criteria within a dehumanising framework of political manipulation can be like a flash of lightning illuminating a dark landscape
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationThe World
Our writers |
 |
The Problem
The Arab/Israeli conflict, and its most intimate and intractable avatar, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, currently see two grand strategies visited upon them. The first says: solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict first, opening the way to broader engagement; while the second says: solve the whole problem of the Middle East, up to and including our confrontation with Radical Islam, and the 'lesser' problem of Israel and Palestine will become (relatively) easy. This latter is the Neocon strategy, and gave us the Iraq war.
Let's examine the two. The second strategy calls for a great transformation involving 200 - 300 million people of different nationalities, ethnicities, and religious persuasions. All of these 'differences' have occasioned armed conflict in the past, and can be confidently expected to so incline well into the future. Further, the lands occupied by these 200 - 300 millions sequester the world's largest known reserves of a vital natural resource - a resource of nearly incalculable value, well understood to lay the basis for wars. The first strategy, on the other hand, involves only a small fraction of the population in question, and virtually none of the oil lands.
So, which should we choose for a 'likely' path to follow?
Consider this 'choice' from another point of view. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is like a burr under the saddle. You may calm a situation with the 'burr' still under the saddle, but it wouldn't it be MUCH easier if you extracted the burr first?
It appears, we have reached 'nolo contendere'. The Neocon vision stands naked before its enemies, devoid of practical value. The movement of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict towards an equitable resolution will do more to compromise the appeal of radical Islamists within the Arab/Muslim world, and more to boost the prospects of moderate Islam, and the developed world's hopes, than any other single practicable accomplishment
So how do we proceed?
First, be aware that the recent re-affirmation of the Arab offer of full recognition and acceptance for an Israel holding essentially to the borders of 1967 constitutes an admirable initiative, and provides a useful starting point.
Second, the whole developed world should commit to finding an equitable resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict where 'failure is no longer an option'. To this end, it would propose:
1 - The integrity and viability of Israel is guaranteed by an unconditional commitment of all the moral, economic, political, diplomatic, and military resources of the developed world.
2 - The monitoring and policing of the peace would be the responsibility of a force internationally funded, mandated, assembled, and supervised.
3 - A referendum will be held in Palestine under international auspices in which the question will be: Do you favor a two state solution recognizing Israel's right to exist, and accepting negotiation as the approach approved by the Palestinian people to resolve any outstanding contentions?
4 - It will be acknowledged that the establishment of the state of Israel constituted an act of aggression against the Arab/Muslim world, and, in particular, against the Palestinian people. Justice will be sought. Just - and even generous - compensation will be negotiated, and the costs will be borne by the developed world. The negations (including the question of compensation) will deal with, among many other issues, the extent to which a 'right of return' for Palestinians will be recognized.
Avenues of compensation to be considered for what Palestinians give up might be:
a. Low interest loans to start Palestinian enterprise guaranteed for 25(?)years.
b. A first class educational system [K - 12] will be created for and by the Palestinian people, and funded at the expense of the developed world.
c. Access to a university education, anywhere in the world - room board, tuition, fees, books et al - will be guaranteed by the developed world for any Palestinian child born between 2000(?) and 2025(?). The only qualifications will be an ability to do the work and commit to the effort.
I fully understand what is outlined above to touch peremptorily on controversial issues, and expect hard negotiation on these and other matters will need to take place. All of the diplomatic resources the developed world can make available will be made available. For too long we have indulged the irresponsibility of both parties to the conflict, and indulged our own failures as well. Failure is no longer an option.
Message was edited by: ronr327
Submitted on Sun, 2007-05-27 01:51
Re: The Problem
ronr,
Again, your lead is fale. Therefore, that which follows is just semantic silliness.
Re: The Problem
As usual ronr327 talks nonsense sprinkled with all his usual arrogance. First of all Radical Islam has little or nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine issue and it pre-dates even the founding of Israel. And do you seriously think that the scum who carried out 7/7 from Dewsbury would even know where these places were on a map ? Exactly. You might rather have remembered that the vast majority of those involved in 9/11 were not Palestinians; rather they were Saudis. If you study what Bin Laden has said you will discover that he has only quite recently adopted the issue as one of his 'causes' and the reality is he couldn't give a stuff about the Palestinians.
The problem in the Middle East are to do with the stagnation of their political process and also with the sort of societies Islam creates. If ronr327 wasn't quite so proud of his own cleverness he might, but one has to say only 'might' , begin to see that the arguments and analysis partly (but NOT wholly) advanced by the Neocons is actually correct. The Middle East suffers from a lack of democracy and democratic accountability and one regrets to say the West has been partly responsible for this situation. What ronr327 simply fails to understand is that the Neocon ideas have been born out of the failings of the liberals who have held sway in foreign policy for over 40 years. The mess in the Middle East is their mess. The liberals had a policy of stability and have usually abandoned some regime when all was lost - an example was the late Shah. However most of the regimes in the Middle East are 'home grown'. The West had nothing to do with the accent to power of the Bathist in Iraq - it was not in our interest for the monarchy of King Faisal II to be overthrown - so again Saddam was a self inflicted tyranny. Similarly Nasser was a home grown tyrant and a large part of the blame for the 1967 war rests with him and his stupidity.
Ron Allen is right: it is the stupidity of people like ronr327 who allow the people of the Middle East (see some of the posts on this site form one such individual) to blame the West for everything and anything. The reality is the Middle East is a mess because their leaders have made it so and it suits them to transfer the guilt and responsibility to all and sundry. I also agree with Ron. If ronr327 is so keen on his idea of spending vast amounts of money on the Palestinians then perhaps rather than mouthing off, at which he excels, he ought to begin by using his own money and establish a charity to do what he suggests. We will all look forward to reading about it and to viewing the accounts and seeing exactly how much money ron has been prepared to spend. One rather feels we already know the answer.
Re: The Problem
Owly,
Tell me, do '...the failings of the liberals who have held sway in foreign policy for over 40 years.' extend to the successful conclusion of the Cold War? That was the result of a bipartisan policy which stretched over some 50+ years.
Actually I do believe the Neocons are right about some things, but not enough, and not, I expect, the same things you believe they are right about.
Should you believe they were right about the perils of the Middle East and Islamic radicalism, you would be wrong. Osama bin Laden et al were not high on their list, it was rogue states like Iraq we had to be worried about. As witness for this consider how the advice of those late, but eventual, learners - the Clinton administration - was blown off, that is until 9/11. It can be argued that Neocon concern with American policy in the Middle East was born, not of dissatisfaction with the outcome of 'liberal' policies there, but out of an understanding that the Middle East offered a pretext for launching an American hegemony to rival the Pax Romana or the Pax Britannica.
More on the 'A Mystery' thread where I will take up with you on the dangers of Islamic radicalism.
Re: The Problem
ronr327,
Don't be a fool. extend to the successful conclusion of the Cold War? That was the result of a bipartisan policy which stretched over some 50+ years. What concluded the Cold War were the policies of Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher and I would bet you opposed them root and branch. It was the 'failings of the liberals' which prolonged the Cold War and helped to enslave half a continent. So give your credit where it is due: President Reagan and Lady Thatcher.
Islamic Radicalism on the other thread.
Re: The Problem
Owly,
More later, but . . . . .
The successful conclusion of the Cold War was the outcome of precisely what I said it was. Reagan/Thatcher only provided West's portion of the Coup de Grace. The truly decisive element was the implosion of the Soviet Union. Finding itself confronted with a prosperous and booming free world, undeniably strong enough to defend itself, it could not keep up. We should, additionally, thank our lucky stars that the leadership of the USSR at that point was in the hands of someone who chose not 'to crush bones', or, more to the point, seeing irrversible relative decline, not to roll the nuclear dice. Arguably Reagan's contribution was to decide to play 'chicken' with nuclear weapons, and his good fortune was to find in Gorbachev a man sane and civilized enough to decline the gambit.
I am inclined to see your cheif complaint with me is that I am insufficiently 'spooked' with your bogeyman. That is likely true, but I have my reasons. As I say, more later.
Message was edited by: ronr327
Re: The Problem
I have too busy for many months to cast a glance in the direction of OD but now that I have done so, I can see that the usual vacuous detractor, Ttrryosborn is still at it.
The other 'commentator' that I remember from the past, Owly, is usual as bereft of ideas as he has always been.
He betrays an almost complete lack of genuine historical perspective.
Re: The Problem
Our Great Foreign Secretary has a new website www.margaretbeckett.co.uk
Re: The Problem
I truly do not know what is more threatening to our society; the terrorist armed with an anarchistic agenda or the social liberalist armed with demands of monetary reparations for yet another group of disenfranchised and divisive peoples. What and where are the borders for social conscience? As a European American, do I have some responsibility for reparations to African Americans 200 years later? Do I get up one morning and just decide to pay my Black neighbors mortgage or begin saving to send their kids to college? As a US Citizen, why am I responsible for providing educations of any form to Palestinians who have murdered my fellows with our freely given money?
Who you are and your country of origin makes no difference to me, yet your willingness to support pie in the sky change that reaches into my bank account does grab my attention. Pipedreams are, it seems still free to anyone with the time to indulge.
Ronr327, if you feel so passionate about the developing world shelling out tens of thousands of completely funded, 16 year educational packages to repatriate Palestinians then start a party of ONE! Let your actions show the rest of us how determined you are to see this glorious idea come to fruition! Talk is cheap, but action screams! Dig into your 401K, refinance your home, heck work three jobs and start your own Save a Palestinian fund.
Oh, by the way, there will be no apology from Israel. Have a good life!
Re: The Problem
Ron Allen,
I am an American who has paid taxes all these many years to support, among other things, Israel and, more broadly, stability in the Middle East. Billions upon billions have been provided by American taxpayers. I do not grudge the expenditure exactly, but I do believe there is reason to propose - at long last - that some alternate approaches be considered. Should the strategy suggested lead to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict well on its way to an equitable resolution, I expect it would be cheap at ten times the price.
The Neocon 'transform the whole region' policy we are currently embarked upon has the Iraq war as its poster child. That war is projected to cost American taxpayers between one and two trillion dollars. Is that enough of a 'reach' into your bank account?
Re: The Problem
I can certainly appreciate your rebuttal; suffice to say that more clarity is apparent in this last response. I am not concerned with Iraq. Right or wrong, America will continue to engage in conflicts simply to build better soldiers and test new weapons systems, for me it's a given.
I am not an advocate of unfettered foreign aid; something that is out of control in our Congress. I believe we have a generation of people here in America who needs help with learning and the opportunities to prosper without spend billions for nothing. There seems to be some form of shutoff valve in the American mentality as if our own poor and disadvantaged are losers and not worthy of our dollars or our time. When I see hunger in America, ignorance in America, crime in America and I see dollars, energy and time going out of America, it truly pisses me off. Helping friends; countries that are friends in one way or another to America is one thing, but denial of our own as if they had every advantage and failed makes me want to scream.
Re: The Problem
Ron Allen,
I could not agree more.
I have come to a view of things which says that the modern world propsers by the educated creatvity of its people. People with even a basic education - read, write, and do simple arithmetic - become empowered to particpate in a reality which creates, and has created, wealth on an althgether unprecidented scale. Something like mass prosperity has been realized throughout the developed world.
The work by which the modern world prospers pervasively requires an ability to take in information, reflect on it, and then act in original ways. Productivity explodes: it is the sort of work you can no longer stand over people with a whip and get. You have to cut them a good deal. If not, your society and its enterprises will fail in competition with others that have figured out how to open the way to that 'good deal'. It is not an accident that three hundred years ago there were no democracies (Pace Switzerland), yet today there are many, and they are the most successful and vigorous societies we have. Likewise, three hundred years ago, if you had proposed you had to educate all of a societies' children you would have been laughed at, yet today that is the utterly unquestioned commonplace throughout the developed world.
If the educated creativity of your people is the fundament of your success, you had better look to succor and cultivate your human resources. Leaving anybody behind, failing to provide them with genuinly graspable opportunity, is not simply morally wrong, it is wasteful.
Message was edited by: ronr327
Post new comment |
|
Elections |
Posts: 636
Joined: 2003-02-15