Mostapha writes:
Pardon me if I jump back and forth and appear incoherent, it is for much of the same reasosn A.L. mentioned, thoughts evolving all the time, etc. It’s long too (two parter)
A.L.: Welcome to the club
zizka brings up a good point of the Palestinian conflict, that it is essentially a land war (if you didn’t mean it that way, then sorry but I think it is). Religion is secondary in the conflict. Religion is just how they draw their “lines on the map.” In Western conflict, nationalism had a bigger part in conflicts because most people in Europe were Christian (or else). So instead of us and them being “Jew” or “Muslim” it was “French” or “English.” Same old fight, just in a new, filthy way.
A.L.: But it is being fought in a fundamentally different way, dont you think? Thats whats of interest to me not that the roots of the issue are old and typical, but that the means arent.
I don’t think the WTC was attacked because of the “Jew York” stereotype. That stereotype is much more well known here than out in the M.E. As far as they’re concerned there are Jews all over. The WTC represents a modern Tower of Babel, a symbol of American engineering and technological prowess. Like th Harris article says, these guys live in fantasy land, they went for the major American symbols of might (Pentagon), economic/engineering (WTC) and gov’t (plane in PA headed for the White House?). These guys probably thought if we can take these out, the Americans will be demoraized and cave to our demands. Once we came out swinging, no demands were made.
A.L.: I think you make my case for me when you say The WTC represents a modern Tower of Babel, a symbol of American engineering and technological prowess. Like th Harris article says, these guys live in fantasy land, they went for the major American symbols of might (Pentagon), economic/engineering (WTC) and gov’t (plane in PA headed for the White House?) Dont you think its important that they are fighting a symbolic rather than practical war? They arent idiots
–Mostafa
And then he continues:
And now for tangent #3 … Why do they use the methods they currently use? Because they have no better way and nothing to lose. On the Pal side you have a group of people who have been marginalized and lied to by everyone in their region including Arabs. The Israelis make peace concessions like Oslo, but continue to make things worse by expanding settlements. This does a couple things. One, it causes a distrust of the other side, which is a bad thing to perpetuate with peace deals. Two, it “supports” the old European stereotype of the “crooked Jew” in the minds of the Pals. The Israelis sign a treaty, but still build settlements, why WOULD they trust them. To Palestinians, the settlements are akin to the old British colonies, and also a reminder that they were removed from their old homes by these same people years before. They see these offerings the way the Native Americans saw and treaties with the U.S. in the 19th century.
A.L.: I agree with almost everything you say, except that the tactics they are choosing dig them into a deeper hole, and I believe that ultimately they have done and will do worse than they would have done with nonviolent resistance or even a true guerilla war. As I said, they arent stupid, so why are they making choices that take them so far from their stated goals? That the $64 million question/
Since these people have so little to lose there is not much we can do. All Israel can do is kill them and they taunt Israel by killing themselves and their enemies in a way that would make Samson jealous.
A.L.: Again, I think youre supporting me when you say they taunt Israel. Think about it. Do they want to get a state or taunt Israel?
I believe that they should be given something to lose. Start a gradual pullout of settlements and self rule over a small portion. Put a pullout and expansion of Pal border timeline on paper. Explicitly write the necessity of self policing and that allowing or harboring terrorist will result in the old status quo. Once the people have something to lose, they will defend it. Think of it this way, in elementary school, when everyone was being loud and throwing paper airplanes it was good fun. But once the teacher said “If I see another paper airplane or spitball, everyone loses recess.” There might be another spitball or airplane, but once the teacher takes away recess there’s a whupping coming from the rest of the class. The people who have spent the last few decades suffering and waiting for land aren’t going to let ideologues ruin it after all they’ve been through. It’s not the 70s anymore, the mainstream Arab world has finally (begrudgingly) acknowledged the existence of Israel. Peer pressure is an amazing thing.
A.L.: I dont disagree, but as Ive said a bazillion times here, it takes the survival of a vocal moderate group to make something like this work, and unless there is someone there on the Palestinian side, it wont happen. But thats another issue.
One last thing, Sharon can’t (or shouldn’t) expect peace before signing a treaty. Historically, the fighting stopped after the peace accords were signed, not before.
Sorry this was so long winded, hope you all enjoy it at the very least.
A.L.: No, was great thats why Ive moved it up.
— Mostafa Sabet
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
Yehudit:I both agree and disagree. The fact that there were Jews moved there in boatloads at the end of WWII, and that there are now refugees whose homes were overtaken by those Jews suggests that it is, in fact, the land that arabs’ parents, grandparents, etc., lived on. I agree, however, that Isreal has a right to exist on that territory now, for all kinds of reasons, not least of which is that there seems to be no way of getting them to leave that isn’t unbelievably awful. Hands down, no questions asked, I support the existence of Isreal. I think we need, in the really long term, to convice the Palestinians of precisely what I said: “that Isreal has a valid right to exist on territory that Palestinians’ ancestors lived on”. But my point was neither the pro nor the con I just went through. My point was that if you think for a second that Palestinians are going accept the argument that they have no historical claim on the territory, you’re bats. I’m talking now not about ‘should be’ but about ‘is’.Personally, I support the ‘no right of return, but right to compensation’ middle-ground. But not more than I support the ‘just build a damned wall between the two and be done with it’ solution. 🙂
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
“We’ll have a hard time arguing against this historical model until we’ve convinced the Palestinians that Isreal has a valid right to exist on territory that Palestinians’ ancestors lived on. Which might take a while. “Most “Palestinian”‘s ancestors never lived there. Most Jews’ ancestors did. There are no criteria that satisfy the Palestinian claim (in historical residence, continued residence, language, customs, cultural significance, or any other) that doesn’t satisfy the Jewish claim, in spades. Part of the Arab world’s disinformation campaign is that the Pals have more of a claim than the Jews. They don’t. As far as individuals being driven out of their homes – yes, there was some of that, but at least an equal number of Jews driven out of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia. Those Jewish communities existed for 1000 years before the Arabs showed up, since the days of the Roman Empire.All the Pals (or anyone else) has to do to be convinced, is read some real history. Not pomo “narrative” – history. Finally, Israel has signed treaty after treaty. And no, most of the Arab world has still not recognized Israel’s right to exist. Significantly, Israel has decent relationships with the countries that do: Egypt and Jordan.
Date: 08/28/2002 00:00:00 AM
>One last thing, Sharon can’t (or shouldn’t) expect peace before signing a treaty. Historically, the fighting stopped after the peace accords were signed, not before.Actually, no. The shooting stops before the peace accords are signed, at least since the beginning of modern warfare. There was very little fighting actually going on when the Japanese surrendered, and, relatively speaking, when the Germans surrendered at the end of WWI and WWII. There was no shooting when the first Iraq war ended.First you get a cease-fire, these days, then you get a “peace accord.” Sure, the armies are in the field, but they are not, for the most part, shooting at each other when the accords are actually finalized. The Palestinians refuse to honor cease fire agreements, so there is no reason and space for the negotiation of a final peace accord with them.
Date: 08/27/2002 00:00:00 AM
Just to spout here… AL: “why are they making choices that take them so far from their stated goals?” I’ve got a bit of a rule of thumb never to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Now, quickly, it’s not that I believe that Palestinian terrorists are irrational. I believe that they are rational in the sense that they calculate benefits against costs. But I think they are subject to the long-term blindness that afflicts us all. (I also absolutely condemn them morally, but we’ll set that aside as obvious) First, I think that their emotions are a part of their calculus. By doing work that exposes them on global television, terrorists get the immediate-term emotional payoff of having their actions appear to matter on a geopolitical scale. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll recognize that as part of the reason we all blog. It would be foolhardy to imagine that, for all their repugnance, they don’t share many of our emotional needs. Second, I think that, even in political terms, violence has a more assured and more immediate impact than negotiation. Negotiations take a long time, and fail a lot. Violence will be on the evening news, guaranteed, and will provoke an Isreali response, guaranteed, and will thus feed the anti-Isreali propaganda machine, guaranteed. Abandoning violence means that tomorrow, for the first time in a while, the terrorist won’t have control over the process. Which would mean that, from a terrorist perspective that assumes that only the terrorist organization understands the problem, no progress would be being made. It’s hard to get people to see the long-term benefits to putting down the guns. A year or two of nothing happening looks like failure. But how amazing would it be for nothing to happen in Isreal for a year? Third, I think that they’re engaged by the historical example. Remember they think of themselves as colonized by an Isreali state that doesn’t want to leave. How many colonized people managed to force out a colonizing power without violence? India, of course, but Gandhi had a 1000-to-1 advantage instead of a 3-to-1. Most other examples, including the USA, required violence for national liberation. We’ll have a hard time arguing against this historical model until we’ve convinced the Palestinians that Isreal has a valid right to exist on territory that Palestinians’ ancestors lived on. Which might take a while.
Date: 08/27/2002 00:00:00 AM
A.L.: Don?t you think it?s important that they are fighting a symbolic rather than practical war? They aren?t idiots?Me: I wholly agree that OBL and al-Queda are fighting a largely symbolic fight. I believe this is due to them not having a traditional “good reason” for their tactics. They don’t want their own country and their political reasons are weak. The symbol that they seem to fight to relegitimize the Arab world’s dignity. Granted, he is doing the exact opposite, but he is tickled pink that the Arabs are feared because in his twisted world, fear = respect (though judging by the regional gov’ts, not surprising).A.L.: The Palestinian model seems based on what would look the most dramatic on TV.Me: I think you hit the nail on the head. The violence isn’t to bring Israel to the table, but to force the U.S. and the E.U. to get involved. Notice during the relative peace post-Oslo, there was significantly less internation focus than their is now. Bush didn’t step in until the violence became too much to bear. Since Israel isn’t as cruel as apartheid era S. Africa or Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, they know they can’t get the world-wide support or attention without a little violence. Though now that all eyes are on them, the more legitimate orgs seem to be moving away from violence. This is the political version of a kid smoking or doing drugs to get the attention of the parents.The Pals know there is nothing they can do and avoid fighting the military because of the demoralizing losses Arab nations experienced at the hands of the (outnumbered) Israeli army. They figure if the “mighty” Arab armies can lose to a severely outnumbered Israeli army, than what chance do the outnumbered and outgunned Pals have. So they take it to the streets where they stand a chance. Also, the Pals know that they have a demographic advantage, so they know that even if they lose 3 to the Israeli’s 1, they remain ahead and the casualty numbers appearing on the evening news make them look good.A.L.: why are they making choices that take them so far from their stated goals? That the $64 million questionMe: If we figure this out, we can go halvsies on the Nobel Peace prize.