Tim Blair leads Harry’s Place to a Swiss interview with the Editor-In-Chief of Al-Jazeera, Ahmed Sheikh.
It’s been commented on before, but note in particular this exchange:
Who is responsible for the situation?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights.
Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?
I think so.
Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?
The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.
In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem?
Exactly. It’s because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West’s problem is that it does not understand this.
It’s impossible – or very damn close to it – to negotiate with someone who is interested more in his self-image than in any objective thing that may be achieved in the negotiation. Because no matter how the matter is settled, each party to a good settlement feels somewhat wronged.
And if that feeling of wronged-ness is the driver…well, getting to a negotiated settlement is going to be damn difficult.
There are a few difficulties there, not the least of which is that the Israelis may decline to be sacrificed on the altar of Arab male self-esteem, and may do so in a way that leaves quite a mess.
At that point, self-esteem may be the last thing Arab males have to worry about.
_Exactly. It’s because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West’s problem is that it does not understand this._
Well, at the very least he’s honest about they why of the whole thing; which is more than I can say for some.
I suppose simply saying, “Grow up!” is out of the question for 350 million people throwing the biggest and longest temper tantrum in recent history…especially not when they’re perfectly willing to sacrifice every single bit of life on this planet to get their way.
No, he’s not honest about the “why”. The Arab world was a mess before 1948, even before the Balfour Declaration. Of course Israel is a big issue now, but the assertion that things would suddenly be wonderful if it were wiped out is laughable–or would be if it weren’t so deadly.
The West’s problem is that it does not understand this.
Yes, because it’s *(^%& insane, and therefore hard to understand. I may not like what’s happening to the US in Iraq, but that’s not going to lead me to take an AK-47 to the local city council meeting and shoot American Democrats, Hamas v. Fatah style.
Also tough to understand: the underlying desire to crush a nation of 7 million for no particular reason (starting in 1948, and again in 1967, before the “occupation” began).
And how would it help their self-esteem for the US to grab Israel by the ear and send them to live in the basement with no toys and give the Palestinians their room? _That_ is supposed to assuage their feelings of ineptitude?! I dont think so. Or do they just expect the West to wrestle Israel to the ground, tie them to the alter, and let the Arabs deliver the coup-de-gras? Thats how they redeem their manhood?
Isnt this guy basically saying- we want to be big men, somebody help us? Pathetic. Arab men should feel like *&^$@%# if this is a legitimately common pov.
It’s impossible – or very damn close to it – to negotiate with someone who is interested more in his self-image than in any objective thing that may be achieved in the negotiation. Because no matter how the matter is settled, each party to a good settlement feels somewhat wronged.
I disagree. Indeed, negotiating with someone who was concerned only with his own image would mean that he will “give away the store” if the right “symbolic” concessions are made.
But this “self-esteem/image” issue helps explain why Arafat “walked away” from the negotiating table despite the fact that Israel had made and offer that Arafat should have accepted. It was important for Arafat to publicly demonstrate that he was “standing up” to Israel, and the United States — and I believe that an agreement remained poassible with nothing more than an additional symbolic concession or two from Israel.
The substance of the agreement was there — but Arafat had to sell it to the Palestinians, many of whom were opposed to ANY agreement. In order to do that, he needed to be seen as a tough negotiator… thus the walkout and the call for intifada (which was a call for non-cooperation with the Israelis — it only became confrontational when Sharon insisted upon visiting Temple Mount.)
Within the past month or so, I read a story about how, after John Kennedy’s assassination, someone gave Bobby Kennedy a copy of Edith Hamilton’s classic book, _The Greek Way_. It changed his life, and very likely saved his sanity.
It turns out that I’ve had that book on my bookshelf for 36 years, and I’ve finally taken it down and started to read it. I’m only a few chapters in (I’m deliberately reading it very slowly), but it really is that good.
And, even in the first couple of chapters, there are insights about the differences between Eastern and Western thought that seem highly relevant to this discussion. Check it out.
negotiating with someone who was concerned only with his own image would mean that he will “give away the store” if the right “symbolic” concessions are made.
As long as the right symbolism isn’t “kill all the Jews,” that might work. What, specifically, is the additional symbolic concession that you think would have worked for Arafat?
_”which was a call for non-cooperation with the Israelis — it only became confrontational when Sharon insisted upon visiting Temple Mount.”_
Wildly provocative. Sharon insisting on visiting the most holy site in Judaism. The idea that a man walking up a hill can justify a campaign of suicide bombing against civilians… my god, how far gone to you have to be the buy that line of BS rationalizing?
It’s impossible – or very damn close to it – to negotiate with someone who is interested more in his self-image than in any objective thing that may be achieved in the negotiation. Because no matter how the matter is settled, each party to a good settlement feels somewhat wronged.
c’mon Mark…it was a deliberate act of provocation by Sharon at a very sensitive time.
and of course one old man walking up a hill obviously doesn’t justify a campaign of suicide bombing. And a couple of rocks thrown at the Israeli troops that were out in force to protect Sharon doesn’t justify the gassing and shooting (with rubber bullets) of innocent individuals were were engaged in peaceful protest.
but that’s how the intifada went from being a protest involving non-cooperation and peaceful civil disobedience into a tragic series of Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli reprisals.
oops…wrong quote got pasted in the above comment… which was a response to Mark’s #8
_”c’mon Mark…it was a deliberate act of provocation by Sharon at a very sensitive time. “_
Sharon might argue he was waging a peaceful protest of his own. If Arafat had done the same would it be viewed as protest or provocation?
Luka deliberately avoids the fact:
By his own words Palestinians are not (and never will be) interested in any solution that leaves any vestige of the State of Israel and Jews alive in the Middle East. Period.
The only way to change this dynamic IMHO is a solution so ruthless in Sherman-like efficiency that it changes the minds of Palestinians by inflicting massive pain and facts on the ground.
Expell all Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan. Take back the West Bank and Gaza.
If Israel cannot have peace with it’s neighbors (and it can’t, they are interested in only genocide, see Ahmadinejad) they might as well have war on their terms.
Strike first at Egypt and Jordan, strike hard, and remove the Palestinians.
Presto! Peace.
[If nothing else this gives a buffer zone around hostile forces intent on genocide, which is far more worthwhile IMHO than any meaningless treaty which would be violated immediately]
Repeat because Palestinians are not interested in Peace, the only solution is massive suffering so they become sick of war and will sue for any cessation.
#2 Kirk,
Not remotely what I meant. Honesty does not mean, “What is correct or factual.” Honesty is “What you believe to be true.” He’s stating what he feels to be true. Hell, it’s probably even, to a certain extent, factual from the point of view that Israel keeps kicking their asses and everyone is going, “Woe is me! They must be the f’n devil! Kill them all!”
Is this the full story? Not remotely. Will this fix all their problems? Please, you must be joking.
But that was never the issue; we all know this. The meat of this article was that these people are, as I said before, throwing the world’s biggest temper tantrum because How The World Ought To Be is not how it really is…and honestly cannot be if we want to survive in any meaningful fashion. Their fragile immature egos are bruised; and they’re lashing out at everyone who is, and has proven to be, better than they are.
The West’s problem is that it does not understand this.
Many of us understand this just fine … and treat it with the contempt it deserves.
By his own words Palestinians are not (and never will be) interested in any solution that leaves any vestige of the State of Israel and Jews alive in the Middle East. Period.
Wow, I said that there were some Palestinians who opposed any agreement with Israel, and you read that as all Palestinians are committed to genocide of Jews in the middle east?
And I’m supposed to take any of your arguments seriously?
Sharon might argue he was waging a peaceful protest of his own.
I expect better, mark. The Klan holds protest marches in black communities — the fact that they are “peaceful protests” doesn’t make them any less of a deliberate provocation.
If Arafat had done the same would it be viewed as protest or provocation?
I’m not sure what the equivalent act by Arafat would be, but if everyone was saying “this is a provocative act” and most people were saying “please don’t do it”, then yes, it would be viewed as a provocation.
My theory: Mohammed talks about every single aspect of how you should think, feel and behave in order to please Allah. Every thing is an insult to the person that does not conform to Mohammed’s dictate. There does not appear to be a collective mind, so tyranny is the only way to rule over groups of individuals to bring order to each persons interpretation of self. It is like teenagers on steroids. Getting rid of the state of Israel will solve one problem, Jews won’t live in the neighbourhood. But that will be the only problem that will be solved. Then there will be another perceived insult to his manhood, and the killings will continue.
Let’s see. Compare Sharon to a Klansman. Now that’s a provocation intended to derail any serious discussion.
_”I expect better, mark.”_
You always do. Isnt your little game of self-righteous disdain wearing thin?
_”The Klan holds protest marches in black communities — the fact that they are “peaceful protests” doesn’t make them any less of a deliberate provocation.”_
Ariel Sharon is equivalent to the Klan? The Temple Mount isn’t a legitimate place for a jew to be? I expect better.
_”I’m not sure what the equivalent act by Arafat would be,”_
I’ll set aside all the explicit calls for violence from Arafat, and just ask if Arafat, a Muslim, visiting the Dome of the Rock would be an equivalent provocation?
Ariel Sharon is equivalent to the Klan? The Temple Mount isn’t a legitimate place for a jew to be? I expect better.
don’t try to change the subject. In discussing whether Sharon visit to Temple Mount was a deliberate provocation, you suggested that Sharon could have claimed he was engaged in peaceful protest. I pointed out that “peaceful protest” and “deliberate provocation” are not incompatible acts — and provided an obvious example.
What is bothersome is the knee-jerk denial that the violence that arose out of the intifada was solely the fault of the palestinians. It wasn’t — there was shared responsibility.
Walking away from the negotiating table and declare the intifada — a form of peaceful protest — was a provocative act by Arafat…but not designed to encourage a violent response.
Sharon chose to up the stakes, and took a very large personal security contingent with him to Temple Mount, knowing that what did occur (some people would throw rocks) would occur. His security team had prepared for it — and acted upon it not by targetting the rock throwers, but by gassing everyone and firing rubber bullets into the crowd.
The next day, protests turned into riots, and things just escalated from there. Neither side is blameless, and both sides acted with disregard for the lives of innocent civilians.
This thread isn’t about the infatada, though– its about “the Arab mind”.
Now personally, I think Sheihk is full of it when he says that the Palestinian issue is “in the genes of every Arab”. Arab leaders use the Palestine/Israeli issue to distract their people from their own failures of leadership. Israel is used as a scapegoat — pure and simple — and Arab people are told that their problems won’t be solved until the pride and dignity of Arabs is restored. But that’s a big pile of crap. The problem isn’t Israel — its the corruption of the Arab leaders themselves.
But knowing its a pile of crap doesn’t mean that you disregard the fact that lots of Arabs have bought into it when negotiating with them.
Luka, one you never answered the question about what were the symbolic concessions Israel was supposed to make to Arafat.
Two, as I understand it Sharon gave advanced notice about going to the Temple Mount and got an okay from Palestinian(sic?) officials. He had a big security detail due to his status.
Three, why is it liberals constantly insist that the West treat the Arabs like moody teenagers that we have to be super sensitive about their feelings so as to help them over their latest “growth phase”? Does it occurr to you they are gaming us like conmen, just as Hitler did before WW II and the Soviets did throughout the Cold War and just like the Saudi’s do now?
Four, as to what the Palestinians want of Israel and the Jews I believe it is clear 1)Israel must not exist as a nation. 2a)Some Pal. would go for a simple ethnic cleanseing, 2b)some would like a good old fashion massacre – then kick out the Jews, 2c)some would like a massacre – to show who is boss – then let the Jews live in Palestine as a subjugated people, and 2d)some would enjoy a Rwanda style genocide. Finally 2e)some would settle for a country on the West Bank and in Gaza along side Israel. However, judging by events in Gaza, as well as history, the peace with Israel group is quite small and/or mostly powerless.
This leaves Israel with the only option of becoming a literal fortress, a’la Constantinople, Gibralter or Malta. One with aircraft, rocket and missile interceptor capability.
PS Sorry for any misspelling. KJB43
Luka, one you never answered the question about what were the symbolic concessions Israel was supposed to make to Arafat.
It didn’t much matter — as long as he could say that more concessions were forced. Maybe something like more “reparations” money from Israel (which the US could have paid for with an increase in Aid).
Two, as I understand it Sharon gave advanced notice about going to the Temple Mount and got an okay from Palestinian(sic?) officials. He had a big security detail due to his status.
This is the first time I’ve heard about getting the okay from Palestinian officials — probably mostly because it really wasn’t within the power of Palestinians to forbid/authorize a visit. Everyone in Israel had a right to visit Temple Mount. Do you have a link for this?
As to the size of the security detail… While Muslim’s “administered” Temple Mount, Israel was responsible for its security. I don’t know if Sharon’s personal security detail was enlarged, or if the Temple Mount Security forces were increased — but there was clearly a “show of force” going on there that was related to the provocative nature of Sharon’s visit.
Three, why is it liberals constantly insist that the West treat the Arabs like moody teenagers that we have to be super sensitive about their feelings so as to help them over their latest “growth phase”? Does it occurr to you they are gaming us like conmen, just as Hitler did before WW II and the Soviets did throughout the Cold War and just like the Saudi’s do now?
Its not a question of being “super sensitive”….its a question of playing the smartest game in order to get what you want. Its like asking “Why do I have to kiss my boss’s ass to get a raise? Why can’t I just do my job?” The answer is “Because that is how it is. And face it, kissing you boss’s ass doesn’t cost you anything of great importance.”
“However, judging by events in Gaza, as well as history, the peace with Israel group is quite small and/or mostly powerless. ”
I can’t speak for today, but back in 2000 a substantial majority of Palestinians did want peace. There was also a signficant minority among Palestinians who did not want a peace agreement.
Now, the same can be said for the Israelis — most of them wanted peace, but there was a significant minority that was opposed to any agreement.
The point being that attitudes change depending upon conditions.
This leaves Israel with the only option of becoming a literal fortress, a’la Constantinople, Gibralter or Malta. One with aircraft, rocket and missile interceptor capability.
I don’t have a problem with “fortress Israel”….itw just a question of where the walls are put.
PS Sorry for any misspelling. KJB43
Hmm. Lets back up a step, we’re once again playing on a field of false assumptions. Sharon’s visit wasnt the cause of the intafada. It was planned since Arafat gave Clinton the finger. How do I know this? Good news, this time i have some pretty irrefuteable “evidence”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada
_”Imad Faluji”:http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qb5fIP-MfAc the Palestinian Authority’s communications minister, said in a public speech in December 2000, “[The uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat’s return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former U.S. president [Clinton] and rejected the American conditions.”_
That’s a video tape of the man’s speech. I suppose the translation could be faked, but barring that it seems pretty compelling.
So lets stop debating trivialities.
The primary motivation for any policy should be whether it’s the right thing to do, not how it makes people feel. After all, people can feel good about bad things.
I don’t have a problem with “fortress Israel”….itw just a question of where the walls are put.
If I were Israel, and the best deal I could get is a fortress, I’d put the walls as far out as I possibly could.
Perhaps if the Palestinians were to receive that message, it might change their attitude.
So lets stop debating trivialities.
you seem to miss the point. There isn’t any debate about whether an “uprising” was planned prior to the Sharon visit. Arafat publicly called for the infatada well before the visit — but what he called for was peaceful non-cooperation with israel and peaceful civil disobedience. And that is what it consisted of….until the visit.
Arafat miscalculated. He didn’t count on provocative acts by people like Sharon
Now, either Arafat was an idiot, or the intifada was intended as merely a short term tactical move. He’d have to be an idiot to think that the “peaceful” nature of the intifada could have been maintained over the long term, given of the presence of “radicals” among the Palestinian who would “provocate” themselves.
In other words, there is no evidence that the “uprising” was to be violent by design — unless you assume that Arafat was an idiot. But given that Arafat rose to leadership through the ranks (as opposed to being the grandson of a powerful politician, and the son of another powerful politician), there is really no reason to think Arafat was an idiot.
luka, there’s a third possibility: Arafat wasn’t an idiot, expected violence sooner or later, and wanted it because, hey, he was a Jew-hating terrorist.
bq It’s impossible – or very damn close to it – to negotiate with someone who is interested more in his self-image than in any objective thing that may be achieved in the negotiation. Because no matter how the matter is settled, each party to a good settlement feels somewhat wronged.
According to Tarek Heggy in his essay
Our need for
“A Culture of Compromise”(*)
bq A few years ago, I discovered that there is no equivalent in the Arabic language, classical or colloquial, for the English word ‘compromise’, which is most commonly translated into Arabic in the form of two words, literally meaning ‘halfway solution’. I went through all the old and new dictionaries and lexicons I could lay my hands on in a futile search for an Arabic word corresponding to this common English word, which exists, with minor variations in spelling, in all European languages, whether of the Latin, Germanic, Hellenic or Slavic families. The same is true of several other words, such as ‘integrity’, which has come to be widely used in the discourse of Europe and North America in the last few decades and for which no single word exists in the Arabic language. As language is not merely a tool of communication but the depositary of a society’s cultural heritage, reflecting its way of thinking and the spirit in which it deals with things and with others, as well as the cultural trends which have shaped it, I realized that we were here before a phenomenon with cultural (and, consequently, political, economic and social) implications.
Not having the concept of “compromise” would certainly raise any negociations to higher degree of difficulty. I leave aside the concept of “integrity”.
It’s absolutely essential to establish from the outset that as a matter of principle we give the highest possible benefit of the doubt to the thugs, gangsters, killers and liars.
…Simply because it clarifies the arguments.