“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas


Thursday, October 18, 2007

Bush's quixotic adventure

OK, click on both of these maps of Israel(they'll get big)...



This one has more details....obviously...

If you are unfamiliar with the geography of this region, take the opportunity to see where all the names you've heard in the news are because you will need to know them as these negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state unfold. For instance, you will need to know the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, Golan Heights, disputed territories, etc. if you want to have a clue, as you watch the news and read this blog every day. Moving on now....

LONDON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she was encouraged by a round of furious Mideast diplomacy to prepare a U.S.-hosted peace conference in the fall despite divisions between Israel and the Palestinians that could derail it.

With tensions running high and time running out to plan the meeting, a senior U.S. official said Rice would return to the region at the end of October or early November after National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley goes there next week to press the two sides to launch formal peace talks.

Hadley's trip, so close on the heels of Rice's visit this week, is intended to move the two sides closer and underscore U.S. commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state, the official said.


OK, the creation of a Palestinian state would be a good thing...everybody should have a home. That being said, where exactly would the state be? Exactly where it is now? I don't see how that solves anything. How will things be different between the Israelis and Palestinians?

Feel free to weigh in on this, anybody. The bottom line in my mind is that there will always, always be hotly disputed land that causes violence between the two. Where should a Palestinian homeland be? Both have biblically historical claims to common land. How to resolve that? Can it be resolved without somebody going away? Are Bush and Condi tilting at windmills here?

12 comments:

Kevin said...

Both Bush and Condi are being quixotic. The hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians have been going on for centuries. Their hatred for each other has been the center of the religious world for ages. To think that in a short amount of time they can drop their weapons and coexist is hysterical and impossible. With the developments in weapon technology growing by the second, the fighting will never cease. There will always be people who don't want to give up, who are determined to be right, even if they are wrong. Sadly, peace will never be a word to describe the Middle East.

Ed said...

Right you are. And as long as a terrorist organization(Hamas) controls the Palestinians, there is little hope even for a cease-fire.

capt. America said...

We are very serious here at TRR. So how about we play a little Q&A game?

Ok, imagine this:

Tomorrow the world decides that a North American indian tribe – let's say the Apaches – for different reasons (historical and the world’s conscience for treating them badly) are entitled to their own homeland.

The world gives them the states of Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. Those already living on the land are not asked, and their objections overruled.

Q: What do you think about this 1) in principle 2) if you were a citizen of one of these four states?

The Apaches soon starts to force a large part of the inhabitants of these states out of their homes, and into refugee camps in less 'prosperous' parts of the United States.

(To make it a little more challenging, let’s also imagine that the American east cost, from Maine to Florida, isn’t America, but other countries – let’s call them X, Y and Z. A lot of the refugees settle down here, becoming a heavy burden to these countries’ economy and society.

Q: If you were these countries, how do you believe your attitude towards the Apache Nation would be after some years?)

The expelled people don't accept this - they want their homes, land and society back. But the Apaches won't listen, so the banished people starts to use force to win back what they concider theirs, no matter what the world says.

Q: If you were the expelled in this story, would you use force to get your land back? If no, what would you do?

The world agrees they must keep it's promise to the new country, so they supply the Apaches with unlimited military equipment for them to secure their borders and control of society.

With this moral and economical support from the world, the Apaches strike back on the rebellions – hard. They end up occupying Idaho, Nevada, Utah and New Mexico – yeah, Texas too. This was never the world's intention, but they accept it nevertheless - the New Apache Nation is sacred.

The situation for the expelled becomes worse all the time. Not only are they discriminated and surpressed within the Apache nation, the new rulers establish heavily guarded settlements in the areas left for the expelled (‘rest-America’ and the X, Y and Z countries) – the world protests massively, but as usual; no consequences for the Apaches.

The evicted try to win back the land taken from them with the means they have, but by each attack the superiour Apaches tightened the screw harder. After some years it gets so frustrating for the banished that the younger generation, those who never experienced living in their parents’ homeland, make their own uprising – mostly by throwing stones at the heavily armed Apache soldiers. The Apaches fires back and kills many of them, including small children.

Q: Do you think the parents should have taught the children to behave better?

After many years living like this, seeing the conditions constantly worsening for their people (their society’s structure is long gone by now) and the world not helping (especially because a major player on the world arena refuse to criticize the Apaches no matter what), some of the expelled get so desperate they look for alternative methods to fight those who evicted them from their country.

Q: Do you find it strange that some people in such a situation, after having tried everything to get their homes back, begin to look for new ways of fighting the enemy?

In the banished people’s culture it’s concidered very patriotic to say they are willing to die for their country (but they almost never say they’re willing to kill for it). So some of them turn to the extreme: In order to harm the opressors, they strap bombs to their bodies and kill themselves while trying to kill as many Apaches as possible – also civilians.

Q: In order to fight an enemy that had occupied your country, what are the limits to your ways of retaliation - is there something you wouldn’t do to get your own country back?

This makes the Apaches tighten the grip even further. They confiscate and cut up property, making it impossible for the farmers to make a living. They regulate the water supply. Eventually they build a Berlin-wall ‘to keep the suicide bombers out’.

Q: Do you remember why they become suicide bombers?

Joe Camel said...

Catain America: Your narrative is telling and somewhat accurate. The points of confusion are:
1)Claim to the land. In the real world issue at hand, both groups claim dominion over this soil. That will always be contested between them, but it could be resolved peacefully.
2)Your claim of expanding territory. The Israelis have fought against the Egyptians, Iranians, Iraqis, and most of the other Arabic folks forever. The small country of Israel controlled land between itself and Egypt (the Sinai peninsula) after fighting ceased. The only time any expansion took place was around 1948, when after Israel was established by a British Mandate, supported by the United Nations, not the USA, the Israelis declared independence from the Arabs and fought to maintain their country. They did and have occupied that area since, but it is miniscule in comparison.
It is extremely unfortunate that the world decided on the course of action that was taken, but since it cannot be undone, it is time to put this to rest and get on with life. The most accurate point you made referred to the next generation of citizens that have never lived in their former homeland. This is exactly where we are today. Most of the Arabs truly do not want to live in Israel, they just don't want the Jews there.

Ed said...

Right you are JC.

Capt. America, your assertion that the Jews kicked out the Palestinian people from their homeland is ingenuous. That's not how it happened.

What is now Jordan IS the Palestinian homeland. The Jews were given only the small part west of the Jordan River. The palestinian jews and palestinian arabs lived happily and productively until Israel declared itself a State. On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. The invading Arab armies told the resident Palestinians that if they fled the Israelis, when the war was over, they could return and inherit all that Israeli wealth. Too bad for them, Israel kicked seven countries' collective butt. 19 months later, having lost 1% of it's population, Israel survived. All the palestinian Arabs who fled, became the refugees Jimmy Carter whines about today, while the Arabs who stayed, became today's Arab-Isreali citizens with all the rights that go along with it.

You see, running from the Israelis so humiliated the Palestinians that they will settle for nothing less than expelling the Jews entirely from the middle east. That's why no land-for-peace deal will work.

Your Apache analogy is way off from reality and so probably are a lot of peoples' ideas about the Palestinian question. I'll have to blog on this further soon.

Willie said...

One side will have to distroy the other for the fighting to stop.
My money is on Israel...

capt. America said...

My example was of course never inteded to be 100% accurate. You all know that.

But is it really so 'way off from reality' that a man who adores Ann Coulters exaggerations, silly analogies and semi-lies, can't cope?

PS: Joe Camel - what about the expansion in '67?

PS2: Willie - your money IS on Israel.

ed said...

@capt., It's not a matter of coping. I understand completely the comparison you were drawing and I don't expect precisely accurate analogies, however, the Apaches in your narrative were kicked out of their homeland, while the "Palestinians" were not kicked out of anywhere. Jordan is their homeland as well as much of the West Bank. That fundamental difference makes the two uncomparable(is that a word?).

Joe Camel said...

Expansion and then contraction. That has always been what has happened to Israel. Pick a date, a war, and they win, and they take. Then give back what they took when the good ole USA comes riding in on a white horse to save the day( writing a big check to keep Israel happy).

Kevin said...

Name the last time Israel lost a war. Israel has one of the best armed forces, especially the air force, on the planet. It took 7 days for Israel to kick Egypt's butt last time. Israel doesn't need our aid anymore. They are our allies, but they don't need our help in that region. When the Palestinians prove they can fight the Israelis with real power, which won't ever happen because they are so spread out, then they can have the land back.

capt. America said...

Kevin

If you can't follow/understand the tread, please refrain from commenting.

Kevin said...

Sorry I misunderstood what he said.