We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, July 20. 2014
It is time to face the fact that there may very well be no realistic political solution to the problems in Israel/Palestine.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Total victory by Israel and complete annihilation of Hamas would be a start.
Actually, it's about 40 years past time to face that fact. Golda Meir said it best around that time: "There will be peace when the Arabs love their own children more than they hate us."
There are some local disputes where the people are reasonable and a political or diplomatic solution would be possible. There are other cases where the people are so fanatical or radical that no political solution would ever be possible, no compromise allowed and diplomacy would simply be war by other means. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict cannot and will not ever be solved by peaceful means until the Palestinians choose to. The Palestinians are surrogates for the radical muslims that surround them and egg on the conflict. This situation will never be begotiated away.
A solution, ANY solution, requires that BOTH sides be reasonable.
If one side is not reasonable then no solution is possible.
When one side decides to use their "own" people as human shields they are not reasonable; and should not considered to be reasonable now or at any time in the future.
What stunningly stupid commentary. Its unstated premise: that there is a moral equivalence between the two sides. There is none. The conflict proceeds from the fraudulent holy book of Islam and from the example set by the religion's founder at the Battle of the Great Ditch. -- Israel can be likened to a band of nomads that is dogged by predators. The goal for the nomads is not victory, which they understand to be impossible, but survival, which is up to them to secure.
Mead says: " It is nearly inconceivable that Israel and Palestine would fight a war to the end in which one side was defeated—imagine the unthinkable horrors that defeating either side would require."
It is an unthinkable horror for the western mind to imagine, it is the absolute goal of the other side.
Failure to recognize and understand this is the real root of the problem.
"..no realistic political solution to the problems in Israel/Palestine."
Roger Berkowitz makes some good observations in his article. He says that war has lost it's power to resolve conflict or settle issues. He illustrates the irony that in an age of "total" war, some conflicts are insoluble. Roger certainly could not have picked a better example than the Arab / Israeli conflict to make his point.
I appreciate Roger's frustration and I am sure it is shared by nearly everyone. Roger is correct that many contemporary conflicts simmer and bubble for decades interspersed with high intensity bursts. Roger also appears to understand that strong countervailing political and military influences keep a lid on them, letting them fester and stew in their toxic juices. It is an unpleasant and tragic reality.
But, Roger is incorrect about one thing, this is nothing new. And, in time, the dogs of war will slip their bonds. Total war has been said to be unthinkable before and those claims have been followed by another total war. He should not lose hope, war is as dependable as volcanoes and earthquakes.
For some, the history of armed conflict appears as a distinct timeline with a start point and an end point. But, history does not really happen that way. Especially war. Big wars do not spring from the ground overnight. WW1 did not begin with an assasination and WW2 did not start at Pearl Harbor. Those are just dates of convenience. Years, decades and centuries of dispute and argument precede them. It takes a lot of hard work and preparation to build up to a major conflict. Plus, lots of very bad stuff happens in war and people can usually think of better ways to spend a quiet evening at home.
I would also dispute Roger's suggestion that a more robust conflict would lead to a final resolution. Even complete victory is only a temporary condition.
So yeah, the long lasting semi-wars are unsatisfying. Most of us would like it done and over fast. Like a visit to the dentist. So we can get back to doing better things.
I am in favor of the 'doing better things' philosophy. That is why I would pay the Arabs in Gaza to move into some nice condos someplace far away. Maybe a nice beach in Angola or Zimbabwe? I hear the weather is nice, the girls are subservient and the cows and sheep are pretty.
The so-called "Middle East Peace Process" is really a kind of quasi-sport for Western and Middle Eastern Diplomats. It is sort of like golf, only the equipment is rhetorical rather than physical and it is mostly done indoors. They have been engaged in it since one way or another since Israel because a stat--actually since the British opened up "Palestine" to the Jews after WW1.
It was never, ever about actually attaining "Peace". I am surprised that you did not figure this out decades ago.
The very last thing the the Internationalists want is "peace" in that region.
It is also big business for the despots of Gaza and the West Bank territories. If they settle for statehood they will then be expected to actually manage a functioning state and economy and all that goes with it which they cannot do. Better to kill and threaten to kill and get paid off in the process. It is also a convenient distraction for the other rulers of hellholes in the region. The peace process is a sham because one side and their supporters have no incentive nor desire for peace.
Ok, I confess I didn't read the article as I couldn't take time while getting ready for church this morning but I find the situation very simple and not worth that many words.
One side has one issue - the death of the other because of who they are. That leaves one option for peace. One side dies.
We can pine and wish for a political solution but this isn't a political problem. It's a moral one at least initially. After you get past the moral issue about one side having to die, you can discuss a political solution. There is no evidence that the side that wants the other dead is in any way interested in changing its mind so death is the only option. My preference is for Hamas and its Palestinian supporters to take the hit for peace.
Israel has given much, land, space, concessions, but the arabs care whit about these - their goal is, has been, always will be the iradication and commission of driving the Jewish state into the Med. It was even in the PLOs charter.
Facing that sort of fanaticism, the only outcome is the total destruction of the other.
We're only glad stranding the issue looking for inclusiveness, and realizing both sides will never live in peace. Even though arabs have it enormously better in Israel, peace will just be a word, and the more apt word would be pieces.
I basically agree with hattip and phil g. It's a big game and money is subsidizing bad things. Not much new about that.
But, even though it would take some great leadership sklills and lots of money, I would encourage the game players to turn relocation into a nice fat, long term welfare program. Maybe trade some of those everlasting war concessions we control in Asia into a relocation program for the Arabs? A crafty leader should be able to extract money for such an endeavor. And there are plenty of tropical locations around the world where the leaders would be happy to plug into such a rich gravy train.
Or, Israel could just bulldoze Gaza into the sea. About a thousand D9 dozers should do the trick.
They need to move up to D11s.
Use the ripper to take out the tunnels.
The only political decision is to destroy Hamas. Convince them that if they are willing to die for their beliefs, the Israelis are willing, though not happy or glad, to accommodate them.
It would be easy if destroying Hamas was all Israel needed to do.