Israeli-Arab Wars and Palestinian Population Displacement
I couldn't help but notice that the only Israeli-Palestinian mention was from the 1940s. Seems to be me that the Palestinians have very effectively managed to leverage every non-lethal asset available to deter Israel from simply wiping the Palestinians from the planet, which Israeli could have (and probably should have) done long ago, while gaining significant concessions from the Israelis. While I think the whole "4GW" concept is a bit over-hyped, Hammes gives a decent summary in his book of how the Palestinians have manipulated the information domain to gain the sympathy of much of the world in spite of their frequent use of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. I don't think the Palestinians will ever gain control of Israel, but simply being in the position that they are in and forcing the restraint of the Israelis is remarkable, in my opinion.
War isn't acceptable, yet we discuss it.
Rhetorically, isn't putting a limit on discussion on a topic, no matter how contentious, not evading or eliding the issue?
Rex and Tom, I appreciate the polite and measured
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
Ken, I think there's a big difference between discussing war as an unavoidable instrument of policy--with an implicit but near universal assumption among SWJ posters that they would prefer less violent ways of attaining objectives, and a parallel assumption that most Western policy objectives are generally good ones--and casually suggesting it might be a good idea to slaughter 10 million men, women and children. (Having spent the day with survivors of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur, I'm particularly mindful of the issue at the moment.)
Simple test: would lightly endorsing "wiping Jews from the face of the planet" be considered acceptable SWJ discussion material too? I certainly hope not.
remarks and do not dispute what either of you say. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. While I do not share Schmedlaps opinion, I suggest he is entitled to it as well as to state it (here only with the Board owners tolerance). If it is to be refuted, I merely suggest that the opinion should be challenged and not just labeled as offensive and dismissed as "not acceptable."
That, unfortunately, is to my Scotch Irish genes condescending at best. It is also, I think, somewhat inclined toward hewing to a politically correct approach; an approach that I believe has very adverse impacts on frank and potentially unpleasant discussion of some critical topics that merit open and frank discussion. It is also an approach I'm regrettably too old to follow. :wry:
I can understand the offense caused, particularly to one who has been discussing the topic all day or to one who has been too close to the topic to be comfortable with it and I sincerely regret exacerbating any feelings on the topic. However I submit that most of us are here to learn and to discuss civilly topics that are not in and of them selves civil. For example, any discussion of the incidents either of you mention includes by definition a discussion of genocide.
Genocide may not be acceptable but it unfortunately occurs. It is not a nice topic to be sure but it is discussed and IMO should be. A possible or seeming advocacy or acceptance of the practice would seem to me to merit some discussion and a chance to clarify rather than adopting a dismissive or rejective tone on what seems to be merely an a priori statement.
Most of us are guilty of those on occasion... :o
No intent on my part -- or need to my mind -- to start a subthread; just explaining why I replied as I did and indicating I likely would again do so.
People think the consequences of 1948 were bad,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
Probably to have tipped the balance to a PLO victory in Jordan in 1970-71, and inflamed passions to the point that neither the shift of Egyptian policy under Sadat, or the relative realism of Syria under Assad (1970- ) would have taken place....
it boggles the imagination to think what the consequences now would be, if Israel had "finished the job" in 1967. What Rex points out would have been the immediate and short-term consequences of such actions would just have been the beginning of something far worse than exists even today. Beyond a heavy and sustained "War of Attrition" between Egypt and Israel that would not have come to an end around 1970 as it did, what possibly could have resulted might have been a sort of twisted rerun of the Crusader Wars. And those sorts of wars don't end until only one side is left standing, and the losers lose everything.
-Some Kindling For The Fire
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914670.html
Last update - 15:55 19/10/2007
"Israel refuses to open talks with Lebanon over Shaba Farms
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Israel has refused a recommendation by a United Nations ambassador to begin negotiations with Lebanon over the disputed Shaba Farms area. According to the envoy, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations is becoming increasingly convinced that Shaba Farms belongs to Lebanon......."
I guess the UN will have to come up with official condemnation #12,834 for Israel ( I may have exagerated that number by a hundred or so)