Israel confirms talks with Syria

[JJackson]

Ken I completely agree that most of the areas of conflict have a large irredentist element and unsuspecting colonial cartographers have ended up creating carnage generations later. My ancestors may well have been among them. My country painted most of the world map pink and then drew lines on it which said much more about colonial administrative areas of responsibility than the religion, ethnicity or traditional allegiances of those who lived there. In their arrogance one assumes that they did not foresee a day that these peoples would be other than subjects of Empire but history should have taught them otherwise. I don’t shirk my share of responsibility for what – with the benefit of hindsight – I view as wrong and am very aware that my relatively comfortable existence is in large part due to a form of international political and economic inertia. The UK would not warrant a permanent Security Council seat today, much of its wealth can be traced back to slavery & empire, and while in ascendancy it – and the others with privilege – set up the rules of international law, global trade and financial markets in ways that were beneficial to them not the third world. It was ever such, but I think we should acknowledge the bias we benefit from, and have a care to try and redress the balance a little when we can – perhaps that is my duty as penance for the crimes of my forefathers.

“You folks sowed; we reap. As they say, it's an ugly job but somebody has to do it. When one delegates a job to another, one loses the ability to precisely define just how that job should be accomplished. Your lack of approbation is duly noted but rings quite hollow.”

It is not that I dispute who did the sowing I do disagree about how the reaping is being done, and who is doing it. I do agree with the general trust of the ICISS report (linked to earlier) which makes R2P interventions the prevue of the security council, with an effective override by the general assembly should they feel the SC was wrong, and the UN constitutional allowance for the use of force but only on its authority. Wars by NATO, or some other military coalition, should have no more legitimacy than if the Warsaw Pact had self-authorised the invasion of somewhere it accused of fermenting democratic uprisings in Poland. The underlying problem is no country should be authorising interventions in any other country only the UN – in its capacity as the planets council of countries – can do this. Taking this right upon yourself - for any nation - is hubris (and before you point it out - yes the UK are at least of guilty of this as any power current or historical).

Ron, happy to have obliged.

1] Never to the best of my knowledge but then I am not sure why they should or that acknowledging any countries right to exist is or should be a prerequisite to anything.

2] Firstly let me reject your implied premise. Why do you think you should be ‘working toward change’ in another countries government? I am not a fan of the US’s current administration but I am not sure - as I am not a citizen - that I should be trying to replace it. It is for you to decide and me to try pick a government for my country and then get ours to influence yours diplomatically. If I were to accept the premise then I would want to know why you are not also backing the MB against Mubarak in Egypt which is just as badly in need of regime change.

3] Lebanon a few times. Blockaded Gaza so the Palestinians have no way to become self-sufficient. UN figures have 70% of Gaza on 1$ a day which is about what the US gives in aid per capita to each Israeli.

4] This I know nothing about, but I am interested in why archaeological proof of anything should be relevant today. That there was a Jewish population in this part of the world in the past is – as far as I am concerned - a given, as is the existence of a Muslim population. As Ken pointed out map makers over the centuries have much to answer for and each party in a dispute is going to pick their moment and cartographer but the current disagreement centres on the creation of the modern state of Israel and the period since. Was enough – or any – attention given to the indigenous Palestinians? Did the young Israel ethnically cleans itself of Palestinians? Did the powers of the day really have the moral or legal authority to create a new state for migrants in an area that was already populated? The final impetus for its creation was a collective pity, or guilt, for the Holocaust but if that is the case might Bavaria or the Rhineland not have been more equitable?

Like you I hope I am not coming to this with a closed mind or fixed position. I too want to understand and regret it seems so difficult to have a discussion on this subject that does not degenerate. A lot of the data does not seem to be in dispute but the variety of conclusion that manage to be drawn from it are strange.