I’ve really been trying to not say too much about the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the last few weeks. Partly it’s because it’s been such a polarizing sort of dispute, reflecting the various answers in the Poll I’ve been running. Partly it’s because every time I think about it for more than a few minutes, I start either grinding my teeth to the gums, or else getting a splitting headache.
But as I listen to pundits weigh in on one side or the other, as I listen to news organizations slant stories in one direction or another, I realize that just because it’s a damnably awful thing to choose sides in this conflict, that doesn’t mean saying nothing is any better.
Israel has not worn a purely white hat over the decades since its founding. It has more than once acted as a bully, it has been unreasonably stubborn on repeated occasions, its settlement policy has been at best counter-productive and at worst downright evil, it has been guilty more than once of excessive force, and its actions in Lebanon at times mirrored the worse of America’s own darkness in Viet Nam, complete with massacres-by-proxy and worse.
But for all that Israel has done to squander quite a bit of moral high ground over the years, for all that its gunfire has gone astray, that it has sometimes been careless, and sometimes even cruel with its superior military might against the Palestinians … if backed into a corner, I have to support it over the Palestinian cause.
Israel’s biggest problem is that, on the surface at least, it is not the underdog. Even if you discount anti-semitic sentiment in some corners, it’s far too easy for a lot of folks to look at Side With Tanks vs Kids With Rocks and back the latter as a sentimental favorite.
At least until one of those kids — or his older brother, or his father, or even his sister, walks into a resort town restaurant during a holiday feast and blows himself and a few dozen other people into a bloody paste.
The fact is, if you put aside the Kids vs Tanks thing, and concede its right to exist, Israel wins the debate hands-down. Her Arab neighbors have sought her destruction since Day One — and Israel has had the ill grace to not only successfully defend itself, but actually gain territory in the process. The Arabs who lived in that area — never recognized before Israel’s founding as being their “own people” — have been pushed into refugee camps. But they’re there largely because none of their oh-so-supportive Arab brethren have been willing to take them in (except, on occasion, as guest labor, and then shipping them back to the refugee camps once their usefulness was over).
And, frankly, none of that in any way, shape, or form excuses decades of terrorism. None of that justifies a single car bombing in a marketplace, a single suicide bomber in a pizza restaurant — none of it.
The problem is, the Palestinians want it both ways. They’re willing to act as though they are at war — attacking not just military Israeli targets, but civilians as well, seeking quite explicitly the destruction of all Israel and her people. But when Israel actually uses the tools and tactics of war against them, then they cry out for international support, denounce the brutality of their “oppressors,” and parade women and children before the cameras (the same women and children who, had they been born a dozen miles away, might have been random victims of a suicide bomber).
I want peace in the Middle East. I want justice. I want the decades of recriminations and killings and counter-killings and bloodshed to end. I want to believe that Jews and Muslims, Arabs and Israelis, can live together in harmony and peace and even love.
But as much as I cringe to hear the extremist rhetoric from Ariel Sharon, himself implicated in war crimes in Lebanon, as much as I shake my head every time a civilian Palestinian death is reported (though why Palestinian civilians are off limits while Israeli civilians are fair targets is beyond me), as much as I hate seeing war and hate twist the Israeli democracy and culture into something rather unpleasant …
… I would not see terror win. I would not see Yasser Arafat — a “democratically-elected” leader who has been more than happy to toss his opponenents into prison (or let them get lynched) and who put off the scheduled elections that might threaten his position, who shares his terrorist pedigree with some of Israel’s own founders but who is a clear enough threat to any country he’s in that none of his Arab “allies” want him anywhere in their nation, who has preached peace in English and jihad in Arabic — I would not see him win. Because as much as I want to see the Palestinian Arabs live in dignity and peace, I don’t think that’s the cards for them no matter which side succeeds, and because I won’t see it over the bodies of Israel.
I really hate what’s going on there. There are plenty of times when that “nuke the whole place into a parking lot” option sounds like a great Gordian-knot-cutter. And there are plenty of times when I devoutly wish I had a solution beyond hand-wringing, one that didn’t hinge on the good will of Israeli religious fanatics and Arab religious/political/ethnic fanatics, a solution that couldn’t be derailed by intransigence or violence.
I don’t think Israel’s force of arms can cleanly and quickly clear this up — but the status quo is not acceptible. And sometimes, when things are going from bad to worse, you can only act, boldly, and hope that you don’t make them even worse than than they’re already trending.
I hate to support Israel in this, because it’s supporting not just the good they represent but the evil that they’ve done, too. But I can condemn Dresden and Manzanar while still being glad that the winners of WWII were who they were. And I can condemn Israel’s transgressions while realizing that things would be far worse if they lose this war. Far worse for everyone concerned.
The Arabs, all of them (that’s every Arab state, not every individual Arab), not just the Palestinians, have demonstrated that they will not settle for anything but wiping Israel off the map. The Saudi plan is bullshit and everyone who isn’t a lying Euroweenie twit knows it. But even if Israel drives all the Palestinians into the deserts of Jordan and Lebanon, that won’t end it. Sooner or later, some Arab fanatics are bound to hit Israel with weapons of mass destruction and Israel is so small and densely populated that one serious WMD hit should do it. Then, of course, every Arab city of importance gets what Hiroshima got. Only crazed fanatics would risk it, but there you go.
The only thing rational people in the region can do is leave.
What should America do? Work on ways to decontaminate radioactive oil fields. Get ready to accept lots of Israeli immigrants; fortunately, the real fanatic wankers there (Likud, Shas, etc.) will stick it out. American Muslims should get their hajj in now, before Mecca is radioactive slag, and get all the relatives into America that they can. Move any American assets out of the Nile Valley: when the Aswan High Dam takes a nuke the eastern Med will get muddy.
I could do without seeing that particular phenominon.
On a “bad” day, I have the same gloomy concerns and predictions. On a good day … well, there aren’t too many of those right now.
It’s sort of like film of nukes going off. They’re pretty from a proper distance. The satellite photos of the flood would be interesting and even pretty on a large enough scale. Many orders of magnitude too high a price for, um, large scale performance art, yes. They are, however, by and large, volunteering for the project.
Back to Israel itself, it occurs to me that Saddam Hussein could take it out *right now* if he has 30 or 49 scuds left. He field tested an array of chemo and bio weapons on the Kurds years ago so I’m sure he has the warheads. He’s too self-protective to do it himself, and sufficiently in control of Iraq that no one else will do it with his weapons.
Israel is supposed to have somwhere in the vicinity of 400 nukes. Damned good investment, that.
Is your glass half empty, or half full? I am continually amazed at the narrow mindedness of so many people who may otherwise be quite intelligent. Why must anyone who holds a different view be a “lying Euroweenie twit?” I respect your right to your opinion, indeed I have fought to preserve that right, but you do not have the right to belittle someone else’s opinion.
If, as has been suggested, the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons is the natural outcome of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict, we are all doomed to destruction. If the escalation of violence is our only answer, man is nothing more than an animal — sentience aside.
Because of the internet, I have neighbors (and friends) around the world. Through the sharing of our knowledge, opinions, hopes, dreams and beliefs, I am convinced that people are basically the same around the globe. Given the opportunity, each of us is primarily interested in peaceful co-existence, as the means to community growth and vibrant, thriving lives.
There are more versions of the truth than one. If a person knows only what is presented by the mainstream media, he only knows what his/her government wants him to know. Government, no matter how much you believe it is for the protection and benefit of every citizen, is run by the economically and politically powerful for their own benefit. Who wrote America’s national energy policy? Who “advises” our president on whom to nominate or appoint to major positions in charge of the environment, energy, justice and other posts? Is that to your benefit?
When we, as individuals, extend the same dignity and respect to every one else that we expect for ourselves, the problem of violent imposition of opinion will have passed.
I don’t know that I agree with the final statement. It’s a nice ideal, even a Golden Rule … but I’m not sure that treating everybody else with the dignity and respect we expect for ourselves would automatically end “the violent imposition of opinion.” Opinion is based on belief. It is not always amenable to logic, or reason, or even a sharing of the assumptions that prompts it. And some opinions lead to conflict, and whether you live in an autocracy or a democracy, not every opinion can (or should, for that matter) succeed.
Ultimately, to take it back to the Middle East discussion, it seems to me that you can have Israeli A and Palestinian Arab B basically arguing over the same plot of land — “It’s mine!” “It was my family’s for generations.” “My family has lived here for thirty years.” “Your people stole it from us.” “God gave us this land.”
You can respect the other fellow all you want, but one or both people are going to be disappointed by however the difference of opinion is resolved — and the opinion will likely have to be settled by force, of law or of arms.