Monday, January 17, 2005

Battlelines over Israel

I feel there is a case to blog a debate over the Future of Israel/Palestine to rival that of the one we (three of us anyway) had over Iraq war policy over a year ago. Dr. Clam has made clear his position to side with the Israeli line in what seems to be a parallel of Bush neo-conservative philosophy. Lexifab has clearly in the past been in direct opposition to neo-con views and this wouldn't be any exception. I usually take a minority view and in this issue I am making a stake for the middle ground (although many people would argue that it doesn't exist in this case) with a deliberately moderate view. I admit I brought Aceh up to begin with, but I am not sure how that fits in. I guess I need a statement to debate - something along the lines of "What possible process would peacefully clarify the status of "Palestine" and its inhabitants? - and is long term peace there consistent with the current world order?" I have stated that all processes that I can think of would not result either in long term peace nor a clarification of status. This is with the exception of a huge natural disaster or a "scorched earth" policy by one country or another there.

Now Dr. Clam's knowledge of world-wide history and geography is nothing short of astonishing. Lexifab's use of proof by ridicule of the opposition is legendary. I tend to say things I believe in only if they contrast traditional thinking (or if they're written in the Economist). I would like to think that it is a free for all though, and it would be nice to attract the attention of someone of influence :-)

1 comment:

Dr. Clam said...

I don't know if I am entirely happy being labelled as someone thinking along Neocon lines with regard to Israel/Palestine- only because I am unsure about what Neocon lines consist of in that case; I don't see a Neocon consensus that "our fight is their fight", or an articulated alternative view to the State Department's "if one concession doesn't work, concede some more" philosophy. Bush's refusal to meet with Yasser Arafat I consider an excellent step. I don't want to argue the "Does Israel suck?" question, since I have already described my conversion on the road to Damascus. If it is the much more interesting question, "What to do next?", I regret that my ideas boil down to, "muddle along the way we are going." Foreign intervention was a catastrophic failure even when 10% of the population of British Palestine were foreign interveners with guns. By muddle along I mean unilateral disengagement and separation along the lines of the security fence/apartheid wall/antifascist protection barrier (pick one), together with a willingness to negotiate with any Palestinian leadership that manages to crush the local Islamofascists a la Syria or Algeria. Hmm, I am sounding less optimistic than I did before... I mean to be optimistic, I really do! But I can see a peaceful de facto boundary between Israel and Palestine coming about more readily than an independent Aceh, and I think ultimately the Achenese won't be satisfied with anything less. There will continue to be trouble in Indonesia until the Dutch empire is dismantled: every re-drawing of the Imperialist map elsewhere will increase the pressure for this to happen.