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 :-)