Israel's parallel universe

[NewsGuy]

While replying to another thread, it occurred to me to look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from a completely different perspective.

The prespective is actually 2 other countries formed at the same time as Israel, and in both cases stuck in a rut of ongoing violence due to Muslim terrorism to "liberate" disputed land. Those countires are India and Pakistan who have been in a state of war over the disputed region of Kashmir for more than 50 years. And while these countries are located a half a world away geographically from Israel, these countries are living in a parallel universe to Israel and the Palestinians.

Here's what I mean:

Compare the Israeli/Palestinian dispute to the India/Pakistan situation, where 98% of the residents of Kashmir, who are Muslims, want their land to be joined with Pakistan, and the Indian government disagrees and rules Kashmir with a military presence.

I personally, couldn't care less about Kashmir, and so I tend to see the reports of violence as a waste of the combatants' time and that if 98% of the population want something, they will get it soon enough. If I read reports of many Indian casualties there, I might also say that they should just get out of Kashmir and hand it over to Pakistan. What's the point really in the Indian Hindus occupying a hostile population made up of 98% Muslims who view themselves as India's enemies?

Well, I think that many people, including the world media also see the Israeli/Palestinian problem in the same way. Unless someone actually cares about the Jewish people or the fact that there is only one Jewish state and also follows the news carefully, maybe it's just one blur of violence on both sides.

And worse yet, the Israeli/Palestinian violence potentially threatens the world's oil supply, which is even more incentive to force the parties to stop the fighting, even if Israel and the Jewish people lose big chunks of their homeland. In the eyes of the world, who cares really about Israel's borders one way or the other, so long as we can all keep on driving our SUVs loaded with cheap Arab oil. Does anyone in the world who is not Jewish really care about the settlers' right to live in the land of their forefathers? I doubt it.

I think many people and the media do, in fact, see it this way, which leads to a slant in the media and a distorted world view as if all this Mideast violence should just be forced to stop, no matter what the effect would be on Israel.

Yes, this is a weird perspective taken from the India/Pakistan dispute, but I think that's how the world views Israel and the Palestinians as well.

Comments welcome.

[cerulean]

At any given time, I've read, there are several dozen armed conflicts being waged around the world. Most we hear little about. I was at a performance a few weeks ago (by an African playwright) where the host requested donations to the Red Cross for Africa, mentioning there had been three million people killed in the Congo since 1998. I have to wonder if that's an exaggeration, but hundreds of thousands is certainly possible given the violence in the region (and in 1994, hundreds of thousands were killed within months). Not to mention what's going on in the Sudan.

It would be great to figure out a way to achieve global peace.

The criteria almost seems to be if the speaker sees Israel as having legitimate cultural expectations of being a First World country in terms of national peace, the economy, and crime. After all, Israel has a participatory democracy, a well-educated population, and more or less equal rights for women. All of those factors are lacking in the African countries mentioned. (They're also lacking in India and Pakistan.) Still, I think much of the world does not see Israel as having legitimate expectations in this regard.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
At any given time, I've read, there are several dozen armed conflicts being waged around the world.

True. There are armed conflicts and attrocities against populations in various places around the world.

But the Indian/Pakistani conflict is the most similar, IMO, to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in many ways.

[McSceptic]

You may disagree, but I think one parallel with Kashmir is the post-colonial hangover.

I understand that Kashmir was included in the Indian sector by the British because the raja was Hindu, although the population was mostly Muslim.

Both the Palestinan and Indian divisions were made by weak (and British) colonial powers who believed that the dispositions they made would be accomplished facts, regardless of the people affected. And that is as much from an Israeli as a Palestinan POV, as neither proto-state was probably viable.

I'm not convinced the Palestinan/Israeli conflict has much impact upon oil. They're a long way from the oilfields.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
Both the Palestinan and Indian divisions were made by weak (and British) colonial powers who believed that the dispositions they made would be accomplished facts, regardless of the people affected. And that is as much from an Israeli as a Palestinan POV, as neither proto-state was probably viable.

I'm not convinced the Palestinan/Israeli conflict has much impact upon oil. They're a long way from the oilfields.

That's a good observation that the British colonialists divided both India and Palestine into parts that now guarantee ongoing conflict. The divisions never should have been done in the way they were and in fact, the Brit who was involved in splitting Palestine has admitted that the whole thing was arbitrary.

As for the oil, I can say that the typical American view is that the Israeli/Arab conflict does impact oil supplies becuase they fear that the ocnflict will spread into a regional one, involving Saudi Arabia, Iran and other oil states. It's the regional implications that are the issues rather than just the Israeli/Palestinian problems in Gaza and the West Bank.

One example is the 1973 oil embargo where the Arabs balckmailed America and tried to hurt our economy after losing in the Yom Kippur War. The oil embargo caused inflated fuel prices and huge lines at gas stations.

[McSceptic]

Yes, and with similar results. There was a big involuntary population transfer between India and Pakistan (which then included Bangladesh) immediately after independence. The British have been given some stick over Indian independence, but given the motivation of the local players to separate I don’t think much else could have been done. Kashmir tho definitely looks like a mistake.

In the case of Palestine (if I may call it that), then the dispositions are even more baffling. What’s this with the Gaza strip? Given the smaller populations there should have been more opportunity to create, if not wholly independent, at least contigous ethnic areas. It still seems to be a problem now. Israel might have proposed to give up the bulk of the West Bank but it would have been seperated by Israeli controlled corridors splitting up Palestinan areas into virtual bantustans. Of course, that may have been the idea :)

The original vision for Palestine seems wholly Utopian. The only place I’ve heard of where something like that arrangement works is in the Dutch/Belgian border area.

You’re right about the oil embargo, but it hasn’t been repeated. I think the most likely causes of instability are jousting between Iran and Iraq or the internal collapse of the Gulf regimes.

[NewsGuy]

With the India/Paki border erupting with fierce fighting these days, I thought about this thread.

In what seems to be yet another parallel, the BBC reported today:

"India has produced what it says is firm evidence that Pakistan is sponsoring cross-border infiltration by militant Kashmiri separatists.
A man captured by its forces in Indian-administered Kashmir told reporters that he had received months of training from the Pakistani intelligence services before being sent to carry out a number of attacks. "

This is reminiscent of Israel's evidence against Arafat, and how in the face of clear evidence, the world will once again look away and pretend the evidence does not exist at all. This is to protect yet another beligerent Muslim entity engaged in terrorism against a peaceful neighbor.

I am now waiting for France, Belgium, Sweden and Norway to condemn India and threaten to cut off trade... :rolleyes:

[L@mplighterM]

Bold posted by NewsGuy:

I am now waiting for France, Belgium, Sweden and Norway to condemn India and threaten to cut off trade

Wont happen!

When Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was toppled by Gen. Pervez Musharraf there was much concern due to his close ties to Islamic Fundamentalism.
I believe much of the world was speculating whether Pakistan would go the way of Afghanistan.

I don’t know how the US strong-armed him into assisting them in their fight in Afghanistan. Perhaps it was opening up trade with the US and the millions they gave to his government or should I say his Swiss bank account.

Perhaps they threatened the Gen. Pervez Musharraf behind the scenes. Personally I don’t believe that there’s much love for the US in Pakistan by the general population based on interviews I've seen post 9/11.

If the US is genuinely interested in fighting terrorism Pakistan, WB and GS would be a good place to start. Recently I’ve come across a couple of articles that indicate that al Queda is setting up a base there. I believe they will be able to accomplish this because there’s an abundance of supporters in that country.

It’s difficult to access just exactly how much effort Gen. Pervez Musharraf is undertaking to prevent Islamic Fundamentalist from operating terrorist organizations in Pakistan.

[Mediocrates]

I look to the history of Ireland since 1840 for parallels of the creation of Israel. And then the history of Ireland since 1970 and the assimilation of Ireland in the EU for parallels of the politics of the modern Israeli state.

One key point, and its a European one, is that European countries, since the expansion of the EU now believe that to maintain their sovereignty is to give up most of it. For example, there is more to be gained in being less Irish than there is to be lost in being more "European". The power of the state doesn't represent much any more and the distinctions of language, cuture, religion, history only stand in the way of that force. I think this more than anything else is the root cause of EU furious objection to all things Israeli. The EU's world view is one of a post colonial world where the state and all of its identity is a rather minor footnote to history. The notion that a state would hold tenaciously onto its identity is something precisely not "European" anymore. In the old world where the foreign policy might be "make the world England" now the polity is 'make the world the same'.

And then I think that a problem with Likud and a threat to its survival is not that it is weak, but that it is strong. In fact so strong that it has not coopted the opposition. It's strength alone has created a credible opposition inside Israeli politics. But I haven't fleshed this one out yet.

[kauffner]

A majority of Kashmiris supported annexation by India in 1947 with the understanding they would get autonomy. Independence had a lot of support even at that time, but Kashmir needed Indian help to fight off an invasion by Pakistani tribesmen. In 1949, the UN Security Council called for plebicite to resolve Kashmir's status. Pakistan still demands that India hold this plebicite. Nowadays, about 50 percent of the population wants independence, with the rest mostly supporting union with Pakistan. There are significant Hindu (8%) and Buddhist minorities who favor remaining part of India.

In 1953, the Indian central government decided the integrate Kashmir into India and arrested the autonomy leaders. New Delhi allowed the leaders of the autonomy movement to regain power in 1975, but deposed them again in 1984. Pakistani-backed separatists began an uprising in 1989 which continues to the present day.

In contrast, the West Bank's role in the Arab-Israeli dispute is primarily as a base for the Arabs to launch attacks on Israel. Jerusalem is where Arafat wants to send millions of "martyrs." Even a Palestinian-ruled Jerusalem would not be enough to satisfy Hamas, PFLP, or their Iranian and Iraqi backers.

[cerulean]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/30/opinion/30RUSH.html

[cerulean]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/30/opinion/30SAFI.html

All one can do is hope for the best, I suppose.

My high-school history said almost two decades ago that WWIII was most likely to break out on the India-Pakistan border.

[JustPat]

I see one major difference here, it appears the Pakistani's actually want the people of Kashmir to be part of them. In order for the parallel to work, those of Kashmir would have to be abandoned and rejected by their brothers. They then would have to declare India to be their land and be fanatical about blowing themselves up in the midst of Indian marketplaces to prove it.

Does Kashmir have a corrupt would be government in place refusing to negotiate with the Indians? Is Kashmir on the UN list of most favored pet projects? Soes the rest of the world rise to defend Kashmir every time India "makes and incursion" into the land? No.

What is missing from the parallel is the bigoted animosity that is felt toward the Jews. It isn't about land or money or power. It's about those danged Jews. If OBL is to be believed, it is even more basic, it is about whose G-d is bigger. When He responds to that challenge, everyone will know! :)

[kauffner]

Originally posted by JustPat
I see one major difference here, it appears the Pakistani's actually want the people of Kashmir to be part of them.

I don't see this difference as significant. The Kashmiris want autonomy or independence. Joining Pakistan isn't going to happen.

They then would have to declare India to be their land and be fanatical about blowing themselves up in the midst of Indian marketplaces to prove it.

They've already attacked the Indian Parliament. If the problem keeps festering, the appearence of suicide bombers is just a matter of time.

Does Kashmir have a corrupt would be government in place refusing to negotiate with the Indians?

I think here you are getting at the real difference. The overwhelming majority of Kashmiris would be satisfied with autonomy within India. The Palestinians have autonomy, have been offered more, but respond only with increased terrorism.

[Vic]

Bomb rips bus, kills four in Indonesia

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=06062002-075046-7031r


JAKARTA, Indonesia, June 6 (UPI) -- A bomb that ripped apart a crowded passenger bus in central Indonesia killed four people and injured 17 others, police and health officials said Thursday.

The incident was the worst to hit Central Sulawesi since warring factions signed a peace agreement in December to end two years of violence between Muslims and Christians.

...

Two years of sectarian violence fueled by the presence of the militant Islamic group Laskar Jihad have left between 500 and 1,000 people dead and forced thousands of others to flee the region. Roughly equal numbers of Muslims and Christians live in Poso.

Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, has been wracked by social and sectarian violence since former President Suharto was forced to resign in May 1998 after 30 years in power. According to official figures, thousands have died and nearly a million others have been displaced.

Nearly 85 percent of Indonesia, a secular state, is Muslim.

[Mr. Pumps]

Letkeep on track here people. You may write off the Palestinians in technology. and civilization, but who defeated the greatest military power on earth, the U.S.S.R, ahhhh.. Islamic troops did.

I remember reading a book dating from the 1970's, In it it had impressive figures of the Soviet army i.e 40,000+ T-72, T-64, T-62,T-55 MBT, 20, 000 Artillery pieces and so on.

In 1979 that bunch of Statistics meant nothing as the "Primitive" Muslim fighter gave the most formable army in the world nightmares for Twenty years. Until the Humiliating withdrawal in 1989 and the collapse of the U.S.S.R from be defeat by the "Primative" Muslims. And to add salt to that wound Russia is agian fight agianst the same kind of enemy and is agian in a position of defeat in Chechnya.

And now in kashmir, I am horrified at the situation as 750, 000 troops station in the territory, the single largest volenteer army in the world, can't decimate a few thousand fighters...... 750,000 troops! THAT IS INCREDIBLE!. India claims
the resistence in Kashmir are terrorist acts. Well I call it total Stupidity...how can you not destroy a few thousand with 750,000 Men. And that recent attack on a Indian Army base by "Primative" Muslim was a disaster for the Indian Army.

[kauffner]

Mr. Pumps: The Palestinians supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but you make it sound like were on the winning team. Afghanistan's Islamic warriors weren't terribly impressive in last year's fighting. Without U.S. assistance, they would not have posed much of a challenge to the Soviets in the 1980s. Russia's military fell apart after the collapse the the Soviet Union, so the Chechens didn't face anything like the military force that the Afghans did.

[cerulean]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2044000/2044359.stm

The southern Pakistani city of Karachi has been rocked by a huge explosion near the US consulate, with initial reports of four people being killed.
Several others are said to have been injured.

The blast is thought to have been caused by a bomb in a car placed near the US consulate building.

Relief work at the site has begun and it is feared the number of casualties may rise.

A recent car bomb attack outside the Sheraton hotel in Karachi in May killed 11 French nationals and three Pakistanis.

Pakistani police suspect the Sheraton bombing was the work of the al-Qaeda network.

[Vic]

Remember this one?

Suicide Bombing Is Contagious
By RANAN R. LURIE

http://supportisrael2.blogspot.com/2002_03_17_supportisrael2_archive.html#10824639

[L@mplighterM]

It was a Tunesia type of an attack. The bomber drove an explosive laden car into the guard post near the consular building.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Vic
Remember this one?

Suicide Bombing Is Contagious
By RANAN R. LURIE

http://supportisrael2.blogspot.com/2002_03_17_supportisrael2_archive.html#10824639

How come only Islamic Fundamentalists/ Fanatics catch it?

[cerulean]

I hadn't paid much attention to Sri Lanka, but then I noticed
Norway is involved in trying to settle the Sri Lanka imbroglio:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_2011000/2011115.stm

I took a quick look in the newsgroups and I saw at least one Sri Lankan complaining Norway was supporting terrorists. I don't know if this is valid or not.

Making an analogy to the Israeli situation, I was thinking that I would like to know more about what is happening in Sri Lanka. I realized I did not have a clue what the biases of various news organizations would be in respect to Sri Lanka. An instinctive thought that came to mind was what solution would be best for someone I know who is from Sri Lanka (and a Hindu).

Thus for someone who hasn't spent years thinking and reading about a particular political situation (like Israel), it is difficult to figure out where to start.

[elke]

Exactly, Cerulean! That's why we need to answer Takeo and Morpheus, Stephen Nichols and Peacelover, etal. In fact, I am not so sure that those guys were not caught unawares by the propaganda machine, and that's why we have a problem with them in the first place. How much of the "factual" information they post is half-true at best? Their actual sentiments, when taken at their face value, are not really different from anyone else. The trouble is that they excuse terrorism and barbarity "under certain circumstances".

We need to fight the language used the most, I believe, because it does come down to emotion. No matter how much we like to think of humans as driven by reason, it's only partially true. The real mover is emotion, and the other side knows it well - and uses that fact incessantly. We need to learn to either counteract it, or come across with our own indignation.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by elke
Exactly, Cerulean! That's why we need to answer Takeo and Morpheus, Stephen Nichols and Peacelover, etal. In fact, I am not so sure that those guys were not caught unawares by the propaganda machine, and that's why we have a problem with them in the first place. How much of the "factual" information they post is half-true at best? Their actual sentiments, when taken at their face value, are not really different from anyone else. The trouble is that they excuse terrorism and barbarity "under certain circumstances".

We need to fight the language used the most, I believe, because it does come down to emotion. No matter how much we like to think of humans as driven by reason, it's only partially true. The real mover is emotion, and the other side knows it well - and uses that fact incessantly. We need to learn to either counteract it, or come across with our own indignation. I agree. But what how do you respond when they refuse to consider any opinion that opposes theirs? Adamant in their position, based on fact or fiction, they are willing to debate to the death the justification of thier point. How do you reason with someone who refuses to be reasonable?

[elke]

Originally posted by JustPat
I agree. But what how do you respond when they refuse to consider any opinion that opposes theirs? Adamant in their position, based on fact or fiction, they are willing to debate to the death the justification of thier point. How do you reason with someone who refuses to be reasonable?

That's OK, because they are not really the target audience at this point. To me, the battle is not for the minds and hearts of the convinced, but rather for the "oscillators'". These are people who have no axe to grind, or not much of one, so they are open to reason. I think that exposing such people to Takeo's arguments, with the counterarguments from someone like NewsGuy, would actually be MORE beneficial than just NewsGuy's arguments alone. But we can't leave Takeo's arguments stand, that's the key.

I suppose, just like you don't fight a full blown war with just infantry, but add the air force, marines, what have you to support them (if this is patently wrong, please forgive! I know NOTHING of military things! :o ) we do need someone with a melodramatic flair, to match up with Cruelty types.

[Vic]

Originally posted by cerulean
Making an analogy to the Israeli situation, I was thinking that I would like to know more about what is happening in Sri Lanka. I realized I did not have a clue what the biases of various news organizations would be in respect to Sri Lanka. An instinctive thought that came to mind was what solution would be best for someone I know who is from Sri Lanka (and a Hindu).

Thus for someone who hasn't spent years thinking and reading about a particular political situation (like Israel), it is difficult to figure out where to start. You can try this site http://www.oneworld.net (it contains tons of material on Third World countries) for a starting point. Horribly confusing though, it will take anyone days if not weeks to sort things out.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by elke
... we can't leave Takeo's arguments stand, that's the key.
...we do need someone with a melodramatic flair, to match up with Cruelty types. Elke, you are so right. I just get to the point where I feel like we are playing out the scene in Monty Python where the knight has been dismembered and is still looking for a fight. Takeo and his crowd will never be convinced, but that isn't always apparent at the outset. After some discussion where you try and be rational and logical, it becomes apparent that they are just here to stir, and stir they do.

I don't mind opposing opinions; I actually think it healthy. I love to be pressed to prove what I believe. As a scientist, it is my reason for existence; as a spiritual leader, it is the prover of my faith. I'm not afraid of a good fight. I can duke it out with the best of them, pacifist that I am. :D What I don't like is someone who isn't serious about discussing the matter who wants to sucker punch you and run. There are many great minds on this forum. I feel privileged to be premitted to join in the debate.

[Mediocrates]

Here is a lesson that is vitally important to learn.

Fight your fight, make your arguments, articulate your plans. Do not waste an awful lot of time arguing someone else's point or defending yourself against arbitrary criticism. That is not their tactic nor should it be yours. Do not entertain some of the oppositions arguments unless you truly believe them yourself and want to incorporate them as your own. Coopt them because there is nothing such as a little bit or terrorism or an acceptable amount of murder. There is no such thing is vague promises and hoping. There is your position and of that you must be utterly convinced. Each time you entertain "well maybe about this one thing..." you have lost you have been coopted and your words will come to haunt you.

The great thing about propaganda is that it truly makes strange bedfellows but that doesn't mean you have to marry them for life. I for one am appalled by some of the news outlets I find myself championing but understand that the message is more important than the messenger.

Good Hunting!!!