Ron Paul is still right, and you are still wrong.

[Richard Masters]

Profile in Courage (http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/profile-in-cour.html)

Ron Paul was the sole vote in the House against a resolution that condemned the Palestinians for shooting rockets at Israel, and supported Israel's attacks on the Palestinians. Paul was brief and eloquent on the floor:

I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the U.S. and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the U.S. attack on that country.

The vote was 404-1. Some day this vote will be in history books, as evidence of the miserable imbalance in our foreign policy.

[mortimer]

Are you asserting that the following passage "support[s] Israel's attacks on Palestinians"? Or am I missing something?

(3) supports the sovereign right of the Government of Israel to defend its territory against attacks;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.951.EH:

[ZenFountain]

If Mexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on Paul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

Whereas these deliberate cross-border rocket and mortar attacks on civilian populations constitute a blatant violation of human rights and international law;

Whereas those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields;

Whereas intentionally targeting civilian populations and the use of human shields violates international humanitarian and human rights law;

(1) strongly condemns--

(A) Hamas, which controls Gaza, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations for the ongoing rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and continued human rights violations;

(B) state sponsors of terror, such as Iran and Syria, for enabling Palestinian terrorist organizations to carry out attacks against innocent Israeli civilians; and

(C) the use of innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields by those who carry out rocket and other attacks;

(4) expresses sympathy and support for innocent Palestinian civilians who reject all forms of terrorism and desire to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors but who continue to be utilized as human shields by terrorist organizations;

[NeoRicen]

Yeah because firing rockets at Israel was such a nice thing to do.

Israel has its problems, but the actions and words of its opponents are quite often outright absurd. Just because Israel has done bad things, doesn't mean attacks on it shouldn't be condemned. Condemn Israel's attacks too, don't avoid condemning these attacks too.

[Richard Masters]

Are you asserting that the following passage "support[s] Israel's attacks on Palestinians"? Or am I missing something?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.951.EH:

I believe the author of the article was referring to a different line in which Congress excuses the civilian deaths.

Regardless, the resolution is very one-sided.

[Richard Masters]

If Mexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on Paul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

I'm sorry, but your response is non-sequitur and illogical.

Israel is not the United States. Standing up for Israel has little to do with defending our sovereignty. There is no reason to believe Ron Paul would not defend our sovereignty. Unless you can't read a map.

[Richard Masters]

Yeah because firing rockets at Israel was such a nice thing to do.

Israel has its problems, but the actions and words of its opponents are quite often outright absurd. Just because Israel has done bad things, doesn't mean attacks on it shouldn't be condemned. Condemn Israel's attacks too, don't avoid condemning these attacks too.

I've noticed you've become a lot more reasonable lately.

[WildCat]

I'm sorry, but your response is non-sequitur and illogical.
Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

If Mexico decided to try to take back Texas, using guerilla militias to launch random attacks on civilian targets, what would Ron Paul do?

[HereticHulk]

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

If Mexico decided to try to take back Texas, using guerilla militias to launch random attacks on civilian targets, what would Ron Paul do?

I think IF represents the lameness of your reply.

[LibraryLady]

Because this does not directly address the U.S. Presidential election, it has been moved to Politics.

[davefoc]

While I tend to have Ron Paul like views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I am not sure I agree with his vote here.

The rocket attacks from the Gaza strip on Israel seem to have little purpose other than killing Israelis and escalating violence. They ensure the death of hundreds of Palestinians and the destabilization of the lives of thousands of other Palestinians, they work to reduce world sympathy for the Palestinian cause and of course they serve to buoy up the idiotic policies of the US with regard to the dispute.

The Israelis voluntarily ended their immoral and ill conceived attempt to colonize the Gaza strip. That was a good thing and if Hamas had the courage to attempt good governance, the Israelis and the Paletinians might have both profited from the Israeli withdrawal. Instead, at least for the time being, Hamas has showed no such courage and just pushes forth with an agenda of mindless violence. And this is something that I think is reasonable to condemn them for.

Of course, Israel, pushes forward with its immoral colonial practices that are just as much of an act of war as the Hamas rocket attacks. And any American resolution that doesn't condemn Israel for this is just a piece of typical American duplicity on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and I can at least sympathize with Paul for not wanting his name on something like that.

[Richard Masters]

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

If Mexico decided to try to take back Texas, using guerilla militias to launch random attacks on civilian targets, what would Ron Paul do?

That's still not consistent with the analogy, at all. So it's not "right on".

How Ron Paul refuses to take sides unfairly in a third party conflict has little bearing in your hypothetical scenario.

[Jonnyclueless]

Another reminder of why I didn't even consider Ron Paul let alone remember he was even running.

[Just thinking]

Another reminder of why I didn't even consider Ron Paul let alone remember he was even running.

And people call McCain a maverick?? :rolleyes:

[KoihimeNakamura]

:dl:

Seriously. I laugh at thy strawman.

[dudalb]

Just another reason why it is a good thing that Ron Paul will never get near the presidency.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry, but your response is non-sequitur and illogical.

Israel is not the United States. Standing up for Israel has little to do with defending our sovereignty. There is no reason to believe Ron Paul would not defend our sovereignty. Unless you can't read a map.

I seem to be hearing from you that the US has no role in the process by which the Pals and Israelis find a way toward dealing with each other in a less sanguinary manner.

If the US is too biased, which the US might well be, who do you suggest as a moderator, an honest third party?

The Japanese?

DR

[dudalb]

And has the OP ever started ONE Thread here whose purpose was not to sing the praises of Ron The Great?

[Checkmite]

Profile in Courage (http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/profile-in-cour.html)

Ron Paul was the sole vote in the House against a resolution that condemned the Palestinians for shooting rockets at Israel, and supported Israel's attacks on the Palestinians. Paul was brief and eloquent on the floor:

I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the U.S. and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the U.S. attack on that country.

The vote was 404-1. Some day this vote will be in history books, as evidence of the miserable imbalance in our foreign policy.

Perhaps the only major political point of Paul's I ever agreed with is demonstrated by this statement of his; I also believe Israel owes some effort of action toward establishing peace with its neighbors.

However, I disagree with you. This vote will be forgotten and dismissed, as unimportant as most everything else Paul has "accomplished" (I use the term loosely). A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it is still broken and therefore useless.

[Just thinking]

... A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it is still broken and therefore useless.

A fact overlooked all too often after pointing out the first half.

[WildCat]

And has the OP ever started ONE Thread here whose purpose was not to sing the praises of Ron The Great?
But from now on they'll have to be in Politics, and not in 2008 USA Presidential Elections!

:wave1

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can't be bothered to read the thread, but since it is about Ron Paul, I'm going to assume the laughing dog is appropriate.

:dl:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?

[Richard Masters]

I seem to be hearing from you that the US has no role in the process by which the Pals and Israelis find a way toward dealing with each other in a less sanguinary manner.

If the US is too biased, which the US might well be, who do you suggest as a moderator, an honest third party?

The Japanese?

DR

I'm not suggesting a moderator at all. I think moderators cause more problems than they solve. Especially when they are highly biased.

Are we helping the Palestinians and Israelis find a less sanguinary manner? Or are we creating more problems in the Middle East?

[Richard Masters]

And has the OP ever started ONE Thread here whose purpose was not to sing the praises of Ron The Great?

The Original Poster has, indeed.

Where are the moderators when you really need one? Try to stay on topic, will you?

[WildCat]

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?
You don't think WWII had anything to do with the creation of Israel?

[Richard Masters]

Perhaps the only major political point of Paul's I ever agreed with is demonstrated by this statement of his; I also believe Israel owes some effort of action toward establishing peace with its neighbors.



However, I disagree with you. This vote will be forgotten and dismissed, as unimportant as most everything else Paul has "accomplished" (I use the term loosely).

Those aren't my words, either. I was quoting someone who quoted Ron Paul. I mostly agree with you that the vote will be forgotten and dismissed.

(1) Because Ron Paul is the sole dissenter quite often. So this vote isn't too salient.

(2) Because there is a tendency to see all of our actions in foreign matters as justified.

Although I disagree with the moral of this fable, I think it is appropriate to bring up in this case, as the hypocrisy (not yours) is astounding.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3486462

[Richard Masters]

I can't be bothered to read the thread, but since it is about Ron Paul, I'm going to assume the laughing dog is appropriate.

I can't bother to read your post, but I'm going to assume your laughing dog is inappropriate.

[dudalb]

WHy are so many Ronulans so arrogant toward people who disagree with them?

[Richard Masters]

But from now on they'll have to be in Politics, and not in 2008 USA Presidential Elections!

:wave1

Not necessarily.

[Richard Masters]

WHy are so many Ronulans so arrogant toward people who disagree with them?

I don't know if that is the case. You always criticize Ron Paul and his supporters by making thoughtless statements. Then someone shows your criticisms to apply to yourself and you go away for a while.

For example here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3425964#post3425964).

I think the Original Poster was right on.

[Jonnyclueless]

You don't think WWII had anything to do with the creation of Israel?

I think it might be more fair to say "recreation" otherwise it might implies Israel never existed before. We wouldn't want to offend Abraham or Jacob. ;-)

[Spindrift]

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War

[WildCat]

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War
Technically, that was after Israel was created. But Britain gained the territory in WWI, and gave it up as a homeland for Jews after WWII.

[dudalb]

Which war was Israel created during? The one in India?


History is not exactly Jerome's strongpoint, is it?

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not suggesting a moderator at all. I think moderators cause more problems than they solve. Especially when they are highly biased.

Are we helping the Palestinians and Israelis find a less sanguinary manner? Or are we creating more problems in the Middle East?
Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased. Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter? Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

[davefoc]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased. Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter? Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

An interesting question.

The first question might be whether there is any useful function that a mediator could fulfill, biased or not. One advantage of the US is that it has money that it is willing to throw around so both parties have some reason to listen to them.

But, IMHO, the US involvement is completely counterproductive toward a goal of establishing a peaceful resolution. The US position is so dominated by internal politics and almost unrelenting pro-Israel bias that almost all American involvement in the dispute only serves to intensify the conflict. The American taxpayer has spent hundreds of billions of dollars ostensibly to help the Israels and the Palestinians and promote peace. If that really was the goal, then obviously the American aid has been useless and it is hard to imagine a productive role for American negotiators.

So who else? A sense of fairness about the conflict is not enough, neither side is likely to listen to a mediator without some incentives to back up his ideas and clearly deep pockets is not enough because American aid without any sense of fairness has not been enough.

If somebody makes me the god of solving the Israeli/Palestinian dispute I might go with one of two ideas:

1. Get the hell out and let them figure this out for themselves.

2. Some sort of Western European consortium with some euros to provide incentives for cooperation between the two.

There is a third idea which seems so unlikely to happen that it seems useless to suggest it, but here it is.

The US stops sending arms and money to Israel. It puts the money in an escrow account as part of a massive reward to be divided up between the Palestinians and the Israelis when a peace agreement is in place that is accepted by at least 75% of both populations. The US and all other foreign parties do not play an active role in the negotiations. Whatever the Palestinians and the Israels decide about how to divide up the land, the holy sites and the peace incentive is up to them. Israel could for instance give up all the peace incentive in return for Palestinian acceptance of some territorial concessions.

[UserGoogol]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

I don't think it's a dodge. He said "The United States should not get involved in conflicts of which it is not a part." You said "If the US is too biased, who would be an unbiased third party?" He said "There should not be third parties in the first place." Not to put words in his mouth, but I imagine he might say that an unbiased third party does not exist, since everyone has their own interests, but whatever. Something horrible that people do far too often on this message board (not limited to any particular side of arguments) is to force people to answer questions. If a person thinks a question is irrelevant, then that's their right to think that. Debates should be civil exchanges of ideas, and if one person is not civil, then the other person should just be even more civil to compensate.

[Richard Masters]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Nice attempt at asking a loaded non-sequitur question twice.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased.

I did answer your question. I told you I do not suggest any third party to mediate. Why must there be a mediator?

Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter?

Everyone is biased.

Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

No one. However you insist on finding a third party to mediate, which is really beside the point. What you should do is examine that hidden assumption.


Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

Not hard. Just beside the point and loaded with illogical assumptions.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You don't think WWII had anything to do with the creation of Israel?

Your are claiming WWII and the war for Texas independence are equal in relation to the creation of Texas and Israel. You are certainly confused.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

History is not exactly Jerome's strongpoint, is it?

You fail here. I caught Wildcat in a ridiculous equivocation and you are going along with it.

:gnome:

[KoihimeNakamura]

If Mexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on Paul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

The analogy is this: (bolded parts what it should have read and did for most of us)

If HamasMexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on IsrealPaul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

[Richard Masters]

The analogy is this: (bolded parts what it should have read and did for most of us)

So the analogy is a cynical comment disguised as a straw man fallacy?

Not to mention: highly improbable and irrelevant.

ETA: By the way, that's how I read the "analogy". It still doesn't make sense, except as a weak "argument" based on faulty premises.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Your reading is most probably incorrect.

[WildCat]

Your are claiming WWII and the war for Texas independence are equal in relation to the creation of Texas and Israel. You are certainly confused.
Way to move the goal posts Jerome.

Without wars (2 wars in Israel's case), neither would have been created.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Way to move the goal posts Jerome.

Without wars (2 wars in Israel's case), neither would have been created.

Weak attempt to shift the burden. Your statement, your goal posts, your fail. :)

[Darth Rotor]

I did answer your question. I told you I do not suggest any third party to mediate. Why must there be a mediator?

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

[davefoc]

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

The reason that I listed get the hell out and let them figure it out for themselves is that I thought it might work so it is possible that I agree with Richard Masters on this.

My thought is that the influence of the US has been to work to maintain the conflict and that if the US and other parties just got out of the way both sides might move towards peace just because it was in their interest even without mediators. The US has assured that peace is not in the interest of either side. The US essentially bankrolls Israel's expansion and a good part of their military. It is questionable whether the US would continue to fund this thing if peace broke out.

Conversely, the Palestinians get a fair amount of money from the US and Europe, some more from their fellow Arabs. How excited is their leadership about the prospects for peace when a lot of their funding might disappear with it.

So maybe they don't need a mediator as much as they need the US and others to stop subsidizing the violence.

And what's the downside if the idea was wrong? Israel would suffer a bit economically as the US gravy train was cutoff. What would the Palestinians do? Well to begin with, they might figure out that if they came remotely close to putting Israel at substantial risk they would be wiped out so maybe they would acquire a sense of reality about that. The Israelis might figure out that subsidizing whacko colonists to constantly harass the Palestinians and steal their land wasn't such a cool idea without the Americans to subsidize the non-sense.

Right now the prospects for a Palestinian/Israeli peace are almost zero with the US constantly mucking about with the situation. Maybe it's time to try something else. The problem is that for the foreseeable America is completely tied to its policies towards Israel. Both political parties are so invested in the failed strategy and both political parties are so profoundly controlled by the special interest groups that push the American policy forward that I have almost no hope for Palestinian/Israeli peace in my lifetime.

[Chaos]

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

Honest question here... do you think it would be feasible for the US to agree to lend its (financial and military) muscle to some third-party mediator who is recognized both as being interested in peace and as not having a stake in either party coming out ahead in an eventual peaceful solution?

[Jonnyclueless]

It's pretty hard to have an agreement when one sides requirement is the complete removal of the other. I highly doubt the other side will concede and agre to destroy itself.

[davefoc]

It's pretty hard to have an agreement when one sides requirement is the complete removal of the other. I highly doubt the other side will concede and agre to destroy itself.

And from this little piece of self serving clap trap all the land grabbing, harassment and mistreatment of the Palestinians is justified.

Nothing could have made my point better than this. The Israelis subsidize and expand their colonies, it pisses off the Palestinians and constant conflict is assured as long as the Americans continue to pay for it.

There is no doubt that the various whackos that make up a part of Israel would continue to push for the complete confiscation of all Palestinian lands and there is no doubt that the various wackos that make up a part of the Palestinians would continue to push for the elimination of all Jews from Israel under any plausible scenario short of the complete annihilation of one side or the other. But how much power would the various whacko groups have if the US and others didn't subsidize their violence? My simple premise is that when peace provides more economic opportunities than war it is possible that peace might come to Israel.

[Jonnyclueless]

And from this little piece of self serving clap trap all the land grabbing, harassment and mistreatment of the Palestinians is justified.

Nothing could have made my point better than this. The Israelis subsidize and expand their colonies, it pisses off the Palestinians and constant conflict is assured as long as the Americans continue to pay for it.

There is no doubt that the various whackos that make up a part of Israel would continue to push for the complete confiscation of all Palestinian lands and there is no doubt that the various wackos that make up a part of the Palestinians would continue to push for the elimination of all Jews from Israel under any plausible scenario short of the complete annihilation of one side or the other. But how much power would the various whacko groups have if the US and others didn't subsidize their violence? My simple premise is that when peace provides more economic opportunities than war it is possible that peace might come to Israel.

Oh yeah, this whole war has only to do with the land Israel took after being attacked to create a buffer zone. Yeah and all they have to do is return the land and there will be peace. I don't think there is enough pot in the world to all for that one.

Just as this notion that Israel's goal is to take Palestinian land. Of course for the same reason that the bad guys tie damsel's to railroad tracks. Simply to be diabolical.

And a nice solution of taking away some of the support that helps prevent groups like Hamas from trying to destroy Israel. We already know what would happen without such support. Thats the PURPOSE in us giving them support. Hamas has made no confusion about their intent and if they had the power, they would wipe Israel off the map. There will never be peace here and the notion that it's somehow Israel's fault is absurd. Both sides have their faults.

[beachnut]

I see his statement as a poor attempt to veil his antisemitism. 1 to 404?

[Richard Masters]

OK, I'll dumb it down.

The parties involved do not trust each other, and do not negotiate without a third party getting involved.

You are still making the assumption that a mediator will solve the issue.

IF the parties, Pals (one or two of them) and Israelis, mostly one party, are to work out any sort of deal, a mediator would be a handy way to achieve that end.

See Camp David, Sadat's Egypt, and Israel for a modest example of a modest success. Granted, the mediator did offer a bribe, which your tax dollars and mine are still paying to both sides.

What incentive do the Pals, or the Israelis, have to negotiate? Who provides it?

As davefoc commented, the US gives them an incentive to continue fighting by subsidizing their violence. Thus, your assumption that a mediator is going to make things better has been shown to be at least partially false, at least in the case of the United States.

If you have written off the prospect of the parties ever working out some kind of deal, fine, welcome to the club of "Y'all kill one another all you like, let us know when you are done."

I have not written off the prospect of the parties working out a deal. But as davefoc has pointed out, the United States is an obstacle. Additionally, I don't have blind faith on magically solving the problem by merely having a mediator.

Now, if a hypothetical mediator were fairly neutral, and more importantly, had a strategy for reducing violence without blatantly taking sides, I might certainly endorse said hypothetical mediator.

Here, have some popcorn.

DR

If Israel or Palestine are committing unfair acts they should certainly suffer the consequences of their actions as a disincentive. Our tax money and unbalanced actions in the Middle East have instead been an incentive for violence.

[Richard Masters]

I see his statement as a poor attempt to veil his antisemitism. 1 to 404?

By that logic, I see your statement as a poor attempt to veil your anti-Arabism.

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course, it's always someone else's fault for the violence in the Middle East. Isn't that what these debates are always about anyways? Who can we blame. And clearly without Israel or the US, the Middle East would be at perfect peace.

These are excuses to justify violence. They aren't the cause of it. Just like we can say that cartoons are an incentive for violence. Or letting women walk around uncovered is incentive for violence. And women dressing suggestively is incentive for rape.

[Richard Masters]

Of course, it's always someone else's fault for the violence in the Middle East. Isn't that what these debates are always about anyways? Who can we blame. And clearly without Israel or the US, the Middle East would be at perfect peace.

These are excuses to justify violence. They aren't the cause of it. Just like we can say that cartoons are an incentive for violence. Or letting women walk around uncovered is incentive for violence. And women dressing suggestively is incentive for rape.

Those you listed above are not incentives. They are factors sometimes used as excuses.

Money for violence is an incentive and a factor.

Additionally, blame or cause attribution is multifactorial. The bulk of the blame for the violence in the Middle East goes to those committing the violence. Some of the blame also goes to those creating the conditions for said violence.

I can blame our politicians for misusing our tax-money. Of course, the people who voted for these politicians are also partially to blame.

[Jonnyclueless]

The are incentive by your earlier standards. Trying to claim that the violence is simply the result of someone else creating those conditions? It's ********. While outside factors have an influence, that's all it is. It's not a cause. And there will always be violence no matter what is done, and those creating the violence will always have an excuse for it.

Again, it's like saying that women dressing suggestively deserve some of the blame for rape. Simply because the rapist claims it as their motive. Trying to bend to those creating the violence is not the answer. Hey, maybe if we would just give criminals our belongings they would stop robbing us. Maybe if we would stop locking money up in banks and gave it to robbers they would stop robbing us.

And there's no winning. If we were to not be in the middle east then we would be criticized for not helping. While the US has done many wrong things, that's inevitable. But people are simply using the US's position as a scape goat. An easy target to blame for everyone's problems. And they would do it no matter what policies were in place. that's the down side to being the biggest target. Same reason Microsoft in the computer world is the most criticized. They are the biggest target.

The violent people will be violent no matter what. It just helps to have a scape goat.

[davefoc]

Oh yeah, this whole war has only to do with the land Israel took after being attacked to create a buffer zone.

I suppose this is a sarcastic comment implying that you think that Israel only grabs land as a matter of its national security. If that is what you believe then I doubt there is anything that I could say to change your mind. It is so obviously not true that only an individual that willingly embraces self delusion could believe it.


Yeah and all they have to do is return the land and there will be peace. I don't think there is enough pot in the world to all for that one.


I have never seen an Israel critic make that claim. It is common for the Israeli apologists to put it forth as a strawman argument though. Generations of conflict were guaranteed when a bunch of Europeans thought it would be cool to create a colony for European Jews on land occupied by others. Peace is not a likely prospect for years to come no matter what Israel does.


And a nice solution of taking away some of the support that helps prevent groups like Hamas from trying to destroy Israel. We already know what would happen without such support. Thats the PURPOSE in us giving them support. Hamas has made no confusion about their intent and if they had the power, they would wipe Israel off the map. There will never be peace here and the notion that it's somehow Israel's fault is absurd. Both sides have their faults.

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

[davefoc]

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

This last paragraph embarrasses me. I do not think it is accurate. I think I fell into the trap of overstating my case because I am more comfortable with a black and white situation than the reality of a situation with shades of gray.

Israel is obviously not without enemies of substantial military capability and I do not believe that military and economic aid to Israel is completely without benefit to the US.

Despite these facts, I continue to believe that the American aid to Israel is driven principally by politics and that it for the most part has a destabilizing effect on the conflict and given the nature of the American aid it is in net more harmful than beneficial to most Americans and it is in net more harmful than beneficial to the average Israeli.

[JoeEllison]

What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.
This last paragraph embarrasses me. I do not think it is accurate. I think I fell into the trap of overstating my case because I am more comfortable with a black and white situation than the reality of a situation with shades of gray.

Israel is obviously not without enemies of substantial military capability and I do not believe that military and economic aid to Israel is completely without benefit to the US.

Despite these facts, I continue to believe that the American aid to Israel is driven principally by politics and that it for the most part has a destabilizing effect on the conflict and given the nature of the American aid it is in net more harmful than beneficial to most Americans and it is in net more harmful than beneficial to the average Israeli.

I think that, combined, these two comments point out a fundamental flaw in America's strategy in this conflict. America is basically funding and pushing Israel in a "Israel vs. the entire Middle East" direction, which is not entirely incorrect. The flaw arises from the fact that the Palestinians don't represent the entire Middle East, and don't enjoy the support of the entire region, when it comes to financial support for growth and development. So in the current situation, we have such a large asymmetry in place, that asymmetrical warfare including terrorism is really the only option given to the Palestinians.

From my perspective, whatever money given to Israel by America should be matched by money to Palestinians, and fast-tracked by the immediate creation of a unified Palestine(and Israeli ambitions be damned!) The Palestinians already have something worth dying for(and Israeli behavior makes them believe they'll die whether they resist or not), so why not give them something to live for?

We have the ability to provide hope. Hope beats hopelessness any day, and hopelessness has got to be a main contributor to suicide attacks.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think that, combined, these two comments point out a fundamental flaw in America's strategy in this conflict. America is basically funding and pushing Israel in a "Israel vs. the entire Middle East" direction, which is not entirely incorrect. The flaw arises from the fact that the Palestinians don't represent the entire Middle East, and don't enjoy the support of the entire region, when it comes to financial support for growth and development. So in the current situation, we have such a large asymmetry in place, that asymmetrical warfare including terrorism is really the only option given to the Palestinians.

From my perspective, whatever money given to Israel by America should be matched by money to Palestinians, and fast-tracked by the immediate creation of a unified Palestine(and Israeli ambitions be damned!) The Palestinians already have something worth dying for(and Israeli behavior makes them believe they'll die whether they resist or not), so why not give them something to live for?

We have the ability to provide hope. Hope beats hopelessness any day, and hopelessness has got to be a main contributor to suicide attacks.


Why should America be paying any nation?

[Jonnyclueless]

I suppose this is a sarcastic comment implying that you think that Israel only grabs land as a matter of its national security. If that is what you believe then I doubt there is anything that I could say to change your mind. It is so obviously not true that only an individual that willingly embraces self delusion could believe it.

As opposed to your implication that they grab land to oppress people in the off season from tying helpless damsels to railroad tracks. And I see you are here because you think it's been bestowed upon you to change people's minds. Keep living a fantasy.


I have never seen an Israel critic make that claim. It is common for the Israeli apologists to put it forth as a strawman argument though. Generations of conflict were guaranteed when a bunch of Europeans thought it would be cool to create a colony for European Jews on land occupied by others. Peace is not a likely prospect for years to come no matter what Israel does.

So you like to blame the whole issue on Israel taking the land, but yet don't think that it's because Israel took the land? And did you call me delusional earlier? Now THAT is irony.

Oh and I am an apologist now because I don't go along with your ******** arguments trying to pretend that the whole issue is about Israel having that land? It's kind of funny seeing you use a strawman argument to claim a strawman argument.

Maybe, just MAYBE you might want to learn a little history first. Israel did not begin after WWII. It began before recorded history. The Jews lived there before Islam or Christianity ever existed. So let's cut the crap here and stop living in a fantasy. Stop pretending that they just picked a random piece of land to put all the displaced Jews. They chose Israel because it is their homeland.

This is the problem. People like you who don't understand the situation and simply using it as a political tool. How can you have an argument about this if you don't even understand the issue in the first place?



What do you think would happen if Israel wasn't given billions of dollars of military equipment by the US every year? You think Hamas would rise up and defeat Israel? You seem to believe the spin that Israel needs massive amounts of arms to defeat its lightly armed opponents. The purpose of the arms that the US gives to the Israelis is to make the US arms industry happy. It not only has a ready market for the arms that the US government buys to give to Israel it makes more money when other countries decide they need some of that stuff too. Over all a win win for them and a win for the Israeli expansionists who are economically shielded from the costs of their shenanigans. But a disaster for the average Israeli and an endless and completely without benefit drain on the American taxpayer.

What would happen? They would suffer much greater losses in lives due to the constant attacks. But what is the point in this question? Why would you think that I think Hamas would defeat Israel? And why is this an issue? Why do you have a problem with Israel being given aide?

And it's not about defeating their opponents. That is what you call spin. And more ironic since you are accusing me of spin, when YOU are the one spinning BS. That money goes so they can DEFEND themselves form the constant attacks. The attacks that happen on a daily basis but you won't hear about in the press. And what's worse is people like you PRETENDING you actually care about either party in the situation when the truth of the matter is that you are simply using it as a political tool.

Israeli expansionists? You're such a con artist. Don't go accusing people of spin and delusion buddy. You're so full of it.

[Richard Masters]

Trying to claim that the violence is simply the result of someone else creating those conditions? It's ********.

You might have misunderstood my response. I never claim that violence is simply the result of someone creating those conditions. If you read my last post you will note I said it is multifactorial.


While outside factors have an influence, that's all it is. It's not a cause. And there will always be violence no matter what is done, and those creating the violence will always have an excuse for it.

Outside factors are, to varying degrees, causes. Whether people creating violence have an excuse or not is irrelevant to my argument.

Again, it's like saying that women dressing suggestively deserve some of the blame for rape.

I think you are still misinterpreting my argument. Nowhere do I suggest the victim is fully responsible.

Simply because the rapist claims it as their motive. Trying to bend to those creating the violence is not the answer. Hey, maybe if we would just give criminals our belongings they would stop robbing us. Maybe if we would stop locking money up in banks and gave it to robbers they would stop robbing us.

If you can change the conditions fairly and within reason, you should. The above absurdities fulfill neither. On the other hand, it is reasonable to avoid wearing gold jewelry in a bad neighborhood. It is reasonable not to taunt gangsters as you are walking past them. It is reasonable not to fund their rival gang.

And there's no winning. If we were to not be in the middle east then we would be criticized for not helping.

True. However, said criticism could be subdued by explaining that we would side with Israel due to excessive bias and it would not be fair to intervene. I can assure you relations with most Middle Eastern countries would improve and we would have more leverage in the area.

While the US has done many wrong things, that's inevitable. But people are simply using the US's position as a scape goat. An easy target to blame for everyone's problems. And they would do it no matter what policies were in place. that's the down side to being the biggest target. Same reason Microsoft in the computer world is the most criticized. They are the biggest target.

The violent people will be violent no matter what. It just helps to have a scape goat.

Really? Then give them one less excuse to be violent.

[Darth Rotor]

Honest question here... do you think it would be feasible for the US to agree to lend its (financial and military) muscle to some third-party mediator who is recognized both as being interested in peace and as not having a stake in either party coming out ahead in an eventual peaceful solution?

Honest answer:

I don't think so. Any other such party would likely be seen by one side, or both, as a sock puppet.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Honest answer:

I don't think so. Any other such party would likely be seen by one side, or both, as a sock puppet.

DR


Why should America be paying any nation?

[Darth Rotor]

You are still making the assumption that a mediator will solve the issue.

No, you don't seem to understand the words being used here. A mediator does not solve anything. Mediation acts as a lubricant so the gears of deal making between to two parties to a dispute have an opportunity to come to a solution they both buy into. What the mediator's function is, in any mediation, is to keep the parties engaged, so that they don't keep walking off in a huff.

It's not a guarantee of any sort of success, but it is often a necessary step in getting two parties to the table.

See a few hundred examples of management labor relations disputes in the US for the past fifty years for case studies on what mediators provide to the process.
As davefoc commented, the US gives them an incentive to continue fighting by subsidizing their violence.
Who is "they" in your statement? Vague.

I note the rhetorical device of "subsidize the violence" and with you'd stick to the point I have been trying to get you to discuss with me. Care to open your mind, Richard? The blinders on, deliberately obtuse ploy is an obstacle to moving forward.

Maybe we need a mediator here. ;)
Thus, your assumption that a mediator is going to make things better
Until you learn what words mean, and stop trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say, kindly cease and desisit in trying to fabricate a position I am not advocating, nor the fantasy that anyone in this thread, particularly me, has claimed that a mediator or peace deal broker is a simple, magical solution.

Also, please look up the word, and the function of: mediator.

If you want a recent example of a modestly successful political mediation, see Bill Clinton and the three parties in Bosnia, mid 1990's. The Dayton Agreement.

Did it solve anything? No, not by itself, it allowed a process to move forward that had been in a political deadlock for some years. It was a key step in the process. It took, and will continue to take, further work for a lasting "solution" to sustain, though the past ten years has shown some progress.

Back to my question to you: who can act in the capacity to aid and assist the Pals and Israelis move forward? We can both assume the US cannot be an honest broker to fulfill that function, so that role can be filled by

Whom?

Why do you keep dodging that question?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Why should America be paying any nation?


Good question. Who said America should?

Not Me.

That was a suggestion, or a thought experiment, by Chaos.

Ask him, eh?

DR

[davefoc]

I'm not sure where you are going with your questions DR.

I think Richard Masters view is that the Palestinians and the Israelis might be able to work out their problems without a mediator if some of the meddlers just got out of the way.

My first suggestion was essentially that also, although you might disagree with the idea that a peace agreement is possible without mediators it is none the less what Richard Masters and I are suggesting. We don't have proof for this notion. Who knows, a mediator might help.

That is why in my second suggestion I suggested a consortium of Europeans. You might not like that suggestion either. I don't have any proof that it is a good idea and am quite ready to acknowledge that your idea (assuming you put one forward) might be better.

My principal supposition about the conflict which I have made many times in these discussions is that the US needs to get out of the conflict before the beginnings of a real peace are even possible. Public opinion on the conflict is strongly divided in Israel with Israelis that want an end to all Israeli colonization activity being at least a significant minority. Every year that the US subsidizes the Israeli colonies and the Israeli military is another year that the Israeli segment that favors an end to the colonial activity has the rug pulled out from them. It is very hard for them to argue the economic necessity of ending the subsidy of the offending colonies when the Americans pay for them and provide even more economic and military aid to Israel.

[Richard Masters]

No, you don't seem to understand the words being used here. A mediator does not solve anything. Mediation acts as a lubricant so the gears of deal making between to two parties to a dispute have an opportunity to come to a solution they both buy into. What the mediator's function is, in any mediation, is to keep the parties engaged, so that they don't keep walking off in a huff.

You are assuming the parties need to stay engaged.

It's not a guarantee of any sort of success, but it is often a necessary step in getting two parties to the table.

See a few hundred examples of management labor relations disputes in the US for the past fifty years for case studies on what mediators provide to the process.

See the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past fifty years to see what "mediators" bring to the process.

Who is "they" in your statement? Vague.

The parties involved in the conflict. The conflict is that which this topic is about.

I note the rhetorical device of "subsidize the violence" and with you'd stick to the point I have been trying to get you to discuss with me. Care to open your mind, Richard? The blinders on, deliberately obtuse ploy is an obstacle to moving forward.

Maybe we need a mediator here. ;)

And a grammar check. ;) I already told you there are few adequate mediators, and therefore I would not choose a mediator for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I would choose the opposite of a mediator.

Until you learn what words mean, and stop trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say, kindly cease and desisit in trying to fabricate a position I am not advocating, nor the fantasy that anyone in this thread, particularly me, has claimed that a mediator or peace deal broker is a simple, magical solution.

Then what are you saying?

Also, please look up the word, and the function of: mediator.

If you want a recent example of a modestly successful political mediation, see Bill Clinton and the three parties in Bosnia, mid 1990's. The Dayton Agreement.

Bill Clinton is not in office. If he was, we probably wouldn't be having this argument.

Did it solve anything? No, not by itself, it allowed a process to move forward that had been in a political deadlock for some years. It was a key step in the process. It took, and will continue to take, further work for a lasting "solution" to sustain, though the past ten years has shown some progress.

What moral authority does a nation that starts needless wars have? Who are we to tell the Palestinians or the Israelis what is right and what is wrong?

Back to my question to you: who can act in the capacity to aid and assist the Pals and Israelis move forward? We can both assume the US cannot be an honest broker to fulfill that function, so that role can be filled by

Whom?

If you want a mediator then find someone chosen by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. If they cannot agree on someone then your question is irrelevant, because any "mediation" will be counterproductive.

Why do you keep dodging that question?

DR

I've answered the question at least three times. But since I don't buy into your assumption that there must be a mediator, the answer does not help you advance your argument.

Which is why you keep asking it.

[Richard Masters]

I'm not sure where you are going with your questions DR.

I think Richard Masters view is that the Palestinians and the Israelis might be able to work out their problems without a mediator if some of the meddlers just got out of the way.

Exactly.

[OneShotKi11]

I seem to be hearing from you that the US has no role in the process by which the Pals and Israelis find a way toward dealing with each other in a less sanguinary manner.

If the US is too biased, which the US might well be, who do you suggest as a moderator, an honest third party?

The Japanese?

DR

I think the suggestion is that we should be an honest third party and not the bias one we have become.

That is also what Ron Paul was implying as well, but everyone since to ignore his common sense.
Ron Paul does not like anything we do in the middle east nor does he want to be involved in these forgien affairs. Still he realizes the complexity of the situation and that we are stuck with this now and only asked that what we do with one side during a given situation we do the exact same to the other.

Basically No Bias!

[OneShotKi11]

Nice attempt at a dodge, Richard.

Let's try this again.

Who do you suggest as a third party who is not biased? You have already wasted one response not answering my question, since I granted that the US may be viewed as biased. Let us now stipulate that the US is biased, and thus not a suitable third party for these negotiations.

Who, as a mediator, is NOT biased in this matter? Who, do both or all three (if Fatah and Hamas are two parties) parties to this squabble accept as an honest broker?

Come on, Richard, the question can't be that hard that you dodge it, can it?

DR

Why would you force this question back down his throat when he already stated he doesnt believe there should be a Moderator?
He already agreed with you that all Moderators would be bias.

Isnt that what you were looking for????

[Ziggurat]

I think Richard Masters view is that the Palestinians and the Israelis might be able to work out their problems without a mediator if some of the meddlers just got out of the way.

I'm actually sympathetic to that idea. But it doesn't really get you anywhere, because there's no chance that Iran, for example, is going to stop meddling. Why would they? What motive do they have to stop interfering? And given that certain external factions will not "just get out of the way", the relevant question is whether or not only us getting out of the way is going to help. I have no reason to think it will, and a number of reasons to think it won't.

[Richard Masters]

I'm actually sympathetic to that idea. But it doesn't really get you anywhere, because there's no chance that Iran, for example, is going to stop meddling. Why would they? What motive do they have to stop interfering? And given that certain external factions will not "just get out of the way", the relevant question is whether or not only us getting out of the way is going to help. I have no reason to think it will, and a number of reasons to think it won't.

I have no reason to think meddling by the United States is going to get you anywhere either. Not with our current standing in the world, or our current foreign policy.

[Ziggurat]

I have no reason to think meddling by the United States is going to get you anywhere either. Not with our current standing in the world, or our current foreign policy.

What counts as "meddling", anyways? We're supporting an ally in Israel. Supporting allies has frequently gotten countries quite a bit. You'd have to be a lot more specific if you want to argue otherwise. But don't bother, because the fact of the matter is we're not going to agree about basic assesments of the situation and of likely outcomes for a given action.

[Darth Rotor]

You are assuming the parties need to stay engaged.
If they don't, no progress forward can be made.
See the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past fifty years to see what "mediators" bring to the process.
Nice myopia. Ever hear of Jimmy Carter and the Camp David accords? That is part of the fifty years of history on this, as are wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 where third parties had to step in to stop the war.

You are dead in the water.
And a grammar check. ;) I already told you there are few adequate mediators, and therefore I would not choose a mediator for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I would choose the opposite of a mediator.
What? A rabble rouser? Who do you have in mind? Care to be specific? Your vagueness remains an obstacle, or a dodge.

You tell me which it is.
Bill Clinton is not in office. If he was, we probably wouldn't be having this argument.
Based on what? His failure to get Arafat and the Israelis to close the deal before he left office?

(Note: I've read a few comments on the Clinton efforts from the Pas side that indicated a sense that US Israel was on side, Pal the other, and there was no honest broker.)
What moral authority does a nation that starts needless wars have? Who are we to tell the Palestinians or the Israelis what is right and what is wrong?
Red herring. I made no stipulation of moral authority. I am addressing the practical problem of conflict resolution via negotiation. It often requires a third party to keep the parties in play.
If you want a mediator then find someone chosen by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
I once again ask:

Who would you suggest for that role? Your reliance on generalities is where we came in.

It is not a matter of who I want, but who the parties themselves would accept.
If they cannot agree on someone then your question is irrelevant, because any "mediation" will be counterproductive.
Counterproductive? Are you taking the position that the state of play to date is productive?
I've answered the question at least three times. But since I don't buy into your assumption that there must be a mediator, the answer does not help you advance your argument.
I am not making an argument, I am, again asking a question, which you find yourself unable to answer, or you choose to dodge.

We are back to your position, absent further thought on your part, being:

"Y'all kill one another until you get tired of it, let us know when you are done."

or

You are content for the impasse to continue, since your position is that there is not need for a mediator, and the parties have yet to demonstrate the ability to solve their dispute on their own.

Popcorn sales in the lobby.

DR

[Richard Masters]

What counts as "meddling", anyways? We're supporting an ally in Israel. Supporting allies has frequently gotten countries quite a bit. You'd have to be a lot more specific if you want to argue otherwise. But don't bother, because the fact of the matter is we're not going to agree about basic assesments of the situation and of likely outcomes for a given action.

I define meddling as uninvited interference with the aim of influencing an outcome. It's not always bad unless you have ulterior motives and one of the affected parties opposes your involvement. It's especially bad if the interference is unfair to the affected or counterproductive to the stated goal.

[Richard Masters]

Darth Rotor,

Have you ever resolved a conflict without a mediator?

Have you ever tried to help someone and made things worse?

Do you want me to give you a name? Would that satisfy the question?

If you want someone specific, I would choose Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, maybe The Netherlands. Bill Clinton, Oprah, Teller, some random kid from a playground, the neighbor next door.

[Ziggurat]

I define meddling as uninvited interference with the aim of influencing an outcome.

And how does that apply to Israel? They welcome our assistance.

It's not always bad unless you have ulterior motives

Um, NO. Motives aren't what make something bad or good. Results are. The best intentions in the world can lead to ruin, and selfishness can sometimes benefit all mankind.

and one of the affected parties opposes your involvement.

When one party does welcome involvement and another doesn't, does that mean we shouldn't be involved? But that just means we should never get involved in any conflict between two external parties. So much for NATO. Sorry, but that's not a good guideline for evaluating our actions.

It's especially bad if the interference is unfair to the affected

It wasn't "fair" for us to side with England against Germany in two world wars (couldn't we have switched sides once?). "Fairness" is a vague term, and as such not terribly useful as a guiding principle in international affairs.

or counterproductive to the stated goal.

Well sure. It's generally not a good idea to do something which is counterproductive to your goals. But the evaluation of when this is or isn't the case is... contentious.

[Richard Masters]

And how does that apply to Israel? They welcome our assistance.

And Palestine does not.


Um, NO. Motives aren't what make something bad or good. Results are. The best intentions in the world can lead to ruin, and selfishness can sometimes benefit all mankind.

I don't think this contradicts what I wrote. In fact, I actually agree.


When one party does welcome involvement and another doesn't, does that mean we shouldn't be involved?

Obviously not. When one party opposes your involvement it's not necessarily wrong to interfere, as long as the interests of the opposing party are taken into consideration. That's mediation. Wanting to seize control of Middle Eastern resources and to expand militarily at the expense of justice is not.

Whether Israel is an ally or not has little bearing on whether an unfair action toward Palestine is still an unfair action.

But that just means we should never get involved in any conflict between two external parties. So much for NATO. Sorry, but that's not a good guideline for evaluating our actions.

I accept your apology.

It wasn't "fair" for us to side with England against Germany in two world wars (couldn't we have switched sides once?). "Fairness" is a vague term, and as such not terribly useful as a guiding principle in international affairs.

Siding with someone doesn't define unfairness. See response before your apology. Fairness doesn't need to be complex. You can identify causality and determine whose actions are just and whose aren't. The greater the free agency the more responsibility you can attribute to a given entity.

Condemning Palestinians for their attacks is fair if you condemn Israel for land theft and their own acts of terrorism.

Well sure. It's generally not a good idea to do something which is counterproductive to your goals. But the evaluation of when this is or isn't the case is... contentious.

Not so much. Our interference in the Middle East has killed 200,000+ and injured more in the current Iraq war alone. And this is all related to Israel's security, and our control of the region's resources.

Making enemies is not productive, if you ask me.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth Rotor,

Have you ever resolved a conflict without a mediator?
Of course. I have also solved some conflicts with one.
Have you ever tried to help someone and made things worse?
Yes.
Do you want me to give you a name? Would that satisfy the question?Yes.
If you want someone specific, I would choose Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden, maybe The Netherlands. Bill Clinton, Oprah, Teller, some random kid from a playground, the neighbor next door.
Thanks for the less than serious response. Your missing of the point is now complete.

Consider this: if they could have worked it out for themselves, don't you think they would have already? They are right there, ya know, next to each other.

It's not as though the can't fine one another.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Siding with someone doesn't define unfairness. See response before your apology. Fairness doesn't need to be complex. You can identify causality and determine whose actions are just and whose aren't.

Justice and fairness are not the same thing. I am interested in justice. I do not care very much about fairness.

The greater the free agency the more responsibility you can attribute to a given entity.

Sounds a lot like making excuses for the actions of others, and shifting blame towards us because we're powerful. That's not a notion I have any reason to accept. It's the cult of victimhood, and in the long run that kind of thinking doesn't help the victims.

Making enemies is not productive, if you ask me.

No, but defeating them is.

[Richard Masters]

Justice and fairness are not the same thing. I am interested in justice. I do not care very much about fairness.

Sounds like a red herring that doesn't address the point.

Sounds a lot like making excuses for the actions of others, and shifting blame towards us because we're powerful. That's not a notion I have any reason to accept. It's the cult of victimhood, and in the long run that kind of thinking doesn't help the victims.

Labeling an idea a cult doesn't make it so. Off to another red herring.

No, but defeating them is.

Who are we defeating by creating more enemies?

[Ziggurat]

Sounds like a red herring that doesn't address the point.

It's very much to the point. A pursuit of fairness can hamper a pursuit of justice. And that's exactly what's happening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not fair that the Palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick. But there's no way for us to change that without causing even more problems. Giving them what they ask for won't actually help, because the terrorists in their midst will turn it all into ash and dust. That's the tragedy of the situation. But it is their tragedy, and we cannot fix it for them.

Who are we defeating by creating more enemies?

Did we create more Nazis by bombing Dresden? No, actually, we didn't. The notion that fighting only and always makes things worse is without any basis in either history or logic.

[Richard Masters]

It's very much to the point. A pursuit of fairness can hamper a pursuit of justice. And that's exactly what's happening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not fair that the Palestinians have gotten the short end of the stick. But there's no way for us to change that without causing even more problems. Giving them what they ask for won't actually help, because the terrorists in their midst will turn it all into ash and dust. That's the tragedy of the situation. But it is their tragedy, and we cannot fix it for them.

Sounds a lot like what I've been saying.



Did we create more Nazis by bombing Dresden? No, actually, we didn't. The notion that fighting only and always makes things worse is without any basis in either history or logic.

I never claim that fighting only and always makes things worse.

However, studies on the causes of terrorism do indicate that our interference is a major factor.

http://www.strategicforesight.com/AnInclusiveWorld.pdf

[Darth Rotor]

However, studies on the causes of terrorism do indicate that our interference is a major factor.

http://www.strategicforesight.com/AnInclusiveWorld.pdf
When cultures run into each other, conflict tends to arise.

IMO, there is nothing new in that analysis, since Alvin Toffler's model of Future Shock in the early 1970's was applicable to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and applies just as well to the more recent manifestations of that political phenomenon in other parts of the world.

As Thucydides commented in re Athens and the root causes of the Pelopponesian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War), expanding trading nations don't tend to let others alone, they spread more than purely commerce via their contacts. It is a prime agent of cultural clash, this commercial activity, and cannot be extracted and viewed in isolation.

Same story, different century.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Sounds a lot like what I've been saying.

No, it's not. I'm saying it's the Palestinian's tragedy that everything they take their own terrorists turn to dust. The two parties to this conflict really aren't the same. Israel can and does function as a society. Palestinians don't. And they won't, and can't, as long as the terrorists can dictate terms. Which they do, and always will, unless the Palestinians decide to start killing the terrorists in their own midst. That's the ONLY way out for them. But it's not the only way out for Israel, which is why supporting Israel is not an effort in futility.

I never claim that fighting only and always makes things worse.

That's correct. It's just the logical implication of what you've been saying.

However, studies on the causes of terrorism do indicate that our interference is a major factor.

http://www.strategicforesight.com/AnInclusiveWorld.pdf

I looked a bit at that, and it's crap. Taking one quote,
"As the global power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks that do not target the United States and its allies are defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or mere violence. If Hezbollah attacks Israeli civilians, it is considered to be an act of terror. If PKK kills Turkish citizens and advocates vehemence through its radio, these are projected as indicators of a liberation
struggle and freedom of expression."

Uh, no. The PKK is a terrorist group. It is designated as such by the US government, among others. Saddam's support for the PKK was, in fact, one of many motivating factors in our invasion of Iraq. It is not the West which has a problem with defining terrorism, it is the muslim world. That's why the UN still hasn't defined the term (since muslim countries form the largest voting bloc in the UN). From what I have read so far, this document provides no enlightenment on the issue at all, and more than a little obfuscation.

[Pardalis]

Ron who?

[Jonnyclueless]

Sounds like a lot of conversation that is really saying absolutely nothing. Very appropriate for a discussion started bout Ro Paul though. HE says a lot of nothing.

[Richard Masters]

No, it's not. I'm saying it's the Palestinian's tragedy that everything they take their own terrorists turn to dust. The two parties to this conflict really aren't the same. Israel can and does function as a society. Palestinians don't. And they won't, and can't, as long as the terrorists can dictate terms. Which they do, and always will, unless the Palestinians decide to start killing the terrorists in their own midst. That's the ONLY way out for them. But it's not the only way out for Israel, which is why supporting Israel is not an effort in futility.

You make a good point, in that supporting Israel is not necessarily a bad thing by itself. I'm sure the government of Israel has good reasons for some of the more controversial aspects of their dealings with Palestine. After reading more on the subject (thus my delayed response) it does seem that there are more bad apples on one side of the conflict.

Thing is, our moral authority is lacking, and worse, our interference has earned us a lot of unnecessary hatred and enemies. Is there a reason why we need to provoke the Middle East by demonizing Arabs and their respective countries?

That's correct. It's just the logical implication of what you've been saying.

Clearly not. The logical implication of, "our unjust interference earns us enemies" (me), is not, "fighting always and only makes things worse" (Ziggurat).

I looked a bit at that, and it's crap. Taking one quote,
"As the global power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks that do not target the United States and its allies are defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or mere violence. If Hezbollah attacks Israeli civilians, it is considered to be an act of terror. If PKK kills Turkish citizens and advocates vehemence through its radio, these are projected as indicators of a liberation
struggle and freedom of expression."

Uh, no. The PKK is a terrorist group. It is designated as such by the US government, among others. Saddam's support for the PKK was, in fact, one of many motivating factors in our invasion of Iraq. It is not the West which has a problem with defining terrorism, it is the muslim world. That's why the UN still hasn't defined the term (since muslim countries form the largest voting bloc in the UN). From what I have read so far, this document provides no enlightenment on the issue at all, and more than a little obfuscation.

A little context does turn your argument into a little bit of a straw man:

"It is possible for any ideology, delivered by determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to transform those feeling excluded from their society
into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse, however, there is an unfortunate effort made to emphasise certain forms of terrorism. As the global power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks that do not target the United States and its allies are defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or mere violence..."

[Richard Masters]

Sounds like a lot of conversation that is really saying absolutely nothing. Very appropriate for a discussion started bout Ro Paul though. HE says a lot of nothing.

He repeats himself, but there is more thought and substance in his discourse than in Obama's, Hillary's or McCain's.

[Richard Masters]

When cultures run into each other, conflict tends to arise.

IMO, there is nothing new in that analysis, since Alvin Toffler's model of Future Shock in the early 1970's was applicable to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and applies just as well to the more recent manifestations of that political phenomenon in other parts of the world.

As Thucydides commented in re Athens and the root causes of the Pelopponesian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Peloponnesian_War), expanding trading nations don't tend to let others alone, they spread more than purely commerce via their contacts. It is a prime agent of cultural clash, this commercial activity, and cannot be extracted and viewed in isolation.

Same story, different century.

DR

You are clearly right. As I mentioned before, causation is multi-factorial.

[Ziggurat]

A little context does turn your argument into a little bit of a straw man:
"It is possible for any ideology, delivered by determined and able leaders, anywhere in the world, to transform those feeling excluded from their society into terrorists or extremists. In public discourse, however, there is an unfortunate effort made to emphasise certain forms of terrorism. As the global power structure is dominated by the West, attacks on Western interests are defined as terrorism. The attacks that do not target the United States and its allies are defined as acts of ethnic conflict, freedom struggle, or mere violence..."

Turkey is an ally of the United States. PKK attacks against Turkey are indeed classified as terrorist attacks, and not as merely ethnic conflict or freedom struggle, contrary to the assertion that I quoted. One would think that they would pick examples of terrorist attacks against countries which are not allies or are actually hostile to the United States to try to prove their point, but apparently they can't even be bothered to do that. So it's not a strawman on my part, it's simply them being inconsistent. Which only reinforces why I can't take them seriously.

[Richard Masters]

Turkey is an ally of the United States. PKK attacks against Turkey are indeed classified as terrorist attacks, and not as merely ethnic conflict or freedom struggle, contrary to the assertion that I quoted. One would think that they would pick examples of terrorist attacks against countries which are not allies or are actually hostile to the United States to try to prove their point, but apparently they can't even be bothered to do that. So it's not a strawman on my part, it's simply them being inconsistent. Which only reinforces why I can't take them seriously.

Did you read the passage? "In public discourse".

[Ziggurat]

Did you read the passage? "In public discourse".

Yes, I read the passage. And that's a dodge, pure and simple. They claimed that attacks by the PKK against Turkey are not classified as terrorism by the west, but are excused as being a liberation struggle. This is simply false. Nothing you have said, and nothing else they have said, changes that.

[Richard Masters]

Yes, I read the passage. And that's a dodge, pure and simple. They claimed that attacks by the PKK against Turkey are not classified as terrorism by the west, but are excused as being a liberation struggle. This is simply false. Nothing you have said, and nothing else they have said, changes that.

Perhaps you don't know what the difference is between public discourse and official classifications of terrorism.

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps you don't know what the difference is between public discourse and official classifications of terrorism.

If you'd like to prove your point, why don't you simply demonstrate said "public discourse" which categorizes the PKK as freedom fighters? If they are right, such examples should be easy to find. But you haven't tried to do that. Why not? This is why I said your response was a dodge.