Israel's Surge Of Despair
In Israel, the honeymoon with Bush is over:
To many in or involved with the Israeli government, George W. Bush's presence in the Oval Office was once reassuring. Now, it is increasingly worrying. Back in early 2004, when I started working in the Israeli Mission to the U.N. -- during the first year of the U.S. occupation of Iraq -- one of the senior diplomats there had an autographed photograph of Bush hanging behind his desk. But by the summer of 2005, as Iraq spiraled into chaos, I noticed that he had replaced it, without explanation, with a photo of U2's Bono.That anecdote, believe it or not, is the high point of a much longer article that is steeped in gloom. Things are not going well in Israel, where over 75% of the populace is down on their leaders and not optimistic about the future.
See, I told you we have a lot in common with the Israelis.
Both our foreign policies are determined by zionists?
(sorry)
[Sigh.]
Seriously. The same worldview, leading to the same approaches, leading to the same outcomes; all bad for everyone involved.
How could anyone doubt that we were all better off "trading land for peace"?
Who do you suggest negotiating this with? Hamas? or Fatah?
If they are relevant parties to whatever "this" is, why wouldn't you want to negotiate with anyone?
Please be more specific: in the Palestinian territories, who should Israel negotiate with? Fatah or Hamas?
In other words, who's in charge? Or more to the point, who's in charge of the Palestinian military?
With a fractured government, seems to me you might try to sit with the heads of both factions to try to find some common ground (no pun intended).
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/02/06/hamas-fatah-head-for-unity-talks-in-mecca/
Can you provide me with an historical example, successful or not, where that happened?
Bonus round: Answering yes or no, would you favor the US doing the same thing in Iraq?
Sure, (Nicaragua, Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo) but no pretty ones. We're still working out resentments from our own civil war that had a clear victor, over 100 years ago.
Frankly, I'm a bit sick of the historical analogy game. Recently, it has led to less understanding of complex dynamics rather than more. History, at best offers lessons to avoid mistakes of the past. It's never a substitute for a compelling vision of the future.
Only one out of the four countries you named was even in the same hemisphere as the US. And in no way did any of those countries threaten the existence of the US.
As for you observation about the Civil War, you are correct, although it hardly offers encouragement to those of us who would like to see Israel and the Pals work out a two-state solution.
Lastly, I'm surprised at your opinion of the lessons of history. "Historical analogy games" have not led to less understanding; the ignoring of history has.
Go read what Winston Churchill had to say about Iraq in the years between the two world wars. You'd have thought the neocons had learned something from that, given how much they supposedly revere him.
I hear what you're saying though: like the stockbrokers say, "past performance is not a guarantee of future returns." But that's Adam Smith talking. Unfortunately, William Faulkner had something to say about it too: "The past is not dead; the past is not past."
The prognosis for Israel, the Pals, US, Iraq? It's going to get worse before it gets better.
I hope we're all ready, but I'm afraid we're not.
"'Historical analogy games' have not led to less understanding; the ignoring of history has."
They both have. All kinds of silly analogies were used to sell the Iraq policy and more are now being invented to sell aggression against Iran.* What I’m saying is that history makes a fine warning but a lousy prescription because history predicts indecipherable complexity and unintended consequences from precipitous actions, and not much more.
• e.g., a recent letter to the Editor:
Dear Editor:
Alan J. Kuperman writes that Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981, “without triggering a terrorist backlash” [Letters, Feb. 12]. Yet advocates for war with Iraq repeatedly pointed to Iraqi payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to make the case that Saddam Hussein’s regime supported terrorists.
Furthermore, comparing Iraq’s response to past Israeli and US attacks to Iran’s possible response to an attack by the US, actually reduces our understanding. Unlike Iraq, Iran is a centuries-old, proudly nationalistic country with a population of over 68 million. It has the second largest ballistic missile force in the developing world (after North Korea) and the ability to strike US and allied targets in the Persian Gulf as well as 120,000 US ground troops in Iraq. No one knows where such a confrontation would lead but “wider war, [a] rise in oil prices [leading to] global recession,” is entirely plausible.
Let’s not kid ourselves about the potential risks of a military attack inside Iran by engaging in simplistic and inappropriate historical analogies. We’ve already mis-underestimated our risks at least one time too many.
****
One thing we know for sure from history: it never hurts to sit down and talk.
Well, my friend, you are preaching to the choir.