|
Zonie63 -> RE: Stephen Hawking joins Israel boycott (5/12/2013 10:23:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
Zonie63
This might be part of the problem. Israel is not going to give up those lands any more than the U.S. would give up Texas or California (or the U.K. giving up Northern Ireland or Scotland, or Poland giving up their part of East Prussia/Germany, or Russia giving up the Kuril Islands, or France giving up Alsace-Lorraine, or Canada giving up Quebec, etc.).
Yes. This conflict is all about land. And the Israelis give every sign that they haven't the slightest intention of relinquishing a single inch of the land they now occupy. Not only does Israel want the land, but it wants the land without the indigenous population - hence the current low intensity ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. And that, from Israel's point of view is the real problem - how to get rid of the Palestinians who currently have title to the land, (a claim recognised by more than 120 countries, 2/3 of the world.)
In the final analysis it has 3 options;
- a bi-national State with Palestinians and Israelis enjoying equal rights in a democratic State;
- a full apartheid system with Palestinians enslaved to their Israeli overlords; or
- high intensity ethnic cleansing to drive the Palestinians off their land.
The extent of Israeli colonisation of the West Bank (over 500,000 colonists currently and growing) is such that a complete withdrawal of Israeli colonists is impossible. So, if things keep going the way they are currently, Israel will have to choose between being a democracy, which kills off the Zionist dream of a Jewish dominated State or degenerating even further into fascism. To date, the indications are not optimistic.
Ultimately, the choice for US taxpayers is equally stark - do they continue to finance Israeli ethnic cleansing and apartheid or do they start to insist that Israel obey international law and norms of behaviour?
I'm not really certain that it's all about the land. One thing I keep in mind is that this is no ordinary land. To a lot of people it's "Holy Land," which puts it into a completely different category. That particular piece of ground has been the center of conflict for well over a thousand years, and it will continue to be that way.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, a lot of US taxpayers believe that it's "God's will" that America give unconditional support to Israel, so from their point of view, the choice is this: Do they continue supporting Israel and complying with the will of God - or they do they stop supporting Israel and go against the word of God?
In my view, land is land. The need for a Jewish homeland was valid, but there's a reason why they wanted that particular land. For largely the same reason, the Palestinians don't want to live in Egypt or Jordan or Syria - since they want the Holy Land. Otherwise, they could live anywhere else. But it's the whole thing about "Holy Land" that makes this particular land so very special.
On a strategic/economic basis, it would have probably made more practical sense for the U.S. to take a more neutral stance. After all, it's the Arabs who have the oil, not the Israelis. But the British were in charge of Palestine, and since Britain was a trusted ally, we pretty much followed their example and went along with what was set up there. Our leaders and diplomats didn't really know that much about the Middle East. They did understand the importance of oil and the strategic interests of the region, particularly in their proximity to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Keeping Western hegemony over the Middle East made sense from that point of view, however U.S. support of Israel may have added an unnecessary complication in our strategic interests.
Some might argue that Israel's geographical location puts them in a good spot to be America's eyes and ears in the Middle East, as an effective and reasonably stable proxy state to support Western interests in a volatile region. It's kind of a "lesser of two evils" argument, the idea that "Israel may be bad, but our position would be much worse if we pulled out our support of Israel or switched sides."
From that standpoint, Israel is seen as a more loyal and reliable ally to America than any of the Muslim countries in the region would be - except those that can be bought off, but even then, it's still somewhat precarious. We once thought we had Iran in our pocket, but when the Shah was overthrown, our relationship with Iran changed overnight. Saddam Hussein was once an ally, then he became an enemy. I guess we're on good terms with the Saudi royal family, along with a few others on that peninsula - but that may be another part of the problem as well. The US practice of buying off dictators only seems to work on a temporary basis.
So, it is definitely a tricky issue. To be honest, I don't know what the solution is, although the position of US taxpayers and voters might also be a bit murky and complicated, given the religious angle and America's insatiable thirst for oil and global hegemony.
Ideally, I'd like to think that we should pull out completely from the region and let the countries there solve their own problems without U.S. interference. On the other hand, we do have some responsibility for creating the mess, so we probably some obligation to help clean it up. Unfortunately, our method of cleaning things up only leads to a bigger mess.
I think that the major powers of the world face a larger, more long-term choice that has to be considered in all this as well. Sooner or later, our government, taxpayers, and voters will have to realize that America is not in a position to be the sole superpower calling all the shots. The best chance for global stability at this point might be to favor a regional power system, with the major powers holding hegemony within their own regions, with the promise of non-interference from other regional powers provided that they can maintain stability and a balance of power within a global system.
Israel might still be a tricky issue within that framework, because I don't think that any compromise or proposal will ever really work in the long run. Even the U.S. can't really muscle them all that much. If we push them too far, they could become more desperate and dangerous. This seems more like a generational blood feud which we probably should have stayed out of, but now we've become a part of it. Everybody wants revenge. The more people get killed, the more their fathers, sons, brothers, cousins, etc. will want revenge. The reasons don't even matter any more, and any compromise or peace proposal seems empty and unsatisfactory. Our position is tainted, so we can't really be an effective mediator anymore, even if we set ourselves up for that role.
The other practical question has to be what would be the result. Suppose Israel does follow international law, withdraws to its pre-1967 boundaries, and goes along with everything that's currently being demanded as part of this boycott. Would that be the end of it? Would the Palestinian Arabs be sufficiently pacified that they'll be content with the arrangement? Or would it embolden them to engage in further attacks on Israel? Is this really the path of peace, or will it just lead to a further escalation of hostilities?
I realize that this is "what if" thinking, but I have the feeling that even if the U.S. shifted its policy and started doing the right thing according to international law, even assuming the boycott is successful and Israel's complies with the demands being placed upon them, that may not be the end of it. It might require some sort of outside power to act in a "peacekeeping" role, in order to safeguard the human rights of both the Palestinians and Israelis, since neither side really seems to trust each other.
|
|
|
|
