The "you" thing is a bad-grammar tick of mine, I apologize for the confusion. Sometimes Im referring directly to you, but in the above Im speaking figuratively to the leaders of Hamas and the palestinian territories.
Look, if Ive misjudged you, Im sorry. Ive not been trying to justify Israels actions, 50 years ago or today. Ive repeatedly criticized them for some of the most abhorrent national conduct in the modern age, (behind maybe china, zimbabwe and us.) You must understand though, your perception of Aipac is grossly overstated, and your unwillingness to lay any blame on anyone but Israel struck me as suspicious. Its the fixation, these artifacts of propaganda, to see malicious conspiracy in what is most often just disaster and bad policy, that concerns me. It didnt seem as if you were able to see this from their perspective, damaged as it may be. The way they see it, theyre backed up against a wall by 15 million people who collectively want them dead. The constant threatmongering, coupled with the horrors theyve suffered in the past, have bred in them a kind of pathological fear that drives almost everything they do. No doubt, over the last 100 years suffering horrors nearly as unimaginable have bred this fear in the palestinians as well. It is ironic, but psychologically, I do understand it. That to me though is different from finding it morally acceptable. In BOTH instances, it is not. Its not acceptable to target women and kids, not for anyone.
I wish you could admit the same. Im sure I dont understand your distinction between moral and existential, and I must confess it appears from my side more of a gauze to mask a preferential allowance of behavior for one group over another.
What I want is a country (even a larger Levantine region, no boundaries no restrictions) where Arabs, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, Armenians, Kurds…etc..can all live in a region that is not identifiably prejudiced towards one group.
This is a phenomenal idea. Trust me, I cant imagine a better outcome. The question, for both of us I think, is how do we get there. Ive already stated as vociferously as Im able that dropping white phosphorous and building settlements on stolen land is not it. That my country funds such behavior is an incredible shame to me. But neither does the behavior of Hizbollah and Hamas. Suicide bombing and launching rockets indiscriminately is not a legitimate political policy, and it sure as hell isnt a policy of peace. That its not productive, that its led them to the worst situation its ever been is precisely what is at issue. It seems clear to me that the leadership on BOTH sides doesnt have any genuine interest in peace, let alone the lives of their people. Everyone involved seems interested only in prolonging a conflict that subjugates the people they preside over to the paralyzing fear the war creates. That is why Hamas fires rockets. I mean theres clearly no military objective being achieved. Its all a flailing show of force to keep everyone living in fear. And the same goes for Israel.
Im just saying, if a genuine, mutually amenable peace of any kind is to be achieved. Rockets and fucking helicopters arent the way to get there. Somone has to step up to the plate and be a better man. We arent standing in the way. Were begging for it.
Insisting on “one country” is always the motto only for a majority, not minorities. It is a disgusting slogan that pretends to be for everyone but always works only for a majority. True “boundarylessness” can be achieved only through admitting “others” including minorities’ value. That is to say, what we have to insist on is not “one” but “many”. Ironically, only when we admit ‘many’, we can be truly ‘ONE’.
Another thought…
Actually, if look at a GDP graph, it seems most of Middle East countries are already rich enough. But they are spending all the money in “shopping” and difference of wealth between the rich and the poor is extreme.
To me it seems, if they spend their money in more constructive ways, they would become significantly more influential than now, and that seems a much better way to preserve “their rights” than “bombing.
Actually “bombing” or physical violation is the game in which the stronger always win, and most of Middle East countries are helping the stronger to continue the game.
To me it seems, if they spend their money in more constructive ways, they would become significantly more influential than now
if you mean the Gulf states, by the "Middle East", I agree...but, otherwise...
who is they?
the Middle East suffers, mostly, from a severe schizophrenic division between the public and their rulers; sometimes, the very public are not even aware of it due to the anaesthetizing effect of long term rule. Aside from most of the Gulf States...these are quite radically different from the other arab Middle Eastern countries.
Sorry, I guess I meant democratic progress. What could allow a change in climate? Is it to your mind all about Israel? What happens when Mubarak dies? If in 2 years the US had pulled out of Iraq and mostly removed itself from afghanistan do you think perceptions could change?
no, its not all about israel.
when mubarak passes away, there might very well be mubarak junioror or mubarak wannabe, unless people rise against this.
frankly, the ruling despots have welded themselves into the very infrastructure of their countries. power is either inherited or usurped. the transition thus occurs and the new despot inherits the supporting bureaucracies of his predecessor. however, in saddam's case, there was no transition of course, but a forced gap in the very infrastructure. the gap exposed and exasperated traditional regional feuds...etc. iraq is an example of how NOT to "bring about democracy" and is a testimony to the truism that the people have to will their own democracy into existence. this is why i have much respect for iran within the stolid patchwork of stubborn empires in the region. here is a people who, before all these others in the middle east, toppled their selfish despot..and now, they are proving themselves yet again that they won't stand being cheated and lied to.
i think there are two ways, one of which is top-down and the other bottom-up. ether a benevolent despot himself (so rare, perhaps that is a contradiction in terms), sets up a self-sustaining governmental system that can form as a bridge to take over the ruling of the country...thus properly introducing people to the ways of equality under the state...rather than favouritism...blah blah
or
the people themselves take to the street. but i don't see that happening readily in countries like syria and egypt.
a regional counter example however, in a country like lebanon where heterogeneity is the norm, there has been an existential need to at least engage some rubrics of democracy in order to facilitate the functioning of the country. but this is not to be confused with secular atomistic democracy. in this very particular case, "democracy" is the negotiated space of appeasement necessitated by the possibly explosive plurality of sects and identities. one has many more freedoms in lebanon than in those other countries simply because lebanon has too many religions to allow any to force itself on others and there is thus always a space of "otherness" that can be expanded on .but still, it cannot be classified as secular democracy.
The Iranian Green Movement
The "you" thing is a bad-grammar tick of mine, I apologize for the confusion. Sometimes Im referring directly to you, but in the above Im speaking figuratively to the leaders of Hamas and the palestinian territories.
Look, if Ive misjudged you, Im sorry. Ive not been trying to justify Israels actions, 50 years ago or today. Ive repeatedly criticized them for some of the most abhorrent national conduct in the modern age, (behind maybe china, zimbabwe and us.) You must understand though, your perception of Aipac is grossly overstated, and your unwillingness to lay any blame on anyone but Israel struck me as suspicious. Its the fixation, these artifacts of propaganda, to see malicious conspiracy in what is most often just disaster and bad policy, that concerns me. It didnt seem as if you were able to see this from their perspective, damaged as it may be. The way they see it, theyre backed up against a wall by 15 million people who collectively want them dead. The constant threatmongering, coupled with the horrors theyve suffered in the past, have bred in them a kind of pathological fear that drives almost everything they do. No doubt, over the last 100 years suffering horrors nearly as unimaginable have bred this fear in the palestinians as well. It is ironic, but psychologically, I do understand it. That to me though is different from finding it morally acceptable. In BOTH instances, it is not. Its not acceptable to target women and kids, not for anyone.
I wish you could admit the same. Im sure I dont understand your distinction between moral and existential, and I must confess it appears from my side more of a gauze to mask a preferential allowance of behavior for one group over another.
What I want is a country (even a larger Levantine region, no boundaries no restrictions) where Arabs, Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, Armenians, Kurds…etc..can all live in a region that is not identifiably prejudiced towards one group.
This is a phenomenal idea. Trust me, I cant imagine a better outcome. The question, for both of us I think, is how do we get there. Ive already stated as vociferously as Im able that dropping white phosphorous and building settlements on stolen land is not it. That my country funds such behavior is an incredible shame to me. But neither does the behavior of Hizbollah and Hamas. Suicide bombing and launching rockets indiscriminately is not a legitimate political policy, and it sure as hell isnt a policy of peace. That its not productive, that its led them to the worst situation its ever been is precisely what is at issue. It seems clear to me that the leadership on BOTH sides doesnt have any genuine interest in peace, let alone the lives of their people. Everyone involved seems interested only in prolonging a conflict that subjugates the people they preside over to the paralyzing fear the war creates. That is why Hamas fires rockets. I mean theres clearly no military objective being achieved. Its all a flailing show of force to keep everyone living in fear. And the same goes for Israel.
Im just saying, if a genuine, mutually amenable peace of any kind is to be achieved. Rockets and fucking helicopters arent the way to get there. Somone has to step up to the plate and be a better man. We arent standing in the way. Were begging for it.
Just some thoughts passing by…
Insisting on “one country” is always the motto only for a majority, not minorities. It is a disgusting slogan that pretends to be for everyone but always works only for a majority. True “boundarylessness” can be achieved only through admitting “others” including minorities’ value. That is to say, what we have to insist on is not “one” but “many”. Ironically, only when we admit ‘many’, we can be truly ‘ONE’.
Another thought…
Actually, if look at a GDP graph, it seems most of Middle East countries are already rich enough. But they are spending all the money in “shopping” and difference of wealth between the rich and the poor is extreme.
To me it seems, if they spend their money in more constructive ways, they would become significantly more influential than now, and that seems a much better way to preserve “their rights” than “bombing.
Actually “bombing” or physical violation is the game in which the stronger always win, and most of Middle East countries are helping the stronger to continue the game.
if you mean the Gulf states, by the "Middle East", I agree...but, otherwise...
who is they?
the Middle East suffers, mostly, from a severe schizophrenic division between the public and their rulers; sometimes, the very public are not even aware of it due to the anaesthetizing effect of long term rule. Aside from most of the Gulf States...these are quite radically different from the other arab Middle Eastern countries.
Fond, what do you think it would take to get real democratic movement in places like Egypt and Syria?
there are already movements; although of course, usually downtrodden.
Sorry, I guess I meant democratic progress. What could allow a change in climate? Is it to your mind all about Israel? What happens when Mubarak dies? If in 2 years the US had pulled out of Iraq and mostly removed itself from afghanistan do you think perceptions could change?
more news,
no, its not all about israel.
when mubarak passes away, there might very well be mubarak junioror or mubarak wannabe, unless people rise against this.
frankly, the ruling despots have welded themselves into the very infrastructure of their countries. power is either inherited or usurped. the transition thus occurs and the new despot inherits the supporting bureaucracies of his predecessor. however, in saddam's case, there was no transition of course, but a forced gap in the very infrastructure. the gap exposed and exasperated traditional regional feuds...etc. iraq is an example of how NOT to "bring about democracy" and is a testimony to the truism that the people have to will their own democracy into existence. this is why i have much respect for iran within the stolid patchwork of stubborn empires in the region. here is a people who, before all these others in the middle east, toppled their selfish despot..and now, they are proving themselves yet again that they won't stand being cheated and lied to.
i think there are two ways, one of which is top-down and the other bottom-up. ether a benevolent despot himself (so rare, perhaps that is a contradiction in terms), sets up a self-sustaining governmental system that can form as a bridge to take over the ruling of the country...thus properly introducing people to the ways of equality under the state...rather than favouritism...blah blah
or
the people themselves take to the street. but i don't see that happening readily in countries like syria and egypt.
a regional counter example however, in a country like lebanon where heterogeneity is the norm, there has been an existential need to at least engage some rubrics of democracy in order to facilitate the functioning of the country. but this is not to be confused with secular atomistic democracy. in this very particular case, "democracy" is the negotiated space of appeasement necessitated by the possibly explosive plurality of sects and identities. one has many more freedoms in lebanon than in those other countries simply because lebanon has too many religions to allow any to force itself on others and there is thus always a space of "otherness" that can be expanded on .but still, it cannot be classified as secular democracy.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.