Latest Middle East Thread

[Felch]

No, it's English.
The Latin would be a little different as I am sure they did not use English spelling.

You're right. According to Merriam Webster, Decimare is the infinitive. Which would make decimate what, the plural imperative? It's been a while.

In any event, Sirotnikov's usage is considered correct by every major English dictionary. Unless MOBIUS can find a credible dictionary that confirms his position*, he should give it up.

*MOBIUS's position is that Siro used the word incorrectly. Nobody here denies that decimate means to kill one tenth, only that the sense that Siro used is also appropriate and acceptable.

[GePap]

the "lets make jokes about ethnic cleansing" crowd

Who's joking? TCO and I are the only serious thinkers on this issue.

"Thinkers"? That is laughable.

Your "thoughts" on the issue are only slightly less absurd than saying "why don't we just nuke them all!". And about as useful when discussing probable policy actions.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The policy actions that are probable in the near future are just modifications of the failed policies of the past. The Israeli/Arab conflict will never be solved by following the advice of unimaginative thinkers like yourself, who do little more than pretentiously reiterate the conventional wisdom. We need to listen to the visionaries like TCO, who can think outside the box and finally apply the optimal solution to the problem.

[GePap]

Actually, you and TCO simply demand a return to even older policies that are not as effective as you claim. After all, what you say should happen is exactly what Nebuchadnezzar and Hadrian did, and that didn't solve the issue, now did it? It also didn't work for the Interahamwe in 1994.

What would be trully revolutionary is not a return to naked barbarism, but even more enlightened humanism. Sadly, as improbable as your call for greater bloodshed is, it is still more likely than the more revolutionary alternative.

[Naked Gents Rut]

After all, what you say should happen is exactly what Nebuchadnezzar and Hadrian did, and that didn't solve the issue, now did it?

The Romans seem to have been pretty successful. Took the Jews 2000 years to come back.

What would be trully revolutionary is not a return to naked barbarism

You're the real monster, forcing two peoples with irreconcilable differences to live in close proximity in the name of "justice". How many more people have to die before you'll accept reality and support separating the two factions?

your call for greater bloodshed

I'm not the one calling for greater bloodshed; separation will save lives in the long run. It's a tragedy that it wasn't done in 1967 and so many lives have been lost since.

[GePap]

The Romans seem to have been pretty successful. Took the Jews 2000 years to come back.

It took the Jews only around 200 years after Nebuchadnezzar. So the effectiveness varies with time, if it was effective at all.

You're the real monster, forcing two peoples with irreconcilable differences to live in close proximity in the name of "justice". How many more people have to die before you'll accept reality and support separating the two factions?

"Reality"? I thought your ideas were "revolutionary"?

As for how many have to die, far less would die than if any attempt were made to carry out your ideas.

I'm not the one calling for greater bloodshed; separation will save lives in the long run. It's a tragedy that it wasn't done in 1967 and so many lives have been lost since.

If Separation is the aim, the simplest and cheapest solution is pull out all the Israeli Settlements and to have a split along the 1967 borders. Even that would not last. Any seperation not on that basis is bound to fail.

1. Simply because in all of the separation policies you note as examples, the seperating power must control not only the point from which a population is being removed, but also the point to which it is being moved to. That is simply not the case here.

2. Putting the population you are throwing out just simply outside the border of the land you took them from without a "legitimate new homeland" isn't going to work, and that is the situation here.

Given the situation, the only "separation" that would "work" is the genocide of one group or the other. That of course could not be achieved without starting a regional war.

Asking all the individual in both these groups to stop thinking of themselves as tribe members and think of themselves and other s as individual humans beings would be the radical new solution, but as I said, I have not faith in such a radical idea being popular.

[GePap]

And to increase the weirdness level, a o-ed by Muammar Qaddafi, of all people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html?hp

Op-Ed Contributor
The One-State Solution
By MUAMMAR QADDAFI
Published: January 21, 2009
Tripoli, Libya

THE shocking level of the last wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence, which ended with this weekend’s cease-fire, reminds us why a final resolution to the so-called Middle East crisis is so important. It is vital not just to break this cycle of destruction and injustice, but also to deny the religious extremists in the region who feed on the conflict an excuse to advance their own causes.

But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the desperate diplomacy, there is no real way forward. A just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible, but it lies in the history of the people of this conflicted land, and not in the tired rhetoric of partition and two-state solutions.

Although it’s hard to realize after the horrors we’ve just witnessed, the state of war between the Jews and Palestinians has not always existed. In fact, many of the divisions between Jews and Palestinians are recent ones. The very name “Palestine” was commonly used to describe the whole area, even by the Jews who lived there, until 1948, when the name “Israel” came into use.

Jews and Muslims are cousins descended from Abraham. Throughout the centuries both faced cruel persecution and often found refuge with one another. Arabs sheltered Jews and protected them after maltreatment at the hands of the Romans and their expulsion from Spain in the Middle Ages.

The history of Israel/Palestine is not remarkable by regional standards — a country inhabited by different peoples, with rule passing among many tribes, nations and ethnic groups; a country that has withstood many wars and waves of peoples from all directions. This is why it gets so complicated when members of either party claims the right to assert that it is their land.

The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.

But the Palestinians too have a history of persecution, and they view the coastal towns of Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and others as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation, until only a short time ago.

Thus the Palestinians believe that what is now called Israel forms part of their nation, even were they to secure the West Bank and Gaza. And the Jews believe that the West Bank is Samaria and Judea, part of their homeland, even if a Palestinian state were established there. Now, as Gaza still smolders, calls for a two-state solution or partition persist. But neither will work.

A two-state solution will create an unacceptable security threat to Israel. An armed Arab state, presumably in the West Bank, would give Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point. Further, a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would do little to resolve the problem of refugees. Any situation that keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer a solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.

For the same reasons, the older idea of partition of the West Bank into Jewish and Arab areas, with buffer zones between them, won’t work. The Palestinian-held areas could not accommodate all of the refugees, and buffer zones symbolize exclusion and breed tension. Israelis and Palestinians have also become increasingly intertwined, economically and politically.

In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual war or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is one state for all, an “Isratine” that would allow the people in each party to feel that they live in all of the disputed land and they are not deprived of any one part of it.

A key prerequisite for peace is the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the homes their families left behind in 1948. It is an injustice that Jews who were not originally inhabitants of Palestine, nor were their ancestors, can move in from abroad while Palestinians who were displaced only a relatively short time ago should not be so permitted.

It is a fact that Palestinians inhabited the land and owned farms and homes there until recently, fleeing in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus. It is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. They were never “un-welcomed.” Yet only the full territories of Isratine can accommodate all the refugees and bring about the justice that is key to peace.

Assimilation is already a fact of life in Israel. There are more than one million Muslim Arabs in Israel; they possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews, forming political parties. On the other side, there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Israeli factories depend on Palestinian labor, and goods and services are exchanged. This successful assimilation can be a model for Isratine.

If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of the recent violence and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then these two peoples will come to realize, I hope sooner rather than later, that living under one roof is the only option for a lasting peace.

Muammar Qaddafi is the leader of Libya.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It took the Jews only around 200 years after Nebuchadnezzar.

Based on the two examples you chose, the mean time of return for a population expelled from Palestine is 1,100 years. I think Israel would be quite content with a millennium free from Palestinian attacks.

Asking all the individual in both these groups to stop thinking of themselves as tribe members and think of themselves and other s as individual humans beings would be the radical new solution

Like I said, you have no grasp on reality.

[GePap]

Given that you fail to acknowledge the obvious and glaring practical problems that make your idea utterly unworkable, you are in no position to claim an understanding of "reality."

[Naked Gents Rut]

You named two practical problems and neither one made any sense. Maybe you should do a little reading on the history of ethnic separation and partition and then get back to me.

[GePap]

To frame the issue better Drake:

Ideologically your "solution" is cheap and easy - nothing more than a surrender to the mindset that created this conflict in the first place. A tired acceptance of old ideas that would be horrificly costly in lives to implement in the real world. After all, the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, for all the noise, if nowhere near as bloody as many other conflicts that have rages in this world, and continue to rage today.

My "solution" is ideologically radical - it demands a sea change of ideolgy that is almost impossible to accept. It would also cost few lives and would be far, FAR cheaper to carry out in practical terms than even the most likely solution that will come about (a two state solution).

And since killing people or building fences and walls is simpler than changing our minds, well, as I said, while your solution is highly improbable for many clear and obvious reasons, mine is even less probable, as I already acknowledged.

[GePap]

You named two practical problems and neither one made any sense. Maybe you should do a little reading on the history of ethnic separation and partition and then get back to me.

Both are rather obvious problems, which are clearly shown by the example you use most, the movement of ethnic Germans post-WW2.

[Naked Gents Rut]

your "solution" is cheap and easy

Damn straight.

it demands a sea change of ideolgy that is almost impossible to accept.

You're right. Your solution is impossible.

Both are rather obvious problems

No, they aren't. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of ethnic separation could come up with counter-examples.

[GePap]

No, they aren't. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of ethnic separation could come up with counter-examples.

Name one.

[Jon Miller]

How can a one state solution be attempted if one side is suicide bombing the other side?

JM