From: David Lubkin (extropy@unreasonable.com)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 02:04:47 MDT
At 01:28 PM 4/7/2002 -0700, Samantha wrote:
>Do the King Solomon thing and divide the land in half. Enforce the
>division. Consider any non-voluntary changes an act of aggression by
>either party. Respond appropriately. This has not been done in much of
>the history of the current conflict. Israel has been the agressor against
>the original and all subsequent accords.
Israelis and Arabs disagree on what happened regarding virtually every
significant event in the Middle East over the past century. Each will be
glad to explain at length why their version of what happened is right and
why the other side is wrong, wrong, wrong.
My own assessment is that both sides are at fault, both sides have
committed unacceptable acts. But it seems to me that the fault is not
50/50, as many like to pretend. Much more lopsided. Examples: Israelis
have tortured Arab prisoners and bulldozed people's houses. Arabs have
carved babies out of pregnant women in front of their husbands (1929 riots,
I believe) and taken an elementary school hostage (the PLO, 100 child
hostages at Maalot, 1974).
Meanwhile, there's self-righteousness from all other quarters. Look at the
backstory of their countries. The British torturing IRA
prisoners. American war crimes in Vietnam, including tossing people out of
helicopters. Etc. Every country has an ugly past (or present).
The King Solomon bit was done already, quite a few years back. 1/2 became
Jordan, which by the way is majority Palestinian.
Putting my Don't Tread on Me libertarian hat on -- Israel should perhaps
have annexed all the territories taken in each war, instead of giving land
back after 1956, 1973, et seq. under US pressure. I think annexation
combines morality and realpolitik. It's ludicrous for the Arabs to start
wars, lose, and then complain about how unfair it all is.
Alternative history question: what would the history of the past
half-century in the Middle East have been had there not been any major oil,
mineralogical, or geographic significance? I.e., if Saudi Arabia and Iraq
were no wealthier or important than Chad and Bolivia? Would the wars have
occurred? Would the West have interceded as they did each time? Would
Israel be anywhere near as smart, advanced, tough, and inventive if they
hadn't been afraid of extinction? Would the Arab countries be more or less
prosperous and democratic than they are without the wealth and
international influence?
Maybe I'll write that novel....
Or, a different history: the British had offered the Jews Uganda instead
of Palestine. What if they'd taken it? What would the history of Africa
have been, and what would Arabia be like without Jews to blame?
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:19 MST