From: steve (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 03:58:24 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Becker" <kmb@kai-m-becker.de>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: POLITICS: Re: grim prospects - US support of Israel vs. an
Arabic coalition against Iraq/Iran and US dependence on Saudi Oil -
> IMO, there is a "good" and a "bad" side, but the line goes right through
> the people there. I call people wanting to stop killing "good" and those
> wanting to continue killing "bad". This probaly puts most of the
> Israelian government plus(!) most of the Palestine leaders on the "bad"
> side, but many more Israelis and Palestinians on the other.
>
> Kai
>
My response is yes, but--- .The evidence suggests that a very large part of
both populations want things that are mutually exclusive. If they are
prepared to kill to get it or to stop the other side getting what they want,
some level of conflict is bound to continue. If a substantial minority on
both sides think violence will get them what you want then it will go on.
The problem is that in situations like this you don't need both sides to
hate each other or even a majority on each side you only need a substantial
minority. The dynamics of group conflict mean that the peaceful majority (if
there is one) will have to side with one militant minority or the other.
This is made worse by modern political organisation. The doctrine that there
can only be one unitary sovereign power on a given piece of territory, plus
the idea of nationalism, makes many, many conflicts of this kind inevitable.
It's no coincidence that serious trouble in the ME started when a pre-modern
empire (the Ottomans) was replaced by an attempt to create sovereign
'modern' states. Steve Davies.
This argument might be of interest to you.
http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,680234,00.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:18 MST