I don't see any motivation for war either on Israel or Syria's part.

For Israel there's no apparent foundation for gain. An Israeli/Syrian war would risk escalating into a greater regional war involving Iran.

Even if it doesn't, what's the best outcome? Israel doesn't have the manpower to maintain an occupation of Syria, so it would have to withdraw.

No Syrian government will concede the Golan heights. And a successor Government in Syria will either be Islamist or far more vulnerable to Islamists. There's a likelihood that Syria would just end up being Iraq II and a vast regional source of instability all along Israel's borders.

As for Syria, there isn't any motivation there either. Their military forces have no chance of success against Israel. The best they could hope for is to adopt a defensive posture and outlast the beating.

Again, there's a risk for them of a regional conflagration. But the only sure thing for them with such a regional conflagration is that they'd be one of the first casualties. Their government would not survive, no matter what. Too vulnerable on too many fronts.

The only real prospects as between Syria and Israel are that they'll just continue their low level cold war, or that they'll start talking to each other.

Cue the 'arguement sketch' from Monty Python. I don't care whether I'm John Cleese or not, so long as I'm not in a dress.

Talk of war with Syria is just Israel's attempt at distraction of public opinion from domestic issues - rapist Presidents and unpopular Prime Ministers who admit having intentionally started losing wars and all...

What is the downside to a deal with Syria? If Syria were to use the Golan to attack Israel is there any doubt that in a conventional war Israel would crush Syria, pushing once again to the gates of Damascus as they did in 1967 and 1973?

If a deal is made with Syria and Syria is weaned into a normal relationship not only might iran lose its main Arab ally but Hamas and Hezbollah will lose their main means for getting weapons.

Other than fear, the world's main political product at the moment, what is would be lost by a deal with Syria over the Golan?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel and Valdron, I think you both have good points. I guess what it comes down to is that the strategic pluses and minuses of peace between Syria and Israel are relatively weak. This suggests that the impetus for peace is also rather weak. But in the long run peace is a good thing and the right thing. The question then becomes can peace happen just because it's the right thing to do?

Another whacky idea for Mideast peace:

As I've said recently, I've grown skeptical that the two-state solution as generally conceived can ever work. Simply put, the most Israel will ever agree to is still less than what the Palestinians will ever settle for. At the heart of the problem is the fact that a Palestinian state that consists of Gaza and some percentage of the West Bank is unlikely to be a viable state large and prosperous enough to accomodate all current West Bank and Gaza residents plus an influx of Palestinian refugees from Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

So what is to be done? A week ago I suggested some kind of federated Israel and Palestine. Davai responded with a suggestion for a federated Jordan and Palestine. As I said to Davai at the time, I didn't think his suggestion was such a bad idea. What is increasingly clear as we look at Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine is that the British (with help from the French and the UN) did a terrible job of carving up the Ottoman Empire. We've come, of course, to accept that the carved out nations all need to exist. But maybe it's time to question this? Those borders and the nations they created were all artificial in 1920 and 1948 and 1967. Why should we assume now that we have to stick with them?

So here's my whacky proposal: Let's erase the idea of a separate Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine. Instead, let's create a single Democratic Arab nation that unites all four. Let's concede to Israel the major settlement blocks in the West Bank, giving Israel a bit more of the breathing room it wants. The rest of the West Bank and Gaza get merged into what I'll provisionally call "West Arabia." Because West Arabia is a relatively large country, it should be able to accomodate all the Palestinian refugees (in fact, it already does, but not as citizens). Because it is large and unified, it should also have a better chance of becoming economically prosperous. And militarily, it should be closer to an equal with Israel, which I believe would actually diffuse tensions, since the Arabians would feel less threatened by Israel and Israel would still be powerful enough not to be threatened by West Arabia.

Of course there are all sorts of reasons why this won't work. But since nothing else we've tried in 60 years has worked, why not propose alternatives to think about? Maybe with enough creativity someone, someday will hit on a solution that really can work.

Well, since you're going along that way, why not add Iraq into the mix. Throw in Yemen, Oman and Kuwait and you could recreate the old Ottoman Arab territories.

In fact, why not add Egypt and Libya and Saudi Arabia to the ultra-state. Perhaps Algeria? Mauretania? Mali? Morocco? Somalia? Sudan? Chad?

There are some practical problems with this. Lebanon is a highly mixed state with something like a half century or more of independence, and a generation of direct french rule prior to that. As a functional democracy, it has constantly had to balance Christian, Sunni, Shiite and Druze.

Syria is a mixture of Sunni and Allawites. Its had a similar history as Lebanon. It has historical connections with Lebanon.

Meanwhile Jordan is a stable monarchy, with quite a different historical foundation.

Another problem that you encounter is that despite the convenient western fiction that these nations have no history before 1920, that's simply not true. The cities of the Lebanese coast had a history and culture that extended back to the Phoenicians. Proto-Syrian states, like Assyria, contested with Rome. Google Queen Zenobia. Mesopotamia, now known as Iraq, was the beginning of human civilization, a distinctive cultural and historical region for something like 10,000 years.

It's true that there was an element of arbitrariness in the western division of the middle east. But only an element. This was not the scramble for Africa. The fine points of some borders may have been flexible, but the cultural, the social, the political units which the Europeans described and defined were long pre-existing.

In the 60's and 70's, there were various proposals and projects for a United Arab nation. There was an Egypt/Libya union, an Egypt/Libya/Sudan union. An Egypt/Syria union. A Syria/Iraq union. An Egypt/Syria/Iraq union. A Libya/Chad union. A Tunisia/Libya union. All of these proposals foundered one after the other on the differences and divergences between the various 'merging states.' So far as I can tell, the particular combination you advocate was never even proposed.

How do we propose to staple all these radically different societies together? Will this be with or without their consent? How do you reconcile monarchy, dictatorship and democracy? What about the various minorities?

How would this new state absorb the costs of resettling millions of Palestinian refugees? Would Israel be expected to pick up some of that cost, as the cause of refugees?

Would Israel really be prepared to tolerate the threat of a potential Super-Syria on its northern and eastern borders?

I dunno. I've become more and more skeptical of the two state solution. I think it still has a chance. But I'm not sure that Israel will allow such.

The notion of a 'one state' solution would mean the end of Israel in its current form. But in a generation or so, it may well be the only viable option. And it may well be the outcome. It would be ironic if those who are undermining the two state solution in support of Israel's security now, ultimately make a one state solution inevitable.

The notion of intervening to rewrite, by force or otherwise, middle eastern borders in order to erase the palestinians homeland issues is interesting. But it doesn't seem to have a lot of currency as a voluntary option.

Perhaps there is a solution. There are fifty states in the United States. Perhaps America could simply empty out one of those states, Oklahoma for instance, or South Carolina (do you really need two carolinas?), or a Dakota and give it to the Palestinians as a homeland. I'm sure they would accept. You could simply empty out the state, redistribute its population as has already been done with New Orleans. It's not as if it wasn't stolen from the Indians in the first place.

;)

All very true.

I'm still pitching for North Carolina. We don't actually need two Carolinas. One is more than enough.

You could just auction them off?

How about for starters, divide up the states as to those which pull their weight economically, and those which don't.

Take Mississipi for instance. Does America really need a world leader in Pellagra and inbreeding? Perhaps you could trade it in. Mississippi for, oh say.... the Netherlands?

EU blind support for the Palestinians

Are the current European sanctions against
the Palestinian government your idea of "blind support" ?

Alberta is part of Canada, so you'd have to make a pretty good offer to get us to part with it.

Tell you what, hand over New England, Wisconsonsin, they're practically Canadian anyway. Throw in Alaska. And you got a deal.

What kind of offer is that. We're already getting 'Creationism' museums springing up in Alberta. It's like some sort of national herpes. We don't want to encourage any more of this than we already have.

The whole idea (crazy as it is) makes sense only if it's possible to get majorities in the various countries to agree to it. It's a long shot that the populations of Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, and Syria would all agree to join together in a single state--but pan Arabism has been popular in the past, so maybe it's not a total impossibility, particularly if the economic and strategic advantages are great enough. Getting the majority of the Israeli population to agree to give up on the Jewish state in favor of joining an Arab state? I don't know, but for some reason I have a hunch that just wouldn't fly.

Do Manitoba and Saskatchewan have a function other than keeping the east and west from falling into a hole?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Purple State - Your idea is either a gerneration too late or a generation or two premature. Right now the pressure in the Muslim/Arab world is regression toward tribal links not pan nationalism. We can see that in Iraq's three ethnic/religious divisions. It is also occuring in Turkey, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan, Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Morocco, Somolia and Yemen.

This movement towards smaller, more cohesive organizational units is not surprising in a time of stress.

Israelis continue to press for a Jordanian solution to their Palestinian problem, either thru transfer or Jordanian annexation of some west bank territory. King Abdullah will never bite, he knows that such a move would bring millions of unhappy Palestinians and the revolt would mark the end of the Hashemite kingdom.

Two thoughts come to mind as I read your comment, jd:

First, our biology interferes with our best interest at times, doesn't it? As primates, in periods of scarcity or threat, we tend to bind more firmly to our tribe and become more aggressive toward other tribes. Biologically, this is an excellent survival mechanism when we're competing for resources made scarce by environmental factors over which we have no control. But in our artificial societies, where we can at times control--or at least influence--our environment, wider cooperation between tribes can sometimes be a better way to respond to scarcity and threat. How though, do we get people to ignore their biology? Millions of years of evolution are hard to counter with logic.

Second, what do we make of King Abdullah? He's one of the most pro-Western of all the Arab leaders, friendly toward Israel, relatively progressive, and a generally a benevolent monarch. Yet he's still a monarch and interested in preserving his power. When, for all his good characteristics, does he become an obstacle to progress?

It's interesting to note, too, that in 1996 those great spokesmen for Arab democracy, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser, recommended overthrowing Saddam Hussein and restoring the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq as a means to increasing Israel's security (the British gave the Hashemite clan two countries to rule--Jordan and Iraq--but the Hashemites were later overthrown in Iraq). Unfortunately, too many of the plans for the Middle East seem to be designed primarily for the benefit of Western and/or Israeli interests, without seriously considering Arab interests. No plan will ever work more than temporarily unless it works for all parties.

Osama Bin Laden's core objection to the Arab governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc., is that these governments do not truly respect or represent their people, but are merely tools for western interests.

Richard Perle, while approving of Democracy in principle, claims that if these countries were allowed to elect their own leadership, there would be a single election and that would be it. Of course, that single election would put in place leaders who represent the populations and peoples of these countries, and not western interests.

Its amazing how Osama Bin Laden and Richard Perle see eye to eye on so many subjects.

Your statement should not include Iran - neither Arab, nor is Osama's objection to it that it serves Western interest. His objection is that it is Shia and so worse than the infidels

abdul-hass,

The claim that the Dafur conflict is between "Arabs" and "Africans" is false. All of Darfur's communities are Muslim, black, Arabic-speaking, African and indigenous to the region.

Then what is Sudan doing in the League of Arab States?

Very good question.

Sudan's leadership, up to 2005, was northern and Arab. I disagree with the claim that the "Arab" versus "African" conflict, both in Darfur and in the main civil war, is false. The major Southern coalition, the SPLM/A, is decidedly not Arab. John Garang, the Southern leader and first vice-president in the coalition until his death, was a non-Arab Dinka.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

With the minor constraint that Arabs have a dialect of Arabic as a first language, that's a reasonable definition. The first languages of the Fur and Masalit peoples is Nilo-Saharan, which is not of the Arabic family.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The interests of the Arab masses are the same as those of the masses everywhere--peace, security, a chance to make a decent living and raise a family, a reasonable degree of control over their own destinies.

The problem, though, is throughout the past century, outside powers have imposed political plans on the Middle East that have been designed primarily to advance the interests of these outside powers, with little regard to the needs of the people:

Now, I know that throughout history, elites of various sorts have imposed political solutions on the masses that are designed solely to advance the interests of the elites. But generally, the elites must to some degree respond to the masses to avoid being overthrown. In the Middle East, however, the elites have been propped up so firmly by outside powers--Britain and America--that the usual give and take between the elites and their people has been stifled. This has encouraged increasing frustration and radicalization of the population which manifests itself in anti-Western, anti-elite movements and groups like the Iranian Revolution, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda. The more we try to impose "safe" plans on the Middle East that make us feel comfortable--the more intense these opposing radical forces will become. If we want to see the Middle East really improve, we need to stop worrying so much about our comfort, our security, and start trying damn hard to hear--and address--the too-long-suppressed and silenced needs of the Middle Eastern people.

Middle East peace will take significant sacrifices and risks on our part. Until we are ready to make those sacrifices and take those risks, we cannot claim truly to want peace. And we cannot expect to be successful.

Addendum: One of these risks/sacrifices may be that we actually have to give the radicals a seat at the bargaining table when we decide it's time to seriously talk peace.

Like I said - you can be an Arabic speaker and still be member of many different ethnicities and religions and "races". The definition is subjective. "first language" is a meaningless term that you made up. The language of any people changes over time & it doesn't necessarily correspond to an ethnicity.

If you don't believe a Duke historian, then take a gander at this from the Wash Post

Although the conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, everyone in Darfur appears dark-skinned, at least by the usual American standards. The true division in Darfur is between ethnic groups, split between herders and farmers. Each tribe gives itself the label of "African" or "Arab" based on what language its members speak and whether they work the soil or herd livestock. Also, if they attain a certain level of wealth, they call themselves Arab...."Black Americans who come to Darfur always say, 'So where are the Arabs? Why do all these people look black?' " said Mahjoub Mohamed Saleh, editor of Sudan's independent Al-Ayam newspaper. "The bottom line is that tribes have intermarried forever in Darfur. Men even have one so-called Arab wife and one so-called African. Tribes started labeling themselves this way several decades ago for political reasons. Who knows what the real bloodlines are in Darfur?"

The Arab-African division is made up for political reasons. Otherwise it doesn't exist. Claiming that the conflict is between "Africans" and "Arabs" is nonsense. It is an over-simplification that lacks factual basis. But perhaps you know better than the Duke historian and Sudanese newspaper editor?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Hmmm...interesting how you seem to mix up the north south conflict with the Darfur conflict:

Despite a few laudable attempts by serious political analysts to defray the often naïve and sometimes infantile portrayals of the Darfur conflict in the mass media, lazy writers persist in defining the war in Sudan’s westernmost region purely as an ethnic cleansing of Africans by Arab pro-government militias. Some even go so far as to conflate the conflict with the North-South civil war that ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in January 2005. That conflict has also often been simplistically defined purely in terms of Muslim Northerners and Christian southerners. While there are complex ethnic, regional and tribal dimensions to the Darfur conflict, there has been minimal acknowledgement that, in appearance at least, all the combatants are Black Africans and almost all are Muslim.... It is worth noting that until the late 1960’s, ‘African’ and ‘Arab’ in Darfur were not ethnic designations but were primarily used to differentiate between the more settled agrarian farmers and the cattle-herding nomads. Generations of intermarriage have made physiognomic distinction between ‘African’ and ‘Arab’ Darfuris virtually impossible.

So lets see now - a Duke historian is wrong and the Wash Post's quote of a Sudanese newpaper editor is erroneous - but you're the expert? LOL You'll excuse me if I continue to rely on those sources rather than some guy on a forum

FYI stop confusing the Darfur with the north-south conflict in Sudan.

And of course I apologize for using "carefully selected sources" for the quotes - I should instead rely on random know-it-alls that spout off hot air?

"It's way too easy to paint this conflict as one in which African tribes are the victims and Arabs are the aggressors," a U.N. official in the region said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "There are Arabs who are suffering. Several Arab tribes are not pro-government and not pro-anything. They are just as marginalized."

Although nomads in Darfur tend to identify themselves as Arabs and farmers tend to consider themselves Africans, the two groups have intermarried for centuries and are often physically indistinguishable.

and...

These labels attributed by the outside world masked economic and political differences that were readily subsumed into these ethnic divisions. The spreading conflict wrought by the drought was easily translated into an Arab/African dichotomy. But the people of Darfur do not live in opposing camps but in overlapping ones. These constructions have not only hurt them but prevented them from seeking solutions to the problems they actually face...

You haven't really approached the question, Purple State.  Where do we find the genuine voices of Arab interests?  Until we find these, all you offer is a bland generic notion of a-chicken-in-every-pot.  It would seem then, ironically, that you here in the West are the genuine voice of Arab interests.

If we want to see the Middle East really improve, we need to stop worrying so much about our comfort, our security, and start trying damn hard to hear--and address--the too-long-suppressed and silenced needs of the Middle Eastern people.

For the sake of argument, there is an article in the current Democracy journal by Shadi Hamid (Project on Middle East Democracy; Truman National Security Project), that offers at least one perspective suggesting that a Western push for democracy in the Middle East is not such an unwelcome development (in theory, if surely not in current practice) than you have asserted so far....

Islamists will come to power whether we like it or not; in Iraq, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories, they already have, It is better to have links–and leverage–with these groups before they come to power, not afterwards. This leverage will increase our ability to hold Islamists to their democratic commitments, and will be critical in ensuring that vital American interests are protected when "friendly" dictators are finally pushed out of power. Autocracy is not permanent. It will, sooner or later, give way to an uncertain "something else." The question is whether the United States will position itself on the right side of the coming transformation.

I think Israel would most like to ignore the Palestinians. I don't think it actively wants to eradicate them, it just would like them quiet and out of the way. I really don't think Israel is that expansionist. I do think many in Israel want to keep the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan. Beyond that, I see no evidence the Israel is interested in expanding its borders.

Purple State,

...I don't think pushing democracy down the barrel of a gun is an approach that responds to Arab needs. Nor do I think reacting to the democratic election of Hamas by punishing the voters is a particularly helpful way to respect and promote Arab democracy.

I don't ever remember saying that it was.  Please show me where I did, if you can.

Let's turn this question around: who is the genuine voice of the Jews?

There exists a functional electorate in Israel.  There is a certain clarity to the more recent electoral trends (following Labor's electoral domination, from the emergence of the state to Likud's rise in the 70s) whereby the more confident the Israeli electorate is in its security situation the more likely it is to choose a leadership more inclined toward reconciliation and compromise; the less confident, the more likely it is to choose hardline leadership.

We do not possess any similar baseline with which to assess Arab interests.  At this point, all we can know is what emergent Arab electorates don't want.  We do know that Arab peoples across the region have been fed a steady uniform diet of demonization of Israel and Zionism, as both western imperialist colonialism and as particularly Jewish hegemon.  While some criticism of particular Israeli policies are surely deserved, much of Arab anti-Israel propaganda has been quite effective at building way past legitimate criciticisms and into fantastic demonic bromides in the richest traditions of totalitarian fear-mongering for the sake of sustaining an entrenched Arab estabishment.  

For all we really know, popular Arab sentiment resulting from this multigenerational diet of propaganda has devolved into a systemic dysfunction in which Arab interests are reduced to simply being told what to do.  But I want to know more, and I want to know where to look to find out.

I don't ever remember saying that it was. Please show me where I did, if you can.

I didn't say you said it was. I was responding to your claim that I was somehow arguing that the Western push for democracy was unwelcome to the Arabs. I think a push for democracy may indeed be welcome--but the particular way in which we've pushed so far does not strike me as an approach the Arabs welcome or as one that has been particularly sensitive to Arab needs or opinions or, indeed, as one that is particularly sincere.

As far as your idea that Arab opinions are the result of their having been fed a diet of propoganda, I think that simply betrays the problem. A great many Western commentators lack respect for Arabs as people with their own--rational--ideas. The Arab opposition to Israel is not primarily the result of malicious propaganda--it's based in the fact that millions of Arabs have been displaced and disenfranchised by the creation of a Jewish state (really!). The creation of that state--however necessary to protect the Jews--was decidedly not in the interests of the Arabs. It also sent a very clear message to Arabs that, in the eyes of the West, the needs and rights of Jews were more important than those of Arabs.

Similarly, the Iranian population's dislike of Mohammad Reza Shah was not the result of "propoganda." It was the result of the Shah's brutal policies. And the hatred of the West that arose from the Shah's policies and that led to the Islamic revolution was not irrational--it was based on the fact that the West installed and propped up the Shah's regime. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism isn't insanity--it's a reaction to a Western imposed and/or supported order that has strangled more moderate attempts to create governments that respond to the needs of the Arab people. All I am claiming is that if we continue to try to rearrange the Middle East in ways that benefit us and not the Arabs/Persians/Etc, we can anticipate more violence and strife in the Middle East. It's really quite simple.

"just the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan"? LOL! And that's not expansionist? What's to happen to the millions of Palestinians living there?

ANd what happens afterwards - on what basis do you base your assumption that they won't want the Litany? What makes you think they'll stop their ambitions to recreate the mythical "Greater Israel" that they openly espouse?

abdul-hass,

There's a difference between thinking and hoping.

There is a difference between faith and reason, too.  Your faith in the evil of Israel, Jews and Zionism dominates your ability to reasonably assess a reality that the Israeli electorate and the majority of its elected policymakers recognize.  That is, that Israeli intentions were never to conquer Arab peoples, but rather to reintegrate the Jewish people, politically, culturally and economically, in its native region with all the national dignity it deserves.  Further, that the national dignity of Jews and Arabs in the former British Palestine are not mutually exclusive.

Please enlighten us why the standard ethnologic technique of identifying groups by first language...blah blah blah

Because as has been repeatedly pointed out to you the terms "Arab" and "African" and what language they speak has no real relationship to the conflict there, and the outsiders have arbitrarily classified the people there as "Arab" versus "African" based on no real ethnic/racial distinctions. Give it up already.

I gave you a 1 rating because you have demonstrated an inability to discuss anything that does not agree with your lofty preconceptions. "blah blah blah" might be the language of discussion between subteenagers, but it tends to disappear in high school, admittedly often replaced by "whatever."

After you dismiss "what has been repeatedly pointed out to you" by none other than the distinguished ethnological authority, Abdul-Hass, your thoughtful and authoritarian response is "give it up already."

May I suggest that you have already given up any evidence you are capable of substantive discussion? I am reminded, Sir or Madam, of the fabled witchee-watchee bird, which always flew backwards to see where he had been, rather than focusing on the present or future. One sad day, he injured a wing, causing him to fly in ever-decreasing circles, until, shrieking scorn and condescension at all, he flew up his own cloaca and disappeared.

In other words, give it up already.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

How is this supposed to work?  Will the only Jewish state conquer all 22 Arab states, or will all 13 or so million Jews conquer all 800 or so million Arabs?  Heck, if you already believe that Jews are powerful enough to kill gods and sons of gods, it must be an easy leap to the necessary faith that Greater Israel will rule the Middle East.

[And you really shouldn't pick on Valdron; you have alot in common.]

I have no doubt that Hamas would like to see the total destruction of Israel. However, I think the reason for that is not some kind of inherent anti-Semitism. I think it's because they see Israel as the root cause of their suffering and disenfranchisement. I think if a peace deal could give truly satisfactory compensation of some sort to the Palestinians, the extreme position of Hamas would evaporate. Now I can't guarantee this, but this is my sense from listening to the various currents of Arab opinion. If you listen to what Arabs say, you also know that the election of Hamas was not simply about a desire to destroy Israel. Hamas won in large part because of frustration with the corruption and ineffectiveness of Fatah--and because of frustration with the whole status quo. Arab opinion is indeed complex and multilayered. But even if there were a democratically elected government, it would be complex and not fully clear. America voted for Bush--but what really are the opinions of Americans about Bush and his policies? Opinions of any group are complex, multifaceted, and fluctuating. Arabs seem to support a two-state solution at the same time they elect Hamas--what really does this mean? It means that opinion is in flux--and a fair offer might very well shift opinion from one direction to another . . .

"Think" what you will but the facts (and Israeli politicians) speak for themselves - and they say expansionism.

Picture an SUV pulling up alongside a Palestinian family whose roots go back 10 generations. An American Jew from New York City, here only two weeks, screams at the Palestinian family: "Get off this land! God gave it to us!"

Just because something is malicious doesn't mean it isn't true. The entire history of Israel's treatment of non-Jews is pretty well defined by the word malevolent. Ask any Palestinian child living in a refugee camp.

Purple State,

I have no doubt that Hamas would like to see the total destruction of Israel. However, I think the reason for that is not some kind of inherent anti-Semitism. I think it's because they see Israel as the root cause of their suffering and disenfranchisement.

Hamas' reason for the eradication of Israel, or the Palestinian electorate's reason?

I tend to agree that the Palestinian electorate was faced with a choice between two bad options.  Namely, Fatah's apparently incurable corruption and Hamas' religious fundamentalism and political extremism.  But we must recognize that Hamas is first and foremost a theocratic religious party and will govern as such.  Again, we can only have an incomplete grasp of the interests at play in this political environment.  But what we can piece together is that the Palestinian electorate does not desire corrupt government or Israeli domination.  Where the electorate will draw the line between domination and simple existence will likely fluctuate according to events and circumstances.  No nation-state can totally avoid regional interdependence.  In the early years of Oslo, for example, one of the more successful Palestinian projects was the casino in Jericho.  There were little complaints over the money being made, outside of religious concerns for the abrasive Zionist influence on the society.  There was a brewery somewhere in the West Bank too (I forget the brand name), and for a short while was poised to compete with the Israeli Maccabi and Goldstar brands.  But it was shut down with pressure from Palestinian religious authorities as another example of decadent Zionist influence.  I guess it's more condusive to run a jihad when your constituency is unemployed and broke (or can only find work in Israel).

Oddly enough, the interests of the Israeli electorate fluctuate according to events and circumstances as well.  But what we know about the Israeli electorate, based on the available electoral track record, is that when the Israeli electorate is confident in its security sitiation it chooses a leadership open to reconciliation and compromise (Rabin, Barak, Olmert [at least as advertised]); and when it is insecure it chooses hard liners (Shamir, Netanyahu, Sharon).  The Israeli electorate is well aware, for the most part, that ongoing occupation and sustained settlement in the territories are a serious drain on every segment of their society.  But Israel will no longer just up and leave a territory because it is practical or simply because it is the right thing to do.  The experiences of the withdrawals from the Lebanese 20km security zone and Gaza make that almost certain.  So, a negotiated withdrawal is ideal.  But Hamas has already made clear it's rejection of previous negotiated agreements between Israel and the PLO (Fatah).  So, how does the Israeli electorate now approach the idea of negotiations with an adversary that rejects past negotiated agreements? 

Abdul-haas . . . I agree that the extreme religious zealots among the settlers are an exception to the rule. Certainly, on both sides, there are extremists who really do have malicious intentions. I really believe, though, from talking to both Jews and Arabs, that the vast majority of people are at their core not malicious. The problem, however, is that as the level of anger intensifies, the moderates can be swayed to extreme positions. Peace will require a tempering of anger so that people settle back to into their more benevelent and trusting natures.

I might just add that I have a rather unique perspective on this, having both Jewish and (Muslim) Arab relatives.

I'm sure a lot of Israelis are perfectly nice people & these are all very nice and noble sentiments - but "people" don't make policies. The policy was, is, will be expansionism and continued ethnic cleansing. That was a fact, is a fact, and by all indications, will be a fact. One can't refuse to acknowledge the facts. You can wish and hope that the facts will change - but in the meantime facts are facts. And as I write this, another Palestinian family has been murdered or ethnically cleansed, and more US taxpayer money has gone to Israel to subsidize ZIonist racist occupation colonies aka "settlements"

Who would be in the role of the traditional black-clad stagehands who busily change the set, but are never officially visible?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

These Arabs are just impossible aren't they? I mean who can figure them out?

I came into this trying to figure out "Arab interests," a curious term you had introduced into the thread.

What I said is this:

Unfortunately, too many of the plans for the Middle East seem to be designed primarily for the benefit of Western and/or Israeli interests, without seriously considering Arab interests.

I find it curious that you find the phrase "Arab interests" in this context so curious. I make no claim that I fully understand the interests of the Arabs or that those interests are completely clear to anyone. All I am saying is that for a plan for peace in the Middle East to work, it must take into consideration the interests of the Arabs. If we don't know those interests, then we need some process for discovering them. The conversation with Syria is a place to start. A conversation with Hamas would be an excellent next step.

So the 1967 war and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon were basically actions of Israeli territorial expansionism? Okay, sure, thats a legitimate argument that can be discussed.

On the the other hand, Israel clearly did not do so well in the 1973 war. Won it, sure. But there were real moments when it could have gone the other way, and the Arab armies weren't quite the pushovers that they were in 67. Israel did not do well at all in the 2007 war on Lebanon.

Between 1967 and 1973, even within 6 years the gap had narrowed. What would the outcome of a 79 war? Or an 85 war? Hell, even in 1973 Israel was panicked enough to be thinking about reaching for the nukes.

I'll give it to you that Israeli's betray the same sense of overwhelming siege and threat on the one hand, and superiority and entitlement on the other, that often leads nations into trouble.

But the fact is that most Israeli's simply have no stomach for regional conquest. Hell, they can't truly control the populations of the occupied territories. They couldn't control Lebanon. These are the smallest bites of territory in the region. Imagine them trying to rule Jordan the way they've run the West Bank? How about Syria?

Forget it. They don't have the money, they don't have the resources, they don't have the economy and they don't have the population. And they won't. They don't have the diplomatic or political or economic or military leverage of the European colonialists.

For most Israeli's, 'Greater Israel' is a dead letter. And the ones who still dream of it are just crazy ass bastards.

"The economy is stagnant"
It's a wishful thinking.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/opinion/10friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

Which gets to the point of this column: If you want to know why Israel’s stock market and car sales are at record highs — while Israel’s government is paralyzed by scandals and war with Hamas and doesn’t even have a finance minister — it’s because of this ecosystem of young innovators and venture capitalists. Last year, VCs poured about $1.4 billion into Israeli start-ups, which puts Israel in a league with India and China.

Israel is Exhibit A of an economic phenomenon I see a lot these days. Of course, competition between countries and between companies still matters. But when the world becomes this flat — with so many distributed tools of innovation and connectivity empowering individuals from anywhere to compete, connect and collaborate — the most important competition is between you and your own imagination, because energetic, innovative and connected individuals can now act on their imaginations farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before.

"Still, a serious effort on the Israeli-Syrian track would be the right thing to do".
It's a waste of time.
Israel will not give Golans without Syria becomes a friend of Israel.
Syria is not going to be friend of Israel without US accepting and supporting Syrian goverment.
Why would US support another dictatorship in Middle East and cause Syrians to hate US for that support?

duplicate

You're kidding, right? The more of a dictatorship, the more likely to be a "friend of the US" - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Better to control them that way.

You might do better to perhaps do some real economic analysis. GDP, rates of change in GDP, balance of trade, manufacturing outputs, real wages, tax revenue base, etc.

The Israeli economy has serious structural problems, and the Israeli government has serious financial problems. Only a couple of years ago, the Israeli leadership was seeking a 10 billion dollar loan package to save the Israeli economy from melt down.

A central issue for the Israeli economy is that it is a small population operating remote from its markets. It has a permanent geographic disability. Its agriculture is not economic compared to its neighbors. It has no economic relationship with its neighbors and no significant resource base. Put very simply, its got a standard of living it can't really afford.

But then, the United States has its own structural economic problems.

"unsuspecting US taxpayers "
I think US taxpayers are quite suspecting.

How about Israel, India, Europa and so on.
US have a lot of friends who are not dictatorships.

Winning or losing a war is not an absolute, and the conditions for success and failure can be complex. The nations most likely to get into trouble are those that have not defined those conditions before beginning hostilities. Fred Ikle's Every War Must End (prefer second edition) has an excellent list of wars both lost and stalemated due to mission creep, poorly defined objectives, or "strategic overreach".

Bluntly, it's a scare tactic to say that if Israel lost a war, it would be destroyed. Many countries have ended a war with less than ideal terms, but survived. After WWII, Japan was about as devastated as a nation could be, demilitarized, much of the senior leadership imprisoned or dead, and the shortage of natural resources that it had before starting what it called the "Pacific War". It was totally occupied, as, presumably, a losing Israel would be. Occupied nations, however, often rise again. Are you suggesting that a victory over Israel would automatically put all Israelis into gas chambers?

Had there ever been a US-USSR major nuclear exchange, the potential existed for as much or more devastation than Israel might suffer from any plausible enemy. That might not have been deliberate genocide, but it would have killed more than the population of Israel, and more than the 50 million or so WWII war dead. Even then, there were plans, which might or might not have worked, for rebuilding.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Indeed Israel does seek regional hegemony - which is short of actual conquest but good enough for now - and indeed Israel does depend on the US to obtain this - even though it is contrary to US interests - but on what basis do you assume that the US is capable of extricating itself from Israel? Israeli agents have infiltrated the highest policy-making positions in the US political and military establishment. This isn't a Republican-Democrat thing - just look into the backgrounds of people like Martin Indyk who as a non-citizen was appointed straight out of the offices of AIPAC to the post of undersecretary for Near East Affairs (where he implemented his "Dual Containment" policy on Iraq and Iran) before becoming the first Jewish US amb. to Israel, violating the conflict of interest guidelines that until then had prevented such things. Look at the background of Perle and Feith - is it an accident that they are all Israel-firsters? That they were all at some point subject to FBI investigations for violations of national security but the investigations were dropped?

When your presidential cadidates fall over themselves to gush effusively about Israel at the latest AIPAC meeting, the country is lost buddy. Lost. We have been invaded and we don't even know it.

No, sorry, just as the US held Israel's jacket as they attacked Lebanon with US-made cluster bombs, the US will support Israel in her next wars too. That "middling power" is an albatross around the neck of the United States, and the Iraq war is just one mess they got us into. Walt and Meirsheimer point it all out.

but on what basis do you assume that the US is capable of extricating itself from Israel?

You're looking at it the wrong way. The U.S. may well remain 'intricated' with Israel, but its power and influence in the region is on the wane, and perhaps in danger of collapse.

Certainly Iraq hasn't done the US any good in the region. It seems to have painted itself into a corner of guaranteed loss of face in terms of Iran, and is pretty much laid it out for Iran to be the ultimate hegemon in the region. The Saudi's have all but cut loose from American foreign policy and are doing their own diplomatic initiatives. America's name is mud in Lebanon. Afghanistan is a disaster. Pakistan is only in league because its coerced. America is embracing another disaster in Somalia.

So what do they have left? A few Persian Gulf sheikhs who will turn quickly enough in the face of both the Saudi's and the Iranians.

And after that? Kuwait? The rolling disaster that will be Kurdistan? Egypt so long as they keep cutting billion dollar cheques.

Let's face facts. Israel's well aware that its just not up to the task of conquering, if it can conquer it can't hold, if it can hold it can't integrate. So they're falling back on regional hegemony, but frankly, that's a by-product of piggybacking on the American juggernaut, and that Juggernaut isn't going to last. It's cut its own throat in too many ways.

And what happens when the American juggernaut belly flops? Well, we already know that answer. The Americans take their toys and they go home and sulk for twenty or thirty years. America becomes isolationist, they don't want to hear it, they don't want to think about it, they don't want to go anywhere near it. AIPACC will have tough sledding then. American politicians will cut a few cheques, certainly, but that's as far as it will go.

It would be very nice for them if they could redraw the maps of the region to guarantee squabbling, inferior states over which Israel could divide and rule. But that's not going to happen.

Israel's 'imperial ambitions' are just another flash in the historical pan. It's come and gone, the afterimage is already fading.

It's all happened before, it'll happen again, and its not even very interesting, except for the poeple who buy into it.

"n the Mideast, the more repressive a state is, the more likely it is to be a US ally."
Can you prove it?
Can you rank countries in order of repressivness and friendship to US?

"srael is a quite repressive as far as tne millions of ethnically cleansed Palestinians are concerned."

Not millions but 600.000 Palestinians 60 years ago.

"Are you suggesting that a victory over Israel would automatically put all Israelis into gas chambers?"

Are there any doubts?

Obviously some might be able to escape, but the rest would be brutally murdered.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It is the consensus of the Israeli leadership and the Israeli populace that Israel lost the war in Lebanon.

Israel's objectives were to finish Hezbollah as a force. That failed utterly.

Israel's objectives were to neutralize Hezbollahs missiles. That failed utterly.

Israel's objectives were to bring security to its northern territories. That failed utterly.

Israel's objectives were to secure the release of captured/kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Where are they now? Oops! Failed utterly.

What Israel did succeed in doing? Bombing fleeing refugee convoys, bombing a building full of children, bombing thousands of innocent civilians, destroy vast amounts of civilian infrastructure including the electricity grid and communications systems not used by Hezbollah, employing cluster bombs against civilian populations, causing an ecological catastropher of unparalleled proportions in the mediteranean.

If you choose to measure success or failure in the ability to kill innocent civilians, women, children, refugees, and to inflict destruction and terror... yes, Israel won. I'm sure that Osama Bin Laden would award you the prize.

By every other yardstick, including the moral measurement, Israel lost. This is the verdict of most Israeli's.

Sorry Davai, but Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians didn't end 60 years ago - it is on going even now.

As I said many times, appr 600.000 Arabs were kicked out of Israel and appr. 600.000 Jews were kicked out of Arab counries and moved to Israel.
In the same time there were another tens or 100s
millions refugees (Germany, India, Pakistan ....)

I'm not sure what this fact has to do Holocaust deniers.

Well, if the sun sets on America in the middle east, then Israel is obviously not going to be ruling the roost through that route.

And it doesn't have the population, the military strength or the economy to conquer and hold. It doesn't have the economy or the diplomatic finesses to dominate the region via neocolonialism.

The notion that an opportunistic Israel would just hitch itself to the next superpower that dominates the region is interesting. But it strikes me as farfetched.

Israel's influence in the US is a result of a unique confluence of factors. A large, secure and wealthy Jewish population. A sympathetic right wing and religious evangelical constituency. Tons of money. Lobbying people and resources. And finally, a corrupt political system which is particularly vulnerable to AIPACC and similar lobbying groups.

I don't see that same set of factors operating in Russia. I don't see it operating in China. I certainly don't see it in India or Iran. Will it operate in the European Union, doubtful.

Well whatever may or may not happen to US power in the Mideast in the future, the fact is that this is happening now - Israel is seeking regional domination and is expanding its borders. These are facts.