Middle East discussion

[Mouthwash]

Moderator Action: Posts moved out of World History.

There's a saying about the Middle East; everyone there was killing each other for millenia before Israel showed up. Now they have a common enemy, so they've mostly stopped. When Israel goes down, they'll go straight back to killing each other.

They're still killing each other at the fastest pace they can manage. How do you know Israel will go down? Maybe they'll get used to them.

 

[Lord Baal]

They're still killing each other at the fastest pace they can manage. How do you know Israel will go down? Maybe they'll get used to them.

Israeli policy is arse-backwards. It needs to either adapt or die, and it doesn't seem to be adapting well. It's always possible that its policy will perform an bout-face, but that seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Mouthwash]

Israeli policy is arse-backwards. It needs to either adapt or die, and it doesn't seem to be adapting well. It's always possible that its policy will perform an bout-face, but that seems unlikely at this point.

You mean the horrific apartheid in Palestine story that Westerners are spoon-fed by hysterical newspapers? I don't know any serious analyst who would suggest that current Israeli policy is liable to result in the destruction of of the state; just liberal Jewish nutcrackers who read the Crisis of Zionism and think they've found the Answer to peace in the Middle East.

 

[Lord Baal]

You mean the horrific apartheid in Palestine story that Westerners are spoon-fed by hysterical newspapers? I don't know any serious analyst who would suggest that current Israeli policy is liable to result in the destruction of of the state; just liberal Jewish nutcrackers who read the Crisis of Zionism and think they've found the Answer to peace in the Middle East.

You're speaking to a serious analyst who thinks the two-state solution is doomed to eventual failure. Just because I dropped out of uni to take care of a child doesn't mean I'm not qualified to discuss this issue with the best of them. Setting up Palestine as a separate state will only result in a state that is strong enough to oppose Israel and, unlike the other Arab states in the region, actually has good reason to physically destroy the state. Keeping the Palestinian state perpetually weak (which isn't actually possible in the long-run) as seems to be the going idea at the moment, is doomed to eventual failure. The longer Israel holds down the Palestinian populace the more emnity it will create, strengthening the eventual backlash. That is what ignited the intifada to begin with.

If Israel is to survive it needs to democratise and secularise itself. The demographic changes in Israel mean that even if the two-state solution is pursued, Muslim Palestinians will eventually outnumber the Jews in Israel, even if Israel strenuously pursues pro-immigration policies (which is actually the opposite of current trends). As such, the discriminatory leglisation against non-Jews is liable to eventual blow-back. Israel should be strengthening democratic and legal institutions in order to prevent its Jewish population from experiencing an anti-Jewish regime rising to power in Israel. The more time Israel's Muslims and Arabs spend under a secular, non-disriminatory regime, the less likely they are to impose one upon Israel's Jewish population when they gain majority status in the future.

Also, you should probably cut out the perjoratives against anyone who disagrees with your own viewpoint. It's unnecessary, foolish and makes your own argument appear the weaker, regardless of its quality. It's a highly-juvenile argumentative style.

 

[Masada]

Fair warning. Mouthwash is on record advocating bantustans as a solution to the "minority problem" in the United States while his views on Israel come across as anti-Zionist propaganda. It isn't. But if I didn't know otherwise I'd have just assumed Mouthwash was part of Hezbollah's propaganda section.

Hell, I think Turkey and Iran are also "part of the Arab world" according to your average American.

Just to be clear things up. Which of the following are you trying to say?

(1) Hell, the average American thinks Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.
(2) Hell, I thought Turkey and Iran were part of the Arab world.
(3) Hell, I and the average American think Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.
(4) Hell, Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.
(5) Hell, I, the average American, think Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.

The linking of "I" and "the average American" together in the sentence through your use of "according" really muddies the water. Personally, I think (3) is really the only possible way to read it. But you've rejected that reading, I think?

 

[JohannaK]

In other nuts, he is the closest thing to one of these nutcracks he accuses everyone else of being.

 

[Yeekim]

But if I didn't know otherwise I'd have just assumed Mouthwash was part of Hezbollah's propaganda section.

Are you sure he isn't? I'm pretty pro-Israeli, but a bit less so every time after reading his posts.

(1) Hell, the average American thinks Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.

To be fair, no other interpretation occurred to me after reading the sentence.

 

[Lord Baal]

Fair warning. Mouthwash is on record advocating bantustans as a solution to the "minority problem" in the United States while his views on Israel come across as anti-Zionist propaganda. It isn't. But if I didn't know otherwise I'd have just assumed Mouthwash was part of Hezbollah's propaganda section.

You don't think New Zealand would be much safer if we packed you orange chaps off into your own little enclaves?

Seriously, thanks for that.

Just to be clear things up. Which of the following are you trying to say?

(1) Hell, the average American thinks Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.
(2) Hell, I thought Turkey and Iran were part of the Arab world.
(3) Hell, I and the average American think Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.
(4) Hell, Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.
(5) Hell, I, the average American, think Turkey and Iran are part of the Arab world.

The linking of "I" and "the average American" together in the sentence through your use of "according" really muddies the water. Personally, I think (3) is really the only possible way to read it. But you've rejected that reading, I think?

I immediately thought he meant (1). It's worded very poorly, but is understandable.

Yes, things definitely escalated under Johnson in Vietnam, if that's what you mean. But Nixon, while topping the bill on that, also managed to finally withdraw from what was a totally unnecessary, losing war from the start.

Nixon's predecessor wasn't assassinated. By that point Vietnam was an issue in and of itself, whereas under Johnson it was just one of his predecessor's eccentricities that he felt the need to pursue.

 

[Tee Kay]

If Israel is to survive it needs to democratise and secularise itself. The demographic changes in Israel mean that even if the two-state solution is pursued, Muslim Palestinians will eventually outnumber the Jews in Israel, even if Israel strenuously pursues pro-immigration policies (which is actually the opposite of current trends).

And we're not even touching on the Haredim and other sectarian issues among Israeli Jews.

Any recommended books or dpcumentaries on the issue?

Like Lord Baal, I can't say I can recommend any since this is mostly absorbed from very wide reading. I'm not even a history major like Lord Baal is. It sounds like a cop-out answer but it is actually the best advice, IMHO; nothing beats going out there and reading widely from many different points of view.

 

[JohannaK]

Well then, what the hell did you read to know all that? That's what I'm asking. "Very wide reading" is not even a hint of a direction.

 

[Masada]

Are you sure he isn't? I'm pretty pro-Israeli, but a bit less so every time after reading his posts.

I don't think Hezbollah would have adopted a persona that over the top.

You don't think New Zealand would be much safer if we packed you orange chaps off into your own little enclaves?

We'd get angry, make babies and conquer the country within a generation.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well then, what the hell did you read to know all that? That's what I'm asking. "Very wide reading" is not even a hint of a direction.

A lot of what I know comes from the books I read at uni, including actual university readers. That is, books that are full of excerpts from other books, designed for the sole purpose of teaching that particular subject.

Any good scholarly work dealing with either Israeli or American foreign policy will give you at least a general overview of Israel's place in the region. American Foreign Policy Since 1945 is a good book, but unfortunately I don't have it with me right now and don't recall the authors' names. I know Stephen Walt has written plenty about Israel, but much of that is about the Israeli lobby in the US.

Honestly, a lot of this comes from reading a very wide variety of internet and print journalism over an extended period of time, with a few scholarly works thrown in here and there over the years. It helps that I know a little Yiddish and have people that can translate it for me when I get stuck. I certainly haven't kept up with Israeli politics lately.

Much of my analysis is my own thinking, with a little of innonimatu and Arwon thrown in for good measure. Arwon once made the comment that there are three Israels; Greater Israel, Jewish Israel and Democratic Israel. He said it needed to pick which two it wanted to be. That comment is correct, but even it doesn't go far enough, since even a small Jewish Democratic Israel will eventually have a Muslim majority; there's already an Arab plurality, and even Jewish Arabs are mistreated in Israeli society. I've certainly not read the argument I've made in this thread elsewhere, unless you want to count the 2,000 word essay I wrote on the subject in 2008.

 

[Mouthwash]

You're speaking to a serious analyst who thinks the two-state solution is doomed to eventual failure. Just because I dropped out of uni to take care of a child doesn't mean I'm not qualified to discuss this issue with the best of them. Setting up Palestine as a separate state will only result in a state that is strong enough to oppose Israel and, unlike the other Arab states in the region, actually has good reason to physically destroy the state. Keeping the Palestinian state perpetually weak (which isn't actually possible in the long-run) as seems to be the going idea at the moment, is doomed to eventual failure. The longer Israel holds down the Palestinian populace the more emnity it will create, strengthening the eventual backlash. That is what ignited the intifada to begin with.

If Israel is to survive it needs to democratise and secularise itself. The demographic changes in Israel mean that even if the two-state solution is pursued, Muslim Palestinians will eventually outnumber the Jews in Israel, even if Israel strenuously pursues pro-immigration policies (which is actually the opposite of current trends). As such, the discriminatory leglisation against non-Jews is liable to eventual blow-back. Israel should be strengthening democratic and legal institutions in order to prevent its Jewish population from experiencing an anti-Jewish regime rising to power in Israel. The more time Israel's Muslims and Arabs spend under a secular, non-disriminatory regime, the less likely they are to impose one upon Israel's Jewish population when they gain majority status in the future.

Nope, that does not follow. A demilitarized Palestinian state without nuclear weapons and under effective Israeli control couldn't actually threaten Israel's existence by any means that I know of (enlighten me if you know a way) given the fact that Israel's has one of the most advanced armies and air forces in the world and it has a few policemen and a guerrilla force, and if it tried, we'd just come back in and kick a few hundred thousand Palestinians out so they can be Jordan's headache.

I don't see why it isn't in the Arab states' interest to destroy Israel. They just don't see it happening any time soon.

I don't think that you understand the point of being a secular state. Israel is a nation state on the European model, not an artificial state with arbitrary borders and zero sense of nationhood (like Ira, or Libya). Besides the fact that those states aren't exactly upstanding examples of stability or progress, I think Israel would much rather bear the diplomatic and political cost of expelling disloyal Arabs than allow itself to be consumed.

In addition, most of the demographic scares in Israel about Arabs are overblown. In fact the PA often inflates the number in order to try and put pressure on Israel. The Palestinian statistic in 2011 was inflated by one million Arabs: 400,000 overseas residents; a double count of 300,000 Jerusalem Arabs, who are counted as Israeli Arabs and as West Bankers; etc. And let me remind you that fertility rates do not tend to stay the same, especially in Israel.

Fair warning. Mouthwash is on record advocating bantustans as a solution to the "minority problem" in the United States while his views on Israel come across as anti-Zionist propaganda. It isn't. But if I didn't know otherwise I'd have just assumed Mouthwash was part of Hezbollah's propaganda section.

I think by know it's fairly obvious that I don't actually think blacks and whites need to be separated for their own good, and try reading my post about Israel sometime.

Not responding to further quibbling.

 

[Mouthwash]

A lot of what I know comes from the books I read at uni, including actual university readers. That is, books that are full of excerpts from other books, designed for the sole purpose of teaching that particular subject.

Any good scholarly work dealing with either Israeli or American foreign policy will give you at least a general overview of Israel's place in the region. American Foreign Policy Since 1945 is a good book, but unfortunately I don't have it with me right now and don't recall the authors' names. I know Stephen Walt has written plenty about Israel, but much of that is about the Israeli lobby in the US.

Honestly, a lot of this comes from reading a very wide variety of internet and print journalism over an extended period of time, with a few scholarly works thrown in here and there over the years. It helps that I know a little Yiddish and have people that can translate it for me when I get stuck. I certainly haven't kept up with Israeli politics lately.

Much of my analysis is my own thinking, with a little of innonimatu and Arwon thrown in for good measure. Arwon once made the comment that there are three Israels; Greater Israel, Jewish Israel and Democratic Israel. He said it needed to pick which two it wanted to be. That comment is correct, but even it doesn't go far enough, since even a small Jewish Democratic Israel will eventually have a Muslim majority; there's already an Arab plurality, and even Jewish Arabs are mistreated in Israeli society. I've certainly not read the argument I've made in this thread elsewhere, unless you want to count the 2,000 word essay I wrote on the subject in 2008.

What do you mean "Jewish Arabs are mistreated?" Don't you mean Mizrahi Jews? My entire family in Israel is Moroccan and I don't exactly see Jim Crow on the streets. Instead, my family seems to have thrived under Israeli society after moving here and has integrated even more smoothly than most blacks or Mexicans have in the US. Why is it that I even respond to you? Correlate that crap. You simply don't. How does the slight animosity among different Jewish ethnicities point to a systematic hatred and racism for Arabs (not to mention the study after study which shows the the overwhelming majority of Israeli Arabs are happy with their state and a substantial portion of them respect Israel's right to be Jewish as long as it gives equal rights to non-Jews, but you can look that up for yourself)?

You do not follow your own logic out with actual typed words. This is what I'm pointing out to you, and how your behavior is reflecting the actions of a child who skips ahead in speech instead of narrating the entire thought string/pattern that allows one to see how and where you arrive at your reasoning. It's incoherent. Instead wasting my time in tearing up your cheap, one-liner assertions for which no evidence whatsoever is presented, let me point out a few things:

Your comment about Mizrahi Jews could be applied to the black population in the US.

If Israel withdraws from the West Bank, the there is a pretty easy and obvious solution to the Arab problem within Israel proper, as most Israeli Arabs consider themselves Palestinians.

No, there won't ever be an Arab majority in pre-1967 Israel. Nations do not commit suicide so easily if they have extremely obvious options for avoiding it. But I don't think you get the point of "nationhood" if you believe that Israel can still exist with an Arab majority.

 

[JohannaK]

Nationhood, hmm... the point of nationhood is a to feel part of somewhere. If these Arabs felt Israeli, Israel would survive. However, that is not going to happen, is it? Not anytime soon, not with current policies.

 

[Mouthwash]

Nationhood, hmm... the point of nationhood is a to feel part of somewhere. If these Arabs felt Israeli, Israel would survive. However, that is not going to happen, is it? Not anytime soon, not with current policies.

Oh well, I didn't expect many people to comprehend my arguments or make a rational reply.

 

[Ajidica]

Again, do you intentionally try to come off as an ass or do you just have the world's worst case of Internet Aspergers?
I thought it might have been Internet Aspergers but now I'm not so sure. You clearly know your stuff so this posture you have helps nobody and only makes us disregard whatever points you may have because we don't feel like wading through several paragraphs of self-righteousness and antagonistic onanism.

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming - please keep things civil and focus on the points made, not the person making them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

And note the very Dachsian use of "onanism", before you go complaining that it's lengthy bodies of text in general we object to.

 

[Ajidica]

Huh?
fivechar

 

[Traitorfish]

"Onanism" is a favourite of Dachs', which seems to have caught on around here in the last little while as a result of his usage. Point being, if people are adsorbing these little quirks, it means they're clearly willing to read large blocs of text when there's something there worth reading.