Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UtahDan
Yeah I don't know that any of them do. I have gone back and forth on my feelings about what is happening there for a long time. On the one hand I want them to resolve their differences and I want bloodshed to be avoided.
On the other hand, this notion that you can broker peace between sides that have so many gripes, hatreds and greivences (both real and percieved) is a notion that has only taken root in the last 30 or so years and I'm not convinced any longer that it is possible. We commit ourselves to "peace keeping missions" and dipolmacy toward this end but does it ever work? Are we peace keepers anywhere that would not dissolve into civil war once we leave?
Now I think there are many other good reasons to try to keep the whole middle east from being on fire, but, I wonder can we? There is no country called Flanders. There is no Venetian state, nor a Wales nor a Confederate States of America. The most lasting peace, historically, has come from two groups or nations (loosely defined) having a blood letting and one of them WINNING. The winner them sets the rules and keeps the loser from threatening him for a while. Sometimes the loser gets assimilated and other times it dissapears all together. I'm not sure that this modern idea that every group who wants their own state is somehow entitled to one. I think if you want one you get it the way everyone else has: through struggle.
Anyway, the rest of the middle east is hopelessly outgunned in a conflict with Israel. This is the reason arabs blow up buses and cafes rather than march on Jersalem. It is not for a lack of desire that they don't do this, just a lack of ability. This also relates to why it is a no brainer to be in Israel's side. The arab world in the last 50 years has twice united and tried to wipe Isreal off the map, not the other way around. None of these arab states (I believe) acknowledges Israel as a nation. They can't of course because your average arab does not. Israel is often brutal but what should they do? I think in this choice of two skunks they are the lesser of two evils.
I hate to say this, but I think the only thing that will bring even temporary peace in the Middle east is yet another large scale conflict involving Israel and several arab states where Israel once again defeats them. Israel can't not act on what is happening to them. The arabs come from a from of reference that will not permit them to live peacefully next to Israel. The solution is not talk because they can't resolve their differences, they are too profound. The result is conflict on the level that will crush one side, and take away the taste for that level of death for at least a generation or two.
BTW, I would love to be wrong about the forgoing, but that view is the "realist" in me, not the idealist.
|
Pretty good analysis, Unless I am mistaken, Egypt and Jordan now recognize Israel and Saudia Arabia and other smaller Arab States refuse to fight. I guess they got tired of the ass-whuppings from the earlier wars and decided to make peace. It seems like it is now Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran against Israel, with Iraq having to bow out in the interim due to internal issues.
You are right, the other Arab states are hopelessly out-gunned. One has to wonder what it will take for these other states to realize they cant keep getting back up and then getting knocked in the mouth again. Egypt and Jordan have wised up. Hopefully the rest will as well. Israel is not going anywhere.