Am I crazy? Maybe. But every day I'm a little more convinced that things are getting better in the Middle East, and are going to continue to get better. Especially for Palestine and for Israel. And no, I'm not kidding...
I mention him a lot, but only because he's worth mentioning a lot. Daniel Pipes, in a recent column (Hope in the Middle East) says that most of the press coverage is giving us an impression that's almost the exact opposite of what's happening in Palestine. As he writes, many ordinary Palestinians are starting to ask themselves, "Was all this misery really necessary?"
Indeed.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: There is a mindset here in the West, among Americans especially, that in any violent conflict the stronger party is the bad guy. We love David & Goliath-type stories (but don't even get me started on how weird that analogy is when applied to this situation). We seem to automatically root for the underdog. We love movies where the battered and beaten hero suddenly finds his energy, leaps to his feat, and defeats the evil villain. Why on Earth do you think stuff like Star Wars is so popular, anyway?
But the real world isn't movies. Everyone knows that, yet it's surprising how easy it is to forget. So let's say something out loud that should be said: Sometimes, in a conflict, the weaker combatent is wrong and the strong one is right. Sometimes, neither one is right.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as a bully. But how do we know what a bully is? Because, by definition, a bully fights and, usually, wins. After all, how can you be a bully if you usually get your butt kicked?
So, let's say we accept the notion that Israel is a bully. A mean-spirited, selfish, racist boor of a state. A bunch if irrational Jews who just want to beat up the helpless Palestinians and steal their land (with a few enlightened Liberals among them trying to point out the error of their ways, of course). Maybe it's even some sort of psychotic revenge-by-proxy, and the Jews are working out their issues with long-dead Brown Shirts by re-enacting Kristallnacht in Jenin and Bethlehem
Mind you, I think that's a bunch of horseshit pharted out by people who want to sound smart when they know very little about the subject. But hey, maybe I'm missing something. Let's just go with it for the moment. Sharon is Darth Vader with a yarmulka. Okay, so, what does that change?
Fact is, the Israelis could wipe out everyone in Palestine. Their armed forces are among the best trained, best equipped, and numerically superior in the world, while the Palestinians have almost nothing. Sharon could just go in there and start shooting until every Palestinian is dead or fled. The Israelis used less than 1% of their military forces in the so-called "massacre" in Jenin. They're capable of far, far, far more destruction than they've wrought in the last few months.
Furthermore, the Israelis have had nuclear weapons for some time now, and are the only ones in the region who do. They could not only turn much of Palestine into a glass parking lot, they could do it without fear of nuclear retaliation if they did. Besides, there are massacres of a scale comparable to wiping out Palestine going on all over the world, and have been for decades, yet those who carry out the massacres usually survive. Clearly, "Goliath" lacks the desire to wipe out the "Philistines" (I told you not to get me started!) even though he could.
So what happens when you blow a spit-wad at a bully? In the worldwide scheme of things, that's what strapping a bomb onto a Palestinian girl amounts to. Think not? Think again. While exploding kids have killed dozens of people in Israel, there are millions living there. In any given year the Israelis probably lose more people in auto accidents than they do to the efforts of cowards (oops, I'm sorry, "brave and noble freedom fighters") who whip children into a frenzy and then send them into Israel to blow themselves up.
Every time Palestine blows another spitwad, the bully retaliates by blackening Palestine's eye or knocking out one of its teeth. In the real world (as opposed to comic book fantasy worlds), how long does the average person keep taunting bullies before he gets tired of being shoved into a locker and having his underwear pulled over his head?
It's pretty clear what the bully wants. He wants to live where he's at and be left alone. The bully's offered to leave Palestine alone several times, in exchange for keeping some (not all, just some) of what he's already taken. At some point, will the desperate, put-upon Palestinians give up, let the bully keep their lunch money, and stop blowing spitwads? I think it likely.
But what if the Israelis are not bullies? What if their view of themselves is basically correct: that they are a very tiny group of people who have a very tiny sliver of land in a vast Middle East? That they mostly just want the territory they had when this whole mess started, plus a small handful of areas that will help them defend themselves from potential attacks by their giant neighbors? That they otherwise just want to live and let live? What if they don't even care if the Arabs like them, as long as they're willing to leave them alone? What if the Palestinians are led by a frail, aging psychotic who's brought them nothing but misery, rack and ruin? What if the Palestinians finally figure out that compromise is easier than continuing madness?
Then there are only two possibilities I see: (1) Everyone in Palestine is crazy and willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child, or (2) most of them will start to notice that the only progress they're making is backwards, and figure out that some kind of accomodation with Israel must be reached--but can't be until their psycho cousin in the apartment downstairs stops blowing up children in Israel.
We like to sound pious by talking about how "hate" is the "root cause" of all this, but the cold truth is that hate really isn't the main problem. The Greeks and the Turks still hate each other, but haven't been at war in generations. You can hate Jews and still live next to them in peace. I'm betting that the average Palestinian is starting to figure that out, and that every Israeli incursion makes it just a little more obvious to him. Unless Palestinians in general are just really stupid--and I don't think they can all be that stupid forever.
Dean,
I agree with Pipes' latest column about the Palestinians expending themselves politically in the next year or so. However, I wonder if their future leadership will be less shortsighted than their past leadership.
I stated here earlier my belief that the Palestinians are represented by the most myopic, asinine leadership imaginable. The radical Moslems and radical Arabs also have a characteristic common to all totalitarian systems: assassination.
They kill those Palestinians who disagree with them publicly. That is why you see no moderate Palestinian voices expressed in Palestine. Will the future Palestinian leadership murder any voices expressing disagreement with their terrorist policies?
Kevin Brehmer
I'm not sure the leadership matters so much as the mindset of the people on the street--in the long run.
Dean;
One of your comments begs a question on another subject for discussion; if the Palestinians are "led by a frail, aging psychotic who's brought them nothing but misery, rack and ruin" or to use brother Brehmer's phrase, "the most myopic, asinine leadership imaginable", why haven't they risen up to over through him? "Oppression" is the natural answer, but I would like to posit another idea which may shade this conflict and provide an answer the lingering presence of Fidel Castro at the helm of Cuba: What do the people gain from their continuing allegiance to these aging demagogues? The answer might be sought in the psychology of victimhood.
Much has been noted on the rise of this mindset in our society in the last few decades. This begs a further question:What are the psychological benefits of this state of mind which unites such disparate groups as African Americans, victims of abuse of varying degrees, underdog nations and "angry white males"? Is victimhood a perverse form of empowerment in a world of increasing meritocracy? I'd like to solicit some thoughts on this subject from the usual suspects and perhaps use some of that for a future submission on this subject.
Paul,
You once bring up some interesting points here. I believe one good answer to the Palestinian plight lies in the type of government representing them: totalitarianism. The Palestinians find themselves in the same position as the Russians and the Central Europeans who drove off their oppressors only after decades of terrible, ideological leadership.
I firmly believe the Islamic religious fanatics are every bit as totalitarian and ideological as the communists were throughout the twentieth century. The big difference is the religious element. If Osama and the other radical Moslems ever take over a government, it will be by force, er revolution, and they will govern as dismally as the Russian communists did for eighty years.
The only unresolved question I see is whether Arabs will EVER be able to choose a competent government. In ìThe Closed Circleî (it appears on Daniel Pipesí website http://www.danielpipes.org) David-Pryce Jones describes how Arabs are destined to always be governed by the political equivalent of Danteís Inferno.
He calls this the power-challenge dialectic whereby a careerist who kills off his rivals and protects himself from such treatment by surrounding himself with loyal friends, such as Saddam Hussein does using family members overthrows one government. This murderous cycle necessarily prevents any loyal dissent. Surprise! Any subject voicing contrary opinions by the power holder is viewed as a power-rival and is in turn eliminated.
Being killed makes it quite difficult to overthrow a tyrant who owns all the guns. Remember, such a tyrant must first see to it that nobody overthrows him.
You can see just why democratic institutions have such a difficult time taking hold in the Arab world. The same rights we take for granted every single day are verboten in the Arab world. This is most difficult to convey to westerners, especially Americans, since we are largely ignorant of the non-western world. One reason is definitely because we are such a terrible foreign language studying country. But that is another topic for another day.
I see the sense of victimhood you mention Paul, as a symptom of the problem rather than a cause itself. You can see Arafartís mouthpiece, Hassan Abdul Rahman, on the tele taking full advantage of Americaís victimhood mindset. He always, always brings up the terrorism suffered by Palestinians at the hand of the Israelis. This is symptomatic of the usual Arab ethno-centric view of history.
The Israelis are not ìterrorizingî the Palestinians. They are instead responding militarily to the asymmetrical terrorist war waged against them. Rahman is simply using the moral equivalence argument exploited by the great totalitarians of the twentieth century, the Russian communists.
He is attempting to brainwash Americans into believing the Israeli government are terrorists, which they are not, thereby justifying Palestinian homicide bombings in Israel. If he is not justifying it, then he is at least mitigating the homicide bombings through using the same tu quoque argument the Russians used for eighty years.
Yesterdayís tu quoque argument is today's moral equivalence argument. I see that this argument is the common staple of totalitarians worldwide and of Democrats in America today.
This inferior form of argument will continue due to ignorance. Vast numbers of Americans have no idea what a logical fallacy is let alone a tu quoque one. You put your finger on a favorite bugbear of mine, Paul. I see this ignorance as the biggest obstacle to solving any problems in America, pure and simple. Clinton exploited this maximally just as all his Clintonistas have done for the past ten years. Only American ignorance will allow it to continue.
I am not sure what you mean by ìvictimhood being a perverse form of empowerment in a world of increasing meritocracy,î Paul. I see meritocracy taking a back seat to the nanny state. I see meritocracy losing out even at UM.
I am sure you heard the recent Supreme Court decision allowing affirmative action in admissions to stand thereby disallowing an otherwise fully qualified woman a seat in law classes at the No. 1 law school in the country. One young undergraduate student speaking for the university said the woman could attend Wayne Stateís ìfine law school.î I am sure if this young popinjay is denied a seat at the graduate program of her choice she will think differently. I agree with you however, if you mean reverse meritocracy.
60 Minutes did a segment on this Sunday. One law professor showed statistics illustrating 98% of the white people denied seats in law school at UM compared to African-Americans with the same scores and grades being allowed admission 100% of the time! This victimhood may be driving some policies as you mentioned. Nevertheless, I do see ME nations blaming the west for their problems but in a different way.
Can you link American victimhood with Middle Eastern victimhood? I believe you can in a way. Both view themselves as oppressed groups. I believe the analogy ends there.
I believe the ME tyrant cynically exploits this sense of victimhood to seize power. The American victimhood version is an excuse to expand federal government power at the expense of local and state governments.
ME nations beginning with Nasser began blaming imperialism for their plight. Incompetent, corrupt governments victimize Arabs more. This goes back centuries. Arabs wish to throw off the ìyokeî of imperialism i.e., any western influence thereby solving all their problems reverting to an earlier ìpurerî form of Islam that never existed.
They would do better to rid themselves of corrupt, incompetent, shortsighted leadership. Can this happen when you replace one tyrant with another? Who knows?
Our ignorance of the ME allows Arab spokespeople to ignore this and exploit their ìvictimhoodî maximally. We must first inform and educate ourselves to better understand their problems. This begins with reading books on the subject. In a country, where according to Michael Deaver, 98% get 100% of their information from television I do not see this happening soon.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
Hi! Nice site!
interesting
African Art - Own a piece of African Sculpture href="http://www.canadabids.com/africanart">African Art
I clicked random link on the search engine and ended up on your great Website. Good work! Online Auction Canada
tremendous site
super Seite, frohes neues Jahr