I’ve learned a lot about Israel/Palestine from Saifedean Ammous, a Palestinian grad student at Columbia U. and a leader of the Arab Students Association there. He’s introduced me to lots of Arab students, I’ve heard him lecture at the 92d Street Y about the economies of the Middle East. A couple months back after the IPF conference in New York, I came out for the 2-state solution, and Ammous bridled and sent me an email. We had an exchange, which he’s allowed me to post.
I haven’t changed my point of view here significantly, though I must say that the last 2 months have been kinder to Ammous’s view than mine. The collective punishment of Gaza, the continuing construction of colonies, it is not these Israeli actions that dismay me as much as the utter failure of my own country to do anything about those conditions. Ammous’s cynicism about the peace process is, after all, very similar to Henry Siegman’s, in this brilliant piece.
But here’s the dialogue:
Ammous: Why did you—of
all people—start repeating this Peace-Process-Delusion?! Do you honestly
believe the words of that war-criminal Ramon?! Can’t you see that this
discrepancy between actions and rhetoric is exactly what is needed to sustain
the reality on the ground!?
Weiss: Here’s why,
because I am new to these issues, and everyone is allowed their first day at
the fair, their moment to try and believe in the good faith of all parties,
before disillusionment. The people like you who have had more experience say
this is another delusion, and since i don’t have the experience I choose to
believe. And maybe I will be right this time. As for Ramon, and Sneh, I am appalled
by the racist underpinnings of their belief in their state, but I am praying
for a real shift and change here. …
Ammous: This isn’t about experience and being new… though that helps. Simply put: if an alcoholic says they want to quit a hundred times, it makes the 101st time they say it less credible. However, if the alcoholic says they want to quit for the 101st time between full gulps of Jack Daniel’s and while ordering another shipment of Jack Daniel’s to last him a year, then you know for sure that he ain’t going to quit. Actions speak louder than words. If they really wanted to quit, they wouldn’t have made the purchase. It’s that simple.
Ammous: You have got to
have been kidding when you gave me the "rejectionists on both sides"
line. Come on man, I won’t even get into this. Even If I were to
accept your premise of forgetting about the landgrabs of 48 & 67, what you
can’t see is that this "process" is all a bloody sham. What has
happened is not that the Israeli government or any of the people who support it
here have changed their positions on the conflict one iota… they have just
managed to fool people like you and the Israel Policy Forum into thinking they
have changed just because they said some sweet nonsense. NOTHING has
changed. There is no change in the lobby or anything else. THE
SETTLEMENTS, THE WALL, THE OCCUPATION ARE ALL THERE AND WILL BE THERE FOR
ETERNITY… A NEW SETTLEMENT JUST GOT COMMISSIONED LAST WEEK…Nothing has
changed except that for some reason this mass delusion has gripped otherwise
reasonable people into thinking there is something that has changed. If
not, name one thing that has changed. And no, words from Sneh or Ramon don’t
count. Name one actual thing, other than empty words.
Weiss: I’m against the
landgrab of 67 and since. I agree with you about the horror of the continuing
settlement policy. I was sincere about rejectionists on both sides. You seem to
be attributing all faults to the Israelis, and while I agree that they are the
colonialists here, and they have projected Nazi fears on to Arabs, the
Palestinians have had their part in the unending violence. I say there’s a
moral equivalence between landgrabbing/dispossession and suicide bombing.
You’re saying that one is wrong and one is right.
I think you’re
closer to this, as Doug Feith is close to this, and I ask you: what do you say
to the "pragmatic moderate" Arab states that seem to want this issue
to end? Or
Ammous: I am definitely
not saying that suicide bombings are right; I’m just saying that I’m really
surprised that you, of all people, would whip out the "extremists on both
sides" canard to justify your recent conviction that Israel is on
the path to peace. This is simply too absurd to engage; you know full
well that I think suicide bombings are immoral crimes, but you also know full
well that the answer does not lie in some "everyone is evil"
sanctimonious grandstanding which equates the victim with the oppressor, just
like you know full well that the only way this conflict can be resolved is by
stopping the oppression and the crimes of the oppressor, and NOT by killing
enough of the oppressed. That’s where this "extremists on all
sides" position becomes a recipe for continuing the oppression.
And no, I am not
flattening the other side. There are countless people everywhere who are
reasonable and intelligent and honest, and I’m saying those people need to be
supported. You are suggesting that somehow we need to accept criminals,
racists and murderous land-thieves when they claim to want peace for the simple
fact that they said so, and then you accuse me of wanting to flatten the other
side when I refuse to believe their completely blatant lies. This is the
equivalent of me telling you that if you do not support Bin Ladin, then you are
anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and you are just another neocon.
And yet, still, you
did not give me one thing that has changed, or one thing that makes you think
any of these people have changed. Just because you WANT something to be true
doesn’t make it true. Just because you feel like you want to embark on
this journey of transforming the pro-Israel community into a pro-peace
community does not mean that they have been transformed, or that they will ever
transform. This goes beyond mere self-deception on your part. There
are real live flesh-and-blood children in Palestine whose lives will continue
to be destroyed because of the occupation, and whose plight will only worsen
when even the few brave souls like yourself that are courageous enough to speak
the truth decide to do with the truth and resort to wishful thinking in order
to embark on the journey they would like to witness. Seeing reality for
what it is is ALWAYS favourable to imagining a reality that doesn’t exist, no
matter how bad the reality or how good the imagination.
You are letting
them win, Phil, by converting yourself to their viewpoint while claiming that
they have been converted to yours.
Weiss: I asked you what
the solution is, I dont hear an answer.
I don’t think Israel is on
the path to peace. I think the
I also don’t care
about the character of Olmert or Ramon. I care about their actions. Obviously
you’re right about looking at the reality. But the reality is that the
Ammous: We don’t differ
in principle much; this is a difference in analysis. You think the Zionist
community in
Related posts:
{ 23 comments }
Whew. Can you fix the funky line breaks, please?
I try not to go to the Saif Ammous position, but unfortunately, so far, that position has continued to be closer to reality than the more hopeful one I hold. It's quite a depressing way to live, to insist that in fact the situation is hopeless and will never, ever, change. While events continue to disappoint me, I prefer to look at the possibilities, even if they don't manifest before my eyes.
I think that Philip is correct, that sentiments or currents in the US are changing, and that there will be a change in the future in US policy toward Israel. When that will happen, I don't know.
Is the wall permanent? Nothing in Palestine is permanent. Are the settlements permanent? Maybe the hardscape looks permanent but if you look at the really long term picture, the occupation is not sustainable.
In fact, while I used to think the two state solution reasonable, I now agree with those analysts who say that one state is probably inevitable. Maybe not in my lifetime or even my sons' lifetime. But there will be one state. It's just a question of how they'll divvy up the power.
I hope the one, multi-religious/multi-ethnic Palestinian/Israeli state of the future does a better job of balancing power than Lebanon has. Secularism seems the answer to me.
Israeli Savages Shoot San Francisco Protester In What Was A Peaceful Protest in West Bank…
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/
Its a never-ending dilemma.
And, the traumas imprint (not a small word). And, the institutionalization of racism persists in both communities. Its not just politics. The basis of distrust on both sides is profound.
EVERY position has been represented by lies. "We renounce terror" (spoken by Arafat, while still occassionally assisting and certainly turning a blind eye to others continuing terror). "We abide by the hudna" (spoken by Hamas, while assisting other groups to shell Sderot). "We will not threaten the peace process", (spoken by Olmert a day before the announcement of the first new authorization of a new settlement area in 10 years).
The alchoholic analogy is a good one, but a better one is the alchoholic family than the alchoholic person. Criticizing the alchoholic person "Its your fault that our marriage sucks", rather than the relationship itself (of which all parties are a part, weaknesses and all), continues the dysfunction.
The suggestion by Saif of a single-state still requires the reconciliation of the parties, still requires the healing of the relationship as troubling as it is.
And, the next question is "do you recognize that you are part of the addictive process, and then are you interested in healing?"
If so, then the first recognition is "we and they are not going away".
If not interested in healing the relationship, then it will likely repeat. The distrust of the other is PART of it, even if real and justified.
The healing of a trauma is usually more painful than the denial of it. In denial, the analogy is of being in a moving car that only sees forward, and presumes that there is no exhaust, no projectile, no roadkill, no global warming, no noise, no inpenetrable boundary.
Then when someone begins riding a bicycle slowly, consciously in busy city streets, or on super-highways even, its scary, unpleasant, enlightening of one's former ignorance and the people like me that have been run over or excluded, enlightening at other's denied (but experienced) pain.
What lessens the waves of subsequent trauma?
When Hitler decided to suppress communists, homosexuals, Jews, Gypsies, in response to his perception that the Versailles armistice harmed Germans, he escalated aggression rather than healed.
WW1 and Versailles were definitely a wave, a difficulty for Germany. (Of course largely self-created). But, he made a relatively small and shared wake (global depression, not small, but not "caused" by Versailles) into a tsunami.
I contest the formula "Zionism is racism", because I know that Abraham was right. "If there are 10 righteous in the town will you spare it", with the analogy that the nut of Zionism is the assertion of NEVER AGAIN will we be persecuted, with the added phrase NEVER AGAIN will we unnecessarily persecute.
(How often is persecution "necessary"? VERY rarely.)
Those are the "10" (more than 10 in the case of Israel). The 10 that won't passively be persecuted, and won't actively persecute.
But, most of the the "10" still want to be Israel, not Palestine, currently.
I'm still waiting for the mass movement by Palestinians carrying the sign
"WE ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH ISRAELIS/JEWS AS PEERS".
Assertive – "PEERS" (not subordinated). Not suppressive – "PEERS" (not subordinating).
"I'm still waiting for the mass movement by Palestinians carrying the sign "WE ARE WILLING TO LIVE WITH ISRAELIS/JEWS AS PEERS".
In the last poll I saw in Haaretz, several months ago, more than 70% of Jewish Israelis said they would be unwilling to live in the same building with an Arab family.
Why do liberal U.S. Jews, who I'm sure would not vandalize the homes of minorities living in their neighborhood, uncritically support a country where segregation and exclusion is majority opinion, backed up by the law?
Blaming the victims just doesn't work the way it used to. In case you didn't notice, the 'moral free pass' has expired. Sorry.
I'm with Leila here — fifty years down the road, there will be a unified state from the Mediteranean to the Jordan. The South African analogy applies: apartheid South Africa was a regional military power, but those powerful arms were useless against people power.
What helped push F. W. deKlerk and Nelson Mandela to a nonviolent political solution was world opinion. Being boycotted from sports events hurt the soccer-mad South Africans. Being shunned from academic exchanges increased their feeling of isolation in the antipodes.
But more than anything, the condemnation of apartheid as a 'heresy' by the Dutch Reformed Church was exquisitely embarassing for the Bible-thumping Afrikaners, if not for their English and Jewish Nat-party brethren.
And this is the missing element in ending the Israeli apartheid state: organized Judaism not merely fails to condemn it, but actively glorifies supporting and visiting it. Christ, even George Wallace didn't make Aliyah to South Africa to worship the comprehensive and perfected apartheid state.
Let's be frank: the nub of the problem is the brutal, tribal, land-grab mentality which pervades the Torah. (Yes, i AM a Torah scholar, just as so many Israelis present themsevles as U.S. constitutional and presidential experts. Turnabout is fair play.) Judaism is going to have to advance past these limiting, obsolete, violent, chauvinist texts — or face the completely unnecessary risk that Judaism itself goes down along with its bastard stepchild, zionist apartheid.
There is still time to take a different road. And it starts with at least one major branch of Judaism — Orthodox, Conservative, or Reformed — denouncing zionism as an evil, secular, inhuamn heresy. Taking this step is of paramount importance to avert a true catastrophe.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
"Contrary to common perception, Jewish anti-Zionism is not restricted exclusively to the well know Jewish anti-Zionist movements such as Satmar and Neturei Karta.
"There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called "State of Israel" is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called "State of Israel" is illegitimate.
"No one has had to create any antagonism between our Torah and Zionism because such antagonism exists by virtue of the essence of Judaism itself, which can never tolerate the heresy of Zionism.
"Zionism is wrong from the Torah viewpoint, not because many of its adherents are lax in practice or even anti-religious, but because its fundamental principle conflicts with the Torah.
"Unfortunately, due to many undesirable factors, the view of Torah-true Jewry has been concealed from the general public."
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.htm
TEN QUESTIONS TO THE ZIONISTS
by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl
IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid
IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.
IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).
IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.
IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"
IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.
IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".
Interesting article by Tony Judt. The power of the questions of the young generation, that Judt cites below, will prove stronger than the desire to suppress them. There is absolutely no doubt.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21031
Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these—in ways their parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: "Why do we focus so on the Holocaust?" "Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?" "Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?" And, increasingly, "Doesn't Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?" I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.
…
If there is a threat that should concern Jews—and everyone else—it comes from a different direction. We have attached the memory of the Holocaust so firmly to the defense of a single country—Israel—that we are in danger of provincializing its moral significance
How does the Kosovo model fit into this? Otherwise, the PC western, historically "white" nations (with their changing ethnic demographics) trend against a continuing de facto, let alone a formal, ethnocratic state–England is seriously contemplating detaching itself from The Church Of England & Apartheid S. Africa is history due to world opinion–nobody much cared or care about the real impact on white S. Africans or their old Abrahamic bible justifications… Doesn't "Never Again" apply
to the Nabka? If not, why not?
"The next logical step" for the Israeli government "will have to be a decision whether to target the top political leadership" of Hamas. So said an Israeli official quoted in The Jerusalem Post. Tzahi Hanegbi, a senior member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party and chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, echoed the call, arguing that "There's no difference between those who wear a suicide suit and a diplomat's suit."
Ali Abunimah, author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006) recently stated:
Following a cabinet meeting on 10 February, Israel's Interior Minister Shimon Sheetrit specifically called for the execution of Ismail Haniyeh, the democratically-elected Hamas prime minister, and added that for good measure "We must take a neighborhood in Gaza and wipe it off the map."
Last September, Yossi Alpher, the co-founder of the European Union-funded publication Bitterlemons, wrote an article advocating "decapitating the Hamas leadership, both military and 'civilian.'" Alpher, a former special adviser to Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak when the latter was prime minister, worried that Israel would "pay a price in terms of international condemnation," for "targeting legally elected Hamas officials who won a fair election," but that overall it would be well worth it.
Executing democratically-elected leaders may require more chutzpah than even Israel has shown, but the possibility and its disastrous consequences have to be taken seriously given Israel's track record. Israel executed Hamas' elderly, quadriplegic and wheelchair-bound co-founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, followed shortly afterwards by the execution his successor as the movement's leader, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi.
Aside from the United States, Israel is the only country where the
murder of foreign leaders is openly debated as a policy option.
_______________
The first order of the day, both for Israel and for American Jewry, is serious reexamination of strategies. Step one is to listen to the facts, Not ignore them or do one's best to muzzle them. An alcoholic doesn't need an enabler, what's needed is real intervention. Too bad for both the USA, Israel, and the Palestinians we won't get it from the next USA President (whether Obama, Hillay, or McCain)-congress combo, whether Obama, Hillary, or McCain. When Bill Clinton took part in the peace process there was a gentleman's agreement he would offer nothing to Arafat that had not been first vetted by the Israeli side. The converse he did not do. Interventionist or enabler? Not to worry, Obama would do no better, be no more serious about reaching a real peace agreement; Hillary, McCain and Congress? LOL, no?
"Aside from the United States, Israel is the only country where the
murder of foreign leaders is openly debated as a policy option."
Are you joking Charles?
In that speech Obama also said:
"And I think the approach we have to take with respect to negotiations is that you sit down and talk, but you have to suspend trust until you can see that the Palestinian side can follow through and that's a position that I have consistently taken and the one I will take with me to the White House."
Both sides will have one ear to its constituency back home. Clinton only recognized this for the Israel side. Obama's appears
to correct that yet in a way that does not give me confidence since his suspension of trust is directed only at one side, a more sophisticated biased approach than Clinton's, relying perhaps on the fact of UN-recognition of Israel as a state –but how will the end-game be made clear? That's what both sides will want to be clear before they sign on the dotted line.
"Are you joking Charles?"
You didn't know that Israel has a policy of assassinating members of the Palestinian leadership? No one is shocked when such proposals are aired in the Knesset. Have you ever heard of Yasser Arafat?
Or didn't you know that the U.S. has tried to kill Fidel Castro more than one hundred times?
The naivete is Charles' word "only".
"Only Israel" discusses assassination. Bull.
How many state sponsored assassinations have occurred recently?
I don't have a count. Its not in the 10's.
'It's quite a depressing way to live, to insist that in fact the situation is hopeless and will never, ever, change.'
If we really are to believe 'nothing has changed,' it may simply mean that human beings are reluctant to change; we do not consciously entertain the concept of change, nor do we seek within ourselves any great capacity for it.
But, eventually, we do change. We evolve and, for some of us, that change can come as a remarkably fast transition.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
If changes are required, then this will certainly achieve them – and with more than sufficient speed.
Of course, if humanity is willing to leave the outcome to more traditional methods, then that result could be a very long time in coming. And very painful for those of this generation and the others to come.
Do it this way and we end this business once and for all. Do it any other, and we're stuck with for God knows how long.
At least now this represents a real choice. So choose carefully; the next life you save might be your own!
Hi John, if you have been here before, I didn't notice.
Interesting–if you mix together some combination of Richard, Leila and the harsher anti-Zionists in this thread, you'd have me.
But I agree with Richard that Zionism isn't inherently wrong. It all depends on the execution. I think it's good in itself for Jews to dream of having a refuge, and to reconnect with their Biblical heritage Part of this is because I'm Christian myself, and share some of the beliefs of religious Jews. And as for the secularists, the desire to have a homeland isn't something that's wrong.
Where Zionism went wrong in practice was that only some Zionists were willing to live with Arabs as peers. Of course, as Richard points out, the problem cuts both ways.
As for whtether the Jewish community in the US favors a genuinely fair and just solution, being an outsider I have no clue. Obviously some do. It's the percentage that I don't know. In my group (Christians), I'd have equal difficulty making an estimate. Christian Zionists (who include friends of mine) are still stuck in the Leon Uris mentality.
Ammous's position is not a cynical nor defeatist one. If in fact his analysis is correct and that it is the policy of Israel to use the peace process as a cover to strengthen its control over Palestinian lands then it leads to what the US should do as policy. I happen to believe that his analysis is correct. I also happen to believe, that internal Israeli politics makes it impossible for the dismantlement of the west bank settlements. I really have no idea on how this issue is going to be settled and I also happen to believe that it is not my nor the US's problem.
Ammous's analysis can lead to the resolution of this problem at least as far as the US is concerned. If we accept that Israel is a sovereign nation that will act on its own, and if we accept that the settlements are permanent as far as the Israelis are concerned, then the US can act accordingly. We educate the people of the US that what is going on there is not in our interests but are in the interests of a foreign power. That backing that foreign power in her disputes, means that the US will be dragged into those wars. Once these points are realized within the American political process, it would be very easy for us to disengage. This disengagement would involve cessation of funding Israel and her military (sure we can still sell arms if they have the cash), it would involve withdrawal of unilateral diplomatic support and it would involve withdrawal of US military forces from the ME. Because of our natural affection for the Israeli people I think our position should be one of true neutrality. There is no need for the US to promote Palestinian interests and we should just step back and let Israel deal with them as they see fit. After all they are not the worst occupying power, what the US is doing to Iraq today and in Central America 20 years back was much worse
Ammous's position is not a cynical nor defeatist one. If in fact his analysis is correct and that it is the policy of Israel to use the peace process as a cover to strengthen its control over Palestinian lands then it leads to what the US should do as policy. I happen to believe that his analysis is correct. I also happen to believe, that internal Israeli politics makes it impossible for the dismantlement of the west bank settlements. I really have no idea on how this issue is going to be settled and I also happen to believe that it is not my nor the US's problem.
Ammous's analysis can lead to the resolution of this problem at least as far as the US is concerned. If we accept that Israel is a sovereign nation that will act on its own, and if we accept that the settlements are permanent as far as the Israelis are concerned, then the US can act accordingly. We educate the people of the US that what is going on there is not in our interests but are in the interests of a foreign power. That backing that foreign power in her disputes, means that the US will be dragged into those wars. Once these points are realized within the American political process, it would be very easy for us to disengage. This disengagement would involve cessation of funding Israel and her military (sure we can still sell arms if they have the cash), it would involve withdrawal of unilateral diplomatic support and it would involve withdrawal of US military forces from the ME. Because of our natural affection for the Israeli people I think our position should be one of true neutrality. There is no need for the US to promote Palestinian interests and we should just step back and let Israel deal with them as they see fit. After all they are not the worst occupying power, what the US is doing to Iraq today and in Central America 20 years back was much worse
syvanen, the world would put an end to Israel's crimes in a minute, once the U.S. stops shielding it with it's diplomatic cover and UN vetoes. (I believe it's 43 vetoes of censure measures and counting.) The world would end it just as it ended apartheid in South Africa.
Hi LeaNder,
It's good to hear from you again. How's Cologne today? Very spring-like here in Wirral.
That was my first post on Mondoweiss . Richard recommended the site so I took his advice.
It's always been my feeling that no real progress re the I-P peace process can begin until the right conditions manifest themselves. Or are deliberately constructed and brought into being if need be.
No normal attempts at peaceful resolution can counteract the ethereal nature of what it is they usually propose; a halt to the violence, a recognition of the right to return, an acceptance of legitimacy for both sides, redress for loss of land and income, security of person and property..and so on and so forth. What no one seems to realise is that none of these things can come to pass until the overwhelming majority of the people concerned can coalesce and hold to one common purpose and maintain it whatever else happens. All the rest is then achievable. The fact that no such path has yet been found owes much to the insubstantial fabric of past proposals. They do not weather well in the actual blast of conflict.
It follows, therefore, that any realistic course of action must first be fully armoured against the destabilising effects of ongoing violence and the machinations of those for whom this struggle serves only their own limited agendas.
See my previous posting here for the 'course of action' I would suggest be taken.
'Let's see what's out there. Engage.'
Re: "And as for the secularists, the desire to have a homeland isn't something that's wrong."
How does the USA and certain other Western nations' recognition of Kosovo fit into this understandable desire? What is the correct
foreign policy for the USA considering all the separatist movements going on in this world now? What critera did BushCo
use to make its unilateral move? What criteria did, e.g., Turkey use in approving the new Kosovo state considering it has its own separatist movement to worry about? Russia, opposing the recognition, now asserts the two separatist movements in Georgia might be recognized–I don't know the results of the
UN security council meeting.
Saifeddin = "Sword of (the) Religion".
What was it that Edward Said said about knowing the traces of the past that appear in oneself? It appears that traces of Jihad past appear in your interlocutor's name.
Comments on this entry are closed.