Guest guest Posted September 12, 2001 Report Share Posted September 12, 2001 Rob, > > The only way we could appease the Arab world > on this point would be to let them destroy Israel. That makes Israel much too much our responsibility. Our national interest does not rest on Israel's survival, though many American political careers do. The only way we would appease the Arab world is if we deny Israel's legitimate rights. Whether it can then survive is up to them. Israel and the U.S. vs. Arabs is an obsolete paradigm. The new paradigm is civilized nations against terrorism or we'll all die a nuclear or biological death. The WTC is only the beginning. Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2001 Report Share Posted September 13, 2001 Gary, Whether we like it or not, Israel's survival has depended on us for years. It seems likely to me that one day, the inevitable trend of history will cause us to abandon it. In the meantime, my point was merely that the destruction of the WTC has caused that day to be postponed. The effect will be the opposite of what you predicted: we will be more supportive of Israel, not less. It may be worth pointing out that Israel isn't unique in this regard. Taiwan would vanish tomorrow as a political entity if it were not for us. So would Kuwait. Maybe South Korea. About appeasement: I assume you are talking about issues such as the settlements. My point is that even if Israel closes the settlements and adopts the most generous policies possible, Arabs would still strive to eradicate it. There were no settlements before 1967, when the Arabs joined to destroy Israel. Nothing has changed except that now we have the illusion that particular Israeli policies, rather than Israel's existence, are what excite Arab hostility. This is not to say that the settlements are good. I am describing what is, and what can be, not what ought to be. What ought to be is that everyone should lie down together like lambs. > The new paradigm is civilized > nations against terrorism or we'll > all die a nuclear or biological death. Let's hope. I'm not optimistic. With a few exceptions including particularly Britain and Russia, Europe was worthless in the fight against Hitler, and so far as I can see, nothing has changed. Rob - " Gary Schouborg " <garyscho " Realization " <Realization > Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:41 AM Silver lining? > Rob, > > > > The only way we could appease the Arab world > > on this point would be to let them destroy Israel. > > That makes Israel much too much our responsibility. Our national interest > does not rest on Israel's survival, though many American political careers > do. The only way we would appease the Arab world is if we deny Israel's > legitimate rights. Whether it can then survive is up to them. Israel and the > U.S. vs. Arabs is an obsolete paradigm. The new paradigm is civilized > nations against terrorism or we'll all die a nuclear or biological death. > The WTC is only the beginning. > > Gary > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 Rob, As ever, your balance and insight warm me. > Gary, > > Whether we like it or not, Israel's survival > has depended on us for years. It seems likely > to me that one day, the inevitable trend of > history will cause us to abandon it. > Maybe not. More below. > In the meantime, my point was merely that > the destruction of the WTC has caused that > day to be postponed. The effect will be the > opposite of what you predicted: we will be > more supportive of Israel, not less. Yes, but now it will hopefully be the world with Israel against terrorists, instead of the old paradigm of Israel and us against the Arabs. Perhaps the main objective of this latest act of terrorism was to heighten the old paradigm in order to increase Arab support for terrorists. All this talk about Arab hatred of the U.S. overlooks the fact that terrorists are mainly looking for political power to overthrow current undemocratic Arab regimes. > > It may be worth pointing out that Israel isn't > unique in this regard. Taiwan would vanish > tomorrow as a political entity if it were not > for us. So would Kuwait. Maybe South > Korea. > I have never understood what our national (as opposed to our human) interest is in Taiwan. Kuwait has oil and a Communist South Korea would threaten Japan. > About appeasement: I assume you are talking > about issues such as the settlements. My point > is that even if Israel closes the settlements and > adopts the most generous policies possible, > Arabs would still strive to eradicate it. There > were no settlements before 1967, when the > Arabs joined to destroy Israel. Nothing has > changed except that now we have the illusion > that particular Israeli policies, rather than > Israel's existence, are what excite Arab > hostility. > Sadly, I agree. I knew a leftist Jew at work who argued that Israel stole the land from the Palestinians. I don't know the history well enough to say one way or the other. I am more confident that the Christian Crusaders destroyed the original Islam that was sophisticated and more supportive of religious diversity than any religion in history. We are now living with a degraded remnant, with conditions worsened by British and French 19th century colonialism. > This is not to say that the settlements are good. > I am describing what is, and what can be, > not what ought to be. > > What ought to be is that everyone should lie > down together like lambs. > >> The new paradigm is civilized >> nations against terrorism or we'll >> all die a nuclear or biological death. > > Let's hope. I'm not optimistic. With a few > exceptions including particularly Britain and > Russia, Europe was worthless in the fight > against Hitler, and so far as I can see, nothing > has changed. > And Russia came in only because they were invaded. It'll be " interesting " to see what the moderate Arab nations will do. They're only a step away from being overthrown by terrorists anyway. This may be their chance to cut the terrorists off at their roots. And maybe not. Gary Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2001 Report Share Posted September 14, 2001 Dear Gary, It's very tempting to sit here all day and chat about world affairs with you! > Yes, but now it will hopefully be the > world with Israel against terrorists, > instead of the old paradigm of Israel > and us against the Arabs. I hope so. It has astonished me and warmed my heart to see the NATO declaration and Russia's offer to help. Russia! Of course they are motivated largely by self-interest, but even so, it's a remarkable thing. And an Italian official -- the president or prime minister, I forget -- has suggested that Europe pay to rebuild one of the two towers. These events make me realize how much I take for granted that the world hates us. Until Alzheimers claims me, I will never forget the month I spent in Paris in 1970, when I was 17, when shopkeepers refused to sell me things because I was American. (This was during the Vietnam War, yes, but it was only 25 years after we saved them from the Nazis.) Oops, I'm talking about us rather than Israel. My sympathies are entirely with Israel and I hope we will defend it as long as possible, but it seems to me that Israel has an insuperable strategic problem. Looking at its situation as a matter of fact, not morality, Israel is a settlement, a settlement of the West. The Arabs view it like a state created by Crusaders. Israelis protest that Jews lived continuously in Palestine from Biblical times. The Israeli claim is true, but so what? The fact is that Israel is basically a Western state created by Europe. It is a lucky thing for the indigenous Jews that a Jewish state was erected around them, but the erecting was done by Europeans and the resulting state is Western in character. This situation just isn't tenable in the long run. Israel is located at the heart of a land that a billion Moslems believe is theirs. The West put Israel there but it cannot pay the price required to keep it there indefinitely. The only hope, it seems to me, is that if the Arab countries modernize and integrate themselves into the modern global system that we wrongly call " Western " , maybe their culture will change enough to tolerate Israel's existence. Or perhaps Israel can hold off a billion enemies with its nuclear weapons indefinitely, I don't know. > I have never understood what our national > (as opposed to our human) interest > is in Taiwan. Kuwait has oil and a > Communist South Korea would threaten > Japan. We made the committment at a time when China was fantastically weak and we were fantastically strong relative to the rest of the world. In fact we committed ourselves to containing Communism everywhere on earth. I can think of two reasons (besides humane ones) why the policy continues: 1. If we throw Taiwan to China, it will be the biggest act of appeasement we could possibly make. What would the Sadam Husseins of the world think of us after that? 2. Our economy is closely intertwined with Taiwan's. A large fraction of American manufacturing is outsourced there. On the humane side, I would hate to see us abandon Taiwan. > I knew a leftist Jew at work who argued that > Israel stole the land from the Palestinians. I don't think " stole " is quite the right word. States were created by the West in an area where no states existed. Both Jews and Arabs had lived there for a very long time. Seems to me that " stole " applies better to what we did to the Indians. Are we going to give America back to the Arapaho and Seneca? Would it be moral if we did? > We are now living with a degraded remnant, with > conditions worsened by British and French 19th > century colonialism. Like Nisargadatta says (c'mon, let's give him a little credit) everything is a cause of everything it touches. But morally, what sense does it make to blame Western imperialism? The British ruled India, but I don't see reports of slavery in India, only in Moslem countries. Modern Islam gave rise to Nusrat Fateh Ali Kahn, the amazingly great Pakistani Qawalli singer, who I am listening to right now, so it can't be all bad! Best regards, Rob - " Gary Schouborg " <garyscho " Realization " <Realization > Friday, September 14, 2001 1:23 PM Re: Silver lining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.