Middle East news (really M.E.!)

dteowner said:

Nope, not confining it strictly on religious lines since, as has been pointed out, Islam was a little late to the party. However, I should clarify that I'm not really targetting specific cultures/religions either. More a case of ongoing regional conflict involving the locals and whoever happens to be "invading" at the time (Romans, crusaders, Jews, etc). I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.

Click to expand...

You can certainly find instances of Arab/Jewish friction right back to Mohammed's little disagreement with the Jews of Khaybar, but no more than between any two groups living in close proximity. Relations between, say, the French and the English are historically a good deal bloodier. IOW, "a 2000-year history of conflict" isn't a very good explanatory factor for the current problems in the M.E.

dteowner said:

7I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.

Click to expand...

Not all that much further. Traditionally Islam is much more forgiving towards the other religions of the book than "the Jews killed Jesus" branches of Christendom.

Arab-Jewish friction in Palestine is mostly a 1900s product, as the diaspora started to return. From the failed revolt against Rome in 70 AD (?) to the last century the Jewish people was dispersed all over Europe and the middle east, with the former usually getting the harsher treatment. Tension rose around WW1 as the Ottoman empire played on jihadist sentiments, and there was a lot of terrorism during the british mandate 1918-47 by both sides as European Jews migrated there (obviously accelerated by the atrocities in Europe and the Balfour declaration).

The situation for Jewish minorities in Arab countries got rather worse after the establishment of the state of Israel though, with many fleeing to Israel.

I'm really weary of the 2000 years of conflict reasoning. First there are long periods of peace in the region, most notably during centuries of Ottoman turkish rule. The crusades (to use an example) dont have anything in common with modern largely nationalist (with religion being used as a weapon, but hardly the root cause) conflicts either. There was no popular uprising against the crusaders, the war was between latin invaders and the lords of Damascus and Egypt.

EDIT: The area corresponding to modern day Germany has likely seen as much conflict in the last 2000 years as Palestine has. Even if it might take long to calm down the situation there is no law of nature stating that the place has to be at war forever. The same goes for the Balkans or any other traditional conflict zone.

Prime Junta said:

Thank you for conceding the point, then.

Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that, PJ. That's how that works.

This is a serious issue that needs serious people to work toward resolving. Hamas needs to drop its convenient position of being unavailable to see reason. Otherwise there's simply no point in trying to negotiate with Hamas.

Its position is desperate, but children's skills are hardly the ones it should rely on now. Hamas is only kidding itself. It should drop its pretenses and become responsible for itself. That will enable them, not weaken them.

I think the best way to deal with Hamas atm would be to simply ignore them and keeping the Israel-Gaza border tight, while somehow easing the humanitarian pressure (water, energy and medical supplies are huge problems in Gaza). Negotiate a settlement with the government in Ramallah. Try to avoid raiding Gaza or assassinating Hamas leaders.

Hamas have stronger control over it's thugs than Fatah, and have upheld an unofficial ceasefire for a long period of time in the past (until shortly after their victory in the elections). It could be done again.

dteowner said:

Nope, not confining it strictly on religious lines since, as has been pointed out, Islam was a little late to the party. However, I should clarify that I'm not really targetting specific cultures/religions either. More a case of ongoing regional conflict involving the locals and whoever happens to be "invading" at the time (Romans, crusaders, Jews, etc). I'm pretty sure Arab/Jewish friction goes back further than WW2, but doing research at work isn't really wise (posting here at work isn't really wise, either, but what can I say) and I don't know that the argument is really necessary to the point anyway.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes (I remember now). Still, I really don't see how the area would be more heavily contested than just about any other strip of land in the settled parts of the Earth, such as Europe.

Major conflicts during the last 2000 years
Year 1: Rome vs Parthia
Year 250: (East) Rome vs Sassanids (conquered Parthia).
Year 650: Byzantium vs Caliphate (conquered Sassanids and most of the Near East and North Africa)
Year 1050: The Seljuk Turks conquer most of the Caliphate and soon begin the conquest of Anatolia.
Year 1095: The crusades start and conquers much of the Levant and retake parts of Anatolia for the Byzantines.
Year 1187: The Kingdom of Jerusalem falls. Soon after, an Arabic dynasty conquers Egypt and Syria from the Turks before the Mongols arrive and conquers most of the ME.
Year 1350: The Mongols have been driven out, and several Turkish sultanates control the area, the foremost of them being the Mameluks who hold Egypt and the Levant.
Year 1517: The Ottoman conquest of most of the ME is finished, and they hold on to it for 400 years.
Year 1798: Napoleon invades Egypt, but it is soon back under Ottoman suzerainty. Technically, it remained an Ottoman province until 1914, but it acted and was treated much like an independent state.
Year 1882: The UK seizes control of the Egyptian government to protect its economic interests (the Suez canal, first and foremost).
Year 1914: The Ottoman Empire joins Germany and Austria in WWI and its non-Anatolian possessions are divided between France and the UK who set up a number of protectorates and client kingdoms.
There are a couple more wars in the 20th century, but IIRC only the 1967 war involved much land being exchanged.

It's not an entirely exhaustive list, but I covered most conflicts where any major swathes of land were exchanged. I think you'll find at least as many for Europe, if not more, and also (as mentioned by Zaleukos) that the recent conflicts in the ME have very little to do with ancient history and are largely products of the 20th century.

By comparison Sweden in the last 500 years (I dont remember the medieval conflicts) can offer, in an inexhaustive list with erroneous dates:

1520s: War with Denmark over the Kalmar union (national independence of sorts)
1560s: War with Denmark over Danish interception of the kings love letters.
1580s: War with Russia over Karelian/Ingrian borderlands.
1600s: War with Poland over the baltics.
1610s: War with Denmark
1620s: War with Poland over succession claims
1630s and 40s: The thirty years war with intervention in Germany.
1644: Surprise invasion of Denmark.
1650s: Surprise invasion of Poland, Denmark, Courland. War with Russia. Just for the heck of it war with about ten neighbours, only ending with the death of the king.
1670s: Revenge war initiated by the Danes.
1700-21: The great Nordic war against Denmark, Russia, Poland, and Saxony, with Brandenburg joining in. They started it.
1740s: Failed war on Russia.
1788: War on Russia.
1809: War against Russia (started by the Russians who take Finland from us).
1810s: Participation on the allied side in the Napoleonic wars, sneak attack on Denmark.

Going by these Scandinavia must have been an incredibly nasty place. Will those people ever stop killing each other? Worth noting is also that we started almost all these wars (with maybe 4 or so exceptions) and that most ended in land exchange... There is also a remarkable continuity in the choice of enemies that you dont see in the middle east.

Well, if nothing else, I think we've proven beyond doubt that all you peaceniks are pissing up a rope.

Cue the codependent enablers to start citing examples of how everyone else is just as bad as Hamas.

Squeek said:

Cue the codependent enablers to start citing examples of how everyone else is just as bad as Hamas.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not an alt of kingcomrade?

KazikluBey said:

Are you sure you're not an alt of kingcomrade?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure, yeah. Why? Is he the other guy who's heard of codependence?

Zaleukos said:

Going by these Scandinavia must have been an incredibly nasty place. Will those people ever stop killing each other? Worth noting is also that we started almost all these wars (with maybe 4 or so exceptions) and that most ended in land exchange... There is also a remarkable continuity in the choice of enemies that you dont see in the middle east.

Click to expand...

How the peace between Sweden and Denmark was finally established is one thing to study if one wish to end a continued war between two people living next to eachother. Yes, Sweden was the warlords of the north, and yes, the enmity between Sweden and Denmark was great. Today attacking a northern country would be unthinkable, and Sweden have not fought a war since 1814.

Squeek said:

Pretty sure, yeah. Why?

Click to expand...

Your "In before [straw-man]" post just gave me a strong feeling of deja vu from the RPG Codex General Discussion forums.

KazikluBey said:

Your "In before [straw-man]" post just gave me a strong feeling of deja vu from the RPG Codex General Discussion forums.

Click to expand...

Nope. That's somebody else.

Squeek said:

This is a serious issue that needs serious people to work toward resolving. Hamas needs to drop its convenient position of being unavailable to see reason. Otherwise there's simply no point in trying to negotiate with Hamas.

Click to expand...

How do you propose to get them to do that?

JemyM said:

How the peace between Sweden and Denmark was finally established is one thing to study if one wish to end a continued war between two people living next to eachother. Yes, Sweden was the warlords of the north, and yes, the enmity between Sweden and Denmark was great. Today attacking a northern country would be unthinkable, and Sweden have not fought a war since 1814.

Click to expand...

That's because Sweden took the only known permanent cure for militarism.

They invaded Russia.

Seriously: here's a list of some of the more significant people who have invaded Russia:

* The Mongols.
* The Lithuanians.
* The Swedes.
* The French.
* The Germans.

All of these used to be badass military powers in their day, and all became strangely peaceful after invading Russia. The Mongols did stick it out longer than the others, but even they finally scrapped their world domination plans after invading Russia.

Seriously. It works.

Prime Junta said:

How do you propose to get them to do that?

Click to expand...

It’s not possible to get anyone else to do anything like that. That's something Hamas will have to achieve on its own. There are billions of people around the world whose perspective and views could serve as examples for them, though.

Whether its fair or not, Hamas needs what Palestinians in general need, and that's a change of values. Some of the ones they're working with now are hurting them more than they realize, and Hamas epitomizes those.

The entire world is aware of the Palestinians’ situation, including their raw deal, and would like very much for there to be an equitable outcome. Somehow, Palestinians need to find a way to trust in that and find hope for the future. As unlikely as it sounds, Hamas is in the best position to make that happen.

Hamas could turn poison into medicine by reinventing intself and rejecting violence altogether. Palistinians could be the new Tibetans and be on the receiving end of the world’s concern and sympathy. Israel isn’t China and would react a lot differently to that kind of pressure.

That ignores a myriad of very real and seemingly-impossible obstacles that would stand in the way of that happening, of course. But that’s the fight Hamas should be fighting. That’s the battle it should be trying to win.

Prime Junta said:

That's because Sweden took the only known permanent cure for militarism.

They invaded Russia.

Seriously: here's a list of some of the more significant people who have invaded Russia:

* The Mongols.
* The Lithuanians.
* The Swedes.
* The French.
* The Germans.

All of these used to be badass military powers in their day, and all became strangely peaceful after invading Russia. The Mongols did stick it out longer than the others, but even they finally scrapped their world domination plans after invading Russia.

Seriously. It works.

Click to expand...

lol, yeah, it's difficult to argue against that theory.

But actually, Sweden fought wars after the attack against Russia, against Finland, Napoleon, Denmark and Norway. Gustav IV wanted badly to fight Napoleon (which he believed was antichrist). This lead to a 2-front war against both France and Russia at the same time, which ended up with losing Finland to Russia. This made the generals so fed up that they threw him in Jail. He's after that known as "The King who lost half the kingdom". Sweden then imported a king from France, now with crippled rights. His mission was to retake Finland, but he ignored that idea, gave Finland to Russia, then went into Norway who gave up without a fight. But Norway never really belonged to Sweden like Finland did, it was more a kind of union with reduced rights on their side, an union they eventually got free from.

Karl XIV Johan was almost a pacifist compared to the rest and he ran an era of peace so long that when it was over Swedes was happy living that way. Due to the long peace, Sweden also showed definite improvements, improved population, working roads, state debt gone etc. Ofcourse, it might also be that they were exhausted and tired of fighting and getting rid of their war hungry leaders was a good idea. And even more cynically, it might be that we found out that selling weapons and resources to other wars have greater profit than being in them.

The thing that really made the northern countries buddies after pretty much ripping eachothers lungs out non-stop since the viking era (and probably before that as well) was a kind of nationalism, the idea that all things considered, they were the same people and they had alot in common. The propaganda changed from "Danish people are the devil" into "Danish people are your friends". It was a decision to pretty much forget the past and stop speaking about it, until the savage differences between the countries were forgotten and people found it difficult to believe it ever happened.

A similar thing happened between Germany and France after the 2nd world war, and 60 years later both of them refuse to go to war.

And that was my point. A leader who exploit bitter enmity between two people can simply go on fighting forever, while a leader who uses the right propaganda can end the differences between people who just cant solve their differences, even when it seems impossible to do so.

It seems to me the peace came first then the change of attitudes, and while we like to hold Euorpe up as an example of post national humanisim lets not forget Yugoslavia looked like a soildly post national country not so long ago. Thats not to say I think there's likely to be a bloodbath in Europe but... these sorts of discussions always remind me of Norman Angell, one of the founders of the study of international relations now best remembered for predicting an end to war in Europe back in 1909.

Squeek said:

It’s not possible to get anyone else to do anything like that. That's something Hamas will have to achieve on its own. There are billions of people around the world whose perspective and views could serve as examples for them, though.

Whether its fair or not, Hamas needs what Palestinians in general need, and that's a change of values. Some of the ones they're working with now are hurting them more than they realize, and Hamas epitomizes those.

The entire world is aware of the Palestinians’ situation, including their raw deal, and would like very much for there to be an equitable outcome. Somehow, Palestinians need to find a way to trust in that and find hope for the future. As unlikely as it sounds, Hamas is in the best position to make that happen.

Hamas could turn poison into medicine by reinventing intself and rejecting violence altogether. Palistinians could be the new Tibetans and be on the receiving end of the world’s concern and sympathy. Israel isn’t China and would react a lot differently to that kind of pressure.

That ignores a myriad of very real and seemingly-impossible obstacles that would stand in the way of that happening, of course. But that’s the fight Hamas should be fighting. That’s the battle it should be trying to win.

Click to expand...

You're right. They should.

But the reality is that they're not going to, any more than the Israelis are suddenly going to respect every UN resolution about them to the letter, retreat to the 1967 borders, take down the settlements, grant fully equal status to Israeli Arabs, and generously compensate all of the Palestinians (and their descendants) evicted from their homes since 1948, and then wait patiently for 30 years as the violence gradually winds down.

There's a reason I don't (usually) use ethical arguments when discussing politics -- except through analogy, by matching behaviors in one ethical framework with behaviors in another, and pointing out similarities and parallels I see. It's because ethical arguments only carry any weight between people or groups that share the same ethical framework. Most of us don't.

The Euroweenie ethical framework is clearly different in many ways from the red-blooded American one, which is (somewhat) different from the center-right Israeli one, which is different from the secular Palestinian one, which is different from the Islamist Palestinian one. Put these people into the same room and ask them to discuss ethics, and there will be a bar fight in no time flat. If your intention is to get them to agree about concrete things -- such as what to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- this is completely pointless.

In fact, the clashes between you and me are a pretty good example of it: we share fundamentally different values and ethics on a few points, and there's no way we're ever going to agree on them. But that doesn't mean we couldn't come to perfectly workable agreements about any number of practical issues.

Edit: In D&D terms, I think I'm a True Neutral whereas you're a Lawful Good. We fail to see eye to eye because of this alignment difference, and we all know what a hell of a job it is to change alignment. (This thought amused me enough that I'll post another thread about it.)

The only way forward is to (a) accept the facts and (b) try to find the best possible solution that accommodates those facts that everyone can live with. Sometimes there is no such solution to be found, and that just means the conflict will go on.