Ken I really hesitate to get involved in this. For several days I've read on various threads and wondered when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict gets brought up. So now Malcom B. brings it up and what do we get? You urge him to be cautious. Dr. Id weighs in with what everyone should expect now, a ton of 'information' some of which is accurate, some of which is debatable, some very distortive and hence I would argue dishonest, and finally the real issue, what is left out. A thoroughly one-sided presentation of what is a horrible/complex affair. And that I submit is dishonest. Unfortunately we can expect to see more of that kind of dissembling, attemts to 'overwhelm' people with a variety of claims so they get tired or bored. Not helpful.
To simplify things, both sides are clearly, and easily demonstrated with evidence, guilty of heinous acts. Both sides are guilty of bad faith re negotiations but let's not prejudge if one side or the other is more so. Etc., etc..
Unfortunately the U.S. general public is so seriously misinformed about that conflict and its history that I don't think any genuine, large scale, honest, reasonable discussion can take place in this country. Perhaps some informed discussion and education can occur here or elsewhere in small groups. But honestly I doubt it. There are too many people who "know" the truth and don't feel the need to consider anybody else's position. They are "true believers" in the best/ worst sense of that phrase. A wonderful book by that self-educated San Francisco longshoreman whose name slips my mind. The important thing is the concept applies to many different groups/individuals.
Here is one example of the problem. James Woolsey said last night on a CNN town meeting that Barak (sp?) made a 'wonderful' or excellent offer to Arafat (sp?) a year or two ago and Arafat rejected it. Woolsy repeated this twice. No one, however, on the panel (Senator, journalist etc.), the moderator, nor the mostly college oriented audience asked him what was the offer etc., etc.? Nor did Woolsey explain. Etc., etc., etc.. Now, the offer may or may not have ever been made public. If not, what does that tell us? And if 'it' was, can we say with confidence the public report is accurate? This is not cynicism on my part, it simply happens, period.
Now, if the offer was made public, and is accurate, it would be interesting to know what it was etc., etc.. And then, was it truly a 'good or great or whatever' offer or not? I don't know but that is the issue - just because Woolsey or whomever else says it was, doesn't make it so. Which takes us to Palestinian views and interests. But they get a minimal hearing in the U.S. hence general U.S. ignorance on the issues.
Ken, I think you are making a good faith effort here and I admire that. But, let me give you and other readers an example of much of the problem. I apologize, I may get some names incorrectly here so everyone please bear with me.
A poster (eikos) makes claims about Islamic history and your response, Ken, was:
<< Yes, my long-time, software engineering co-workers from Pakistan have discussed this issue quite extensively with me. There is no doubt that this is a fervently held belief but in reality WDIK..>>
So this is a "fervently held belief." And what does that mean? Is that not somewhat patronizing? You may not mean it that way but look at the context, look at your complete response, and look at what you wrote? Frankly it is worse in some respects for this reason. One (I hope other readers are paying attention to this issue of meaning etc.) needs to look at the language issues here, usage, meaning, 'construction' of the statement etc.. You then wrote " ... but in reality WDIK."
So you acknowledge their "belief" but obviously are unwilling to accept it as a fact with what, under the circumstances is, I think, a cop-out. I don't know if definitive evidence is available on these issues of Islamic history but you could check it out. Instead, you apparently are unwilling to grant credence to a position that is contrary to widely held beliefs in the U.S.. That is, to recognize any truths, any legitimacy to the claims that oppose or contradict U.S. policy (this is obviously complicated). Or widely held beliefs in this country about the legitmacy of any Palestinian position. Again, this is not to claim the Palestinians are completely correct in the larger sense. It is a matter of people claiming/believing that Israel is essentially correct, their 'position' is not to be questioned, and any 'mistakes' or excesses are excusable.
I notice you made no similar response to Dr. Id's post. Why did you accept his claims without question, but not eikos'? Please do not misunderstand. This is not attempt to single you out. It happens you started the thread and I applaud that. I've read your bio and I think you have a responsibility, and the capability, I hope you will fulfill. Not easy, granted. Finally, again, your response was representative of so much that is wrong with the U.S. understanding and response to this issue.
So where does that leave us? I just found this thread Tues. a.m. and hesitated to start at the beginning and read through. But I have and couldn't let this pass as it seemed to me the same old canards, connundrums etc. will be soon appearing and potentially preventing any meaningful exchanges. So, I don't know if I will continue reading or not. I do not intend to post again. I am getting old, I am tired and sadly at this point in history see little opportunity for reasonable, informed discussion in this country about anything controversial much less any solutions. We may simply be beyond the pale at this time. Think about the problems this country faced before last Tuesday? How quickly we forget. Or maybe some believe we had no serious problems in this country prior to last Tuesday? Really??? How about this - the town meeting I mentioned. At one point one young man stood up, described himself as 18 years old (a student I think) and asked (this is an almost exact quote - I know he said "fear" of "afraid")
"...do I have to fear a draft in the future?" That, I would suggest, tells much of what is going on in this country in this point in history and does not bode well for the country's future.
Folks, some years ago a number of well informed, knowledgeable people said, in a variety of forums etc., that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be ended on the basis of two major issues, Jerusalem and the settlement program. Jerusalem becomes an international city administered under the auspices of the U.N. or some other neutral body. And the settlement expansion program is stopped with some (not all) pullback from newer settlements. Israel has never agreed to a serious consideration of either with a partial exception. The assassinated Israeli PM, sorry I forget his name, indicated he would try to deal with the settlement issue in a good faith manner. We don't know if this would have worked. Some Palestinian spokespeople indicated it would. The point is, it has never been given a chance.
Just think, a fair solution to the I/P conflict pretty much takes Syria and Iran out of the equation over time. What a huge step forward in the quest for justice and a better life for most people in the world.
Serious analysis means being willing to listen to others, don't assume one's position is necessarily correct, check one's own assumptions, 'beliefs' etc. and be willing to re-consider issues if accurate evidence, good faith reasoning presents itself.
To close, let me suggest the following: to understand the I/P issue recognize that the negative side of the Israeli position/history is relatively unknown in the U.S. (Ever heard of the Stern? the Irgun?) The positive side is well known. On the other other hand, the positive side of the Palestinian position/history is not well known in this country. The negative side is. Please don't misconstrue this as some mealy mouthed exercise in saying both sides are equally correct or at fault and let's just all get along. That is not the point at all.
The first issue is to balance out the KNOWLEDGE equation. Then, maybe we (whomever/whatever) can go on from there. Keep in mind, many people, on both sides, have hidden agendas so vigilance is needed. Be especially careful of those in power, whoever, wherever they are. And of course their willing or naive mouthpieces, sycophants and quislings.
Best Regards to those who understand and want to engage in good faith discussions.
bowledover |
