Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "It can create even greater jingoism throughout the world as various ethnicities and cultural grouping all start to ask themselves, "If the Palestinians deserve a homeland, don't we." This has been going on for centuries and it will continue on through eternity. Long before the Palestinians wanted a homeland the Irish, the Finns, the Norwegians, every other ethnic group in Europe except gypsies, all the various groups in India, tons of examples in Africa, SE Asia, even American Indians wanted homelands that they could rule. In fact, it's the desire of every ethnic group on the planet to have a homeland that they rule over. Even "Black Separatists" in the US want one. This has nothing to do with the Palestinians.
Re: "... the US and other global governments are irrevocably embarking on the course of "nation creation" ..." I'd like the US to just leave these people alone. If the Palestinians succeed in their fight for a state, or if the Israelis succeed in crushing them, well, more power to whoever wins. I just don't want to be involved in the fight. It's not our fight, and the only thing I fear more than the US getting involved in a global government (i.e. the UN), is the US getting on the wrong side of that global government. We are a tiny nation, a tempting target for all kinds of madmen, so we need to pick our fights carefully, and stick to the ones that are in the national interest.
Re: "potential for even more global decentralization of governing power along ethnic and cultural lines suggests even greater global instability ..." This is interesting.
(1) Global instability from ethnic rebellion isn't a problem for the US, it's a problem for various regions of the globe [Iraq, for instance has a bit of a problem with the Kurds, and we are contributing to it. Where does that fit into your analysis of ethnicity and global stabilization? Oh, it's different because of the morality? Funny that all your arguments devolve to this, in the final analysis.], but it simply is not a problem for the US. The problem for the US is when large, economically advanced portions of the world combine to attack us. It doesn't matter how they unite.
Let me repeat. Our problem, historically and at the current time, is not with parts of the world splitting up into smaller groups because of ethnic tensions. There has never been a single case where this sort of thing has provided more than an insignificant problem to the US. Germany and Japan in WW2 was a great example. Getting the Central Powers together for WW1 is another. The Communist states during the Cold War was a third. Now people like you are trying to make the US side with an insignificant pariah nation with 5 million citizens against the whole rest of the world. What's that going to look like, 255 million vs 5000 million. Is that your idea of a fair fight? I don't think it would be a good idea.
Go back and read what George Washington had to say here: #reply-17362502 What do you think he'd have to say about the US committing diplomatic suicide by standing up to the entire rest of the world over a patch of territory with fewer friends in it than Arizona? And do remember that while we are allied with Israel, we are also allied with most of the rest of the world, so this is not a simple question of loyalty. Rather, it's a question of whether we owe more loyalty to a nation of 5 million than we do to the NATO countries with 300 million, etc.
The road to military suicide is always always always, throughout history, with hundreds of examples, begun with diplomatic suicide. Tying the US to a pariah nation and standing up to the rest of the world is diplomatic suicide. We need the help of the rest of the world. We cannot afford to ignore their wishes. I expect that the State Department will make this clear and will slowly pull US foreign policy so that it is more conducive to friendly relations with our powerful allies.
People who think that the US, even with the assistance of Israel's massive military force, is going to be successful on a fight with Europe and Asia is quite insane. Even if it were at all morally justified, this is a fight we cannot win. Remember that when we took on the Axis we had the vast majority of the world's productive capacity on our side, and the same when we took on the Communists. Trying to take on the rest of the world is criminally insane foreign policy.
(2) Global instability, in the sense of decentralization of governing power along ethnic and cultural lines promotes the peace and strength of the US. Where we ran into problems with the Soviets was in their ability to unite diverse ethnic and cultural groups against us. Where we ran into problems with the Fascists was similar. The problem with the fascists was their organization across national boundaries. If we'd only had to deal with one of them (i.e. Germany or Japan by itself) it would have been a lot more obvious that they were stupid to attack us.
The destruction of the Soviet Union was associated with ethnic groups demanding their rights to self determination. This was the most glorious victory in US foreign policy ever made. 1000 years from now historians will list it as a shining example of a great power defeating another great power without untold millions of people being killed. This was against US interests? Only if you're a Russian, I suppose. The same applies to the Chinese. Their ethnic minorities are not a problem for us.
(3) Our actions in the Middle East have the perverse effect of uniting the Moslems against us. This is not a wise action. Our attack on Afghanistan was required, they attacked us first, and we defeated them in detail in return. But Palestine isn't harboring anti US terrorists, as far as I can tell. Yes, some of their citizens clapped when the WTC fell down, but they've been in a war off and on for 54 years against a country we provide weapons to. What could we expect?
(4) The US, by contrast, is mostly immune to ethnic destabilization. That is because the US was founded on the principle of equality, freedom, self determination, and the melting pot. We have absolutely nothing to fear from Palestinian separatists. There are now zero, and have always been zero separatist groups of significance in the United States. Think about this. Compare us to Canada, where the Quebecois are constantly talking about separation. Or Great Britain with the Irish &c. As far as the US goes, ethnic instability is simply not an issue.
Moreover, our allies are hurt by ethnic splintering far less than the countries that we're worried about. Iraq is devastated by the problem. Iran has huge minorities all over. China has their own set of problems in this area as well. But US allies (other than Israel) have relatively few significant rebellions to contend with at the moment.
Re: "So I think we should think long and hard about the jingoistic pandora's box we're opening by permitting ourselves to be blackmailed into creating another discriminatory state, where one nationality seeks to exclude all others." Who's asking that the US be "blackmailed into creating another ..."? I think you're putting words into someone's mouth here. All I'm asking is that we quit sending weapons and money to people who are fighting a stupid war. As it is we have blood on our hands. And by the way, why is it that you can use morality as your only argument, but you can still accuse the other side of being "jingoistic"?
Re: "The Jews, to their credit, at least permitted 20% of the Arab population to integrate and become Israeli citizens. Thus far, we're not seeing ANY willingness amongst Palestinians to offer the same rights to Jews." Making constant moral comparisons on the participants is quite useless in analyzing foreign affairs. Everyone knows that states determine their interests, and then they go back and define the morality that supports it. It's simple to do because almost all moral issues have two sides. If you doubt this I'll gladly post you a dozen examples from US history.
It's clear from a read of this thread that there are two sides to the moral issue of Self-Righteously Insane Zionists vs. Crazed Moslem Suicide Bombers. I say that that moral question is not one that we need to answer. We need only answer whether we should be a part of this conflict. What are you going to suggest next, that we threaten Britain and France (and most of the other 130 nations in the UN) with nuclear annihilation unless they immediately quit there ancient anti-semitism and follow our foreign policy? It's not realistic for the US to get its way here. We simply don't have the military power to win (over the long run), or the moral authority to convince others of the error of their ways. This situation is going to continue to fester until it reaches the point that we are unable to resist the remainder of the world. Find me a single other example where the US went against all of its allies and enemies and won. Find me a single example where a local superpower was able to support a tiny state at a great distance surrounded by enemies against a coalition that consisted of the entire rest of the local world. Just one f'ing example where the population disparity is as bad as it is in this case. Until you show me that example, I conclude that supporting Israel is hopeless.
Israel has survived up to now because it has never before been reduced to support from only the US. This is a new chapter in Israeli relations, the "Pariah State". If I find the time I'll look around for the records showing how votes went against Israel since 1948. What you are ignoring is that in 1948 there was so much support for Israel that a vote in the United Nations created her over Arab complaints. The nations that voted in 1948 for Israel are not inherently anti-semitic, but their votes have now reversed. What has changed is that Israel has proven to be a rather bad idea. Now the US has to use its veto power to keep her alive. Israel has fewer allies now than it has ever had. One ally, even a superpower, is not enough for Israel, especially when it is thousands of miles away and Israel is surrounded by nut case states. There are just some fights that cannot be won.
US power is very important to me. There are forces on this planet that want to reduce US power. The tool that they are using to do this is our support for Israel. Why are we letting them? There is not a single example in history of a great or even regional superpower that was able to establish a more than temporary "colony" (i.e. a small outpost) in a far distant land against the will of every other minor power. It just can't be done. There aren't enough conventional weapons in our arsenal to save Israel. We only have 5% of the world's population, maybe 25% of the world's economy. Israel has 0% of both. Together we're still no match against the rest of the world. World history is littered with the tales of once powerful states that tried to go it alone without allies. Rome survived as long as it did by playing its local enemies off against each other, not by going against all of them at the same time. Israel will have to negotiate her own solution. All our support can do is put off the final result, and likely contribute to its being more long and bloody than otherwise. It will cost us money and blood, and it's hopeless. Why do it?
Re: "And to date, no one has truly been able to provide to us those unique qualities that the Palestinians claim justifies their status as an independent nation-state." You're dragging in these moral arguments, as usual. No one cares how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The "justification" for the existence of a state is the power to control a territory. This is not a new rule, it predates recorded history. Even the US had to prove that it had the power to rule this land in order to be born. That was all the justification it needed. That it resulted in as pleasant a state that it did is wonderful, but that doesn't mean that states created less virginally are not "justified".
-- Carl |
