More on Occupation

Avatar

Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes (aka CJ Smith). 29 years old, happily married, adroit purveyor and voracious student of all kinds of information, theories, methods of inquiry, and forms of practice. Studying to be a priest in the Anglican Church in Canada. Main interests: military theory, diplomacy, foreign affairs, medieval history, religion & politics (esp. Islam and Christianity), and political grand bargains of all shapes and sizes.

Related Post Roulette

15 Responses

  1. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    Hey, your Series is off…just to let you know. Can be kinda buggy, so…Report

  2. Avatar Chris Dierkes says:

    fixed–thanks for the heads up. .Report

  3. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    It’s such a sad, frustrating, endless nightmare. The Israeli policies seem increasingly short-sighted. Perhaps militarization of a State does this to its lawmakers. The answers increasingly become more authoritarian, less humane. I still believe in the dream of Israel, though. And the dream of Palestine, too, for that matter.Report

  4. Avatar Chris Dierkes says:

    truly tragic.Report

  5. Avatar Freddie says:

    Tragic in the classical sense, meaning that it isn’t just some twist of fate, but a function of the traits, and philosophy, of the people involved.Report

  6. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    Ah, indeed, Freddie. And the settlers might be considered somewhat Oedipal. They have killed the original dream of Israel and are f*cking their motherland.

    Sorry, that’s my crude take on Greek Tragedy as it pertains to Israel.Report

  7. Avatar Roque Nuevo says:

    Didn’t you fail to mention the Palestinian terror that has plagued Israel, necessitating such security measures? How would you suggest that they deal with this, then? Why was the Wall built, do you think?

    Can you separate your emotions, which are being willfully manipulated by this 60 Minutes episode, from your analytical ability?Report

  8. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    Terror isn’t just going to end if Israel becomes a total police state. By shedding its freedoms and principles, Israel will only make itself more insecure over time.Report

  9. Avatar Roque Nuevo says:

    That’s a good one, Freddie:

    Tragic in the classical sense, meaning that it isn’t just some twist of fate, but a function of the traits, and philosophy, of the people involved.

    You’ve got the makings of a real analysis here. Seriously. If you could describe these traits and philosophies of all the people involved, that would be a good read.Report

  10. Avatar Roque Nuevo says:

    Don’t listen to ED Kain, Freddie. He’s just trying to make a Freudian quip at the Israeli’s expense. It’s not analysis to call people “motherfuckers,” is it?Report

  11. Avatar Roque Nuevo says:

    ED Kain: Who is proposing that Israel become “a total police state?” How does this answer the question I posed above? My comment here is basically a critique of the 60 Minutes broadcast. They present the security measures Israel is taking without showing why they’re doing it. They appeal solely to emotion. I’m just asking for a little analysis, that’s all.Report

  12. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    That’s a shallow call for analysis, though. Obviously there’s terrorism against Israel. Obviously the security measures are for security. The larger question is how to end the need for those measures, and the surest way toward that is to end the settlement of the West Bank.Report

  13. Avatar Roque Nuevo says:

    Now I’m shallow. Fine. But wallowing in emotion doesn’t even reach that depth. The surest way to end the need for those measures is for the Palestinians not to promote the extermination of Israel as their goal and to accept the two-state solution. Simply withdrawing from the West Bank will not accomplish this as long as Palestinians adhere to their genocidal goals.Report

  14. Avatar E.D. Kain says:

    Oh right. That’s practical, Roque. “If they just accept the two-state solution” there will be peace. Really? If horses grew wings they’d be able to fly. Right. So you expect the whole peace process to go through by relying on the Palestinians to unilaterally accept the “two-state solution” which just so happens to include a West Bank overrun with Israeli settlers. How does that work, exactly? That “acceptance” you speak of?Report

  15. Avatar Roque Nuevo says:

    So you think that acceptance of the two-state solution by Palestinians is as likely as horses growing wings? We agree on that. But as long as they don’t, then what solution do they propose, according to your reading? Yes. Really. If Palestinians didn’t want to exterminate Israel, then there would be no need for any security measures. It would be a sure thing. It’s the “surest” way, not precipitous Israeli withdrawal,which would only lead to another cycle of attacks and retaliation. As long as Palestinians refuse to accept the two-state solution, Israel will need security measures to protect itself, whether they withdraw from the West Bank or not. But it isn’t unilateral because Israel has accepted it for twenty years. If they did accept it, then I’d expect the whole peace process to go through to the conclusion of a viable Palestinian state on the former British mandate. How can you call this “unilateral?” Israel accepts it. The US accepts it. The EU accepts it. The Palestinians don’t accept it. This includes the dismantling of the settlements.
    Are you asking me how to get Palestinians to accept the two-state solution and thus desire to live in peace with Israel and Jews? Palestinians need to be unequivocally defeated. But—first, I want to say that I do not propose a military defeat (that’s already happened), much less ethnic cleansing, genocide, massacres. “Defeat” here means that Palestinians have to give up the goal of exterminating Israel. It only means accepting the two-state solution. I think that diplomatic pressure would do the trick in a minute, if that pressure was coming from Europe and other Arab states. If they made it clear to Palestinians that they lost and the two-state solution is the only solution, then Palestinians would have no other way out. As it is, though, Arab states and Europe use the conflict in Palestine/Israel for their own ends, so that isn’t very likely.

    I’m using an analogy between WWI, WWII and this conflict as a basis for this. Germany was defeated in WWI but they were not forced to recognize it. This left the door open for the “stab in the back” theory, where Germany was actually winning and was betrayed by Jews and Commies. After all, Germany was never occupied after WWI and there were never ever any foreign troops on German territory. WWII was the result. Roosevelt and Churchill used this knowledge to formulate the “unconditional surrender” doctrine that guided Allied diplomacy in WWII. It worked, didn’t it? Germany accepted peaceful relations with its neighbors after that. I can’t see how this reasoning fails—maybe you can tell me—but I have to emphasize that I’m not saying I want to see carpet bombing of the West Bank. I’m saying that Palestinian defeat can be accomplished by solely diplomatic means and I would not support anything that even resembled mass murder.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *