Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Those peoples have fought against each other and with each other over centuries and centuries of conflict. Their present-day borders were determined by centuries of bloodshed. The battle is just beginning in Israel and Palestine.
It also helps that those countries were all Christian, and for most of those countries' histories, they operated during a time when it was easier to commit and to avoid punitive measures from "war crimes" than it is today, so the times faced by the Israelis and Palestinians are vastly different. The Situation is unique.
True the resolutions came after extended periods of bloodshed, but
as you said it was easier to be that way in the past, would the current global climate not make it easier for the two sides to come to a resolution. True the examples I gave were all from the same religion, here are some that are not, Russia vs Turkey, Russia vs Japan.
Oo. Good point.
It would increase their incentives to behave in a more "civil" manner (as oppose to just committing outright acts of genocide against one another, when it was fashionable to do so), but if the current global climate did make it easier for peace to come about, then why has it continued to fail so many times?
My knowledge on the history of those Russian conflicts is not nearly as strong as yours, but I think such examples could be explained by examining the differences in the incentives faced by the players in each scenario:
1) What makes Israel and Palestine unique is that Israel can continue settlement expansion in order to win the long-term war by dominating the land through population growth (at least that's one of their government's main reasons for continuing such a policy). The Russians and Japanese and Turkish didn't have such an option that was as attainable, so their interests and the stakes in controlling whatever land they fought over (if indeed it was really over land) compared to the Israelis and the Palestinians, weren't as high.
2) Israel and Palestine are fighting for their homes--for their future places to live, permanently. The Russians, Turks, and Japanese had enough lebensraum already, but since the scarcity of land and other resources is so much higher for the Israelis and Palestinians, the competition will become that even fiercer. [For Japan v. Russia, I'm assuming we're talking about the period between Japan's imperial expansion into Manchuria up to 1945. One could posit that the Japanese had just as high an incentive to defend such lebensraum (which they did act upon); however, it's different in that point 4 shows regarding "Holy Nation", and that:
3) Those two countries economies and armies were roughly even enough to the point that border skirmishes were frequent but inconclusive. When there was enough of an imbalance, major battles and even wars were more likely to ensue; however, these wars were able to be ended mainly because the other party had no more resources (like economic goods, will power, etc.) to continue fighting. With Israel and Palestine, it seems that they can continue fighting (because Israel's war fund is supported by the US, and Palestine's guerrilla strategy is funded by outside support and it's much more affordable and viable of an option compared to conventional warfare (like Japan's).
4) This war between Israel v Palestine is much more extreme and illogical, perhaps because so much religious ideology is intermingled in the decision-making process. The Orthodox Jews (who do largely control the affairs of the Israeli government) believe Israel to be a "Holy Nation," which has massive undertones of what that really entails (a nation and land given by God himself, so the Palestinians' claim to that land is illegitimate since God says so). Not only that but also the large majority of the Orthodox and the few non-Orthodox statesmen/decision-makers are these old, curmudgeony guys who are stuck in their ways of doing the same thing over and over, so they won't be open to changing the status quo.
---> I think we'll see an increase in the chances of true change towards peace (or we'll see more peaceful policies enacted) as the younger crowds of both sides are able to rise the ranks and become more involved in the decision-making process within each state.
5) And, as I mentioned earlier, Israel doesn't really have to sue for peace due to the costs of protracted warfare being covered largely by the American government, and in addition to that, the US can't force Israel to permanently discontinue some of its policies (like settlement expansion) or even force it to accept conditions for peace largely due to the pressures applied to US politicians from pro-Israeli lobbyist groups. It's not uncommon for some American politicians, who tinker with toning down the financial (war) aid to Israeli, to be unfairly labeled as anti-Semitic. It's an extremely dicey situation that, when addressed, could easily lead to political suicide for an American politician. Thus, those incentives for Israel to continue fighting can't be easily removed.
(As a disclaimer, I in no way support the notion of some Jewish conspiracy or underground. Such a notion as I've understood take my argument #5 to an even further and ridiculous level to explain whatever agenda they're in favor of.)
I'm afraid that there's plenty more reasons that do a better job of explaining that situation, but that's probably enough for now.
Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:One of the main reasons why Israel doesn't have to sue for peace is because their war efforts are largely funded by the US, so there's no real need for them to end the conflict. The Palestinians receive funding through various means that's more difficult for them to receive than for the Isrealis to receive funding. This puts the Palestinians in a position where they can't as effectively wage war in order to have their demands met.
The problem with the wikileaks is that the Palestinians may be willing to do so, but there's no way of really knowing because it may just be rhetoric in order to garner popular opinion and money from others. And if it mostly wasn't, then such diplomatic rhetoric may have been said by various figureheads who may not be representative of each Palestinian territory, or who may not really be in any position to garner peace (like Arafat as the decades wore on). Also, the Hamas have been operating separately from the other Palestinian territories, which further complicates negotiations for peace.
This is a very good point, but I beleive the documents in question were negotiations with the west bank specifically. So the leaders of the west bank would be able to enforce their own claim over their area. I may be mistaken in saying this but I believe the number of terrorist attacks originating from the west bank is far lower than those from Gaza.
I'm really not sure if terrorist attacks from whichever sector are highest, and I don't readily see if that's
mostly relevant to the discussion. Surely, one would want to address whichever territory deals the most damage, and that might explain why Israel has Gaza on such tight lockdown in order to limit it's potential ability to cause more damage, but this seems to be another issue altogether...
If peace is being entertained for separate territories, then I don't see how it can't be achieved.. however, and I'm not certain of this, but perhaps the Palestinians want one country, and not 3 countries. Besides, to be divided would undermine their potential to become a more viable nation. It doesn't sound like a good option to undergo for each territory.
Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:In my opinion, another reason why the the Israeli government is unwilling to settle on permanent borders is because it currently finds itself in the position where at an acceptable cost, it can further expand the legitimacy of its land claims by funding more and more settlements outside of Israel's 1948 or 1967 borders. What this does it make the stronger case that the Palestinians can't be given land X because there's too many Isrealis living there, and those Israelis would be mistreated by a Palestinian-ruled government.
I agree with this view as well. The US currently enables the Israeli position. However an agreement with a large portion of the palestinian population is close, the only barrier is Israeli reluctance to reach an settlement due to their position of strength (a short sighted decision in my opinion) .
If such an agrrment were made with the west bank and enough time were to pass to show Gaza the benefits of peace with Israel then I think you would see Gaza follow. To me this suggests a peaceful solution is possible without the need of a war of annihilation against one or the other side.
If somehow Israel would end such a policy, you're still assuming that those territories and their people would never act on their feelings of revenge. How could decades of oppression be forgotten? I think this is what the Israeli government fears immensely. Peace would lead to the Palestinian territories' unifying, becoming internationally legitimate, and much more economically viable and more attractive for investment. With such a booming economy, they'd have the potential to build a larger and more powerful military (which I think they definitely would build). Coupled with the ripe potential to exploit that feeling of a revenge, the right kind of Palestinian government could whip the people into a furor over some Israeli-Palestinian news-worthy event, and perhaps lead to full-scale war.
By keeping them divided, it's that much easier to conquer (at least, that's the policy to which the Israeli government seems to adhere). And for the most part, their fear of this potential situation is real and well-founded enough.
So, all the above hopefully clears up why I think peace for the Situation is impossible. The key factor for peace lies between #4 and #5: wait for the older controllers to die, and perhaps through the younger generations, the chances for peace would become greater. (I mean, how many of those younger generations are tired of this conflict? Many, and perhaps they're all idealistic enough to mutually agree to the higher benefits of peace).
