give war a chance

February 22, 2002 5:09 AM

give war a chance an influential Palestinian writer in a Palestine paper says that war makes more sense than negotiating for a peaceful resolution. Perhaps he ought to send his son into the struggle as a suicide bomber
posted by Postroad (33 comments total)

Direct link to article
posted by ColdChef at 5:14 AM on February 22, 2002

hey! colchef! thanks. I am old but know squat about this techy stuff and I count on the good will and graces of nice people like you to bail me out. Do you do marital problems too?
posted by Postroad at 5:27 AM on February 22, 2002

The author seems to have forgotten that the isrealis captured quite a bit of real estate in the arab-isreali war in the 60's, and, that the US and isreal are military allies so that war with them is tantamount to war with the US. Of course, now that we are done capturing land from the spanish and native americans, the US frowns on this sort of war-as-resolution-to-land-conflict approach and would never openly support another arab/isreali war. Personally, I think a decisive war victory of the isrealis over the arabs would stabilize the region for a couple more decades until the next generation of islamic militants comes into power and forgets the past. However, I'm not sure it's worth an extra $0.50/gallon to gas up my car...so I'm conflicted.
posted by plaino at 5:54 AM on February 22, 2002

You know, this guy probably "would" send his son off to war. There are a lot of fanatics out there who consider that quite all right.
posted by bittennails at 6:06 AM on February 22, 2002

the Gulf War was a resolution to a land conflict, moron.
posted by techgnollogic at 6:50 AM on February 22, 2002

Such hatred has accrued on both sides that the author is unintentionally correct.

Both sides as it stands generate further resolve in their cause as they exact revenge.

Only when the bloodshed and loss of life is sufficiently horrific will the hostilities cease in favor of a genuine and lasting understanding that peace and not war is the solution.

Absent that realization, no peace process will suvive the underlying bitter resentment each side harbors (at this point nurtures) towards each other. No 3rd party, not the US, not the Saudis can overcome such bitter hatred.

The sad thing is, each side long ago expended any moral higher ground.

But the Israelis, because of the jew's experiencea t the hands of the Germans in WW2, struggle to find a solution other than the most obvious one.

Both Jordan and Syria resorted to genocide when their palestinian populations became uncontrollable.

For Israel to resort to the same will be the death of its raison d'etre. Never the less, the pressure will build, until it blows, and then things will be relatively improved. And thats negotiation, semitic style.
posted by BentPenguin at 6:51 AM on February 22, 2002

It really doesn't matter; none of the countries that would support a real war are interested. Egypt and Jordan have concluded peace treaties; Saudi Arabia would never act on its own; and Syria is weak and preoccupied. They're on their own, and the sooner they realize it and the futility and waste of military resistance, the better for all.

That said, there seems to be a certain level of sarcasm in this article, and a conviction that they can make the occupation difficult enough for Israel that it will capitulate. (All this, because the last proposal was merely 99% of what they could ever realistically get.) But Sharon is just as certain that he has Arafat's Palestinian Authority cornered, where it must choose to manage the peace under Oslo, or fight alongside Hamas and the others -- which will delegitimize the PA permanently as a representative.

Sharon is much closer to getting what he wants.
posted by dhartung at 6:51 AM on February 22, 2002

the Gulf War was a resolution to a land conflict, moron.

I must be a moron. Here, I was thinking the gulf war only repelled a military occupation. Nobody was conquered, no borders were changed, and no government reigns changed hands. The war was triggered by Iraq's attempted land-grab but it hardly was a resolution. At best the conflict has become an awkward stalemate because Bush I decided not to overthrow Hussein.
posted by plaino at 7:01 AM on February 22, 2002

What to do:
1. build shitloads of factories capable of making every conceivable munition
2. export it all to the mid-east
3. charge (at the very least lend-lease)extotionate amounts thus making a healthy(he he)profit.
4. let them blow each other to shit.

or

pull our heads out of the fucking sand and stop spouting about axis of elvis or evil or something and try engaging to try to sort this bloody mess out. Blowing the shit out of each other does not work, the situation degenerates with the kind of tit for tat nonsense that is occuring at the moment.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:04 AM on February 22, 2002

It would be nice if we could stand aside and let the isreali-palestine conflict resolve itself (as war I would assume). Unfortuneately, we all live on the same planet and wars have a way of distributing their consequences around the globe, especially if one side is trying to draw other countries into the war. Like it or not, until fossil fuel is not the basis of our transportation, electricity, heat, etc. anymore, we are inextricably linked to, and adversely affected by, instability in the middle east. A good US position might be to use a heavy hand to 'force' a restless peace on the region until the old guard of entrenched hate-mongers dies off and is one-by-one replaced by moderate US friendly leaders (under heavy US influence of course). Over the long term this might gradually lead to stability based on moderate political ideology rather than fear of war with the US. Perhaps this is what we are beginning to do, but the bigger picture is still obscured and the outcome still uncertain?
posted by plaino at 7:30 AM on February 22, 2002

Perhaps he ought to send his son into the struggle as a suicide bomber

or, after shinaz amuri, his daughter.
posted by jellybuzz at 7:48 AM on February 22, 2002

Like it or not, until fossil fuel is not the basis of our transportation, electricity, heat, etc. anymore, we are inextricably linked to, and adversely affected by, instability in the middle east.

Truth. That being the case, and taken into account that apparently nearly everyone who resides in the middle east is a fucking psycho bent on suicide and/or murder, how about a modest proposal? Let's annex the joint, get some professional military and police forces in their to build some respect for the rule of law, and keep these idiots in line until they grow some sense.

51st state, anyone? And to hell with the inevitable bitching. If they were so special, they'd have ironed this out by now, the numbskulls. If we are going to have the reputation as the world's policeman, and take the grief for being the world's policeman, than we should BE the world's policeman, dammit. Enough of this horseshit. Someone's got to go in there, clunk Sharon's and Arafat's heads together in Moe-like fashion, and start making everyone act like grownups. After this god-soaked buffoon's nutjobbery and the murder of D. Pearl in one week, I think it's time we admitted that the middle east isn't even remotely interested in solving their own problems. Time for some adults to come in and solve them for them.
posted by UncleFes at 8:15 AM on February 22, 2002

well, try this, from a guy who should know about contued terror and killing:

http://www.utvinternet.com/news_disp/indepth.asp?id=14694&r=3&pt=n

Jerry Adanms, of IRA and what he has to say about Middle East.
posted by Postroad at 8:16 AM on February 22, 2002

He's not exactly breaking any new ground there, is he?
posted by UncleFes at 8:19 AM on February 22, 2002

pull our heads out of the fucking sand and stop spouting about axis of elvis or evil or something and try engaging to try to sort this bloody mess out.

See Oslo '93 through Camp David '00. Perhaps you have some new idea of how to conduct peace talks in a way that Arafat will treat the negotiations seriously now, rather than just testing the waters which was all he ever did the first time around.


Blowing the shit out of each other does not work, the situation degenerates with the kind of tit for tat nonsense that is occuring at the moment.

Neither does negotiation. But all out war is an efficient (alobeit immoral) solution to the at hand which is not really a war at all. Its a long drawn out process of posturing/positioning that leads to war.

It bears saying again: The profound hatred that each side has towards each other is such that no compromise will ever hold. Thats the cold hard truth and only the sobering effect of massive bloodshed will shake them from the hypnotizing effect of such hatred without bounds.
posted by BentPenguin at 8:27 AM on February 22, 2002

Uncle Fes, one could argue that the regions problems stem partly from "adults" coming in and "solving problems" for them.

An alternative to the linked suicidal suggestion can be found in this article. Excerpt:

A closer look at the Palestinian reality tells a somewhat more encouraging story. Recent polls have shown that between them, Arafat and his Islamist opponents (who refer to themselves unjustly as "the resistance") get somewhere between 40 and 45 per cent popular approval. This means that a silent majority of Palestinians is neither for the Authority's misplaced trust in Oslo (or for its lawless regime of corruption and repression) nor for Hamas's violence.
posted by talos at 8:35 AM on February 22, 2002

oh no my frind endless bloodshed has been tried as a possible solution to territorial disputes, althought this was by all means not the only bone of contention between posturing nations. You know what, after over a thousand years of this in europe we decided this was all jolly silly. War is merely a temporary manifestation of issues which if not grappled with will simply result in recurrent conflict. The cold hard truth is that there is no alternative, try MAD by all means it tends to leave a bitter taste in the mouth I would have thought.
posted by johnnyboy at 8:43 AM on February 22, 2002

oh no my frind endless bloodshed has been tried as a possible solution to territorial disputes, althought this was by all means not the only bone of contention between posturing nations. You know what, after over a thousand years of this in europe we decided this was all jolly silly. War is merely a temporary manifestation of issues which if not grappled with will simply result in recurrent conflict. The cold hard truth is that there is no alternative, try MAD by all means it tends to leave a bitter taste in the mouth I would have thought.
posted by johnnyboy at 8:44 AM on February 22, 2002

one could argue that the regions problems stem partly from "adults" coming in and "solving problems" for them.

The argument could be made that it's God's fault. If there's been any sensible (to wit: secular, rule of law, peace-seeking, stable, non-murderous, officals without terrorism experience, amenable to negotiation on the various topics that states negotiate with each other on without resorting to gunfire and dynamite to make a point)leadership in the last, oh, say two centuries, I've yet to hear about it. America, and the American Way of Doing Things, may not be perfect, but it has three things going for it: it maximizes personal liberty and economic freedom; it allows for cultural differences within the greater structure and extends voice and power to those cultures, and it rarely devolves into car-bombings and return airstrikes.

My WHOLE life, I've had to hear about Israel and it's various Arabian enemies, bombing each other. My whole life, I've seen the US and others try to broker peace between these assholes, only to see it go up in smoke at the first sign of hope. They've had their chance to make it work, and not only did they blow it, they sent a lot of innocents to their graves in the process. Time for people who know how to have peace to make peace there, regardless of the desires of the violent OR let them finish the conflict to a definitive resolution and then deal with the "winner."

Where I come from, this is commonly known as "shitting or getting off the pot." And it's time we (either as America the Last Remaining Superpower or the West in general) did it.
posted by UncleFes at 8:54 AM on February 22, 2002

You know what, after over a thousand years of this in europe we decided this was all jolly silly.

Yugoslavia? The Caucasus? The Basque Country? N. Irleand? Corsica?
WWII was just 50 years ago. European colonies gained their independence around that time for the most part. Decided that this was all jolly silly indeed...
posted by talos at 8:56 AM on February 22, 2002

Uncle Fes: you bring up a whole new discussion, but I'll stick to one point from the Palestinian perspective (that I share): What would you do if a world body decided that the state you live in should be given back to the Sioux or any other Indian tribe, and the new settlers kicked you out (without compensation) of your home and/or treated you like a third class citizen and/or a potential threat and killed various members of your family for resisting the settlers. Tell me honestly that you would rule out carbombs in that situation...
Fortunately, as the article I linked to suggests, a growing number of Palestinians have come to the conclusion that carbombs are indeed a bad idea, and seem to be oriented towards a Ghandi-like peaceful resistance. I'm willing to suggest that this would be one strategy that the hawks in Israel cannot win against.
posted by talos at 9:06 AM on February 22, 2002

sidenote talos: Gandhi, not ghandi, it's common and a lot of folks do it, but yet it somehow peeves me. Everybody loves to use his name consistently with non-violence, so I see this a lot, and thought I would mention it. :) sorry.
posted by bittennails at 9:12 AM on February 22, 2002

Quick and sloppy typing- my bad bittennails...
posted by talos at 9:21 AM on February 22, 2002

Tell me honestly that you would rule out carbombs in that situation...

I would absolutely totally without equivocation rule out carbombs. I cannot conceive of a situation where I would employ a carbomb regardless of what was being done to me or my people. They are the most utterly dishonorable weapon ever used, and ultimately meaningless in the greater struggle. Anyone who has ever employed a carbomb, regardless of why, has my eternal enmity. They are not fit to draw breath with the rest of us.

What would you do if a world body decided that the state you live in should be given back to the Sioux or any other Indian tribe, and the new settlers kicked you out (without compensation) of your home and/or treated you like a third class citizen and/or a potential threat and killed various members of your family for resisting the settlers.

I'd do what I could. I'd fight it in the courts, in the arena of world opinion, I'd organize with those who were being treated similarly to try and stop what was going on. In the meantime, I'd move my family and loved ones out of harm's way, and try to perserve whatever economic status I had left, so as to make sure they were safe and cared for.

What I would not do is set a car bomb. Ever. EVER. And I would actively work against those in my situation who would. Even if it came to war, which I would fight if necessary, I would wear a uniform and fight with the same honor, and integrity, with which my forefathers did. And I would very likely get my fool ass killed - I have no illusions as to my potential value in combat. But I would not murder wantonly like some animal. I'd rather go to my grave a dozen times than purposefully murder civilians - children and grandmothers, people on buses and restaurants, teenagers in an arcade! - with a bomb, even if they were the wives, mothers, fathers and sons of my most hated enemies.
posted by UncleFes at 9:30 AM on February 22, 2002

The Israelis formed their state out of nothing by using armed resistance (against the British, and later against the Arabs who came to defend the Palestinians), it shouldn't be too surprising that the people they built their state on top of would use violence as well.

If Barak's 'generous offer', which has been subsequently debunked in the Israeli press (people still throw around '99%,' although Dhartung qualifies it with 'realistically,' which is far more accurate) was indeed the best the Israelis can offer to the Palestinians, then what is a Palestinian to do? If Barak can only offer an unviable state without the main conditions necessary for sovreignty, and Palestinians remain under a military occupation, what should they do?

The debate in America is so thoroughly dominated by the Israeli perspective, as Israel and America have so many ties (cultural, economic, familial) and America and Palestine have had virtually none.

Here is an interesting link from an author who writes about American foreign policy and Palestinian strategy.
posted by cell divide at 9:52 AM on February 22, 2002

Talos, I should point out that Edward Said is playing fast and loose with the facts in his piece. Here's a recent survey (You'll have to scroll down to questions 41 & 42) that ranks the popularity of both Palestinian political parties and their leaders. The majority of people that support neither Fatah nor Hamas (or neither Arafat nor Yasin) are merely supporting one of the lesser parties or leaders instead. While they do not specifically ask about Oslo, question 28, 29 & 30 specifically address their support of violent acts(92%, 92% & 58% support for attacks on soldiers, settlers and Israeli civilians respectively), and question 1 addresses their support for a comprehensive peace plan(52% support). All in all, it's a quite interesting read, if only fitfully encouraging.
posted by boaz at 10:00 AM on February 22, 2002

UncleFes, how do you feel about the bombing of hiroshima? Do you honestly feel that that was significantly different than a car bomb? Except, of course, in proportion, and number of children/grandmothers killed.

Just wondering if the US has your "eternal enmity."
posted by Doug at 10:54 AM on February 22, 2002

how do you feel about the bombing of hiroshima?

Ugly and horrible, but at least somewhat justifiable from a macro-military standpoint. I haven't done a great deal of reading on the subject, but I can understand the distasteful logic of it (bomb two cities vs. land invasion and deaths of thousands more). Personally, I don't think I would have dropped the Bomb if I were a general in that era.

Do you honestly feel that that was significantly different than a car bomb?

Of course. For one, I didn't participate in the bombing of Hiroshima, and for me the use of car bombs is one of personal honor. Nor do I see any indication where car bombs can be militarily justified, however remotely, as could the bombing of Hiroshima. Second, the bombing of Hiroshima, for good or ill, was done by combatants in uniform, fighting against mutually recognized enemies in a time of declared war.

Just wondering if the US has your "eternal enmity."

A lot of it has my partial and temporary enmity. A small portion has my eternal enmity. Enmity for me is personal; an entire country is a lot to be personally angry with. So, no. I'm not too fond of straw men, though, or simplistic arguments comparing incidents that have very little to do with each other in some sort of weird attempt to justify the indiscriminate murder and maiming of civilians by cowardly pieces of bloodthirsty shit. But hey, that's just me.
posted by UncleFes at 12:06 PM on February 22, 2002

UncleFes, it isn't a straw man argument. In fact, the situations are extremely similar. It's pretty well accepted that hiroshima was largely a civilian target. I personally don't think the fact that the person flying the plane was wearing a uniform as significant. You seem to, which is why you feel the situations are dissimilar.

I also don't mean to excuse car bombers. I think killing civilians is wrong, whoever does it. It seems, however, that you feel it's wrong only when done by a car bomb. Interesting philosophy, really.
posted by Doug at 12:26 PM on February 22, 2002

In fact, the situations are extremely similar.

It is this point, I think, where we in complete disagreement, thereby prompting us both to make assumptions about the other (likely incorrect, as in "...you feel it's wrong only when done by a car bomb..." and "...sort of weird attempt to justify the indiscriminate murder and maiming of civilians...") and precluding substantive debate, in that we both have rather pointed beliefs on the subject and are individually unlikely to win the other to his cause, or even acknowledge the merit of the other's PoV.

In the end, I care first about what I do, and I judge others by that yardstick. Hiroshima was not my decision, and I doubt I will ever understand the myriad aspects to the making and implementing of that decision. But I could set a car bomb. That action, and the motivation behind, I can understand completely. And I, again, judge that action by my own yardstick. Trying to convince me that, indeed, I would set a car bomb if my circumstances were similar to those who do is futile, for I would not. I consider it a foul, dishonorable, cowardly activity, and I despise those who do it regardless of the merit or lack thereof of their impetus.

An interesting philosophy, perhaps, but my own and, imo, not without its own internal consistency and merit.
posted by UncleFes at 2:49 PM on February 22, 2002

As long as we're discussing the issue, the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved countless lives on both sides of the Pacific conflict. Had the bombs not been dropped, firebombing of tokyo would have continued, and eventually, the United States would have had to actually put people on boats, unload them in Japan, and have them fight. Now, I don't know much about the second world war, or Japanese culture, but I do know that any and every able bodied Japanese man would have fought to the death if his own nation were being invaded. The humiliation of being taken prisoner, alive, in your own country, would have been quite unpleasant. So, the atomic bombs, while sickening, were decisive and saved everyone a lot of trouble.

The biggest problem with the bombs was that nobody knew what had happened afterwards. There was so much confusion after the destruction of the two industrial centers that to this day there are many questions surrounding whether or not Japan surrendered because of the two atomic bombs (or "A-Bombs" as I call them).
posted by Settle at 3:18 PM on February 22, 2002

Well, I think the diffrence between nuking japan and setting off a car bomb as that the nuking stopped the war, whereas a carbomb does nothing to solve anything.
posted by delmoi at 3:10 AM on February 23, 2002

WWII was only fifty years ago and still counting. I cannot deny that the sitaution is far from perfect, but getting better yes. I cannot comment on most of the cases which you highlight, but then again I suppose neither can you.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:02 AM on February 23, 2002