|
Hi Fritz,
Greetings and genuine warm thoughts. Sorry I appeared sarcastic. I've looked
again at what I posted and realise it could be interpreted that way. Apologies
for that. I'm afraid I gave in to my worst instincts. The Arab-Israeli
conflict always generates a kind of knee-jerk reaction in me. I spent time in
Israel and Gaza. I went there an innocent and came away a cynic,
which is the worst and last state of the frustrated idealist.
I wish I had Mike Weaver's light touch but my
humour tends more to the black.
My knee-jerk reaction on hearing the
latest horror in this long, sorry saga was the equivalent
of quoting Shakespeare and wishing a pox on both their houses. Yet
when you pointed me in the direction of the btselem websites I did get a
glimpse of a possible sane outcome for all. Thank you again for
that.
The Geneva Convention and international law on
human rights, in fact even the recognition that humans have rights, all
stem from international agreements - in short a backing away from survival of
the fittest. However, what I said was that we are still savages under the
skin. And those of us still around are demonstrations of our fitness to survive
the ongoing competition for space and land. Our international agreements
are but fragile protection against our instincts.
The analysis I put forward was based on
taking a moment in time and working forward from there, always a contentious
method. If I were to apply that to second century Britain, 16th century
America, 18th century Canada or 19th century Australia the result would
condemn the present populations of those countries as usurpers. In fact, as I
pointed out, none of us would be able to stand tall.
The reason for starting from the moment when UNO
accepted Israel as a member (in other words as a legally constituted
legitimate state) was in my view the only possible point of departure.
There are many others, but none so clearly legitimised as the moment when the
most modern international organisation we had then in existence chose to do so.
You point out that the Arab League did not accept that, hence their reason for
going to war. This means they accepted war as a legitimate means of solving
their dispute i..e a return to survival of the fittest. They went to war and
lost. That's why the Palestinians were not compensated for land. The
reality is that land is not the issue here, cultural hegemony i.e. the dominance
of Islam, is.
The wars that followed and the massacres you refer
to were - as surely as night follows day - the inevitable outcome. They
went unpunished due to modern power politics which, as I pointed out,
is dominated by the winners.
An alternative to beginning the analysis with the
legitimisation of the modern State of Israel would be to go back even further to
the post-Moses period during which the
Israelites entered the so-called Promised Land
and lived there for some 1,300 years - surviving
Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Syrian and a half-dozen other
invasions - until sent into Diaspora (i.e scattered around
the known world) in AD 78 when the Romans burned Jerusalem,
killed thousands, enslaved the rest, destroyed the Temple and - a year
later - wiped out the last outpost of Jewish resistance at Masada.
After the Romans got their come-uppance (about 400
years later - from the Germans would you believe - then known
as Visigoths) the land of Israel was occupied by
nomadic desert tribes. The Jews never - in the almost 2,000 years since the
Diaspora - ever gave up their claim. In fact, they had a standard
greeting which endured for centuries in many languages which wished
themselves "next year in Jerusalem".
However, if we start our analysis
from pre-Mosiac times i.e. before the Israelites entered the Promised Land
(which obviously had people living in it) then of course the Jews had no right
to what was then known as Canaan. But here's the question: who the hell did?
Answer: the guy with the biggest stick.
In AD 630 (more than 550 years after the Romans
tossed out the Jews) the guy in the Middle East with the biggest
stick happened to be a man called Muhammed who invaded Mecca with 10,000
believers, united the desert tribes with a new religious message known as
Islam, and spread it across the entire Middle East including Israel and its
principal city, Jerusalem. If you start your analysis from that point then
the Palestinians are in the right.
Does that make your head spin? It does mine.
The point I'm making is that if you are looking for
legitimacy in terms of land occupation you have to start somewhere. However, it
is an academic approach. What matters in the heat of the moment is blood and
fire and our separate reactions to them. Inevitably there will always be people
on opposing sides of the issue.
I finished my post with the view that the
Arab-Israeli war will never end until Israel is destroyed or the Arabs accept
her existence. Neither is likely. Sanctioning Israel is simply taking sides;
admonishing the Palestinians ditto. Jumping up and down and handwringing avails
us naught.
You can if you wish build your analysis on the
basis of active violence vis a vis reactive violence i.e who threw the
first punch. That would make an interesting debate but still at the sterile
academic level. The reality is that people are dying right now, children are
being maimed and traumatised for life, blood and treasure is being poured out
and nations are impoverishing themselves in a fruitless war.
The US could send Israel back behind her legitimate
borders tomorrow. But the US cannot stop the rocket attacks. Only the Arabs
acting as a whole can do that and no Arab
leader would agree. The last one to sign a peace treaty with
Israel was assassinated. Without secure borders Israel
cannot survive and would be forced to react - again. True, the US in
concert with the West could stop all arms and other supplies to Israel and
slowly starve her into submission.
To what? Arab occupation? Sharia law? Eventual
total Islamisation? That would be a Final Solution. Where have I heard that
phrase before? However, it is the 21st century and final solutions are a luxury
we can no longer afford.
Why not? Israel's nuclear arsenal says so. If
we hate and detest what their reactive violence is doing in Lebanon right
now we certainly won't enjoy their fall-back plan. Nor, on reflection, will
we particularly relish what Iran has in mind. The nearest German equivalent is
Gotterdammerung. (I think there's an umlaut in there somewhere).
The Bible has a more apt word for it. In fact it is
not only a word it is a prediction. Can't think of it at the moment
but I'm sure someone will post it. (I'm not a god-botherer by the way nor even a
nominal Christian. It took me half a lifetime to reason my way to out of my
childhood conditioning so please don't put me in that slot).
In sum, Fritz, I feel your pain. I appreciate your
concern. I agree with your sentiments and have no wish to naysay them. I do not
condone the violence nor do I excuse it. What I have attempted to do
is explain it. My failure is abysmal but then I'm in a long, long queue of
previous explainers.
Regards,
Bob.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:06
AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Check your
Beliefs
So Bob,
You are rigth on this,its about Land,Power Oil and Money and so on!
The fact that the UNO did sanction the implantation of Israel is no
consolation for the dispossest Palestinians,who have been driven of theire
Land without compensation or all!
That the Arabligue did oppose the implantation of Israel is no secret and
the price for all this have been payed by the Palestinian Population!
The Shabra and Shatilla Massacres and the rest of the atrocyties by the
Israel Government on Palestinians can all be excused by your motion of
"survival of the fittest"
Well German Nazis had to stand trial for their Warcrimes and so i agree
with all Holocaust sufferers (and the rest of the civil world) that there
should not be any amnesty for Warcriminals!
But explain me why the Shabra and Shatilla Massacres have not been
punished despite the perpetrayers have been clearly identified?
And explain me why we have a "Convention of Geneva" and why we have
established basic Humanrigths if you can brush them away with "survival of the
fittest"
Now,i can not beliefe that all the things you
have said are your real beliefes so i think you are sarcastic but you should
realice that is exactly the problem in our society at the very most we are
"sarcastic" the suffering of these people does not concern us to much after
all its not hurting us directly or is it?
Fritz
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check Your Beliefs
Hey
guys,
It's a war; dirty, messy, cruel, inhuman and
unnecessary - unless you
happen to be a Palestinian yearning for your land
back or an Israeli who's
been threatened with annihilation since birth. It's
also a war that's been
going on since mankind began. It's about land and
religion and culture and
who dominates who. There are no rights and wrongs
there are only who wins
and who loses. The winners write history and we move
on.
Mike Weaver
made the point when he wondered if he might be living on land
owned by an
indigenous people, a point which also applies to you too, Fritz,
despite
your disingenuous attempt to justify occupation of "unwanted"
land.
However, before you think of noble savages, remember that all those
nice
peace-loving indigenes slaughtered and plundered their way through
the
millenia since they left Africa (where we all originated) to wherever
they
finally settled. The 19th century saw the last vestiges of this land
grab.
If you were a theologian you'd call it original sin. Darwin was
earthier,
and more enlightening, he called it survival of the fittest. You
may take
sides, wring your hands, jump up and down, talk about human rights
but we
are all - even those nice people in the rain forest who we think
live in
harmony with nature - guilty of genocide and dispossession. In the
present
case it's called the Arab-Israeli war. We'll know who was right
when
somebody wins.
And if you've forgotten how it all began, here's
a brief sketch. I found it
on my thumbnail.
The UNO blessing on the
establishment of Israel in 1948 was merely the
recognition of a de facto
situation. From that moment on Israel was de jure,
i.e. a legal entity in
international law. The Arabs disagreed. Five Arab
armies (Egypt, Syria,
Trans-Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - including the
British-trained and armed
Arab Legion) immediately invaded the fledgling
state. The world responded
by clapping a total arms embargo on Israel.
Against that the Israelis had
nine obsolete aircraft, a few tanks, fewer
than 20,000 armed civilians -and
balls. They won, and pushed out their
frontiers to safeguard their
collective backsides from future attacks.
The attacks never stopped
(rockets, mines, cross-border shelling and
guerilla incursions) but the
next big one came in 1967 - the so-called Six
Day War. This time the Arabs
meant business. Egypt closed the Straits of
Tiran to all Israeli shipping,
cutting off Israel's only supply route with
Asia and stopping the flow of
oil from its main supplier, Iran.
President Nasser of Egypt challenged
Israel to fight. "Our basic objective
will be the destruction of Israel.
The Arab people want to fight." He
ordered all UN peace-keeping forces
stationed on Israeli borders to leave.
The UN complied without even calling
a meeting. The Voice of the Arabs radio
station proclaimed: "As of today,
there no longer exists an international
emergency force to protect Israel.
The sole method we shall apply against
Israel is total war, which will
result in the extermination of Zionist
existence". Syrian Defense
Minister Hafez Assad was more blunt: "The Syrian
army, with its finger on
the trigger, is united....I, as a military man,
believe that the time has
come to enter into a battle of annihilation.
Nasser topped that: "We shall
not enter Palestine with its soil covered in
sand; we shall enter it with
its soil saturated in blood." He meant Israeli
blood.
The armies of
Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon massed on the borders of
Israel. Backing
them with men and munitions were Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait,
Sudan and the whole
Arab world. The actual count was 465,000 troops, more
than 2,800 tanks, and
800 aircraft. President Johnson warned the Israelis
not to fight. The
Red Cross stocked up on blankets, the rest of the world
stood by and
watched. Israel couldn't get a hearing in the UN. The Security
Council, it
seemed, was difficult to contact.
We all know what happened. The
Israelis didn't wait for the war. They
pre-empted it. In six days (about
the same time God needed to create heaven
and earth) the Israelis - using
an army 80% of which were weekend soldiers
i.e. civilians taking time off
from work -and an airforce a fraction the
size of that possessed by the
Arabs defeated the lot and pushed out the
borders to a more comfortable
fit. Figuring that sauce for the goose was
sauce for the gander they also
closed the Suez Canal to all nations. On the
sixth day just as the Israelis
were heading for Damascus the Security
Council suddenly found time to
convene and ordered a cease fire on all
sides. Nasser promptly died and
left the mess to his successor, Anwar Sadat.
Sadat waited six years and
then famously announced he was willing to
"sacrifice one million soldiers"
(nice man) in a showdown with Israel. He
joined Syria in assembling a vast
army - the equivalent of the total forces
of NATO in Europe. On the
Golan Heights alone 180 Israeli tanks faced up to
1,400 Syrian tanks. Along
the Suez Canal 500 Israeli defenders were pitted
against by 80,000
Egyptians.
There was going to be no mistake this time. Nine Arab
states, including four
non-Middle Eastern nations, actively aided the
Egyptian-Syrian war effort.
Iraq transferred a squadron of Hunter jets and
MiGs to Egypt and deployed a
full division of 18,000 men and several
hundred tanks in the central Golan.
Besides serving as financial
underwriters, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait also
committed troops. A Saudi
brigade of approximately 3,000 men was dispatched
to Syria. Violating a
French ban on the transfer of French-made weapons,
Libya sent Mirage
fighters to Egypt. President Gaddafi gave Cairo more than
$1 billion in aid
to re-arm Egypt and to pay the Soviets for weapons
delivered. Other North
African countries responded to Arab and Soviet calls
to aid the
frontline states. Algeria sent three aircraft squadrons of
fighters
and bombers, an armored brigade and 150 tanks. Approximately
1,000-2,000
Tunisian soldiers were positioned in the Nile Delta. Sudan
stationed 3,500
troops in southern Egypt, and Morocco sent three brigades to
the front
lines, including 2,500 men to Syria.
Lebanese radar units were used by
Syrian air defense forces. Lebanon also
allowed Palestinian guerillas to
shell Israeli civilian settlements from its
territory (do you get a sense
of deja vu?). Palestinians lined up on the
Southern Front with the
Egyptians and Kuwaitis. Hussein of Jordan sent two
of his best units, the
40th and 60th Armored Brigades. Three Jordanian
artillery batteries and
some 100 Jordian tanks also participated.
Irael, having been battered
for the previous six years by the propaganda
line that they were
warmongers, decided to wait it out. The Arabs bided
their time and struck
in October, 1967, on Yom Kippur day - the holiest day
in the Jewish
calendar. They caught the Israelis napping. Again the world
watched as
Israelis died. Israel appealed but the Security Council was
noticeably
quiet. While it looked as if the Arabs were winning the Soviet
Union showed
no interest in initiating peacemaking efforts. The same was
true for UN
Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim who stayed quiet.
But lo and behold, on
October 22, after 12 days of slaughter, the Security
Council adopted
Resolution 338 calling for "all parties to the present
fighting to cease
all firing and terminate all military activity
immediately."
The
vote came on the day that Israeli forces cut off and isolated the
Egyptian
Third Army and were in a position to destroy it. Israel and Egypt
signed a
peace treaty which stands to this day, Israel gave up territory,
the Canal
was re-opened and the rest of the Arab world sulked. Sadat was
subsequently
assassinated by pro-Palestinian forces for agreeing to peace.
Since
then the Palestinians have switched to killing civilians with
suicide
bombers and rocket attacks. The present debacle is the result.
Israel,
maddened by constant bloodletting, has loosed its big guns. Like
the sleeper
who flails around in the dark swatting a mosquito and wrecking
the
furniture, this present disaster makes sense only in the context of
what
went before.
It will never end until either Israel is destroyed
or the Arabs agree to its
existence. Neither is
likely.
Regards,
Bob.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing
list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel
at Journey to
Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the
combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
|
