Patrickov wrote:As a matter of fact India is also seeking to change the negative perception from outside, so it is absurd to expect a country and ethnic group as proud as the Israelite not being like that.
Yes, agree. You do have a point here. In fact even more to your point, there is an inverse relationship between the capabilities and the work done on perception. Israelis need to learn that they do not have to work so hard to change whatever the World thinks of them. They can rest on their laurels as it were, but in some ways they are still stuck in 1948. Good point!
Patrickov wrote:However, speaking that in a debate is an entirely different thing, because I expect the purpose of a debate is to justify own's action while defeat the opponent's justification. In this regard, internet forums like PoFo are closer to the European Parliament than the Middle East battlefield, and blatantly claiming that "the fist says it all" only serves to enhance the opponent's justification.
Again, in general you are correct. However in the context of Middle East and specifically Palestinian issue, forceful manifestation of power whether perceived or real is often a necessity. It is an old adage, - what is more important the message itself or the consideration of audience that that message is intended too and the message itself is a fantasy, i.e. work on the audience by whatever means available and the goals just might be achieved, right?
So, yes, the Europeans see Israeli muscular and uncompromising posture towards Palestinians as a negative element, but the Israeli thinking is that it is that very posture that just might bring the Palestinian leadership to the table.
The history has shown this to be an effective weapon. It is that very muscular posture that brought us an ill-fated Oslo accords, and when that posture got relaxed in the forerunning to Clinton-led process of 2000, we got intifada and over thousand dead. With Sharon muscular politics, or shall I say rhetoric, we reestablished the deterrence, even in the face of Gaza gamble of 2005.
So, - go figure…This is Middle East, nothing what it seems to be…
Patrickov wrote:Even in Realpolitik, it is arguable whether this stance is beneficial. The Palestinians might be annihilated but no one is sure who's next. If the forces against Israel were strong and coordinated enough things could turn really ugly.
No. This has not been the case for a very long time now. Menachem Begin, back in early 80s quipped that the Arabs no longer have a military option against Israel, stating in a conversation with an American general that Israel only has ‘problems’ with Arabs not an existential threat any longer. Problem are manageable, right?
That change, from existential threat to problem cannot be reversed in the context of the modern world. Once the deterrence is achieved it is forever, or at least until the next doomsday weapon system is created.
For example, - Russian Federation has a declining military, it is falling behind the Chinese as we speak but the Russian ‘bear’ is still extremely dangerous and unbeatable and will remain as such forever. Look at the military parade this year in Moscow, - you see very old hardware, ancient really, and mostly unusable on the modern battlefield, but finishing the parade are the systems that will erase any enemy you can possibly imagine and they cannot be stopped.
This is what we have in the Middle East today, - an absence of a military option against Israel. This is also one of the reasons of a current rapprochement between Israelis and some Arab countries. They know they can’t win, so a different foreign policy must ensue and it does.
Realpolitik is the weapon of choice. As per Kissinger, it can be weak if it’s not real, in other words a bluff. But it is real in Israeli case. In order to show that Israel is not bluffing a demonstration is necessary every now and then. Look at Syrian involvement for the past decade. Look at a few small wars with Hamas. This is the Realpolitik at work.
Patrickov wrote:What I agree, though, is that Muslims are generally suckers in conflicts. Arabs vs Europeans, Palestinians vs Israelites, Pakistani vs Indians, Rohingya vs Burmese, Uighurs vs Chinese, etc. They either bow their heads low or only engage in pointless terrorism. Not to mention many Arabs are more interested in infighting.
Indeed, you are right. Specifically in the case of Arab society, well, - it is still tribal and therefore fragmented, as it has always been. The loyalty is often to the tribe and not to the flag. It also has a significant religious component, - many in Sunni Arab world are not sure, who do the hate the most, - the Jews or the Shia. Sad indeed.
Patrickov wrote:I tend to believe the foreign governments just pretend to be against Israel because many of their common people are moved by the Palestinian narrative and politicians have to win votes. In reality if they actually don't like a country they will simply sanction it (I actually saw that point in the quote), just like what the West do to Russia. No one would say Russia is weaker than Israel, would they?
This is a complicated issue. You’ll get many different and often contradicting opinions.
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is unique. Most people, or shall I say most Europeans, cannot relate to it, as they luck the knowledge of what actually makes up the conflict. Most well-meaning Europeans apply the same standards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they applied to German-French conflict or British-Spanish conflict or Russian-German conflict, while they should apply the standards of Turkish-Armenian conflict or still relevant Turkish-Greek conflict.
With this in mind, you may understand the reasons why Europeans are nearly unanimously against Israeli posture toward Palestinians.
There are other opinions, which I do not share as much, like the age old anti-Semitic reality of Europe. Clearly that opinion is supported by the fact that there are two standards in existence; one standards for Israel and the other for every other country in the world! Israel is judged by the standard that can only be described as that Israel must be ‘holier than the Pope’ in the expectation of most European powers. No other country needs to come up to that standard.
There are other explanations to the dilemma that you posit, I just focused on the two.
Patrickov wrote:Still, I am not convinced that "no country is convinced to sanction Israel = Palestinian case is full of holes". If there is one thing that I am against Palestinians, it would be that the Arab society does little to establish a truly vibrant and open environment for foreign investment. Israelite, on the other hand, are more than capable for this. As long as Israel can protect investment (and other Muslim countries do not have the capability to level Israel in retaliation) no one will give a damn even if they actually kill all Palestinians.
Yes, indeed there is that element too. Money talks, right? More to your point, Israel has established itself as an indispensable part of European economy, with many innovations actually being the product of Israeli firms. Shutting down Israel will amount to ‘shooting yourself in the foot’.
Interestingly enough, you learn in economics that nobody or nothing out there is irreplaceable, well,…while true in general, it is not when it comes to Israel. The World does not even want to contemplate what would it take to replace Israeli involvement in its economy. You name an economic sector and you will find an Israeli patent in it or an Israeli-manufactured part or manufactured under Israeli incense part.
It almost sounds like a Jewish conspiracy, LOL! But seriously that is another reason why European powers most likely will never move to sanction Israel in a way that will harm Israeli economy, they will be harming their own!
Patrickov wrote:After much thinking, I probably have to disagree that I "fell into a trap".
You use Realpolitik to justify your stance, but in fact Realpolitik is just to explain how things are what they are. It does not mean the things derived from it are morally upright.
You might think I fell to the same trap and genuinely believed that "Palestinians should blame Nazis for their sufferings from Jews". What I actually said is that these events objectively made criticising Israelite much more difficult because there will be people who are eager to jump to accuse critics of Israelite policies as "anti-Semitic" or "Nazi" (Just see what happened to the UK Labour Party). That's my observation / interpretation, not my belief.
No argument here! Please do not take ‘the trap’ I referred to as a criticism of your views. I did not intend it that way and if that is how it came around, I apologize.
The trap is set for all of us by the Palestinian Arab leadership. Arafat and now Abbas continue to detract attention from real issues, by blaming Israel or US or any other entity that can be blamed, - the flavor of the day as it were… for their own shortcomings. This is not new. This is the tactics that works with most, but not all.
The tactics, their statements, well…It looks as a credible grievance, even if it is not, if you do not think about it too much or are not aware of political complexities of Middle East or historic-economic realities of Middle East. More so, the conflict in question here is unique with no similarities to any other conflict that Europe or Americas are familiar with. This is indeed a trap.
It never ceases to amaze me, that Palestinian Arab leadership thinks that no one will ever see their subterfuge, they think that they are smarter than everybody. Kind of insults your intelligence. However, we do see their actions for what they are, - a poorly thought out initiatives. Their goals, even though they want to conceal them, are seen plain and simple. They want us dead and gone! However, they dress up their position as if it is reasonable! This is a trap.
The better organized Israelis, as you put it, are victorious because they managed to use European-inspired centuries-old experience in their own governance and, to boot, the Jewish culture and Jewish narrative is conducive, or should I say, in line with European political and economic leadership. The Arabs are another story!
Patrickov wrote:All in all, I think Israel wins here simply because they are more organised and they administer themselves better; whether they are on a higher moral ground is questionable.
Morality is subjective. Everybody is claiming the higher moral ground. It cannot be discussed. It is like discussing which color is better.
I stand on a Biblical principles as delineated by Talmudic discourse. From that perspective, Palestinian Arab narrative is totally bankrupt. However, if you consider some, although late in the time line, interpretation of Koran and subsequently derived Sharia, then Palestinian Arabs do have a leg to stand on.
Today, as things are in the 21st century this is irreconcilable. We cannot agree here. Perhaps in a few hundred years, things might change. In my opinion Islam is the greatest obstacle here. Islam is relatively young and it needs to go through the same maturing process as Christianity went through and Judaism had gone through too a long time ago. So, we need to wait for Islam to catch up and be interpreted differently than what we have today. THis is the hope and is my opinion, I do not claim to be a prophet here, LOL!
Our policy in the meantime is that we need to 'feed the cat'. Fight a classic defensive battle, while waiting out for the better times and avoiding annihilating the Arabs all together.
In the short term however, I fear to say that a direct confrontation might be in store for us. We are trying to avoid it, but it seems that we are failing here. There will be another war, with 'morality' being one of the 'casus belli'.