Middle East Conflict - Continuing the Debate from a Progressive Perspectiv

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060726_middle_east_conflict.htm

Middle East Conflict - Continuing the Debate from a Progressive Perspective
July 26, 2006 at 22:35:27

by Steven Leser

In these debates on OpEd News, I hear a lot of folks talk about "True Progressives". "True Progressives", as far as I am concerned, would not side with anyone in this conflict. To me, progressivism means peace and non-violence. To me, progressivism means not ignoring violence and crimes just because the group with whom you sympathize most performs it.

The standard is, would Martin Luther King or Gandhi say either side is performing correctly/honorably/progressively/ in a civilized manner. The answer is obvious. As I have said previously, once the majority of people are concentrating on ensuring the groups with which they sympathize most are operating within progressive behavioral guidelines, then we will be on the road to a solution.

Gandhi, in particular, if he were either Israeli or a member of Hezbollah or a similar group, would be so horrified by the crimes of his 'side' that he likely would have engaged in a hunger strike in protest. If people are to comment on this article to continue the debate, with each persons comments I would like to see a statement stating whether they think the group they sympathize with is, in their opinion, operating within the bounds of decency according to progressivism. If not, I think each of our duties is clear.

I have heard a lot of criticism of Israel because of what is termed as Israel's excessive response to Hizbollah's actions. Put another way, people's expectations are that Israel should have acted with a more proportional response. I believe the idea of "Proportional Response" in war is even more insane than war itself. Those of you advocating such are not far from the logical equivalence of arguments that certain bureaucrat's made when they were saying that a limited nuclear war was possible and that the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefields of Europe would not lead to strategic attacks between the US and former USSR on each other. After all, everyone plays nice in war and only responds exactly and proportionally in kind, right?

Progressivism reduced to "polite" war is progressivism reduced to the lowest common denominator indeed. I view myself as open to logical arguments, but these sorts of arguments are completely non-persuasive to me. "These folks are better because they have killed or maimed fewer". Is this really what appeals to supposed progressives? Violence and war are madness. The only logical argument is to be completely against them. Neither Israel, nor Hezbollah, nor the Palestinians are supportable from a progressive standpoint. All are guilty of not doing all they can to find peaceful solutions to their problems. If anyone persists in the silly endeavor of being virulently pro or anti any of these three, perhaps it will be helpful to remember that when the day finally comes that Israel, Lebanon and the new Palestinian state are all at peace with one another, they will all become each others most prolific trading partners in short order. If that does not illustrate the ironic madness of the actions of all right now, I am not sure what does.

In keeping with my declaration of what I believe each person should do, since I sympathize most with Israel, here is what I think Israel should do:

1. Israel should grant the Palestinians a state in the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza with the exception of west Jerusalem.

2. Israel should offer to make the 30 miles of most southern Lebanon and northern Israel military free zones to be patrolled by UN Peacekeeping forces.

3. In lieu of Resolutions like 1441, the Israelis should offer a fair compensation for lands and property seized in the 1948 war. (The UN should probably cough up a partial share of this.)

For its part, the United States, once Israel grants the Palestinians the aforementioned state, should send 80% of the US Military Engineering cadre to Palestine to build roads, bridges, power plants, affordable housing and office buildings and other infrastructure. Navy Seabees, Air Force Red Horse and of course the Army Corps of Engineers should all be used for this.

[Cary]

1. What happens if Israel does all this and still takes in rockets, .. ..

missiles, and suicide bombers? I mean it's not like either the "Palestinians" or Hezbollah have ever done anything to develop trust. Is it?

Sorry, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I don't have any answers. I'm sitting here safe, for now, in Chicago and it isn't my ass on the line.

[stevenleser]

2. Not an unfair question at all...

...the only question I would have is, from where?

What I am proposing is that the Palestinians get a viable state and that the US assists with building their infrastructure and that Israel compensates them in lieu of 1441 and other Resolutions. If Israel does all of this, I think the Palestinians will concentrate much more on continuing to build their state than they will on Israel. Right now, they dont even have a semblance of a viable state.

So, getting back to your question, I do not believe that missiles or suicide bombers would continue coming in from the Palestinians, at least not for long. If they do, and the Palestinian state apparatus is not involved, those perpetrating such crimes should be treated as criminals. If they ARE involved with the Palestinian state apparatus, it is an act of war. Israel would probably be within its right to topple the existing government at that point.

If it (missiles, etc) continues to come in from Lebanon, I would say the same thing. However, I believe that once the Palestinians have a viable state, Pan-Arab/Islamic antagonism toward Israel would rapidly diminish. States that sponsor groups like Hezbollah and others would find other ways to use their state funds.

[bemildred]

3. Very Good.

Certainly the right idea. I am impressed.

I have one quibble. It is indeed folly to talk of proportionality in war. If one chooses or finds oneself at war, the thing to do is to kill the other fellow as efficiently as possible while taking as little damage as possible oneself. And it is a folly and a moral horror to choose to go to war in the first place. Having descended into the mud, it makes little sense to debate over degrees of muddiness. However, one still ought to be conscientious in avoiding harm to civilian populations, for practical as well as moral reasons. In the present case for instance, had the Israeli side been less enthusiastic about bombing Lebanese civilian targets it would have cost them little or nothing, and it would have gained them much, including a firmer grip on the moral high ground. There are practical military reasons as well, it wastes resources and hardens the spirit and unity of ones opponent, for example, and the evidence to show that it helps in some way is weak.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Your suggestions sound very sensible

I'd add that the division of Jerusalem should be such to allow Israel access to the Western/Wailing Wall without crossing Palestinian territory, and Palestinians similar access to the Dome of the Rock. If this requires compensation for individual landowners, then it should be generous, and come from international funds. This area should also probably be policed by a UN force, given the geography and sensitivity.

Since I may have more 'sympathy' for the Arab side than you (though I can tend more towards "a plague on both their houses"), I'll suggest what the Arabs should do:

There should be compensation for any property seized from Jews in Arab countries (or effectively seized, if they fled in fear of their lives) since 1948, in a similar fashion to the Israeli compensation.

All Arab countries must recognise Israel as a sovereign country in the boundaries you suggest.

Any laws discriminating against Judaism and its followers in Muslim countries should be repealed (to be realistic, this means asking for Judaism to be treated the same as Christianity, not for Islam not to be a favoured religion any more).

UN forces should have the right to arrest terrorists in Palestinian territory who carry out attacks on Israel, and these would be tried and imprisoned outside the area - probably by the International Criminal Court. Former Yugoslavia is the model I'm thinking of for this.

[stevenleser]

5. Thank you Mildred and Muriel

I think both of your comments are spot-on. I am interested in hearing from more people including any folks who think they find fault with my suggestions...