I have started this blog in hopes that it can provoke an exchange of ideas between all. The only thing I ask of contributors is that you post real arguments or observations, and not indulge in blatant stereotyping, ugly remarks, and racist comments. This may be wishful thinking, but I am putting on my optimist's cap.
Where did the title of this blog come from? It seems so at odds with what this blog is about, right? Actually this is a Kansas slogan from the American Civil War period, during the bloodiest, most horrible war within a war between the border states of Kansas and Missouri. Kansas was an anti-slavery state, and Missouri was a "not for or against slavery state" (in other words you could have slaves, but it was not a part of the Confederacy, at least officially).
The war between these two states started because of
militias on both sides, who committed atrocities that would make your hair stand on end (beheadings, castrations, trophy-taking, such as stringing "kills'" ears and testicles on their bridles). It is a little known conflict, even in America, and is a all-to-typical example of factional feuding that punishes those who are just going about their business. It was tit-for-tat for five mean years. Eventually, a Federal General, Thomas Ewing, did create "desert" between the two states. He burned a 30 mile wide swath that was over 150 miles long on the border between the two states. It was known as the "burnt district" He did this so his troops could spot militias trying to cross over into enemy territory.
Obviously, this is not the way to endear either side, or engage "hearts and minds." This is what we should avoid at all costs, anywhere. It took decades for people on both sides to get over Ewing's no-holds-barred way of enforcing order. Hundreds lost their homesteads and fields--permanently. If citizens lived witin the General's "burnt district," they had to move. These citizens were never compensated for loss of their property.
FYI: I'm not an idealist. I'm pragmatic. Think about it. . .even Machiavelli was ultimately a pragmatist. And the only way people can enact change is to start talking to one another. Again, light a single candle. . .
The first question I will throw out is this. . .King Abdullah of Jordan announced today, according to Reuters, that the U.S., Europe, and Israel have no comprehensive strategy in the Middle East. . ."The United States, Britain and the European countries as well as Israel have got to listen to what we are saying," [King Abdullah] said. How could a more comprehensive strategy be organized? What would it entail?
Where did the title of this blog come from? It seems so at odds with what this blog is about, right? Actually this is a Kansas slogan from the American Civil War period, during the bloodiest, most horrible war within a war between the border states of Kansas and Missouri. Kansas was an anti-slavery state, and Missouri was a "not for or against slavery state" (in other words you could have slaves, but it was not a part of the Confederacy, at least officially).
The war between these two states started because of
militias on both sides, who committed atrocities that would make your hair stand on end (beheadings, castrations, trophy-taking, such as stringing "kills'" ears and testicles on their bridles). It is a little known conflict, even in America, and is a all-to-typical example of factional feuding that punishes those who are just going about their business. It was tit-for-tat for five mean years. Eventually, a Federal General, Thomas Ewing, did create "desert" between the two states. He burned a 30 mile wide swath that was over 150 miles long on the border between the two states. It was known as the "burnt district" He did this so his troops could spot militias trying to cross over into enemy territory.
Obviously, this is not the way to endear either side, or engage "hearts and minds." This is what we should avoid at all costs, anywhere. It took decades for people on both sides to get over Ewing's no-holds-barred way of enforcing order. Hundreds lost their homesteads and fields--permanently. If citizens lived witin the General's "burnt district," they had to move. These citizens were never compensated for loss of their property.
FYI: I'm not an idealist. I'm pragmatic. Think about it. . .even Machiavelli was ultimately a pragmatist. And the only way people can enact change is to start talking to one another. Again, light a single candle. . .
The first question I will throw out is this. . .King Abdullah of Jordan announced today, according to Reuters, that the U.S., Europe, and Israel have no comprehensive strategy in the Middle East. . ."The United States, Britain and the European countries as well as Israel have got to listen to what we are saying," [King Abdullah] said. How could a more comprehensive strategy be organized? What would it entail?
posted by mariestaad at 4:48 PM
3 Comments:
Well, looks like your first commenter is of the "hateful" variety, Mariestaad...
I'll take a stab at the question.
I think the comprehensive plan in question is there, and has been there for decades: A 2 state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem, alongside with a comprehensive peace between Israel and all arab states.
The past 30 or so years (since 1967, in fact) have been spent (wasted, one would argue), because both sides were not willing to accept this simple solution. Both sides hoped they could get to a better bargaining position. Israel hoped to keep more of the 1967-occupied land (and hence the settler movement was encouraged), and the Palestinian-Arab side hoped to do better than allow Israel the pre 1967 borders.
The past 30 years have shown, however, that ultimately, both sides will have to accept that the 2 state solution is the only way to go, and that it will probably be based in large part around the pre-67 borders (with Jerusalem being the major thorny issue here). The rest is actually fairly trivial, once both sides accept this inevitable solution.
Haven't had nor got the time to read this properly and respond; however I am glad you too; like we over at the Olivebranch Network, have taken the initiative to try and bridge this huge cultural gap between average Middle Easterners and Average Westerners.
http://olivebranchoptimism.net
"The Olivebranch Network"
if your interested in all this discussion then you should check that out; I will be back to participate in your discussions and will add links to this wonderfull blog very soon.
Luke(y) Skinner
founder//administrator
"The Olivebranch Network"
When king Abdullah claims that the US has no comprehensive strategy in the Middle East, he isn't asking for help to solve the poverty, lack of education, tremendous religious and political oppression, in short the actual problems of the Middle East. No he is simply demanding "what are you guys going to do about Israel?"
Well the problem is that in the short term there is simply nothing that can be done about Israel. We can't just ask six million Jews to pack up and go someplace else can we? So there must be some kind of a peace agreement. But a peace agreement requires that there be an honest participant on the Palestinian side with which to negotiate a settlement. Unfortunately right now, and for the foreseeable future none of the parties which can claim to represent the Palestinian people want a negotiated peace.
So the Israelis will have to wait, protect themselves as best they can, and try to cultivate among the Palestinians a leader who will be a partner in peace.
With regards to Israel, Abdullah is right, at this point we don't have many plans to solve this problem. But with regard to those other issues (poverty, lack of education, oppression) Bush has actually articulated a plan of sorts. The problem is, bringing democracy to the Middle East might not exactly appeal to the king of Jordan. This may have something to with the reason why Abdullah has decided to pretend that this strategy does not exists and claims that the US is not listening to what he is saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home