posted on Aug, 1 2002 @ 06:33 AM
I take your point Net-C; but youíll recall that I had Arafat as ìadmittedly villainousî in the 3rd or 4th line. Heís no saint ñ Iím unconvinced his
hands are any bloodier than Sharonís.
But ñ as NavSpec suggested - the facts simply do not support the view that he is the source of all conflict, the fount of all evil. There were wars
before him; I fear there will be killing after him.
Israel was founded amid the murders of innocents ñlargely Brits by then Jewish gangs: Irgun, Stern particularly: 56 years later, innocents (if
thereís anyone left there who may still claim such a title) are still being slaughtered. The very language of conflict has lost meaning: Palestinians
among whom terrorists live are no longer innocents ñ does not logic then demand that Israeli civilians among whom Israeli soldiers live are no longer
ìinnocentsî? A majority of any young Israeli ìciviliansî will be off-duty soldiers or reservists: are they ìinnocentsî?
I submit that it is genuinely impossible to make sense of any of this along the ìcivilisedî lines that Western leaders continue to claim that they
The region worries me because, this is the only part of the world in which I could imagine the seeds of a final war being sown. If I, my family
and friends, my culture and country are ever going to vanish in flames or plague ñit will have started in Israel.
Now Iím not talking Gog and Gagog, the second coming, Nostradamus, Revelation or Isaiah. Simply that this region has been the worldís most potentially
dangerous ìhot-spotî for half a century and continues to be so. It has led to the West being ranged against Islam in a way that surpasses the time of
the Crusades. Is there any other reason one can think of for the fact that Americaís, Natoís, enemies are Iraq, Iran, the Arabs, Afghanistan etc.
There are no territorial, economic, historical reasons for any of this.
This is an area of no economic importance, a religion with fewer adherents than Sikhism, a country with a population less than that of a decent-sized
capital city. Minute numbers of casualties compared to a dozen current African conflicts ñyet this is where the West is on the line.
Israel already has the bombs, the chemicals and the bacteria: the Arabs are no doubt trying with all their might to get them too.
We are already at a sufficient historical distance from the Cold war to be able to say, with some justification, that it was never going to happen.
Kennedy or Khruschev were always going to fold: Khruschev removed the rockets ñ Kennedy, less openly, removed the missiles from Turkey. Stalin at his
maddest was never going to unleash the Tupolevs.
Somehow, the two sides ñno matter how many skirmishes, wars, conflicts were sponsored in the second and third worlds - were never going to risk it
all. Who can say the same about Arabs and Israelis? If the Israelis become weaker ñthe militant Arabs will annihilate them. While the Israelis are
stronger, they have to fight perpetual war against enemies who make the kamikaze-pilots look like the pro-Life brigade. No one has anything else to
lose, there ñbut the problem is not confined to that place.
Hence, though I deprecate the expression and content of some of the ìkill the rugheadsî postings, I have suggested that this is a conflict that
admits to no resolution beyond the effective destruction of one side or the other. Since neither side attempts this, I then wonder if either side
actually wants a resolution. Without US or Arab subsidies ñ the region would be a poor area of marginal agriculture ñas it was, with peaceful
co-existence between Jews and Palestinians, in the days of the Ottoman Empire. These obscure Near-eastern politicians, who dominate our press and our
screens would be just insignificant regional figures. A recent survey showed (I have little faith in polls and surveys, of course) that young
Americans could identify more Israeli political leaders than they could US political leaders! Hack-journalism, no doubt, but not wholly
Again ñ if we look dispassionately at World History and proceed inductively: what can we learn from ìnew countriesî? Well, the new countries that
still hold together are, effectively, the Americas, Oz and N.Z. Conquered by Europeans relatively recently, and conquered pretty ruthlessly. Not
genocide (close at times e.g. Tasmania), but ìruthlesslyî politically and culturally: there was never going to be an Inca state and a Spanish state, a
Sioux state and a US state, a Maori State and a Brit state. Where the conquest was less ruthless: it eventually goes back to how it was, and the
newcomers leave: Africa, India good examples: even the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Never, has a ìnewî country arisen on the territory of a ìoldî country with the result that two separate nations have come to co-exist in peace. ìWhy
should we give up anything?î; ìWhy shouldnít we take it all?î remain the only two multiple-choice options.
As for Israeli involvement or conspiracy in Hamas and these other groups whose names are constantly spouted by the media - although no one knows who
they actually are ñ I suggest that there is influence. There must be at least attempted influence since every so often the Palestinians bump someone
off as an Israeli traitor. We must also recall that, right or wrong, there are many who suspect Israeli and/or US complicity in 9-11. Furthermore,
while it is no ground for logical argument, these incidents always seem to occur at rather ìconvenientî times, they are invariably surrounded by
mystery ñthe bomber is blow to bits or was never even there. The places are always ìsoftî targets ñpoor areas, recently arrived Jews, outside the
mainstream power blocís, areas with Arabs or tourists. Why does an organisation that ñ we are told ñ can level the WTC and almost get the Pentagon
blow up student cafÈís?
By ìcomplicityî, I donít necessarily mean that Israelis dress up as Arabs and plant the bombs. Just as I wouldnít suggest that Americans
infiltrated the Imperial Japanese Navy or painted Rising Sunís on Curtis and Douglas fighter and bombers, and then bombed Pearl Harbor. What I suggest
is that people have the knowledge to do MORE, but choose ñfor their own reasons ñto do less: ìaccessoriesî as it were.
I find it fairly hard to believe that, on the bloody but excellent record of Israel security forces, a Palestinian leader can as much as f*rt,
without Tel Aviv knowing. The complicity comes when no, or inappropriate, further action is taken.
Summing up, N-C, Iím saying that this is a conflict that defies all old generalisations and platitudes. In strategic, economic, cultural terms it
ought to be about as important as the internal politics of the Sudan ñyet it has dominated the Western media for almost forty years. Why?
It bids fair to be the longest ever continuous conflict (the 100 years War wasnít continuous.) ñ Why? Almost no one ever gets hurt or killed
(statistically) ñ Why?
I suggest that it is because the current state of affairs suits the principal players.