December 1, 2007
THE HEALTH OF THE PEACE IS A STATE:
You Can't Get to Peace if You Can't Get it Right (Barry Rubin, 11/29/07, GLORIA)
It is the extremism of ends and of ideology that brings about the extremism of means.
The kind of thinking used by most Western reporters applies very well to Western society or politics but completely fails to comprehend how things work in the Middle East. No wonder this cannot explain the past, help in the present, or predict the future.
In this case, the model implies that people yearn for peace, compromise, and conciliation. When they don’t get it they use violence. In fact, this has nothing to do with reality. The problem is that peace, compromise, and conciliation are equated with heresy, treason, and surrender. The more these “good” outcomes appear possible, the higher the level of violence used to prevent them. Consider that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip led to Hamas taking over; Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon strengthened Hamas; the 1990s’ peace process did not produce many Palestinian moderates; U.S. democracy promotion helped radical Islamists more than moderate democrats; and the invasion of Iraq did not bring peace and love among Iraqis.
This doesn’t mean that the Annapolis conference or trying to achieve peace is a bad thing. But it does mean that no one is ever going to resolve a conflict until they understand who is at fault for continuing it or why it persists.
A valid point, though it doesn't actually lead where Mr. Rubin would like. The end in Palestine and South Lebanon is self-determination, which can hardly seem extreme to Americans and Israelis, who fought a war and utilized terrorism -- respectively -- against a liberal democracy towards the same end. Indeed, studies suggest that achieving the rather conventional end of self-determination is the main driver of what everyone can accept are the most extreme means used in the modern world. If you want to get folks to stop using the means and your own ideology acknowledges the legitimacy of the end then just help them achieve it. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 1, 2007 8:35 AM
Self-determination for the indigenes is death or expulsion for the settlers.
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 1, 2007 12:28 PMWhat about self-determination in Syria? Methinks we should be helping that along. Indeed, the State Department's prostration before Assad just continues the tragedies in the Middle East. Kill the Ba'athists, and Lebanon could make its own decisions. As for the Palestinians, one of the puppet strings would be cut, and they could move more freely on their own.
Condi is proving to be the Robert McNamara of 2007 (seemingly so gifted, yet so utterly clueless).
Posted by: ratbert at December 1, 2007 1:12 PMPssst. The Palestinians don't want self-determination.
Oh, but they say they do? Well, then!!
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 1, 2007 3:08 PMPalestinians do. Their leadership doesn't. The Israeli and American Right enable the leadership.
Posted by: oj at December 1, 2007 4:01 PMIsrael opposes liberating Syria.
Posted by: oj at December 1, 2007 4:02 PM