To: Everyone involved in the Middle East discussion
From: Rog
Let me attempt to summarize the topic. I will start with a brief summary of
our progress at addressing the issue and our areas of consensus. From here
though, I definitely spin off into areas where some new and possibly
contentious suggestions are offered. Corrections and additions and
disagreements are encouraged. I am attempting to address the issue within a
framework coherent within the MOQ.
THE DISCUSSION SO FAR:
1) The discussion started out with emotional support for one side or another.
2) One side accused the other of ignorance and media/cultural brainwashing.
They in effect attempted to "explain away" other's bias as a way to achieve
coherence on the issue.
3) In a discussion of the pertinent facts though, it became clear that at
least some of the folks on both sides were broadly in possession of truths on
the issue. We just came to different moral judgements.
4) Despite our differences though, we seemed to share some common views of
the solution. Specifically, we all seem to agree that Israel and the rest of
the world need to carve out an independent Palestinian state. Several of us
(for example, Marco and me) had additional recommendations, but, in general,
we got very little push-back on our ideas, even if we rarely got overwhelming
accolades of explicit support.
5) I think most of us see that terrorism, death squads, limitations on
freedom, killing civilians and destroying villages is bad. However, most of
us can see the intentions, reasons and goals behind these actions -- even
where we strongly disagree with them.
NOW, FOR MY COMMENTARY/SUGGESTIONS
ON THE ISSUE
6) In the end, I believe the MOQ solution is that the only way that these two
cultures can coexist harmoniously is if they have a relationship as peers --
the issue must eventually be between two soveriegn states, not between a
state and individuals that have no intention to be ruled.
7) I also believe that this issue is primarily complicated by the harsh
reality that some very important parties to the solution don't actually agree
on the nature of the problem. Specifically, there are significant factions
that are actually aspiring not to create two free states, but to create one
state and to annihilate the other side. These factions can ride the
coat-tails of those with noble, peaceful aspirations, but they have no
incentive to actually settle the dispute. In fact, their cause is best
supported by inciting violence and undermining peace.
8) Human nature is such that people will exhibit very strong bias against
competing groups of individuals. The factions that wish to undermine peaceful
resolution of the issue understand this and have become masters at driving
wedges between the two cultures.
9) If points 6, 7 and 8 are correct, then it seems the most logical way to
progress on the issue is for a party such as the US and Britain to demand the
creation of an independent Palestinian state. The initial borders of this
state don't have to include all the contested lands (but the Palestinian West
Bank must be contiguous). Over time, there should be a deliberately laid out
expansion of the border of Palestine, contingent upon the appropriate
behavior of both nations.
10) We must not allow those with destruction as their goal to interfere with
the creation of Palestine. In other words, absent of an agreement between
parties, an initial, interum solution should, as a last resort, be mandated.
This starts the process, and eliminates the ability for those that hate to
undermine the start to a solution. The Palestinians must be supported in
developing a democratic government and an effective rule of law.
11) Once two independent nations are formed, each will be expected to behave
in accordance with accepted standards of conduct. Included in this is that
neither side can harbor or fund terrorism or domestic insurrection within the
other. Violation of this principle should be considered an act of war.
In summary, I believe each side must eventually have more to lose through
violence than they stand to gain from it, and that to get to this point,
there must be an initial step taken that separates those with a noble cause
(independence and self governance) from those desiring ethnic cleansing.
I believe the above recommendations draw upon the MOQ's recognition of
conflicting levels of value, with an emphasis on establishing or sustaining
high quality social patterns that can act as the foundation for intellectual
values. It is pragmatic, avoiding idealistic, Hegelian absolutes (this side
is right or good and that side is wrong or evil), instead focusing upon
solutions which are judged by the quality of the experience they create.
What quality or lack thereof do you see in this approach and solution? What
am I missing? What else does the MOQ offer in terms of solutions? Can the
MOQ actually work when applied to real problems?
Rog
PS -- My recommendations on appropriate behavior for the US and the rest of
the Middle East is not included here, but IS spelled out in prior posts. I
am just focusing on a particular range of the issue, but I recognize that the
problem is broader than Palestine and Israel.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:12 BST