Greetings, Rog,
Thank you for the summary of the discussion here. It is fair enough, and
diplomatically stated.
The idea then, is to see whether the MOQ can impart any special wisdom to
thinking about a solution. I cannot fault your ideas on the elements of a
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but have to point out that
does not advance our thinking on such a solution. An independent Palestinian
State is precisely what people have been demanding for several decades. The
pre-WWI diplomatic commitments between the UK and the Arabs, Wilson's
14-Points, the Mandate, the Peel Commission, the 1939 UK White Paper, the UN
Partition resolution -- all these have called for an independent Palestinian
State. What we call "no-fault" analysis of the conflict and design of a
solution is part of any conflict-resolution team's way of thinking.
So, I would like to pose a challenge to all MOQers -- does the MOQ really
help create a new or better concept of a solution to the conflict? New
ideas are _desperately_ needed. The Palestinians and Israelis have boxed
themselves into go-nowhere conceptions of a peace. What does the MOQ
suggest in the way of a better solution?
Rog, I am not dismissing the advance you have made; it just isn't sufficient
for the Israeli and Palestinian situation, nor does it improve on the
thinking that is already current amongst those thinking about the shape of a
peace. Can I respectfully push you further? As you put it, "What else does
the MOQ offer in terms of solutions? Can the MOQ actually work when applied
to real problems?" You will appreciate that my interest in this this is not
simply academic.
Best regards,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 10:40 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Middle East -- What is an MOQ Solution?
>
>
> 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
>
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