Hi Wim!
WIM:
I don't like the 'testing facts against original -or at least undisputed-
sources contest' that has been going on in the 'Middle East' threads.
The possibility of
defining 'facts' and 'truth' and eradicating 'bias' is a SOM myth.
The possibility of defining the direction of evolution 'across the greatest
span and depth' is the MoQ myth, that is to be unmasked by the next jump in
intellectual progress,
ROG:
Huh?
WIM:
It is a worthwhile pastime if
we avoid the SOM trap of pursuing 'objective truth' and don't require each
other to spend more time on 'checking facts' and 'looking up
sources' than we have available...
ROG:
Fair enough. Do remember though that the reason I listed out these extremely
biased facts was to eliminate the rhetoric that was going through this forum
that any comment that wasn’t anti-Israel and Pro-Palestine was based upon
Orwellian lies and brainwashing. Those espousing that asinine position all
climbed back under their rocks, allowing the rest of us to actually go on to
discuss the topic with some degree of trust and respect.
WIM:
I forwarded your 'Bias Test' to a fellow Dutch Quaker
who recently lived for 1 or 2 years among Palestinians in the occupied
territories, sharing their frustrations. I asked her for comparable
questions from a Palestinian viewpoint… “Why are we not
allowed to live, move, eat, think, get children and raise them in health in
the land in which we all live for centuries?”
ROG:
This of course was the goal of my subsequent recommendation. It was to drop
the blame game and degrees of evil and extend solutions that would allow the
QUALITY she pleas for to emerge - for both sides. First, it was critical to
show that any relevant solution has to deal with the fact that some
significant factions involved in this crisis actually DON’T WANT PEACE. They
want supremacy.
WIM:
My bias against Israel is intimately connected with my bias against ...
myself. My 'drama'… is that of someone who has been
raised to abhor injustice and who has learned more and more about the many
ways in which his own wealth, peace etc. depend on injustice done to others
in this world… The Israeli economy is dependent on cheap Palestinian labor.
Likewise the Dutch economy is dependent on cheap labor of those producing
coffee, bananas, textiles, etc. in the relatively successful countries in
the South…
…Anyway, in my buying behavior I have a strong preference for ecologically
grown food and Southern products for which the producers got a fair price
(more than the world market price).
ROG:
Haven’t these protectionist theories been discarded by relevant modern
economists?
You know that I have no love for exploitation. However, I refuse to extend
the definition of that word to offering an adult a voluntary wage higher for
a job better than that prevailing in the local economy (or lack thereof). It
reminds me of the “do-gooders” that proudly forced 30,000 children out of
the factories in Bangladesh back in ’93. The problem was that by doing so
they were in effect condemning most of them to prostitution and to
substantially more dangerous mining jobs. My point isn't for child labor, it
is that we need to think out all the consequences of our actions. Seemingly
noble actions that lead to immoral results are not good based upon their
intentions, they are bad based upon the outcome.
Correct me if I am wrong, but macro-economically (in a free,
market-prevailing environment), relative wages are directly proportionate to
relative productivity. Your boycott of low wage products is nothing less than
a boycott of the poor and uneducated in 3rd world nations.
WIM:
Dutch economy is dependent on getting a disproportionate share of world
resources like oil, natural gas and mining products. We will probably learn
to do without in time (at a cost) before they run out and we will probably
sell this know-how (to do without) dearly to those who get a less than
proportionate share now.
ROG:
So now you don’t want to even purchase resources from undeveloped nations?
Even if they starve to death? (certainly we aren’t for them selling their
bodies to David’s rich playboy friend?) Sorry for the cynicism, but I am
absolutely amazed at how immoral the world would actually be if we were to
create one that matches these 19th century, collectivist or protectionist
ideals.
WIM:
I for one DON'T 'agree that Israel and the rest of the world need to carve
out an independent Palestinian state' as you summarize... I don't think a
two-state solution will work precisely because -as you write
'the only way that these two
cultures can coexist harmoniously is if they have a relationship as peers'.
An existing, entrenched state (Israel) will never relate equally with a new
state which is such a close, even intimate, neighbor, which starts out from
such a disadvantaged position and which has -to be viable- to compete with
it for things like water and infrastructure (roads, harbors, airports,
utilities etc.). It would have worked somewhat better if this Palestinian
state had been created at the same time as Israel, but even then it would
not have had a fair chance to become equivalent, given the backing Jews all
over the world gave to 'their' new state.
ROG:
You forgot to mention that little unfair advantage of Israel being a liberal
democracy. You also seem to forget that 80% of the Palestinian’s land is in
Jordan, and therefore that your “new state vs old state” analogy is suspect
at best.
Seriously though, I agree that the nations won’t be balanced. That is a
problem that is easily solved (via international intervention or other
means). Similar imbalances exist peacefully in a lot of places (especially
between democracies). Once we get the two apart, we can keep the peace
between them without entering a civil war. The other point of separating
them is that it also separates those espousing peace and independence from
those espousing death. Finally, it gives a downside to violence. It gives
mothers and fathers something to call a home that they can risk losing by
following the advice of those interested only in genocide and domination.
Any solution that can’t create distinctions between peace and domination is
useless in my opinion.
Oddly, I think many Israelis have been pursuing your solution over much of
the last 30 years, and Palestinians have just as adamantly refused this
course. Considering our biases, it is wierd that your solution is closer to
the Israeli one and mine is closer to what the Palestinians want.
WIM:
To be viable a state needs defendable borders. Given the present
geographical distribution of Palestinians and Jews they can't both have a
state with borders that they can defend against each other no matter how
advanced the weaponry they acquire; no, ESPECIALLY if they BOTH acquire
advanced weaponry no set of borders will ever be mutually defendable.
ROG:
No border in the Mid-East, let alone the world, is defensible against all
possible current and future advanced weaponry. I don't get this point at
all.
Peace has rarely been solved by forcing incompatible people and cultures to
live together. Especially when -- as we already determined -- some of these
people are more interested in genocide than the pursuit of happiness. Where
cultures clash this dramatically, seperate sovereign states are appropriate
if we wish to avoid decades or centuries of civil unrest. Eventually,
perhaps these nations can avoid protectionist policies and begin trading
together and cooperating and some day even become inter-dependent peers.
Sorry, I find your solution ignores almost all the important issues. There
are reasons why (to paraphrase Rodney Brown) they all can’t just get along.
Peace,
Rog
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 - 16:02:15 BST