Refugees in the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Part 2 of 2)

[ShmorgelBorgel]

That said--if there is a peace agreement, the descendants of Palestinian Arabs should be entitled to compensation for properties or assets lost as a result of war (if they can prove ownership)--just as the Jews expelled from Iraq, Egypt, Syria, etc...should get compensation for their properties and assets. But no, they don't have a "right" to return to what is now Israel. I have many relatives from Syria, Iraq, Tunis--we have no right to move to any of those countries.

[ShmorgelBorgel]

"why is it okay for israelis to come from russia, britain, america etc to israel even tho they never been there"

Because Israel is the Jewish state and reserves the right to give preferential immigration status to Jews, who have no other country of their own--just as Ireland or Germany gives citizenship to people of Irish or German ancestry even if they have never been to Ireland or Germany before. Arabs have 22 states, Jews only have Israel. That's why.

[Barakooda3D]

mbrown0315:

Well done.

keep post.

[mbrown0315]

I commend you for appreciating the wisdom in Luttwak's essay. Most people have difficulty digesting it. As much as I see international law as a positive development, I cannot help but smirk at the irony of it.

[caemalin]

It just seems to be a pseudo isolationist approach, let them kill each other, and then to the victor belongs the spoils. Outside parties only get involved to protect interest of value to you and your allies - ignore the opponents interests.

I appreciate the fact that it would indeed end some conflicts rapidly.

However, I do have difficulty digesting loss of life through what Luttwak describes in no uncertain terms as a necessary thing - that thing being war.

[mbrown0315]

To be fair, Luttwak focuses on wars among minor powers. Nuclear war and huge conflagrations are in another league.

Luttwak's insistence on digesting loss of life must be taken in the context of his saying that refusing to do so often involves MORE loss of life. The ceasefires only make it worse.

The platform could perhaps use a few more nuances, but the general idea (keep good intentions at bay if they will make things worse) should be seriously considered in the context of the refugee issue.

[caemalin]

He does focus on minor powers - I did not mean to oversimplify. Loss of life is loss of life, with your dead pan delivery of the facts and situation, it did not seem that was a concern to you, forgive me if I was wrong in that assumption.

I detest war, and if it occurs of course I want it over quickly, and if that means that no respite for either side until its over - and over FOR GOOD - not to occur again, I would be foolish not to take that as an option.

The LACK of humanity of it all. .

[caemalin]

"The sooner that this counter productive idealism is abandoned and replaced with sober, effective prodcutive realism, the better."

Hi again -

Is the latter method of thinking not what keeps the conflict fueled unabated? If there is no striving for idealism in the best interest of all parties involved, then it keeps coming back to who has the most brute force to make their "sober, effective and productive realism" the prevailing reality.

That gives you no pause?

[mbrown0315]

Point taken.

Though I would argue that trying to maintain an impossible occupation is not effective, productive realism. Same goes for much of what the Palestinians do. Pragmatism must prevail.

That's the crux of my point. It's important that good intentions steer one's resolve to find a solution to the conflict, but these good intentions cannot be allowed to cloud one's view of how to solve the conflict.

Did you read the essay?

[caemalin]

I did, and while I understand his points, it sounds very much like Orwell's 1984doublethink - war=peace.

I do question, however, the fact that if the more powerful countries had stayed completely out of the conflict, would you be referencing this essay? This essay is under the pretense that large "peacemaking" entities are absent from the conflict - thus expediting a speedy outcome and subsequently resulting in peace.

[caemalin]

I interpreted the essay as wanting entities such as the US, Britain, the UN and the surrounding middle eastern countries to be completely removed and hands off during the war. To sum it colloquially, "Just let them fight it out to the end".

That brings me to the inception of the conflict. With Luttwak's essay in mind, would not a band of unsupported Jews have been soundly defeated had outside "peacemakers" not been inolved? The palestinians out numbered them greatly.

[caemalin]

Neither side would have had the resources to wage a decisive war until the various super powers "meddled" as Luttwak said.

Correct me if am going down the wrong path - but why reference this essay after its intentions were ignored. The super powers wanted Israel to have a country and made it happen, supplied the jews with the aid and support they needed to have a decisive war. Other super powers aided the Palestinians but not to the same extent - that is evident.

[caemalin]

If there is going to be support of each side then it should be equal no? If there is no support then there should be none.

I honestly fear that Israel would not exist if Luttwak's essay had been the way of thinking. So, to reference it now seems to be a moot point. The outside parties did meddle, they have made a mess of things and have put themselves in a position to where they can not withdraw support from either side - definition of a quagmire at its finest.

[caemalin]

Luttwak wrote a great essay, I just don't think it is appropriate to apply now that the situation has become what it is currently.

He really makes me wonder what would have happened had his thought process been used in the 1940's-1950's, in regards to both Israel and the world.

And now the holocaust was a hoax??? I thought Mel Gibson was just drunk talking nonsense. But looking at the comments on your other videos, sigh, I fear I will never get to the bottom of all of this . . . .

[mbrown0315]

You've written quite a lot, but I'll try to respond quickly. I don't think Luttwak criticizes the idea of making and supporting allies based on interests and what not so much as he criticizes trying to do away with human realities by implementing good-intentioned but misled ceasefires, etc. that ultimately just make things worse. Indeed, he says at one point (jokingly, I think) that the UN would be more effective at securing peace if it always supported the stronger side in wars.

[mbrown0315]

In the middle of the 20th century, the Europeans, exhausted by their own horrendous history, decided to radically change their modes of operation. The Americans, having been twice drawn into European wars, went along with them. The Soviets were also exhausted, and played along, probably insincerely.The creation of the very elaborate system of international law in institutions was the expression of this decision. It was a product of exhaustion, and so it adhered to Luttwak's formulation.

[caemalin]

How does international law adhere to his forumulation if it is disregarded because people choose to ally themselves based on interests?

Great, we have laws from our terrible experience. Now in the case of Israel, lets ignore them, fully support one side long enough to get them established and then abandoning them long enough to let the unrest fester - apply band aid (cease fire) the supply further aid and military arsenal. Rinse and Repeat. Even with laws born of exhaustion, they are ignored.

[mbrown0315]

I was just making the ironic point that the brave new post-war world only came about after the warring powers of the West became exhausted. It's not something you can just turn off. In line with Luttwak's thinking, it's something that blossoms and then dies. It's nature. Grim, but true.

You're right, by the way, the ceasefires and drawing of the armistice lines in 1949 were probably counter-productive in the long run.

[caemalin]

"Blossoms and then dies", that is nature, but again, where is the striving for not succumbing to the cycle that has always been? It is grim, but why does it have to remain true, can this never be overcome - what is THAT solution? Otherwise all debate on this is pointless. If there were to be peace in this region, according to your comment and Luttwak this mess will rear its head again somewhere else.

Yes they were counter-productive. It should have been clean and complete from the start.

[mbrown0315]

I think exhaustion is beginning to set in on both sides. This is a good thing. There is desire to move on, and I argue that this progress should not be hijacked by a move that would reignite ethnic tensions. Compensate the refugees (both groups of them). Let time pass. Let the two sides do business (how do you overcome war? One word...business). Let there be eventual cultural exchange. Eventually, perhaps we can move into a Middle Eastern version of the EU, and then a broad confederation.

[caemalin]

Well, this is probably the most uplifting thing I have read from you. I hope that things do change and a change in human nature - for the better - would be ideal.

Good discussing this with you, as I said before, if you come across any other interesting items such as Luttwak's essay please forward a link or post them on your channel.

I will go back to lurking in the Youtube shadows.

Peace.

[mbrown0315]

Yes, the laws are largely ignored by powers outside of the enlightened (read: exhausted) West (see Sri Lanka). And when the enlightened Western powers do occasionally find themselves having to engage in that dirty, outdated business of armed conflict, they end up breaking the rules anyway. From NATO airstrikes killing countless civilians to excessive force used by British police, I can provide far too many examples of the West's hypocrisy in playing the international law and human decency cards.

[caemalin]

I agree with you here. So we never learn, and this cycle will repeat itself. This again circles back to the team with the most brute force dictating reality.

[mbrown0315]

We do learn. After we're exhausted. Or until human nature changes.

[barak219]

@mbrown0315 אתה יכול לתת לי קישורים למידע על מקרים שמדינות המערב עשו את אותם דברים שהם מבקרים אותנו בהם? אין לי בעיה עם ביקורת אבל אני שונא שמתעלמים ממה שהם עושים ומעדיפים לקחת את התפקיד של האדם הנאור שלא יכול לעשות שום רע...בעיקר בגלל שהם לא נאלצים להתמודד עם אותן בעיות.

[mbrown0315]

@barak219 Check the first video I made in this series. There's information there.