From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 11:23:47 MST
Kai writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > Say, you know what? You might be just the guy to tell
> > the Israelis and Palestinians how to get along!
>
> Not I, but the US plus every government involved.
Of course, (as I think you realize), I was being highly
sarcastic. And (as we have seen!) no collection of
governments on Earth can merely talk any two enemies
into being decent to each other.
> What would be your alternative? I mean, the alternative for the long run,
> a decade at least. Peace is not only the absence of open war. When the
> hawks on both sides try to spread hatred and divide people into
> unforgiving opponents, what else could work against that but diplomatics?
Well, I readily confess that "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian
in an acceptable fashion is rather beyond my capabilities too!
The number of deaths per capita and per year could be much
worse; as for getting the Palestinians in the Gaza strip on their
feet economically (along with the rest of them too, of course)
might be possible if some Western country conquered them, set
up factories, and exploited them. But it doesn't look like there
really would be much profit in it, unfortunately. (But it might
give France something to do.)
> We've seen more astonishing things than that. The peace
> treaty between Israel and Egypt for example.
Not the way I read it. Now, I'm no great expert (that's
for sure), but I think that what happened was that Jimmy
Carter sat down with Begin and Sadat and said, essentially:
"Look here. I had a very simple idea that will make
all three of us look really good, and be quite profitable.
I'll just get the United States to pay each of you five
billion dollars or so a year to be friendly. You each
get a lot of money, and pressure off your economies, and I
get a Nobel peace prize. Nobody loses. Except the American
tax-payer of course, but, anybody that stupid deserves to
get the short stick, they'll not even notice."
> Every terrorist act has but one goal: To spread hatred, angst and raise
> prejudices. See Israel: "All Palestinians are suicide bombers". See
> Palestine: "All Israelis are occupants". See us: "All Arabs are
> terrorists". This circle cannot be broken with weapons.
You depict these groups as being reality-challenged. They
only *talk* like that to arouse their peoples, and at least
for well-informed people in Israel or the West, such simplistic
talk is double-edged at best. I know exactly how "All Arabs
are terrorists" would fly if enunciated by George Bush---
everyone would know that he had made the most idiotic statement
of his life.
It's much simpler than that. Two groups want exactly the
same thing. Israel has the better army, and so that's how
it's going to stay. (Unless certain friends are able to
lob five or ten nukes into Israel---but fortunately, no
Middle Eastern power has such weapons, even though a
certain notorious suspect has been working on them for
more than twenty years. Maybe he'll soon succeed, there'll
be a holocaust, and "peace" will be achieved.)
> > Oh, this should definitely be mentioned not only to the Israelis
> > and Palestinians, but we should "make clear" that other nations
> > should cease executions of politicians, and that it's not an
> > accepted instrument of politics.
>
> Exactly. To every nation including our own.
Don't you sense the utter futility of such talk? Unless
incentives are involved, it's worse than useless to mouth
such platitudes. One nation in today's world can "make
clear" that X is not acceptable only by use of punishments
or rewards that involve the incentives of the other party.
You can either pay them to be nice, as Jimmy Carter did,
or you can threaten them with economic sanctions (which
only sometimes have an effect), or you can threaten to
harm them.
> Should we both write a letter to Mr. Bush, telling him to please
> observe the agreement of the international court of justice and
> to revoke the find and kill order he gave to the CIA?
I can't believe you are serious.
> Wouldn't that make telling others to be lawful a little
> more credible?
You mean if he suddenly *saw* how right you were, was
born again, got religion, or underwent some other
deep aberration of brain function? Well, even if
his close advisors, family, and friends didn't immediately
have him committed to an asylum, well, no, "others" around
the world would just pity him. "Telling others to be
lawful" didn't even used to work with my elementary school
teachers, even though they had vast power over the children.
The teachers who could maintain class discipline understood
the incentives (i.e. fears and hopes) of the children.
> > I suggest you try reading Machiavelli for starters. But the
> > history of most eras might also, if read with enough cynicism,
> > provide very informative lessons.
>
> The major part of known history is made of immoral and selfish rulers
> who plundered their own country and raided others if possible. The
> question is whether we can continue this type of politics, when only two
> dozen determined men can turn a super power into a raving Rambo.
You are right that a lot of progress has been made. Why
doesn't the U.S. just drop four or five 20-megaton H-bombs
on Iraq and be done with it? Because, fundamentally, U.S.
public opinion would be outraged.
> Machiavelli was possible in his times, and even then,
> the methods he described caused a lot of suffering.
No; as Anders points out, he was a great advance over his
times. He pointed out how leaders can be effective and
not just talk meaninglessly.
> BTW, he was totally undemocratic and would have given
> nothing for human rights. He therefore cannot be a role
> model for modern politics in an interdependent world.
I agree. More about him in the thread Anders started.
> Instead, we have to make sure that his followers have
> no chance to come to power.
Well, the modern "followers" of his advice are by necessity
much more restrained than he was because we live in better
times (there has been much progress). But people *like*
him in their realism and understanding are exactly the
smart people that should be, and mostly are, running
governments around the world.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST