Also, false dilemma. "With them or against them", well, international politics don't really work that way.
This space intentionally left blank.
This. When presented with the choice between Israeli hardliners and Palestinian hardliners, pick 'none of the above'.
Why should the world revolve around a conflict about three square miles of Middle Eastern desert?
I mean, why not let global politics be held hostage by the etnic conflicts on New Caledonia? The same size after all. Or, have the UN Security Council occupy itself nearly fulltime with the Western Sahara? Much more desert, plenty of displaced people, complicated history of post-colonialism and occupation. Why not send twenty percent of US members of Congress to this part of the desert? Surely it is worth studying?
The Middle East conflict is the concern of the world simply because it is the concern of the world. Because Western and Middle Eastern governments, for different reasons, have been pushed into taking a position in the conflict, until it became an automatism. It has become unquestioned, natural, to have a strong opinion about the Middle Eastern conflict One looks a provicial for not having intimate knowledge about, a strong position in the conflict.
But why should that be? What if it isn't any of our concern to begin with? I mean, in the Eastern Congo they seem to manage to keep up their conflict for decades on end perfectly fine without outside involvement. They don't seem to need us to sustain their conflict.
Louis - 'if only they would've had a good psychiatric hospital in Jerusalem, the world would've been a peaceful place the past three thousand years'.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Bookmarks