There’s a reason they call it a conflict

The take away point, I suspect, is that neither party to this conflict really wants peace. Actually, I think they might want a war. It’s not entirely clear to me why they would want a war, it’s just the conclusion I reach when I see both sides to a dispute react to provocation with more provocation.

Public Discourse in Long Standing Conflicts

Courtesy of the Daily Beast & Getty Images

Much has been said over the course of this week about President Obama’s recent speech on the affairs and future of the Middle East.  As with any such presentation, many in the world of political media have gone to great length arguing the minutia of the speech’s content and reading into conspicuous absences among those subjects not touched on.  Despite the noteworthy weight of the President’s words on the future of the region and the commitments the US intends to make toward aiding economic and governmental development, one subject has stood out among the rest.
Continue reading »

Reactions to Political Change

Image courtesy of Boise Weekly & Getty Images

I was initially uncertain about writing more on the continuing crisis in Egypt.  Largely my purpose in blog writing tends toward discussing issues outside the spotlight of mainstream political news media, but the relevance of the current crisis to democracy promotion is such that it would be folly not to discuss the subject further.  The political change currently rolling through the Middle East has the potential to shape the region for the foreseeable future, and so I thought it would be worth taking a moment to discuss the reactions of other world powers to the current political change.  More specifically, the political reactions in the United States, European Union, China and Israel are vastly different and illuminating in regard to the nation’s issues with the Middle East and the ideological promotion of democracy.

In Israel, as in most nations, standards and opinions vary among the populace, the government and most obviously the media.  That being said the most regular sentiments expressed by Israel’s media have been of resistance to potential change and concern over “extremism”.  Of particular note has been the series of harsh critiques of President Obama’s approach to the crisis as naïve, ill informed and unaware of the region’s history. Continue reading »

Talk amongst yourselves

Tom Friedman is ready to throw in the towel on US efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

I understand the problem: Israeli and Palestinian leaders cannot end the conflict between each other without having a civil war within their respective communities. Netanyahu would have to take on the settlers and Abbas would have to take on Hamas and the Fatah radicals. Both men have silent majorities that would back them if they did, but neither man feels so uncomfortable with his present situation to risk that civil war inside to make peace outside…

The most valuable thing that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could do now is just get out of the picture – so both leaders and both peoples have an unimpeded view of their horrible future together in one state, if they can’t separate…

America must get out of the way so Israelis and Palestinians can see clearly, without any obstructions, what reckless choices their leaders are making. Make no mistake, I am for the most active U.S. mediation effort possible to promote peace, but the initiative has to come from them.

Man’s got a point.

Loyalty

Israel’s proposed loyalty oath, a requirement that immigrants seeking Israeli citizenship pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state, is awful enough on its own terms. That is does not apply to Jews – precisely because many Orthodox Jews immigrating to Israel are anti-Zionist – goes far beyond garden-variety hypocrisy; it’s absolutely outrageous.