Or how about the neoliberal iteration, McDonald’s Peace Theory. I’m pretty sure that theory’s been busted a few times already (doesn’t Georgia have McDonald’s? how about Lebanon circa 2006?), but the Fridemanites are still pushing it.
How does this shit actually make it to print!?
Democratic peace theory – the idea that democratic nation-states won’t go to war because the people would vote against governments that would do that. Nobody really likes wars, nobody wants to send their family off to die in war. If every state is a democracy they wouldn’t go to war with each other because no government would risk their electoral career on it.
Reality – some of the most thorough liberal democratic states go to war under the claim that they’re spreading democracy. Economic interests are very apparent. Media cultures opinion towards accepting and normalising war. Representative democratic systems lead to monolithic party structures who initiate war and still get elected for second/third terms.
Bourgie political philosophers – do not use their brain (singular was a typo but I’m happy with how that comes off). Just talk about shit and hope it sticks.
Wow.
Turkey’s naval forces would escort Turkey’s humanitarian aid ships bound for the Gaza Strip, said Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, following Israel’s refusal to apologise for its deadly raid on an aid flotilla heading to the Palestinian Territories in May 2010.
“We have humanitarian aid to be sent there. And our humanitarian aid will not be attacked anymore like it happened to Mavi Marmara,” he told the Al Jazeera TV channel on Thursday.
Israeli commandos boarded the ship Mavi Marmara, which aimed to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza, and killed nine Turks in international waters, causing a diplomatic row between the two countries.
This will turn into much more than a diplomatic row if Turkey follows through and sends its navy with any vessels to Gaza. What will Israel do? Its history seems to indicate that there will be some sort of naval battle at that point. But at the same time, Israel has never before had to face off against a power like Turkey. Turkey is a far cry from all the Arab nations it has had to typically fight during its hey-days of open war. And it also now no longer has the advantage of having a closed southern border, now that transitional military council of Egypt has dissolved that treaty. Yes, Israel is in a tight corner indeed.
Gulp. I think is the only input I can have at this stage.
Thank you 🙂
On the subject of how the goal is achieved, that’s a very tricky question to really answer. I think the trap that is inherent within the situation is that, especially with Israel so well funded by lobbying groups and western states, the counter attacks in defence of the Palestinian people is as self-defeating as it is necessary.
I have massive respect for the militants that are willing to take up arms and defend themselves and their families against the Israeli military hegemony. I also think there’s a problem with having a simplified view of suicide bombers as being inherently evil without understanding that often they’ll be people driven to the edge of desperation before they’ll commit such an act. That said I think at all times we must question the real motivations behind groups such as Hamas and Fatah, and recognise that rather than being popular movements they’re instead political groups with their own agendas of power. The actions they initiate are in their own interests of maintaining themselves in positions of power, not necessarily in the absolute best interests of the Palestinian people.
Simply attacking back with inaccurate and ineffective Qassam rockets, or suicide bombings or similar, doesn’t seem to be a particularly productive approach. It isn’t a direct confrontation of the Israeli military (and lets be honest nobody would really want to put their head on the chopping block and risk that), and attacks on civilians are damaging to the cause because it plays into the rhetoric machines of the mainstream media in painting Israel as under threat from these big bad enemies and simply struggling to survive. Although the reality is clearly very different. Yet at the same time to not have militancy and simply do nothing would create a very real risk of giving Israel carte blanche to expand without repercussion.
What needs to happen at the same time is to create co-operative communities of both Palestinians and Israelis, demonstrating that they can live together in harmony without worrying about religious background, genetic heritage or some other arbitrary definition. Of course, that’s how things were in Palestine some 70 years ago before zionism really took such a hold. How people can be convinced to leave their lives/prejudices behind to set up such communities, especially without Israeli government interference, is obviously the hardest question there is. But I think the most effective step at the point in which the situation is, is to demonstrate that the Israel/Palestine situation isn’t just a question of who has the bigger gun, but the fact that there are real people trying to make a living on both sides of the fence.
I recall having read an article or watched a video that’s very relevant to this and posted it previously, so I’ll have a look to see if I can find it.
To be cynical none of this rhetoric really surprises me at all. It’s very similar to the approach made by Clinton in his peace talks regarding the Israel/Palestine situation, and while compared to Bush the fact Obama references the 1967 borders is quite a significant step, it’s also a very ineffective one.
The way the state of Israel functions is to support and provide security for, without significant repercussions, the vast majority of illegal settlements. They cut into the West Bank under the 1967 agreement, criss-cross it with road networks and misdirect water sources for their own needs. In addition to this the way the security wall functions is to cut into the West Bank and claim open land, while leaving Palestinian villages isolated and disconnected but not incorporated into Israel. The purpose is to create as much open land for Israel without taking on an arabic population that would threaten this concept of a “Jewish state”.
A two state solution has simply been made implausible. There’s no possible way you can convince the illegal settlers to leave their fortified villages because to their minds it’s their land and it’s an offence for arabic people to inhabit the area. Netanyahu knows this and has played to this: Zionist civilians take it upon themselves to build settlements, the state of Israel slaps them on the wrist and says they’ve been very naughty, and then constructs the infrastructure to defend the stolen land.
So Obama is falling back on the normalised “liberal” conversation approach to the situation in talking about the 1967 borders, despite the fact that Israel has made this impossible to create. What’s more is the concept of a “Jewish state” is inherently racist – the analogous idea are the people running around in the UK declaring we’re on the verge of introducing Sharia Law and we need to keep Britain for the British. As I see it the most suitable format of state that could be created would be a single, possibly federal, state with a proportionally elected government. These new middle east peace talks will just lead to the standard song and dance which essentially gains nothing, while Israel carries on just as it ever did.
Philosophy of Praxis 