Oscar

With no relation to the above topic, an answer at 'Children'.

Leaders

They are by no means the uncontested leaders of their people. I think one of the main questions is whether Abbas will survive these peace talks as a leader of the Palestinians. Hamas is already anticipating a failed peace process and Hanniyyeh is waiting backstage to fill the void.

The International Crisis Group published an interesting analysis this week http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5174&l=1

The article ‘A Moral Witness to the 'Intricate Machine'’ sounds like a lecture on ‘how the west was won’ a few centuries ago.
A lot of the mess going on fits William S. Burroughs novel The Wild Boys: A Book of the Dead, but nowadays the wild boys on both sides are wrapped in the robe of Puritanism and wearing their long beards of hypocrisy.

Economical development

Could an healthy an much higher economic development in the regions of the Palestinians lead to more stability or even bring some peace? Or is any economical power for the Palestinians too much of a thread to Israel?

or

…All that man is,
All mere complexities,
The fury and the mire of human veins.

W B Yeats

f

It goes back to breeding. Look how many kids are being brought to the world on both sides. The idea, among aothers is that there's a demographical battle. i recall one of Amnon Levy's tragic reports in Ha'arets about this and that disaster (the Israelis bombed a house and how it affects the family). He described unbarable poverty and violence - the father is beating the kids. i think that Amnon Levy does a great job but to put the blame of the abusive father on the Israelis is unjust. You dont bring 12 children to the world if you can't support them and that was prior to the Israeli attack. You also do not bring, 8, 9, 10 and more kids to the world in the settlements because you are able to pay attention to them all - you do it because you satisfy god's needs. As a result, flocks of repressed people in a state of psychosis (because a daily comunication with a god is psychotic to my opinion) project their anger meant to their parents to the more easy and visible enemy.
And poverty and lack of hope drive people to make desperate actions. They've got absolutely nothing to loose but their pain.
Economy nevertheless is not the end of the story. Look at the statistics of suicides among women in Saudi Aribia, they don't do it because they have nothing to eat but because they are not considered human but objects.
There might not be an utopic end to it but if there's less violence going now in Saouth Africa maybe the Middle East has a chance if not to ever straighten the back then at list to lick the wounds.

Neria

Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere?

Margot

Please explain yourself.

Jan T

I'm not sure what you are saying about Margalith's article.

@Arnon
It is about David Shulman’s book Dark Hope. It reads as an account of how the West was won: the slaughter and poisoning of animals and the destruction of the habitat by some greedy settlers and the dubious role of the army, a general impression very similar to the facts of history.
The other part about W. S Burrough’s novel is a mere personal impression I have got from TV recordings from Afghanistan, Lebanon, Darfur….. The confusion, the bewilderment, the luxury of the rich, the drugs, all this would fit well in a Burrough’s novel.

@Arnon
‘How the west was won’ of course is the war between settlers and natives in America some time ago.

Jan T

Have you actually read Mr. Shulman's book?
Thanks for the explanation anyway.

f.fiddelaar

thread = threat

& thank you Neria Biala

Neria

Are there statistics known about suicide attempts of women in Saudi Arabia?
Once a prostitute told me that she was offered in job in Saudi Arabia. She could have been a millionaire in one year. “Why didn’t you go?” I asked.
She answered: “If they catch you, you will be beheaded.”

Arnon

It's a problem. i have a very weird memory. Sometimes almost violent in its precision (i'm still very repressed, it means there's a whole chapter in my life i don't remember, at least not emotionally), i'm saying that because i remember reading a reportage in Ha'aretz over a group od Saudi Aribia business women, among of them an activist in the paliament (the one whose, hoe heet die sjal, fell, maybe unintentionally, from her face when she spoke publically) . i remember she said in the interview that she strive for women rights in Saudi Aribia, and there (in the same reporetage, i think) a statistic over women suicide was metioned. But suddenly i think men there maybe quicker and enjoy doing this job before women have the chance to do it. The potential prostitute in Saudi Aribia was probably right.

f.

:)

@Arnon
No, I did not read Shulman’ book, only the excerpts from the mentioned article. The methods used by settlers made me think of the wild west: always the same methods. As the cliché says ‘Nothing new under the sun’ but a lot of people like to deny ‘nasty’ business and keep an innocent white view on the history of their nations and their lives.
At least you feed us with true stories, as far as I can judge.

Batta

You didn’t join the right debating clubs I guess.
But apple cider can be very tasty.
It’s possible to think of a situation that’s on the verge of becoming a catastrophe, but that thanks to intervention does not become a catastrophe. Let’s say the Cuban Missile Crisis. It does not have to be outside intervention.
A state works more or less like a mafia family. The more civilized states in general don’t kill their own citizens. If you know what it takes to come to power – in a democracy or semi-democracy or non-democracy – I don’t see how you can be interested in anything else than consolidating this power. The same can be said about the state itself by the way.
How on earth can a collective of states or a collective of heads of state be effective?
Yes, the EU and its predecessor (EEC) have been effective in preventing war in Western Europe for more than fifty years. Astonishing.
But the origins of the EEC go back to a treaty on steal and coal between West-Germany and France. There is no economic incentive that could the UN make actually work. (There are other reasons for the success of the EEC as well.)
And yes, decent people work there.
Decent people can do useless jobs. Probably decent people can be killers for hire as well --under the right circumstances.

Arnon

I think you are exactly right: those in power will be inclined to do what is necessary to remain in power. The trick then becomes to create a situation in which the condition to remain in power is to implement the resolutions of the Security Council. I don’t think a collective of states can produce such an outcome, especially not is long as single states have the right to veto. (Here, one can wonder about cause and effect: some states would simply not have joint the SC if they hadn’t been given this right- which exposes the weakness of the institution)

Interesting to compare the EU with the UN. But the EU is not very effective in decision-making with regard to foreign policy. They did not manage to act as a collective on the Iraq war, for example. And if they do agree on issues, one can wonder if this is not due to overlap in interests. But you are right that countries are interested to be part of the EU for economic reasons. And the UN can only offer ‘development aid’ which can never be as appealing as real economic development and trade relations.

Are you bored with this discussion yet?

I never drank the apple cider by the way, it’s still in the fridge.

Batta

I mention the EU because I thought you would bring it up. Some of the accomplishments of the EU are considerable.
And you don’t have to have a medicine ready before pointing out an illness.
I’m not easily bored, because I’m competitive.
For that reason: praise is pleasant but also extremely boring.

Arnon

Point taken. I thought I'd try a new tactic, but I will drop it. (I'm slightly amused that it apparently annoyed you a little)

Ok, let's see where this comparison brings us:

The EU was founded as a result of a common (economic) interest shared by a relatively small group of nations. Countries want to join out of economic interests and are willing to improve democratic institutions and human rights. This is a strong construction. I once made an argument for including Morocco in the EU and, in due time, the rest of Africa. It was received with some scepticism. We are already witnessing the limits of the EU, though, as the support for further expansion is weakening. This is the same problem of public choice as we see in the UN SC.

The UN was founded by a few super powers as a result of a common interest in achieving sustainable peace and security (and as a successor of the failure of the League of Nations to prevent WO2). But there are no sustainable economic benefits. At the end of the colonial era, newly founded states joined the UN, partially to get development assistance (loans from the World Bank and such). But as soon as countries manage to do without such assistance, the economic incentive weakens. And this problem is worsening, as the position of institutions like the IMF and the WB are weakening. Why would countries apply for these loans with all the conditionalities attached, when they can get easy loans at the Chinese or Indian credit market?

The trick is to make implementation of UN resolutions economically attractive. In this respect, the problem is (I think) partially that western countries still think and behave like donor countries. I think part of the success of the EU is that they do not offer a (complete) donor-beneficiary relation, but a chance for countries to be connected to the economic elite. The strategy of Western (well, European) countries towards conflicts in Africa is still to try and convince parties by offering development assistance: donor money. Meanwhile, opportunities for real economic development are offered by China, which is rapidly becoming the most important trade partner for African countries.

I don't know. I don't want to be accused of diplomatic blah blah, so I will end my argument here.

Batta

What you just said made sense. Nevertheless I remain skeptical about the UN, but the good thing about the UN is that its believers do not have the tendency to become fundamentalists.