rylah
Gold Member
- Jun 10, 2015
- 21,241
- 4,496
- 290
- Thread starter
- #41
I think this demonstrates well one of the points Rudy was making,RE: Idea: Nakba day turns Sulhah day (poll)
⁜→ rylah, et al,
BLUF: Not very many people see such discussions on questions lasting for a decade.
(COMMENT)RoccoR what do You think would be the worth mentioning advantages and disadvantages, if we discussed this more as long term policy, a trend to engage in public/political discourse, for the next 10 years.
While in reality, regional and world-wide conditions will be everlasting issues in the future, other policies will be dynamic. Dynamic policies (like a Dynamic IP address) will change to something new each time it surfaces. Before I went to Vietnam (RVN), I held certain ideas as to what was right and wrong in the conflict. When I returned from RVN I had different ideas based on exposure. When I graduated college I had understood the politics better. And by the time my post-grad work was done, I had even more refined ideas. What I might have said in the beginning of the discussion on the policies concerning the RVN Conflict and what I might have said a decade later are something entirely different. The very same thing happened to me in the interval between between my experience in Iraq (2004) and at the conclusion of my Middle East experience (2011) after my time, which included time in Afghanistan and Yemen.
While I never actually spoke to any of the Commanders, Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I)(GENs Casey, Petraeus, Odienro), I did get to see and listen to the O-6 level staff officers over that period. And if you compared those staff officers, one against the other, what they said and what they considered as important, did not very much. But what they implemented was much different (not that any of it worked). One night we discussed the meaning of the "truth" and I asked them if they were telling the "truth?" There were four Academy graduates there, and each remembered the "honor code." What the meaning of quibbling, when they were cadets and the meaning now when the were staff offices to a four-star, was different.
(COMMENT)As in to align more with the natural demographic development, while these new shifting attitudes settle a bit, rather than in the framework of a typical international 'peace accord' signed on a paper?
Yes, it is very important that we are able to appreciate change; but, also important to understand that you cannot retroactively evaluate decisions of the past with the standards, morals, ethics, and attitudes of today. In a comment in reference to the 1922 White Paper (25 years earlier), the UK Staff said:
"When it is asked what it meant by the development of the Jewish national Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other part parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride." (Source: A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)Compare this statement (supra) to what various participants of the discussion understand today.
(∑ SUMMATION)
It is tremendously important to keep a record of the pulse relative to the impact of contemporary thinking.
Most Respectfully,
R
and recently beapars as a theme in these intellectual circles about natural "difficulties in translation" with the western powers, and other 3rd part player who don't live the consequence.
That's why I tend to VERY much agree that locally, between the river and the sea,
no 3-rd party brokered agreement will ever tackle the essential issues.
And neither formal circles capable of that.
We have to shift the discourse into a more dynamic healthy direction,
this 'thought experiment', is just a trigger rather than a practical goal.
You gotta come from a middle eastern mentality,
on an eye to eye informal level to shift things at the root.
In international Israeli-Arab relations there's certainly a place for formal formats,
and wide international participation, but here we're dealing with a local issue.
In one of the recent talks following Israeli-UAE normalization,
an Emirati citizen summed up the situation very respectfully, in likely terms, recognizing that he cannot reject or deny either side, nor to experience consequences and make the decision.
But these are all abstracts, tell me, have such traditional ceremonies, ever been analyzed in relation to dealing with conflict in the region, observed through all these years?