Comment

Comment by Kurt Lorey on December 27, 2011 at 7:42am

I have the book  The Other Side of the Coin (on loan). I was only able to get into the first chapter, so far. Interesting, to say the least. Apparently, the journal Washington Report is available on-line through the IU libraries (for a nominal daily fee, if one isn't faculty, staff, or a student).

Comment by Kurt Lorey on December 21, 2011 at 8:38am

I have a lead on the book. Hopefully, I will see if that lead pans out on Friday.

 

Maybe "The Middle East: Where do we go from here?", or "Why should we continue along the same old tired path?"

 

We get the same foreign policy from administrations of either stripe, time after time, because they are all taught from the same small pool of professors in most cases. And, those professors all likely slant towards the same axis of thought when it comes to methodologies and conclusions.

Comment by Mark Small on December 21, 2011 at 6:19am

I will order the book (I'm pretty sure it's out-of-print).

I agree w/your second paragraph. It probably is too much to expect Americans to "think" about anything, except (perhaps) sports and so-called reality shows. Sorry, I do not mean to sound like a snob.

Propose a foundation upon which to build what has, at least from what I can see, an attempt at rational discussion. I am open to suggestion of parameters. I agree that memories of hostilities are remembered and grudges held far longer in the Middle East than most here in the Middle West understand. 

And about those property laws, the "tricksy" provisions and definitions were what struck me when I read "The Other Side of the Coin" and  

Comment by Kurt Lorey on December 21, 2011 at 6:05am

I will break down and read the book.

 

If you are talking about American "main-line view(s)", perhaps. If most Americans even "think" about it, I would offer that they are either responding to the 1973 conflict or to propaganda like the film "Exodus". I say that because most cannot think beyond the last war, and/or the balance end up being "feelings" rather than critical thought.

This too presents a difficulty. Neither you or I can seem to agree upon a foundation upon which to build a rational discussion. This is likely due to differences in experiences and knowledge, because it certainly isn't generational.

 

Oh, and I forgot to comment on those property laws (of which I certainly learned some interesting facts about Israel). I know this isn't a formal legal term, but those laws have some "tricksy" provisions and definitions written into them. Made me think of Joseph Heller.

Comment by Mark Small on December 20, 2011 at 9:12pm

Kurt,

Read the book. I will re-read it. We will discuss it afterward. I agree with you as to the depth of animosity over history in this region. Do you agree with me that the main-line view of Middle East problems is anchored to the 1967 six-day War? I think the foundation of our discussion is based upon looking at historical developments most Americans (I hate to generalize, but I just have) have adopted that are fairly lmited. 

Comment by Kurt Lorey on December 20, 2011 at 5:24pm

Ah, I see. Most Americans are pretty short-sighted period. Cultural drawback, I imagine.

 

I will have to disagree with your last statement, though. Some problems are caused by Holocaust guilt perhaps, but failures of the Wilsonian promises of Versailles gnaw at the political elites, and deeper problems across the broad spectrum of Islamic societies still persist from the Crusades period. Cultural memories are fairly long in that part of the Mediterrenean basin (and not just Arab ones, either).

Comment by Mark Small on December 20, 2011 at 4:19pm

I meant to say that they were contemporaneous with the creation of the modern state of Israel. I am frustrated that Americans' discussion of Middle East history seems to start around 1967. For nearly 2,000 years anti-Semitism was dominant in Europe and around the world. The United States, in the first part of the 20th century, turned away Jews who sought refuge here, not only  from Germany but from other European countries. Obviously the Nazis went further and industrialized genocide. There were few places of refuge. Some sought that refuge in Palestine. But other people already lived there. The Balfour Declaration is pre-dated by the McMahon Pledge, but Western guilt over its prejudices is at the root of problems in the Middle East.  

Comment by Kurt Lorey on December 20, 2011 at 2:30pm

Well, The Washington Report... has an agenda of their own. I don't know enough to criticize too much, but they aren't exactly the "non-partisan" journal they purport themselves to be. As you well know, the Middle East is a contentious area to be interested in. Very little objectivity left in that debate, as they has progressed far beyond "A Civil Discourse", as it were. I will try to have a look at those laws, though. It just seemed to me that you thought that those laws pre-dated the creation of the State of Israel. Perhaps I heard you wrong?

Comment by Mark Small on December 20, 2011 at 1:24pm

I don't know if one could say he had an axe to grind. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs described him as "an eloquent advocate of Judaism as a prophetic religion of universal values and a vigorous opponent of political Zionism, as well as a defender of the human rights of Palestinians." He was Jewish and opposed actions of the modern state of Israel. Also, as I recall the book was footnoted. I checked the laws in question. (It has been a while since I read the book.) The specific laws were the Absentees Property Law, The Land Acquisition Law, and several acts also titled Absentees' Property Law. 

Comment by Kurt Lorey on December 20, 2011 at 12:41pm

Well, that author you mentioned had quite an agenda. I would like to read one, or more, of his books, but it appears that he had an axe to grind.