- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,846
- Reaction score
- 63,528
- Points
- 148
For the most part, I'm going to avoid the interlineated responses to all your responses because they just get too long, and I think they detract from the major points. Believe it or not, I actually understand your point. I think your mistake comes from too much generalization in applying that point.
You and I disagree because we're talking about different population pools, and because I think you're over-generalizing. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the ME, and I do not believe that most of them are candidates for joining ISIS, AQ, the Khorasan Group, or similar entities. They are not just not sufficiently radical to do that.
But there is a subgroup within that population that is more radical, and that constitutes the recruiting base for those groups. These are the people who are motivated by religious-based extremism/wahhabism/etc.. And my point is that subgroup, the real recruiting pool, are already sufficiently "radical" that they would reject any peace plan that left Israel at the 1967 borders. In other words, the people who would be willing to accept a 1967 Israel are not the ones who are picking up the guns and joining ISIS/AQ/etc. anyway. So when you have al-Baghdadi or other radical leaders inspiring followers and recruits by talking about the Palestinian issue (among all the others), which you have pointed to repeatedly, it wrongly implies that the solution we are willing to accept is the same one they are willing to accept.
A 1967 Israel would satisfy moderates like you. It won't satisfy the people who are considering joining ISIS, AQ, or the Khorosan Group, as well as many others who aren't radical enough to join themselves but still would oppose such a deal. And those folks will just continue doing what they're doing.
I just watched an interview with one of the jihadis fighting against Assad. He was very passionate about fighting against that regime, which I believe is justified. But he was then asked about what comes after Assad, and he was very clear that he was going to continue fighting to ensure that a strict Islamic state was established, and that he'd fight against others (Muslims) who would oppose that. From everything we've seen/heard/read about the infighting among anti-Assad groups, we have every reason to believe him.
That illustrates part of the reason why I think you're wrongly minimizing the central role Islamic extremism unrelated to Palestine is playing.
I'd point out that we have fewer troops in Saudi Arabia than we had in the 90's, and that Israel has withdrawn from additional territories since the 90's. Yet, those radical groups are stronger, and are getting still stronger today.
A solution that Israel isn't willing to accept isn't going to happen, by definition. And though I don't want to go too far off on that tangent in this thread, the Palestinian position has plenty of other supporters on the Security Council.
Oddly, you and I both agree that a final peace must have Israel at the 1967 borders. The two groups within Israel that resist that are 1) the religious groups that believe that those lands somehow "belong" to them, and I have zero respect for that position, and 2) those who have security concerns about what happens after they give up their last bargaining chip, and I have a lot of sympathy for that position. As I think many other Americans do as well.
I am saying that we would not see as many willing to join groups like ISIS to fight against the West. It would work in our favor. It wouldn't be a satisfactory solution for radical Muslims OR radical Jews OR radical Christians. I think this point is a given; hence the term "radical." I've already said we should not be engaging radicals, we should be bombing them; what I have said is that we should disarm them and the best way in doing so is to mitigate the causes of radicalization.
You and I disagree because we're talking about different population pools, and because I think you're over-generalizing. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims in the ME, and I do not believe that most of them are candidates for joining ISIS, AQ, the Khorasan Group, or similar entities. They are not just not sufficiently radical to do that.
But there is a subgroup within that population that is more radical, and that constitutes the recruiting base for those groups. These are the people who are motivated by religious-based extremism/wahhabism/etc.. And my point is that subgroup, the real recruiting pool, are already sufficiently "radical" that they would reject any peace plan that left Israel at the 1967 borders. In other words, the people who would be willing to accept a 1967 Israel are not the ones who are picking up the guns and joining ISIS/AQ/etc. anyway. So when you have al-Baghdadi or other radical leaders inspiring followers and recruits by talking about the Palestinian issue (among all the others), which you have pointed to repeatedly, it wrongly implies that the solution we are willing to accept is the same one they are willing to accept.
A 1967 Israel would satisfy moderates like you. It won't satisfy the people who are considering joining ISIS, AQ, or the Khorosan Group, as well as many others who aren't radical enough to join themselves but still would oppose such a deal. And those folks will just continue doing what they're doing.
I just watched an interview with one of the jihadis fighting against Assad. He was very passionate about fighting against that regime, which I believe is justified. But he was then asked about what comes after Assad, and he was very clear that he was going to continue fighting to ensure that a strict Islamic state was established, and that he'd fight against others (Muslims) who would oppose that. From everything we've seen/heard/read about the infighting among anti-Assad groups, we have every reason to believe him.
That illustrates part of the reason why I think you're wrongly minimizing the central role Islamic extremism unrelated to Palestine is playing.
Groups like Al Qaeda had marginal (almost nonexistent) support in the 90s; we can get back to that point.
I'd point out that we have fewer troops in Saudi Arabia than we had in the 90's, and that Israel has withdrawn from additional territories since the 90's. Yet, those radical groups are stronger, and are getting still stronger today.
1) American position is not a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict as we only support Israel's international position in the Security Council. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the United States is not interested in an international solution, but instead, one that Israel is 100% committed to. Israel has to say yes, otherwise, there will be no Palestinian state. Muslims and Arabs are obviously disgusted with this position, as am I.
A solution that Israel isn't willing to accept isn't going to happen, by definition. And though I don't want to go too far off on that tangent in this thread, the Palestinian position has plenty of other supporters on the Security Council.
Oddly, you and I both agree that a final peace must have Israel at the 1967 borders. The two groups within Israel that resist that are 1) the religious groups that believe that those lands somehow "belong" to them, and I have zero respect for that position, and 2) those who have security concerns about what happens after they give up their last bargaining chip, and I have a lot of sympathy for that position. As I think many other Americans do as well.
Last edited: