Your concern over the situation in Palestine is understandable. It is an arms race to fill terrorists agendas masquerading as patriotism. There are no options that will please everyone, as in all situations of importance, and so the solution has to either alienate one group or disgruntle both groups. The best option is always to please the masses. You simply cannot mantain control of a situation in which the majority disagrees with you. So, we are forced to make an unpopular decision. If the Palestinians have control over the Israeli's on the West Bank, there will be an antisemitic and unstable environment for them. If the minority of Jewish came into power they would be immediately overthrown. This means the situation warrents a muddy middle ground where shades of grey will be confused and fought over. The next step is find a chaos that best suits our interests. While bleeding hearts like Davis Horowitz's "“heart yearns for the success of this latest attempt at peacemaking," we simply know better. Annihilation of either is a seemingly tiresome prospect filled with bad publicity and allowing one to force annihilation on the other will only illicit the same. One optimistic aspect of the dilemma is that both groups are accustomed to living with fear, genocide and racism. As you said of the free people, "he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it". So we do have that going for us. An important part of this process will be the president's attitude. As you said "men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favors". PR will be a large part of how our decision is received. We must reside in people mind as a major player in this decision, although our reach is somewhat limited. Our absolute first step is to spread that reach. People must think we are being harsher than we are no matter what we decide to do. People have to be waiting for the iron curtain to drop so that our decision seems fair. It is our best interest to be seen as the peacemakers and guardians of justice in this conflict. If all else fails we could certainly use one of our allies appointed in the Middle East. The best and most feasible solution is a territorial division. Where you commit the crime is where you are tried. This will solve the issues with political corruption snaking its way into crime. If each group is allowed to govern their populations with their own officials it will solve many of the problems we are facing. Israel would not need to be its own principality if only they can govern themselves. The two groups simply will not listen to each other or work together. Hamas has claimedresponsibily for countless attacks and must be charged where they are committed or no one will see justice. as Yitzhak Rabin said, "for the past 100 years there has been a link between the Jewish people’s desire to live and the Arab people’s desire to kill us" with this kind of hostility this is truly the best option. I hope you will consider this a thoughtful answer to your issues. I think it will suit the American president well. This is one conflict that cannot be uprooted form the hearts of the people, therefore we must attempt this from above ground. We may never find a solution that fits this scenario, in that case it will be best for Israel and Palestine to solve it on their own no matter what the cost. The conflict is a danger to the world around them and a full-out civil war might be their only choice. As you once said "I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it". We can no longer play politics with these groups, they must struggle for peace.
September 14, 2010
Mettee History
Dear Mr. Machiavelli,
Your concern over the situation in Palestine is understandable. It is an arms race to fill terrorists agendas masquerading as patriotism. There are no options that will please everyone, as in all situations of importance, and so the solution has to either alienate one group or disgruntle both groups. The best option is always to please the masses. You simply cannot mantain control of a situation in which the majority disagrees with you. So, we are forced to make an unpopular decision. If the Palestinians have control over the Israeli's on the West Bank, there will be an antisemitic and unstable environment for them. If the minority of Jewish came into power they would be immediately overthrown. This means the situation warrents a muddy middle ground where shades of grey will be confused and fought over. The next step is find a chaos that best suits our interests. While bleeding hearts like Davis Horowitz's "“heart yearns for the success of this latest attempt at peacemaking," we simply know better. Annihilation of either is a seemingly tiresome prospect filled with bad publicity and allowing one to force annihilation on the other will only illicit the same. One optimistic aspect of the dilemma is that both groups are accustomed to living with fear, genocide and racism. As you said of the free people, "he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it". So we do have that going for us.
An important part of this process will be the president's attitude. As you said "men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favors". PR will be a large part of how our decision is received. We must reside in people mind as a major player in this decision, although our reach is somewhat limited. Our absolute first step is to spread that reach. People must think we are being harsher than we are no matter what we decide to do. People have to be waiting for the iron curtain to drop so that our decision seems fair. It is our best interest to be seen as the peacemakers and guardians of justice in this conflict. If all else fails we could certainly use one of our allies appointed in the Middle East.
The best and most feasible solution is a territorial division. Where you commit the crime is where you are tried. This will solve the issues with political corruption snaking its way into crime. If each group is allowed to govern their populations with their own officials it will solve many of the problems we are facing. Israel would not need to be its own principality if only they can govern themselves. The two groups simply will not listen to each other or work together. Hamas has claimedresponsibily for countless attacks and must be charged where they are committed or no one will see justice. as Yitzhak Rabin said, "for the past 100 years there has been a link between the Jewish people’s desire to live and the Arab people’s desire to kill us" with this kind of hostility this is truly the best option.
I hope you will consider this a thoughtful answer to your issues. I think it will suit the American president well. This is one conflict that cannot be uprooted form the hearts of the people, therefore we must attempt this from above ground. We may never find a solution that fits this scenario, in that case it will be best for Israel and Palestine to solve it on their own no matter what the cost. The conflict is a danger to the world around them and a full-out civil war might be their only choice. As you once said "I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it". We can no longer play politics with these groups, they must struggle for peace.