A common objection to recent developments in Israel is that Mahmoud Abbas is a holocaust-denying Arafat-crony (all the best criticisms are hyphenated) who has never denounced suicide bombings, and is therefore not to be trusted. I think these are reasonable concerns - if the question is whether he's a nice fella. I don't know, myself, but for purposes of the discussion, I'm willing to stipulate that he's horrendous.
The point is, though, that societies are fluid things, and they're difficult to control, particularly when there's an underlying emphasis on liberty. (Liberty is frequently confused with security, or maintaining a high quality of life. These each have their advantages, but they're not identical.)
To the extent that we've got historical evidence, citizens of liberal (I refuse to insult my readers by emphasizing the lower-case l. Assuming I have readers, that is. A tad presumptuous, based on the sitemeter, but hope springs eternal. If you know Pejman, tell him I'm here.) societies with guaranteed fundamental rights typically spend their time and channel their innate aggression in non-violent ways. I think the next phase of the Cowboy Doctrine (currently on evidence in Syria, Iraq, a bunch on -stans, and, one hopes, Greater Persia as well) will basically continue to wrest control of these countries from their respective tyrants, and put in place mechanics designed to lead, in each case, to liberal society.
Dr. Abbas may have only the most nefarious plans for the sons of Isaac. If I read the situation correctly, though, that shouldn't matter, even if it's true. What he's being forced to do is to liberate his society. If this sociological experiment is successful, then the almost automatic redirection of aggressive impulses into more productive endeavours ensues. In addition to ultimately adding to the number of people looking for a cure for cancer, this implies a lessening of the influence of leaders with more malignant intentions.
Or, in a briefer sense, peace.
I'm not suggesting that this process will definitely work. (It seems to have cooled down the flames between England and France, which burned fairly brightly over the years.) My point is only to demonstrate why I think certain objections are less relevant than they appear.
- Moishe Potemkin
Posted by MoisheP at March 5, 2005 08:58 PMI'm assuming that you are arguing Sharansky's thesis. If you are read P David Hornik.
Yes, I know he's a major skeptic when it comes to peace with the Palestinians. But he writes here that Sharanksy, himself, would argue that the Palestinian transformation isn't necessarily as complete as Sharansky himself would want.
I would have e-mailed you, but I assume that your e-mail address is phony.
I should also acknowledge that your position is easier to defend. You argue that democratization has a universally moderating effect. I'm arguing that the toxicity of the Palestinian political culture is such that it may well be an exception.
Posted by: David Gerstman at March 11, 2005 05:32 AMTwo minor points:
One: It's difficult to contend that Sharansky views the Palestinians as exceptional when Sharansky has been quite explicit about including them within his outlook.
Two: Focusing on the current toxicity almost ensures a perpetuation of short-term problems, while precluding a long-term solution.
And, yes, the email address is phony. What gave it away?
- Moishe P
Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 13, 2005 12:49 PM