MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan recently visited the WNYC studios and answered the question we're asking as part of our End of War series: Is War Inevitable?
Personally, I wish for the Islamic Republic/Regime of Iran what it demands for America and Israel.
Regarding the Israel-Muslim conflict over "Palestine" or the Land of Israel, why should the Muslim side compromise when they outnumber the Jews by over 100 to 1 and believe that time and numbers makes victory inevitable for their side, and that they can inevitably remove or overwhelm the Jewish state in time? And time is no problem for ancient peoples. Compromise is the reaction of the weaker side versus the stronger side. The stronger side does not need to compromise. Of course, nuclear weapons makes war infinitely more destructive, but it's what gives Israel some bargaining power which may be running down. But I don't see "conflict resolution" as being realistic when one side is convinced it can inevitably defeat the other. It's only when the two sides are totally exhausted and neither side has hope of ultimate full victory.
Sheer rubbish. How can anyone "know" when "war" started? Clans and tribes were in conflict over hunting grounds and territory since prior to the dawn of our particular hominid species. And the human population overall was so miniscule during the many millennium of hunting and gathering. And there wasn't much accumulated wealth to steal or fight over until agriculture and granaries came into existence. Actually, nukes have made large scale war less probable,not "conflict resolution" claptrap.
Why is it that so many who weigh in on the Israel/Palestine conflict, on either side, write or talk like this - no paragraphs, no pauses for breath, just a continuous tirade?
That might sound flippant, but I think there's some truth in it. Rose-Ellen, I couldn't even read your post because of the way it was formatted. It just seems to me like people who have a stake in this discussion aren't interested in having a dialogue, but rather just want to spray words out into the world. This approach just isn't conducive to achieving a solution.
The problem is we don't want conflict resolution with people we hate[demonized].we want to kill them .An example is hamas-we won't negotiate a peace treaty with them till they already agree with us.because they don't agree with us [about israel-the origin of that state which they see as unethical violation of their rights] we out of pride [how dare anyone not see the creation of israel as anything but heroic and noble]refuse to make peace with them.ratigan's example of fighting crime in america can work here because there is no pride and hatred at work.half the battle is already won-all the programs he's talking about do is take pratical steps to ensure the peace holds within a community.Notice how when faced with people we really hate and have dehumanized we had to come up with a whole new categoty [terrorist] and corresponding laws to deal with them;assassinations,torture,are acceptable,innocent till proven guilty,due process etc.,all gone by the wayside for these new categories of people.iranians who today tried to assasinate israelis are called terrorists in our media. when israel recently did the same to iranians the word terrorist was not used.To end war you have to give up the self serving totalizing good vs.evil narrative where our actions are good because we're good but the enemies actions are evil because they're evil.
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's