Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00213)

Frank: "In my country there are standing 400 US atomic bombs. It has 
been said the US are our friends and they help us, they protect us 
against the evil (in the last decades it was the Rockefeller SU, who 
is next?).

There is a slight inconsistency in your argument if I understand it 
correctly. There seem to be three facts here: (1) Stalin's USSR 
posed a realistic threat to Germany in the thirties, as you yourself 
state, (2) Hitler dealt with that in a manner which led to disastrous 
results, as any history book would tell you, (3) it was western 
power, and not shattered German power, which prevented him from 
marching to the Atlantic seaboard. France, which at the time was a 
shattered country, was proclaimed by the west to be a "great power" 
so that postwar Germany would be divided four ways instead of three, 
leaving Stalin with less territory. Stalin protested that, but at 
the time was unprepared to wage war for more land. The notion that 
Prussia should be separated from the rest of the country originated 
with Winston Churchill. That was not an American idea. (The GDR 
consisted of Prussia and Silesia.) Unfortunately, losing territory 
is the side effect of losing a war. Prussia lost some territory to 
Poland at the end of the first World War. You make it clear you 
would not have wanted to be on the eastern side of the Berlin Wall, 
so are you saying you would have been happy to be on the western side 
of an Atlantic wall?

Yes, you are right that the wall in Israel is indistinguishable from 
the Berlin wall. There are some points here that should be 
considered, though. The Sharon government was criticized by 
expansionists in Israel because the existence of the wall seems to 
suggest he is going to respect the territory of the Palestinian 
state, and not everyone in Israel likes that. One of the obstacles 
to peace is the annexation of Arab land on the installment plan, 
which is bad policy. Conquerors in the past who have succeeded have 
taken what they wanted in one fell swoop, not over a period of 
decades. It is harder to move a wall than it is to move a line in 
the sand. There is also historical precedent for the view that this 
wall will discourage more suicide attacks, which is also a positive 
development. People are more reasonable when the level of tension is 
lowered. That opens the possibility of constructive negotiation.

If there is going to be a peace, the people on the eastern side of 
the Green Line are going to have to live under the rule of law and 
believe they have a stake in that. That means no more expropriations 
of private property without due process, and no more "settlements." 
For that to happen there would have to be a state there which can 
protect its citizens and their property rights and which has a viable 
security apparatus, instead of the system of bombed out jails that 
exist now. The rule of law would include outlawing private 
paramilitary organizations, and/or certain kinds of activities. They 
would also have to believe that they would have something personally 
to lose were the folks on the western side of the line to be 
significantly undermined. That means some sort of mutual prosperity 
arrangement, in which the economies of these two areas function 
synergistically. Self interest is a far better motivator than 
idealism. All of this has been done before and the principles are 
well understood. What is lacking in Palestine (on both sides of the 
Green Line) are people who understand these principles and who have a 
compelling vision of what could be accomplished.