PS: I know that toddlers are a pain in the ass. You’re probably holding up better than most. They say down here, “little kids, little problems.” The more you invest in the little kids is like money in the bank when they get older and can cause you real problems.

Heh. Well said!

This thing is moving too fast for me. I put in one comment then there’s another one before that etc etc. Then stuff comes in my inbox and I can’t find it here. I’ll just go do some drugs for a while until I calm down.

Anyway, since we’re both abrasive mother-fuckers, I’m glad to have the chance to let bygones be bygones. I don’t disrespect you in the least—to the contrary. You must know what I mean because you’re an abrasive mother-fucker yourself.

I have no hard feelings and never did. I get a lot out of debating with people, especially if they don’t care about being abrasive. It just means that you really care a lot about what you’re saying. That’s something to admire. I’m not trying to convince you—that would be arrogant, wouldn’t it? Meddling, anyone? It’s just a way to learn stuff for me.

And one last thing—you showed up here to make an effort to bridge this divide and I certainly did not. Means you’re a better man than me.

PS: I know that toddlers are a pain in the ass. You’re probably holding up better than most. They say down here, “little kids, little problems.” The more you invest in the little kids is like money in the bank when they get older and can cause you real problems.

No, I don’t think the settlement issue is an “Arab red herring” I think it is very real, and causes parts of Israel, a country I admire greatly, to be little better than apartheid. Israel needs to save itself from itself.

No, I don’t think the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was intended to make peace with the Palestinians. If they had truly wanted to achieve peace, Israel would have withdrawn from the West Bank as well. The subsequent blockade has impoverished Gaza. They are now an isolated enclave. And while I completely take issue with those who liken said enclave to a “concentration camp” I don’t think that it’s right either.

I do think that nationalism exists very strongly and is at the center of the Israel/Palestine conflict, but not necessarily the larger jihad. That does indeed have to do with US meddling, but also with a barbaric worldview that we in the West have little understanding of, and certainly did not anticipate when we first enmeshed ourselves there.

I actually think you’re on to something with the whole notion of plurality etc. etc. but I think the worst way to go about this is with large scale invasions the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, or with such backward ideas as sanctions which only empower dictators and impoverish populations.

I can be a bit abrasive myself, and I apologize for calling your stance simplistic. I can be a bit short-tempered, I admit. My apologies.

What really comes off as overly combative in your post above, though, is your bringing my name into it what five, six times? I mean, it’s just a lot of focus on me.

But in any case, I was wrong to dismiss you in that fashion, and I hope to have more amicable, and thereby productive conversations in the future. I admit, I’ve had a bitch of a cold the last couple days, and my own toddler has NOT been sleeping, and it has caused me to fall into a rather persistent gloominess…

As for the pluralism—I looked at the Wikipedia page you linked to and it looks like I got myself into a mess with this one. I can’t really say which of the ten or so definitions I’m thinking of. Now I wish I’d seen the Wikipedia thing before I stuck my foot in it. But anyhow, I’ll just try and explain what I’m thinking, since you asked.

The basis of the Western idea of globalization continues to be the Westphalian system of national sovereignty. This happened in the early seventeenth century in Europe, just to give you an idea of how new it is and how Western it is. Before that, even in Europe, there was no “national sovereignty” to start wars over because the idea didn’t even exist. Today the whole world is mapped out according to the Westphalian system of national sovereignty—even the Arab/Muslim world. In fact, this is one of the causes of such instability there, as Europeans literally mapped out the Middle East after WWI with red pencils and a map on a table at Versailles or wherever. This cut across ethnic groups, which should have been included in one or another nation-state and divided others. Decolonization left this as a legacy, willy-nilly.

But what’s the basis of the Westphalian nation-state? It means that nation-states in the system should be just left alone to decide their own affairs insofar as religion (which was the original problem in Europe), government and so forth as long as they respect the rules, which can be summarized in the doctrine of non interventionism. It’s pretty much a way to achieve peace, if this is defined as simply “no war.” It’s the basis of so-called realist philosophy in foreign relations.

This is how I derive the idea of pluralism: it just means that nation-states should be left alone as long as they respect the rules that everyone else respects, first among them is to respect everyone else’s right to be left alone. I’d say that the Wikipedia definition that comes the closest is, “the acknowledgment of a diversity of political systems.”

I say that this is the problem in today’s war: the Arab/Muslim world does not accept this, which is the most basic idea we have of our own political system. The whole idea of sovereign nation-states was imposed on them by Europeans (not the US!). If it were up to them, there would be an entirely different world order today, one based on Islamic law, not agreements between sovereign nation-states.

This relates to this discussion of US military interventionism because it’s just not enough to have a system with all its treaties and laws if you don’t have a way to enforce the treaties and laws—even if the system has such deep roots in our thinking. So I say that our interventionism should be to establish pluralism as a basic value, wherever it’s challenged and above all if it’s challenged by a direct declaration of war against us, as in the present situation. Anyone who does so is declaring themselves to by our enemy in the most basic sense—they’re challenging the world order that we uphold, not just demanding stuff like more rights or whatever. That we can deal with quite easily since any demand for more rights by definition falls within the system that we uphold.

It’s not about exporting democracy or remaking the world in our image. It’s just about the most basic political value we have. In the case of today’s war against jihad, it means that they can have an Islamic state, if that’s what makes them happy. I have no problem with the government of Iraq making Islamic law part of their constitution, as anti democratic as that may be. They’re Islamic after all, so they should have the right to an Islamic state. I don’t see how this could hurt us in the least since we have so many businessmen who can figure out how to sell them stuff under Islamic law or any other law. We get to sell them stuff in peace, they get to have Islamic law. If they don’t want us to sell them stuff, then it’s simple: just don’t buy it. But if they want to stop us from selling them stuff by blowing up our buildings with thousands of people inside, then we intervene. Does that sound like pluralism to you?

If he thinks that saying nationalism is over in the Arab/Muslim world is ludicrous, then he should write a book challenging Adeed Dawisha, for one, who said just that in his own book, Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. There are other books that say more or less the same thing, but this one looks like the burner to me. In any case, ED Kain could set a lot of scholars straight here, not just me.

So let’s see, after years of attacks, which have killed and wounded as many or more Israeli innocents as the Gaza invasion did Palestinians, he expects the Israelis to do just what, exactly? Hand them their head on a platter?

He’s been there, done that. Now he knows that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East. It’s interesting that in the aftermath of the 2000 Camp David talks, when Israel and Palestine reached an agreement on the settlements, people were saying that the “right of return” was the main obstacle to peace. Does the fact that there is no agreement, no policy, no nothing that supports his “complete withdrawal” idea make any difference to him at all? Everybody—the US, the EU, the Palestinians—have agreed that this is not possible. The phase is, “defensible borders,” not “complete withdrawal.” The point is, “complete withdrawal” won’t happen. To insist on it is equivalent to supporting the most radical Islamist agenda.

Aside from that, do you notice that this is just a side point on this thread? Do you notice that ED Kain cannot support his ideas other than by flinging infantile sarcasm my way and then by going into a hissy fit over a side point? There’s no way I’m going to get into the details of the settlements question here. But it’s just simplistic to say that Israel has built more settlements in the West Bank than they withdrew from Gaza. It’s just a complicated topic, which I doubt even diplomats could handle in such a forum as this one.

As you correctly note, the thread is about the limits of US interventionism, not about Israel/Palestine. ED Kain brings up US support for Israel as an example of unwarranted meddling, which in his mind has caused radical jihadists to declare war on us. My point is that this is false. Arab regimes use Palestinian suffering and US support for Israel as a weapon against us. This problem could have been solved decades ago if it were otherwise. That’s why it’s a red herring. It’s disgusting to see and it’s disgusting to see people like ED Kain fall into line thinking he’s being critical.

In case you missed my question above, I really would appreciate a response: in what sense are you using the word “pluralism,” which admits of several different meanings depending on whether you are using it to describe a country’s internal politics or its relations with the rest of the world.