Yesterday I wrote about Dr. Carlo Sprenger’s theory (pt. 1)on how to bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Dr. Carlo Strenger

The good professor advocates what he calls “therapeutic diplomacy”, which would presumably put the two “patients” on a “couch”; they’d confess all of their past mistakes. Then they’d come to their senses, reach a consensus individually on what transgressions they may have committed in the past and then hug one another and get on with their lives.

Easier said than done. (more…)

Carlo Strenger, the chairman of the clinical graduate psychology programme at Tel Aviv University, is the author of “The Designed Self.”

Dr. Carlo Strenger

Professor Strenger advises U.S. Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to pursue what he (Strenger) calls “therapeutic diplomacy” to reach some sort of compromise solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.

It’s a long shot and it might worth trying…but how to proceed? The challenge is daunting.

( You can see professor Strenger’s thesis here.  My variation will follow).

In the meantime, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is of the opinion that Israeli policies in the Occupied Territory of The West Bank and the blockaded territory of The Gaza Strip amount to a form of Apartheid.

His allegation is, of course rejected by most Jewish groups and by Israel’s allies, including Canada. The Province of Ontario legislature, for example, has passed a resolution condemning what has come to be called “Apartheid Week”, an anti-Israel protest movement, supported by students and faculty at The University of Michigan in the U.S.

This one-sided movement is doomed to failure, if for no other reason than it divides rather than unites. The very name evokes anger and outrage.

The foundational problem of what is, by any stretch, a profound and ongoing crisis, is the inability of both Palestinians and Israelis to come to terms with their own history either separately or together, a point made by the professor from Tel Aviv.

Professor Strenger maintains that neither side has had the moral strength to admit its respective mistakes and shortcomings. Until that happens he suggests, no road to a lasting peace can be opened.

At this increasingly crucial point in time, there is tremendous suffering, fear and anger on both sides. And both are in desperate need of assistance…and… perhaps a measure of what psychologists call “tough love.”

In the case of nations, the “tough love” should originate with the world body known as The United Nations. But the U.N. seems paralyzed when it comes to the Mideast.

Professor’s Strenger contends that all efforts at peacemaking will undoubtedly fail, because those who are in a position to help, assume that there is some rationality on both sides.

But as we have seen from very recent history…

• the firing of Palestinian rockets into Israel,
• the Israeli assault on Gaza,
• the Hamas refusal to recognize The Jewish State,
• the assasination of a Palestinian leader in a foreign country by Israeli Secret Agents,
• the assasination of a peacemaking Israeli Prime Minister by an Israeli Jew,
• the ongoing expansion of illegal Israeli settlements,
• the failure of the U.N. to implement its own resolutions,
• the angry rhetoric from both sides and much much more…

there is no rationality and the dearly-hoped-for peace settlement appears to be more elusive than ever.

As this untenable situation wears on – and wears down the patience of those on both sides of the divide – the situation becomes much more volatile day by day.

While professor Strenger’s suggestion is apt, there is little precedent for the application of “therapeutic diplomacy” by any of those who wish to help bring about peace, with the exception of George Mitchell’s successful negotiations between two enemies in Northern Ireland.

Clearly, when it comes to the Middle East, the parties cannot solve this problem by themselves. So the solution must come from outside the region and from outside government…at least to begin with.

Tomorrow: In an attempt to pick up where Dr. Stenger leaves off, I propose a place to start.

This is partly about interacting with people who read my stuff. I answer all my mail personally. I think it’s only fair. (Besides, I don’t have a secretary).

Recently I received an email from an acquaintance of mine who criticized me for an article I had written for a little magazine in Kincardine Ontario Canada.

It’s called Marketplace  Magazine and my friend took issue with my call for a public inquiry into the Afghan detainee issue. He’s a prominent businessman in the area, so I won’t mention his name.

My response to his rebuttal

My friend started off by saying that it had been a long time since we’d seen each other and he wondered if I remembered him. Anyway, it’s all here in my response. (My friend’s points are indented and in red).

As a Libertarian by nature and a Conservative by history I thought I would give a rebuttal to your Liberal “Window” in January’s Marketplace (Kincardine).

Dear ____

Thanks for writing. (more…)

This post is published with a sense of sadness and despair

The coming western defeat in Afghanistan is the result of hubris, arrogance and a disregard for other cultures and other viewpoints. We thought we could just march in and impose a brand new ideology, philosophy and attitude on the part of a people we have never understood fully and probably never will.

Our cavalier attitude toward torture, our embrace of violence as a method of solving problems and our desire to get things done quickly, undercut all the efforts at improving Afghan society.

(The same applies to the overall “War on Terror”, by the way.)

Disorganization, lack of a coherent strategy and cynical motives cost us the support of the Afghan population.

Canada’s General Hillier delighted in calling the Taliban “scumbags”. By doing that, he showed his ignorance and lack of understanding of matters that were outside his sphere of knowledge.

He received no rebuke from his political masters, who were and remain equally misguided.

NATO leaders relied on a military solution, which was sure to fail, as it has almost always failed in the past.

The United Nations Security Council went along with the nonsensical approach and its reputation has been blackened along with the reputation of Canada and the rest of the western world.

Now a highly respected analyst and historian, who teaches at an American Military School, has laid it out in blunt terms.

His assessment is a confirmation that those of us who have for many years opposed the American-U.N.-NATO approach have been right and the warmongers have been wrong.

The following article is condensed from today’s Miami Herald.

No reason for optimism about war in Afghanistan

He goes even further to say that Obama knows this war is unwinnable, and that the surge is meant to provide political cover in advance of a full U.S. withdrawal before the 2012 election.

Johnson sees it as the same “cynical exit strategy” devised by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to get American forces out of Vietnam.

Obama wouldn’t be the first U.S. president to let domestic political concerns affect his military moves abroad, but he certainly campaigned as a different kind of leader.

According to Professor Johnson, the cost of the surge in American lives and dollars will be high, even if we stay only 18 months. And the mission of banishing al Qaeda forever from that region seems far-fetched, relying as heavily as it does on cooperation from Pakistan and competence from Afghanistan’s armed forces.

___________________________________________________________

Considering the loss of life, the vast expenditures and the further destruction of Afghan society…being right is very very cold comfort.