No. of Recommendations: 2
That's certainly a position to take - but it's no more (or less) trying to change the world than people who think that promoting democracy and human rights should also be among the priorities the U.S. tries to advance. The latter isn't looking at the world through a cultural lens, as you put it. Trying to make the world different than it is today isn't the same as falsely believing the world is different than it really is. Whether the change you want to effect in the world is economic/military (as with China) or sociopolitical (as with human rights in the ME), you're still trying to effect a change in current conditions to a scenario you think is better.Looking at the world through our cultural lens - and thereby assuming that there are George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons in all these countries with crap human rights - was a core mistake made in Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't work out for us. Stressing things like women's rights is a fine thing but unless you're wiling to wholesale change someone's culture you're not going to make much progress unless you ease the process along.
No one on Planet Earth is going to turn the Gazans into a peace loving society any time soon. It's not happening.
Whether the change you want to effect in the world is economic/military (as with China) or sociopolitical (as with human rights in the ME), you're still trying to effect a change in current conditions to a scenario you think is better.I'm not sure where you're getting this. There's a vast difference between arraying chess pieces on the global board vs. trying to remake Rooks into Knights. A Rook is a Rook and a Knight is a Knight.
My message vis a vis China is one of preparedness and readiness. They've made no secrets of their desires on the rest of the world and their views on who should be running it. Spoiler alert: Not us.
War is not inevitable but in their case
Si vis pacem, para bellum should very much be the philosophy of the day. If you listen to Trump carefully this is exactly the policy he's pursuing.
But there may not be a fundamental change in governance of Gaza the way that the Peace Plan optimistically contemplates. That's what I mean - we may end up back on 10/6, where Gaza is isolated but Hamas is in charge, rather than some any other party taking control of the area. The other ME countries may not be doing this because they want to be in charge of Gaza, but because they want to cut a deal with Israel; and Israel may not be doing this because they seriously think that someone other than Hamas will be in charge of Gaza, but because they want a deal with the other ME countries.I'll be brutally honest: I don't really care. That sounds harsh, but going back to Bill Clinton people have tried to reach out to the Palestinians and offer them things if they would Just. Stop. Trying. To. Kill. But they won't.
Clinton had this whole thing nailed years ago:
https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-yo...Clinton said, somewhat surprisingly, that he never expected to close the deal at Camp David. But he made it clear that the breakdown of the peace process and the nine months of deadly intifada since then were very much on his mind. He described Arafat as an aging leader who relishes his own sense of victimhood and seems incapable of making a final peace deal. "He could only get to step five, and he needed to get to step 10," the former president said. But Clinton expressed hope in the younger generation of Palestinian officials, suggesting that a post-Arafat Palestinian leader might be able to make peace, perhaps in as little as several years. "I'm just sorry I blew this Middle East" thing, Clinton said shortly before leaving. "But I don't know what else I could have done."Clinton was NOT a failure; Arafat was. And so is Hamas today. You could take BC's quote from back then and insert any Palestinian leader in there you'd care to name and it would still apply: they're all trapped in a past that never existed (some glorious Palestinian state free of Da Joos) and envision a future that never will be (From the River to the Sea and all that).
In other words, they're collectively delusional and it's time to stop humoring the delusion. I say truck in all the food and water they want but be done with it after that.
How delusional? This delusional:
Clinton said he bluntly contradicted Arafat when, in one of their final conversations, the Palestinian leader expressed doubts that the ancient Jewish temple actually lay beneath the Islamic-run compound in Jerusalem containing the holy Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. This was a critical point of dispute, since the Western Wall, a remnant of the temple's retaining wall, is the holiest site in Judaism and one the Israelis were intent on maintaining sovereignty over. "I know it's there," Clinton said he told Arafat.They believe their own BS, reality be damned. I don't believe it's fixable any longer.
