Dueling Arab summits

No wonder Israel does what it wants. It doesn't fear the Arabs.Israel's greatest victory was not achieved on the battlefield; it was given to it by the pathetic and spineless Arab tyrants of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Imagine if there was democracy across the Arab world. Look at Turkey! The Turkish government's response has put the Arabs to shame. I think Israel's worst nightmare would be the democratization of Arab countries.

What's the worst that could happen? Israel goes back to the way things were before the peace treaty with Egypt, when none of the Arab states recognized Israel, and every Arab League meeting was basically a resolution not to negotiate with Israel forever? That might stroke the egos of most of the Arab populace, but it won't exactly mean much except for those invested in said peace treaties and agreements - i.e. the Jordanian, Egyptian, Saudi, and American governments.

The Turkish government's response has put the Arabs to shame.

You mean the Turkish PM's bold strategy of talking tough while excusing doing nothing on the premise that he's running a state, not a grocery store? Certainly, I'd take the extra hot air over some of the alternatives, but what can you do?

So what's this Security Memorandum that Rice and Livni just signed?

Khalid Meshaal was the keynote speaker. His presence, and the fact that he was given the floor before anyone else indicates recognition of Hamas' legitimacy as the voice of the resistance.

That says a lot, in my opinion.

22 days and still standing. Poltical leadership intact and solid support by the Arab/Muslim public. The zionist grip on American foreign policy is also intact, but rather than look at the apparent disunity of these summits i think it's better to focus on the message being transmitted, i.e., Hamas is the legitimate political voice of the Palestinian resistance.

Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).

1. There exist states. (Not ThorsProvoni's "states" yet)

2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add).(Laws??!! perhaps?! naaaa! it wouldn't matter much for they would all put the signature under the prototype one for all constitution anyway;->)

3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.

4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.

5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 1)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)

6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.

7. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.

8. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.

9. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreing policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).

There is nothing to worry about _unless_ you have a better theory to explain what is in reality happening.

I have a theory I believe is far more accurate. Unfortunately, while it has great explanatory power its predictive power is weak. Here it is:

1. Government decisions are made by individuals or by committees, while lack of decision reverts to a default of tradition when there is an existing tradition.

2. When individuals make decisions they make them on whatever idiosyncratic basis they choose.

3. When committees make decisions the result is essentially a random process.

4. In simple situations a government faces some constraints -- it does better when it can tell its public some simple story that makes sense to the public. The story should show the decision-makers or their figureheads in a good light. But when the situation is complicated enough that the public loses interest, governments do whatever comes up by #2 or #3.

5. Sometimes individuals make their choices based on bribes from foreign nations or for simple friendship with foreign leaders. Sometimes they do it based on the same simple stories they have told the public. Sometimes they are blackmailed. Sometimes they use brilliant reasoning based on false data. Sometimes they intentionally corrupt the data they receive, giving themselves a false but usually comforting view of the world. When it's an important decision, many many people try to corrupt the data the decision makers get, hoping to influence their choice. Governmental decisions by individuals have a strong random component.

6. Consider the special case of war. Governments go to war when decision makers believe it is in their best interest, or possibly their nations' best interest, or at random. A decision maker who believes war is not the best choice will instead sue for peace or surrender etc, unless he intentionally makes a worse choice. Once at war, they fight like blindfolded men with baseball bats -- they assume the enemy is trying to deceive them as much as possible, but they also continually try to deceive their fellow decision makers to improve the chance they will make the "correct" choices. As a result most decisions are made blindly or on the basis of questionable or outright incorrect information. This continues until the relevant decision-makers decide the war is not in their best interest and then they try to change it. War is a continuation of the status quo by other means.

7. Occasionally, for religious reasons etc, a lot of people choose to tell the truth as they know it. This is very dangerous. When fanatics run governments like that they become exceptionally powerful. They easily disrupt the status quo and there's no telling what will happen. This is why muslim fanatics are so dangerous -- there is the chance, so far not become reality, that they will tell the truth. I have a theoretical estimate (so far without much experimental confirmation). I think almost any nation with more than 20 million citizens where 40% of government agents told the truth regularly, could take over the whole world with utterly unpredictable results.

8. Given that fewer than 40% of government officials of any government tell the truth regularly, do you believe you know what is going on in the world? If so, you are wrong. You don't know what's going on and neither does anybody else. We all react blindly to each other's disinformation.

I find this theory oddly comforting. When I consider things like MAD applied to nuclear proliferation, it gives me hope. No matter how much it appears that we are headed toward inevitable extinction due to our nuclear decisions, in reality the destructive logic is not inevitable. Individual decision makers might refrain from killing us all even when their doctrine calls for it! We can't depend on them to kill us all. We have a chance.

What's the worst that could happen?

Brett, my horizon is down to less than three years now. I don't see anything really bad that can happen to israel in less than three years. But that isn't saying much, really.

One of the unknowns is who owns america. After the financial crisis, a lot of ownership has changed hands. People talk about china because they're obvious foreigners who own a lot of stuff and have strong state control. But what if the plurality of new owners of the USA are zionists, including US citizen zionists? In that case there shouldn't be any big worries about the israeli economy. But we don't know whether that's the case. If the USA and europe get weak economicly and israel can't suck out the capital, israel will be in economic trouble too.

Suppose europe starts to go all protectionist. It would be easy for them to criticise israel for apartheid etc and declare an embargo. It's what they'd want to do anyway and they'd have a great excuse.

And in the cuthroat oil deals, jordan might get a better opportunity than supplying oil to israel. Oops. Well, but there would be unlimited US dollars to pay for oil to israel. Somebody would do it. Depreciating dollars.... In the worst case we could send them american oil. Our zionists can explain to the public why it's good to export oil for free when we don't have enough for ourselves. Maybe israel could invade saudi arabia around then and start a bunch of oil wells burning; that could get more american support.

It's hard to look more than a couple of years ahead. If Obama loses in 2012 the USA might easily wind up pulling out of the UN. Then israel would have no protector in the UN, but would that matter if the USA was a rogue state?

When I try to look 20 years ahead I don't know what to expect at all. Could israel get into a nuclear war with lebanon? Who can say? Without enough oil would israel turn into another third-world nation? Or could they build enough nuclear plants? And what are they going to do for water in the next 5 years? They don't have enough water even after they take the palestinians' water. Give up water for agriculture and they'd have more for people, but.... Israel is supposed to be home for every jew who wants it, but there isn't enough land and there isn't enough water. The population can't keep growing.

Hmm. Israel can't make peace because there simply isn't enough to go around, as a basis for a peace. There isn't even enough for israel alone. This project is unsustainable.

But I can't really look ahead. Maybe global warming will result in israel getting plenty of rainwater. Maybe some new alternate energy source will let israelis distill their wastewater and re-use it indefinitely, plus build giant cities with artificial light to grow wheatfields in multiple layers in the subbasements. Maybe all the palestinians will peacefully agree to commit suicide and get out of the way. It's hard to be sure what will happen if you try to look past the horizon.

What is wrong with "zionism" ?
Are you against it because it has:

1. one Law - Jewish Law (the Laws of Moses)
2. one State - Israel (in grand scale as Solomons Kingdom covering perhaps the whole Globe
3. one Leadership - Zionist Leadership of Rabbis
4. one Nation - Jewish nation and her lambs
5. one Culture - based on Jewish traditions and laws
6. one official language - Yiddish/Hebrew (as you wish;-))

if that is why, then I strongly reccomend you to read your own constitution regardless where ever on the Globe you live and tell me the difference between your constitution and the fundamentals of the above listed Zionist articles. It is sweet when the EU$ and all the other minor states compose their Constitutions in accordance with 1-6 and sour when Zionists do it, is that it?!

Please do! I pray you! Show me which State on the Globe doesn't have 1,2,3,4,5,6(?). (I realize that some states have more than one offical language as exception.)
(and when it comes to the culture I am talking a culture based on institutions establised according to the laws.)
Actually forget about 2,3,4,5,6 show me one State which allows more than one law. They are all mono-law as a default to the definition of "State".

In Turkey when a Gypsy girl wants to criticize/challenge another, she says:
"Hah! Our pot is dark under, but yours is darker!!!"
"Hadi! Tencere dibin kara, seninki benden kara!"

Grand Sen~or