High-raking police officer investigated following complaint filed by female subordinate; nature and severity of alleged offences are still unknown.03:34 26.11.15 | 0 comments
I also have a lot of respect for Moshe Arens, although I too disagree with some of his assumptions. But I think that Mr. Strenger side-steps the core of Mr. Arens' argument, which is well worth engaging with: namely that "an unending continuation of ethnic struggle by other means" within the framework of a liberal and democratic society, is precisely what Mr Arens argues for. In other words, this "unending and continuous struggle" for ethnic affirmation, is the very stuff of democracy, not necessarily its demise (the Catalan, Basque, Scots, Bretons, etc benefit for their rights by the existence of their respective nation-state democracies, the Kurds, say, suffer precisely because of lack of democracy in Turkey). One may disagree with Mr. Arens' argument, but he certainly sheds light on a certain weakness of the fetishization of a peace process and of a two state solution as a be-all and make-all solution. Furthermore, if Mr. Strenger is in favor of a two-state solution, clearly it is because he concedes, correctly, that this is a conflict between two waring national narratives. In this case, why would he not be in favor of wanting to win this war, in other words cede as little as possible to the opposing narrative. If he is "neutral" in this conflict (not sure why he would be, but perhaps he too is a "humanist' after all), then why would he argue with such vehemence that Mr. Arens' view would be a nightmare?