The “peace process” has it ass-backwards
By Ted Belman
Saul Singer advises How to pressure for peace.
I go further and suggest that the peace process has it ass-backwards.
-
Rather than arm and train the terrorists (Fatah) it should force their disarmament.
Rather than finance them to the tune of $7.4 billion thereby enabling them to continue the “resistance”, they should be left to fend for themselves.
Rather than force Israel to freeze settlement activity thereby removing time as an issue it should allow Israel to build to its heart’s content thereby forcing the Palestinians to compromise quickly rather than to allow an erosion of their position in a final settlement.
Rather than force Israel to make goodwill gestures which merely encourages intransigence, it should force the Palestinians to make goodwill gestures. Whatever resistance Israelis have to the “peace process”, it will be reduced with such real gestures.
This is so obvious that one must conclude that the peace process is designed to continue the conflict rather than end it.
I should point out that no one is demanding peace at the end of the process. You will recall that one of the things Arafat balked at at Camp David, was signing an “end of conflict agreement”. Today no one is even mentioning such a thing and the Arab League is only offering “normalization” whatever that means..
Israel knows this. That is why it is demanding, so far, recognition as a Jewish state. If there was going to be a real peace agreement and a real peace, there would be no need to demand this recognition. Israel, as a sovereign state, could be what it wanted to be. Unfortunately, such recognition if it is given, will be a poor substitute for real peace.
The Arabs are refusing such recognition because their ultimate goal is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. This they cannot accept. They also would not accept Israel with a Jewish majority even if it were a state like any other. They want Palestine to include Israel and the Jews there to become dhimmis. The peace process is just one step along the way.
The peace process, from Israel’s point of view, is simply a negotiated withdrawal from the Westbank as opposed to the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
To my mind, whether Israel just withdraws or negotiates terms of withdrawal or signs a peace agreement, as with Egypt, it makes little difference as the Arabs don’t and won’t abide by the agreements.
Thus, in my opinion, Israel’s goal is to end the “occupation”. She values the international legitimacy she will receive, perhaps with internationally recognized borders maybe, more than security. She is currently working on defense systems that will ostensibly protect her from the rockets which are sure to follow.
This trade off is what Israelis should be debating. Instead the Government of Israel and the US pretend it is otherwise.
Its all pretend. Its true Olmert has frozen settlement construction but short of going into Jewish bedrooms to make sure couples don’t have more Jewish babies, its a meaningless declaration. One way or another, “natural growth” will be accommodated. The peace process is itself is a sham. The Arabs don’t want a Palestinian state and nothing Israel does to sweeten the deal is going to make it happen. That would mean an end to the conflict. It would force the closure UNRWA. So while people talk about the process no peace will issue out of it at the end of the road.
And I would add that this blog doesn’t seem to have much interest in peace either. So why complain?
Not that kind of peace.
“The Other Alan” is delusional since he fails to take into account any of the analysis of the Singer article or of Ted Belman’s accompanying comments in his response. He could be safely ignored except that his delusions are social, i.e., held by others as well who reinforce them. Therefore, “The Other Alan,” understand that as Israel is the last stand for the Jews, we will do everything to preserve our existence. If that means territorial compromise, so be it. If that means spreading the boundaries to the Jordan and the Litani and the Suez Canal, so be it. Show us the way to preserve our unique heritage from the onslaught of poorly functioning civilizations with destructive ideologies and self-serving assumptions and we will be there. If you try to fool us or lull us or moralize to us, then it is your childishness, not ours, that needs to be addressed. Our goals are clear – a place apart from you and yours. It is called Israel and we will preserve it at all costs to us and to you.
I have concluded the same thing.
I disagree with Ted’s entitling his comment The “peace process” is ass-backwards.
Ted is right however that this peace process does not have peace as an end point goal.
Rather it appears the process has become a process yielding a modicum of peace per se on the premise that so long as the parties continue to talk about peace, they appear to be distracting themselves from humkering down to plan out open warfare against the other.
One of the obvious problems with this particular process that yields some peace along the way towards nowhere is that it is producing more intrasigence on the part of the Arabs and Palestinians which as it becomes increasingly obvious to the Israelis, there is no point in giving more.
The so called peace process is slowly therefore grinding to yet another halt and with that pressure is building. The pressure will have to be released at some point to ward off an explosion.
On another score I welcome points of view, especially differing points of view provided that they are well reasoned and expressed.
If “The Other Alan” has anything meaningful to contribute in that regard, he/she should realize that quick one line quips do not cut it.
A NEW DEFINITION OF ‘PEACE’
by Michelle Nevada
Frankly, I’m a bit tired of the word.
There has been a lot of talk of “peace” lately. It seems the word is everywhere. There are rock concerts and congressional hearings and meetings and protests for “peace.” But I doubt people have even taken the time to define what they think “peace” is. After all, if you look up the word “peace” you are likely to find at least five, if not twenty-five, different definitions of the word — everything from “agreements to end hostility” to “silence.”
Frankly, I’m a bit tired of the word. It has been greatly overused as some type of panacea for every problem in the world. “Peace” is an abstract, a generalization. Telling people you are in favor of “peace” is very popular, it will probably get you elected, but it really isn’t saying anything at all. With so many definitions to play with, I think I could say with great certainty that we are all in favor of peace. For example, I would greatly treasure a moment of peace (quiet) away from all these people promoting the vacuous and empty idea of “peace.”
Lake Superior State University, a small college in Michigan, publishes a “Banned Words” list every New Year. The words included on the list are, according to their website, a “Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-Use, Over-Use and General Uselessness.” I think I shall suggest “peace” as a word that should definitely be banned for next year. Meanwhile, I want to share my definition of “peace” with you, and the reasons behind my thinking.
Peace, in my opinion, is something that encompasses almost all meanings of the word — an absence of conflict or struggle, a great quiet, and everything in harmony, etc. I’m sure that this is the idea behind so many politicians’ and activists’ words. They want a world where all people can be at “peace.” It’s a nice idea… or is it?
In a religious sense, I think it is a nice idea. If one has great faith and an understanding of an all-knowing, all-seeing, infinite and just G-d, one can believe that there will be, at some time, through the intervention of G-d, a perfect peace. But this is something only G-d can bring. Humanity is incapable of this miracle of peace.
After all, life, as we know it, is a potpourri of conflict, struggle, noise and dissonance. To live life to its fullest, we must make our way through a long list of treacherous and dangerous decisions; we must make sacrifices and ask others to sacrifice; we must compromise and ask others to compromise; we must argue, yell, laugh and make mistakes; we must add spice to our food, our lives and our loves; and we must be demanded of and be demanding. Life is never a place of “peace.” Life is messy, and painful, and beautiful.
Likewise, in order for nations to exist, those nations must fight for their right to exist. Nations must insist upon their own borders, their own laws, their own values, and they must work for the betterment of their own population. There are always challenges to a nation’s sovereignty, and I don’t think there was ever a time when any nation has existed for even a moment without some challenge from inside or outside their borders. A nation cannot hope to have “peace” unless the nation ceases to exist.
To exist, people and nations must fight to survive. If we fail, we die — and only in death do we have “peace.”
So, as I read news stories and hear the speeches of politicians and activists who are promoting “peace,” I can’t help but say to myself, “They are not G-d, the only peace they can offer is the peace of non-existence, the peace of death.”
This new definition of peace is one that has clarified my understanding of a great many things that used to be perplexing to me. For example, when US Secretary of State Rice, or Prime Minister Olmert, or our new President Peres say they will make “peace” with our Arab neighbors by sacrificing large swaths of land, and providing our enemies with money, weapons, power and energy, I understand exactly what the are saying. When activists protest and say we need to embrace “peace” instead of building a separation fence between Israelis and terrorists, I clearly understand. When Israel reaches an agreement to release 250 terrorists for the purpose of “peace,” I no longer question what they are saying.
No wonder politicians and activists have never wanted to define the word. If we truly understood what they had been saying all these years, maybe we would have opted for conflict instead.
Editor’s Note: One reader of the Arutz-Sheva essay amplified the ‘peace of the grave’ idea.
It is the peace of the grave that Olmert/Peres embrace
Chaim, (19/07/07)
1. It is the peace of the grave that Olmert/Peres embrace Before the “peace process” terror attacks against Israelis were rare and severely punished. Israel didn’t release terrorists. Israel, though much smaller than today, was respected by friend and foe alike. What have “peace” talks done for Israel? Cost us the Sinai. We’d be infinitely better off with the Sinai than worthless paper. Cost us tens of thousands of murdered and maimed civilians. Cost us the respect of all, including ourselves. Our pursuit of “peace” has been a complete disaster. We’d be far better off pursuing strength and self respect. Olmert/Peres lead us only to the peace of the grave.
If the peace process is ass-backwards, the interesting question is — why?
Are the Americans too dumb to see this?
Unfortunately, it’s not backwards at all if the goal is to help extract the US from Iraq by appeasing the US’ three major antagonists there: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
I think Olmert/Livni understand this and they are doing their best to delay and do as little as possible. But this strategy may not work.
The US has already signaled to Iran that it is prepared to live with Iranian nukes. We know that Syria wants a free hand in Lebanon, and there is no indication that the US will oppose this (or allow Israel to oppose it). And Saudi Arabia wants to bring Fatah together with Hamas and displace Iran as the patron of Hamas. This is the goal of the ‘peace process’, a unified Palestinian state controlled by Saudi Arabia.
Victor, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!
Right on!
email
correct- peace-process is “smoke and mirrors” for Arab destruction of Israel;U.S. Politicians look good in front of camera.period
email
You notice after over a year of daily rocket attacks on Israel there is no panic on the part of anyone.However when the IDF starts to take action thats when the “war-monger” acusations (from assi-nines like Jimmy Carter)started toward the IDF.
email
Wow – well put, you are completely correct.
Shmuel writes
Good analysis Ted.
But since nothing since Oslo and that inclusive was or is about peace but about the destruction of israel as a JEWISH state, the “process” is according to the planners ideas, and those do not include peace.
Tomorrow the GOVERNMENT IN WAITING will be set in motion at 10 am.
That will clearly separate who is who and for what.
The people invited to the new government and those already in it can then opt for a NEW GOVERNMENT system or the present one. No place to hide.
Ted If I may make a small suggestion: I would start or include in all the groups and organizations efforts to influence the Bush Government like one Jerusalem and even yourself to include a demand that America move it Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem before he leaves office. Pressure on Congress to rescind that part of American Law that gives the executive, wiggle room on this Issue. In an Election year and with Bush pushing us , this is one way to push back . Who know we might even be offered a positive trade off if the pressure becomes yo great for him.
A Sincere Question;
Shalom Yamit,
What is the reason Israel’s MOD is located in TLV and not Jlm ?
Even the Pentagon is physically in Virginia but the address lists Washington, D.C.
A couple of years ago when Israel established its National Security Council, it opened it’s office in TLV.
It’s difficult for diaspora politicos to try to mold public opinion when a major impediment is GOI.
It’s surely acceptable for water port authorities to be headquartered in the nation’s largest port, but a Defense Ministry not in the capital of a nation?
Kol tuv,
Happy New Year, one and all.
This word – terrorist — is slippery. Ted even feels the need to include a parenthetical clarification “(Fatah)”, in case any of is unsure of what he means. But does he, any more than the rest of us, know what he means? Here are a couple of definitions, one American, one British:
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary online:
• One who employs the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. (Terror is defined as a state of extreme fear.)
From the Oxford Compact English Dictionary online:
• A person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Both these definitions surprise me, because neither distinguishes between soldiers and civilians, warriors and innocents. For me that distinction has always been part of the definition, but it appears I am in the minority — those who are paid to think these things through carefully do not agree. Oddly, if you substitute “soldier” in place of “terrorist” in either of these definitions, you won’t have gone far wrong. The implication that soldiers = terrorists and terrorists = soldiers is not one that any of us, I think, would agree without giving it a lot of thought, and perhaps never.
But it is one the terrorists themselves (and I don’t mean just Fatah) have always agreed with. Terrorists, throughout history, are those who have used “dirty tricks” to fight larger, richer, better resourced, more entrenched forces. Imperial or expansionary forces, almost by definition, will call anyone determined to upset the imperial or expansionist order terrorists. The Nazis, masters of terror on a large scale, called those who dared to resist them “terrorists.” Putin, the latest in a long line of Russian absolutists, calls those fighting for freedome and independence (whether in Chenya or in Kosovo) terrorists. The British called those who dared to resist them “terrorists.” And now the Americans are calling those who dare to resist them “terrorists.” Is it only a matter of perspective? Is it always the other guy who is the terrorist? I am reminded of Reagan’s efforts to characterize US-backed terrorists in Nicaraugua as “freedom fighters,” when everyone else saw them as “terrorists.” The Sandanistas, like Hamas, had been the victors in a democratic election — but then as now, that was merely an inconvenience to US policy makers.
The BBC seems to think so – it has banned the word from the World Service – not because it is pandering to special interests, but precisely because it refuses to pander to special interests. The events are described, but the characterizations and implicit judgments are left out. The viewer/listener can think for himself, or so the BBC hopes.
Another reason suggesting that terrorism is entirely relative… Terrorists have a way of becoming, often overnight, national heroes, founding fathers. Jomo Kenyata. Menachim Begin. Yasser Arafat. Lev Bronstein (Trotsky). Nelson Mandela. Yitzhak Shamir.
There are inevitably the related issues of “state terrorism” and “disproportionality of response,” which to many are at least as bad, and to some are ultimately worse – but let’s stick with “terrorism” for the timing being, at least until we agree on what it means.
If Clausewitz’s definition of war is accepted – that it is simply “the continuation of policy by other means” (presumably other than diplomacy, talking, negotiating), then terrorism is understood as what it is: war conducted by those otherwise unable to conduct it. And we’re back where we started. The oppressed will always fight their oppressors — and it is the oppressed, not the oppressors, who decide when and how. Are the Palestinians “oppressed”? I am unqualified to say — but it’s clear they think they are, and somehow doing more of what they see as oppression does not seem to be the best possible way to convince them otherwise.
Interesting question South and I can only speculate. The city of Tel Aviv has been trying to get them to move out of Tel Aviv for as long as I can remember, as they the MD is sitting on prime real estate and the big money guys want it badly but they are staying put with new buildings and complexes. Now why not in Jerusalem? A- it has always been in Tel Aviv B– They already have big financial Investment there in billions of Dollars which include extensive underground and communication systems. C- Most the people working there both civilian and military come from and are living in the TelAviv area and they are 8-5 o’clock workers Jers. would add a few hours of travel for most at a substantial yearly cost. D- it is the farthest point from any enemy border so I guess they take that into some consideration.
Jeremiah has started a discourse on terrorism with dictionary definitions. He entirely leaves out international law and the ongoing debate on the meaning or terrorism in the UN and elsewhere.
As he points out all the big powers use terrorism when it suits their purposes and accuse the other of terrorism. Nothing new there. That’s the real world. In the academic world attempts are made at definitions. In the world of international law, while agreement can’t be reached on who is a terrorist, there is general agreement on what is a war crime. Killing non-combatants intentionally, meets the test. Jeremiah leaves this out of his discussion. Israel is always being accused inappropriately of war crimes.
Jeremiah seems to be condonning terrorism by the oppressed and condemning “state terrorism” and state “disproportionate response”. With the latter he is approaching war crimes terminology. He obviously is for the little guy and against the establishment. This is typical of the left, the high and mighty need to be taken down a few notches.
Ultimately the decision is a political one. Who does one want to win.
To criticize me for using the “T” word is to deny my right to label what the Palestinians do as terror or a war crime. I have the right to accuse them of this regardless of whether others disagree. He is telling me not to be self righteous. But I am accusing them from my perspective. His sophistry doesn’t make it any the less true. He clearly is trying to justify it and to dissemble.
While many great powers used terror for their own ends or accuse their enemies of terror as he points out, all are guilty of war crimes if their “dirty tricks” kill non-combatants. The Arabs claim that everyone in Israel is a combatant and thus can be killed.
Is Jeremiah saying Fatah can commit war crimes but Israel can’t. I think so.
But what oppression is he talking about. He doesn’t say.
The Palestinians are not using terrorism because they think they are oppressed. Their expressed goal is to destroy Israel. If they dropped the terrorism their lives would be better and they wouldn’t be “oppressed”.
This is another way of saying that the root causes of terror i.e. oppression, must be addressed or terrorists must be appeased rather than crushed. It has been said against the first part that there are oppressed or hungry people all over the globe and they don’t turn to terrorism. As for appeasement, I thought it would be self evident that if you give into terror you give in to anarchy. But I’ll let others weigh in on both these issues.
I really hate this guy! I wish I had him in my sights,. No discussion ,. no debate, when one confronts evil incarnate you destroy it if you can before it destroys you. His theories are based on relativism, no good no evil, no right , no wrong, nothing can justify in his sicko mind any idea or concept that does not conform .
Yeh, the old lefts canard one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter : Old shit Heinzeie! Where is your originality?
Well I can tell you that if someone is out to kill you , your family, friends neighbors and fellow country men, it doesn’t mean shit what you call him you kill him if you can. First law of nature self preservation, as individuals and as a nation. Even threats fall into my category as fair game.
Is it relevant to me whether the enemy thinks he is right? of course he does ,so what? Irrelevant, every opposite combatant thinks he is right. The Nazis thought they were right! The last man standing determines who is right and wrong in any conflict and they always write the histories afterward.
Any one who uses dictionary or BBC to define what he wants to say is an idiot. Is that the best he can come up with?
Disproportionate response is State Terrorism!! Who determines what and how much is disproportionate response you fagot, YOU? If a suicide bomber kills fifty our our civilians how many will you allow me to kill of theirs? 50? 100? 500? How about as many as it takes to stop them? REMINDS ME OF THE OLD BILL COSBY SKIT WHERE THE AMERICAN COLONIAL REBELS AND THE BRITISH WERE CALLED OUT BY A FOOT BALL REF. AND GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS LIKE THE BRITISH HAD TO WEAR RED COATS AND MARCH IN STRAIT LINES AND THE REBELS COULD DRESS IN BROWN GREEN AND HIDE BEHIND TREES AND ROCKS! Rules? whose yours? Webster? BBCs? Soros? The guy trying to kill me determines the rules as to how I respond period !! Now I consider Andrew to be a Verbal Terrorist, Verbal because as a Coward thats all he can do.
Ted, very disappointed in you that you post him, and even more so that you agree with him! if you are going to post his every email anyway let him back in,this is almost the same thing by the back door. Either you think he is worthy or not!
Email from Jerusalem
Spot-on, as usual.
You might start beating a call for a true end of the “Occupation”—that is, the occupation of palestinians on the Land of Israel! This can be affirmed in several different ways:
1) militarily–the results of successful victories in the field where we were agressed upon;
2) by international fiat—the creation of the State of Israel by the UN, what would be considered a homeland for Jewish people and…
3) biblically—where much of the contested west bank territory was home for the figures in the Tenakh (old testament) and where our God directed us to live.
Take your pick of argument. But we have inherited this problem as the only latest chapter in history’s ongoing war against the jews and Israel and only when we stand on righteousness, that is, to say dead-eyed to pres. Bush and others: “The Land is ours and we’re keeping it” will we start getting blessed with having our enemies “vanquished.”
I like your writing and commitment.
Kol hakavod (honor to you)
It’s all about statistics. The world is superficially concerned about the six million Jewish deaths rather than twenty million Russian in the WWII because the entire Eastern European Jewry has been wiped out, while the Russian nation was only dented.
It’s also about savagery. Jews were murdered with unexpected – historically standard – cruelty, while Russians were mostly killed in the normal military operations.
The world built around the Christian “Love your neighbor” is a pipe dream. It never existed nor ever would. The world built around the Jewish “Love your neighbor” is ruthlessly practical: it only loves neighbors, never – aliens.
The world never changes. Plays of Euripides resound with our souls today; the twentieth-century wars, if anything, were bloodier than Persian-Greek wars, and equally savage. The religions proclaimed thousands of years ago attract billions of adherents. Morals don’t change. Never.
Some of Israel’s best friends recognize the immense treachery of the US Administrations pushing Israel to the suicidal peace process – a lopsided path of capitulation to the Arab enemy. Our friends, however, lament that there is no solution. That’s untrue, and they usually recognize that immediately by clarifying that there’s no morally acceptable solution. Check your morals.
In terms of morals, European settlers in America were remarkably similar to Jewish settlers in Canaan. The gap of three thousand years is nothing, and the subsequent two centuries mean even less. Germans – the most civilized European nation; French – the most cultured European nation; Russians – the most soul-scratching nation; Italy – the tenderest nation; all of them committed immense atrocities just decades ago. Would someone imagine a change in homo sapiens mentality in a matter of decades?
The permanent peace in the Middle East is unattainable. It is similarly unattainable in any other place on earth. It is a matter of biology and million-year-old animal behavior: nations fight. No well-wisher would change that.
Long periods of peace are easy to come by. The horrible details are well known. In order to be safe from your enemy, kill him first. If someone wants to kill you, kill him first. Don’t investigate his mentality. Don’t break your head trying to invent the terms acceptable to him. There are none. Conflicts between nations are not business disputes, and cannot be arbitrated. It is all-or-nothing, the matter of national pride and therefore national existence. Just like Maccabeus and bar Kochba bet the Jewish existence, so should the Jews today – unless they want to pitifully praise the millennia-old heroism in the festivals devoid of meaning.
Like the old heroes? Go produce a few new ones.
Jews can safely exist in the state of Israel. Safely to a degree. Safe for some time. To an unknown degree. For unknown time. The safety won’t come through conferences, peace settlements, or two-state solutions. If Jews want a state like other nations, then they should build a state like other nations did. By cleansing the desired land of our enemies.
By killing the 0.2% of the world’s Muslims still alive on the 0.5% of the Middle East’s land.
Paula writes,
I am on your e-mail list. I want to applaud your devotion to Israel and your clarity and straight forwardness in your position statements and articles on the disgusting state of affairs in Israel and the world as it impacts Israel.
It would be encouraging if someone in the Israeli government would subscribe to even 10% of your comments.
I know how much time I spend daily reading about or advocating for Israel. You must spend the better part of each day. I am just finishing Londonistan by Melanie Phillips (it’s been out for a few years.) If you have not yet read it, it is compelling and very discouraging – yet again.
Israel is insane to continue with this charade of peace talks. You can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results. By the grace of God, Israel has been the victor of the many Nazi-Muslim wars of attempted genocide against them and yet prostrates itself as the loser who must make concessions!
It might be a cliche for some, but the plain truth remains: Kahane was right. The sooner Israel recognizes and acts upon this harsh reality the better – if it’s not too late already.
Ted and Yamit, I think you both have read too much into Jeremiah Wails’ (Hingston’s) comment then the precise point he actually dealt with.
He makes the point that the use of the word terrorist is relative to who is using it and against whom. To that limited extent he makes a valid enough point. You might criticize his point as being too general or not going far enough, but to the limited extent he engaged the issue, it was fair enough.
Unless he intends to take his point somewhere however, it was pointless to make the point he did.
The question I therefore have is that Jeremiah Wails having made his point, where is he going with it?
If Jeremiah Wails would answer that question, there may be more hearty grist for the discussion and debate mill.
David BenAriel,
In saying Meir Kahane was right, just what was he right about?
The following are several Kahane positions taken from Wikpedia. Which of these are you agreeing and disagreeing with and why:
I figured that Narvey would defend the Nazi: No surprise here! Andrew is just about the only commenter here that is not too distant from Bills own ideas. Isn’t it odd that Bill is the only one to defend Andrew?
David Ben Ariel is a Messianic Christian who would use any means to suck Jews into his insidious web even by Using Kahane. I disputed Kahane on methods not content or principles. He was in fact mostly right. Our recent history has shown that! and ea, day that goes by shows to be even more correct. He also understood that theocracy would not be accepted by most Jews and never seriously pushed the issue. He was part of the democratic process here when he was alive. There is a difference between ideal and the possible, in this he was a realist. He was not a racist just ethnocentric. He loved Jews of any color. He raised questions that no one had ans. to. This is always good . Difficult questions should always be presented.
Yamit, I see your New Year’s reflections have not cleansed your mind or your soul. Your scurrilous baseless insults, picking up from where you left off yesterday, reveal the ugliness of your petty, narrow and closed one track right wing extremist mind that lacks the capacity for any objectivity and reason.
I allowed this comment from Andrew because I felt the issue of terrorism should be addressed by us. Furthermore we should entertain divergent views if only to strike them down.
JW doesn’t have commenting privileges. He did this comment in the hope I would approve it. I had considerable misgivings not because of what he wrote in this comment but because of what he wrote in this email I posted and other comments.
He often bares his teeth and shows venomous anger. Its almost like he is schizophrenic. One day he shows calm and another day he show intense anger.
I am still conflicted about having any kind of discourse with him.
Re. No. 24.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough earlier. My objection is to the use of highly-charged, conclusory, and derogatory language, the purpose of which appears to be to cut off rational discussion rather than promote it. My objection is to calling anyone a terrorist, or a Nazi, or a Communist, or a … you name it. It is usually just as easy, and shows a lot more integrity, to describe the specific events and let each of us decide what label they deserve, if any. If Yasser Arafat was a terrorist, so was Yitzak Shamir, was my point. And so what? People act as terrorists when they feel justified in acting as terrorists — what name you call them is not going to get them or anyone else to rethink their positions carefully or to adjust their behavior.
But if you engage with them on the specific subject of what they might settle for in order to stop acting as terrorists, you might find that it isn’t as all or nothing as “the complete destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.” You might in fact discover that it’s something actually doable, like withdrawing to inside the Green Line and staying there. To some of you, like Yamit82, that is not doable; is even unthinkable. To some, like me, it seems perfectly doable and probably inevitable. Do it now and save lives, money, and anguish; or do it later, after you’ve already lost the lives, spent the money, and endured the anguish. I would rather have a 1948-sized Israel at peace with her neighbors than an Israel the size of Texas still at war, and still begging for help from the USA, another 60 or 100 years from now.
That’s me; that’s my preference after some 40 years of thinking about it, and seeing Israel slowly but steadily lose its uniquely moral place in the world, only to become another dreadfully corrupt and ungovernable little country in the Middle East. It’s great that it’s a democracy, but then again so is Italy, and it hasn’t done them much good either.
I don’t live in Israel, and I don’t know the measure of Israel’s willingness to fight on forever at who knows what cost to both the bodies and souls of this and future generations. I do know that, as both an American citizen and a British (and therefore EU) citizen, I am bone-tired of every year being the same as the last one, of hearing and reading the same rubbish in the news on both sides of the issue, of being told that one side is right and the other is wrong, and of my tax money being shoveled at people who have no intention of laying down their arms and finding a way forward toward peace. The Jews in Israel (and many in America and elsewhere) are as much at fault as the Palestinians and their backers. A pox on both their houses. As an historian friend of mine in New York puts it: kill all of them.
On a different point, raised by Ted’s reply to my posting, some of you may know that both Ted and I are lawyers. Yet more often than not, we seem to have studied and practiced in parallel universes, not in the same one. For example, every time I read or hear the words “international law,” my alarm bells go off, just as they do when I read or hear the words “natural law.” Law is the prerogative of the sovereign — whether it’s a king, or a rabbi, or a parliament, or a tripartite sovereign such as America’s three-branches-of-government-none-greater-than-the-others . Sovereigns occasionally — often at the end of long wars when everyone is too tired or too broke to keep fighting — enter into agreements with other sovereigns. But agreements are not laws, because they rarely even pretend to have an enforcement mechanism. Even when they pretend to have one, its almost always a sham. Britain and France agreed to support Poland against the Nazis. When the time came, they didn’t. Poland was unable to enforce the agreement. Hitler had a good laugh. International law indeed. Not much has changed. The UN has never had sui generis enforcement powers; such as it has are all the results of specific deals cut for specific purposes. The recently constituted courts of international justice, of which I approve, are there to render judgments, but have trouble at the front end of the process. They have to rely on diplomacy to catch the bad guys and bring them before the court.
So who is there to enforce these “international laws” that Ted invokes? What makes them more powerful than the unenforceable agreement Poland had with England and France? In any case, I think Israel might wish to be very hesitant, as it has so far been, about invoking the Geneva Conventions or accusing anyone in the Middle East of war crimes. I seem to recall that Belgium had the chutzpah to charge Ariel Sharon with their violation (’82 Lebanon War/ Sabra & Shatilla), and might even have sought his extradition had not the USA, through its Belgium-based candy factory, NATO, not made it clear to the Belgians that the USA was not amused.
Bill what has upset you ? I only spoke what I see as the truth. You like Andrew You advocated keeping him on , You found nothing terribly offensive in what he says or said: You want a debating partner even if he is the Devil! fine but at least be honest at least with yourself and admit it. Alex said already pretty much what I have wanted to say for a long time but I really didn’t want to get into a personal fight with you.. I still don’t but you are adverse to any criticism and if you were self confident and had the basic maturity you might listen if not agree with what others who do not agree with you think. Maybe just maybe some of them might be right and you wrong! a few Days ago your friend Andrew had an email posted on this site by Ted, in which he wished violence or Death against a substantial assortment of public figures including Israpundit and its staff. His posting was largely ignored, next time its all copacetic and he sends email; for him at least very banal not very well thought out and not really seeking to be too controversial. You discount all that has been all of what most of us think and in your last line:Jeremiah Wails would answer that question, there may be more hearty grist for the discussion and debate mill.t line: which means as a debater you didn’t find what he said sufficient to continue but if he did this or that we can continue: For you the debate is all: and it doesn’t matter to you one whit who you are debating! Not that you will convince anyone , you like to debate period.
My mind and my soul are fine and intact, thank you very much
I don’t think my remarks were scurrilous,and baseless, just the truth as I see it!
I never meant it as an insult and if what I accused you of is not the truth say it It is not true!
next one is what I liked best:
I have the capacity to be objective when it isn’t personal! Yes I would be considered right wing but so to one degree or another so are almost 70% of all Israelis (JEWS). One track sure but I am capable of arguing any position but not from conviction like you just for the fun of debate and making points. When I comment on most posting here it is from deep sense of conviction as I happen to be intimately involved and not a distant observer. Your last inference or first to be exact calling my mind ugly, that zinger really hurts, for this you should apologize just that word all the rest no problema!!
Ted do you not have any suspicions as to why anyone after taking the verbal pounding and treatment he received on Israpundit keeps coming back. That in itself should say it all. If you want controversy and a lot of heated debate bring in Ami or others but not verifiable Nazi sickos.
Yamit, you have a vision problem.
As to Hingston, I made it clear some time ago what I thought of his views. I am no fan of his or anyone else that finds favor with the likes of Norman Finkelstein.
Hingston then wrote a piece, the substance of which I don’t recall, but it was not in the vein of his comments I found so distasteful. It was that piece that led Ted to think he might allow Hingston to continue blogging with us, but in the end for reasons he did not articulate just found Hingston too odious as he put it and probably because Hingston saw some merit in Norman Finkelstein’s views.
Hingston is obviously well informed and articulate, though sometimes he devotes more of his writing to being articulate then reasoned and reasonable.
I figured if he would present his views in the manner of that other piece that was not offensive and presented well reasoned arguments for any particular position that you, I and others might take issue with, it would make for an interesting challenge to formulate better arguments to overcome his.
Further as I have pointed out, generally speaking it is informative and educational and even a very good exercise for one’s mind to deal with well stated views that do not accord with your own. To that extent I have encouraged Ted to have good and informed writers from the left and extreme right contribute and test us all in responding.
Ted posted an e mail from Hingston about a week or so ago that I advised you was so way over the top in its venom against I think David Horowitz and others, that I thought he might have penned that after imbibing enough liquor to open the gate to let all his inhibitions out. His e mail was so bizzare articulated in a manner unlike the rest of his writings that it seemed that it was not even written by the same Hingston I took such a dislike to.
As for Hingston’s post in #16, I took it as nothing more then his ruminations in the abstract on the phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. You assumed he was linking it to the Israel – Palestinian conflict in particular, even though he stated he was not commenting on the issue as regards Palestinians.
In any event I did not see that Hingston linked the point to any issue in particular. Even if he was, he needed to be far more explicit to clearly make any particular point in that regard.
Accordingly, in my view Hingston really said nothing in the 800 or so words he used to pontificate on his point that the question of who is a terrorist is a matter of relative perceptions of the one who is called the terrorist and the one who counters with a denial of being a terrorist and an assertion that he is a freedom fighters.
I figured if Hingston grounded his point in some real issue such as the Israel – Palestinian conflict, then we could all see where he was going with his thoughts and there may have been something worth debating.
Now you tell me Yamit, how in the world do you get from all this that I am defending Hingston.
Further, I would not agree that Hingston is a Nazi. I am not quite sure how I would characterize him. He seems left wing, but I am not certain. He seems from some of his writing to be a self loathing Jew or Jewish anti-Semite, but again, I am not sure that completely defines who he is.
Hingston certainly appears to see Israel in a less kindly light then we do as regards relationships with the Palestinians, but I can’t say that he is calling for the Palestinians and Arabs to redouble their genocidal efforts to murder the Jews.
From my recollection of Norman Finkelstein’s writing, while he has been rightly in my mind characterized as a self loathing Jew or a Jewish antisemite, I do not recall him applauding Hitler and his murderous band of Nazis.
For these reasons, I think calling Hingston a Nazi misses the mark.
Bill do you believe as many have stated on pundit and others that the Pali covenant is based on Nazi ideology? if yes than anyone Jew or Gentile is defacto defending Nazi ideology when supporting the Palis or using moral relativism in defending them. whether a professed Nazi or not by defending Islamofascism and the Palis he is defending in fact a form of Nazism ! This then are people you want to debate with? for what purpose other than your personal need to debate. I said before if your need is so compelling ask for his e mail and write to him directly why do we need to suffer him just because you like to debate?I can find for hundreds of intellectual Left wing liberal idiots and the writings for you to comment upon, why Andrew?
…for feedback..did the Romans rename ancient Israel Palestine because they knew the power to create or destroy with a word/name? Why does no one ask why the Arab Emeritus has more money than they know what to do with from oil and have even one starving or homeless person? Israel geographically is the size of a postage stamp, how can one not feel shame at blaming them for the ills of the Arab world and the world at large? Palestinians are Arabs and while Jordan is “small” compared to other Arab countries, they have some land to share don’t they? Anyone remember how technologically advanced we are and how we functionally do not need all the oil we think? Buckkminster Fuller, Tesla ring any bells for just two of many examples? What about the meetings before the establishment of Israel, Lord Balfour, etc….On a prime time American news show at least 20 years ago, Arab Princes said, “we have more money than we know what to do with.” Truth is in the public forum and if people would stop reading sensationalistic misinterpretations by people who have clearly not studied “from the source,” Truth might stand a chance. Right now climbing on a rocket to Mars is less frightening for far too many. Study Ezekial from the perspective of Physics, Our Creator is logical, it’s OK to reason, and it’s better to study science and spirituality because then a full and multiple dimensions are revealed. The Kabbalah is so demonized by those who have never studied….yet modern science is just catching up to it. Read the Kabbalah and read the New Testament. More than one writer has made good cases for Yeshua aka Jesus Christ being a Kabbalist Adept…the right arm of The Good Lord of Israel…lots of food for thought and less time for misplaced hostilities. Sesame Street and Wizard of Oz are two good examples of secular sources for “living on planet Earth,” wisdom. The Zen and Tao of Winnie the Pooh…so much good to connect. Perhaps Rabbi Hillel’s timeless words can also be said to say, “live and let live.” And what Rabbis taught Yeshua?
Regarding ports, people should have been “up in arms,” about Dubai wanting to buy major ports. There may have been fewer people objecting to this very real and serious threat than when Classic Coke was almost taken off the market. Only the entries and exits of our country. Does anyone really know what one world can mean, good or bad? And none of that, “what works or doesn’t work,” stuff. It’s our differences and our civil/human rights when truly respected that that can create a truly peaceful “one world.” False peace will get false, short lived, and undesired results.
Re. No. 34
There is an apparently thorough discussion of the Palestinian Covenant on Wikipedia, suggesting that at various times and in various ways the Covenant has been stripped of both its more offensive language and of its importance altogether. It is, after all, a document dating from 1963, based not on some hypothetical Nazi Ideology, but on Nasser’s Pan-Arab Charter. One thing to be learnt from the Wikipedia article is that there is no single version of the PC that has authority above all others. Reading it therefore means either reading all the versions, including also (1) proposals for changes that have been accepted in theory but never implemented, and (2) glosses provided by Arafat, Rabin, and Clinton in an exchange of letters at the time of the Oslo Accords, or it means picking one of the available versions and hoping that it’s close enough.
I did the latter, reading the 1968 version available on the Avalon Project website at the Yale Law School.
Well, yes, it contains pretty much what one might expect — but it certainly doesn’t sound like a Nazi-influenced document. For one thing, it explicitly states that the Jews living in Palestine prior to 1948 are be welcome to stay, and will be considered Palestinians (meaning given full citizenship). Nothing Nazi about that. For another, the rhetoric of the Covenant is almost entirely that of the Communist revolutionary movements of the day — it sounds more like something coming from the pen of Fidel Castro than that of Adolf Hitler. The usual claptrap of imperialist aggression versus the indomitable revolutionary spirit of the people of Palestine. It even manages to refer to Zionism as fascism, which is about as un-Nazi as a comment can be.
Is there stuff in the Covenant that I approve of? Broadly speaking, yes, there is. I approve of the right of self-determination as a general concept — a Wilsonian concept, not a Hitlerian one — and that includes for Palestinians. Forcing solutions down the throats of those in no position to object is supposed to be un-American, and though not un-British throughout history, it is un-British now (thank God). I also believe that the Palestinians have what lawyers call a colorable case, or a prima facie case, for claiming that the establishment of Israel by UN dictate in 1948, was simply illegal. That doesn’t mean that I know how the case would turn out if tried. It does mean that I think the Palestinians should have their day in court if they want it. Of things in the Covenant I found unacceptable, I definitely don’t agree with the denunciation and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration. However, it should be kept in mind that the Declaration was a very tepid if fine sounding document in its day, with absolutely no force (since it appeared in a private letter), which has, in all the turmoil since, been totally ignored by everyone who wanted to ignore it, including those who founded modern Israel. Reading it now is like reading a What If? scenario.
Do I find the Palestinian Covenant so terrible and frightening a document that it alone justifies an end to talks? No, I don’t — I think it is exactly what one would expect from people in the position the Palestinian people saw themselves in in the mid-1960s and still see themselves in. Before reading it, I expected something truly horrific. What I read was something sounding remarkably like the Charter of the United Farmworkers of California. This is not very frightening stuff, and it definitely isn’t Nazi either in origin or in nature.
JW should read The War on Zionism
When JW writes
He obviously is out of his depth. He has no knowledge of the facts and reality in this issue. If I can prove him wrong, I am sure he still won’t change his mind. Here are just some more articles.
Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive.
Fitzgerald: The ‘Two-State Solution’: Folly based on folly
So JW prefers to deny reality but he does more
How insulting and ignorant and leftist that he considers Jews and Arabs equally to blame. Everything flows from this vision. But he is proven wrong my guess he will ignore fault and still want the ’67 borders. It lies ill in the mouth to write kill them all and hide behind his friend. Only a person who shared the sentiment would repeat it.
He also is tired of hearing of the problem. How much more tired does he think Israel is of having the EU constantly take the side of the Arabs and support terror by the Arabs and interfere in what should be between Israel and the Arabs. He and the EU and his leftist friends should butt out.
JW dismisses my reference to international law such as it is. He is absolutely right that it only exists in the minds of some but cannot be enforced. Yet everything Israel does is scrutinized by leftists and human rights organization as war crimes and warrants are even issued in some EU countries naming various IDF officers who they want to charge with war crimes. From Israel’s point of view, it is very real. Would that all his buddies would drop it. Only Israel’s feet are put to the fire and the terrorists get off scot free.
I have no interest in charging the terrorists. I merely wanted to point out that while he is busy condonning their terrorism he is condemming Israel fo excessive force along with all Europe. If he is going to whitewash the Arab terrorists at least he should whitewash Israel but he doesn’t. Jeez I hate repeating myself.
Bill your comment #24 is too superficial. JW said a great deal. It is easy to discern where he is going with it without the need to ask him.
You said he said
So did I. But who would make such a point and why. You totally ignore it. Anyone who says one man’s terrorist is another’s hero, when the terrorist is blowing up buses with children on is to be condemned not debated.
Re. No. 39.
Ted, this isn’t simple arithmetic, it’s intricate global politics. You can prove that 2+2 does not equal 5. But in this the only thing that will prove one of us right or wrong is looking back in another twenty years (I think we both have that much time left on our clocks) to see what has happened. Your articles, passionate as they are, are proof of nothing. Your crystal ball is no clearer than anyone else’s, and even if it were, that is no guarantee that anyone would pay more attention to you than to, say, Saeb Erekat. (See, for example, SE’s answers to questions from Jerusalem Post readers: http://info.jpost.com/C004/QandA/qa.erekat.html)
Whether or not Jews and Arabs were equally to blame when all this began (I leave it to you to decide when that was) I do find Jews and Arabs equally to blame for the fact that it’s still going on. Perhaps you’re right when you and others say, “Just leave it to us; we can handle this.” However, the history of what happens when nations say that and other nations listen to them and go along with it, reads like the index to a history of genocide. I doubt you will get any American or European government to knowingly look away during another Sabra and Shatilla. It’s too ironic that America and Britain are still being blamed for looking the other way while the Holocaust roared on, while at the same time they are being asked to look the other way so that Israel can take care of its “Palestinian Problem.” You can say, “Oh, but that would never happen,” but Sabra and Shatilla offer a clear precedent in the wrong direction, and reading even a few of Yamit’s postings suggests that if you’d only provide him with enough ammunition, he’d gladly murder every non-Jew within any part of Eretz Yzroel. Frankly, I find the rantings of the Yamits of modern Israel substantially more worrisome than anything in the Palestinian Covenant. That doesn’t mean I think either is right (I think both are wrong); it only means that one worries me far more than the other.
I would gladly step aside and do my best to ignore what happened afterward, save for one thing: my tax dollars and pounds and euros are all wrapped up in this mess, and by extension countries of which I am a citizen have assumed partial responsibility for it. So before I will simply turn aside and let a country of hot heads (any country of hot heads) go berserk in the name of peace, I would at least want all the money that country had received at my expense to be repaid with interest. When that happens, we can talk about getting out of the way. Until that happens, we cannot.
JW
You can’t dismiss me so easily. I don’t need a crystal ball. I just have to study what the arabs say and do. I will not let you ignore facts.
At the least one is entitled to make conclusions based on past actions and words and act accordingly. If you continue to not deal with this then I won’t waste my time with you.
As for Erekat or any other propagandist for the Arabs, they all lie and misinform.. Not interested. I just have to look at what they say to their own and what they do. That’s not prejudice, it is bitter experience.
Check this out.
Fatah remains the terrorists they always have been
I see you are also accusing Israel or my intentions of genocide. Fuck off.
Yamit, you asked as regards Nazis and Palestinians:
My answer to your question is, no.
The Palestinian covenant as you call it, I believe refers to the first PLO Constitution and the subsequent Fatah and Hamas charters, all of which call in one way or another for the destruction of Israel and taking all the land of Israel for Palestinians.
To say that these Palestinian founding documents are based on Nazi ideology, is to ignore the great influence of the religion of Islam and its demonization of Jews, Islamic history and culture that put into practice Islamic demonization of Jews and the perception and treatment of Jews as dhimmis and as well the increasingly virulent anti-Zionist Jew hatred based history of the region that began to gain increasing momentum by the early 1900′s. Haj Amin al-Huseini, leader of the Arabs in the region, who ultimately was appointed by Britain as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, did much to burn that Jew hatred into the Arab psyche which hatred has been burnt into the minds of each successive generation of Arabs.
That is what I believe to be the primary influences behind these Palestinian charters.
That said, it is indisputable that Haj Amin Al-Huseini by 1939 had taken note of Hiter and saw common cause with him to the extent of Hitler’s deep hatred of Jews and his Nazi agenda to rid Europe of Jews.
Husseini, as we all know offered Hitler his aid and support to rid the Palestian mandatory territory of Jews and in fact Husseini opened an office in Germany for that purpose while acting in furtherance of that purpose in then Palestine.
The Arab association with Hitler and the Nazis in their common Jew hatred may have had some influence on Arab dreams for the genocide of the Jews in Palestine which found expression in these aforementioned Palestinian founding documents. If so, I expect that such influence, if any would have been incidental and may have reinforced the Jew hatred cultural thinking of the Arabs, but it was not determinative.
That said, there is an indisputable connection between the Nazis on the one hand and on the other, the Arabs generally and the Arabs who have since the 1960′s claimed a new idendity as the Palestinians and the Nazis.
The Jew hatred and goals in that regard of both the Nazis and the Palestinians, is sufficient to fairly characterize the Palestinians and those Muslim nations in the Middle East that share Palestinian Jew hatred and who support the Palestinians in their goals for Israel’s destruction, as the modern successors of the Hitler and his Nazis.
JW
On second thought don’t bother answering or sending me emails. I can’t stand you.. You stand with all those Jews who blame Israel for everything.
Bill a simple yes would have been sufficient! but since it is no:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51poygEXYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nnbmVtZ0QY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MvZLu1hY1k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmPfI956bAE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G71PSF2qCI8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09ux7wV8xQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09ux7wV8xQ&feature=related
This is only the tip of the iceberg just in you tube goo look for yourself if you after all this still say mo you are as closed minded as AH
Ted, I concur with your comment in # 40 and #42.
As regards your comment # 38 regarding my reading Jeremiah’s comment too simplistically, when I had posted my comments, I did so as regards his post #16. I did not note that Jeremiah had again posted in comment #29. That post brought his theoretical generalities to grounded specifics.
I see that he has since posted comments #36 and 39. Now there is much to take issue with.
Since you have summed up where he is coming from in your post #40 and #42 and your intention to have nothing further to do with him, I will not bother to comment further except to make one comment regarding one of his statements in his post #29 where he states:
It is not that Israel has lost its moral place in the world, but rather it suits and furthers the interests of many nations and people to say they see things that way. I doubt most who feel it necessary and important for their own interests to say that, actually believe it.
Hingston draws moral equivilences between Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs that are as malicious as they are dishonest and takes Israel to task for sins not committed.
From the way Hingston now expresses himself in these latter posts, it appears he not only says these things, but he has come to believe them.
I chuckled to see Hingston once again trot out his credentials as a lawyer and self proclaimed student of history, if not an adept scholar as if that gives him some advantage over the rest of us in analyzing and understanding these issues. He really is an arrogant peacock who has fallen prey to his own arrogance and come to believe that since he thinks it, he must be right.
News flash for Hingston.
No one here is afraid to cross swords with him. His C.V. that he keeps raising does not mean he has a sword any bigger then those here. In fact, his sword is smaller then many. I expect most probably would best him if it was felt engaging him would serve some useful purpose.
To conclude, as I stated at the outset Ted, given Hingston’s views in his further posts, I see no reason to engage with this fellow any further.
Jeremiah Wails is a pedant at best or a demagogue at worst. Fortunately, he is only a lawyer and not a judge. By quoting someone else: “Kill them all” he removes personal responsibility for the statement. His “rationality” is a cover for deep feelings that he has not plumbed. The very silly idea that living within the 1948 boundaries will being peace to the Jews or Arabs is his idea of a solution. All he apparently wants to do is get the Jews out of his eyes. I’ll bet dollar to donuts that he has never had the personal courage to make his statements about “equal responsibility” to Arabs committed to wiping Israel off the map. He surely knows that Jews carry the prohibition of not killing him simply because they disagree with him, but committed Arabs hold the opposite view, that those who disagree must be eliminated. If he cannot intuit that culture trend among the Arabs, then he has not read about the killings of Lebanese politician or the mass murders in Iraq of people doing their weekly shopping or the immigration of Christian Arabs from their ancestral homes. He may not even have heard about the World Trade Center destruction all the way back in 2001.
Most important, Jeremiah Wails has not dealt with “the day after” phenomenon: the day after Israel left Gaza, the thirty years after Israel left the Sinai, the five years after Israel left Lebanon, etc. His grasp of reality is based upon pre-judgment that is informed by the legal profession, not by the reality of blood and guts life and death decisions. He knows that agreements are kept only when convenient, but has not problem suggesting that Israel place its confidence in people who believe just as he does, that if it is convenient, the Arabs will let the Jews live; if not they will repeatedly attempt to kill them. In short, from his statements it appears that Jeremiah Wails has no means at his disposal for distinguishing salient differences among people.