Bibi is being smart about it
By Ted Belman
The Netanyahu government is looking good to me. First, Netanyahu studiously avoided giving anything away upfront to the consternation of the EU and Livni.
He offered negotiations on “three parallel tracks, economic, security and diplomatic” with the Palestinian Authority. As the NYT put it Netanyahu Offers Conciliation, but Not Concessions
His sole position on the peace process was that he would abide by all signed agreements.
As Minister Lieberman made forcefully clear today, that didn’t include Annapolis. The International community was dying to make discussions under Annapolis binding on Israel but the Netanyahu government would have none of it and came out of the gate stressing this point.
In Understanding Netanyahu, I pointed out that Bibi intended to take Bush’s “vision speech” of 2002 as his point of reference.
Even the Roadmap isn’t a signed agreement. Let’s look at it.
-
[..] A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty, and through Israel’s readiness to do what is necessary for a democratic Palestinian state to be established, and a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement as described below.
The emphasis on a “negotiated settlement” precludes an imposed solution which is currently what the Obama Administration would like to do..
-
However, as a performance-based plan, progress will require and depend upon the good faith efforts of the parties, and their compliance with each of the obligations outlined below.
There is no way progress can be made under this roadmap so long as there is violence and the Arabs will never give up on the use of violence.
-
A settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours.
Notice the word “sovereign” is left out.
But it wasn’t in this later paragraph.
-
# Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.
It is plain that the word “sovereign” is used here. Netanyahu has come out against a sovereign state so this will be problematic.
He is offering “limited sovereignty” otherwise known as autonomy.
-
The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the occupation that began in 1967, based on the foundations of the Madrid Conference, the principle of land for peace, UNSCRs 242, 338 and 1397, agreements previously reached by the parties, and the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah - endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit - calling for acceptance of Israel as a neighbour living in peace and security, in the context of a comprehensive settlement.
It is important to point out that the addition of “the initiative of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah” was inserted at the last minute but it was not included as an “agreement previously reached”. Legally it has little if any import as the terms of settlement must be negotiated based on the “foundations ” of a number of factors. It is also in conflict with Res 242 which guarantees “secure borders” otherwise known as defensible borders.
But in a later paragraph the Saudi Plan is left out.
-
# Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel-Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfils the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.
The process was divided into phases and “in each phase, the parties are expected to perform their obligations in parallel, unless otherwise indicated.
-
Phase I: Ending terror and violence, normalising Palestinian life, and building Palestinian institutions
This phase also included
-
Settlements
# GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.
# Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).
It all depends on whether a settlement is a “settlement”. Settlements are not defined by the Roadmap. Bibi has made coalition agreements to build in E1 and other places.. This means that he takes the position that towns which Israel doesn’t intend to retreat from, are not “settlements”.
“internal growth” was hotly negotiated between Israel and the US over the years and certain understandings were reached. Bibi is intent on continuing construction based on such understandings. But the US and Israel differ on what they are.
But the Roadmap is not an agreement between parties. It was not signed by the parties. Each party simply voted to proceed with it.
When Sharon complained about the insertion of the reference to the Saudi Initiative, Powell rammed it down his throat with the words “its only a process”. And so it is.
And then there is the matter of the fourteen reservations voted on by Israel when she approved the Roadmap and the commitment of the US to give them “serious consideration”. They have yet to be considered.
But even if it was more than that, the first phase was supposed to be completed four years ago. In a normal agreement this delay would constitute a major default leaving nothing binding.
Netanyahu is being very diplomatic by saying he will work toward peace. Neither he nor Abbas want to walk away from the table. Let the other guy be the obstructionist.
The international community has little clout because Israel is abiding by all agreements. No one can force a solution on Israel or prevent them from building if Israel is prepared to take charge of the process as Bibi intends to do.
That is not to say that the international community won’t try.
belman: All previous U.S. Presidents were interested in obtaining a final negotiated settlement in the mid-east. But never had there been such difficult times as the present. Two wars raging in the region, the rise of international Islamic terrorism, and the global economic crises as well as an energy crises renders a Israel-Palestinian solution as an urgent necessity. There is no time now for staged partial agreements spread over many years. Both the E.U. and America are in full agreement that whatever pressure is required to obtain the desired results will be applied on both parties. Netanyahu is smart enough to know the meaning of the word leverage- and both America and the E.U. have enormous leverage in this situation.
Comment by h peskin — April 1, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Excellent analysis. For the first time in a while I am hopeful that Bibi will actually come through with his promises. His treatment of Feiglin, whom I support and admire, was shocking.
Comment by emmess — April 1, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
I like the new Israeli government because:
The Gazans do not like it
The muslims in the West Bank do not like it
The PA does not like it
The Hezbollah do not like it
The Israeli left does not like it
The American left does not like it
The Egyptians do not like it
The Syrians do not like it
Saudi Arabia does not like it
In fact everyone who I disagree with hates it. That shows me that Israel is on the right track.
Now that PM Netanyahu and Min Lieberman are stating their positions, without media spin or interpretation, I like them even better.
The fact that the entire left is bemoaning the end of the ‘peace process’ is also good news. Maybe it will die a natural death, and new ideas will emerge. Ideas that have a much better chance of succeeding.
If Netanyahu keeps reminding the world that the muslims have some responsibility also to implement changes instead of Israel having to do all the heavy lifting, maybe world opinion will start slowly changing.
Things are looking up…finally
Comment by SarahSue — April 1, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
“There is no way progress can be made under this roadmap so long as there is violence and the Arabs will never give up on the use of violence.”
I wish contibutors to this site will please read and understand what the quotation clearly means. What’s it going to take for that to get into the heads of the reader. The Arabs did not want Israel there, they do not want Israel there now, and they will not rest until Israel leaves, one way or another. Why is this so difficult to understand and get it in your head. Stop this incessent intellectualizing!That will be the death of Israel yet!
I do not mean to sound cross, but there is only one way to setle this conflict and that is to settle it. That is not a tautology.
Comment by martin kessler — April 1, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
I forgot the best one…Peace Now hates it
Comment by SarahSue — April 1, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Waiting for your mea culpa! I don’t expect one from an asshole like you.
All previous U.S. Presidents were interested in obtaining a final negotiated settlement in the mid-east. But never had there been such difficult times as the present I can think of worse times like the Yom Kippur war and Arab oil Embargoes along with Vietnam etc.
There is no time now for staged partial agreements spread over many years.
what’s the rush. We have been fighting with the Arabs for a 100 years and other 100 or 500 years could still not solve the problem unless we drive the maggots out and off my land. But do explain why now is more urgent than at any other time.
Two wars raging in the region, the rise of international Islamic terrorism, and the global economic crises as well as an energy crises renders a Israel-Palestinian solution as an urgent necessity.
You keep saying in almost everyone of your comments the sae thig but never explain the connection with our conflict with that of the Words economic woes or with American fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don’t so a connection so do explain why?
Both the E.U. and America are in full agreement that whatever pressure is required to obtain the desired results will be applied on both parties.
Ah now we have the crux of your argument America and the EU want it so we should give up our existence because they want. Do you know how many more Jews and your Arab friends and brothers will be killed by forcing imposed agreements(that have never held for more time than a quick scan of NYT front page)? But you piece of shit, don’t really care about the deaths of countless Jews and your Arab Brothers were you to impose a solution. Sanctions against us first and formost affect your Arab brothers as they will be the first to be permanently thrown to the unemployment dogs, What do you care though as long as Israel takes a hit.
You seem to be of the notion that might makes right and if both America and EU demand anything it must be done or else. Well may I point out two countries that are thumbing their noses at both those big powers Iran and N. Korea and many more around the globe past and present who have and are thumbing their noses with no apparent severe consequences.
Netanyahu is smart enough to know the meaning of the word leverage- and both America and the E.U. have enormous leverage in this situation
This may be your only possibly correct assumption. We can remove BB.
Comment by yamit82 — April 2, 2009 @ 1:55 am
The world wants Israel to agree to an outcome that precludes real negotiations. If a Palestinian state is the end of the process, why bother to negotiate? It can be better accomplished by imposing it upon Israel. And that is a lot easier said than done. Czechoslovakia was never prepared to defend its own existence in the face of abandonment by its allies. Israel is not going to make that mistake. In any event, the Palestinians are not interested in compromise with Israel and even in getting what they say they want. They will never accept any statehood formula that does not allow them to destroy what is left of Israel later. So any talk of the Road Map and peace is an oxymoron because the other side rejects the existence of the Jewish State. Simple and straight.
Comment by NormanF — April 2, 2009 @ 2:08 am
Hi, Peskin.
I see that Yambo already gave you his usual spiel, the sort of thing I no longer bother reading; but I’ll comment on my own. You said,
“Two wars raging in the region, the rise of international Islamic terrorism, and the global economic crises as well as an energy crises renders a Israel-Palestinian solution as an urgent necessity.”
1. “Two wars raging in the region”: I presume you mean Iraq and Afganistan, or perhaps Iraq and Sudan, or Sudan and Somalia. None of these involve Israel.
2. “The rise of international Islamic terrorism”. Are you referring to Hamas and Hizbullah? None of those parties are interested in any sort of “Israel-Palestinian solution”: They desire, with all their heart, to erase Israel from the map. If you’re talking about Al Qaeda, they have bigger fish to fry: They attacked the US, killing 3000 of us, seven years before claiming any attack on Israel; and they began attacking us ten years before that.
3. “An Energy Crisis”. What on earth does that have to do with Israel? Do you realize that most of the interruption of flow of oil in the Middle East has happened in Iraq and Iraqi-occupied Kuwait? Israel has had nothing to do with that. In fact, the Moslems have been routinely slaughtering Moslems in that area by the hundreds of thousands, making the Jewish vs. Arab conflict look like a Sunday School picnic.
That seems to answer every point you made. You seem to be just repeating mindless rhetoric from the media. In the real world, there is no connection between the problems you mention and what is happening in Israel.
——————–
On another front, Ted,
Bibi Netanyahu is being straightforward and reasonable. I don’t think the people of this world consider that sort of thing “smart”. The Moslems have been running around like mad dogs, frothing at the mouth for years now, and the whole world proclaims them to be brilliant! I’ve just finished watching a TV special on the Shoah — You know, that historical episode where those highly cultured and educated Germans decided that by mercilessly mistreating and slaughtering helpless women and children, they could solve all their national problems. They, too, were considered “brilliant” in their day. Bibi is trying to be wise and just; but if he personally developed a cure for cancer and AIDS, the world will call him anything but what he is. To them, he’s barbaric, sinister, you name it — because he’s a Jew, and only because he’s a Jew.
There is no “smart” way to deal with a world full of rabid animals. You can pen them in, or use psychology on them, or starve them, or feed them. No matter what you do to them, smart or stupid, they will still rage at you and try to kill you until they die from their own sickness.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — April 2, 2009 @ 2:49 am
I think it is worth pointing out that Arab Muslims will not accept Israel handing itself over to them peacefully. For Arab Muslims, and Muslims in general, it is essential that Israel is conquered by force of arms and blood, for it is only then that the conquest will be “sanctified”. The success of the Jihad requires shedding of blood, as well as the fact that it seals the conquest in perpetuity. in blood.
One sees this principle in operation even when the IDF or American and British forces, voluntarily withdraw from some Muslim country - Muslims will then attempt to show that they have actually been chased out.
Comment by DP111 — April 2, 2009 @ 5:50 am
Bibi is being smart about it?
BB was tied into the neocon study report called “Breakout” before during and even after his previous reign as PM, Many things have changed since then but then many things haven’t: As a backdrop to any current Policies of BB it is I think a must to be acquainted with this report. http://www.answers.com/topic/a-clean-break-a-new-strategy-for-securing-the-realm
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the “Clean Break” report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy and advancing right-wing Zionism.
FULL REPORT:
A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.” The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
The content of the report is organized into an introduction followed by six sections. The report interleaves within its main commentary text a series of “key passages of a possible speech.”
The introduction specifically proposes three new policies:
1. Rather than pursuing a “comprehensive peace” with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to “contain, destabilize, and roll-back” those entities that are threats to all three.
2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of “hot pursuit” anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat’s leadership.
3. Changing relations with the United States stressing self reliance and strategic cooperation.
“This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.”
“A New Approach to Peace”
“Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy”
“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”[1]
“Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq,including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. .. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.”
Comment by yamit82 — April 2, 2009 @ 7:31 am
The only way to deal with the Arabs in Israel and the liberated territories is to throw them out!
There was just an axe murder in the Judea and Samaria area where a 13 year old kid was axed to death by an Arab (suprise!).
The Israeli government’s soft stance toward Arab terrorism; i.e., no expulsion; no death penalty except for Nazi war criminals; etc., contributes mightly to this ongoing carnage.
Bibi strikes me as a schemer. If he has not learned anything since Clinton handed him his head at Wye, then his election was for nothing at all!
Comment by Underzog — April 2, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Martin, are you advocating….well the W word?
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 2, 2009 @ 9:07 am
I am sorry to say that I read only certain provisions of the Roadmap not realizing that the same issues were dealt differently in other sections so I added this addendum to my article.
ADDENDUM:
Phase I included more specifics which are troubling and are different than the opening remarks quoted above. I failed to read them when I prepared this article. The problem is that the same subject is said in different ways in different sections. I want to focus on “sovereignty” and the “Saudi initiative”.
# Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel, as expressed by President Bush, and calling for an immediate end to violence against Palestinians everywhere. All official Israeli institutions end incitement against Palestinians.
It is plain that the word “sovereign” is used here. Netanyahu has come out against a sovereign state so this will be problematic.
# Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement that ends the Israel-Palestinian conflict in 2005, through a settlement negotiated between the parties based on UNSCR 242, 338, and 1397, that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and includes an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, and a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide, and fulfils the vision of two states, Israel and sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.
This paragraph is different from the one in the preamble wjich I already quoted above. The final agreement makes no reference to the Saudi initiative and requires “a negotiated resolution on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides,..” This falls far short of requiring a divided Jerusalem.
Comment by Ted Belman — April 2, 2009 @ 9:31 am
The only person who makes much sense in the above is Mr Peskin. At least he states the problem clearly and the others seek to obscure it, especially Yamit82.
While Peskin takes this as fait accompli by Imperialism, I take the opposite view. But at least he states the central issue clearly.
Yamit82 talks so much he himself gets totally confused over the most basic issues and then proceeds to confuse everybody else withing radius.
As I said above only one thing matters re Netanyahu, the hit against the Iranian nuke programme.
Yamit82 is equivocal on that score. That sums up his politics for me. Wordy and dangerous.
Netanyahu is limited and his strength is that he knows it. Go back somebody to the interview with bloggers Jerry, Omri and Pamela had with Netanyahu. His position is dead clear. He has one historical role to perform and that is hit the Mullahs.
That will give time. But inside capitalism you have only a repeat of 1933 to 1945 and that is also the lessons of the Gaza War.
People could do worse than folow our arguments on http://www.4international.wordpress.com
Comment by Felix Quigley — April 2, 2009 @ 9:46 am
The right wing in Israel had a choice to make; either abort Oslo and the Roadmap or stress our rights under them.
The primary right is to have a negotiated settlement. Thus in theory, Israel can say no to compromises, but she must do many things she doesn’t want to do prior to reaching a negotiated settlement. We know that the international community will do everything to whitewash terror and to give the Palestinians a passing grade thereby obligating Israel to uproot settlements etc. It is a slippery road indeed.
Netanyahu is following these principles.
1. He doesn’t want to rule the Palestinians and
2. He wants to keep Israel secure so he wants to limit sovereignty.
3. Iran must be prevented from getting the bomb.
He has been silent on what settlements will need to be uprooted, if any, and he has been unclear on Jerusalem.
Comment by Ted Belman — April 2, 2009 @ 9:48 am
By Netanyahu knowing his limitations clearly you will find in that interview a clear call for a mass organization supporting Israel inside the ordinary American people. Once again that is the only real hope for Israel in the end. But first deal with the Mullah nukes.
It is on that basis, the strike against the Mullahs´ nukes that we on 4international ally with Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman.
But we on 4international politically and ideologically (we are Trotskyists) are independent of them. But they must carry out this historical role. If they do not it IS the end! So we place all our resources behind Israel in this.
Comment by Felix Quigley — April 2, 2009 @ 9:51 am
The international community didn’t abandon the Roadmap for Annapolis for no good reason. The Roadmap wasn’t working and so a different approach was necessary. It too didn’t work.
So now we are back to the unworkable Roadmap. The odds of it remaining unworkable are great. It wasn’t the answer six years ago and its not the answer now. But it buys time. Bibi must use his time to Israel’s advantage. Israel must continue to build in the settlements.
Comment by Ted Belman — April 2, 2009 @ 10:01 am
In the Daniel Pipes article dealing with Lieberman’s speech, this comment appeared
It is an extremely important article. Essentially it shows how the Bush vision speech principles were altered by the EU in the final draft of the Roadmap. While Bush was protective of Israel, the EU was protective of Arafat and the document shows it.
The article fails to deal with the inclusion of the Saudi initiative in the final draft. That would take an article in itself
Comment by Ted Belman — April 2, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Netanyahu and Europe’s New Crusade
CFR Netanyahu is all talk and no action when it comes to loving and preserving the Jewish homeland. He cannot be trusted! He’s proven it.
Netanyahu failed to make Oslo null and void; Netanyahu surrendered Hevron to hostile Arabs, imperiling its Jewish residents; and most wickedly - Netanyahu failed to open the Temple Mount to *Jewish worship as he said he would! The Temple Mount and dismembered parts of the Holy Land of Israel remain under enemy Arab occupation and we can expect the perilous peace process (dismantling Israel piece by piece) to accelerate when the Roman wolf in sheep’s clothing arrives and invokes UN Resolution 181 as the FINAL SOLUTION.
Europe’s New Crusade to impose Pax Romana won’t rest until they wrest Jerusalem from Israeli sovereignty, aided and abetted by Jewish collaborators.
*Benjamin Netanyahu: "The right of the Jewish people to its holy place - the Temple Mount - cannot be questioned…I believe it is necessary to arrange for Jewish prayer on the site, especially given that we permit freedom of worship to all the religions in Jerusalem…". And his office charged Palestinian officials with "disparaging Jewish holy sites and threatening potential worshippers" (in flagrant violation of Israel’s 1967 Law for the Protection of the Holy Placesand the Oslo Accords). His deputy director of communications, Michael Freund, responded to the PA mufti’s declaration of war (that Jews "…must absolutely forget about having any rights over the Temple Mount…the Western Wall is just a fence belonging to a Muslim holy site") by saying "these statements are repugnant and they betray a contempt for Judaism’s most sacred sites and beliefs. They are an affront to history and insulting to Jews everywhere."
Dangerous Ideas?
EU to Conquer Anglo-Saxons and Jews
Israel’s Only Way Out: Follow Kahane!
Comment by David BenAriel — April 2, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Felix I am not confused over the basic issues you are. Now I know you are one of at least three self proclaimed Trotskyites who claims to be pro Israel. I have a cousin in Toronto is is of your persuasion since he ran to Canada to escape the draft. He is as big Jew hater and anti Israel as they come. I haven’t spoken a word to him in almost 20 years. I hope he rots. He though is representative of 99.999% of all the real left in the west so my curiosity is peeked as to why you are any different. You don’t live here what you want for us is not exactly what we want for us and the blood to be spilled is our blood and not yours so when we give a serious opinion it is we who need deal with the consequences and not necessarily you, Your militant opinions if carried out carry with them consequences and the ones we don’t or can’t be foreseen are what gives me room and motivation for caution. Iran if they haven’t already , can purchase a bomb from a number of sources and in a number of ways. We have been living for some years with Pakistan who may have 50 bombs if not more. Egypt and Syria will have a bomb or two in a few years. Will we attack Egypt also? Pakistan as N korea can sell a complete system Missile and nuke armed war head, if they haven’t already.
I didn’t hear that clear call for mass organization of anything. “The only real hope for Israel” In your wet dreams only!
If we do something it isn’t to save your commie cowardly asses but our own. Spain and Ireland should attack if you had anything to attack with. Erin Go Bragh
Talk about confused? I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Waht resources would those be?
Even if you are correct, I suspect anyone who doesn’t have a direct vested interest in our continuance as a Jewish state and especially a commie armchair Rambo. Erin Go Bragh
Comment by yamit82 — April 2, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Please permit my reply to Bill Narvey’s direct question to me. He asks if I mean the “W” word. I assume he means War.
I will answer it with a question. Bill, why is it nations have standing armies? What power is conferred upon a nation by the existence of it’s army? Why have an army? It is because between nations power is the only argument, moderated if necessary by the prohibition of atrocities. No nation exists except by its power to enforce its survival by force. Until Israel comes to understand this, the conflict will continue and not to the vital national interests of Israel, but to its enemies. Nations are established by annihilating or assimilating your enemy.
I will ask Bill one more question. Does Israel have enemies?
Martin Kessler
mdk4130@aol.com
Comment by martin kessler — April 2, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Even though I disagree with the fallacious and insidious motivations of the Christian/Israelite wannabe who posted this comment I can’t disagree with is observations and conclusions. In those he is right on.
Jews who read and comment on Israpundit should read and consider seriously the points made here. If anyone has any arguments counter to his points and conclusions I would really love to see them in print here.
Comment by yamit82 — April 3, 2009 @ 2:21 am
Martin Kessler, don’t be impertinent! You were being rather coy in your comment #4 wherein you stated, without ending your point by saying only a war will settle things:
I found your comment Martin rather preachy and condescending. Most at Israpundit are as familiar as you with the Middle Eastern and Palestinian history of refusing to accept Israel’s right to exist. Most here are well aware that most of the Middle East and Palestinians only accept that Israel and the Jews must die or leave all of Israel to the Palestinians.
There is very good evidence to believe it likely that if Israel ever was wiped away and the Palestinians declared soverignty over all the land of former Israel, that their Arab brethren who for the most part, can’t stomach them and who have used the Palestinians all these years as a weapon against Israel, would not tolerate an independent Palestinian state, which would disappear almost as soon as it was declared. What was Israel would be the bone the Arab dogs would fight over.
As I said Martin we know all that.
So in speaking of war, let me ask you, war with whom first? Is there not a need for at least the semblance of a justifable pretext for a pre-emptive strike? Are you speaking of going after Iran should America do nothing, which appears to be just what America will do about Iran?
Surely Martin, you are not suggesting that Israel just secretly prepare for a massive war and one early morning she should mount a surprise attack on the Palestinians, on Iran, on Syria, on Lebanon? With so many spy satellites in the sky, it is virtually impossible for anyone to do anything like prepare for war without the world watching the preparations from above.
There goes the element of surprise!
Just what does Israel need to do to deflect or at least blunt world anger with and pressure upon Israel? Are there not risks that Israel’s planned contained war could burn out of control and Israel could get burnt by blowback?
Obviously Martin a war that brings about a decisive result hopefully in Israel’s favour can very much change the facts on the ground and a new peace paradigm that before could only be imagined, could now be imposed.
How does Israel get from here to there Martin? And Martin according to you, just where is there in terms of the peace paradigm you imagine could be within Israel’s grasp if only she made war to get to peace instead of what she has been doing which is making peace to get to war.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 3, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
Narvey Kessler philosophically is correct and probably practically as well. You are right that the use of force must be used if possible taking in all foreseeable contingencies that on balance might and should mitigate the use of force if foreseeable consequences would entail more negatives than positives in so far as war aims are concerned. Wars are very costly in all ways so ends served must at least justify the costs. This is true for elective or preemptive attacks as opposed to defensive wars where there is no option for the defenders but to fight back and win the conflict.
Peace should never be a national goal only the consequence of the assertion or the threat of Power and force. A peace that cannot be defended will lead inevitably to it’s converse. Vacillation by governments demoralizes the population and encourages the enemy. Israel under Olmert not only attacked convoys in Sudan we sunk an Iranian arms to Gaza ship in the Red Sea. Those attacks showed that Israel has good Intel, we have the range, Sudan is farther than Iran in distance.
I would go after the Palis first, we could retake Gaza and all od west bank in hours not days if the IDF were given a direct order to do so.
Comment by yamit82 — April 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Oatmeal
May I remind you that there is a lot happening in the world that might not directly involve Israel, but would certainly affect Israel in a very real way. The fact that the West is so deeply embroiled in bloody conflicts pitted against Islamic militancy suggest that Israel-Palestinian hostility (a definitely exacerbating factor) be toned down. Pressure is mounting that there be some movement towards resolution. The timeline is not years, as some would like but rather measured in months.
That is a fact of the life in our times. It might not meet with the satisfaction of the Israeli nationalist camp, but that is the way it is.
Comment by h peskin — April 3, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Bill, I was not impertinent. That is not my style. I am sorry you thought that, but that was your impression.
I do not mean to engage you in a spitting contest as to who “knows more.” I’m impressed with what I read by virtually all contributors to this site but I do have a point of view after sufficient study where I have come to believe the state of Israel will be of limited duration, a fate of some one-time nations known in history, unless it either means it desires to survive as Greater Israel or stop the hypocrisy.
And were you not coy to simply use the letter “W.” You knew what I meant. Yes, “W” means War, where war means the power of force to defeat enemies actively waging war against you. Rockets are not love letters. [That, I will admit, is impertinent, but it makes my point.] Israel’s enemies are waging a war with only rockets, the only force they posses together with terrorism, with the intention of baiting Israel into taking more aggressive force knowing Israel will not respond decisively to the provocation–that is, re-conquer Gaza, annex the West Bank, transfer the remaining Arabs to other Arab nations, and be done with it. That is the only prescription available to secure peace. In other words, first things first. Solve the “Palestinian question.”
Diplomacy or force will solve the Arab question. Peace for Israel is not obtained by giving away, piece-by-piece, the land it claims is theirs by right of history–or arms. Either argument is acceptable.
You ask for the semblance of a justifiable pretext for a preemptive strike. Are Rockets love letters? With just the first rocket, Israel should have taken the prescription I mentioned above. That would not require Israel to mobilize as if it were about to simultaneously attack the surrounding Arab hostile states. The hostile states, in my opinion, would not dare risk reacting with arms by Israel setting the borders of what it’s nation intends it to be. The Arabs would not risk suffering yet another catastrophe. Their humiliation would be too much to bear. And the Palestinians mean little to their vital interests in any event.
I would like to end by saying, as I have previously, I encourage anyone interested in the Arab-Israeli Conflict to read “Solomon Blinded,” the work by Obadian Shoher. I have come to believe his insightful and lucid analysis is the only one I have encountered to date to ensure the survival, not the security — note, security is not the issue — it is the survival of Israel that is the issue. Perhaps I have bcome tired of the romantic promises of diplomancy; too impatient, but after all my studies,it is refreshing to read Shoher’s wise analysis of the conflict. It was a long-awaited epiphany. As for me, he cuts Gordian’s Knot, without finesse perhaps–but butchering with a clean swipe of the sword — and the apparently intracable Knot is resolved.
Martin Kessler
mdk4130@aol.com
Comment by martin kessler — April 3, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Martin, that is better. In fact, my own assessment of the situation is probably at least roughly in the same ballpark as yours.
I spoke to you of justifiable pretext and your mentioned the rockets. Note that it was not a few salvos of rockets but thousands over the years that went in the main unresponded to. Only when the truce that wasn’t ended and Hamas refused to renew it and instead upped the daily rocket count did Israel retaliate.
But check it out Martin. In the first few days, Egypt and the Saudis blamed Hamas for the start of the war. With that, the Western liberal media felt they had the green light to blame Hamas as well.
After only a few days however with Israel delivering some blows, the Middle East turned again to talks of the humanitarian crisis brewing and the Western liberal media again returned to their usual focus on the humanitarian crisis and the disproportionate death/casualty tole.
You noticed as I did Martin that while initially the Western media and some Western leaders made note of the fact that Hamas was using non-combattant Palestinians as human shields, that same media did not draw to their listener’s attention that Hamas’ use of human shields was a war crime, a crime against humanity and it made Hamas not Israel responsible for the Palestinian civilian deaths.
As the hue and cry against Israel grew louder and the invariable pressure for Israel to stop began to mount, suddenly Israel announced it had achieved her goals with Hamas and unilaterally left.
Israel did this Martin through stupidity, cowardice or as a necessary reaction to very real and painful pressure that was becoming dangerously harsh. We do not know.
The point I am making Martin is that while you and I may think that 1000’s of rockets launched against Israeli citizens is more then enough justification for Israel to mount a full scale assault that would not stop until Hamas was destroyed regardless of the cost in Palestinian human shield lives, the world does not think that way. Even if the world thinks that way for wrong, impure and immoral reasons motivated by their own greed, does not matter.
The world tells and acts on bigger lies then our truths can displace.
I do say as you do that Israel is locked in an existential battle for survival and not just security. Most of the world are willfully blind to that reality.
I do say that Israel will need to become tougher and more impervious to the threats and pressures of world opinion and less accomodating to the will and wants of her friends such as the U.S. Israel could do with a lot of help if they are to seek to become tougher and to take that more difficult road, which I think is the one that holds the most promise at the end of the day.
As has been pointed out before there are 50 million evangelical Christians who support Israel. Israel needs to reach out and take that support now.
Further, both Israeli and diaspora Jews have to stop their bickering driven by small lettered political leanings and come together in united voice and activism as they see this ongoing battle as an existential one for Israel and they turn their activism in united fashion in support of Israel.
Comment by Bill Narvey — April 3, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
Some interesting points, Bill.
Concerning American Evangelical support, I have been heartened to learn that Israel enjoys similar support in India, China and Russia to what it enjoys in the US (Only the Europeans, and many Jews — and of course the Moslems, seem to be stalwartly opposed to Israel). The problem in India, China, Russia AND the US is that the political leaders don’t represent the pro-Israel majorities. There seems to be a great international coup afoot, abetted by the media moguls of the world, to replace national sovereignty everywhere (including in Israel and the US) with a new, international order. Of course, an individual (possibly Obama) will ultimately grab hold of the reigns to bring about a “Hitler+” bid for world domination.
The disunity among the Jews, of course, does not help the Zionist cause against such machinations. But face it, asking Jews to stop fighting one another amounts to asking them to abandon Judaism. Judaism IS fighting one another. As long as the Jews of the world lived in shtetls, with the goiim holding real power, they couldn’t hurt one another very much. Give them their own country, though, and you have the old enmities resurrecting — INCLUDING an unreasoned hatred of Christians. It’s a replay of Maccabean and Herodian times.
The birth of the modern State of Israel was a real miracle. Jews getting along with one another will be an even greater one. By comparison, this whole conflict with the Arabs looks like children having good, clean fun.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — April 4, 2009 @ 6:18 am
[...] the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel In Bibi is being smart about it I wrote But the Roadmap is not an agreement between parties. It was not signed by the parties. [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Why the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel — April 6, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
peskin:
Why must you always line up with our enemies to make the life of Israelis ever more miserable? Do you share the enemies’ views that Israel is at the center of the world’s problems, and if it only would go away, life for mankind would return to its previous bliss?
All those seeking a “peaceful resolution” of the Palestinian-Israeli problem are not really interested in resolving the impasse (actually, if the Arabs stop their belligerency, the problem IS solved) between the two parties. No matter what, Israel must dig in its heels, circle the wagons and prepare to defend what is theirs by history and morality. Let Israel resume believing in the justice of its cause and stop caving in to those who don’t wish the Jewish state well.
Stop contributing to the panic. It’s a good thing you’re on the sidelines and not in a leadership position (actually there are too many like you in Israel’s “ruling circles”). Israelis must do what is good for their future, not for the “aggrieved Palestinians,” nor for the morally-bancrupt and fortitude-defficient Europeans.
Comment by scorpio — April 11, 2009 @ 8:22 am