What settlement freeze commitment.
By Ted Belman
-
Pres Obama, by demanding a stop to settlement construction, is contravening the Roadmap and the Bush 04 letter in the name of honouring them.
Everyone assumes that Israel is committed to freezing settlement activity without preconditions. Not so. Here’s why.
The Roadmap demanded that Israel “immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001″ and provided that “Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)”.
The Mitchell Report was prepared in response to the terror unleashed by Arafat, after he turned down Barak’s genererous offer at Camp David. It’s goal was to make recommendations to end the violence.
It is important to understand the context and the wording of the Mitchell Report because the settlement freeze demanded by the Roadmap had to be consistent with it.
-
RECOMMENDATIONS
The GOI and the PA must act swiftly and decisively to halt the violence. Their immediate objectives then should be to rebuild confidence and resume negotiations.
END THE VIOLENCE
* The GOI and the PA should reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements and undertakings and should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence.
* The GOI and PA should immediately resume security cooperation.
Effective bilateral cooperation aimed at preventing violence will encourage the resumption of negotiations… We believe that the security cooperation cannot long be sustained if meaningful negotiations are unreasonably deferred, if security measures “on the ground” are seen as hostile, or if steps are taken that are perceived as provocative or as prejudicing the outcome of negotiations.
By calling for negotiations, it imposed on Israel the duty to make an even better offer. “Meaningful negotiations”? Wasn’t that what just took place, to no avail?
- REBUILD CONFIDENCE
* The PA and GOI should work together to establish a meaningful “cooling off period” and implement additional confidence building measures.
* The PA and GOI should resume their efforts to identify, condemn and discourage incitement in all its forms.
* The PA should make clear through concrete action to Palestinians and Israelis alike that terrorism is reprehensible and unacceptable, and that the PA will make a 100 percent effort to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators. This effort should include immediate steps to apprehend and incarcerate terrorists operating within the PA’s jurisdiction.
If you read this carefully you will note that there are stages set out in this order
-
1. End the violence
2. Have a “cooling off” period
3. Confidence building measures.
Furthermore there is an acceptance that ending the violence and incitement is out of the questions and so only “100% efforts”, are demanded.
The confidence building measures required of Israel, included
-
* The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the “natural growth” of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity.
* The GOI should give careful consideration to whether settlements which are focal points for substantial friction are valuable bargaining chips for future negotiations or provocations likely to preclude the onset of productive talks.
Clearly this Report accepted the notion that settlement growth is the cause of the violence. But as we know, the goal of the violence (Arab terrorism) is to destroy Israel rather than to only end the settlement activity. This issue was not addressed.
-
* The GOI may wish to make it clear to the PA that a future peace would pose no threat to the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian State to be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
* The IDF should consider withdrawing to positions held before September 28, 2000 which will reduce the number of friction points and the potential for violent confrontations.
The Report advances the Palestinian desire to be contiguous, as legitimate. Why so? If they want to be contiguous let them offer something in return. This is a matter for negotiations, not fiat.
-
RESUME NEGOTIATIONS
* We reiterate our belief that a 100 percent effort to stop the violence, an immediate resumption of security cooperation and an exchange of confidence building measures are all important for the resumption of negotiations. Yet none of these steps will long be sustained absent a return to serious negotiations.
It is not within our mandate to prescribe the venue, the basis or the agenda of negotiations. However, in order to provide an effective political context for practical cooperation between the parties, negotiations must not be unreasonably deferred and they must, in our view, manifest a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership, notwithstanding the events of the past seven months.
Needless to say, the Arabs have never shown “a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership”. In the absence of same, the Mitchell Report is groundless.
Thus the Mitchell Reports simply puts forward recommendations, predicated on “a spirit of compromise”, to be followed in stages. A freeze of settlement activity is only a recommendated measure and not an order and it is accompanied by other recommendations which have yet to be fulfiulled. Since the Arabs did not end the violence and incitement, there is no imperative for Israel to freeze settlement activity. Yet the US would like to consider it an imperative unconnected to performance by the Palestinians.
It certainly rewards Arafat for his violence and intransigence by giving him what he could not get in negotiations. In essence, the report demands that Israel give more.
So what must the settlement freeze include to be consistent with the Mitchel Report?
Until now, Israel has refrained from dismantling the unlawful outposts in any serious way as required by the Roadmap. But this week Barak, with the support of Netanyahu, demolished three such outposts.
One wonders if this is being done to show a willingness to honour commitments or whether Israel received a quid pro quo for finally doing what they have been promising to do.
Time will tell whether Israel will follow through on this. I believe that she will, in exchange for permission, tacit or otherwise, to continue building elsewhere. Israel will never stop building in the settlement blocks nor should she.
After Obama met with Netanyahu in the White House recently he said
-
Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there’s a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.
Long before the Mitchell Report, the US has been against settlements calling them “illegal” or just “obstacles to peace”. The Mitchell Report recommended a freeze of settlement activity as part of a process and not as an absolute.
President Obama has made it an absolute.
But, as the Report sets out, the freeze on settlement activity is only a recommended “confidence building measure” to be preformed as the Arabs preform what is recommended of them
Beyond that, the the Bush letter in “04 in advance of disengagement provided, inter alia,
-
In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
Israel interprets this as a license to continue building in such population centers and these include Ariel and Maaleh Adumin.
Pres Obama, by demanding a stop to settlement construction, is contravening both of these documents in the name of honouring them.
Totally aside from the legalities, the peace process, of which the recommended freeze is a part, is intended to lead to a peace agreement. But what if such an agreement is not obtainable because the Arabs won’t compromise or if the freeze, if acted upon, will ensure that an agreement won’t be achieved because the Palestinians would have no need to compromise. In both cases, demanding a freeze is counterproductive.
The only way to put pressure on the Palestinians to compromise is to continue building in the settlements. The sooner the Palestinians make a deal the sooner the construction will stop.
In fact a deal could be done this year if they compromised so why waste time and energy on fighting over the freeze? The answer is obvious. The Arabs con’t intend to compromise but want Israel to stop building, period. According to the roadmap, the settlement freeze was not an end in itself as the Arabs demand but a step to an agreement based on compromise and good will.
Even if the Palestinians totally ended incitement and violence, the settlement construction should continue and not just in the major settlement blocks. This alone will ensure that the Palestinians compromise to achieve their state or that the two-state solution will be abandonned for something more attainable but excluding a bi-national state.
Furthermore, if these arguments aren’t enough, the Palestinians, including the Gazans, are divided but must be viewed in totality to judge whether they are living up to the confidence building measures demanded of them.
Under the title, Obama-Netanyahu meeting went better than you think, Haaretz reported on what Lieberman said.
-
“On the Palestinian issue, there is agreement as to the final destination,” Lieberman said. “Everyone wants to see security, economic prosperity, and stability. Perhaps there is a tactical disagreement as to what is the best way to attain these goals. So there is much more in common [with the U.S.] and much more positive points. The meeting was much more positive than what one is led to believe.”
Lieberman denied the West Bank settlements obstruct a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Zalman Shoval believes US-Israel ties will stay strong.
Afterall, Israel and the US have always disagreed on the settlement issue and they will continue to disagree.
The “settlement freeze” issue is not, and never has been (to my knownledge) a matter of “commitments”. It’s just another card to play in the continuing dialog between American and Israeli leaders. Right now, Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu is trying to build a personal relationship with US President Obama. This requires him to do things that make Obama look good, in exchange for Obama doing things that make Bibi look good. The whole Middle East (and World!) situation is so fluid, none of this activity on either side constitutes a “commitment”.
In the immediate future, President Obama will have to make some tough decisions concerning North Korea. The N. Koreans are forcing Obama’s hand, and seem intent on pressing him until they have gotten a substantial gain. So far, Obama has proved to be so weak and incompetent, there’s no reason to think the North Koreans have anything to lose in invading South Korea. Indeed, they seem to have much to gain by invading, and virtually nothing to gain by pursuing peace. Obama seems to be faced with a choice of either completely abandoning S. Korea (a distinct possibility), or getting involved way over his head in a multi-front overseas adventure. All this will leave Netanyahu free to do pretty much as he pleases. It will be a replay of 1967, when then US President Lyndon Johnson was so bogged down in Vietnam, he couldn’t effectively say “yea” or “nay” concerning Israel.
Bibi just has to bide his time a bit, and I think he knows it. In the meantime, Israel is making necessary preparations for the inevitable conflict with Iran and its proxies.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — May 28, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
having spent time in the original peace talks between the North and the Americans in Korea many years ago, I wonder why all this bluster about a weak Obama. Just what would Bland Oatmeal suggest we do: nuke North Korea? What in fact had bush done in the 8 years when the North was building its nukes? My suggestion: since Russia and China are seemingly also very up[set and worried, why not an finternational boycott of all goods coming and going into N. Korea till they dismantle and allow inspectors in? Additionally, Let Japan announce that to counter a threat they too will begin working toward nuke capability.
Meanwhile, all the lawyerly parsing about the settlements ignores a simple fact: the settlements have been built illegally and Israel has allowed this to take place and the US has gone along with it. Now the hard part comes: what will Israel have to give up in order to get a peace deal they can live with? The “facts on the groujhnd” just a way for Israel to grab land and try to hold on to it. But that no longer will work, it seems. And Israel also rightfully say: no peace till Israel is recognized as having a right to exist and in peace.
Comment by davidstill — May 28, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
They are not illegal so why do you continue to buy into this fallacy? http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=259&x_context=2
Comment by Laura — May 28, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
davidstill, I spent 16 months patrolling the DMZ and I can tell you that sanctions even if they could be put in place will have little or no effect on that regime. They have over forty thousand heavy artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. Now they have a nuke umbrella for their artillery. That’s the real threat.
I know you read Israpundit because you post once in awhile but having I assume read many of the articles and posted comments you fail to either understand nor internalize what you have read. That said I would therefore presuppose that intellectually you are incapable of even the most basic rules of blog commenting; that being know a little bit about the subject on which you post comments.
ignores a simple fact: the settlements have been built illegally and Israel has allowed this to take place and the US has gone along with israel
Tell us in your opinion how and why you consider those settlements illegal? Under whose Law?
what will Israel have to give up in order to get a peace deal they can live with?
Nothing.
The “facts on the groujhnd” just a way for Israel to grab land and try to hold on to it. But that no longer will work, it seems. And Israel also rightfully say: no peace till Israel is recognized as having a right to exist and in peace
All bullshit, no peace is possible, nobody wants Peace, at least not the kind people like you envision.
Comment by yamit82 — May 28, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Like Yamit, I, too, have a personal connection to N.Korea. I was there 1951- 1953. Because of the mountainous terrain, it was a terrible place to fight. Today, I presume that those same mountains are honeycombed with tunnels, ie Iwo Jima by the Japonese. The only way to save a bloodbath, would be to drop nuclear on them, perhaps tactical strength on their launch sites.
Comment by Ed D — May 28, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
Foreign settlements in occupied land are definitely illegal. Rather than debating the legality or illegality of the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, let’s get to the bottom of it and ask: “is this land occupied?”
I have no doubt that a global debate on this fundamental question will finally shake down all the Palestinian myths and the delusions these myths generated: “land for peace”, “Palestinian state”, “one-state solutions”, etc.
After all, what’s the value of an opinion when it rests on shaky factual foundations?
Comment by salomon — May 29, 2009 @ 1:27 am
salomon
I think here your are naive. No debate will ever see the light of day. Those who revel in lies are those who will prevent such an airing of the real facts and history. Then were those facts aired few would accept them and even fewer would act on them. The facts and myths of the middle east have at least been floating around since 1967 if not before and I have seen many debates on TV and in live forums and as we see to no avail. I believe the consensus of opinion makers is to pursue the lies and myths, makers have their own agendas and combined with a culture who view history in terms of days and weeks the history of our conflict will remain in the realm of the comfortable lies reinforced by drive by media sound bytes and edited pictures.
They will ignore facts, historical truths: Ask no questions and you will be told no lies. Israel can never win today a verbal or written argument for even when we win we will lose (at best our arguments will be ignored or discounted). Facts on the ground are a more potent weapon and by creating those facts in our interests we then open opportunities when the world turns on us to make our case in various forums. When those attempts fail and they will, we will still have the results of the facts on the ground which we created in our favor. That’s when we will see what stuff the Jewish people are made of.
Comment by yamit82 — May 29, 2009 @ 8:17 am
Yamit, well spoken.
It’s important Israeli settlements remain. They are not illegal.
Possession is 9/10ths of the Law.
Israel needs to defend her territory and her sovereignty.
The Palestinians are only a tool used by the Arab and Muslim terrorist.
They wouldn’t know what to do with a state.
Comment by rongrand — May 29, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
For all practical purposes they already have a state. They issue their own passports, have a president, have a parliament, police forces, quasi army, many axillary militant groups, judiciary, TV and Radio. some sort of telecommunications companies, huge civil service, educational , health services banks etc. they also have Hamas!
Abbas: No peace
Speaking in Washington, Abbas refuse to conduct peace talks with Israel until it freezes the settlement construction, agreeing de facto to destroy them all and leave 300,000 Jews homeless.
Even Arafat was afraid of talking so bluntly, but Abbas senses Obama’s support against Jews. Never mind a small print: Abbas’ term expired five months ago, Hamas rejects his authority, and Fatah rejects his government.
Israel continues tax transfers to the Palestinian Authority which refuses to make peace with it.
As Rabbi Kahane remarked, this country needs a national couch. Obama lies, as usual, Speaking after the meeting with Abu Mazen, the Hussein announced that Israel must stop all the settlement construction because it is the Jews’ obligation under the Road Map.
What a lie! The Road Map says not a word about construction inside the existing settlements. Ceasing the settlement expansion is clearly conditioned on the Palestinians’ curbing their national sport, terrorism.
To a fellow Muslim Abu Mazen, Obama did not use the word must, but vaguely asked him to improve the security.
Having failed vis-a-vis Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, and Pakistan, Obama picks a fight against Israel.
Hussein beats our worst pre-election expectations of him.
Obama bans Apache sales to Israel
Obama banned Apache sales to Israel lest Jews use the helicopters against peaceful Palestinians.
The only problem is, where did the Hussein find peaceful Palestinians?
Israel will answer to Jordan
Following MK Arye Eldad’s suggestion that Jordan grant citizenship to the West Bank Palestinians, the Jordanian FM delivered Israel a note demanding a “clear explanation of what took place in the Knesset.” While the insolent Jordanians should be scolded accordingly, Eldad’s offer is nonsense.
The PA issues its own passports, accepted by over seventy countries, including Western Europe.
In a game of hot potato, Israel tries to pass Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan, who are only happy to abandon the unruly Palestinians to Israel.
Comment by yamit82 — May 29, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
The Arabs will never take the Palestinians into their bosom. Why should they take them off Israel? They do not ever want to see a solution for various reasons. And in the meantime, they can count on internal Jewish conflicts in Israel to do their work for them. Only the Jews want to give up their land. No Arab would give up his land. There is a lesson here Jews can learn from them: intransigence and national pride pays.
Comment by NormanF — May 29, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
yamit82
You don’t seem to understand. And you contradict yourself in your last two postings.
You call me naive for trying to bring incontrovertible truths to the fore. You explain my naiveté by claiming that “Those who revel in lies are those who will prevent such an airing of the real facts and history.” But then, you seem infuriated, and rightly so, by the wrong way in which the Roadmap is being interpreted. You say: “What a lie! The Road Map says not a word about construction inside the existing settlements.” Isn’t it also naive to pretend that the provisions of the Roadmap should be respected?
Between being naive for believing in the ultimate power of fundamental factual truths, and being defeatist before even trying to strongly voice those truths, I would definitely choose the former, if only because I would hate to lie in the “national couch” that Rabbi Kahane alluded to and which you candidly quoted, perhaps unwittingly.
Let’s stop dealing with peripheral issues (settlements, outposts, natural growth, etc.) and focus on the fundamentals.
Comment by salomon — May 29, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
salomon , no contradiction and I wasn’t infuriated, I’m way past being infuriated, I keep hoping my gut is proved wrong but so far my gut is right on with all of my expectations which are not positive. That said, I can’t recall any policy by any government having been changed or even substantially influenced by the dissemination of fact sheets or letters and small closed discussion forums. There is no national debate on Obama’s policies other than maybe his economic policies. I never said you were naive for believing in absolute truths, only your power to have them aired in a national forum were it could have impact and influence. Few seem interested in facts and truths. For most whatever Obama tells the mob is facts and truth.
This did piss me off!
On another thread his nomination for Justice of Sonia Sotomayor as first Hispanic to the Court, here I was angry at everybody as I pointed out the Justice Benjamin Cordozo was the first and a jew no less. I guess Jews aren’t considered Hispanic.
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Amona Replay Planned to “Evacuate” Jewish Homes Built on “Palestinian Land.” (But This Time, Hundreds Will Be Armed and Ready)
B”H
http://israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/
What the hell is “Palestinian Land”????
Do they mean that that land was legally purchased by members of the Israeli Arab community from the Jewish people?
Or, do they mean that the land, which is ALL JEWISH, that was squatted upon by some murdering terrorist sympathizers who now say it belongs to them in an effort to destroy Israel?
I am betting the latter.
And now the Israeli government is throwing around references to Amona! The unnamed official says “We expect the violent scenes from Amona to return. We will do our utmost to minimize the violence, but we will be ready for every possible scenario.” Hmmm. I guess this is a threat?
If I remember correctly, only two of the officers who were particularly violent during the Amona expulsion served six months in jail and were sued by those who were injured—but there were more than 200 brutality cases.
I suggest that this lax justice has puffed-up the pride of the police to such a level that they believe they are completely safe. But wait! Olmert is no longer in charge, boys!
His corrupt government has been replaced by an equally corrupt but slightly less police-brutality-supportive government headed by Bibi! (In other words, still taking baksheesh, but this time against you instead of for you).
In addition, the level of awareness has increased since Amona, and those attending the protest and demonstration against the destruction of Jewish property, Jewish homes, and Jewish lives will not proceed without a very significant record of the whole process.
Now, my dear unnamed official, the protesters are armed—with hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of video cameras, cell phones, and satellite data transmission equipment.
We will be shooting—hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of hours of film.
Taking cameras and destroying film is so last decade.
Trying to prevent the networks from airing the footage is so last millennia.
You can’t confiscate it all before it is immediately uploaded to cell networks and satellite links and dispersed on Youtube.
We don’t care what NBC, CNN, and MSNBC want to air—this is a new generation, and we get our news from Youtube channels and over facebook.
This time there are too many leaks in the cauldron of information.
This time, we will record ALL of you and your hidden name tags and your Gestapo tactics against our youth.
We will see, record, and disperse every word and translate it for our listeners in fifteen different languages.
We will send it around the world, and we will send it to the very sympathetic Knesset members that we fought to put into office.
Is it really worth it for you to take a punch at one of our youth now?
Is it really worth it for you to relish the idea of stomping the head of our child with a horse or to beat an MK?
This time, the tables will be turned–and you will eat what you dish out.
May 28, 2009 0:06 | Updated May 28, 2009 1:14
6 outposts on Palestinian land soon to be evacuated
By YAAKOV KATZ
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346492776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The IDF is drafting operational plans to evacuate several West Bank outposts by the end of June, senior defense officials said on Wednesday.
According to preliminary operational plans being formulated in the Central Command, the evacuations will take place over a few days and will likely begin sometime toward the end of next month, after Defense Minister Ehud Barak returns from his scheduled trip to the United States.
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2009 @ 12:53 am
yamit82, you said:
The Palestinians did exactly that, starting in the late 1960s, and they managed not only to “influence”, but to convince the whole world with the falsehoods they peddled. Why couldn’t the Israelis do the same by advancing factual truths?
Comment by salomon — May 30, 2009 @ 1:37 am
Israel has absorbed the Arab logic that it is the “occupation.” Why shouldn’t Israel follow this logic and have Jews pack up their bags and leave? If the enemy’s narrative is legitimate, Zionism is a criminal and colonial enterprise. If the Jewish narrative is legitimate, Zionism is a moral and nationalist movement. You cannot have both. Jews in Israel must decide if they are in the right or the Arabs are.
Comment by NormanF — May 30, 2009 @ 3:50 am
True: they did and are still at it. I remember the SDS propaganda on every campus and their revisionist anti Israel presentation of lies for facts. They are still at it even today under many pseudonyms but including the current version of SDS.
One or maybe two problems here. A- They were preaching to the choir ( a very receptive and targeted audience) B- They were never openly challenged directly and frontally. Jews and Israel advocates never really engaged them and left the battlefield to the enemy. C- since even before 67 these groups have had their way and their positions are accepted popular truths. I don’t have to tell you that in America and most of the west, what I call Liberal fascism has corrupted the concept of free speech and honest open debate. Any position in opposition to theirs will either not be allowed to present itself or by intimidation frighten most of those who would present opposing opinions and opposing truths and facts. D- many of those on the anti-Israel side in these many groups and organizations are Jews themselves which lend in the small minds of those groups credibility in their anti-Israel positions.
I would never advise you or anyone not to hold your opinions or not to act on them to the best of your ability. I am just very skeptical as to how much if any it will impact on those who you would have moved and influenced. Remember that unlike those pro Pali groups and there seems to be myriads of them, they all seem to have only one common denominator between them and that is hatred of Israel. For them hatred of Israel is a unifying force and we have nothing comparable to offer and to fight with. If the underlying thread to most individuals and groups anti Israel stance is in actuality politically correct Jew hatred, It’s beyond me how presenting in any form and format contra arguments, facts and truths will change much at this late date.
This is my humble opinion but go ahead and do what you believe is right and hopefully effective. I would love to be shown that I am in error here.
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
saloman as a corollary to your argument that if the Palis could be successful in the promotion of their lies as narrative and being successful in that effort why shouldn’t and or couldn’t we do the same? I am paraphrasing you her.
I counter with this argument: Since along with Palis and leftist propaganda they have shown that terrorism works and has rewarded them with significant gains giving up nothing in the interim; Why then according to your logic should we not ourselves apply those same principles of terrorism against them? What works, works!
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
yamit82: Among the reasons for the success of the Palestinian propaganda campaign, you cite:
That is precisely the point. It is not because Israelis and Jews have been apathetic for the past decades that we should throw in the towel now and acquiesce to their narrative.
The crux of the matter, as NormanF pointed out, is that if we acknowledge the notion of “occupation”, there is no other alternative than to withdraw. FULLY. And after the 1967 territories are evacuated, we will have no solid argument for holding on to those of 1948-49.
Sure, there will always be a large number of nuts with whom any rational discourse will be a waste of time. I am talking about opening a debate among those who normally value facts, evidence and logical argumentation. This should be launched in a well-orchestrated initiative by the Israeli government and Zionist organizations abroad.
We’ve had enough of being “reactive” for too long. I didn’t do us any good. What we need is a “made in Israel” proactive action founded on facts and legal issues. Will it be successful? I don’t know. But we surely should start a new debate and discard once and for all those phony notions (”land for peace”, “Palestinian state”, “illegal settlements”, etc.) that insult our intelligence.
As for using terrorism to counter Palestinian violence, we shouldn’t even think of it. Not only we don’t need it, but we shouldn’t stoop to their level. Violence is only used by those who have no other convincing methods and it is in itself an acknowledgement of failure.
Comment by salomon — May 31, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Your first four paragraphs were well stated. You were making a convincing argument till your last paragraph. I agree with nothing you said in that last paragraph and that’s mostly the reason what you said previously to that paragraph will never succeed. Since most opposition to Israel is irrational it stands to reason logically that rational arguments will never succeed.
From Samson Blinded:
Debating the left
Since Plato, the leftists’ major qualification was their belief that immensely complex human societies can be fully understood, therefore redesigned, and therefore reshaped. Todays Leftists are in actuality nihilists. Their way to the power was to demolish the old order. Nihilism is very simple: anyone can become a prominent nihilist. From the Ancient Greek Sophists to fringe Franciscans of the late Middle Ages to the modern “war-solves-nothing” peaceniks, nihilists pose as leftists, but they are really zealous ignoramuses. Unlike leftists, nihilists have no positive agenda, they only want to divert the existing ways of societies. It’s futile to debate nihilists on their terms. Like their Sophist predecessors, they ask their opponents to prove every premise—which is impossible.
In natural sciences, including sociological and political discourse, the process of proof is different from mathematics. No hypothesis can be formally proved, but once it is both simple (Occam’s Razor) and not refuted by the available evidence, it is taken for truth. For example, how do we know that the earth rotates around the sun? Perhaps all the evidence has been falsified in an immense conspiracy; but in the absence of refuting evidence, we presume the heliocentric theory to be true.
Nihilists agree that throughout history, there was no goodwill among nations and conflicts were settled only by power struggles. They ask, however, how do we know that a different approach—e.g., of universal love—won’t succeed? Can we formally prove that war is the only path to peace? Of course, we cannot prove it; again, no hypothesis in natural sciences has been proven formally. But neither can the nihilists prove their point. Indeed, it is easily refuted by real-world examples: Laotian people, the paragons of peace, were bombed by Americans and overrun by Vietnamese. Jews in the Diaspora, paragons of humility, were constantly murdered. When debating the nihilists, don’t fall into their logical trap of formally proving your statements. Show that your statements are consistent with historical facts, and ask them to prove their own suppositions.
At this point, nihilists start saying there is no corroborating evidence for their hypotheses because no one has yet tried them; the peaceful resolution of conflicts is one example. Now you’re faced with two options. If you know history really well, you can quickly show that indeed such utopian measures were tried a number of times, and failed. Otherwise, you can just point to the impropriety of experimenting on societies. Think of it: nihilists protest experimenting on animals, exhibiting a Luddite aversion to progress by ethically unpleasant means. At the same time, they stage experiments on humans—indeed on entire unsuspecting populations.
When a religious or philosophical sect wants to establish its principles on earth, it first establishes a community, usually a commune of its own. Touting their own success as an example of the phenomenal success of their teaching, they attempt to convert others. In our situation, nihilists should try establishing a peaceful community in, say, Lebanon or Gaza, and if they manage to live in peace and sisterhood with Arabs for decades (or even months), that would constitute good evidence in favor of their hypothesis, which they can use for propaganda.
Instead, nihilists subvert the democratic process by pushing Israeli politicians to act against their electoral promises. Unable to penetrate popular opinion, nihilists took hold of cynical elites. The masses adopted the elites’ view, taking it erroneously to be wise or fashionable. Nihilists thus obtain popular agreement by deceit.
In natural sciences, every theory can be countered with: If? Nihilists press this type of argument. What if the Jews were more forthcoming to Arabs in the pre-independence period? What if we had accepted Arafat’s demands in 1988? What if we unilaterally disengage from the West Bank? There is no need to debate every “if.” The onus of proof is on the nihilists. They have to prove beyond doubt that if we abandon commonsensical, time-honored behavior, the results would actually improve. We go down the road walked by countless generations of humans; if nihilists want a detour, let them prove it would be less bloody than ours. In the absence of empirical observations of their method (which was never practiced for any significant length of time), they cannot bring forward such proof.
Look at deliberations in the court of justice. In the real life, as opposed to movies, attorneys rarely venture a killer argument. Even a most sound alibi can be questioned, even DNA tests might be variously interpreted. Attorneys heap up arguments of varying persuasiveness expecting that, on the total, the sum of their arguments would amount to a plausible explanation – as close to definite proof as possible in social studies.
Whatever argument you muster, nihilists can easily counter it. The religious right to the Land of Israel: how do we know that God exists? The historical right: if God doesn’t exist then the biblical stories are mostly untrue. National right: why should a nation have a state? Most ethnic and religious groups lack statehood. The right of conquest: nihilists declare it expired. So don’t drop a good argument just because malicious nihilists have found a retort. Instead, amass your arguments as circumstantial evidence: every single bit of it can be refuted but the whole of it is plausible. On the contrary, attack the nihilists’ arguments. They have so few arguments—and those are highly theoretical—that they cannot build up a body of plausible circumstantial evidence to support their agenda.
Nihilism cannot assail true faith.
Comment by yamit82 — May 31, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Yamit82, this is where we part. You seem to prefer endless tangential detours to focusing on precise issues. And if you believe that terrorism could be used to solve political problems, I am definitely not with you.
I will only say this: if diplomacy is entirely divorced from international law, there is obviously no point in discussing the rights of Israel anymore. Bu then, diplomacy would be no better than the nihilism you referred to. If that is your vision of the world, I respectfully disagree.
Comment by salomon — June 1, 2009 @ 5:37 am
Salomon one violent act will garner more headline reach the ears and eyes of countless millions, will sway more public opinion one way or another than a million letters to the editor, full page ads, pamphlets, info letters etc. Even a best selling book if it reaches a million copies sold will only affect a small number of people and even then over time. A controversial statement made by a known personality will garner much attention if it implies some form of violence. Dry facts even if true will either never see the light of day or will in almost all cases be ignored.
Most people and Governments react to fear based situations and acts which they perceive as a threat to them. Words while once relevant in the world are only effective when presented in tandem with pictures, still or moving, highly edited and only when the themes are of a violent nature; especially if what is presented illicits fear in the eyes of the receivers and or empathy and sympathy, hate or support.
A picture is still worth a thousand words and a violent picture is today worth a million words. Such is the nature of our time.
I don’t know what international law is: What passes for international law today is only in certain instances applied to the weak as they will never be applied or enforced against the strong. What you call international law is at best utopian and at worst neither law, just or enforceable. It is a fig leaf cover for the powerful to impose their will on the weak. (In the real world might or the perception of might makes right) Diplomacy implies compromise and how does one compromise truth? The truth may not always win but it is always right.
Comment by yamit82 — June 1, 2009 @ 9:49 am
That is why it’s of upmost important for the communities remain in Judea and Samaria.
Outsiders have no right to determine what is and what is not Israeli territory.
Israeli territory is from the Jordan River to the Mediterrainian, including the Golan Heights, all of Gaza and all of the Sinai.
It therefore is important for the Israelis to remain in all the sites.
Time for Israel to take a stand and not give in to this outside pressure.
If Iran can talk and do nothing, why not Israel.
Comment by rongrand — June 1, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
News article of the JP
The 4 stooges: Clinton, Mitchell, Biden and Jones.
Israel should listen to these????
Just a reflection of their boss, the community organizer.
G-d please spear us.
Comment by rongrand — June 1, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
[...] Israpundit What settlement freeze commitments?” by Ted Belman [...]
Pingback by » Land … News of His Land: A Blog focused upon Israel and current events from a Christian Zionist view — June 2, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Israel must return to her God.
Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions. That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.
Joshua 7:11
Comment by ronmorgen — June 4, 2009 @ 4:11 am
[...] construction does not violate previous agreements as he avers. As I pointed out in What Settlement Freeze Commitment? Israel is fully entitled to continue building so long as the Arabs continue violence and [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama is no friend of Israel’s — June 5, 2009 @ 4:14 am
“Obama is no friend of Israel” How true, Obama Is no friend of anyone.
“Israel is fully entitled to continue building so long as the Arabs continue violence” Yes, and even if they don’t seeing as it is their land.
Comment by ronmorgen — June 6, 2009 @ 6:59 am
[...] months ago I asked What settlement freeze commitment? and pointed out that the freeze to be consistent with the Mitchell report required have required as [...]
Pingback by Israpundit » Blog Archive » Don’t just stand there, do something. — July 30, 2009 @ 2:19 pm