Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit





Blog Traffic


Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO

Recent Comments



Dry Bones
Dry Bones



Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Support Israpundit




  • October 22, 2013

    The “peace process” has it ass-backwards

    By Ted Belman [Nothing has changed since this was written in Dec 2007]

    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.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 7:15 pm | 45 Comments »

    45 Comments to The “peace process” has it ass-backwards

    1. NormanF says:

      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.

    2. The Other Alan says:

      “I should point out that no one is demanding peace at the end of the process.”

      And I would add that this blog doesn’t seem to have much interest in peace either. So why complain?

    3. Ted Belman says:

      Not that kind of peace.

    4. jerry says:

      “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.

    5. Laura says:

      This is so obvious that one must conclude that the peace process is designed to continue the conflict rather than end it.

      I have concluded the same thing.

    6. Bill Narvey says:

      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.

    7. yamit82 says:

      I love this woman, one of the best writers around!!


      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.

    8. Victor says:

      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.

    9. yamit82 says:

      Victor, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship!

      Right on!

    10. Ted Belman says:


      correct- peace-process is “smoke and mirrors” for Arab destruction of Israel;U.S. Politicians look good in front of camera.period

    11. Ted Belman says:


      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.

    12. Ted Belman says:


      Wow – well put, you are completely correct.

    13. Ted Belman says:

      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.

    14. yamit82 says:

      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.

    15. South says:

      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,

    16. Happy New Year, one and all.

      Rather than arm and train the terrorists… it should force their disarmament.

      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.

    17. yamit82 says:

      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.

    18. Ted Belman says:

      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 it’s clear they think they are (oppressed), and somehow doing more of what they see as oppression does not seem to be the best possible way to convince them otherwise.”

      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.

    19. yamit82 says:

      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!

    20. Ted Belman says:

      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)

    21. yamit82 says:

      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.

    22. Ted Belman says:

      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.

    23. 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.

    24. Bill Narvey says:

      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.

    25. Bill Narvey says:

      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:

      1. Kahane adhered to the belief that Biblical Jewish law contains directions for how to run a Jewish state, and that these directions are directly applicable in the present day.

      2. He believed that a Jewish democracy with non-Jewish citizens was contradictory because the non-Jewish citizens might someday become a numerical majority and vote to make the State non-Jewish.

      3. He believed that a Palestinian people do not exist, regarding Palestinians as disparate and unrelated Arab clans with no distinct national identity. Kahane claimed that no description of Palestinian Arabs as a distinct nationality can be found in any pre-20th century text and he frequently challenged his detractors to prove otherwise.

      4. He also claimed that historically there are no examples of Arab Muslims living peacefully alongside other non-Arab ethnic groups. Thus Kahane proposed the forcible deportation of all Arabs from all lands controlled by the Israeli government. In his view, evicting most Palestinian Arab Muslims (even Israeli Arabs), was the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the Arab-Israeli conflict. When he served as a Member of the Knesset he proposed a $40,000 compensation plan for the Arabs he was to evict.

      5. Kahane also believed that Israel should limit citizenship to Jews only and adopt Biblical Jewish law (Halakha) in public life.

      6. He advocated that the Israeli government should pass theocratic laws such as banning the sale of pork, outlawing missionary activities in Israel, and a ban on all sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews.

    26. yamit82 says:

      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.

    27. Bill Narvey says:

      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.

    28. Ted Belman says:

      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.

    29. 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.

    30. yamit82 says:

      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.

      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.

      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:

      reveal the ugliness of your petty, narrow and closed one track right wing extremist mind that lacks the capacity for any objectivity and

      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!!

    Site Membership

    Google Site Search


      Ted Belman


      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.


    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...




    Iran islam



    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    

    Selected Israpundit Articles


    Why doesn't Bibi want to go "all the way"

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites