Home
Burn burn BURN

"It Takes Two To Tango" // Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Posted on 2009.02.12 at 00:06
Current Mood: confused
In the first entry on Gaza I wrote:
There will NEVER be peace in the Middle-East, until the Arabs BEG us to stop killing them.
In response to which, most delightful [info]jane_etrix asked:
This sounds similar to the position of Hamas and other Islamic radical groups. "If we just kill enough Jews, they'll go away." Do you think that's going to work for them? If not, why do you think it will work for you?
So I thought I'd take the time to try and explain precisely what I meant, as this is the very root of evil The Problem.

As the title of this entry says, "It Takes Two To Tango". Sadly nowhere in the Arab-World does Israel have a true partner to dance with (unless you prefer the Ben Dover Bugalloo?). See footnote [1] for brief history of Israeli - pan-Arabic peace efforts. But let's for the sake of argument buy into the Arab rhetoric that the "Palestinian Problem" is both a completely separate issue AND the root and source of the entire Arab-Israeli Conflict.

For the past twenty years, we have actively actively and repeatedly engaged these most local Arabs (AKA "Palestinians') in numerous Peace Efforts/Processes. Guess what we got? Half of All Israeli Terror Victims Died in Six Years of Oslo War (an outdated news-item from April 2007). The "Half" and "All" being referred to here, are the total number of victims since the massacre of 1929! [2] The harder we try making peace with these Arabs, the more they increase their efforts to kill us. Hmmm, somebody seems to have a fatal flaw in understanding this whole "Peace" concept. I'm not referring to those Opposition Factions that object to peace, but to the very same groups/organizations that not an hour ago, signed the actual documents. So after so many years, is it them or US who fail to understand what we're dealing with? The Arabs are pretty damn consistent: Sign a document, ask for money, violently attack us, suggest a new document to stop the attacks. Sign a document... [ rinse and repeat ]. Knowing how strongly the International Media and damned World Opinion[Tm] sides with the "poor oppressed underdog", they consistently reassure their own followers that they have no intention of fulfilling the treaties they sign. On the odd chance that some Media here comments on this, our very own stoned-out-of-their-minds Peace Pipe Tokers (such as Peres, Bailin and others) then go through the ritual of reassuring us that these statements are merely "for purposes of internal posturing" and such. So who's insane party here? Us Israelis who expect different results from repeating the same actions [3], the world who is doing ever less to hide the rampant antisemitism behind it's "objections to Israel's policies", or the ever consistent Arabs, who insist on death and destruction for themselves, regardless of the cost to themselves?

Bottom Line: In sixty years, not a single Arab country has initiated a peace process with us. In not a single such country is there even a ghost of a Peace Movement. The last Palestinian to seriously advocate actually making peace [and quiet] with Israel was Hanan Ashrawi, nearly paid for her opinions with her life, and has mostly disappeared from the public scene some years ago.

So not until the Arabs actively change their mind [and culture] about killing Jews, and beg us for sit down and talk peace, will the killing stop. Forty years ago, Golda Meir said
"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We can not forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."
Benjamin Netanyahu once said:
"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"
These statements are just as true today, as they were when originally said. It's not that we want to kill Arabs, it's that at present we simply must, in order to survive.

[info]jane_etrix also said:
Ultimately, if you were correct about Arabs (or Muslims in general) being just nihilistic and destructive, they'd be waging total war, regardless of the consequences. But they aren't.
I don't know Jane, how can you say that they are NOT waging world-wide war? Any place in the world that has medium to large concentrations of Muslims, also has outright Islamic Terrorism, or has experienced their religious destruction. Denmark, Paris, London, Somalia, Indonesia and, of course, the "usual" places (like Lebanon or Gaza, in both of which the constant inter-Arab fighting is more damaging and deadly than Israel is, oh but wait the world always ignores/under-reports that). Yes, the vast majority of Muslims quietly stay at home, but that is always the case with ANY conflict. The silent masses always remain silent, giving passive support, or being too cowed [mooo] to protest what is done in their name. But publish a single cartoon, and the whole world goes BOOM! Back in the 12th century, the number of actual "weapon" carrying Crusaders was nil. It still took the world 400 years to settle down again. And that is before we even consider the poisonous effects this Muslim mindset is having on the Free World culture. The fast growing Muslim population of Europe, have their respective host governments so thoroughly shaking with fear of them. The UK has removed Holocaust education from the general curriculum for fear of offending Arabs. Denmark is prosecuting a Parliament Member for "hate crimes" because of a documentary film he made about Islam. There are plenty more such examples. Many of these Western countries, now like Iran and Saudi-Arabia and most recently Gaza, have Sharia court-systems. That is, they rule according to the most strict forms of Islamic law...

So no, Terrorism, FGM, Honor-Killings of women [only] or children martyrs are hardly native or endemic to Islam. At least no more a part than Crusades, Pogroms or Blood-Libels are endemic to Christianity. But regretfully they seem just as inseparable in a historic perspective. The only real reason we see less of these in the Christian world today, is mostly because [most] people are just much less "Christian". In the Muslim world, we generally see the opposite trend. Muslims most anywhere, are becoming ever more radical.

[1] For over sixty some years, even before the foundation of the Zionist Entity State of Israel, all we ever sought was peace with our neighbors. It even says so in our Declaration of Independence [4]. Within hours this declaration was met with gun and bayonet. In 1947 we agreed to the UN's ridiculously untenable "Partition Plan", that left Israel as three non-continuous areas. Time after time, we were attacked and then pressured into returning the areas we conquered in defense (we gave back the Sinai peninsula three bloody times). In 1979 we did finally sign a "Peace Agreement" with Egypt, giving them everything they wanted, and guess what? Thirty years later, Egyptian government schools still teach that Israel is the Great Enemy. That's a whole freaking generation born and raised on the good old' Hate after the agreement was signed! Egypt is still the greatest military threat to Israel. They have a huge US funded army, with no real enemies except us... The only reason Egypt is not more openly aggressive is because Dictator President Mubarak is between a rock and a hard place. He knows that Israel is no threat to him, and any aggression he shows will only play into the hands of Islamic fundies, the Brothers of Islam, who ARE a serious threat to him. But he still causes us as much damage as he indirectly can. The whole situation with Gaza is precisely because of this non-peace with Egypt, which makes no effort to stop the massive smuggling from Egypt into Gaza. Mr. Mubarak figures that any terrorism he exports is a net gain for himself. We DO have peace of sorts with Jordan, but then they have always been the weakest of our enemies. After we thoroughly whopped them in 1967, and King Hussein dealt with his own "Palestinian problem" in the Black September of 1969, he practically became an ally (he even tried to warn us of the impeding '73 war).

[2] List and stories of the 1357 people killed by terrorism in Israel since September 2000, the beginning of the Second Intifada AKA The Oslo War. See also breakdown by decades - 1920-1999.

[3] In this regard. Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

[4] From the translated text of the Israeli Declaration of Independence:
WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

Comments:


Xiphias Gladius
[info]xiphias at 2009-02-11 23:02 (UTC) (Link)
I've said it before and I've said it again:

There are only three possible solutions/ends to the Palestianian/Israeli conflict.

The first is that there are no more Palestianians. That doesn't necessarily mean death -- but it does mean that the people who identify as Palestinians choose to identify as something else instead.

The second is that there are no more Israelis. Again, same thing: if all the Jews in Israel decided to give up a national identity, and told Hamas that they were willing to live under a Hamas-led government, I bet Hamas would accept it. They don't have to kill all the Israelis -- they can kill them, drive them out, or make them surrender and choose to give up the concept of "Israel."

And the third solution -- the one that I favor?

I'll let you know when I figure out what it is.
Syona aka the Silicon Shaman
[info]siliconshaman at 2009-02-11 23:14 (UTC) (Link)
Option 1 and 2 are basically genocide.
The Palestinians would sooner die in 1 and I don't think the jews would be given the choice in 2.
Xiphias Gladius
[info]xiphias at 2009-02-11 23:41 (UTC) (Link)
Yup. That's why I prefer option 3.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 16:01 (UTC) (Link)

Exactly

I'll let you know when I figure out what it is.
Please DO, because I'm just as clueless regarding any real viable solutions.
Syona aka the Silicon Shaman
[info]siliconshaman at 2009-02-11 23:22 (UTC) (Link)
So what's the solution...because the way you've described it, there isn't one until one side or the other is destroyed. And I don't mean dead, I mean destroyed! Wiped out completely. Nothing more than a footnote and a period in history.

Personally, I think there might be a third option.
Build a wall..I mean a really big wall right around Israel. [keep Gaza and evacuate the Palestinians into Egypt if necessary] Build it deep enough to prevent tunnelling and top it with computer controlled AM laser batteries. If they can build a truck mounted version, they certainly can build a static emplacement. Turn Israel into a fortress and have no contact with your Arab neighbours. Do not retaliate only soak up their attacks and prevent them from doing harm...

Then wait.

Hatred can only last so long with no fuel. It might take a generation or two, but it'll die eventually, or turn in on itself and consume them instead. Either way, you win.

Edited at 2009-02-11 11:29 pm (UTC)
Xiphias Gladius
[info]xiphias at 2009-02-11 23:42 (UTC) (Link)
Hatred can only last so long with no fuel. It might take a generation or two, but it'll die eventually, or turn in on itself and consume them instead.

The Serbs and Croats managed to hold on to hatred since the Middle Ages. And they had two or three generations of enforced tolerance where kids were not growing up with the hatred in between.
Syona aka the Silicon Shaman
[info]siliconshaman at 2009-02-11 23:52 (UTC) (Link)
Yeahhh.. that's not precisely the same. The peace was enforced from outside, and the hatred was repressed not eliminated.
Hence it just got bottled up until that enforced peace was removed, and we all know what happened next.

This is a little different from that...insofar as it gives the Arabs a blank wall to scream their hatred against. Do that for awhile, and they'll get tired of it.

Imagine if you will, the difference between a couple going about their day in sullen silence, not saying anything but bottling up their anger and resentment towards each other...all day, everyday until something nsaps or they're on their own and it all comes out.

Now imagine that same couple, but one of them is screaming and yelling and hitting out at the other. And the other one is just standing there, not reacting... staying calm.

Which situation do you think would work out better?
Xiphias Gladius
[info]xiphias at 2009-02-12 00:10 (UTC) (Link)
From what I've read about domestic violence cases, either could end in murder, actually.
Syona aka the Silicon Shaman
[info]siliconshaman at 2009-02-12 00:32 (UTC) (Link)
*thinks about that*

Yeahhh.. I see your point. I think at the point where one side has exhausted themselves, then one needs to make peace overtures.

and hope for the best.
Xiphias Gladius
[info]xiphias at 2009-02-12 00:35 (UTC) (Link)
It's also that domestic violence, like most other crimes of violence -- including this sort of war -- has very little to do with logic. Peace overtures work if and only if the person to whom they're being made doesn't really want to be fighting.

Otherwise, it's the standard "appease the abuser" cycle, which, again, ends in murder if it's not stopped.
Syona aka the Silicon Shaman
[info]siliconshaman at 2009-02-12 00:50 (UTC) (Link)
Well, that's the point of letting them exhaust themselves. So they do get sick of fighting.
Xiphias Gladius
[info]xiphias at 2009-02-12 00:57 (UTC) (Link)
I wish it worked like that, but I've never seen any evidence that human beings get sick of fighting.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 15:51 (UTC) (Link)
So what's the solution...because the way you've described it, there isn't one until one side or the other is destroyed.
Did I ever say there WAS a solution? I don't think so.

I see no real chances of peace anytime in the next twenty years. So what has to be done in the mean time, is to come to terms with this situation (and forget the peace pipe-dreams). This means that defending Israel at all costs must be Priority #1. As some professor at Hebrew U. when recently asked about Israel's "disproportional response" replied:
"It was the Hamas itself that defined these proportions. If they want to exchange one thousand imprisoned terrorists in return for one Israeli soldier, then they themselves say the life of an Israeli is worth a thousand Gazans. If so, then it is only reasonable that in order to protect one soldier we must attack terrorists even if this risks killing hundreds of [Gazan] civilians."
The problem with building a wall, as I've explained many times before, is that it would have to be along the border with Jordan. From the West-Bank there is no need to CROSS the "green line" in order to destroy Israel. Those same missiles fired effectively on the south of Israel recently, would be ten times as deadly if fired upon the coastal-central areas "where the population density is already among the highest in the world" (See map and description). So if we put the wall along the Jordan river, we'd have to deport 2.5 million MORE Arabs. Hardly easy to do at all. Mind you, I think that eventually this is exactly what we WILL be forced to do, in the next all-out regional war. It will NOT be pretty. I doubt the Hashamite Kingdom will survive such an influx.
Hatred can only last so long with no fuel.
I direct you to the Wikipedia entry on Antisemitism. This seems to be a force in nature that defies reason and all other rules. Often found even in countries with NO Jewish population. The conflict with the Arabs started LONG before there was a "Jewish State", even before the Zionist Movement got started.
[info]gh4acws at 2009-02-11 23:49 (UTC) (Link)

can't fault your reasoning

though I DO want to - basically I WANT to believe talking things over. helps.
( now that I write that I remember far simpler conflicts in my marriage. And that no psychologist is going to help unless the client really really wants to change. )
Newscasters on the radio here keep talking about left and right in Israeli politics as if those terms had the same meaning they have here - which of course they don't.
Not touching the election results with a 3.04 m citizen of Warsaw.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 15:58 (UTC) (Link)

I resemble that comment!

Some of my best friends are [historically] from Warsaw. It seems MY family is from Lublin (and Baden-Baden actually, so my great-grandmother was also a Jekke, oy the shame).

What was funniest was watching international commentators scratching their heads, trying top explain that while Livni may have the largest party, she [most likely] LOST the elections.
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 08:40 (UTC) (Link)
"The harder we try making peace with these Arabs, the more they increase their efforts to kill us. Hmmm, somebody seems to have a fatal flaw in understanding this whole 'Peace' concept."

Oh, give me a break. Peace requires justice. Telling someone, "We'll continue expanding into your territory and install checkpoints so your economy can't ever function, and allow our people to migrate here but not allow any of YOUR refugees to return, and in return for that you should give us a big hug" is not an offer of peace.

"the world who is doing ever less to hide the rampant antisemitism behind it's 'objections to Israel's policies'"

That's fucking bullshit. Does opposing Mugabe's policies in Zimbabwe make me a white supremacist? One of my dad's best friends is a rabbi who opposes Israel's policies -- are you saying he's antisemitic? The fact that shitty things happened to the Jewish people doesn't give the state of Israel the right to do whatever the hell it wants and then claim that people who object are just racists.

"Bottom Line: In sixty years, not a single Arab country has initiated a peace process with us."

No, not a single Arab country -- just ALL THE ARAB COUNTRIES.

"Back in the 12th century, the number of actual 'weapon' carrying Crusaders was nil. It still took the world 400 years to settle down again."

Richard the Lionheart didn't carry weapons? Are you serious? And are you seriously suggesting that the MUSLIMS were at fault for the Crusades?

"The UK has removed Holocaust education from the general curriculum for fear of offending Arabs."

This is false.

"Many of these Western countries, have Sharia court-systems. That is, they rule according to the most strict forms of Islamic law"

What Western countries are you talking about?

"For over sixty some years, even before the foundation of the Zionist Entity State of Israel, all we ever sought was peace with our neighbors. It even says so in our Declaration of Independence"

What's that supposed to prove? I could as easily say "The U.S. Declaration of Independence says everyone has the right to liberty, so what are these black people complaining about?"

Edited at 2009-02-12 08:41 am (UTC)
Avri J. Balofsky
[info]stone_ at 2009-02-12 08:52 (UTC) (Link)
Even if the goals stated in the Declaration have not been realized yet, it's a big difference between that and a your charter calling for the destruction of Jews and Israel. (cf. Hamas Charter)
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 08:57 (UTC) (Link)
I'm sorry, but I don't think you get to take over somebody else's land and then say "But we said we wanted peace!" when they get pissed off about it.

It was wrong when my ancestors did it in the 17th century, and it's wrong now.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 16:10 (UTC) (Link)
but I don't think you get to take over somebody else's land
Just so we're clear on the issues, which land "take-over" are you referring to? 1948, 1967, the Shabba'ah Farms Lebanon insists are theirs' contrary to UN opinion?

International borders are constantly influx due to wars, somehow only Israel is expected to "return" land conquered in ANY military actions, let alone defensive ones. You started a war(s). You lost. Deal with it, already.

Are you [also] advocating returning the land to the American Indians? I'd love to see THAT happen...
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 16:45 (UTC) (Link)
I am referring to the entire Zionist movement.

International borders are constantly in flux, but that doesn't justify colonialism, does it?

If we had stolen the land from Native Americans within the last generation then yes, I think the ethical action would be to return it to them and leave. It's infeasible hundreds of years later, of course. My hometown recently returned part of an island to the tribe that lived there until our forebears massacred theirs, but obviously such actions are token gestures.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 22:08 (UTC) (Link)

Starting When?

I am referring to the entire Zionist movement.
Starting when? My inlaws have been here for 150 years, before Theodor Herzl even finished grade school. I know people whos' families have been here much longer. Some Jews NEVER left Israel, even during the Roman expulsion!

I addressed "colonialism" in a different comment.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-15 08:36 (UTC) (Link)

"Colonialism"

Forgot to say: Another thing that those who wave around that ever so Evil buzz-word, "Colonialism", never manage to explain, is WHO the hell we are a Colony OF? Because throughout the entire history of the "Zionist movement" (and long before it) prior to the founding of Israel, BOTH the majority of European countries AND G-d Bless America made it explicitly clear that if they weren't busy "removing" their Jewish populations, then they certainly had no interest in harboring more Jews. This is precisely why Theodore Herzl set out to solve "the Jewish Problem" (talk about the victim adopting the attackers terminology). His initial proposal was that we all convert to Christianity.

A personal example: My grandmother, a Holocaust camp-survivor, only finally got her entrance visa to the USA, when she applied as a Romanian displaced-person, looking to "study" in the USA. It's a good thing the Romanians recognized her, because both of her parents were "stateless" refugees.

So where the hell did this "colony" come from?
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-15 09:00 (UTC) (Link)

Re: "Colonialism"

I think there are legitimate rejoinders to the colonialist label, but I don't think that's one of them. Not all colonists are motivated by the desire to establish an outpost of the country they came from. When my ancestors came to the US they were fleeing England, not establishing a British outpost. So that wasn't like the Indian colonial model, but it was still clearly colonialism.

Perhaps a more interesting analogy would be the foundation of Liberia.
Jonathan
[info]ilca at 2009-02-12 12:33 (UTC) (Link)
You're pretty gullible to believe that the Arabs truly want peace after 60 years of war - all started by them. It'll take a little more than a "summit" to prove their sincerity (no terrorism, for instance).
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 13:16 (UTC) (Link)
I didn't say "the Arabs" truly want peace. After living in the Arab world 5 years I know better than to generalize what all Arabs want. :-) But Shmuel claims that "not a single Arab country has initiated a peace process with us," and I say that's horse hockey.
Jonathan
[info]ilca at 2009-02-12 16:25 (UTC) (Link)
Sorry to be blunt, but again I say you're gullible. A true peace process involves more than "initiatives" and "summits". I've been living in this tough neighbourhood for almost 20 years, and I've learned that until the Arabs put down their weapons, there is absolutely no reason for Israel to believe they want peace.
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 16:35 (UTC) (Link)
Shmuel made a specific argument that Arabs never make peace proposals. That argument is factually inaccurate. I'm not commenting at all on whether the 2002 proposal is a good one, or is ingenuous, or anything; I'm pointing out that if his argument is "You can tell Arabs don't want peace because they never make peace proposals," then his argument is dumb. That's it.
Jonathan
[info]ilca at 2009-02-12 17:02 (UTC) (Link)
By isolating that dry, dubious fact, you're in effect saying the Arabs genuinely desire peace. That's misleading.

You can't disregard true Arab intent when they make proposals. They have no practical plan of action to back up their words. Until now, all their initiatives were worthless.
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 17:17 (UTC) (Link)
I didn't "isolate" it. I think Shmuel is presenting a very one-sided view of things, and so as part of my response I pointed out all the errors of fact that stood out to me. That was one of several I pointed out.

As for whether "the Arabs genuinely desire peace," I'm not even sure what a statement would mean. I rather imagine that both sides in ANY conflict would prefer peace to war, all things being equal. However, they also prefer having their demands met.

The bar being set here seems to be that, in order to "count" as peacemaking, proposals from the Arab side have to meet some threshold of being perceived as reasonable by Israelis. I don't see it being similarly asserted that proposals from the Israeli side only count if they meet some threshold of reasonableness from an Arab perspective.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 15:13 (UTC) (Link)

History

Peace requires justice. Telling someone, "We'll continue expanding into your territory and install checkpoints so your economy can't ever function, and allow our people to migrate here but not allow any of YOUR refugees to return, and in return for that you should give us a big hug" is not an offer of peace.
You are taking the situation as it is NOW, after almost a century of bloody conflict, and ignoring the history of how this status quo was created. In 1901 the Ottoman empire decreed that Jews can no longer own land in Jerusalem. The land market crashed, as people were forced to sell their properties. This is why, to this day, much of down-town Jerusalem is owned by various foreign governments and churches, instead of being repossessed by the state, on behalf of the rightful owners, as they should have. In 1929, how many Arabs had been displaced by Jews, what territory exactly did we control? What was the excuse then? In 1947, when the UN proposed the impossible and biased Partition Plan how many Arabs were displaced? The plan was designed to minimize that. We Jews accepted the plan. The Arabs did not. In 1948 Arabs were displaced as part of the war that the Arabs started. The same happened again in 1967 (although one could [falsely] argue that Israel "started" the '67 Six Day War). I freely admit that the so-called "settlements" do not contribute to inviting peace, but for the most part, their growth has been severely curtailed since the Oslo "peace process".

The checkpoints on the other hand, are strictly a response to the ongoing terror efforts. Do you think we LIKE putting soldiers in line of fire? If there was no need for them, they wouldn't exist. At the height of the Palestinian Authorities reign, there were NO such checkpoints within the "territories". This is what enabled the non-stop attacks against Israelis everywhere. Or would you rather the IDF control the Arab areas from within them, causing greater disruption (and greater conflict), rather than a minimal number of checkpoints along major routes.

As to justice, how come no-one ever mentions the over 600,000 Jewish refugees that were forced to flee Arab countries, before and after 1948, often taking nothing? The Arabs have displaced just as many Jews. Most of those Jewish refugees moved to Israel. So, as far as "justice" goes, we're about "even".

The bias against Israel in the UN, the international media AND in the demonstration against our actions, are carrying ever more explicitly antisemitic messages, such as "death to ALL Jews". The condemnation of Israel is pretty much automatic, regardless of what it's a response to (attacks that most often are met with silence). These condemnations are hardly ever "to the issue" - Israel simply has no right to defend itself. Is the situation in Gaza worse than Somalia, Darfur, Iraq or Afghanistan? Let's see the UN deal with those as diligently it does with Israel's transgressions...

The Saudi Initiative is just so much cheap talk. The Arab League not only has no ability (or intention) to deliver on it, and it's non-negotiable starting point is untenable by Israel, if only for security reasons during the negotiations. Basically they are asking us to give-up all of our bargaining points in advance. So no, they aren't really serious about it and know it. Putting the "Right Of Return" issue at the forefront, knowing this is impossible to resolve, pretty much makes it still-born and null. This was proposed mostly to make Israel look bad, and peace resistant. Never mind that they have no means to enforce their "solution" on the "Palestinians" who resist it, nor offer any real solution to that deficiency!
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 16:28 (UTC) (Link)

Re: History

"In 1947, when the UN proposed the impossible and biased Partition Plan how many Arabs were displaced? ... We Jews accepted the plan. The Arabs did not."

Well, of course you did. The UN gave more than half of Palestine to a small minority of colonists. How shocking that the immigrant minority accepted the plan and the settled majority didn't!

"The bias against Israel in the UN, the international media AND in the demonstration against our actions, are carrying ever more explicitly antisemitic messages, such as 'death to ALL Jews'"

I'm looking forward to hearing you justify this sentence. The UN and international media are calling for death to all Jews? For real?

"The Saudi Initiative is just so much cheap talk. ... Basically they are asking us to give-up all of our bargaining points in advance."

Ah, so let me summarize.

Shmuel: The Arabs never make peace proposals.
Marjorie: Uh, yes they do.
Shmuel: But I find the terms of their proposals unacceptable, so they don't count.

That's not quite the same argument....
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 21:59 (UTC) (Link)

Re: History

The UN gave more than half of Palestine to a small minority of colonists.
While factually true, considering it was 56% to the Jews, this ignores the nature of the land allocated. To quote that Wikipedia article "The bulk of the proposed Jewish State's territory, however, consisted of the Negev Desert. The desert was not suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development at that time." Look at the map again - everything south of Beer-Sheva is desert, and even with today's technologies, mostly useless. So yeah we have "more" land. Yippee!

The one and only reason the Jews consisted only a third of the population in 1947, is because for decades the British made severe efforts to curtail Jewish immigration to Palestine, while doing nothing to stop Arab immigration at the same time. During WWII few Jews could leave Europe. Nothing stopped Arabs from moving in from other parts of the region. In the 19th century, before the massive Jewish immigrations, the Jews consisted half of the population (about 250,000 Jews), yet somehow despite these massive waves of immigration (that more than tripled the Jewish population), the "settled majority" of Arabs came out way ahead. How could THAT of happened? Hmmm.

Colonialism is a highly loaded word that is irrelevant in this case, if only because there have been Jews living here continually since ancient times. As I said above, they consisted half (sometimes more) of the local population, long before this modern-era Zionism increased our numbers.

I didn't mean to say that the UN made such statements (although the UN sponsored Durbin Conference on Racism came pretty damn close). But the messages at public protests and subsequent attacks on non-Israeli Jewish targets, make a clear connection between two, as does much of the heated rhetoric in the media.

Regarding "peace proposals" - NO these are NOT actual proposals at all. It's not that I'm rejecting the terms as unacceptable. I'm saying that the terms themselves indicate that peace is hardly the objective of these proposals. Have you ever been mugged? If a would-be-mugger tells you at knife point "give me your money, and I'll let you go peacefully" then despite NOT actually doing anything with their weapon, they are hardly being "peaceful" are they? The Saudis and other governments have directly and indirectly fund many of the terrorists organizations fighting us, at the same time as making these proposals! Rabbi Shlomo Aviner jokingly compares this to some do-good fools, thinking they could create a Messianic Era zoo display of a Wolf lying with the Lamb. This worked fine, just as long as they regularly replaced the lamb.
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-15 09:18 (UTC) (Link)

Re: History

"While factually true, considering it was 56% to the Jews, this ignores the nature of the land allocated."

Yeah, I know what the nature of the land was. The Jewish partition still got a significant amount of coastline and sole access to the Red Sea.

"In the 19th century, before the massive Jewish immigrations, the Jews consisted half of the population (about 250,000 Jews)"

Huh, I've certainly read that's true for Jerusalem, but not for Palestine as a whole.

Fundamentally, though, the percentage doesn't matter to me. Look at Qatar: 80% of the people who live here are outsiders. But it would be ludicrous for us to think that we should be able to declare this land ours and set up a state that was explicitly based on OUR religion. We outsiders may be the majority, but that doesn't make this country ours. I feel precisely the same way about the establishment of a Jewish state in the Middle East.

I have no problems with the establishment of a Jewish state per se and certainly understand why Jews felt it necessary right after WWII, but I still really don't understand why anyone would expect they could take over a chunk of someone else's land and not start a war.

"Colonialism is a highly loaded word that is irrelevant in this case, if only because there have been Jews living here continually since ancient times."

That is true and I have no problem with that, of course. I have a problem with the establishment of an explicitly Jewish state there.

"The Saudis and other governments have directly and indirectly fund many of the terrorists organizations fighting us, at the same time as making these proposals!"

Oh, I didn't realize peace proposals had to come from people who hadn't engaged in war. That must make them hard to come by.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 15:15 (UTC) (Link)

Sharia

Of course Richard the Lionheart and bloody cohorts carried weapons, but how many people did he actually LEAD out of the least thirty millions who stayed home? Out of this population where there altogether more than fifty to a hundred thousand warriors at any time? And look at the havoc the created. There are today, probably just as many Islamic Terrorists and Jihadis, as there were crusaders then. They have at least as much "popular support" from the home-body Muslims, as the crusaders did then, and with today's communications these supporters know instantly what is done in their name (unlike the Crusaders supporters).
"Many of these Western countries, have Sharia court-systems. That is, they rule according to the most strict forms of Islamic law"

What Western countries are you talking about?
I'm not talking about only formal government official courts, but also ad-hoc courts that are sometimes even recognized by the local courts. Just go to Google and type in "sharia courts in" and see the auto-complete options that Google suggests. No, not all of these hundred thousands of hits are for real, but cases have been confirmed in the UK, France and the USA. Is Good Ol' Lone-Star Texas "Western" enough for you? In the UK they can even handle criminal law cases.

My point in quoting the Declaration of Independence was to demonstrate that from the very start, WE have been actively advocating peace, and all we get in return is war.
Marjorie in Qatar
[info]qatar at 2009-02-12 16:34 (UTC) (Link)

Re: Sharia

"Just go to Google and type in 'sharia courts in' and see the auto-complete options that Google suggests."

Dude, argument by Google autocomplete? That's a slippery slope. If you type in "I am extremely" it autocompletes "terrified of chinese people." What should we conclude from that?

"cases have been confirmed in the UK, France and the USA."

If Muslims with a civil disagreement decide to submit to binding arbitration by a shariah court, they can. It's the exact same system by which battei din operate. Are you going to argue THOSE are a threat to Western society?

"In the UK they can even handle criminal law cases."

Says who?

"My point in quoting the Declaration of Independence was to demonstrate that from the very start, WE have been actively advocating peace, and all we get in return is war."

And mine was that saying "We like peace!" is not the same as acting in a way that demonstrates a commitment to peace and justice.
Avri J. Balofsky
[info]stone_ at 2009-02-12 08:48 (UTC) (Link)

A Subject! Because Shmuel always uses subjects!

Great post.

The situation has deteriorated, so far post Olso it's not even recognizable. It's just a mess.
The solution is somehow to remove the Iranian destabilizing influence on the region. Maybe if the UN and their schools hadn't been complicit all these years the situation would be a little different.

What to do now? I'm just waiting for some Deus Ex Machina.
Shmuel A. Kam
[info]shmuelisms at 2009-02-12 16:13 (UTC) (Link)

Your Humble Subject objects!

Well the Rachel Immenu stories are pretty damn awesome.

But hell yeah! Bring on the Deus Ex Machina, baby!
יסמין
[info]theinnerdemons at 2009-02-12 09:42 (UTC) (Link)
great post.
יסמין
[info]theinnerdemons at 2009-02-12 09:43 (UTC) (Link)
and unfortunately, so true.
Jonathan
[info]ilca at 2009-02-12 12:40 (UTC) (Link)

Bingo

Eloquently said. From my personal experience: the IDF trains on the basis of scenarios. All the scenarios considered most serious are attacks from Egypt. Egypt is Israel's greatest threat.
Maureen O'Danu
[info]odanu at 2009-02-15 02:09 (UTC) (Link)
nothing to add to the discussion. I just wanted you to know I'm reading and absorbing.
Jane
[info]jane_etrix at 2009-03-31 21:40 (UTC) (Link)
I am so late to this party. I was catching up on people's LJs and saw this response to something I'd written- then I had to look up what I'd written because my memory seems to have shrunk to about this --> <-- long. Eva is snoozing so I don't have lots of time, but will try to respond.

In the first entry on Gaza I wrote:

There will NEVER be peace in the Middle-East, until the Arabs BEG us to stop killing them.

In response to which, most delightful [info]jane_etrix asked:

This sounds similar to the position of Hamas and other Islamic radical groups. "If we just kill enough Jews, they'll go away." Do you think that's going to work for them? If not, why do you think it will work for you?


First, thank you for calling me "most delightful." :D Second, you do not really respond to the above question. While I am aware of the increase in Israeli deaths since Oslo, I am also aware that many more Palestinians have been killed in the same period, and a quick look at casualty comparisons since 1948 shows far more of them have been killed than have Israelis in general. So, obviously, they are not going to be "begging [you] to stop killing them" any more than you're going to pack up an leave because they kill you. People who know they're being killed fight back, unless the other option is worse than death or until they are the victims of genocide, and there aren't enough of them to fight any more.

In terms of gaining peace, the Israelis and Palestinians have 3 options. In saying the following, please keep in mind I am well aware I come from a country which chose Options 2 & 3 on the list, so this is not any kind of moral censure, it's just how I see the issue in a very pragmatic sense.

(1) to compromise in some real way (and in spite of our agreement that the expulsion of Jews from Gaza was a form of ethnic cleansing, I doubt we would agree that what has happened with Gaza is any kind of real compromise with the Palestinians), (2) ethnic cleansing (which, in the necessary form, is not very feasible in light of the lack of space to create "reservations" (and lack willingness of surrounding nations to take in refugees- which, in case of the Palestinians, has everything to do with national, not religious, identity) or (3) genocide (and unlike the Americans/Canadians, you will not be aided by diseases), which aside from the moral problems it presents, presents even more practical and logistical problems than ethnic cleansing.

That's all there is; there ain't no more. Israel does not seem interested in Option 1 (because trying to pass off the creation of, essentially, a great big reservation in Gaza as the creation of an "autonomous region" defies credulity), and while everyone has given Option 2 a helluva go, it's not panning out very well because no one agrees on where anyone should be, and only a few lunatics have the stomach for Option 3, even fewer have the stomach for the trouble it would bring down on their heads.

The Palestinians haven't shown themselves any more amenable to Option 1 than the Israelis; Option 2, while they too have given it a go, is, ultimately, just as logistically problematic for them as for the Israelis, and only a few lunatics have the stomach for Option C, even fewer have the stomach for the trouble it would bring down on their heads.

So, the whole Einsteinian definition of insanity applies in many different ways to everyone involved in the situation- including the Americans and Europeans.

And you can't quote charters and declarations at me because I'm an American. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..., written while slavery was legal, and we still have a terrible time grappling with the whole equality issue. Show me any beautiful ideal any culture or civilization or group has held up, and I can show you something ugly they did in direct contradiction of that ideal and visa versa.
Jane
[info]jane_etrix at 2009-03-31 22:31 (UTC) (Link)
[info]jane_etrix also said:

Ultimately, if you were correct about Arabs (or Muslims in general) being just nihilistic and destructive, they'd be waging total war, regardless of the consequences. But they aren't.

I don't know Jane, how can you say that they are NOT waging world-wide war? Any place in the world that has medium to large concentrations of Muslims, also has outright Islamic Terrorism, or has experienced their religious destruction.


You misunderstand me- I said "total" war. If Arabs/Muslims (and again, not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs) were just nihilists or completely irrational, they'd be waging total war. Muslim states would be openly attacking the Zionist Entity (seriously, that phrase always makes me think of a giant robot), the Great Satan and various parts of the Decadent West, but what we actually see are guerrilla fighting and random, albeit sometimes spectacular, attacks, perpetrated by, essentially, stateless groups, no truly organized, pan-Muslim campaign. Why? Well, because most Arabs/Muslims are just as rational and pragmatic as everyone else, which I will grant you means "not so much, really."

Example: Syria, Hezbollah, Lebanon & Israel. Syria supports Hezbollah, who maintain a presence in Lebanon. Lebanon, unlike Syria, has no military. Syria will support Hezbollah's not-especially-organized attacks against Israel from Lebanon but will certainly not be amassing troops on the border to attack Israel or even to cover Hezbollah's ass because Syria would not really like to see Hezbollah become very powerful. It's useful to Syria only so long as it can be an irritation, not serious threat, to Israel. Most of the countries who spout off lots of antisemitic rhetoric need Israel and the U.S. to be the external enemy and keep focus off their own, often egregious, abuses of their citizens.

On the other side of the coin, in spite of knowing Hezbollah is reliant upon Syria, not Lebanon, for its material support, Israel will attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, knowing she'll meet only essentially disorganized guerrilla fighting and will not be able to truly disrupt Hezbollah in any lasting or meaningful way, but Israel will not attack Syria. Both Israel and Syria are acting upon a very predictable course of action dictated by realpoltik.

If you look at conflicts involving Muslims, almost all, if not all of them, have nationalist issues at their core. If Chechnya was predominantly Buddhist, they'd be fighting Russia just as the Tibetans fight the Chinese, just as the Tamil nationalists (who, by the way, commit far more random suicide bombings than Islamic terrorists, and there are far fewer of them) fight Sri Lanka and India, just like the Basques fight the Spanish and so on and on and on. The fighting is not specific to a religion or an ethnicity; it's just human nature. If we think someone has taken something from us, we fight to get it back, and if we think someone is trying to take something from us, we fight to keep it.

As for countries with large Muslim populations, the U.S. and Canada, both with large Muslim populations, have not seen American Muslims committing acts of terrorism (crazy French nationalists in Quebec, lunatic right-wing nationalists in the U.S., sure- but not Muslims) nor have we experienced the kind of problems seen in Europe (riots over cartoons, violent rhetoric from assorted mosques), which is most likely due to a couple of different factors, most importantly the fact that the U.S. and Canada treated their Muslim immigrants better than the Europeans.

The whole problem isn't with Islam or Arabs or any religion or ethnicity; the problem is one of human nature and human failings. Everyone wants everything on their terms.
Previous Entry  Next Entry