Shalom, Hamas
News: Tweedy, unapologetically hawkish ex-spymaster Efraim Halevy may just be the only Israeli capable of legitimizing talks with Hamas.
|
|
At first glance, Efraim Halevy seems an unlikely champion of the virtues of engaging terrorists. The former chief of the Mossad, perhaps the world's most paranoia-inducing intelligence service, Halevy helped negotiate Israel's historic 1994 peace treaty with Jordan, but also had a role in developing his country's policy of targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. Reserved, with some of the British formality of his youth—his family immigrated to Israel when he was a boy—Halevy, 73, brings to mind John LeCarré's George Smiley. And a tweedy, unapologetically hawkish ex-spymaster may just be the only advocate capable of legitimizing a notion effectively ostracized in US politics: talking to the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
"From my point of view, Hamas is a deadly enemy," Halevy told me in April. "So, with a deadly enemy, you can deal three ways: either destroy them, or cull them into submission, or simply wait for a better day. I think the way things are at the moment, there is a situation arising where Hamas is beginning to consider what its options are—and this is an opportunity."
It's a message Halevy has recently been taking to Washington, where the Bush administration maintains a fiercely ideological prohibition against talking to "bad guys"—unhelpfully lumping, Halevy and other critics note, militant groups, terrorists, and hostile regimes into the same amorphous category. In fact, Halevy has pointed out, Hamas is "not solely a terrorist group," but a political one as well; it has aspirations "to be part of the system and not, as Al Qaeda aspires, to destroy it."
"Hamas is not Al Qaeda, and indeed Al Qaeda has condemned them time and time again," Halevy said. "Hamas may from time to time have tactical, temporary contact with Al Qaeda, but in essence they are deadly adversaries. A serious effort to dialogue indirectly with [Hamas] could ultimately drive a wedge between them."
Beyond Halevy, Israeli hawks arguing in favor of engagement include former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Perry, who along with three other former top Israeli security officials urged the government to pursue peace with the Palestinians in 2003. ("We should talk with Hamas on issues that are hurting Israel," Perry told me. "Not negotiations, but talks.") Former top diplomat and Mossad official David Kimche has traveled to Washington to suggest that the administration pursue engagement with Syria, and former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami visited DC in March to promote talks with Israel's adversaries. "We need you to do diplomacy, because the military option does not work," Ben-Ami said at a private dinner. "We need a benign superpower who is able to engage."
There was a palpable urgency to his words, and for good reason. "Look, I am a Zionist," Kimche told me when we met in a Tel Aviv shopping mall. "I believe very strongly we need to have a state here. And I believe strongly that the only way to thrive is by reaching peaceful relations with our neighbors and reaching a two-state solution. If we have one state for two peoples, it will be our doom. It will have to become an apartheid state, an anti-democratic state."
Such pragmatism puts Israel's "right-wing realists," as one American Middle East hand refers to Halevy, at odds with Washington's armchair hawks—who've attacked as "anti-Israeli activism" the mere suggestion that the current policy is not working. "My approach to Hamas is not an ideological one," Halevy says pointedly, noting that just as some Israelis, in the face of the realities of life on the front lines, have grown impatient with their administration's dogma, so too have American officials in Iraq grown more flexible than their bosses back in Washington.
"In Iraq, our commanders and diplomats have stopped thinking in terms of black and white," agrees Colin Kahl, a former Pentagon Iraq consultant who now teaches at Georgetown University. "Hard realities have forced them to embrace different shades of gray. There are no good guys and bad guys in this equation, just people it is possible to cut deals with and people it is not possible to cut deals with."
Given that, Halevy asks, "If they can be pragmatic in Iraq, why are they ideological in Palestine?"
Laura Rozen is national security correspondent for Mother Jones.
You'd think people would have learned from Neville Chamberlain that you don't have 'talks' with killers, you stand up to them and defeat them. The sooner you do it, the fewer innocent people (and soldiers) that will die.
it's the ashkenazim people who chose their enemies; it's not the other way around.
as for hamas being deadly enemies, halevi cd have explained why/how r they lethal to israsel.
from well known facts, his statement makes no sense.
hamas clearly is neither military nor any kind of enemy to israel.
unless, halevi means that pals don't love ash'm nor gladhend this criminal state.
well, that's true. and pals and much of the world will curse this state and wish its demise for an eternity. thank u
they r just fighting against israeli crimes.
If I were told the assortment of lies which the Palestinian-Arabs have grown up on, I would probably hate Jews too.
In that respect, Hamas is not the enemy. The waterfall of bull-jive is the enemy and Hamas is merely the modern vessel which spreads the fertilizer. If no Hamas, they would be replaced with ‘schmoogoo’ or ‘Bagwalla’ or any number of similar groups. All with the same exact goal: Eradicate the “Zionist pollution”.
Therefore, talking is always a good thing, provided that the talking begins with a reckoning of reality. If no reckoning, no progress should be expected.
The Hebrews have traditionally avoided these difficult discussions because they know that ultimately, the conversation will migrate to include religious beliefs and they also know (deep down) that some of their own religious beliefs are equally as ludicrous as the Muslims. Plus, the Jews wrongly believe that even a discussion of religious topics would effectually empower their adversary by acknowledging the Muslim religion as a religion (rather then a cult). Many people erroneously believe that one should not endeavor to debate another person’s religion with them. However, the Qur~an is also a book of law and the sooner that the Israelis find some Islamic citations (case-law) to help their cause, the better off they will be. Such passages do exist and I have at times quoted from these.
So these are the blockades. There is no military solution to these blockades on either side. There are far too many Arabs to be defeated militarily and the Jews ain’t goin nowhere any time soonly.
However, the Arabs are attempting to acquire land now in Israeli control and thereby to alter existing borders. The Israelis are merely trying to maintain their existing borders. Which (in my humble opinion) is why the actual aggression is (mainly) being perpetrated by the Arab side. Yet, the Israelis are routinely blamed as the “aggressors”--which is a separate crime of discrimination against Jews.
" . . . it says merely that Israel does not have a right to exist, it does NOT say it wants to destroy it"
I see very little difference. Moreover, I don't think too many people see much of a difference. Add to the Hamas charter language their support for armed attacks on civilian Israelis, and that closes any ray of light which might be inferred to shine between the two concepts.
"Israel needs to stop stealing Palestinian land"
Disputed facts. From my perspective your claim has about as much truth as the historical claim that "Jews use Gentile baby-blood to bake their matozs."
" . . employing overkill in its retaliation for Palestinian homemade rockets,"
By the thousands, each and every one being in violation of the Geneva Convention. (that's thousands of seperate violations).
" . . . and starving the Gazans slowly to death, for starters. While they're at it, they could stop the human rights abuses and comply with international law."
So say you.
What few (if any) harsh critics of Israel ever get around to doing is to name a country (any country) which would accept a endless "holy-war" against them, which continued for 90 years, and not retaliate. Some of the Arab leadership were frankly shocked when Israel aquired nuclear weapons and DID NOT use them to end this. Why shocked? Because they would have--in a heart-beat. And so would most other countries. Even the leftist Chirac stated that if France experienced a terror attack, they were armed and ready to retaliate with their nuclear arsenal. (He did not mention who he would retaliate against).
"Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 20, 2006; A12
PARIS, Jan. 19 -- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism."
{end of quote}
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy n/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311_pf.html
Editorially, (and with respect), this would be one of the few weak points in Mother Jones' ideology.
And the point is???
Let me see if I can understand . . .
As long as both sides maintain roughly equal casualties, then (and only then) will there be a moral equivilancy?
To that I say (sardonically):
"Jesus died for our sins . . dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not commiting them??"
~ Jules Pheiffer "Little Murders".
In the 1960s and early 1970s, it was quite routine to hear American children say that the reason why so many Jews died in WW2 was that "they did not put up a fight."
Today, (God forbid--apparantly) if they do fight back.
Throughout 2,000 years of moderrn history, Jews have always been doing something objectionable and often in a major enough way to inspire backlashes (such as today). Its actually amazing how many educated people don't get it.
Literally millions of souls die violently in the Sudan and the world barely notices.
Muslims kill other Muslims (often in the millions, such as the Iran/Iraq war) and our evening news shows one dead Arab in the West Bank. One. When 20,000 other Muslims died that same day at the hands of other Muslims. Mind-boggling. Open air markets are being blown up in Kabul, killing dozens (mainly women and children) and maming hundreds. Where's the outrage? No one ever answers me and NOT because I am a troll. Because there is no coherent answer and so the hard-left simply changes the channel, as if its a cheep football-stadium TV. The silence is defening--but I hear it anway . . .
'Don't change the subject--we're talking about Jews!!!'
Daaa . . .
We Americans are also one-sided on the issue of yeast infections.
One thing I've heard the IDF say about Hamas - when they agree to something, they keep their word. That's not what the Palestinians say about the IDF.
The matter of talking about the destruction of Israel - Trollstein, I had no idea that Medinat Yisrael existed 90 years ago. Care to explain?
Of course, you might also like to explain Chaim Weizmann's behavior at the Versailles Peace Conference - or should that be "connivance"? Where somehow the Zionists got themselves treated as the only ones with a right to a say in the future of Mandatory Palestine. When the Palestinian Arabs had to stage several revolts to get the Mandatory Power, Great Britain, to acknowledge that they had a grievance. Just imagine if they had been The Thirteen Colonies ...
Then talk to me about "destruction".
As far as "existing borders" goes, this is one of those things experienced campaigners tend to joke about. Israel has no fixed borders - read some of the absurd statements about the future Jewish State's borders in the Versailles Peace Conference, and you might understand some of the Arab League's misgivings about the proposed Jewish State.
And as far as a "right to exist" goes, ask any foreign ambassadorial or consulate staff member about the US "right to exist" - or ask your local friendly State Dept. rep. about, for example, the US recognition of the Fifth Republic of France's "right to exist". Or the US recognition of the Baltic Republics' "right to exist". Or the US recognition of the Commonwealth of Australia's "right to exist". Or the US recognition of the Republic of South Africa's "right to exist".
I don't know of a faster way to humiliate a State Dept. official. Do you?
So why are we talking about the Jewish State's "right to exist"? Do you even know what the words mean?
By the way, I didn't know that citizens of the US of A were permitted dual citizenship with Lala-Land. You live and you learn.
Lastly, the "Jordanian Citizenship Laws of 1967" specifically single out inherited Jews (those Jews which Jordan inherited when it annexed its share of "Palestine") and denies them Jordanian citizenship. This renders moot the argument made by the pro-Arab factions who claim that 750,000 were forced off their land in 1948. Of course, there is an ongoing factual dispute as to the validity of these claims but moreover, once Jordan officially denied citizenship to those Jews it inherited when it annexed its part of "Palestine", it opened the doors for reciprocation by Israel.
BTW: If you read the linked piece, you will note that literally about a dozen separate legal documents and international treaties are involved. This is therefore NOT an example of locating an obscure line of "small print" in one long-lost document and trying to exploit it for propagandist reasons. The Jews are the ones who have been screwed. The Palestinian-Arabs are merely the pawns in the "holy-war" being waged against them. The world (and even the Islamic world) cares MUCH LESS for the benefit of the Palestinian-Arabs then they do for hating, punishing and killing the Jews. Nothing new there either. Crushing Jews (both physically and emotionally) has been a pastime for 2,600 years.
(re-post)
As a matter of established international law, the (yet unnamed) nation, later to be called "Israel" began its existence with the Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919 and ratified on January 10, 1920. 88 years ago.
It did not commence as a practical matter. Please review:
http://english.katif.net/index.php?sub=2&id=1824
The author, Howard Grief is a legal scholar and for the record, I do NOT agree with all of his legal conclusions, which consistently (and grossly) favor the Jewish perspective. For example, he makes the argument that:
" . . .[The Jewish National Homeland of 1920] included all areas of the country settled by the Twelve Tribes of Israel during the First Temple Period, embracing historic Palestine both east and west of the Jordan River. "
After a dozen (or so) re-reads of his web-pleading (linked above) I have concluded that such can not be true, he provides no evidence or references and such would have been somewhat absurd--given the situation on the ground.
But that is NOT what we are arguing about at all. I make this clarification purely for the record--as not to be mistaken as supporting that specific claim.
What the core of the ongoing debate of 2008 relates to is:
Once 1920 "Palestine" had already been divided (bifurcated) and AFTER 4/5ths of this referenced land had already been given to the royal Jordanian family (to establish and become modern Jordan), the 1/5th that remained was clearly and irrevocably the "Jewish National Home". This includes both the West Bank and Gaza and in fact, all "Palestinian" land, not part of the traditional nation of Jordan. These are permanent legal rights, which can NOT be usurped by subsequent incarnations of international treaty convention (i.e. The United Nations). These rights can only be abrogated by the legal title holders, namely, the Israelis.
Lastly, the "Jordanian Citizenship Laws of 1967" specifically single out inherited Jews (those Jews which Jordan inherited when it annexed its share of "Palestine") and denies them Jordanian citizenship. This renders moot the argument made by the pro-Arab factions who claim that 750,000 were forced off their land in 1948. Of course, there is an ongoing factual dispute as to the validity of these claims but moreover, once Jordan officially denied citizenship to those Jews it inherited when it annexed its part of "Palestine", it opened the doors for reciprocation by Israel.
BTW: If you read the linked piece, you will note that literally about a dozen separate legal documents and international treaties are involved. This is therefore NOT an example of locating an obscure line of "small print" in one long-lost document and trying to exploit it for propagandist reasons. The Jews are the ones who have been screwed. The Palestinian-Arabs are merely the pawns in the "holy-war" being waged against them. The world (and even the Islamic world) cares MUCH LESS for the benefit of the Palestinian-Arabs then they do for hating punishing and killing the Jews. Nothing new there either. Crushing Jews (both physically and emotionally) has been a pastime for 2,600 years.
The leadership of Iran seems so obsessed with the fulfillment of their (extreme) interpretation of the Qur~an, that they have threatened to launch thousands of missiles aimed at Israeli population centers, in retaliation for any strike (by any power) against Iran's underground Nuclear-development bunker. The Israelis have estimated that such a counter-attack would cost a minimum of 50,000 Israeli lives in Tel Aviv alone. Some percentage of these thousands of Iranian missiles would inevitably miss their intended targets and hit Muslim/Arab neighborhoods. (Don't worry--as the Jews would be blamed for launching those). Even those Iranian missiles which exactly hit their intended targets would still kill and maim thousands of Arab/Muslim (Palestinian) Israelis. Lastly and perhaps most important, the Israelis would NOT stand ideally by and accept such casualties. Using the same ratio quoted in an above post of 15/1 for standard Israeli retaliation, the Iranians would then be willing to loose somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million (Muslim) people. All for the benefit of having one (peaceful) nuclear power station ?? That's what they (The Iranian leadership) would have us all believe. Of course, no one believes it, not even Santa Clause.
But this would not be precedent-setting. The Iranian's lost about that many souls in the Iran/Iraq war, including boy (child) combatants--as young as 13.
The use of the phrase:
"NaZionism"
The equivalent counter-insult would be to call any and all people who support the "Palestinian-Arab Cause" "terrorists".
Both monikers being patently false, such pejoratives can bring nothing constructive or worthwhile to the discussion.
Thank you! (On two separate fronts).
1. Best laugh I have had in eons.
2. You at least admit what others typically deny and I will quote you (whether you permit me or not--because it is just TOO DAMN GOOD.)
Before we get started, please note: It is Professor C.D. Trollstein (not "Doctor"). Doctors remove kidneys. I remove ignorance.
" . . . always pushing, pushing . . "
Have you ever seen "The Caine Mutiny"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046816/
There is a scene at the end with Humphry Bogart, which closely reminds me of your diatribe--except YOUR'S IS LOTS BETTER.
"why, Dr. Trollstein, have Jews been crushed and despised for 2,600 years?"
I am surprised that you have never heard any explanations, as various people have a variety of answers. Of course, all are opinions as none can be definitively proven (we know not what truly sparks the human heart).
Some people say jealousy, plain and simple. Jews have usually managed to be successful and often in the face of great adversity.
Others postulate that since the Jewish community will typically contain significant wealth, aside from the jealousy, per-se, outsiders see them as fat, juicy steaks, to be slaughtered for proverbial financial gain--usually during difficult financial times. The Holocaust occurred at the end of the "Great Depression" and Hitler's henchmen got rich off the gold teeth they pulled from Jewish corpses. During the early days of the (original) Islamic revolution, the Jews of Medina (today Saudi Arabia) nearly fueled the regional conquest by the Muslim armies--with their fairly vast wealth.
There are also other theories. I don't think you really wish to hear mine so I will withhold it for now.
BTW: Chinese people DO NOT hate Jews. They are a LOT like us. Perhaps the world would hate Chinese--if they were as successful (???).
The East Indians I know (around the USA) do NOT hate Jews. They admire us. Excluded are Muslim Indians who are typically supportive of their religious brethren.
Also, the Israelis you meet in India are NOT the same as the Israelis I meet, who are also NOT the same as the Israelis in Israel. The Israelis you meet are probably the least affluent ones who can not afford to vacation in expensive surroundings. The Israelis in the USA typically are double relentless because that is why they left Israel for the USA in the first place. The Israelis in Israel run the spectrum, from hippy and peaceful to ultra religious to war-mongering. You are right though, most are very smart. As far as their alleged "small hearts", this is VERY subjective. Israelis will typically tend to have a high opinion of themselves, though, not necessarily a low opinion of others. As a historically hated and oppressed people, Jews might also have a certain organic distain for those cultures who have tended to dislike them (quite a few).
As for Jews in the aggregate: During the 1960's the US Civil Rights movement had a abnormally high percentage of Jews, who, were willing to risk their own safety to protect Blacks. When the genocides were occurring in the Balkans, it was Elli Weisel who was highly vocal in support of US intervention to protect Muslims. Ask any Christian Sudanese and they will report that aside from the USA, only little Israel has lifted a finger to help them.
I will not go much further in debate with you, for I feel that your ridiculous statements help the Jewish cause FAR more then I ever could.
"the Protocols... " A forged blood-liable used by the Russian Czar to rationalize his pogroms. Nothing more to be discussed--as it is a fraud.
My friend . . . you put the "fun" back in "dysFUNctional".
Please DO write back. This is the best stuff since Neil Simon's "Sunshine Boys". It is SO rare that someone can be both poetic and paranoid-delusional at the same time! If you continue with this profound skill of yours eventually, there may be a new Pulitzer Prize category awarded for best 'aggrieved psychosis'.
Your comment is noted. It is also noted that you posted the same comment twice.
“Olmert is going to be indicted for fraud”
Nothing new. Translation: This is how Israeli leaders are ousted from their office without the standard “no confidence” votes. This is the first step in his replacement. The only question remaining is: Who will be the replacement? There are three obvious possibilities:
Shaul Mofaz, an Iranian Jew and military leader, who used to be part of the labor government but now belongs to the ‘fusion’ party--invented by Sharon.
Barak (again)
Or Netanyhau (again).
“what a bunch you have running the country”
I have no one running any country. I have no position in the Israeli government. I am an American citizen with some close enough personal ties to the Israeli politics to occasionally hear insider political information.
“why does Israel have the right to have nukes and Iran not?”
Because the United Nations Security Counsel has been convinced that Iran would present a unacceptable risk to peace in the region. The Security Counsel did NOT spell out what exact risks were worrisome enough for them to pass four separate resolutions. It is reasonable to assume that the risk being contemplated is beyond just the Israel issue as the U.N. has rarely lifted a pinky-finger to help Israel and especially the variety of dictators being represented on the Security Counsel.
Regarding your comments on the Qur’an:
Like it or not the Quran is the Muslim book of law and in countries like Saudi Arabia, the Qur’an is their entire federal constitution. I hear many more quotes from Qur’an and quite few from Hadith. When I quote from Surah 17, I am making a religious legal claim in the name of Islamic law.
“Always wear your turban and never trust the Jews”
Once again you manage to support the Jewish cause better then I.
As far as the life of the Islamic prophet: he was distinct in that he was one of if not the only famous religious revolutionary who was not born to status. Even Jesus claimed to be of a special (kingly) blood lineage which qualified him to claim the messiah-ship (see Matthew 1). A “Carpenter: seems like a humble profession today but in his day, it was like being a dentist is today, as wood was rare and expensive.
I am also very generous but it gets me no phrase. BTW: The only people who have ever returned money I loaned them were Jews.
But your scribnership is swiftly loosing its charm and taking on a very venomous tone in its place.
“his his greedy, dumpy wife”
Who cares? What does that have anything to do with war-and-peace?
I am willing to entertain your insults so long as they are funny. Without the humor, alas, they appear both desperate and somewhat pathetic.
You cover a vast number of topics.
I can (and should) not answer in the rambling style of your indictment, which leaves for me a hard job of “unscrambling the egg”.
But moreover, I am not the type to merely condemn without offering solutions. My proposed solutions are generally rejected by every possible faction and spectrum of the socio-political rainbow. This is important to understand. I am not a contrarian. I am not a “pot-stirrer”. Therefore, one would otherwise assume that my suggestions would find some home in the world. Somewhere in the full complement of different factions, should be a segment who relates to my reasoning. But there is not and never has been. What does this mean? It means that if one is a conservative, I am called a “liberal”. If one is a “Liberal” I am called a conservative. No matter what one’s religion, I am considered an apostate.
To the “Greens”, I am a fascist. To the fascists, I am a “tree hugger”.
This trend runs exactly opposite from a famous bible character, Paul, who wrote in 1-Corinthians-9:
(20)And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
(21)To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
(22)To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
Now, that said, back to business.
“The proper way to deal with a virus is to destroy it and to inoculate those who might be infected. Don't you agree?”
I only agree if we are speaking about viruses. It seems you have extended the analogy to include a great many other people, places and things, which should be taken one at a time.
“both America and Israel are infected with the virus of Excess, and as such are totally out of balance with the rest of the world, and if we are out of balance there is no peace and harmony, which is what we all want, surely you can see the wisdom of that?”
“Excess” exists in many forms in a great many places and is NOT confined to Israel and/or the USA. More importantly, the POTENTIAL for excess exists almost universally. Therefore, as the standard of living rises in China (for example) the newly affluent people want everything they can buy for cash or credit. As it already now stands, Chinese husbands are allowed as many mistresses as they can financially support. These men may not be chubby, but then again, both the work needed to support these mistresses as well as exercise required to bring them all to orgasm--burns a lot of calories.
But why have you left off the Arab oil producing countries in your list of the damned?
You want to speak about excess, how about a private jumbo jet or three?
You wrote:
“Gaza is a mistake, what is being done to the Palestinians is a mistake, and way down deep in your Jewish heart you know it because you're an intelligent man. Gaza is a concentration camp. How can you deny it?”
Obviously, it is not a success. The larger question is: Who’s mistake? Who’s failure and who have they failed? You blame the Jews for this crisis but they are victims too. You just don’t see them as victims because they appear to be better surviving the crisis then the local Arabs.
When I visited Israel in 1984, there were NO guns in the hands of any Arabs. Zero. There were likewise no mortars or katushas. Guess what, there were no problems either. None for them and none for the Israelis. The Arabs would come to work (from W.B. and Gaza) and go home and live relatively normal lives. There was no great love shared between Arab and Hebrew but there was mutual recognition and some level of respect.
This all ended when two events occurred:
1. The former Soviet Union permitted Jews to escape after 50 years of holding them hostage.
2. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian Christian politician decided to use that moment stage labor actions for better pay for W.B. and Gaza Arabs.
The Arabs refused to accept that Israel is a sanctuary and refuge for endangered Jews worldwide and that is how we got to where we are today. That issue is far from settled and the Arabs also demand that (today) 7-million Arabs, of which all but about 150,000 NEVER SET A FOOT INSIDE ISRAEL are permitted to become voting Israeli citizens.
Translation: They reject Israel’s right to exist AS ISRAEL (i.e. The Jewish National Homeland”).
When Yasser Arafat (who was NOT a Palestinian himself) died and was replaced by Mahmoud Abbas (who was a Palestinian), Mr. Abbas appeared to be opening the door for the recognition of Israel AS ISRAEL—(not as France or Indonesia or the United Nations). More importantly, when he seemed to be on the verge of acknowledging that there would NOT be an infusion of 7-million new Israeli citizens who just so happened to be Arabs, a civil war broke out and Mr. Abbas was targeted for assassination by his own. This is nothing new at all. Up until almost his last day, Chairman Arafat was ordering the summary execution of anyone he deemed to be a traitor. Such executions have, throughout the 90 years of this struggle, added up to about 5,000 corpses. These are Arabs killed execution style by other Arabs. In the early days (between 1920 and 1948) the victims were generally leading citizens, intellectuals, teachers and even some clerics. (Nowadays such killings have generally been confined to those who are accused of passing information to the Israelis.) Nonetheless, seven of Abbas’ “Fatah” operatives were thrown off roofs to their deaths when Ismail Haniyeh refused to have his government dissolved as called for in the Palestinian Constitution. He unlawfully seized control of Gaza and since then, literally thousands of anti-civilian rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel. Each one of those rockets is a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention.
So I ask you Mr. Kutta:
What is your SOLUTION to this? We have repeatedly heard your condemnations but what do you propose to solve the problem? A vaccine perhaps?
PS> Noam Chomsky (in my humble opinion) is a pathological (though quite well skilled)
Liar. If one relies on lies, one can not achieve justice in return.
Rewind:
“And why, Dr. Trollstein, have Jews been crushed and despised for 2,600 years?”
While I appreciate your more recent comments—which are far more benevolent in tone and substance, they do not offset your earlier statements which were defective in two respects:
“Crude people”
“more land, more food, more guns”
Etc.
a)Many of your characterizations are factually inaccurate.
b)You painted a portrait of one people oppressed and another the oppressors, which is itself subjective and quite clearly disproved by the time-line and facts on the ground.
To this point you commented (contradictorily):
“ . . . instructed me to always tell the truth.
and
“the fatal futility of facts as William James once said, that proves nothing if there is no heart or soul”
In other wording: “Facts are the enemy of Truth” ~ Don Migel deServantes “The Man of La Mancha”.
In reality, facts are NOT the enemy of truth and they still prove plenty, whether they are all soul or sans-soul.
Is there any reason you know of why the Palestinian-Arabs living in various host countries should be singled out and the ONLY population in world history to be designated “refugees” from a nation that most never set foot in?
Is there any reason you know of why this population (now estimated at 7-million) should be without human rights--while they fester in their ‘concentration camp’ surroundings?
You call Gaza a ‘concentration camp’ but when I was there, it was not a concentration camp. It was merely a ‘neighborhood’. Did Gaza become a ‘concentration camp’ because the Jews acquired “more [of its] land”? To the contrary, the Hebrews WITHDREW from Gaza neighborhoods--which had been continually Jewish for a mere 3,200 years.
Did Gaza become a ‘concentration camp’ because the Israelis infused “more guns” into Gaza? Once again, your stated notion of reality is not less then 180* backwards. In point-of-fact, when I was in Gaza the Israelis had ALL the guns and there was no (zero) violence and no ‘concentration camp’ either. Today, the Arabs have all the weapons in Gaza and furthermore, they are using them against both their own and the Israelis.
Now, as a direct result, they are a ‘concentration camp’. So the question remaining is: Who’s camp?
The solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict begins with ending the voluminous conflicts in reality itself. If you wish to be part of the solution, you should attune your understanding (and therefore your statements) to the true-facts, William James and le Hombre de la Mancha aside.
The most suffering party (contrary to intuition) is not always the justified one.
I do not agree with every position of the Israeli government and rest assured, there are a few Israeli friends I have that I would prefer to strangle—in between moments of enjoyment. But the facts on the ground do not (overall) support the pro-Arab position in this matter. There have been FAR, FAR TO MANY cards dealt from the bottom of the deck and these cards are instinctively and exclusively being dealt in the Hebrews direction. Hence my conclusion that the world has always cared far less for the benefit of the Palestinian-Arabs then they do for the total annihilation of the Jews. Once that wrong has first been identified, admitted to and finally righted, then, there is a chance for peace. Until then, why bother? If peace is not REALLY the goal then why bother pretending it is? If the primary goal remains the continued re-configuration of reality for the determent and humiliation of the Hebrews, then one (and only one) of two results will occur.
a) The Jews will be destroyed (don’t bet on that one).
b) The conflict will perpetuate, like an educed coma. (recommended bet).
People who favor a peaceful conclusion MUST get off their addiction to bullsh*t.
I think this is true for countries too.
I am difinitely for Nader- I think is supremely qualified and truthful, qualities sorely lacking in the present candidates.I will send a contribution even on a small fixed income. One comment: why hasn't this congress done anything about the corruption in the whitehouse??-laws have been broken flagrantly--Cheney at least should have been impeached due to his relationship w/Halliburton.We should outlaw the lobbyists that are selling our very lives down the tubes for their profit!!
WE gave this congress a blank check!!
They have failed us yet again!!
Also, the Hamas and Israel need to talk!! they can live in PEACE if they learn to communicate-DO IT!
The above statement is highly subjective.
Israel is unpopular. While many of its opponents deny this, I say they would be unpopular no matter what they did or did not do.
So what is their incentive to become popular? There is none.
Israel believes it has a clear ethical and moral right to exist in peace within its existing borders, so it feels little if any shame.
Its position in this regard is not unwarranted, for a great many reasons.
To answer your question--without going into too great detail, The Zionists felt cheated out of territory, they believed was reserved for Israel's legitimate borders.
This controversy has never been adjudicated (more on that point later).
Additionally, the militant Zionist movement also believed that a great many Arabs has colonized land, rightly belonging to them, whilst the British had illegitimately barred the Jews from lawful immigration, over the years between 1920 and 1947.
These are serious and credible allegations. The question is, what to do if they are true? How does one evict a family who were alleged to have been illegal immigrants, as distant as 27 years previous? Of course, there is no civil solution so the controversy is somewhat mooted.
The recorded population of Jerusalem (East and West) was 40,000 Jews and 7,000 non-Jews (including Christians, Non-Arab Muslims and all others) in 1907, according to the Travel Guide to Syria and Palestine, written at that time. By 1920, that land had been legally reserved for Jewish immigration. Due to politics, the Jews were screwed and remained barred from immigrating until after WW2. Since there is no way to put the 'toothpaste' back in the proverbial tube, all parties have tried to grab what they could. The Jews have done so without shame and due to the many and varied circumstances, they are not unjustified in that position.
There is no possibility to adjudicate this border dispute, because no human tribunal is capable of doing so.
Suppose the American Indians wanted to adjudicate their claims for stolen land? Which court could hear such a case? There is none for reasons too obvious to state.
We are stuck where we are stuck, all of us.
There is no cure. One can only hope to lighten the pain and that can only be done with daily doses of factual background.
The Arabs and their supporters have maintained a generally fallacious notion of history. Thus, they feel far more entitled and cheated then is substantiated by the true facts.
For example, one blogger herein made a fuss about an early Israeli (1947) masacre of Arab civilians, which I strongly condemn. But no mention was made of 25 (previous) years of repeated massacres, by militant Arab factions against Jewish neighborhoods, which were facilitated by the British.
Jews are not angels but they are only guilty of about 1% of what they are routinely accused of. That is the point. If one wishes to be dealing with the truth, one should automatically discount 99% of what we regularly hear, pertaining to the evilness of the Jews. Being Jewish, hearing this extra (unwarranted) 99% does something specific to the Hebrew mindset. It make us disregard our daily critics in general, and even disregard the 1%, which is justified.
“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”
Are you serious?
Where please is this quote referenced in the real world?
Even if he thought it (which I debate) he would have never said such a thing as he would have been asking for this sort of legacy.
Please support your misinformation with citation.
Thanks you.
Clarence Thomas managed to get all the way up to the US Supreme Court by functioning as a reliable “contrarian,” against the best interests of his own ethnic group. Nathanael Kapner only succeeded in putting up a nutty web page, full of lies and insults. “Jews will lock us up”
“JEWS WILL IMPRISON CITIZENS VIA THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT”
Lets see if I understand:
2% of Americans who are Jews, of which half are women, many are doctors and accountants and some are themselves secular leftists, are going to put non-Jewish (often gun-owning) Americans in a giant prison? COL (cry-out-loud).
We are scientists and he is a cuke.
Now, back to the alleged quote from Menachem Begin.
You have furnished no credible references, other then this ridiculous man’s rant-page.
Of course the quote is false and obviously so.
“ . . . The masses will lick our feet . . .”
Clearly written by an Arab for Arab propagandic consumption, due to the major aversion Arab tradition has with bear feet and especially the bottom sides.
PS> If M. Begin REALLY was an evil guy, he WOULD have said:
“We will force the subhuman ‘goyam’ to eat our kefilta fish!”
Now THAT would be scary!
(Please try to do better next time).
But speaking as an Israeli citizen, more recently, Morris has declared his view that the mistake of Ben-Gurion and the leadership of 1948 was that they did not carry the expulsion of the Palestinians all the way. Morris sees Israel in 2008 as a state under perpetual siege and the focus of a clash of civilizations; he sees Palestinians -- and to a degree, all Arabs; and Iranians, too -- as a species of animals not yet inducted into full humanity. Thus in a well-known interview
with Ari Shavit, published in Haaretz on January 5, 2004, Morris described the Israeli problem with the Palestinians:
"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
In the years since Benny Morris spoke those words, the construction of the Israeli wall in the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza by land, sea, and air have created the cage he believed was necessary.
But you guys should stop putting up “straw men” in order to tear them down.
Morris does NOT speak for me or for the democratic government of Israel.
Keep the following in mind.
In the Mid 1930’s, before Germany invaded Poland, they were commonly referred to as: “The German Army.”
In the early 1940’s, these same people were known in the US media and vernacular as: “The Nazis”.
As 1945 approached and as it appeared that the Allies were soon going to win, the entire collective German civilization became known as: “Hitler”.
The news reels spoke of: “Hitler doing such-and-such”.
This second shift in perception was done to encourage a day soon when Hitler would be dead or captive and the German people could go on with their normal lives as if nothing had happened.
What you are doing is the functional reverse. You are trying to locate and publicize specific statements attributed to specific Jewish people--so that the entire Jewish Nation can thus be discredited through these (alleged) words, some of which are not even true.
I really do not care what Morris says or when he said it. He is one voice, just like yours (BTW: I generally do not care what you have to say either).
The wall would not be necessary if the (non-Israeli) Palestinian-Arabs would not be obsessed with claiming Israel as Arab-Palestine.
The world generally objects to this wall for the same reason. To most of the world’s (inaccurate) perceptions, Israel is no different then South Africa, contains no Jewish regional natives and has no legitimate right to exist within secure borders. To this thinking, the ultimate outcome should be a “one state” solution. Therefore, the wall is an impediment to that goal, of dissolving the Jewish nature of the Jewish National Homeland. Thus, it is objectionable to many nations.
To quote from U.N.S.C. 242, which specifically calls for:
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and THEIR RIGHT TO LIVE IN PEACE WITHIN SECURE AND RECOGNIZED BOUNDARIES FREE FROM THREATS OR ACTS OF FORCE;
It is in response to 40 years of repeated violations of the above that the wall became a necessary security measure. The 2008 world would like to rescind the above provision of U.N.S.C. 242. Of course, it can’t. So it relies on other measures shuch as discrediting Israel, as a way to vicariously accomplish what is specifically prohibited by U.N.S.C. 242.
God has requested of you...Please
What you completely overlook is that to zealot Hebrews, I am a dangerous apostate. More dangerous then yourself because of two reasons:
1. I deal more consistently with truthful facts.
2. I am (by perception) one of their own (ethnically).
But I tell you now something I have never before said, not even in private.
I can not only delineate most of the pertinent defects with the established world religions buy I feel I can repair the damage done to the human mental psyche by replacing these often obvious falsehoods with a well reasoned set of “patches”. The resulting understanding would tend to have the effect of unifying the disparate teachings and creating more of a “live and let live” attitude.
This is what the world is most in need of. A strong dose of truth with some assorted facts as chasers.
But lets say that the world rejects my perceptions (which is likely). How is the crisis dealt with--without perceptual corrections implemented? It may not be plausible. Two disparate sets of reality can not occupy the same space at the same time. One must eventually yield to the other, by whatever mechanics. Sometimes, time alone cures misperceptions as for example, after enough years of believing that a flat earth was the absolute center of the universe, all the traditional adversaries of such teaching eventually conceded that this was inaccurate. In other examples, worldwide cataclysms were the tools which reset peoples normal (sane) thinking patters, such as after WW2, certain peoples suddenly stopped believing that Jews were subhuman rodents.
But to try and answer your question as specifically as possible:
Israel should publish a manifesto wherein it is very clear of their intentions: Namely, to vacate some more land which they acquired during the 1967 war and to thereby dismantle whatever “settlements” are required to do so. They should clearly state that this offer is ONLY in return for a guarantee of peace.
The various Palestinian-Arab communities (outside Israel proper) should become “special administrative districts”, similar to how Hong Kong is treated by China. They should all have the nationality of “Palestinians” but each “host” nation should have the virtual position which China has regarding Hong Kong. Thereby, their government would not be fully autonomous but function within reasonable boundaries set by each host nation. They would have no need for a military--as they would be protectorates of each other (“host”) nation. With regards to West Bank and Gaza, Egypt should take charge of Gaza and Jordan of the W.B.. Thus, they would all have passports, human rights and for the first time in 60 years, a viable future. The world should be called on to help this endeavor, both economically and militarily (if necessary).
They would vote for both regional and national leaders, who would not be bargaining against threats of war but collectively as a large labor union bargains.
Lastly, the United Nations should be replaced with a body who’s votes are allocated by population, and one where all nations may join but only those nations with verified free speech, free press and free religion (all three) should be permitted to cast votes.
That would be a viable beginning.
Any other questions?