Ted Belman
About a month ago, I wrote Annapolis is about wiping Israel off the map. A devotee of Israpundit wrote to say that I went too far in accusing the US of that
. Since I believe that accepting the Saudi Peace Plan would place Israel in mortal danger, I advised him that in criminal law, when one proceeds in reckless disregard of the consequences, one is deemed to have intended them. That is not to say that there are not many in the State Department who do in fact want to see the end of Israel.
Recently I advised Why I hate Annapolis and this article was widely distributed. One lawyer wrote to say in effect “Hogwash”. I wrote him back with a few facts and he backed off and said there were two ways to look at things. I agree. The right way and the wrong way, but I am sure he didn’t mean it in that sense.
Other leftists wrote that we must pursue Annapolis if we desire peace. That’s the holy grail but none of them questions whether it will in fact lead to peace. For them it is an axiom. I want peace and that’s why I reject it.
Today I posted an article by Prof Barry Rubin, Annapolis, in which he explains why peace is not obtainable,
The reason the issue persists is twofold. First, the Palestinians and a very large portion of their fellow Arabs still want and expect total victory. They don’t seek compromise because they don’t really want a two-state solution, at least not as more than a temporary stage leading to Israel’s disappearance from the map. Thus, while there is endless talk about Israeli concessions and commitments but virtually nothing about what is required by the other side. Why? Because they won’t give anything and pointing that out too explicitly shows there is no chance of real progress.
Second, Arab politics needs the conflict’s continuation. Incumbent regimes require it to provide a scapegoat so they can mobilize support for themselves and as an excuse letting them explain away their own multiple failures. The Islamist oppositions need it as a slogan in their pursuit of power. Fatah is in the first category; Hamas in the second.
And there you have it.
Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:08 pm |
49 Comments »
Moshe writes
So simple. So easy to understand. And yet, so many intellectuals are unable to understand the simpliest facts and their consequences. And worse, much worse: our leaders, the leaders of Israel, concretize every possible imbecility, every act of self-criminalism!!!
Comment by Ted Belman — December 3, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick writes
Dear Ted:
Yes, you are right. When the Arabs talk peace they only mean pieces - pieces
of Israel. This Annapolis tragic farce will amount to nothing. As at Camp David in
2000, the Right of Return demand will scuttle this exercise in futility. Shas will pull
out of the coalition and there will be new elections which will result in PM Bibi, FM
Effie Eitam, and Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon. Limor Livnat will be ambassador to the
UN and Moshe Feiglin will be ambassador to the US. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef will become
Minister of Religious Affairs.
Judea and Shomron will be formally annexed and the Arabs will have a choice of paying
Israeli taxes, or get the heave-ho. I feel that at least half will choose to leave and
emigrate to Dubai. Gaza will be given the choice: Expel Hamas or be flattened to the
ground by the IAF. There will be relatively few Israeli casualties and the EU under
Angela Merkel, David Cameron(who will defeat Gordon Brown) and Nicplas Sarkozy will
welcome Israel’s new assertiveness and so will the US under either President Giuliani or
President Huckabee(either one who will defeat either Hilary or Obama). These are my
forecasts. Let me know what you think. Thanks - Rick Kardonne.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 3, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Ken writes
I think you’re right, but I also think your way of expressing it was a little too passionate.
But by being careful to circulate those two absolutely incisive points by Barry Rubin, you’ve corrected any wrong impression which your passionate (but not wrong) words may have created, because they might sound to some ears like too simplistic thinking, even if the truth for you IS simple.
I’m sure you’ve encountered two pieces, one by Daniel Pipes, and the other by David Warren, which pretty much summarize the essential error of the Annapolis conference.
They don’t just recycle conventional wisdom (as most columnists do), but rather they honestly scrutinize the facts (especially about the Arabs, and the Muslims) for what they are.
If the foolish game being played at Annapolis was to bolster Abbas (”the moderate”)against Hamas (”the radicals”), the conference will ultimately be of very little, and of very ephemeral, help to Israel or the USA. The conference, if such was its main purpose, was misconceived, because by it Rice and Bush have allowed the Arabs to deny, ignore, and obscure THE deeper issue. The rejection of the idea of a Jewish state is what has dominated the cultural perspective and the politics of the Arabs since they first contemplated Zionism seriously toward the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. It requires tough work for the Arabs and Muslims to face and to alter three very unpleasant truths about themselves, i.e.,
(1) change an entrenched religious tradition of prejudice against Jews and Judaism, especially insofar as this tradition theologically pronounces that the Jews are not entitled to political freedom;
(2) accept responsibility for their own creation and maintenance of the misery of the Arab [”Palestinian”] refugees, who have been used shamelessly as pawns in a futile political struggle;
(3) modernize their societies rather than comfort their dissatisfied masses with the balm of hatred of Jews (in the form of “Israel” and “Zionism”).
Getting the Arabs to accept the very IDEA of a Jewish state should be the highest priority of Western diplomacy, if they want to bring “peace” even a wee bit closer. One must dig under the piles of cliches and get to the rock-bottom truth, which will not be a pleasant sight for those one wishes to train to see with their own eyes. So it’ll be no picnic for us in the West to do it, since the Arabs have got us over an oil barrel, and they’re likely to respond to our speaking the truth to them by getting very angry at us, not at themselves.
Keep doing what you’ve been doing so well, i.e., to challenge provocatively the conventional wisdom about the Middle East conflict, which it’s so comfortable to hold for most “enlightened” people, because it’s so much simpler to dump on Israel rather than do the difficult work of forcing the Arabs (and Muslims) to face the truth about themselves.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 3, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rivka puts it this way
america thinks that the minute israel disappears oil will be a dollar a gallon, and the arabs will fall in live with them. they are idiots, always were, and will always be. they lose every war, and will lose the one in Iraq too, and return home with their pants down. they don’t know any other way. r.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 3, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This from a “fan”
don’t care who the fuck you are or why the fuck all of a sudden I’m getting your bullshit KIKE emails. FUCK those God damned baby-raping, mass-murdering, genocidal, treasonous, back-stabbing, Christian-hating, faggot-supporting cocksuckers!
If it wasn’t for those cocksucking yid bastards, we wouldn’t have to worry about being bombed! Fuck israel!
HITLER WAS RIGHT! 1.5 MILLION MORE! 1.5 MILLION MORE! 1.5 MILLION MORE!! 1.5 MILLION MORE!
Comment by Ted Belman — December 3, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-East on target writes
The Palestinian – Israeli conflict is projected by many as an accelerator for Islamic extremism (Sunni and Shi’ite) in the Arab world. Believing that an accommodation between Israel and the Palestinians, whatever the terms may be, will curb religious fanaticism is the major fundamental mistake. Anyone making peace with Israel is viewed as a traitor deserving of death as far as the Islamists are concerned. Any agreement with Israel will stir up Islamist hatreds against the Jewish State and the “treacherous” peacemakers who have undermined Arab/Islamic solidarity. Here it does not matter how much land Israel surrenders or whether Jerusalem should be split or not. Jewish sovereignty will serve as a lightning rod to attract increased Islamist aggression not only against Israel but against the secular Arab regimes who have decided on the peace option.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 3, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So simple. So easy to understand. And yet, so many intellectuals are unable to understand the simpliest facts and their consequences.
You assume they fail to understand this. Perhaps they indeed understand and share the same goal as the arabs, to eliminate Israel. As Rivka alluded to, the west thinks that if Israel is gone, it will tame the muslim beast and thus will make themselves safe. Israel is being sacrificed just as Czechoslovakia was at Munich in 1938. You would think the lesson of that would have been learned, but it hasn’t. History will repeat itself and not only the Jews but the rest of the world will undergo a catastrophe of major proportions resulting from the appeasment of the jihadis.
Comment by Laura — December 3, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt wrote
Yes, you are right and so is Barry Rubin. I met with Muslim students from the University of Colorado about 4 years ago, and they confirmed point numbers 2. Three of the students were from Libya and one was from France but had been born in Saudi Arabia. The latter had fled with his parents when they felt threatened by the Saud family. They were kind to accept my invitation to discuss the conflict between Israel and the Arab states over tea and with mutual respect. When I asked why the Arabs hated Jews with such a passion, the Saudi fellow told me that if they didn’t have the Israelis to hate and kill, they would hate and kill each other. He admitted that, sadly, that is their nature. I told him that I guess I am somewhat consoled by that as it seemed to imply that Israel must survive so that they can have a common enemy. He agreed.
Comment by Ted Belman — December 4, 2007 @ 5:29 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe wrote
1. The Jews want “peace.” By some insane logic they believe the arabs have it in their hands to deliver.
2. The western concept of peace and the arab concept of peace are 2 different things.
3. Western and Jewish liberals believe that peace is the natural order of life.
4. But arabs believe that conflict and domination is the natural order of life. Therefore their culture is replete with violence and domination in their family life, their tribal life and so on. For arabs, only personal, tribal, or national power assures one’s own “peace.” They never seek it from the other. Churchill, as British Colonial Secy, said the arab is “either at your feet or at your throat.” They will accept being dominated if the victor acts like a victor. Otherwise, they will seek to dominate. There is no middle ground.
5. In addition to their cultural design, religiously the muslims cannot tolerate Jewish sovereignty over their own people or their “perceived” arab land. In the Koran only the muslim can dominate, there is no tolerance for Jews or christians except as “dhimmis.”- ‘dominated inferiors’.
6. Moreover, arab “market dynamics” or the shouk-style of negotiation demands an all or nothing approach. The arab merchant “gives in” when he believes all is lost [that no sale will occur]. If he senses interest, then he seeks the max. Here the arabs are thrilled that the Jews seek to buy mirages which the arabs don’t possess or which cost the arabs nothing: “recognition” and “peace.” Arab “peace” can be no more than a temporary Hudna, leading to a regrouping and new assault on their ultimate objective.
7. The arab sees the repeated, desperate pleas of the “tired” liberal/socialist Jews for “peace” as a strategic opportunity to extract the maximum from the Jews; to compel the Jews to “take risks for peace,” to place Israel in a mortal, and suicidal posture.
They are happy to dangle the “peace” illusion before those who want to foolishly believe.
8. No, the way to true peace in the face of this historic, intolerant and crafty enemy is for Jewish leadership [in Israel and in the world-wide Jewish community] to declare that the Jewish nation will forcefully advocate and seek the satisfaction of its historic claims of Jewish sovereignty over historic Jewish land, as has been recognized numerous times in history and international law [Balfour declaration, League mandate, UN charter and trusteeship treaties, etc.]. For the palestinians no international law and no historic precedent exists for entitlement to sovereignty. Their best claim is for “permanent residence” which is overshadowed by the historic and legal entitlement of sovereignty to the Jewish people alone.
9. This Jewish claim, must now be backed up by Israel’s status as a regional super-power. True peace is not negotiated but imposed and enforced by the victor over the vanquished. Indeed, with the arabs, Israel has nothing left to appease or offer lest it unravel the moral and legal rightness of its historic claims of sovereignty and its national system of safety. If it gives up parts of Jerusalem, then where is the moral,legal and historic justification for Tel Aviv?
10. The true Jewish roadmap is found in the siddur and in the bible, not in the minds of western politicos who have conflicts-of-interest due to arab oil wealth.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment