Moral Stupidity

I never claimed anything of the sort.

The main difference between Roadmap and the Oslo treaty is an accent on reciprocal actions of both sides. Palestinians have not done anything yet to stop terror, except declarations. Israel will not permit to make a fool out of it the second successive time. Only when our counterparts in the political process undertake serious steps aimed to put end to terror, there will be a reason to demand us to proceed with concessions. The time of free of charge gifts to Palestinians has gone, they proved their ingratitude since September 2000. Now for every square angstrom of territory given to them they should pay with real contribution to concerted anti-terror effort.

cjhsa,

I am not a big fan of attempts to debunk arguments based on the perceived bias of nations. I'd rather the actual arguments be considered and the arguments you were responding to were not anti-semetic IMO.

To argue that a European's opinion is tainted by a anti-semetic bias simply on the basis of the person's residence in Europe is akin to arguing that an American's opinion is biased against Palestinians based on the American's nationality and the well known alliance between Isreal and the US.

It's a fallacious piece of rhetoric that does not take into account the merits of the opinion given and seeks to debunk it on the basis of generalized notions about bias.

CdK, I would agree with you if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was really about real estate and nothing beyond this. But for Israel this is a battle for survival, and the concessions will be made only if the security is guaranteed by the counterpart, regardless of its having or not property rights to the sites where the settlements are located (by the way, the property rights of the Palestinians are dubious; in 1897-1947 many of the plots on the territory of the West Bank were purchased by the philanthropic Jewish organization Keren Kayemeth Le-IsraelKeren Kayemeth).

CDK, please comment on the recent comments made by several US heads of state concerning anti-semitism in Europe.

I would think that arguing that Israel targets innocent civilians is definitely tainted with some anti-semitism, because clearly they are not, at least not in the same way that homocide bombers seek out crowds of innocents.

steissd,

I agree taht there is a heavy tilt toward direct reciprocation in the current Roadmap. Much of that is aimed at creating a way to hold each side accountable. Isreal has long insisted that its concessions come after the Palestinian's actions in what is commonly called sequentialism (often including a long time of downtime before Isreal has to make concessions, a time in which any Palestinian inability to control their terrorists would restart the process).

But I believe it is disingenuous to say that Ireal has simply complied and the Palestinians not reciprocated.

The way I see it Isreal has made some stunning symbolic moves that I applaud yet at the same time they undermine Palestinian efforts because they disagree with the manner in which Abu is attempting to end the violence.

Many person, including myself and most moderate Palestinian, believe that even if the Palestinian extremists will be cracked down on a truce is essential in order to acheive this.

The notion goes that it is difficult to impossible for an unpopular Palestinian to take on all the terrorists at once and if some can agree to peace it will divide them (extremists) instead of unifying them.

Isreal acted impatiently and when Hamas first balked at a truce Isreal escalated and undermined Abu (yes, calling him a chick with no wings and assasinating Palestinians is something I see as undermining his ability to control the extreme Palestinian elements).

I see it not so much as the Palestinians being unwilling to reciprocate as Isreal dictating what they will accept as reciprocal action and if that is not met taking action that hurts the ability of Abu to reciprocate as well as hurting the chances for overall peace.

That is a position shared by the current US adminitration which you call the most favorable toward Isreal in recent times.

The US administration has scolded Isreal (to as harsh a degree as their political capital can afford) saying that Isreal's actions do not increase Israeli scurity and that Israeli actions hurt the chances for peace.

To be fair they also tried to pin the bulk of the blame on Hamas. Insisting that Isreal and Abu is not the problem, that Hamas is the problem.

I find it unfair to paint broad strokes and say Isreal's actions ahve been good while the Palestinian actions ahve not.

If Abu is to crack down Isreal needs to temper her own overreaction. Isreal needs to avoid undermining someone who is not popular and has a hugely difficult and unpopular task.

To my mind those factors have been so blatant as to make me wonder if they are intentional or just stupid.

Unfortunately, Steissd, it is that kind of thinking on both sides of this terrible problem that cause it to continue to be a terrible problem.

My folks originally came from the Mediterranean littoral. They are, for the most part, a bunch of stone heads who never forget a slight - and almost never forgive an injustice.

That kind of thinking is endemic to the peoples of the littoral.

I've tried hard during the last several months to be optimistic about the chances of peace in the Middle East, but I think I had it right the first time. It will never happen.

Best thing the United States can do is to butt out - and let the people who live there sort this thing out on their own. We are not nearly impartial enough to be moderators - or purveyors of peace plans.

cjhsa,

To say that Isreal intentionally target's civilians in, to me, false. To say that Isreal uses methods that they know will kill more civilians than their targets is a far statement.

Isreal has enough history to know that their air-strike methods routinely kill more civilians than their targets. Isreal also seems to think we are stupid enough to believe that they didn't know that children were in cars that they target. Apparently their intelligence is enought o pin point secretive movements of a target of theirs while not noticing the target's wife and kids in the car.

I do not believe Isreali declarations to that effect in many cases.

In any case I think Frank made no mention of deliberate slaughter of civilians by Iraelis but rather the use of tactics that they know will cause innocent death.


Steissd,

I am under no illusion that this is about survival anymore. It started about survival but Israel's survival is quite secure. Not by any strech of my imagination can I see a situation in which Israel's survival is militarily threatened by Arabs.

The only angle I see that makes it about survival is that Ireal needs to break the millstone around its neck and put an end to dreams of expantion. To expand would mean to make it an issue of Israeli survival as a democratic Jewish state.

To me, the old anecdotes about Arab hatred are only true about many Arab attitudes but does not take into account the Arab capability.

All the Arab nations together do not have the military might to threaten Israel's existence. If they could come close we (the US) would be the tiebreaker in Isreal's favor.


I'm afraid I have to disagree that Isreal in in a fight for their existence. IMO the fight for their existence only exists internaly. IMO unilateral withdrawal would secure their existence to a greater degree.

Antisemitism is a hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.

It has nothing to do with politics by any Israelitic party or the Israelian government. (Opposing US policy doesn't mean blasphemy neither.)

This oponion is shared by the Central Committee of Jews in Germany (you can email them at [email protected] ).


[Thanks, steissd.
But I didn't teach history on anti-semitism but methods how to handle with right wing youth re. antisemitism.
I developped with the LKA (kind of state FBI) Northrhine-Westphalia some projects on this subject.]

Israel is not undermining anything, it is impossible to undermine the thing that does not exist. I do not have any doubts in good intentions of Mr. Abbas, but he had no possibilities to change things from the very beginning. Arafat, from one side has kept his grip over the majority of numerous Palestinian security forces. From the other side, being a secular man, he is not authoritative at all among the Hamas and Jihad leadership. Hence he is unable either to force them to stop terror or to convince them doing the same.
Israel is necessitated to do this work instead of him.
Right now there is a discussion in the leadership of Hamas whether to cease fire or not. Half a year ago the same people did not refer this topic at all. Why did such changes happen? For a very simple reasons: Hamas leaders were reminded by IDF that they were mortal. They suddenly found out that in this war not only the underprivileged and barely literate teenagers may lose lives; their belonging to elite does not make them less vulnerable. OK, now I expect a lecture on legal aspect of extrajudicial killing. But the same Hamas leaders have numerous times referred to the current riot as to war. They wanted war, they got it, and in course of war the problems are not being solved in the courtrooms with participance of defense attorneys. They still have chance to stay alive and even free if they stop terror: Israel does not demand their extradition as a precondition. But now they are busy with searching the sophisticated theologic exegesis for justification of their cessation of jihad (they do not want Yusuf al-Umma (Joe Nation in Arabic) to understand that the leaders that called for martyrdom, were in fact regular chickenhawks). Israel has no time to wait while they find a formula permitting them not to lose their political faces: every day of delay brings new Israeli civilian victims. Therefore, manhunt will continue until the Islamic leaders declare ceasefire (and not only declare, but fulfill their promises). And neutralization of the worst enemies of Abu Mazen may enable the latter to fulfil his promises given at Aqaba.

Well, these are particular details, but I guessed the main essence: your activities were opposing anti-Semitism and not promoting it. Being partially an ethnic German, I really do not like when anyone is considered being an anti-Semite just for having German roots. Even Stalin has admitted that Hitlers come and go...

Well, Mr. de Kere, after the Palestinian state is established, there will be areas in Israel with width less than 15 kilometers between the eastern border and the sea. In case of surprise military attack (not a terror attack, but a full-blown conventional ground assault), Israeli territory and ground communications may be divided into two parts after several hours, thus impairing Israeli ability to respond. That is why any Israeli government wil not agree to anything that may endanger security. Under the new conditions it is easy to cut the vital supplies off the air force bases, thus neutralizing Israeli superiority in the air. Of course, there is the nuclear option, but I have not seen any Israeli government that was interested in its implementation. Israel is ready to concessions in field of property, prestige, living standards, but not security. As a former professional soldier I consider Israeli concerns justified.

steissd,

I am well aware of the old saw about Isreal being so small that it needs Arab territories for its security.

I'll refrain from comment about it.

Mr. de Kere, I really have no reasons to suspect you in problems with understanding the written text, so I shall blame myself for unclear wording. I shall make another attempt to make my (and Israeli in general) position clear.
So, here it goes: Israel does not need any Arab territories for security or any other reasons. It holds them as a result of war that was started by the Arab nations to order to eliminate it. It will return all the territories in exchange for firm and irrevocable guarantees of strategic security. It will not return it in exchange for lofty declarations of the Arab leaders, but certain measures should be undertaken to make security provisions real. Some of these measures may seem humiliating from the standpoint of the Arab traditional mindset, but these are the painful concessions they have to make in response to ours.
These include absence of any assault-oriented facilities in the armed forces of the Palestinian state (tanks, warplanes, submarines, missiles), monitoring of the aerial and naval space of Palestine by IDF (without interference into civilian affairs of Palestinians), absolute neutrality of Palestine (it should not sign any military treaties with any Arab nation, and any Arab armed forces should not be deployed on its territory). All this is necessary to avoid transformation of Palestine into bridgehead of foreign aggression against Israel.
If the Arabs decide to prefer peace and sovereignty over Palestinian state to tribal arrogance and grandeur myths, eternal peace is quite possible.

Do you really think Isreal will return to 1947 borders? I don't and being no fan of fuitile gestures don't even ask that of them.

I ask for 1967 borders and recognize that just getting close to that is a victory. With "fair and equitable" exchange of settlement territories that are too entreched to remove for "fair and equitable" land mass in exchange.

I am under no illusion that Isreal's territorial expantion is entirely derivated from security concerns. That would suggest that strategic settlement of Palestinian land is somehow a "security" measure as opposed to a land grab.

While I recognize that territories like the Golan heights have great strategic value I also note that previous Israeli conquests were admittedly not straightforward.

To use just one example one such incursion was to helpFrance and Britain take back Suez. That hasd nothing to do with preserving Isreali security and IMO most Israeli incursions are simply retaliatory or expantionist and IMO holding the territory of others and maintaining land disputes is a poor way to ensure your security.

Borders of 1947 are absolutely indefensible. When I speak about retreat from Arab territories, I mean to 1967 borders (this does not include Golan Heights, meanwhile, this may become possible only after a radical change in Syrian position; it is hardly possible under current minority Alawite regime that has the only way to survive: to boost official patriotism by means of anti-Israeli hysteria). The difference between 1967 and 1947 maps of the Palestinian state let us consider being a price the Arab nation is to pay for violent attempts to prevent establishment of Israel in 1948.

I disagree that 1947 is indefensible. I think it's unattractive.

I also disagree with the notion of holding someone's land until he is no longer angry with you.

.
I am sorry, this is inaccurate. In 1949-56 Egypt transformed Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula into bridgeheads for launching permanent and frequent terror attacks and cannon fire against Israel. The latter joined the British and French campaign for the following purposes: to defeat Egypt and to sign with it a peace treaty that will provide complete demilitarization of Sinai and Gaza, and cessation of sponsoring of terrorists' infiltration. Due to interference of Messrs. Eisenhower and Khruschev this mission was not accomplished and the objectives were achieved only in 1967.

Israel in borders of 1947 has no territorial contiguity. Anyone that understands anything in ground operations tactics will agree that this impairs defensive abilities.

steissd,

I am aware that taking the Suez canal was not the primary Israeli motivation. But it was a goal that illustrates that the motivation for territorial conquest is not always pure.

I am also aware that Israelis say 1947 borders are indefensible. While I concede that they are less strategically unassaible I disagree that expantion to 1967 lines are currently needed for Israeli survival. In any acse it's moot. I am disinterested in seeing Isreal go back to 1947. 1967 is already hard enough of a goal for both sides to reach.