|
 |
November 14, 2003 A RAY OF HOPE?....This is becoming a very big deal. A couple of weeks ago Israel's army chief of staff condemned Ariel Sharon's hawkish security policies, and today four former Shin Bet chiefs joined in the criticism using surprisingly harsh language:
This is serious criticism from serious people, and the unanimity of opinion means that it can't be dismissed as simply coming from a single person who's turned either soft or bitter. A simple policy of massive retaliation against terrorism is — for a while — emotionally satisfying, but in the end it doesn't work and it doesn't make anyone safer. These Shin Bet chiefs understand this, and the fact that they're speaking out is the first hopeful sign in the Israeli-Palestinian war that I've heard in years. Dissent during wartime can sometimes be the highest form of patriotism, and it's possible — barely possible — that this might be the start of a turnaround that leads, slowly and not without pain, to peace. Like I said, this is a very big deal. Posted by Kevin Drum at November 14, 2003 10:56 PM | TrackBackComments
The problem with this is that it is the Palastinians (or, rather, the people claiming to represent their interests) that have most often been the reason for the lack of peace. Overtures on the Israeli side have been made before, only to be rejected by Arafat. When one side makes it clear that they would rather "win" than make peace, there become fewer options for the other side. Posted by: Mario at November 14, 2003 11:14 PM | PERMALINKSee any parallels here? "Terror is not thwarted with bombs or helicopters," said Shalom, who asked rhetorically: "Why does this increase terror? Because it is overt, because it carries an element of vindictiveness." Posted by: Linkmeister at November 14, 2003 11:14 PM | PERMALINKI can't help but think that these gentlemen's advice would have been more effective had they kept it out of the press. By doing it this way they just force Sharon & co into an opposing corner and nothing happens. Again. Posted by: am at November 14, 2003 11:24 PM | PERMALINKmario... who is the last Israeli to make a real overture to the Palestinians ? Hint: He is dead. I hope those in the American Jewish business community that punished NPR will now pass the same judgement towards Israel. Looking in the mirror is hard to do, especially when your face is wrinkled and cracked. Posted by: nova silverpill at November 14, 2003 11:55 PM | PERMALINKObviously, Avraham Shalom is an antisemite. Posted by: Kimmitt at November 14, 2003 11:59 PM | PERMALINKAgreed. I first heard of Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon's public condemnation of Sharon's terror tactics on Hallowe'en - and thought then that this was the first ray of hope coming out of the Israel/Palestine mess in years. Am, it's entirely possible that these people have been expressing their opinion in private to Ariel Sharon and his cohorts for quite some time, and it's got them nowhere. (I would think that more likely than otherwise, in fact - none of these people sound impetuous or publicity-hungry types.) From what I hear via my Israeli friends, many (perhaps most) Israelis are vehemently opposed to the settlements in the Occupied Territories, or at least opposed to the violently expensive cost of keeping them. And some Israelis - I think the refuseniks are just the tip of the iceberg - feel exactly the way Moshe Ya'alon and the other Shin Bet officials say. It's a big social given in Israel to support the army: it's an enormous deal for the refuseniks to refuse to serve. If speaking privately to Ariel Sharon could not change things, maybe speaking publicly can. Let's hope so. Breaking News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3272815.stm "Explosions rock Turkey synagogues" This is seriously bad news. Posted by: Anarch at November 15, 2003 01:19 AM | PERMALINKPalestinian extremism has for years masked Israeli misconduct. Israelis legitimately react violently to terrorism, but their tacics and underlying goals are terrible. Hard not to conclude that Sharon's West Bank policies look like a form of ethnic cleansing, but all allegedly in the name of fighting terrorism. Would he abandon the effors to annex the West Bank ("greater Israel" as he would call it in the use of euphemism to deceive even oneself) if Palestianians suddenly began following a leader with the mindset of Ghandi instead of Arafat? Would Israelis see the need to return land expropriated from Palestinians if they were forced to subjugate non-violent Intifada instead of the odious terrorism version? Of course, there is no likelihood of there ever being a Palestinian Ghandi -- Hamas would murder him first. Israeli mindset seems to be that they are justified in committing their form of atrocities on Palestinians because the Palestinians are so much worse. They are right about the Palestinians being so much worse, but these Shin-Bet guys at least seem to recognize the evil in Israeli policy. Unfortunately, I don't share Kevin's optimism based on some Israelis recognition of this fact. Hey, the problem with the Zionist vision of the Jewish state is what do you do with all of the non-Jews? The ayatollahs of the Jewish ultra-orthodox would simply ethnically cleanse them if given full control of Israeli policy (instead of only a few cabinents, as is currently the case in Sharon government). Bottom line is that in lands controlled by Israel, including the occupied territories (oops, I mean "greater Israel"), there are more non-Jews than Jews. Oy. What's a person to do? Posted by: DMBeaster at November 15, 2003 04:25 AM | PERMALINKI wonder if people in power in this country will ever have a similar revelation. Posted by: Alex at November 15, 2003 04:59 AM | PERMALINKIt has often puzzled me how the bearers of the Holocaust legacy could themselves run a government that subjects another group of human beings to a relentless stream of daily indignities designed to really grind a person down. I think it is this struggle for the soul of Israel that has erupted into public view, as a group of pretty tough fellows says that occupation is killing the idea of Israel, making any victory hollow. Taken together with the so-called Geneva Accords worked out recently, there are indeed signs of hope. The test now will be to see if Palestinian militants decide to sabotage this peace move, as they have many others. Or will Sharon make their job eadsy by rejecting this overture out of hand? Notice the missing element in all this: The United States. Given the smashing job we are doing in Iraq, perhaps it is good that we are out of the loop on this one. Posted by: single-minded at November 15, 2003 05:11 AM | PERMALINKI've heard speculation on NPR and elsewhere that the coin Blair wants from Bush for his (Blair's) support of the Iraq war -- at a truly horrendous cost to his (Blair's) political standing -- is a more active role in the Istaeli/Palestinian peace process, instead of Bush's standard response of "whatever Israel does is OK by me." Perhaps this public overture at this time -- I agree that these folks *must* have been expressing these sentiments privately for some time -- is intended as a prod to give Bush the opportunity to say something constructive, even if only at Blair's urging. Loyalty is said to be one of Bush's strong suits. It'll be highly instructive to see if Bush displays loyalty to someone to whom he owes a very real debt of gratitude, or to someone to whom displaying loyalty is considered by Rove vital for the support of a key election demographic. Posted by: Gregory at November 15, 2003 05:39 AM | PERMALINKClearly Arafat has used his powers of mind control on these people. Posted by: A Hack at November 15, 2003 07:05 AM | PERMALINK892 Israelis. Someone told us at shiva Thursday night. Thank you for posting this. Posted by: John Isbell at November 15, 2003 07:15 AM | PERMALINKI also think this is an an encouraging sign, but I don't know how big a deal it really is yet. The Labor party is still very divided and disorganized, so there's no realistic opposition leader to provide an alternative to Sharon yet. There's also no progress on the leadership front among the Palestinians, as Arafat keeps consolidating his grip on power. Posted by: Haggai at November 15, 2003 07:41 AM | PERMALINK(Yawn) The powers-that-be in Israel don't want to take the necessary initial steps--the dismantling of the vast majority of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza--for peace. And their supporters among the wacko Christians in the US want Israel to annex Judea and Sumarea--the West Bank--because their nutty religion tells them that will lead to their rapture. And the Palestinians are incensed by whatever the Israelis do or don't do. So, a pox on all their houses. I've been listening to this crap for as long as I can remember. A pox on all their houses. What incenses me is that I am raped--tax wise--to support this crap. Posted by: raj at November 15, 2003 07:42 AM | PERMALINKDoes anyone see the similarities between Sharon's tactics against the Palestinians and the recent Operation Iron Hammer? We are bombing and shelling buildings used by insurgents in Iraq, but when no one is there. The result is that the owner of the building hates us, and the insurgents use another building for their next attack. We destroyed a textile factory this way, or rather all the industrial equipment, but the building is actually still usable for an attack. How dumb is this? IMO, they (Bush et. al.) are desperate, and have run out of reasonable things to do, but they know that they have to do something, because the situation is getting worse. Posted by: Don at November 15, 2003 07:46 AM | PERMALINKI think we've just met the ostrich delegation of the Israeli army. So what is the right approach in dealing with someone who doesn't believe in your right to existance, wants to kill you, wants to drive you to the sea... part of the equation is at least the security issue he raises. But as for "pulling themselves out of the mess" they are in dismisses history. The PLO was offered 98% of everything they asked for and they turned it down. Not only turned it down, but used it as an excuse to start the latest round of violence. The mess the Israelis are in is they are dealing with a cult enamored with death, who relish being the victim even if they are victims at their own hands. Talks and agreements will provide nothing and Sharon realizes it. I think he's the more rational of the two, by far. It will be interesting to see how much Arafat is trying to manipulate what goes on in order to try and influence the US election. Posted by: Fred at November 15, 2003 08:07 AM | PERMALINKI think we've just met the ostrich delegation of the Israeli army. No, I think the ostrich delegation are the ones with their head still in the sand believing that smashing the Palestinians harder will work eventually. So what is the right approach in dealing with someone who doesn't believe in your right to existance, wants to kill you, wants to drive you to the sea... Well, the Palestinian solution to dealing with people like that on the Israeli side is the suicide bombers. That doesn't work either. The PLO was offered 98% of everything they asked for and they turned it down. And this happened in your fantasy world... when?
It's been said before, but I'll say it again. There is a fundamental contradiction between Israel as a democracy and "Greater Israel." Either Israel withdraws to something close to the 1967 borders and gives up the occupation, or it cannot remain a democracy. It will be either an occupying power, with all the self-destruction that the Shin Bet officers describe, or it have a majority of second-class citizens, noone's definition of democracy, or it will engage in ethnic cleansing to remove the Palestinians. In either of the latter two cases, it loses its soul and whatever moral authority remains from the holocaust. The sooner the Israelis and their American allies recognize this, the closer we are to peace. True, Blair did extract a promise from Bush to press the Israelis, but Bush is constantly outmaneuvered by Sharon, and the crazies in the Repub party won't let him make a sensible choice anyway. Once again, too many people would rather go down in flames than compromise their "principles." Posted by: Mimikatz at November 15, 2003 08:14 AM | PERMALINKThis is one of the most hopeful signs in the Israel-Palestine impasse in the last two years. Particularly heartening to me is the potential political space the Shin Bet-ters' statement opens up here in the U.S., where the Likud policy is funded. Kevin, that the language seems "surprisingly harsh" may be a reflection of just how constricted the limits of permissible debate are in U.S. media/mainstream discussion of the issue. My take on the language: "refreshingly frank". Posted by: Nell Lancaster at November 15, 2003 08:28 AM | PERMALINKSeriously, Fred. Do some homework and make at least a token effort to see this from the other fellow's side. Trotting out that preposterous "98%" claim merely marks you as a blindered partisan rattling off pre-scripted talking points for effect rather than someone giving serious thought to the issues. I'm probably as pro-Israeli as you are or more. My blood boils at the way the Palestinians have erected this sick martyr culture. I think if Arabs wanted the 1967 borders, they shouldn't have started the 1967 war. Hell, they could've had the 1948 borders if they hadn't started the 1948 war. Every time they've tried to exterminate the jews they've gotten their sad incompetent authoritarian asses kicked up and down the holy land, and they deserve to lose the land they've lost and then some. I don't believe in risk-free war. If you make a grab for all of your opponent's territory, a great deal of yours is rightly in play as well. That's life. Get a helmet. So don't go thinking I'm some softheaded terror apologist when I say that the 98% claim is transparent bullshit and even I, pro-Israeli partisan that I am, would be embarassed to repeat it. Imagine for a moment if I sold you a house. And then when you took possession, it turned out you were only getting 98% of the house. The missing bits include the taps at all the sinks, a one-inch strip along the doorway to the bathroom (you own the bathroom, but you can't get to it without crossing over my territory, and I'll open that door when I bloody well feel like it), and a line that meanders through the living room, along which I erect a large curtain. I'll give you back 2% of what you paid for the house and you still get 98% of the floor space. Satisfied? Not only turned it down, but used it as an excuse to start the latest round of violence. Actually, if memory serves me right, the "excuse" to start the latest round of violence was when then-candidate Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount and declared that Israel would never, never give it back. I'm pretty much in the "pox on both their houses" camp, but that isn't going to solve the situation. But we aren't going to get anywhere until we recognize that neither side is 100% -- or even 98% -- righteous here. Posted by: Gregory at November 15, 2003 08:44 AM | PERMALINKWhat Mimikatz said, above: though, with one other observation: Once again, too many people would rather go down in flames than compromise their "principles." What too many Americans, (IMO, which in this case is formed from
perusing a great number of blog-comments) don't seem to understand in
relation to the Israeli/Palestinian issue is that "The crazies in the
Repub Party" - influential as they are - have nothing like the power to
drive policy as do the "crazies" in the Israeli system. A problem with
the list of choices as Mimikatz lays out in her post is that choice no. 1
(withdrawal) runs of the risk of triggering something like a literal
civil war in Israel itself - Ariel Sharon's Knesset majority is, to a
large extent, dependent on politcal pandering to a large and influential
"wing" to whom the option of "ethnic cleansing" carries NO negative
connotation whatsoever: since it is based on an eliminationist religious
fanaticism as intense as anything the Palestinians' death-cult can
exhibit: with a strong apocalyptic streak (i.e., the "red-heifer" crowd)
thrown in.
Oh, and while I was composing my post. Laertes got ahead of me: I can't help but think that these gentlemen's advice would have been more effective had they kept it out of the press.My guess: at first it was, and they were tired of having it ignored?! Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at November 15, 2003 08:47 AM | PERMALINK Mr. Lazarus: If they did go to Sharon first, privately, without going to the media, why didn't we hear about it in the media? Posted by: Laertes at November 15, 2003 08:49 AM | PERMALINKLaertes, that's a good question. I don't think the S"B people are trying to embarrass Sharon, which would be the point of telling the media, "What's more, we gave this gloomy assessment to Sharon months ago." I think they're trying to get the centrist Israeli to start thinking of alternatives to the Sharon policy. That's a subtle style issue. Fred wrote, "I think we've just met the ostrich delegation of the Israeli army." Fred, you aren't paying attention. The CoS of the Army was last week's news. (He said much the same.) These are four former heads of the internal security service (internal here includes the territories). You could believe that some of the most important security officials in the country have suddenly been afflicted with ostrichitis, or you could conclude that several years' of Sharon's policies have not improved Israelis' personal security in the slightest, and show know sign of doing so in the future. When Sharon ran, one of his campaign slogans was "Shalom v'bitachon" [Peace and security.] His opponents retorted "Shalom l'bitachon" [Goodbye to security.] So far, I'd say the opponents' version is ahead on points. Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at November 15, 2003 09:06 AM | PERMALINKDon't equate Arafat and/or the PLO with all Palestinians. That's foolish. It's also foolish to talk about a Palestinian/Arabic culture of death, or whatever: sounds like you've been reading Bernard Lewis or someone like him. The Palestinian situation can be explained much better by reference to material conditions than it can by reference to set of invisible attitudes. I think everything would have gone off a lot better if a huge section of Germany or Poland had been given to the Jews after WWII. I still for the life of me can't figure out why a bunch of Palestinians should suffer (by being evicted, subjected to racist laws, &c.) for the crimes of Europe. The nostalgia for the Middle East is, at its root, religious nutjobbery and should be tossed into the dustbin of failed ideas. Posted by: Karl at November 15, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINKI think everything would have gone off a lot better if a huge section of Germany or Poland had been given to the Jews after WWII. That's way too simplistic a solution, I'm afraid. European and American Jews were immigrating into Palestine in significant numbers from around the beginning of the 20th century. The fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI stepped up Jewish immigration: the Brits promised both the Jewish immigrants that they could have a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and the native Palestinians that they could have self-rule. That the two promises contradicted each other is something that they don't seem to have seen as a problem. There was a substantial (and aggressive) minority of European/American immigrants in Palestine before WWII who wanted, ultimately, to take control of the country and turn it into a Jewish homeland. The locals objected, as they naturally would. The effects of the Nazi holocaust on the Jews of Europe, America, and
Palestine was an exaggeration of a colonialist attitude already
prevalent: that they owned the land of Palestine, not the dirty
natives who just happened to live there. The effects of the Nazi
holocaust on those in power in Europe and the US was to make them feel
that the Jews who were demanding control over Palestine somehow deserved
it in recompense for the way they had been treated. While it would have
been only right to give European Jews direct and immediate
compensation, it would not have solved the problem of the Middle East.
Hitler exacerbated the Israel/Palestine situation: he did not create it. Giving a chunk of Germany to the Jews in 1945 is an idea I've never
heard before. There's really no authority for giving a chunk of Poland. King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud proposed giving European Jews the Rhineland or something similar. I'm not sure that he was serious so much as making a point in complaining about British-Allied policy in Mandatory Transjordan-Palestine Posted by: mark safranski at November 15, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINKI think the whole concept of Israel as a jewish state birthed from the womb of the post-Ottoman empire and foolish British colonial "big thinkism" was basically flawed from the get go. Yes there have been other examples where city states or full blown countries have been formed and prospered peacefully where none existed formally before, but Israel is not one of them. Perhaps it is the fatal mix of fanatical religious belief combined with the inate dislike of the so-called indigenous peoples that go with any colonization effort that is the factor here. One thing is certain though is that peace has been hard to find in this region for a very long time. Maybe the reason is that the equation cannot be solved as is, no matter how hard well meaning people on both sides try, is because the formulae has a built in flaw. Its not until one or more factors are removed can this puzzle be solved. However no one seems ready to remove what amounts to their very existance from this x + y = z riddle. Posted by: Tim Freeman at November 15, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINKI suppose the US could simply purchase the land owned by every Palestinian man, woman, and child in the West Bank and slowly sell it to the Israelis . . . that's got to cost less than what we're paying now anyways. Posted by: Kimmitt at November 15, 2003 01:05 PM | PERMALINKAnd if those rascally Palestinians refused to sell, the US could send in B-52s and bomb them. Sure, that would solve everything. /irony Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 15, 2003 01:56 PM | PERMALINK"I think we've just met the ostrich delegation of the Israeli army." The term 'chickenhawk' is widely overused, but I do wonder which delegation of the Israeli army Fred served in. "The strength of the "religious right" in Israel (the sort of folks
who look on Baruch Goldstein as a hero) is usually ignored or swept
under the rug by American commentators;" As Haggai said above, this probably is not that big of a deal (though it's nice to hear). But peacenik Israeli generals are a dime a dozen (see Barak, Mitzna, and Rabin...) In a country where evryone served, foreign policy credentials aren't quite as impressive as they are here. Still, here's hoping. Posted by: sym at November 15, 2003 01:59 PM | PERMALINKsym, wow, I hadn't seen that anti-Rabin insanity from Shapiro (just read your blog post about it). I knew he was nuts, but I didn't know he was flat-out evil, which he now clearly is. Funny how Shapiro slams Rabin for being a lousy general without even mentioning that minor little war that happened while Rabin was chief of staff of the IDF. It was in June of 1967. I mean, come on, isn't it obvious how poor a military performance that was for Israel? Why would anyone think that the chief of staff who oversaw that war was anything but a complete loser? Posted by: Haggai at November 15, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINKCome on, Haggai. Rabin needed six days to finish that war! That's, like, 172, hours or something. Shapiro, that precocious fount of military genius, could have done it in a day, tops. The Israeli army needs more people like Ben Shapiro in charge. These pacifist wimps currently in charge clearly aren't up to the job. Posted by: sym at November 15, 2003 04:55 PM | PERMALINKKarl wrote: Hmmm, a majority of Palestinians approve of the suicide bombings which kill Israeli civilians, women and children. Not a culture of death? There has been little understanding in this forum of the Israeli side of the story. Would you trust people to live next to you who could not control the fanatics in their midst? Now, I still think that the Israelis and Palestinians need to resolve their differences peacefully, but the Israelis are hardly the villains of this story. Posted by: Kevin P. at November 16, 2003 07:31 AM | PERMALINKHmmm, a majority of Palestinians approve of the suicide bombings which kill Israeli civilians, women and children. And you don't think this has anything to do with the slaughter of Palestinian civilians by the IDF? Far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by the Israelis - military and civilians - than Israelis (military or civilian) have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers. Not a culture of death? No more than England was in WWI. There has been little understanding in this forum of the Israeli side of the story. Would you trust people to live next to you who could not control the fanatics in their midst? No. Unfortunately, Ariel Sharon is one of the fanatics, and he's Prime Minister, and the Israelis apparently can't control him. Now, I still think that the Israelis and Palestinians need to resolve their differences peacefully, but the Israelis are hardly the villains of this story. It's impossibly simplistic to try and claim that one side are "villains" and one side are "good guys". Both sides have committed atrocities. Both sides include people of goodwill. Unfortunately, right now, in power in Israel we have Ariel Sharon, whose fanaticism imperils both Israelis and Palestinians. And rather more than unfortunately, instead of the US acting a neutral broker, Bush has consistently and openly sided with Israel. Posted by: Jesurgislac at November 17, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINKwater bondage - whipped ass - whipped pussy - big mouthfulls - club group sex - facialfiasco - freak peep - fucking and sucking - gangbang fever - hairy pussies Posted by: big naturals at June 30, 2004 07:18 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
