« Photo Friday (vol. LXIX) [turnabout is fair play edition] | Main | treppenwitz scavenger hunt »
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Sensing a small double standard
I must admit I almost deleted today's post. The reason being that we Israelis have quite enough on our collective plate just now without any internecine finger-pointing and blame-storming.
However I have honestly been trying to take a step back (as so many have suggested) and look at the current political and strategic landscape from the perspective of a few years rather than only a few days.
I admit it is very tempting to fall into the trap of reacting to only the most current/pressing crisis. But when I look a the political and strategic landscape from 30,000 ft. instead of 300 ft., I see a very troubling trend.
In the run up to disengagement I listened very closely to the arguments being offered by both sides of the issue:
On the left was a large portion of the Israeli electorate who were ready and willing to turn a blind eye to our failure to win the slightest political capital from either the Palestinians or the International community, with previous territorial concessions. This despite assertions (that have now been confirmed by the former IDF Chief of Staff) that little or no strategic planning took place prior to disengagement, and that a hard right wing PM's sudden co-opting of his political rival's agenda was conceived exclusively to provide Ariel Sharon with covering fire as he sought an escape from imminent legal woes.
On the right were a lot of people who were willing to ignore (or even actively deny) that that a total Jewish population of less than 10,000 in Gaza after more than 30 years of active recruitment and government incentives was a dismal failure that could no longer be ignored. People who had actively ignored Gaza for a generation suddenly started flocking there in droves like a spoiled child who suddenly notices a discarded toy only when his parents threaten to give it away.
At the time I grudgingly bought into the need for some kind of strategic retrenchment based solely on the numbers issue associated with the failed settler enterprise in Gaza. But the Sharon/media steamroller that was used to surge ahead with the disengagement seemed more intent on punishing the hapless Gaza settlers than on demonstrating any strategic benefit to the nation.
During disengagement, many otherwise sensible people parroted Sharon and his media 'amen choir', telling me (in extremely direct terms) that Israel had to give up Gaza in order to improve our ability to respond militarily... and to provide the Palestinians with autonomy over their own population so a military option wouldn't be necessary in the future.
I was also assured that this would provide Israel with significant political capital with the Palestinians (not to mention with the International community), giving us more future bargaining power should the Palestinians fail to act like partners for peace.
I remember at the time quoting the old saw that 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results'. But any suggestions by me that unilateral concessions/appeasement had never provided positive positive results with the Palestinians in the past (quite the opposite, in fact), were shunted forcefully aside as unpatriotic and dogmatically hawkish.
I was assured that once we were out of Gaza we would be better able to defend ourselves... and that even the smallest provocation from within the newly judenrein Gaza would be dealt with swiftly now that there would be no worry about Israeli settlers being used as proximity hostages against large-scale retaliation. Several people even emailed me quotes from the recently beatified St.Rabin's old campaign speeches in which he called predictions of Palestinian missiles falling on Ashqelon "alarmist fear-mongering on the part of the Likud".
What seems to be lacking these days is a taking stock of lessons learned.
Call it saying 'I told you so'. Call it 'finger pointing'. But if both sides of the political aisle were making bold claims and issuing dire warnings a year ago, it seems to me that at some point an assessment must be made of who's predictions turned out to be correct.
In the 11 months since disengagement every single warning that the anti-disengagement lobby issued has come to pass. I'm not normally so organized, but for some reason I actually took the time to write down most of these warnings that were cast aside in the blind rush to move ahead with disengagement.
Warnings that...
... unilateral retreat from territory would be perceived by the Palestinians as weakness and/or surrender in the face of terror.
... little or no strategic planning had gone into assuring the political/military stability of Palestinian Gaza after withdrawal.
... little or no logistic planning (i.e. housing, jobs, schools etc.) had gone into providing for the Israeli citizens who would have to be relocated from the evacuated communities.
... once Gaza became PA-controlled territory the IDF would no longer have the necessary freedom-of-movement to protect Israeli communities within striking range of Palestinian infiltrators and missile crews in Gaza.
... Gaza would immediately become a central base of operations for every terror group on the planet (many of whom could could not possibly care less about the wants/needs of the Palestinian people).
... that sophisticated weapons would flow into Gaza via Egypt despite the good intentions and promises of International observers.
... by seeming to reward terror with territorial concessions we would be pushing the Palestinian population directly into the arms of militant factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that advocate violent struggle rather than a negotiated diplomatic solution.
... once the inevitable infiltrations and missile attacks began, we would end up having to re-take large swaths of Gaza at considerable risk to our soldiers... not to mention squandering the questionable political capital we may or may not have built up with the International community.
Yet now that I have tried several times to begin such a discussion of current events with friends who, a year ago, dismissed these warnings out of hand, I am told "attacking the Palestinians won't work... it has been tried before and it has never brought results".
[~BLINK~]
When I ask what, in their opinion would bring results, I've been told "I don't know, but we've gone the military route too many times with the Palestinians and it hasn't helped".
[~BLINK~BLINK]
There seems to be a terrible double standard at work here.
When the left wants to keep fielding failed strategies and discredited theories, anyone who points out the insanity of repeating such hopelessly flawed actions (in hopes of different results) is labeled unpatriotic... or worse, a messianic war-monger.
Yet when the right favors deploying a military solution that has, admittedly, had mixed results in the past... the left unabashedly plays the insanity card.
I'm sorry. The world has evolved quite a bit since the days of nations having no other recourse for settling disputes except the battlefield. But we aren't so far removed from the battlefield - or even the playground - that we dare forget what an aggressive thug looks like or how some thugs' asses just desperately need to be kicked (if for no other reason then to win a few minutes of respite).
As to those who say that this sort of out-dated, discredited thinking dooms me to repeat past failures, I say:
[~RING~RING~]
"Hello kettle? Hi, it's the pot calling. You're black!"
Posted by David Bogner on July 9, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e55051f4e18834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sensing a small double standard:
» Parsing double standards from In Context
Here's another wonderful thought-provoking post, and a pretty darn good discussion, too, over at Treppenwitz. I was assured that once we were out of Gaza... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 10, 2006 5:59:09 PM
» Stating the obvious from In Context
Note should be made, as I'm sure it has been elsewhere, that Israel is now under dire physical attack on two fronts -- in both... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 13, 2006 7:51:31 PM
Comments
Though not the point of my post, I had written about Daniel Pipes getting it right when he says that Israelis are looking for Conflict Management not Victory (for avariety of reasons).
It's easy to say that there is no military solution when you don't attempt to achieve one, or when you accidentally do achieve it, you immediately backtrack to previous positions.
Posted by: JoeSettler | Jul 9, 2006 1:26:30 PM
There is definitely a leadership vacuum compared to what Israel had in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Doubt they would have allowed what has been allow to transpire in the last 12 months.
Forgeting the pros or cons of the whole disengagement or even the emotional price paid, the financial cost alone to evict our own citizens was in the billions of shekels!
And what exactly did we get in return? Nothing but problems.
The last election was a joke and did nothing in terms of helping this country move forward. Especially the Pensioners Party who were a gimmick then and were a gimmick now.
What someone needs to do is run for office and their primiary motivation is helping this country and its citizens as opposed to trying to leech as much as possible.
At least had we stuck to our guns we would have been respected but now we created a very big rod for our backs.
Posted by: Dot Co Dot Il | Jul 9, 2006 3:42:58 PM
I wrote some of those points before disengagement started, especially the terrorist groups moving into Gaza. It seems absurd that the Israeli government will go forward with it's plans for disengagement in Judea and Samaria.
I'm far from a military or terrorist expert but you just have to look at the maps to see how dangerous such a move would be.
Disengagement from Gaza was a huge mistake and lessons should be learned. I fear disengagement from the West Bank would be suicidal for Israel.
The sad reality is that Israel will never have peace with the Palestinians until the Palestinians stop having as their ultimate goal of wiping Israel off the face of the world. Their goal has not changed since they rejected the two-state solution in 1947.
It's up to the Israeli people to figure out if they are willing to hold onto Israel by doing what is necessary, defeating the Palestinians in much the same way as was done to the Axis powers during World War II.
Posted by: seawitch | Jul 9, 2006 3:44:16 PM
"beatified St. Rabin" - David, you have won my utmost admiration for your courage with that phrase. He called us so many nasty names, and was a human being like everyone else but since we settlers have been collectively blamed for his murder (even though Amir lived in Herziliya) it is still hard for me to verbalize a criticism of the man. As to the rest of your post, you are of course correct. I fear that there are segments of our society who are so wedded to the fantasy of peace, that they stop using their common sense and cannot admit a mistake even when it is staring them in the face.
Posted by: westbankmama | Jul 9, 2006 5:05:00 PM
very powerful post, David. Watching the disengagement happen was quite painful. And for what purpose...it's hard to see one. It seems that a tough stance must be taken, because as Seawitch pointed out, there will never be peace with the Palestinians.
Posted by: cruisin-mom | Jul 9, 2006 5:06:42 PM
I agree completely. But who's going to listen?
Posted by: Irina | Jul 9, 2006 5:57:41 PM
Joe Setter... IT all goes back to Nassar. In '56 he accidentally figured out the formula by which every subsequent Arab Israeli conflict has ended in a draw rather than an Arab defeat. He found out that if you just wait long enough and don't admit defeat... the rest of the world will come running and tie Israel's hands, forcing it to accept a cease-fire and endless negotiations/concessions. How else could the Yom Kippur War still be celebrated in Egypt as a victory?
Dot Co Dot Il... SO long as the electoral system remains as it is, such a scenario is patently impossible.
Seawitch... It is even more simple than that. The Palestinians know what they don't want (us) but they have no idea what they do want. I've said this numerous times: If you put a gun to the head of any Palestinian politician/leader and demand that they enunciate their vision for medical care, economy, infrastructure, power grid, foreign relations, education... they will have no earthly idea what you are even talking about. they are like 4th graders who know they hate school but have no idea what life outside the schoolroom is really like.
Westbankmam... A few people have tried to pin the scarlet 'A' ('Assassin') on me for being a religious settler, and I have handed them their ass (figuratively speaking). Yigal Amir was a weak-minded nutcase whose up-bringing would be lauded as quintessentially Israeli by every Israeli citizen if he had won the Nobel Prize instead of committing murder. He was a product of Israeli society, and all the hate, distrust, slander and prejudice that exists in every corner of Israeli society is to blame for what he did. Rabin was one of the early architects of the settler enterprise, and all the revisionist bullsh*t of putting words in his dead mouth or co-opting his image for political agendas that would have horrified him, won't change that.
Cruisin' Mom... To paraphrase a great movie line; you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Irina... I don't hold out much hope, but when I write posts like this I hope against hope that the 8 or 10 lefty bloggers/commenters that regularly frequent this site will step up and say something. I'm not looking for mea culpas... just someone with the courage to stand up and say OK, let's take stock of what hasn't worked and see where we go from here. Like I said... I don't hold out much hope.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 9, 2006 6:28:03 PM
David -Alright, I'll rise to the lefty response challange.
I've read your piece once, so I'm sure I have missed something, but based on that first reading I feel like you are all over the place. You've crafted a "leftist" position from every thing you've ever seen come out of the left which I am sure you are aware is no more homogenous than the right. It is very difficult to respond to a manufactured position. Most supporters of disengagement viewed it as the best of a bunch of bad choices, fueled not only by security concerns but also morality, as some of the other options (forced expulsion) are both immoral and unworkable. Of course that doesn't answer the problem of the WAY disengagement was carried out - and the point that there was no good stragegic planning to ensure security after withdrawal is both excellent and accurate. Out of curiosity, did anyone on the right put forward a comprehensive plan to ensure continued security that worked within the framework of disengagement or was all the focus on preventing it?
I have been thinking quite a lot about your other recent post and about many comments I have seen here about war and how to win it.
It strikes me that war can end in one of three ways: Annihilation, Subjucation or Cooperation.
Annihilation will work, obviously, but I am pretty sure that bar a few extremists, there are few people who want to take that route.
Subjugation will work for a period of time, no question, however if continued will lead to resentment and eventually more war - the resentment of Germany after the loss of WWI springs to mind. The wars and ethnic killings prevalent in Eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR also comes to mind. Actually all of European history is replete with constant wars, empires that rise and are overthrown and simmering resentment that constantly bubbles over. Subjugation also provides us with another moral issue.
Which leaves us with cooperation. (And yes, I know the arguement "there is no one to talk to"). WWII has been discussed on this board before -with the "satisfactory" ending being the beating down of Germany and Japan. The question is - why THIS TIME didn't they rise up again. I may be wrong, and military history isn't my thing but cooperation came into play. The Marshall plan in Europe was instrumental - not just by infusing money, but by forcing the warring parties to work together - leading eventually to the EU. The people still dislike each other and the EU is a huge money pit, but now they sit around and argue about the definition of cheese rather than shooting at each other. Japan was stuggling until the US arrived to engage in the Korean War and that had a huge positive effect on the Japanese. They took over the world with consumer electronics and cheap cars rather than howitzers and kamikaze pilots.
So maybe rather than leave them to their own devices we need to take them in hand - assist them to build an infrastructure and industry - with a goal to making them fat and happy and with something real to lose if they go after Israel. It has not been tried.
OK now shoot me down.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 9, 2006 7:37:58 PM
Sorry, post got cut off:
The Marshall plan in Europe was instrumental - not just by infusing money, but by forcing the warring parties to work together - leading eventually to the EU. The people still dislike each other and the EU is a huge money pit, but now they sit around and argue about the definition of cheese rather than shooting at each other. Japan was stuggling until the US arrived to engage in the Korean War and that had a huge positive effect on the Japanese economy which allowed them to feel national pride again. They took over the world with consumer electronics and cheap cars rather than howitzers and kamikaze pilots.
So maybe rather than leave the Palestinians to their own devices we need to take them in hand - assist them to build an infrastructure and industry - with a goal to making them fat and happy and with something real to lose if they go after Israel. It is one thing that has not been tried.
OK now shoot me down.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 9, 2006 7:41:46 PM
We definitely need to take them in hand. That is why the Nefesh L'Nefesh program should be being established as fast as possible.
Oh and by the way, helping them build up their infrastructure, TVs and fridge's in every home. We tried that plan already.
That's why we have so much stuff to destroy right now, though destroying it doesn't interest them anywhere near as much as achieving their stated goal.
Posted by: JoeSettler | Jul 9, 2006 8:26:03 PM
David: agree completely. When asylum for insane is managed by the insane, and the nurses are kept in restraints...
lisoosh:
"the point that there was no good stragegic planning to ensure security after withdrawal is both excellent and accurate"
Then why was disengagment any good?!
You are out of arguments, and know it. The WAY disnengagement was carried out is irrelevant (even if atrocious) to the point that it shouldn't have been carried out in the first place. No "after disengagment strategic plans" are relevant either because the disengagment was THE strategic plan. Are you saying that in fact JUST the disengagment was not enough, and some additional planning, and doing (like what?!) was supposed to complete the picture, but, in fact, WAS NOT done or even explained? Then why did you supported it? Seems to me, that blind faith in the "wisdom of the leader and the way" are at works here. Let me repeat that. BLIND.
Posted by: Yury | Jul 9, 2006 8:29:39 PM
Yury - out of arguments - oh no, not even started. However I do expect people to actually debate my positions rather than take the arrogant route of attempting to define them for me and then arguing with their own definition.
The trouble with any kind of rational discussion or solution to this is that so many of the players aren't operating on a rational playing field anyway. There are Palestinians still holding on to a fantasy of returning to a home that hasn't existed for 60 years. There are Jews for whom this is the realization of G-d's promise and will and nothing is more important. There are Christians cheering on the sidelines in anticipation of the Rapture and peace would be a major setback.
And then there are those in the middle, for whom a rusty key is just a key and the story of Joshua is something that happened to someone elso long ago.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 9, 2006 9:11:36 PM
lisoosh:
The Marshall plan was essential, no doubt. But a necessary precondition was that it was obvious to everyone *including the Germans* that they had LOST. That meant that the majority understood that they had to accept the Allies' terms and they could no longer hope to acheive their own objectives. It allowed the Allies to control the essential institutions of the society and transform it into a pro-Western one.
A Marshall Plan for the Palis is all very nice - but it cannot succeed until Israel defeats them completely. There can no longer be illusions that time is on their side or that the world will help them overcome Israel. The dream of eliminating the Jewish state must die before there can be any hope of peace.
There has AFAIK never in the history of the human race been an ongoing violent conflict that was settled without a military defeat of one side first. This one is not likely to prove an exception.
Posted by: Russell | Jul 9, 2006 9:42:09 PM
Russell - thank you for your very polite and reasoned reply, much appreciated.
Actually, in many ways I do agree with you, there has to be a winner and a loser and the loser has to know they have lost (but we also have to recognize an intense need to feel pride again - the losers cannot continue to feel that way or they become resentful). There is if course disagreement about how many in the Palestinian camp are really ready to accept that they have lost, definitely a considerable group but unfortunatley the more violent elements have the upper hand right now. However where we differ is to my eyes, Israel already won. In occupying the territories we did in fact control everything. And we have won numerous times. What did we do with those victories?
There is a great article by Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek talking about violent regimes. The article focuses on US policy but I think there is much to be learned from it. One of the most interesting passages goes as follows:
"We cut these countries off from the most powerful agents of change in the modern world—commerce, contact, information. To change a regime, short of waging war, you have to shift the balance of power..... Society needs to be empowered. It is civil society—private business, media, civic associations, nongovernmental organizations—that can create an atmosphere which forces change... But by piling on sanctions and ensuring that a country is isolated, .....society remains weak and dysfunctional. In addition, the government benefits from nationalist sentiment as it stands up to the global superpower."
The rest of the article can be found here:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272764/site/newsweek/
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 9, 2006 10:24:13 PM
Great post David.
For another excellent read I suggest Charles Krauthammer in this weeks Time magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209965,00.html
Posted by: David | Jul 9, 2006 10:38:35 PM
Lisoosh,
But in this case, who is it that's cut Gaza (and Judea/Samaria) off from contact or information? Who's prevented the Arab societies there from being empowered, if not their own so-called leaders, in concert with their "friends" in the Arab world who dread above all else the possibility of a prosperous, thriving palestinian Arab polity living side by side in peace with Israel?
It seems to me that it's most certainly in Israel's best interests for civil society—private business, media, civic associations, nongovernmental organizations etc. to flourish in the territories, but such institutions were doing better under Israeli protection (or occupation, if you will) than without it. And to whom would we wish at this point to transfer the balance of power? In fact, the disengagement did serve to trigger or at least encourage a transfer of power -- to Hamas.
Thank you for this post, David. I've been asking myself similar questions. What would have to happen for the proponents of disengagement to acknowledge that none of the benefits and almost all of the dangers predicted have come true?
Posted by: Lynn B. | Jul 9, 2006 11:04:03 PM
LynnB, you ask:
What would have to happen for the proponents of disengagement to acknowledge that none of the benefits and almost all of the dangers predicted have come true?
I pray we'll never find out.
Posted by: Rahel | Jul 10, 2006 12:09:03 AM
David,
Thanking for stating so clearly the plain and obvious truth. But you are unlikely to elicit the desired response from your local lefties for the simple reason that by and large, (all appropriate disclaimers about the evils of generalizations and ad hominem attacks go here) lefty arguments must be analyzed in the realm of psychology not politics. Lefties simply love anyone they can patronize and despise anyone who is not willing to be patronized. As long as those lines remain drawn the way they are, all the political arguments in the world will remain irrelevant.
There, I feel better already... (If only I'd written all that in CAPS, I'd be positively euphoric.)
Posted by: Ben Chorin | Jul 10, 2006 12:40:02 AM
Ben Chorin. I thought this might help...
DAVID,
THANKING FOR STATING SO CLEARLY THE PLAIN AND OBVIOUS TRUTH. BUT YOU ARE UNLIKELY TO ELICIT THE DESIRED RESPONSE FROM YOUR LOCAL LEFTIES FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT BY AND LARGE, (ALL APPROPRIATE DISCLAIMERS ABOUT THE EVILS OF GENERALIZATIONS AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS GO HERE) LEFTY ARGUMENTS MUST BE ANALYZED IN THE REALM OF PSYCHOLOGY NOT POLITICS. LEFTIES SIMPLY LOVE ANYONE THEY CAN PATRONIZE AND DESPISE ANYONE WHO IS NOT WILLING TO BE PATRONIZED. AS LONG AS THOSE LINES REMAIN DRAWN THE WAY THEY ARE, ALL THE POLITICAL ARGUMENTS IN THE WORLD WILL REMAIN IRRELEVANT.
THERE, I FEEL BETTER ALREADY... (IF ONLY I'D WRITTEN ALL THAT IN CAPS, I'D BE POSITIVELY EUPHORIC.)
Posted by: JoeSettler | Jul 10, 2006 12:42:33 AM
"Yury - out of arguments - oh no, not even started."
Indeed...
"And then there are those in the middle,"
Why is that the middle? Where from is such an elaborate topology? Are you in that middle? I guess you are. Are you sure you have accounted for all the "sides" in your map of the world's opinions? Like maybe "this disengagment is going to make the situation much worse" side? Or the "lets realize terrorists are going to keep killing us until they are dead or severly incapacitated" side?
What really is going on is that you have this map of the world you just described, and you so blindly believe in it, and your place in it, that one can't call it anything but IRRATIONAL BELIEF. Much more dangerous then the irrational belief in who is your ancient prophet.
Posted by: Yury | Jul 10, 2006 1:13:59 AM
Lynn - thank you too for your polite and reasoned response.
I certainly agree that the Palestinian leadership royally sucks. I also agree that the rest of the Arab world likes having them down and wants them to suffer - it deflects attention away from their own dismall record. I also think they like being the victims, it is a role they are comfortable and know how to manipulate.
I agree too with your comment that the Arab world dreads the "possibility of a prosperous, thriving palestinian Arab polity living side by side in peace with Israel?" it's spot on and all the more reason to work to help build one.
The concept of disengagement is that Israel not be in the position of constantly occupying land area with a large population that has no political representation, without transferring the population out and with the knowledge that there is considerable opposition to the notion of one state. The rest is all process and to be honest I don't think either side really sat down and thought the whole thing through. One "side' favored disengagement and wanted to grab the opportunity while possible and the other wanted to prevent it if at all possible and there really was no dialogue concerning HOW to go about it successfully. If you can find such a dialogue, feel free to correct me. I can say though that this image of lefties dreaming of sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" with their Arab neighbours within a week exists only as a construct of the right - I've never heard anyone on the left come up with such unrealistic images. Most just reasoned that it was better to let them stew in their own juices and for Israel to deal with aggression as any nation normally would when dealing with another country. However, that thinking (and I am equally guilty) is probably flawed, Gaza is a mess.
So where does that leave us?
I think Israel lost a great opportunity in the eighties (and UNWRA holds a pretty big chunk of the responsibility for that too). It became clear that neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted anything to do with the portions of land they lost in the six day war that contained large populations of Palestinians (clever them). At the time Palestinian leadership, such as it was existed primarily outside the country, Arabs and Jews more or less lived pretty quietly, it was possible to take Arab buses and to travel safely around the West Bank ( I certainly did). We could have helped build up their infrastructure and industry in order to raise their wealth and standard of living. Unfortunately we didn't. They proved to be a very convenient source of cheap labor. Whenever you have a group whose wealth grows while another remains low, the poorer ones are bound to become resentful (even more so when they represent an ethnic minority) and become easily manipulated especially when they have no political representation or way of changing the status quo. This is what led in part to the first intifada.
What has been found in the effort to reconstruct Iraq is that the sanctions led to the decimation of the middle class. When Saddam was removed, there was a power vacuum and a large, poor, easily manipulated population. It is worth looking at the problems faced by the US there in order to avoid replicating them. Those of you on the right who like to complain about your own comfortable middle class liberals might like to think how useful they would be to have on the other side. That is who we need to talk to and they have absolutely no power right now.
Which leaves us with what action to take once this current military operation is finished. I don't think we should transfer power back immediately, they are obviously incapable of and unwilling to police themselves, nor do they seem capable of making decisions in their own best interest.
I don't think that rebuilding settlements there (a la Marzel) will solve any long term problems, nor do I really think he wants to. It didn't work before, it won't work now. Nor will an indefinite Israeli military occupation - there has to be a plan and there has to be a goal.
Gaza requires a few things in order to catch its breath - immediate calm and security, jobs for all of the idle male hands currently busy in anti-Israel pursuits (and some well paying jobs too), a sense of ownership and something to be proud of outside of taking pot shots at Israel.
For security like it or not, we really need the UN to police the border, and in good numbers. Due to the nature of the relationship, Israel can't do it and the Palestinians don't appear capable even to ask for international help. We need to insist on it. Someone has to patrol and someone has to keep the streets under control.
We also need to encourage industry, and to encourage real investing - not bags of cash handed to Hamas. Ideas have been floated around about joint owned Israeli/Palestinian industry on the border. They need Israeli ingenuity and efficiency and they need a sense of ownership. Yes Israel needs jobs too, but it needs security more, and as the wealth of Gaza rises their buying power also rises. This venture also can't be torn down the first time some idiot does something stupid in order to "punish" them. The goal here is to begin building a middle class.
Leadership would need to be limited on the Palestinian side initially with no control over security until proven capable. Industry would also need to be inspected carefully to prevent corruption as they haven't proven capable of that either. I honestly don't know how to stop them from shooting themselves in the foot, but it does appear that they need considerable hand holding.
I'm sure plenty of people can pick holes in the idea - it certainly is not a cut and dried plan. However, unless everyone agrees as a first step that eventually they will have independance and instead of arguing about if, can start to focus on how, all of this is going nowhere.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 10, 2006 1:50:13 AM
Yury and Ben Chorin -
Thank you so much for proving my point that your whole argument is built around telling other people what they think without actually managing to say anything of consequense!
Kol Ha Kavod!
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 10, 2006 1:57:01 AM
lisoosh:
I stated my opinion about what YOU claimed you think. I did not tried to argrue with you, or address most of your statements. Maybe some other time.
Posted by: Yury | Jul 10, 2006 3:17:45 AM
Rahel -- me too!
Lisoosh -- you make a number of interesting points I'll have to think about. But off the top, I don't trust the UN, at all. And while I do like your optimism, I don't see any indication that either Hamas or Fatah would allow what you're suggesting to happen.
Posted by: Lynn B. | Jul 10, 2006 6:18:54 AM
"It does appear they need considerable hand-holding."
Ya THINK?!
Posted by: zahava | Jul 10, 2006 8:56:24 AM
lisoosh:
You say, "However where we differ is to my eyes, Israel already won. In occupying the territories we did in fact control everything. And we have won numerous times. What did we do with those victories?"
The question is not whether *you* think that Israel had won, but whether the Palis (and the entire Arab world) believe that they have lost. Losing means that there is no longer a point in trying to impose their will on Israel. They have clearly not reached that point. Israel's ability in the past to control what happened in the territories does not constitute victory - the PLO continued their terrorism.
You suggest that had Israel done more to improve the day-to-day existence of the Palis, things might have been different. But in fact, their well-being was indeed greatly enhanced under Israeli control. It didn't matter. Israel even tried to resolve some of the refugee camps by providing better housing and employment - those moves were categorically rejected by the Palis and Israel was forced to back off.
It would truly be nice to believe that the Palis would have responded to better lifes with peace; unfortunately, there is no evidence that the PLO leadership they vaunted would ever have done so, and more than enough evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Russell | Jul 10, 2006 10:43:41 AM
Lisoosh - you prove David's point - that the left can't get out of its rut, by using the same tired argument of "occupation". What exactly do you think just happened in August of 2005? All of the Jews were cruelly transfered from their homes (which you of course think is wrong - but only if it happens to Arabs) and the "occupation" of Gaza ENDED. According to your theory, there should have been peace. The Palestinians in Gaza should have then spent their time and the world's money building something - instead of trying to kill Jews over the border. You just can't admit that you made a mistake.
Posted by: westbankmama | Jul 10, 2006 11:31:59 AM
WBMM:
Why would you think that the Gaza Arabs would see it as over once Jews were deported from Gaza?
They say and see all of Eretz Yisrael (and ever l'yarden too) as Palestine.
Just because they managed to have us expelled from one part of Palestine, does not mean they see the game as ended.
For them all of Palestine is one contiguous unit, and as long as they don't also rule in Tel Aviv and Haifa, the Occupation will not have ended.
That by the way is one major difference between Hizbollah and the PA.
Hizbollah essentially achieved their goals of kicking out Israel from Lebanon, and therefore they can take a respite from fighting.
The PA on the other hand have only had the initial taste of victory and it's left them hungry for the rest of the meal.
Posted by: JoeSettler | Jul 10, 2006 11:40:52 AM
Lisoosh... First of all, ALL positions that speak in generalities are by definition manufactured. The positions I laid out here (both right and left) do not do justice to either side. However, they do highlight the main claims that were made at the time by one side and which were largely ignored or pooh-poohed by the other. that was the main thrust of my post and although i appreciate you stepping up and leaving a comment... you haven't related to any of the warnings that were made by the right and dismissed by the left. This is one of my pet peeves about the left here in Israel. Failures are ignored and brushed under the carpet with the introduction of topics such as you have done. I think there are more than just the three kinds of victories than you have described, but that is not what I was writing about. I need for someone who basically laughed at people who made some or all of the warnings I listed above and address some of them based on the reality today. That is the only way we will ever be able to move forward and not repeat these mistakes.
Joe Settler... No matter how you package it is is advocating population transfer and while this may be attractive to the Palis on the street who would love to live elsewhere, the leadership will thwart such a move at every turn (the way they have thwarted all efforts by Israel to get the Palis out of refugee camps). Solving the problem is not their goal. Perpetuating it is the only way the money keeps rolling in. As to their infrastructure which well-meaning leftists think is the crux of the Palis anger, the Palestinians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. They are better educated and have more luxury items in their homes than Arab populations that are not 'under occupation'. This is a red herring and is the crux of why I refuse to discuss politics with leftists who do not see the importance of learning from past mistakes. If I can examine right wing errors and advocate not repeating them... they should be able to do the same.
Yuri... While I agree with many of your points I have to ask that terms like 'blind' be used to modify action verbs... not people. It would have been sufficient to remind Lissosh that the manner of the disengagement, while horrible, was not under discussion. It was the actual disengagement... a unilateral retreat under fire that is to blame for our current situation, and a sizable portion of the population that was pro-disengagement has yet to acknowledge that or learn from the mistake.
Lisoosh... again, while quite true... your assessment of how many parties to the conflict are not operating rationally is outside the scope of what I wrote.
Russell... I know of no instance of that happening either. But I also think it is unrealistic to expect a population with a decidedly Levantine bent to react like Germans after a defeat (with or without a rebuilding plan such as Marshall).
Lisoosh... I think that the pride issue is as much at the heart of the Palestinian's ability to accept defeat as it is at the heart of the Israel leadership inability to acknowledge strategic and tactical errors.
David... Thank you. I'll put it on my to-do list. I'm swamped right now which is why I am responding to comments instead of eating lunch.
Lynn B... Thanks for the comment. I don't think Israel can be accused of not trying to create better opportunities for the Palestinians and empower them to chose their own path. However when they resent our attempts to improve their lot and use their empowerment to elect a government sworn to Israel's complete destruction... time to get up from the table and put on a uniform.
Rahel... I think you may have misunderstood the question. As I understand it, it was not meant to be rhetorical. I too want to know what it will take to get the pro-disengagement (and pro-Oslo) crowd to acknowledge past mistakes and come up with a new approach to dealing with the Palestinians. I'm not asking that they come over to the right or begin advocating all out war. I just want to see a new range of options offered and an acknowledgement that these new options are necessary because the old options failed.
Ben Chorin... Much appreciated, but to be clear I don't think that by definition left wing politics is a psychosis. Certainly it is much more mixed with considerations that go beyond the simple scope of the end justifying the means. But I have to believe that there is also the ability to think strategically (and critically) on both sides of the political divide.
Joe Settler... Not helpful.
Yury... I feel like I should jump in here. I happen to agree with many of your points, but I must point out a few things. First, while I sometimes resort to using terms like 'blind' when talking about the actions of leftists in general... this word is inappropriately confrontational when used towards an individual in a comment thread. Lisoosh and I are old sparring partners and it might surprise you that on Palestinian blogs she sounds more rightist than you in her defense of Israeli policies and in criticizing Palestinian intransigence. She certainly doesn't need me to defend her, but she is far from the knee-jerk liberal you seem to suspect her of being. It has taken me some time, but I have finally figured out that I have a lot more to learn from Lisoosh than she has to learn from me... so I may challenger her, but I would be loathe to dismiss her.
Lisoosh... Your response to Lynn was wonderful. I will just point out that in the months before disengagement the anti-disengagement camp tried desperately to get the government and its supporters to slow down and examine the very real flaws with unilateral disengagement in general... and the slipshod way in which it was being carried out specifically. Any such request was dismissed as the rantings of messianic 'greater Israel' fanatics (of which, admittedly, there were more than a few) and hawks who were accused of being incapable of considering a non military resolution to the conflict. It is now doubly frustrating to have confirmation that the reason Sharon ran full steam ahead with a plan he had previously dismissed as national suicide was so he could deflect attention from his legal troubles. However, whatever the reason, you are correct that the left was so overjoyed to finally have the opportunity to implement their goal of relinquishing occupied territory that they were willing to grab the opportunity regardless of the lack of proper strategic fetting and necessary logistic planning.
Lynn B. ... I would also not consider the UN an appropriately neutral player to participate in a plan such as Lisoosh suggests. It would have to be a coalition of nations such as has been assembled by the US in Iraq... except not a military coalition, but rather a corporate coalition.
Zahava... Not helpful. :-)
Russell... This a Major point that is largely ignored at the government and international level. each time Israel has fought a war (not just with the Palestinians), the international community has stepped in and forced a cease fire before hostilities reached their logical conclusion. this has allowed the Arabs to maintain the illusion of a draw (or in some cases a victory). I understand the concept of pride. But when it comes to pride the Arabs have nothing on the Japanese. We didn't just beat them... we incinerated several whole cities (before we vaporized large sections of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we fire-bombed Tokyo with horrifying results). We then went in and deliberately disassembled their entire culture and even outlawed many aspects of their ancient class-based tradition. We created the new Japan in the mold of a western democracy (despite leaving the emperor as a figure-head) and allowed them only enough of a military to defend themselves from limited foreign aggression. To this day the Japanese armed forces are called the Japanese DEFESNE forces because they are constitutionally forbidden to send combatents abroad.
Westbankmama... This is another point which I wish could be aired at higher levels. either ethnic cleansing (the transfer of a population based exclusively on their religious beliefs or ethnicity) is either immoral/illegal or it is not. I maintain that it is.
Joe Settler... This is another aspect that was missing from the discussion (what little there was) about disengagement. In Arabic, the Pali leaders always talk about the war of stages. By this they mean that each bit of land they win or are given brings them closer to their actual goal of having all of Israel. But you are also correct in pointing out that once they have all of Israel (G-d forbid) they will turn their sites on Jordan. This is why King Abdullah is going batsh*t over the idea of Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 10, 2006 12:14:09 PM
The right is very good at saying "I told you so" principally because the right is very bad at coming up with their own solutions. This is the way it has been for a long time. The right had no counterpart for Oslo other than to bash it and advocate territorial maximalism. The right has no solution now except to bash Disengagement and call for territorial maximalism. Here is what the right IS responsible for: It is responsible for helping create Hamas as a counterpart to balance out Fatah, a symptom of the right's penchant for short-term policy thinking. It is responsible for being soft on extremism among the settlers, which has led to all sorts of nonsense in Judea and Samaria. It is responsible for alienating many younger Israelis and American Jews by trying to make it seem as if one cannot be a Zionist unless one advocates an Israel right-or-wrong approach which includes defending everything that goes on in the territories. Within our own community, we should be able to discuss Israel rationally. That is difficult because the right-wing brand of Hasbara has forced everyone to the poles rather than the middle.
So let's be a little careful with the "I told you so"s.
1. The "weakness in retreat" theory was also used to argue against leaving South Lebanon. Would you rather we stayed there?
Before you answer yes, is it your argument that Hamas, who wants all of Israel obliterated, really cares where we stay? At what point do we make decisions for ourselves rather than letting Hamas make them for us?
2. What strategic planning would you have liked to see for Gaza after withdrawal? Right now you have a low-level civil war (Fatah/Hamas) there. Is this really bad for Israel? If the Palestinians self-destruct, would this not tend to support Israel's case for holding on to the West Bank?
3. "... by seeming to reward terror with territorial concessions we would be pushing the Palestinian population directly into the arms of militant factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that advocate violent struggle rather than a negotiated diplomatic solution."
And yet, many Palestinians support a diplomatic solution, and though I'd be the first to say Hamas is a terror organization, it is not the same terror organization since it entered politics. How do you interpret this?
Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jul 10, 2006 6:33:54 PM
Oh yes, and as I asked on another blog, anyone who talks about victory ought to define what victory is. I hear the "let the IDF win" stuff a lot, but I would like to know what people envision as the end result.
Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jul 10, 2006 6:35:28 PM
Trep - buried in those comments to comments were some pretty overwhelming complements - thank you. You are correct that I strayed somewhat, I think I mentioned somewhere that I was also distracted by not having answered your eartlier post. International coalition over the UN works for me (what would a corporate coalition look like?). The primary goal would be to have some outsiders involved. On the one hand it would be great to go to some nations which are only verbally involved and say "we don't want to act militarily against the Palestinians but if they attack us we are duty bound to respond. Now put your money where your mouth is and help us get to where we have nothing to respond to". It's time some observers had some skin in the game. The primary initial obligation would need to be disarming the militias and setting up and effectively training a neutral Palestinian police force - using some wisdom and understanding of the culture that leads to problems. For instance they need to recruit from all of the clans but have split the members up into different divisions - forcing them to train and work with their enemies. This increased security would actually work to the advantage of those Jews who would want to potentially remain in what would be a Palestinian state - they would be more secure and Israel would not have to get involved. That would remove one potential reasons for pulling Jews out of those areas against their will.
Zahava - I do.
Russell - I think that actually quite a lot of Palestinians realize that they have lost. Of course this number is hard to determine and probably fluctuates, an educated guess would be around 60% in the territories currently. It would of course be nice to have that be higher - 80% would be a good starting point. If you are waiting for 100 you are being unrealistic. There will always be those who want to disrupt the status quo, those who want to take power by force. All nations have them, the US too. The question is whether you choose to let them write the script.
It was UNWRA, not the Palestinians themselves who stopped Israel from improving standards in the refugee camps - probably as it has become a beaurocracy like any other - its policies are designed to ensure its own continuity and budget. The fact that the Palestinians well being was better under Israeli control that under the Egyptians is irrelevant - we had control and they observed our much much higher standard of living. A resentful population is easy to manipulate by those who want to use it, a well known and well documented fact that has led to revolutions the world over.
The point isn't to make the PLO or Hamas want peace. The point is to make them less relevant, to remove the things that they use to generate loyalty among the population, and no they don't want that to happen, which is why they keep stirring up trouble and keep provoking Israel - they want a response that will polarize their own population.
westbankmama - I usually really enjoy your comments, even when I don't agree with them, they are usually well thought out and certainly have a very interesting point of view. However, I don't see here where you have responded to a single thing I said. I certainly never said I think that transferring Jews is some great thing (either in or out). I don't claim that Gaza is currently occupied. I never said that Israel leaving Gaza would bring intantaneous peace, quite the contrary. I am not going to apologize for something I didn't say.
I do use the word "occupation" when it is legally applicable. Yes Israel "won" the territories after the six day war. If they had been annexed and the population absorbed, the areas would be considered part of Israel. While under Israeli military and administrative control, without annexation and without absorption of the population, the areas are legally defined as "occupied". Gaza (until this military incursion which I assume makes is an official war zone) was no longer occupied according to strict legal definitions.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 10, 2006 9:27:37 PM
It is really hard to accept a figure that "60% of Palestinians accept that they have lost" when you see support for rocket attacks on the order of 60%. Those who support them clearly do not believe themselves to have lost - they are still willing to continue the fight, indicating that they don't think it is over.
Nor does the leadership believe that they have lost. There may well be some isolated Palestinians who think so - but in that case, where is the Palestinian Arab equivalent of "Peace Now"? Where are the Palestinians calling upon their leadership to concede a hopeless battle and try to get along with Israel?
How in the world are you going to make Hamas and Fatah less relevant, when the populace continually indicates its support for them? The things that they use to control the population are their control of the media, control of the education system, religious sermons, and social pressures. Taking those away from them would require firmer measures, not additional funds in the pockets of the leaders.
Posted by: Russell | Jul 10, 2006 9:55:55 PM
Michael Brenner... Oh my, are you really implying that Oslo was a good idea? And given the fact that we are back in Gaza and more than 80% of Gaza evacuees still haven't received their compensation/permanent housing/employment... you think that disengagement was not only a good idea, but that it took into account all the strategic angles and was executed logically? Let me explain something that I find myself telling my kids all too often: You don't have to have a better idea to recognise a bad one. You don't have to go along with every suggestion just because you can't come up with a compelling reason not to. I know it probably sounds like advice from a bad after-school special, but your logic sounds suspiciously like the kind of peer pressure that leads a log of kids astray. Rather than defend even one of the things I mentioned you've simply pointed your finger at the right and said, "Oh, yeah? Well look at all the bad stuff you guys have done!" I would hope we are a bit beyond 'I know you are but what am I?" Other than that you have simply answered questions with questions. As to your assertion that many Palestinians want a diplomatic solution... Name one who is in a position to negotiate for his/her people. Just one. To answer your final question, Victory and defeat are both impossible to miss once you see either. The problem here is that Israel has always been stopped from being victorious... and the Palestinians have always been saved from tasting defeat.
Lisoosh... I meant every word. My concept of a corporate coalition would be to have some of the biggest companies in the world get together and stake out logical areas for investment in the PA infrastructure. They could set up computer training facilities so that in a year or two Israel could export some of its coding work to Gaza instead of India. They could create real 21st century agriculture and fish farming so that the Palestinians could export to Southern Europe and Northern Africa. They could help set up world class port facilities to handle the produce. They could help build resorts and business facilities to rival anything found in Dubai. Anything is possible once money starts flowing to the people who don't have the guns. As to your reply to Westbank mama that Gaza is not occupied... I know several people who would argue that point. They would say that since we control the borders and ports and supply the electricity and water, they are in a prison and we are the jailers. That, by some definitions, is occupations. I don't buy that ... but some do. WBMM obviously mistook you for someone who does.
Russell... I also found the figure to be high. I used the Japanese example earlier. I honestly think the Palis will have to reach that level of defeat before they recognise it for what it is.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 10, 2006 10:02:42 PM
"Michael Brenner... Oh my, are you really implying that Oslo was a good idea?"
Let's see, actually negotiating? Yeah, I thought it was a good idea. We got very close to a deal, the world stayed off our backs for a long time, and there were moments of great prosperity when it looked like peace was near. The mistake was doing it with Arafat rather than the people on the ground pre-1993, not negotiation itself, and Rabin's assassination did not help because it robbed Israel of the only real leader it had during the Oslo period. It also seems to me (and this is one of the things that Disengagement has changed for the better) that Israelis, unfortunately, tended to allow Hamas to choose who won the elections. Netanyahu did not get Israelis long-term security, and there was really nothing he did that Peres wouldn't have eventually done. Peres simply had the misfortune of having the bus bombings happen during his time as PM.
"And given the fact that we are back in Gaza and more than 80% of Gaza evacuees still haven't received their compensation/permanent housing/employment... you think that disengagement was not only a good idea, but that it took into account all the strategic angles and was executed logically? Let me explain something that I find myself telling my kids all too often: You don't have to have a better idea to recognise a bad one."
Yes, but it's hard to argue the success of one idea over another when all you have is criticism. The question is what the alternatives were, and I think the anti-Disengagement arguments are weakened by the fact that the status quo was not exactly sustainable.
"You don't have to go along with every suggestion just because you can't come up with a compelling reason not to."
No, but in the policymaking world, one must have some alternative. It is too easy to bash every idea and then play critic every time something goes wrong. Remember how the right was against the wall in the West Bank, arguing that it would also be perceived as weakness? Would you like to compare suicide bombing before and after the wall?
"I know it probably sounds like advice from a bad after-school special, but your logic sounds suspiciously like the kind of peer pressure that leads a log of kids astray. Rather than defend even one of the things I mentioned you've simply pointed your finger at the right and said, "Oh, yeah? Well look at all the bad stuff you guys have done!"
Well, when you call the kettle black when you yourself are part of the kettle, you open yourself up to that charge. Right-wingers want to say I told you so without taking any responsibility for creating the situation. And they don't want to admit that it is their lack of workable ideas that finally sunk them politically. Go ahead, reoccupy Gaza. Will this get us any closer to security or "victory"?
"Other than that you have simply answered questions with questions. As to your assertion that many Palestinians want a diplomatic solution... Name one who is in a position to negotiate for his/her people."
It's not an assertion; read the polls. Abbas is such a person, whether you care to admit it or not. That we failed to take any advantage of him is our mistake.
"To answer your final question, Victory and defeat are both impossible to miss once you see either. The problem here is that Israel has always been stopped from being victorious and the Palestinians have always been saved from tasting defeat."
You're answering in the abstract. Again, what does this mean? That we haven't killed enough people yet? Define what victory LOOKS LIKE. Is it driving the Palestinians out? Is it sovereignty over everything West of the Jordan?
Posted by: Michael Brenner | Jul 10, 2006 10:44:19 PM
Russell - I admit 60% is a rough figure. But for every poll showing 60% in favor of attacks, there is another showing 60% (and over) in favor of negotiation. A poll is a poll, it shows in part what the questioner wants depending on how it is phrased.
The Palestinians do have people talking peace, but in a population dominated by militias, those without guns don't seem to get heard much.
I am not advocating giving money to either Hamas or Fatah at all, I am in fact advocating removal of a considerable source of their power - guns, money and their own peoples disatisfaction.
I firmly believe that it is not religion that is the opium of the people, it is money.
Trep - love the idea of the commercial coalition. However I still think that without an international force disarming the militias and providing a cover of quiet that will let things happen, it would be impossible to get companies to move in. Pair my "security plan" with your economic one and we definitely have the basis for something I would take to the polls!
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 10, 2006 11:04:41 PM
treppenwitz:
Fair enough, I do not know lisoosh well enough. However I reserve the right to use words like "blind" when it is the most precise way to describe one's state of being visually impared to the point of not seing your own nose.
Posted by: yury | Jul 11, 2006 1:33:30 AM
Michael:
Israel could "negotiate" with Abbas until it is blue in the face. But he has never had either the power or willingness to make concessions and make them stick. Anybody can make demands. The only power that is meaningful in a negotiator is the power to give up something. What reason can you provide to believe that Abbas has this power?
lisoosh:
The same applies to whatever Palis are "willing to negotiate." If they are unwilling to make concessions, they are not really willing to negotiate - only to demand.
Posted by: Russell | Jul 11, 2006 3:09:39 AM
It is easy to claim that Rabin was the only leader and that his assasination ended the best hope of the time, but it may not be true.
It is one of those speculative comments that sounds good and feels good but has limited basis in fact.
We really don't know what else Rabin would have done. He might have become the greatest leader ever or maybe he would have gone a different direction.
We just don't know.
Posted by: Jack | Jul 11, 2006 9:29:55 AM
Michael Brenner... OK, I'm going to have to insist that you focus here. Your profile says that you work in Law, so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are an attorney and not the guy who waters the plants at the law firm after hours.
When I post direct questions on my journal and you ignore them in order to do a bunch of finger pointing, I reserve the right to try to bring you back to the points I have raised. When I ask you directly if, in retrospect, you think Oslo turned out to be a good idea... telling me "Let's see, actually negotiating? Yeah, I thought it was a good idea. We got very close to a deal..." is not really a suitable answer. I'm guessing that in the world of law, negotiating well but arriving at a terribly one-sided deal is also sort of frowned upon. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point as I didn't go to law school.
Also, telling me that "The mistake was doing it with Arafat rather than the people on the ground pre-1993..." is not really helpful or intellectually honest. Just who was there to negotiate with other than Arafat? The entire world acknowledged Arafat as the undisputed representative of the Palestinian people. Are you really suggesting that we should have picked someone else at random and sat him across the table for substantive peace negotiations???
I must say I enjoyed the part where you said, "that Israelis, unfortunately, tended to allow Hamas to choose who won the elections"... that was priceless. You are actually the first person I've heard actually identify Hamas' election as a positive development!
OK, back to reality. Polls may identify Abbas as the right address for negotiations, but he has not been able to negotiate successfully with his own armed factions. what in the world would suggest to you that a man who can't negotiate successfully with his own people is in a position to deliver anything to the Israelis in the way of concessions?
You also suggested that there was no alternative to disengagement, and I have said several times that that is a flawed argument. It is akin to saying there was no choice but to jump off a cliff once someone makes such a suggestion. There are always choices in terms of actions and timing. Many of the anti-disengagement folks were not dismissing territorial concessions out of hand. They were just saying that it was dangerous to rush to give up territory without receiving anything in return (not to mention that such a move would be a direct reward for terror and would in fact encourage more of the same).
Even though I think I was quite clear on this last point, let me go over it so as to remove all doubt... Here is what victory looks like: It is when the enemy leaders lose all will to fight, and all of the enemy troops come out with their hands over their heads and their weapons on the ground. A military victory requires that the victor dictate the terms of surrender to the vanquished and that the vanquished accept these terms in their entirety. Normally there is a period of occupation that follows a victory where the government institutions are overseen by either the victor or an international body representing the interests of the victor in order to ensure both adherence to the terms of surrender, and to help the vanquished start the long process of rebuilding and creating a new reality for its population. If you would like an example from recent history where a pride-filled, militaristic society was completely defeated, occupied and rebuilt from the ground up in such a way as to be able to assume its place in the world as a prosperous, peaceful nation... please Google 'Japan' and read up on the period from 1945 - 1955.
Lisoosh... Oh, I left out a step. Before my corporate coalition could move in the Palestinians would have to suffer a complete military defeat. Sorry about being unclear.
Yury... You may 'reserve the right' to do whatever you like, but on my journal you will either adhere to the code of conduct I set forth or you will not be able to participate in the discussions here. I am not suggesting that you change your politics or pull any punches. I am simply saying that you may not use language that is insulting to others in order to make your points. I hope we're clear on that point now.
Russell... You make an interesting point to Lisoosh. Being willing to negotiate in theory and actually stepping up an making real concessions (concessions being an essential part of negotiations), are two very different things.
Jack... I was thinking the same thing. Many people have co-opted Rabin and placed their agendas in his mouth. But saying that he was the only chance Israel had to secure a just and lasting peace is just foolish. Also, raising the assassination as a way of scoring points in a left/right discussion is intellectually dishonest. Lee Harvey Oswald didn't represent anyone but himself and neither did the murderer Yigal Amir. It is convenient for many to associate Amir with their political enemies in order to score points... but he was a product of the worst aspects of Israeli discourse (the hate, disrespect and vilification) and was simply weak-minded enough to act upon the kind of hate-filled speech that was coming from both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 11, 2006 9:53:05 AM
David - you either have far more patience than I, or you haven't been here long enough.
Congratulations on raising this issue and keeping your cool as posters demonstrate the very loop-de-loop that you are writing about.
More tips here:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/04/strategies-for-dealing-with-denial_17.html
Posted by: Ben-David | Jul 11, 2006 1:46:03 PM
Ben-David... I'm guessing the latter. Patience is definitely not my strong suit.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 11, 2006 1:53:17 PM
Frier here.
It's not rocket science. Just simple socioeconomics.
I'm sorry, but Japan, while an excellent example of a country with a horrific record of genocide and human rights abuses that can change its ways has little in common structurally with the Palestinians.
Japan was a rell recognized political entity with an infrastructure, defined leadership and organized power structure. When leaders surrendered it actually meant something and the lower echelons followed.
The Palestinians are rag tag bunch of tribes and clans with numerous groups claiming to speak for them but actively followed by few. The current situation, rather than mirroring World Wars, where huge well matched nations fought each other, is more closely following the path of revolutions and overthrows, with all the anarchy that accompanies it.
For comparison:
Iran: Shah rules with an iron fist, destroys liberal middle class and educated opposition. Disatisfaction opens door to Ayatollah.
Iraq: Saddam rules with an iron fist, destroys liberal middle class and educated opposition. Overthrow leads to power vacuum, occupation, increase in terrorism and possible civil war.
Better situation ;
Jordan: King rules with iron fist, cultivates liberal educated middle class, starts to ease up. Hamas works to gain stronghold. People aren't having it.
The whole region is littered with examples of what works and what dosn't.
It's really easy to say:
" Lefties simply love anyone they can patronize and despise anyone who is not willing to be patronized."
or
"you have this map of the world you just described, and you so blindly believe in it, and your place in it, that one can't call it anything but IRRATIONAL BELIEF"
or
"that the left can't get out of its rut"
But that isn't really any kind of plan or solution, its just name calling and avoidance and sorry but "Stop, lets step back and talk this whole disengagement thing over AGAIN" isn't a plan either. Neither is the "bomb them into smithereens till their aren't any left" suggestion which probably has more to do with excitement at a feeling of power than reason.
In fact the only definitive thing in writing I have ever come across from the "right" is the Benny Alon NIMBY plan - buy off your enemy or pack them into cattle cars and move them into the backyard of your neighbours. This solves nothing. It does though destroy the only working relationships we have with our Arab neighbours, both of whom are capable of doing way more damage than the Palestinians.
Yes, there are some Palestinians who want nothing more that the destruction of Israel. Every left winger and liberal knows it. There are also Israelis for whom absolute and total surrender by the Palestinians tomorrow won't be enough because they don't want to live side by side, even in peace - and it's easy to throw insults and false logic around to avoid any real discussion (while accusing others of denial). I suggest they start to get a little more honest with themselves.
Posted by: lisoosh | Jul 11, 2006 11:15:27 PM
Lets take an example. if someone is being called an idiot, will it be insulting to him? Most probably yes. But if that person is in fact an idiot, clinically speaking, is it still an insult? Has the doctor been rude when he wrote "an idiot" on his conclusions?
Another example. Call Mr. Abbas a "zionist", and he will probably be very insulted. Does it means that "zionist" is an insult?
Insult is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that it is not ok to name names just to make someone feel bad. I however was giving a diagnose (correct or not is another issue), not with intention to insult, but to point to (something I percieve as) a fact. It's not my concern that an "idiot" is in denial about being an "idiot" (not talking about anyone specific here) and gets offended when he is named one.
I think it is beneficial to all to call things what they really are. This is the best way to get to what everyone _really_ thinks and start looking at what the actual disagreements are about.
Posted by: yury | Jul 12, 2006 1:11:05 AM
lisoosh:
"But that isn't really any kind of plan or solution"
I never said it was. Here is one however:
1. Mobilize reserves for a month, enter gaza and west bank. Arrest or kill all leaders of terror and all are guilty of terrorist attacts. That includes going as high as top leadership of Hamas and Fatah, including Abbas.
2.After the bulk of work is done send reserves home finish with regular army: take away all the weapons, including light ones, including from "police". Arrest all that preach violence, especially over mass media people.
3. Institute full military controll of all those territories for a limited (but not declared) period of time.
4. Provide economic incentives to Jordan to open up it's borders and help immigrants integrate into economics. Provide incentives to leave. DEPORT all who promote hatered to Israel.
5. Wait until the place empties out (will take several years), declare Israeli authority on all territory up to jordan river (except gaza). Remove tight military control and declare that whoever is left will have to either 1)pledge alegence to Israel and serve in the army and get citizenship or 2)stay as a resident but not a citizen, with all the economical and political consequences.
Can this plan work? Who knows? There are many buts inside. Probably leftists will call it names and declare it "unrealistic". But it's not like the left is the only authority on realizm. So here you go. A plan.
Posted by: yury | Jul 12, 2006 1:35:35 AM
Uhm.
Withdrawal from Gaza et all is combined with another important factor: the security barrier. As soon as we can completely separate the Palis from us and withdraw all troops from the territory on the other side of the fence, they become a de-facto state. And when they're a de-facto state waging de-facto war on us, we can finally deal with them as one should deal with a state that's openly waging a war against you with the sole purpose of genocide - you go Dresden on their asses. And then it's perfectly legal.
Hopefully, someone in the PA will understand what a legally deployed MLRS is,
Sharon was not one of the world's greatest generals for nothing, ladies and gentlemen.
Posted by: The Raccoon | Jul 12, 2006 7:06:35 AM
is Mohammed Deif dead or not?
Posted by: alexbmn | Jul 12, 2006 7:37:50 AM
Lisoosh... Though not a perfect analogy (what analogy is?), Japan is quite useful. Japanese culture was (and to some extend still is) completely alien to most westerners. This made it easy to vilify them, but it also made it extremely difficult to anticipate how they would react to anything. You are obviously correct that their society is based on a sense of duty to their leaders... but the Allies didn't count on that when dealing with them at the end of the war. They went in at considerable expense and spent a decade micromanaging every aspect of the recreation of Japanese society. There is something to be said for that approach. I must say I have a problem with you assertion that I am advocating taking a step back and talking about "" this whole disengagement thing over AGAIN". The reason being that there is no 'Again'. The left refused to entertain the right's objections during the disengagement and there has been no broad discussion of lessons learned since it took place. That has to happen or we will continue to have fatal missteps in dealing with the Palestinians.
Yuri... I'm still not hearing the magic words. This is not a town square where nobody is the boss of you. This is my living-room and you are required to play by my rules. Please acknowledge this.
Alexbmn... Good Question. Why do you ask?
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 12, 2006 10:29:14 AM
It's your blog so it's your rules and I respect that. However, I am not clear if you are ok with what I wrote above. If not, look for me at the town square.
Posted by: Yury | Jul 12, 2006 10:55:38 AM
Yuri... As a rule, I have no problem with people presenting ideas, plans and strategies here. Even unpopular ones. What I won't allow (even though I am regrettably guilty of it occasionally), is making personal attacks on individuals or groups using words, imagery or any combination thereof that have nothing to do with the actual ideas being discussed. This tactic is intellectually dishonest and is the hobgoblin of weak arguments and arguers.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 12, 2006 11:11:24 AM
