Portrait of denial

It seems that Typepad did its semi-annual nose-dive yesterday and took a day-and-a-half worth of posts and comments down with it.  If you don't see your comment, please feel free to re-post it.

<sarcasm>  But no big deal, right?   It's not as though yesterday was a particularly note-worthy or newsworthy day... so no harm done.  </sarcasm>

By this time I'm sure anyone who is interested in the situation on the ground here has made it their business to check the various news sites so I won't try to provide any more updates here.  Besides, I am interested to hear what some of you have to say on yesterday's events, so feel free to share.

The only thing I feel like posting today is proof of the incredible ease with which people can willfully ignore irrefutable facts just to preserve the validity of hopelessly out-dated (and dangerous) ideologies.

I have a long-time commenter who feels it is his duty to challenge me when he feels I am moving too far to the right.  In principle I have no problem with this.  In fact I could say the same of many of my commenters... and I have learned a great deal from almost all of them (even when we have agreed to disagree).

But this particular commenter is so consistently wrong... and continues to cling to such dangerous ideas... that I feel like he needs to be held up as an example of how not to think critically.

Here are some snippets of his comments with the date the comments were posted.  Please not that while the situation here in Israel has deteriorated significantly over the past 8 months, his comments have continued to sound as though they were written during the brief Oslo honeymoon to a Luddite(me) who hadn't yet heard that peace had broken out:

Jan 26th 2006 [responding to my statement that the election of Hamas was an endorsement of armed struggle rather than a diplomatic solution] :

"I disagree with your analysis.  This is much more rejection of Fatah than it is an embrace of hamas... Khalil Shakiki's polls continue to show that most Palestinians want a solution to the conflict (and thus it is inaccurate to say that they want to destroy Israel), and that most of them support armed attacks of some kind (and therefore inaccurate to claim that this vote is somehow a new endorsement of violence).  Furthermore, most Palestinians are not in favor of an Islamic state...  Hamas will be forced to change or suffer the consequences.  They will now be held accountable for whatever they do.  No more military wing acting outside the political wing.  And if they do attack, any hardship suffered by Palestinians as a result of Israeli responses will be blamed on them... And I might say, optimist that I am, that it is not a bad thing that the Palestinians are willing to kick out a corrupt, ineffective leadership.  If they hold Hamas accountable for moving toward some agreement with Israel, as I bet they will, it will show that they did not put Hamas in power to set up an Islamic state and continue killing people."

Jan 27th [replying to an accusation from another commenter that he was in 'post election denial', and also to my claim that the withdrawal from Gaza had worsened our strategic position rather then improved it]:

"You fail to realize that history and power influence what an organization is.  Al-Qaeda has money and weapons and is unaccountable to anyone.  Hamas is checked by the international and internal constraints I mentioned, and I don't believe they wish to go around the world carrying out attacks, much as I would agree that at times, they have mimiced Al-Qaeda rhetoric ... [Gaza] is a terrorist state that is turning against itself, not us ...  I would bet against [Hamas starting an open war with Israel] because it would be completely irrational and stupid. ...  Israel would pound them mercilessly and with no worry of any repercussion.  Do you really think the Palestinians want a "real war" against Israel?"

Jan 28th [responding to another commenter who stated that Hamas and Al Qaeda were essentially the same in their thinking and tactics]:

"The difference is that while Al-Qaeda, as a non-governmental entity with lots of resources, has no domestic political reason to reform, Hamas, a political party accountable to an electorate with limited resources, will."

Jan 28th [defending his statement that the Hamas elections had resulted in less attacks on Israel]

"We'll see... if Disengagement really encouraged Hamas, I think the response would be more attacks not less. I'm not wrong.  There are internal restraints on Hamas, and they will have an effect.  I see [disengagement] and its aftermath as a big victory."

Jan 30th [responding to continued accusations that he was willfully ignoring the nature of Hamas and its threats against Israel]:

"My argument is the fundamental nature of politics will constrain Hamas from doing the things people are scared of.  Your argument seems to be more the Jabotinsky one about not trusting the Arabs.  I guess you're like the general in Amos Oz's "In the Land of Israel."

Now lets jump forward a few months to the present and see if our commenter has learned anything since making his self-assured statements in January:

July 10th [Responding to my 'double standard' post which was essentially saying 'I told you so' to the people who ignored dire warnings of disengagements eventual results]:

"Let's be a little careful with the 'I told you so's'.  ... Right now you have a low-level civil war (Fatah/Hamas) there.  Is this really bad for Israel? ... 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."

July 10th [responding to the question "Are you saying that Oslo was actually 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."

July 10th [responding to me asking him if he still thought disengagement was a good idea considering that we are now back in Gaza and that 80% of evacuees still hadn't received housing/compensation they were promised]:

"Yes, but it's hard to argue the success of one idea over another when all you have is criticism. "

July 10th [still maintaining that most Palestinians desire a diplomatic solution and that Israel had someone with whom to negotiate]

"...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."

July 12th [from an email exchange well after the unprovoked northern attacks by Hizballah, in which he still maintains the validity of his position]:

"No one proved me wrong.  And I'm not the one calling for a big war that will only get lots more soldiers killed.  I'm not in the losing-my-mind business every time something happens in Israel.  I think the state is strong enough to take care of itself ... Soldiers have been kidnapped before, and bombing the crap out of Lebanon has not been known to work as a solution. "

I'm hoping this will be the last I hear from this particular commenter... not because he is either dumb or rude (he's actually quite bright and well-mannered), but because it is pointless for someone to continue participating in a discussion without taking note of the other positions being presented... not to mention facts on the ground. 

This gentleman has a blog of his own and I invite him to write unchanging monologues over there... not here.

Israel internal politics and foreign policy are not some academic problem or theoretical exercise for dabblers and dilettantes.  They are deadly serious business with real people's lives at stake.

People from all over the world are free to share their conclusions here and either stick to them or amend them as the need arises.  I'm not suggesting that we all need to march in lock-step.  On the contrary, this would be an excellent time to float some new and original thinking.

But during a time of war to actively deny irrefutable facts on the ground, simply in order to avoid upsetting one's carefully stacked apple-cart of personal ideologies, is not something that I feel compelled to entertain here on my journal.

You want to advocate sentiments such as 'Give peace a chance'?  Go tell it to a country that isn't currently under active military attack on two different fronts. 

You want to continue defending a policy of unilateral appeasement and withdrawal that sent our enemies an unmistakable message that the only path to achieving their goals was through armed resistance?  Then go join ISM or some other 'useful idiot' organization and at least be honest about which side you are rooting for in this conflict.

But so long as innocent civilians in the north and south are living in bomb shelters  and cities as far inside Israel as Ashquelon and Nahariya are being successfully targeted by enemy missiles... please sing your tired old song elsewhere.  I've heard enough.