Replies: 4 Comments
Ami, I do not put much stock in Weblog banners, be it your own banner, Progressive Zionism or There is No Diplomatic Solution, There is Only a Military Solution. It is what these Blogs and blog contributors have to say to justify their views that is all important.
You have raised two points:
1. ďIn reality they (those who proclaim there is only a military solution) are not offering any route to peace, but just a means of keeping territory.Ē
I take it Ami that as to referencing that there is only a military solution that you are referring to Israpundit.
You are quite wrong to suggest that Israpundit and the many who contribute their views there are simply advocating that Israel, cease discussions and talk with guns and bombs against their enemies.
Views expressed on Israpudit are far more diverse then that and secondly many at Israpundit supported their views by referencing specific facts, history and current circumstances.
Some of the views expressed there do set out different paths by which peace can and should be pursued.
Essentially those paths call for Israel looking at the historical relationship between Arab and Jews since Jews began migrating to what was to become the region of the British Mandate for Palestine. Some include within that context for consideration, the relationship between Muslims and Jews since the beginnings of Islam, with due reference to not only the historical relationship thereafter, but also with regard to what Islam teaches about what perceptions Muslims are to have of non-Muslims and Jews and Christians in particular and of Islamís religiously directed manifest destiny.
One cannot understand Arab perceptions of others and themselves, as well as the Arab perception of their own self interests and how to achieve same, without considering the great influence of Islamic religio-political teachings and culture has on the Arab mind.
What many who follow Israpundit are advocating therefore is that the West and Israel for any number of variously bad reasons, refuse to recognize that the Arab/Palestinian mind differs greatly from the Western mind in terms of perceptions, attitudes, aspirations, logic and reason.
To put it another way, the West fails or refuses to recognize or admit that not only are there culturally induced conflicts of perception and cultural value differences between the Arabs and the West, but that quite a number of those cultural differences are antithetical.
The West in its arrogance believes that it knows best on how people can best get along with each other and have their interests satisfied through negotiations and diplomacy.
The West, in that arrogance continues to believe that Muslimís will come to recognize that the Westís way of resolving conflict is the better way and so the West continues to frame issues within the context of Western thinking. The West deludes itself in believing that Arab/Palestinian thinking is accepting of Western insight and views, since the Arabs and the Palestinians have begun using the same or similar words to characterize their positions and their goals regarding peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the need to create an independent Palestinian state.
Nothing could be further from the truth however.
While the Palestinians under Abbas say they want the same thing as the Israelis, being two democratic states existing in peace side by side, if one pays attention to what they are saying in Arabic to their own people, the messages being disseminated in their media and by their government, their unamended founding charters and what they are teaching in their educational system, it is obvious that the idea of an independent Palestinian state for Palestinians means something very different then what the West and Israel are talking about.
Diplomacy and peaceful negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians within the context of the land for peace paradigm has not worked. There is little reason to believe they can work, given that a number of Palestinian demands are an anathema to the long term survival of Israel and the more America pressures Israel to give more and more goodwill gestures and concessions, the Palestinian demands are intensified and hardened.
Ami, you are being very unfair in setting yourself up as the maiven and those at Israpundit as the fools.
2. ďHow it would be possible to annex several million Arabs to Israel and maintain a state of the Jewish people is completely beyond me.Ē
This is indeed a seemingly unanswerable question, if Israel were to annex Gaza and J and S, but only if all things and thinking remain the same.
The way things currently are is that the West is vulnerable to the power of oil and the Arabs have not hesitated to use their oil power to shape Western positions and policies. The Arabs also have not been reluctant to raise fears in the West that should the West anger the Arabs, they can again destabilize the world oil economy and use oil boycotts as was done in 1973 to make the West suffer. Add to that, the fear that is engendered in the West by radical Islam and the further fear that by angering Arabs, the radical Islamists will in even greater hatred and anger with the West, if one can imagine it getting worse, redouble their efforts to harm the West.
With such political and economic realities and the realities of Western fears prevailing over the last 60 years and worsening as we bear witness to almost daily, it is not at all surprising that the West for the past 60 years, continue to seek a two state peace solution inherent in the 1947 UN Partition Resolution, while at the same time carrying on their analysis from their conventional thinking perspective.
That perspective, since 1967 has been to somehow have Israel give back the territories won in the 1967 defensive war.
Further, again, because of political and economic realities and the fear the Arabs and radical Islam engender in the West, the West has been willfully blind to the fact that the Arabs have refused to help the Palestinians or absorb them as citizens into their own societies and instead keep them in refugee camps and rather have been using the Palestinians for their own ends vs a vis Israel. Further the West has thus far been ready and willing to give the Palestinians an infinite number of chances to pursue peace and not war and continue to press Israel to give more and more in keeping with the land for peace premise. Also, while the West is prepared to countenance the Arab and Palestinian lands as being free of Jews, they push Israel to make room for Palestinians to come back.
In raising this question Ami about what would Israel do with the several million Arabs within Gaza and J & S if Israel were to annex those territories, you do so from the standpoint of conventional thinking.
There is however a world of difference between conventional thinking and conventional wisdom.
There is nothing wise about conventional thinking that allows only for an inside the box perspective and thinking because that is what better serves the interests of the Western powers that be and which have the might and muscle to force Israel to go along.
From my perspective Ami, your views and reasons you offer, all come from within that conventional thinking box that advantages the West and disadvantages Israel by limiting Israelís ability to advance her own best interests.
Bill Narvey, Sunday, November 25th
"Isseroff" believes that people who shoot Prime Ministers of Israel are fanatics and not friends of Israel.
"Isseroff" believes that people who insist that the Foreign Minister of Israel is "insane" are extremists.
Those who "Isseroff" maligns by branding them extremists are extremists. They emblazon "there is only a military solution" on their coat of arms. In reality they are not offering any route to peace, but just a means of keeping territory.
How it would be possible to annex several million Arabs to Israel and maintain a state of the Jewish people is completely beyond me.
Ami Isseroff, Sunday, November 25th
Isseroff believes Israelís only chance at peace with the Palestinians that will assure Israelís long term wellbeing and security is the Road Map solution whereby the end game is for a the emergence of an independent democratic Palestinian state.
The Road Map solution is not new. It is the latest variation on similar solutions promoted by the West and by Israel over the last 60 years that calls for peace through peaceful negotiations that see Israel giving up land to the Palestinians in return for peace.
He cites in support of his view, the official statement of the Israeli government as expressed by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs that sets forth all the hopes and reservations of the Israeli government regarding the Annapolis peace conference and the peace process.
That Isseroff finds his views reflect the current and past Israeli administrationsí broadly stated goals for peace with the Palestinians, does not however as he implies, per se lend any credence and support for his views or that of the Israeli government.
Isseroff proceeds to arrogantly denigrate and demonize those who oppose his views by branding them extremists.
That too does nothing to explain and justify why Isseroff believes his views are more realistic and sound then those who would differ with him and who believe that the path that the two state solution path that Israel has been on, especially since Oslo I is dangerous, if not suicidal.
Alluded to in his article, The Real Zionist Position on Annapolis and spelled out more specifically in his other writings, Isseroff has identified many of the very same obstacles the Palestinians and the Arabs have placed on the road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and her neighbors in the region that those he brands extremists have identified.
Isseroff maintains his view however that in spite of these obstacle that are the same today as they were 60 years ago, that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is still achievable because at some point the Palestinians and the Arabs will come around to seeing that the Road Map is the only option for them as it is for Israel.
Those Isseroff maligns by branding them extremists however say that because of all those obstacles, a different peace paradigm is necessary.
In the end, all Isseroff does is express his bottom line views, while denigrating and demonizing those who hold contrary views, but he offers nothing in the way of reasonably explaining and justifying why he is right and those who differ, are wrong.
Bill Narvey, Sunday, November 25th
What drivel. You obviously belong to the Secular Israeli Left who have long sought to destroy the idea of a "State of Israel, a Jewish State"! Wake up... this is not going to happen if you allow the United States to dictate to the Israeli Prime Minister what he will and will not do or say and what he must accept. Pull your head out of your touches and look at what has happened EVERY TIME Israel has trusted the Arabs.
Bill Maniaci, Saturday, November 24th
Constructive comments, including corrections, are welcome. Do not use this space for spam, publishing articles, self promotion, racism, anti-Zionist propaganda or character defamation. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. See our Comment policy for details. By posting here, you agree to the Comment policy.