By Ted Belman
I recently posted support for our slogan “THERE IS ONLY A MILITARY SOLUTION”. Since I don’t believe that the military offense can bring a peace agreement, it is hardly a solution. Ami Isseroff worries that such a slogan will bring discredit on Zionists in general and we will all be labelled as war mongers or worse.
His preferred slogan probably is “THERE IS ONLY A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION.” He is right that ultimately peace can only come through diplomacy. But as we know “war” is diplomacy by other means. War enables diplomacy to work.
But after sixty years of searching for a diplomatic solution and enduring five major wars, there is no solution in sight. We are further from peace than we were on the eve of the Oslo Accords.
Perhaps the best slogan is “THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION”.
Just a comment on Noam Chomsky, Ph.D. His life’s work on Universal Grammar – for which he has received world renown – is likely wrong in its fundamental conceptualization. Language morphology in humans seems to result from an interaction of two complex systems, human cognitive limitations and language itself, not from genetically acquired language rules. The details of his errors are unimportant in this forum, but that he has taught generations of linguists theories that do not seem to hold water, speaks to the disability that can so easily be inflicted upon on any real life situation by “convinced” ideologues. Fortunately, science is self-correcting, but Chomsky is not. If he can be wrong on his life’s work, he can be dead wrong on his conceptualization of the Middle East “situation.” Being wrong in the Middle East causes death and destruction, while being wrong on academic formulations rarely results in rotting bodies. He needs to be quiet now and rethink his positions – all of them.
Max,
that would have to rank as one of the very best comments on Kamm and the British/US Global Power elite as it relates to his alter ego Noam Chomsky, that I have ever read anywhere.
Whenever Kamm pseudo-criticizes Chomsky he is really thinking to himself: “there is something about you that I really hate about me!“.
That’s probably the real reason why Kamm is so obsessed with him.
Well done, Max!
“Playing around”, I see, well then thanks to reply to me Ted.
Free speech and reckless charges
.
Kamm’s comment is quite insane, Israel has neither of these things. It has a government that doesn’t represent the wishes or interests of of its people and the only thing that vibrates is the earth and body parts when the bombs and rockets go off.
…
Apparently Kamm is obsessed with Chomsky. They seem to share the same psychology which is repressed, emotionally flattened with no depth and unable to separate the top from the bottom. They are each other’s ghost shadow. The difference is that Kamm is alligned with and an apoligist for the British and Global Power elite which makes Chomsky a threat.
And also, as such Kamm is concerned about silencing or discrediting alternative free communication such as bloggers and sites like Israpundit that are outside the control of the power elite. He just made another foray into denouncing “bloggers ” and free speech on the internet in general. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/bloggings_role.html
The difference with Elitist apologists like Kamm is that unlike bloggers who are trying to get messages and truth out from under conditions of repression, he actually has nothing to get out, only to entrench the existing elite’s goals and to silence any voices dangerous to them.
As Noah Cahomsky said, if you become a real threat to the establishment’s power they will go after you to destroy you. It’s a mark of effectiveness.
I actually think I am with Ted but for perhaps slightly different reasons. If we can understand that “war is the continuation of politics” which I think was the original and historical slogan then it gets closer to the concept that in the end as long as these conflicts are insoluble there is only a military solution. The trouble with Ami is that he differs on that very point, or did.
Ted may be right because when you say that (militarism) as a bald statement it can be misconstrued too.
The biggest part of our work is in the field of propaganda. I believe that the struggle now to develope the political and theoretical differences between us and people like Kamm and Cohen, that is people who are looked on as supporting Israel, is really the greatest preparation in facing up to reality.
I mean that over the past weeks Nathan and others have been guiding us to images which are readuily available on the web of the greatest barbarities in the Balkans not 300 years ago but in the past 10 or so years.
Some people around Israpundit have shown in so many ways that they were reluctant to take this on board.
Perhaps they thought this was not their “Jewish” struggle.
And it was this narrow view of “Zionism”, Zionism which can mean so many things to so many people, that I am so opposed to.
Then there was the line of argument introduced here, which went something like, the Serbs were our friends so now we have to be their friends. Well I am opposed to that too if it is taken in a narrow fashion.
Basically the reason for taking on board the material Nathan provided rests in the total unity or global nature of the struggles facing every nation today.
In that sense the Irish as just one example is no different. No nation can opt out.
It is just that for geographical strategical reasons and for historical reasons also Israel and Yugoslavia were objectively at the sharpest point. At the sharpest point actually from two forces, the competition between the world powers and the drive of especially the US government for hegemony, and at the same time this Medieval Fascistic fantasy of Islaofascism.
The bare slogan re military often brought to my mind the blind militarism of Sharon.
From Sharon I learned you can be a militarist and still be totally bankrupt politically.
It is the concepts which lie behind and are in the brains of the people around Israpundit that really count, and as I said I have quite a few reservations about these concepts.
I think Ted is to be praised for what he calls “playing around”. I did not agree with him totally on Kamm but at least Ted was game enough to open up the door for real exposure of Kamm. It is up to others to take up the ball and start running with it.
Max. Cool it. I’m just playing around. I still agree with the message in There is only a military solution and will return to it. The present slogan There is no diplomatic solution has a different message but is also true. In fact they both are saying the same thing but in different ways. If there is no diplomatic solution, then of course, there is only a military solution.
Yes a military solution if it is applied correctly! Te Arabs understand bullets! Israel as plenty! Remember te book says tou sall not murder but does not say kill!
Ted you’ve been P0WNED!.
How sickening and disgusting, and you’ve been p0wned by a repressed Chomskyite. However powerful these guys are , you just made them more powerful. Well, thanks for digging our graves for us.I hope you will volunteer to jump in first.
The Internet now needs a new Israpundit. Is there anyone left to stand up to the filthy traitors and corrupt scum in power in America and Israel?
I’m disgusted. The whole problem with Western Civilization is the people do not accept militancy in defence of freedom. They are just lambs to the slaughter used by every ruthless evil that comes along. They are doomed to lie down in ditches on their way to the death camps. You do not fight the Nazi’s and give them a voice to argue with you abut the validity of Aryan supremacy. You just shoot them all and all their proagandists if you can. If you can’t then you die.
In the meantime, sure!, have your specialists argue their propaganda with your counter-propaganda. But it is an endless cycle, for every point there is a counter-point, that is the nature of debate. But debate is not the accurate reflection of what human beings actually do.
The enemy can broadcast propaganda from their own safe havens in America, in Canada and in Iran and everywhere wlse but don’t give them a voice in your own home and NEVER give into them. That is suicidal.
We don’t just need a military solution, the Western Peoples need a miltary attitude forever and get rid of the idea of equal freedom and voice for all including your deadly enemies. They need to learn that freedom only comes for those who fight for it. Because of this pacifist indoctrination forced on people they not only do not fight back against the Isalmofascists, they cannot recognize the evil within nor fight against their own fascist elites that are using them like garbage and slaves.
If you want to conduct propaganda war , then conduct it, but by renouncing militancy you just surrendered to the enemy. You have walked into the ditch of your own volition. There is no no point for me to come back and read here. it’s just the voices of a dying people. I refuse to watch this anymore, the masses are hopeless and they have no leadership. Pull the dirt over yourselves, you can save your enemies the the trouble.
How long do any of you have to live anyway? Better now think of how to die with some dignity. If there is no solution as there probably isn’t, then get some guts and be then prepared to die with some honour, instead of gutting yourselves for the enemy.
Ayway you just lost your honour and dignity by flip flopping in the face of the enemy. It’s a propaganda victory for them and a mental weakness on your part which relfects the fatal flaw in Western Civilization. If there would be anyone left alive you could put your new slogan on your gravestone, not that there will be any gravestones.
Ted,
You wrote: “Ami Isseroff worries that such a slogan will bring discredit on Zionists in general and we will all be labelled as war mongers or worse.” Ami Isseroff’s worries are “Peace Now” thinking.
Wake up: WE ARE AT WAR – like it or not. ‘WE’ are all the Jews, not only Israels. Our enemies are Arabs who want to annihilate Israel. They have allies: US Department of State, some other parts of the Administration, variety of NGOs and “think” tanks – on take by Saudi money. They have a Fifth Column among the Jewry – supported by hords of ‘usefull idiots’. Partial traitors list includes almost all the Israeli political “leaders” on the ‘left’ and on the ‘right’ (as if there is any difference) and American Jewry’s self-annoited “leaders”.
So, what ‘Diplomatic’ or non diplomatic solution you have in mind in the middle of war? The only possible dplomacy while at war is to talk about terms of surrender. That is exactly what our “leaders” do, and I guess, Ami Isseroff is concerned that they might stop doing it because of the Israpundit’s slogan “THERE IS ONLY A MILITARY SOLUTION”. Is ISRAPUNDIT becoming a “Peace Now” outlet?
Ted, put the former slogan back.
There is no solution other than the elimination of islam.
The 51% Solution
Ted was engaging in a bit of hyperbole in coining the title There is only a Military Solution in reaction to the oft repeated mantra by those averse to a war solution that solutions in the Middle East and as regards the Israel – Palestinian conflict will not be found on the military battlefield but rather in the political arena through the vehicle of diplomacy.
To say there is no diplomatic solution does not necessarily mean the only remaining option is a military solution.
That military solutions do not seem to work against Islamic radicals including the Palestinians is because Westerners impose politically correct limits on the extent of their identifying and engaging radicals. In effect their goal is never defined as absolute victory as it was during WWII.
Secondly, the power of Arab oil influences just how far Westerners will take their war to the radical Islamists, if they will at all.
Thirdly, the majority of Westerners including leaders continue to portray the conflicts/wars between radical Islam and the West and the Israel – Palestinian conflict and solutions therefore that conform to politically correct views and which are designed to advance self interest in the Middle East, including taking no action that will destabilize the world oil economy. Memories of the 1973 oil embargo imposed by Arab oil nations and the consternation it caused Western nations that translated to painful consequences have not dimmed all that much.
In order to find solutions that will reflect realities as regards the clear and present danger of radical Islam, there will have to be a significant reduction on Western dependence on oil and a major attitude and perception adjustment in the West so that at least 51% of Westerners see the threat of radical Islam and that includes the Palestinians for what it truly is and not as they are intimidated by fear or forced by a politically correct mindset, to see it in a way that will not adversely impact their level of comfort.
This is PC BS (to make it crystal clear it means Politically Correct Bull Shit). Peace is a result of the war imposed by the winner on the loser. In Israel-Egipt war Israel eventually lost, since the “Peace” between Israel and Egipt was imposed by the latter (with the help of its new-found ally – USA). There are no tie ups: tie up is merely a respite before continuation of the war.
Humanity (and it includes Arabs) has always been in War with Peace in between. For those who do not like it here is something different, which is the same: Humanity has always been in Peace with Wars in between. To claim that humanity has suddenly changeg or can be changed, so “diplomatic solutions” can bring Peace, is an intelectual hubris, condescending moralism, delussion, and ignorance.
‘War is diplomacy by other means’ – I guess this is derivation from the adage “war is poltics by other means” quated by any ten cents worth politician. They attribute it to Von Clausewitz, whose work they did not read, who actually said “War is merely a continuation of politics”. On its own this quote was taken out of context, misenterpreted during the history, much thanks to bad translations from German language, which has the same word for two different notions – Poltics and Policy. Clausewitz touted a war as practically uncontrolled, once it started, eruption of hostilities – not unlike a hudge wrestling match. Contrary to that, diplomacy, or negotiations, for the same token, are very much controlled processes.
‘War enables diplomacy to work’ – taken literally it is nonsence. What a war does enable is to dictate the terms of surrender to the loser.
while you lads and lasses work out what your slogan should be, here for a looking back a photo that will move you
http://www.old-picture.com/middle-east/Enlistment-Jewish.htm
THERE IS ONLY A MILITARY SOLUTION
is exactly correct. You have waivered in this because you allowed the goal to be changed.
I agree with that statement, but since when is a “peace agreement” the goal of a military offensive? Damn the agreements – the goal of using military might should be obtaining an unconditional surrender, not an agreement of any kind. No agreement is possible, and even if it were, only Israel would be held accountable to keeping the agreement. I’ve had it with agreements – I want a Jewish country. If that means all the enemies are dead so be it. If that can happend because all the enemies are subdued, I’m OK with that too.
Ted, “there is NO diplomatic solution” ipso facto neecessarily implies that there is only a military solution, since what other alternatives are there? Roll over and DIE, perhaps?
In order to have a “diplomatic solution” one must first win the WAR by killing off all of the Islamofascist terrorists as Randy said:
this logically necessitates a MILITARY response, hence there really is only a military solution whether we like it or not and whether politically correct self-absorbed pontificating liberals like Oliver Kamm denigrate us by calling us “far right Zionist” extremists and war mongers (which he already has by the way, in on of his recent posts om his pompous blog).
I say change our masthead back to the non-PC original. It far better reflects the (albeit unpleasant) reality facing Israel today.
…I will add that if you relentlessly kill terrorist eventually terrorism will stop, if it doesn’t it is because you did not kill enough of them.
I don’t like that, but it is a harsh reality that we may wake up to some day if enough of us die because we thought it was too crude a barbaric to kill terrorist.
Just a thought,
If there is no diplomatic solution…
…and there is no military solution….
… then why not just go with the slogan “There is no solution”
Really, changing the slogan is so PC. It says the same thing as before but now one has to go the long way down the thought process to get to the essence of it. It’s like wanting to tell someone to go to hell but smiling and instead telling them never to go to heaven.
I understand not desiring to offend others, and PC doesn’t bother me as long as it is not mandatory
However as far as military action not being a solution — If Islamic radicals are going to kill us unless we kill them first then taking them out works for me.
Now if you don’t wish to call that a solution because it did not bring about a signed “peace agreement” with the dead terrorist, then whatever we do decide to call it (peace substitute?, peace alternative? Fat-Free peace? termination of violence?)is fine.
You are correct in everything you say but we need something else.
War is merely the continuation of politics, is a truth of life as we know it, in Israel and in the Balkans.
All fanciful ideas of peace as Isseroff is infected by, or was, are a real trap. The Peace Movement in Israel, and I am not sure how close Isseroff is to that, serves only to disarm Israel in the face of danger.
Israel would not have existed even beyond the first months if it had not been based on armed strength.
It is the down-grading of this truth by many Israeli Governments that has caused all the damage.
In that regard the reformist and illusionist politics of Israeli Governments led to near disaster on many occasions, and especially in the latest war against Lebanon.
Now that the US is preparing to impose a fascist Palestinian state onto Israel, led by Fatah and Hamas, trained by the CIA, what does Isseroff propose at this very moment in time.
Does he propose for example the revolutionary mobilization of all the people in Israel to prepare to fight to oppose this Palestinian state.
I genuinely do not know his position. I will look up his site after this.
The way to do so will be through revolutionary mobilization and it will be war.