President Bush will be in Jerusalem on January 9th to push his ” Palestinian State in ’08” proposal forward with East Jerusalem as the capitol.
This is President Bush’s first trip to Israel since becoming president. His goal is to convince the Israeli public that a Palestine State with East Jerusalem as its capitol is in their best interest and he has the support of the American people.
60,150 people have signed the urgent petition to the president.
Send this to everyone on your list and ask everyone to do the same.
We need 100,000 signatures so President Bush knows that we will not support the U.S. dividing
Jerusalem.
If everyone will just get four friends to sign this we will have the 100,000.
Yamit,
This one is just for you. I will answer you and Alex in the next post.
I overlooked answering your question in your above post #33.
I did however answer essentially your same question in your post #33 to Ted’s lead article The Way Forward. My response is #34. The link is: https://www.israpundit.org/2007/?p=6850#comments
To save you switching back and forth, my answer was:
You have given me the following specific question which I will answer:
Answer: YES and NO!
Yes when it comes to the Arabs and Palestinians making clear that they want to eliminate Israel, to retake all of the land of Israel for themselves and those Jews not killed or forced out in the process will live as dhimmis.
No, when it comes to Arab and Palestinian promises and agreements made with Israel and the West within the context of peace discussions between Palestinians, Arabs and Israel.
I have said this time and again in countless comments I have penned.
You then make a comment that you believes flows from such negative response, which comment I presume you wish my comment on:
Again, I have repeatedly stated that the negotiations as they have proceeded over the last 60 years, premised as they are on false assumptions and willful blindness have not brought the parties closer to peace.
Israel has however been weakened by concessions made, though those concessions have not yet brought Israel to the brink of disaster.
The fear expressed here and on other blogs is that unless Olmert is unseated or at least restrained in his apparent willingness to make the kinds of further concessions he speaks of, that he will bring Israel to the brink of disaster.
It is however too myopic to single out world opinion and American pressure to account for Israeli concessions thus far made over the decades. Like successive Western leaders, successive Israeli administrations from the time of Ben Gurion, have seen this conflict between Israel and Arabs as one over territory. The current two state Road Map solution is just the latest evolved variation on the two state solution contemplated by the UN with their Partition Resolution in 1947.
The Arabs to their credit have made no secret that this conflict with Israel is not about territory, but about Israel’s very existence. To their discredit, the West and Israel refuse to believe their own eyes and ears in that regard and persist in the belief that the Palestinian/Arab mind works like the Western mind.
It likely is not just a function of Western arrogance or folly in closing their eyes and ears to what the Arabs and Palestinians openly think, want and dream about. It is also a function of how the power of Arab oil contributes to closing Western eyes and ears and bending Western minds to ignore or be willfully blind to what the Arabs and Palestinians are really about.
As for the point that negotiations that are useless because they go nowhere and worse still risk harming Israel, should be abandoned, I do agree generally, but there are exceptions.
The exceptions are:
First, so long as the Palestinians and Israelis focus attention on going through the motions of peace and speaking peace, that means less attention is focussed on open hostilities. Israel spends a fortune on security and fortune’s more on active military defence against the Palestinians, which for the past 2 years has been primarily targetting Hamas.
On that score, I do not know however why Israel has not responded by an all out invasion of Gaza to root out Hamas and stop their daily rocketing of Northern Israel and Sederot.
Secondly, if Israel could shift the focus of peace negotiations from where that focus now is, to one that puts all emphasis on form over substance, then time spent negotiating is time not spent fighting. Lives are saved and time is played for so that new circumstances and facts might emerge that would improve Israel’s hand at the negotiating table.
Olmert was roundly criticized as being deliberately provocative in an effort to scuttle the Annapolis Peace conference when he demanded days before the conference that Israel demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Is Olmert guilty of what he is accused of? If so, those fearful that Olmert is about to give Israel away, should take heart that Olmert really is not about to do that, no matter what sounds he has been making.
You note however that peace talks are still ongoing and hostilities are at a minimum. Pres. Bush is going to Israel to meet with Israelis and Palestinians to encourage them to carry forward with the momentum of Annapolis. Again, Olmert did not give much if anything away at Annapolis and if there appeared to be a momentum for peace on both the Israeli and Palestinian side, the evidence strongly suggests that there is appearance only and no substance to it.
Given the foregoing if Israel can find ways to ensure that negotiations continue for appearance sake only until such time as they are dealt a better negotiation hand and nothing of substance will be conceded by Israel in that time, then the reduction or cessation of hostilities which saves Israeli lives and which lessens the drain on the Israeli economy is a good thing.
To that extent ongoing negotiations that run around the mulberry bush can be useful and a good thing.
There is no need of a “military solution” therefore I am not recommending it. By that I mean that Israel has possession of Judea and Samaria so it doesn’t have to be conquered. Israel must annex it.
Alex I believe though that there is no diplomatic solution and that stands. Our choice is not between war or diplomacy. In The Way Forward, I am not recommending either. But also I should note that I am not shrinking from going to war if we must.
Bill I asked the question of you as to whether you would believe that assuming a dipl. agreement could be had, if you believed that the Arabs would abide by its conditions Your reply was typical bill Narvey. The question required either yes or no ans. from which subsequent conclusions might be drawn. You flunked the quiz!
I have to agree with Alex!! Good effort!
OK, Bill, here we go:
You wrote:
I didn’t make the alternative argument – that your writing is the result of your own confusion – because your message is clear when subjected to filtering. If you were confused, your message would be confused. But in fact only your writing is confusing, not your message. So the attentive reader has only two options to interpret your writing: (1) either you are not a good writer and needs to take long detours from the main road in order to express what you mean, or (2) you do it on purpose. Now, of course I can’t be 100% sure of any of the two options above, and never got to affirm it in my comments (I wrote “as if he had a mission…”) , but some of your dialogue with Ted Belman (and with others here) made me assume the second option to be more likely. How so?
1) It is not nice when someone takes advantage of a commentator’s obvious glitch to change that commentator’s meaning. This is what you did to Ted and my explanation of how you did it in comment 19 is clear enough. So how could you afford to do it? Because Israpundit comments tend to be short, as most people (me included) don’t have the time for the type of analysis I committed to here now.
2) Your major issue with several commentators in Israpundit is the way you insist on diplomacy. Your prolix and diffuse writing lures your reader into discussing what is not to be discussed, namely negotiating with fascists. Those who know some 20th-century history will hardly accede to negotiations with fascists. What was there to be negotiated with Hitler? But of course this is not how you word it. You talk of ‘peace,’ thus appealing to the morality of Israpundit readers, fully aware that Jews are obsessed with morality. This is how you get Ted Belman, the editor of this unique website, to retreat from his truest expressions of indignation, as if indignation and awareness equaled warmongering. By doing this you invert reality, since warmongering has always the Arab stance, not the Israeli one.
By inducing Ted Belman to retreat from his courageous “military solution” assertion, you lure Jews into believing that ‘Hitler is appeasable.’ If Israpundit readers realize that this is what your message amounts to, then of course you wouldn’t be able to engage commentators in useless dialogues.
The situation is really simple: the US, European powers and Russia are fully engaged in forcing Israel to accept the creation of a Nazi Islamist state carved out of strategic Israeli land, and they count on Israeli corrupt leaders to achieve it. How can we be sure that it would be a Nazi state? Because said world powers did not impose on Palestinian Arabs a radical political reform. They have instead empowered Fatah to lead the future country, and Fatah is as Nazi as one can find in the political market. In fact Fatah traces its origins directly from Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’, as you can check here.
And how does one deal with a Nazi threat at the front and the rear door of your home? Obviously with a military solution, precisely as Ted Belman had originally on the website front page.
Maybe South just meant that Israel’s governmental behavior is more in the line of a banana republic.
Short answer to South (comment no. 30):
South, I haven’t quite grasped the reason for your comment. You seem to be saying that Israel has never been as much as a Jewish state because its leaders are extremely corrupt. From there you seem to conclude that any discussion about Israel is a waste of time. Well, if you think it is a waste of time, what are you doing here then?
As regards your statement that Israel is “less than a nation-state,” I must say you are plain wrong. The State of Israel has all that defines a nation-state (just look at any dictionary what it means). Israel’s problem is precisely the fact that its leaders and most of its Jewish population are always increasingly eager to prove to the world that Israel is no more than a nation-state. Because being no more than a nation-state contradicts the basic premises of Judaism – the latter being what defines Jewish identity other than a Jewish-born lifespan – then those self-styled secular Jews, politicians included, are in fact playing the same ridiculous role that assimilated European and American Jews played and still play when they curry favor with non-Jewish leaders and elites.
The above is such an incredible Jewish disease that even the wholesale murder of totally assimilated Jews in Hitler’s genocide was not enough for secular Jews to realize they need to change their attitude towards themselves in order to survive. The Holocaust proves that the more a Jew assimilates, the more his surroundings throw him back to his Jewish condition. When a society’s status quo is such that Jews in it are not specifically targeted for persecution (the US, for example), it is more common than not to find the ex-Jew among the worst antisemites.
In other words, the Jewish condition in the West and Near East is such that you very usually find either extreme pride (and even arrogance) of being Jewish, or extreme repulsion of Jews by both Gentile and Jew. Even in huge melting-pot, immigration countries where antisemitism is insignificant, like Brazil, popular language still carry the bacteria of the centuries-old Portuguese antisemitism. Half the country still uses the verb “judiar” (it would translate to English as “to jew”) to mean ‘inflict pain on someone.’ Needless to say that Brazilian Jews also use it!
The conclusion: Israel cannot survive without Judaism.
Alex, now onto your post #32.
In this post Alex your descent into madness is just about in freefall.
You state:
You should have been more careful to express yourself more clearly Alex, but as near as I can discern you are claiming that:
I defend a nice peace with the Arabs who commit atocities against israel. By what stretch of your imagination do you come up with that? Then again you have already demonstrated an imagination that finds reality by perversely twisting logic to to convince yourself you have made sense of your nonsense.
And you say I conceded that the Arabs commit atrocities. Are you going to claim that you, the great Alex Eisenberg forced me to my knees to concede that point to you?
You sort of got the second point right, but just as the West and Israel deny realities of Arab/Palestinian intractable Jew hatred and their dream for Israel’s elimination, I also noted that such willful blindness and denial is a reality that those who wish to open the West’s eyes and ears, must recognize that it will take more then just stating the obvious to the West. The West does not want to hear the obvious.
Your third point which you attribute to me is actually your point which I characterized as a goal and not a plan to achieve that goal.
Come on Alex. You are getting confused as to what I said and what you said.
Next Alex, you attribute to me far more then what I said with this statement:
I offered that as only one direction that a comprehensive plan should take. Stating such direction was not offered as a plan.
You should know, but then again based on what you have been nattering on about, you probably don’t that a plan is filled with details such as defining specific issues and then carefully going over strategies and tactics to be employed to reach various subordinate objectives that will bring one close to the primary objective at the end of the day.
Next Alex you perform an amazing feat of mental midget gymnastics with:
Amazing. I am sure you will draw much applause with that one.
After all this Alex, I still can’t figure out how I managed to so get under your skin that it has driven you to madly attack me as you have which has as I pointed out only resulted in you to losing your balance, falling over the brink and into madness.
Alex – Your post #31
You start off with a bang with the following:
What’s with the “we”? If that is not self congratulatory I don’t know what is. Besides, I expect Israpundit readers, save for yourself possess more then enough intelligence to know that what you say I defend is not what I have said.
The rest of that post is just bizarre. You are really getting to believe in your own bullshit.
Alex – your post #29. My last comment dealt with #24 and mis-identified it as #29.
You state:
Come on Alex. The possiblity you raise without explanation is in keeping with the adage, anything under the sun is possible.
Tell me what needs to happen for Israel to annex Gaza and the West Bank and expel the Palestinians from there, without a war. Until you do, you are engaging in nothing more then wishful thinking. If you have a plan, lets hear it and then I can comment.
You then say:
So what if such status quo existed, Israel did not take advantage of the situation by annexing Gaza and the West Bank.
What is your point and just what point are you making with the balance of that sentence?
And your following point is what?
This post makes points that go nowhere. What end point are you trying to reach with this collection of statements you have made?
Alex, post 29 – Your zeal to get me clouds your reason, judgment and integrity.
You have stated:
While I have sought to explain Israel’s inaction to various threats from within and without, pressures and Palestinian violence, I have never sought to justify that inaction.
As for Alex stating that I have said that Israel is obliged to seek U.S. permission to engage in a war, be it with Lebanon last year or with the Palestinians at various times, that is total rubbish.
I have stated by way of explanation as to why Israel does consult with the U.S. regarding at least some military actions. That does not mean I have ever endorsed that as an Israeli obligation to the U.S.
For Alex to so characterize what I have been saying is dishonest, plain and simple.
Next he states in his own defence:
So as to emphasize how right he is, Alex says he is not alone, but has all of Israpundit to back him up.
Really?
What you are talking about is Israel starting an all out war, either in response to any one of a number of hostile acts carried out by Hamas, Fatah or both or a pre-emptive war in reaction to an immediate perceived threat of war about to be started by the Palestinians.
I presume from your later comments in post #25 that such war would be the way for Israel to reinforce her occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, instill abject fear in the Arabs and Palestinians and soften them up so that Palestinians could be induced, without much if any objection by Israel’s neighboring Arab and Muslim states to leave the region, thereby facilitating Israel annexing Gaza and the West bank and finishing what they should have finished back in 1967.
In spite of your denials, you are advocating for a military peace solution that sees an enlarged Israel, the elimination or reduction of the number of Palestinians within the new larger Israel and a peace that is had and maintained by leaving the Arabs trembling in their boots.
If that is your opinion, why not just say it? You seem however to be embarrassed at such view. Thus you are making a grand effort to soften or disguise your views so as to avoid being accused of advocating peace for Israel through war.
Your next swipe at me employs more name calling and attributes to me things I have never said or stretches the meaning of some point I made beyond anything remotely connected to the point I made:
And yet more nonsense from Alex:
Alex, I am very perplexed at what it is about you that compels you to fixate on me and devote so much time and effort trying to tear me down.
I do understand the mind of a zealot however and your zealousness in your mission to get me takes you further and further away from reason, logic, fairness and honesty.
Alex, you have said a lot about me and perhaps without realizing it, a lot about yourself in posts #’d 19, 25, 29, 31 and 32.
This responds to your posts, but I will separately deal with each of your posts whenever it suits my purpose.
As to your post #19, you have stated:
This theme of my deliberately seeking to confuse readers recurrently premises much of what you have to say in your efforts to discern and reveal to all of Israpundit, hidden messages and meanings you attribute to me in your other posts.
I am surprised you didn’t try to make the alternative argument as forcefully, that my writing is not a matter of my deliberate efforts to confuse readers, but rather the result of my own confusion on the issues.
I reject both your arguments made and the alternative argument I alluded to, not made.
The energy and effort you have gone to in order to show me up as a person with some kind of malicious streak or one possessing some kind of motive to confuse Israpundit is quite amazing.
I have to ask you Alex:
1. Just what exactly do you think I am up to in terms of my objective in trying, as you allege to confuse Ted Belman and readers of Israpundit?
2. If I were to accomplish the objective you attribute to me, what consequences flow?
3. What moves you to so fixate on denigrating what I have said and what objective are you trying to accomplish in that regard?
Since you fashion yourself as some kind of literary supersleuth who can get at what lies beneath my words, I figured you should have no trouble answering these questions, which I look forward to with great interest.
Bill you are doing it again#28 You reject! fine what are you specifically FOR? What realities? Whose realities? What can further Diplomacy gain us based on your take of realities on the ground which are 180 degrees in opposition to the Arabs view of realities on the ground? Why do you think that talk that weakens our position day by day is better than war. 99% of the world are cowards, I fear them not one Iota. The Bully for as long as I can remember always wins out in world arena. Being the aggressor is a better and much cheaper way of national defense policy. Telling non truth and even Revisionist Propaganda is better than pleading for recognition of our real rights which the rest of the world at most pays only lip service to. A successful war fought yesterday is better than the one we will have to fight tomorrow because we postponed the inevitable.
Bowing to the concept of Dipl. to solve unsolvable problems only exacerbates and endangers our present and future existence.
War as a last resort? sounds nice but has no meaning in our reality.
I have asked you with no reply before and will ask you again Dipl. solution if it could be had; would you in such case believe that the Arabs would abide by the terms? Do you believe them? any other ans. except yes means my position is correct and yours wishful thinking!
Now, look at this other Bill Narvey quote below:
Let’s now sum up Bill Narvey’s ideas to this point, including the above: (1) he defends a nice peace with the Arabs, who he concedes are constantly engaging in anti-Israel atrocities ; (2) he says the way the West and Israel have long been conducting it is ‘reality denial’; (3) he says (right above) that the only alternative to such dire state of affairs – namely to defeat the entire terrorist structure by annexing the territories and raiding them, and effect regime change until some down-to-earth diplomacy allows a non-Nazi solution for the future of Israel – he says it is not a ‘plan,’ but just a ‘goal.’ Of course what Bill Narvey implies here is that the current Western ‘solution’ is a ‘plan.’ In other words, destroying Israel by means of a contemporary pax romana is a ‘plan.’ The only alternative to that ‘plan’ is though only a ‘goal,’ which Narvey wants you to believe is unrealistic, unattainable, or, in his words, a “wet dream.” And all of that despite his considering the Western stance a “reality denial”!
Are you getting dizzy? Get a compass and hold on to it, for there’s more!
If you carefully read the quote above and consider Bill Narvey’s ‘reality denial’ nonsense as just explained in my previous comment, you’ll realize that Bill Narvey goes on to offer his own ‘plan’ to get Israelis out of the stalemate the West and Israel’s corrupt leaders entrapped them in: “force the West to understand and accept that the conflict with the Arabs and Palestinians is just one front that is part of radical Islam’s war on the West.”
Now let me ask you this: what the heck has Mr. Bush Jr. been doing since he occupied the White House? Axis of evil; Saddam’s WMD; Taliban this and that; billions for Pakistan to chase Bin-Laden, bla, bla, bla. In sum, the entire American establishment foreign policy propaganda is precisely what Bill Narvey’s ‘plan’ is about. The Taliban are terrorists, go after them. Bin-Laden is the devil, go after him. Hizbollah are terrorists, so let Israel attack them. Hamas are terrorists, let Israel attack them, etc.
But that’s propaganda, for in fact the Taliban were the key for the US and NATO to defeat the USSR, the Bin-Ladens were bed partners of the Bushs, Israel was forced by the West to stop attacking Hizbollah, and it is being coerced into negotiating with Hamas a coalition government with Fatah for their ‘peace’ partner, which the US sponsors and whose Nazi origins are a well-documented fact.
Given all the above, Bill Narvey’s signature on the Strong Israel website – which calls for the non-ceding of any territory to the Arabs under any condition – reads like a black humor joke.
So far we see that the Bill Narvey quote above in comment no. 29 clearly shows that he defends that Israel engage in a ‘peace’ process with neighbors that have been more than explicit in their commitment to destroy Israel by any means available. It should pay then to see how Narvey conciliates that with his avowed pro-Israel stance. I’ll do this by quoting from his comment no. 24, which he wrote to clarify his position vis-à-vis Israel:
The paragraph above was written under a subtitle: “On The Matter of Denying Realities,” by which Narvey means the West’s sponsorship of Palestinian Arab welfare and terrorism is a result of the West’s denial of Middle Eastern reality. Which reality? According to Narvey, the reality that Palestinian Arabs are corrupt fascists. This suggests that Western leaders spend millions of dollars sponsoring Palestinian Arab fascism out of a naïve insistence on believing in Palestinian Arab ultimate longing for peace and a sovereign country alongside Israel.
Does the above make sense? It depends. If you think US intelligence and foreign policy makers, and their Western European counterparts – who have effectively established military control over virtually the entire planet – have achieved such unprecedented military power out of ‘denying realities,’ then yes, it makes sense. But if you realize this is an absurdity, then Bill Narvey’s defense of ‘peace’ contradicts his own ‘reality denial’ idea, since, as I’ve shown in my previous comment, the best you can get from fascistic neighbors is to keep them entirely under your control – which is what Western countries do their best to achieve regarding their own domestic terrorists – or push them as far apart as possible, or yet defeat them altogether through war, all of which Israel DID brilliantly achieve in 1967.
Continued…
Shalom Alex,
Ref: 25;
Re: “Israel…corrupt Israeli leaders”;
I’m giving your material the most favorable interpretation (less the Carl Jung point) to follow you position.
I see the problem in how you use the word “Israel”.
Too many MAJOR issues have never been resolved so I view “Israel” as less than a modern nation-state with a body politic participating the governing the place.
Your views haven’t worked to date because some of the rulers in “Israel” have different objectives than large blocs of the population.
For example, I recall S. Perez wanted Israel to join the Arab League.
Are other examples needed ?
Recall that one of the signers of the Israeli Declaration of Independence was Meir Vilner. He was the leader of the Israel Communist Party.
Recall that former Knesset Speaker Dov Shilansky, discussing ALTALENA, is quoted:
“Ben Gurion murdered them; there is no other word”.
Only until a Jewish government is in place can your points be considered. Prior, it is a waste of time.
Kol tuv,
Bill Narvey has written this in comment no. 21:
I have already answered this, but it turns out that Bill Narvey contradicts himself in some key points which I hadn’t realized till then.
Since I never said that I defended “immediate all-out war” or that the Arabs should be “forced out,” it seems like Bill Narvey cannot admit the possibility that Israel annex the territories without all-out war and expelling the Arabs. This is curious, for such a status quo is precisely what Israel created in 1967 and kept until the Oslo deception. Did Israel expel the Palestinian Arabs then? No. Did it wage all-out war specifically against them? No, Israel fought the armies of neighboring countries. Palestinian Arabs just helped those armies, but they were mostly unarmed, so were Israel to fight only them, it would have been very easy. They were being turned into a fake nation by their compassionate Arab brothers and the West.
After 1967 the Arab League thugs convinced (or threatened through oil, or any verb you want) their Western wealthy customers to force Israel out of what was illegal Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and Egyptian occupation of Gaza, about which they had never complained. Then the US military produced a detailed assessment of the situation concluding that Israel needed those territories in order to be able to defend itself, which would be otherwise impossible. It was only then, after the facts created by Israel in 1967, that the West started talking and imposing ‘peace.’ In other words, the West demanded ‘peace’ precisely when Israel had achieved security by its own means.
Then ‘a compromise’ was forced on Israel by the West (chiefly the US) to achieve ‘peace.’ Israeli diplomacy was (as it’s always been) laughable and Israel only survived 1973 because it became a very useful asset-puppet for the US in the Cold War. But the West continued its shameful demand of suicidal ‘peace’ from Israel, upon which then corrupt Israeli leaders made Oslo up and Israel is about to lose what it achieved with the deaths of many soldiers in 1967 and 1973.
Continued…
Yamit, if I understand you correctly you are saying that because Arabs have used violence to further their ends, so too should Israel and foresake diplomacy.
If I have that correct, then you and I are very much at odds.
I have repeatedly stated Yamit that I reject the current diplomatic strategies because they are toothless and are based on delusions the West conjures up for itself by remaining willfully blind. That does not mean Israel should throw out diplomacy and commit to an all out war.
Diplomacy that is reality based including taking diplomacy to the gun boat level short of war, but with war as an obvious last step option should first be tried.
Just as I abhor the West and Israel putting all their eggs into the basket of feckless diplomacy, I abhor the idea of putting all their eggs into the war basket.
Bill Narvey said:
Since violence has paid off for the Arabs, since intransigence has paid off big time for the Arabs, since staying on message seems to be an effective tool! Why should we not adopt a successful working modus vivendi for ourselves. Rights and wrongs have no position as we will always be wrong unless bleeding and dead so why keep fooling ourselves that it can be otherwise? I don’t want any so called Peace that I have to Pay for period! If peace can not stand for itself as a value worth having and keeping it can never be Never!
Bill writes
That’s seems to support the status quo. But Bill makes no suggestions about what todo them except to try harder.
My position set out in The Way Forward is to stop the peace process and to move unilaterally without the restraints imposed by the US. I am definitely not recommending war.
So the issue dividing us is whether to continue with the appearance of a peace process.
Because of this I have removed THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION. It suggests I am recommending war. I am not. I am recommending other things.
Ted,
I don’t think I am wrong about Bill Narvey. I am personally never impressed by political positions of any kind, liberal or whatever. People tend to treat their political positions as a most cherished religion (an idolatrous one by the way). This is why it is so easy to manipulate people. When people waste time with partisan politics (99% of non-illiterate Westerners do just that), they don’t unite to solve their common problems. Just look at Israel: most Israelis are said to be secular. But are they? No, they aren’t. They follow the cult of leftism, rightism, kadimism, etc. Those cults have big advantages over Judaism, especially as they provide Israelis with a convenient scapegoat for all their problems. Same in America.
It is the facts on the ground that matter. If you carefully analyze Narvey’s comments you’ll notice a pattern: he is always saying he favors Israel thus and thus and always seeking to justify Israel’s inaction at the same time. In other words, he is a specious sophist. When you filter all the sophistry, this is his message: don’t dare defend Israel with a real war without US permission. It’s dangerous, unrealistic, etc. Of course it is most dangerous to fight a war. But nobody here is defending a war of agression of the type the Arabs are fond of. We have been incessantly talking about a defensive war and the definitive annexation of Gaza, Judea and Samaria. It was the US military itself which asserted that Israel cannot survive without those territories. This was a technical study, not a political one. Therefore, it is naturally much more credible.
There is nothing to be given to the Arabs from Eretz Israel.
Here is Narvey again:
Now he is trying to impute to me warmongering. He is concerned about Palestinian refugees, the reaction of neighboring countries and Western reaction. So what? Was it any different in 1967 or 1973? The fact on the ground is that the 1967 war pushed the danger farther away from Israel’s large population centers, and the 1973 war was a result of Israeli government excessive (and stupid) self-confidence. The only consequence of Israel definitive defeat of the PLO will be the creation of a new fact on the ground. European countries have waged aggressive wars outside of Europe and so did and does the US, and what happened to them? Were their products boycotted? Did anyone cease to visit and spend money in Europe or in the US? Greeks are among the most unpolite and brute people I’ve ever met (and also quite antisemitic). Are they having tourism (including from Israel) problems by virtue of that? Let’s be honest. Carl Jung – the best psychologist of the 20th century – said you can’t think of masses the way you think of individuals. Why is it that no country attacks the US? Exclusively because of its military superiority. Now, would European powers and the US attack Israel if it really changed the facts on the ground? I don’t think so. At least not at this point in time. Arab leaders understand nothing but force. How can you talk peace with the followers of jihad? Why do we have to still waste time contesting the obvious? As long as Islam is not confined to mosques and controlled by firm secular governments, there is no chance of peace.
It is not enough to “sit on American weapons”, as Yamit82 said. If they are not used when Israel faces mortal threats, then when are they going to be used? When the Arabs take it as booty?
Now, look at your defense of Bill Narvey:
I must confess I am puzzled by this. It’ll take you some time to convince me that the above makes sense. After all, only a psychotic or an inveterate masochist would try to convince himself that the only hope to achieve a deal is precisely to insist on what has been proved time and again to be ineffective. “To continue talking” means to sit and watch your people being murdered. Coincidentally, Narvey’s “hope” (as you put it) is exactly what the US and Europe (and now China and Japan) compel Israel to do. In fact, Ahmadinejad’s solution is better than Narvey’s: at least let the Jews save their lives in Europe, the US or Canada! At least present-day Christianity does not preach the slaughter of Jews.
Finally, here is Narvey:
Is it my wet dream? How about HIS wet dream of turning jihadist bloodsuckers into peace lovers? As for the rest, I never said the Arabs of the Land of Israel should be forcefully expelled. But yes, they should tremble in fear, just as the neighbors, while this is still a possibility. Once this is an established fact, diplomacy would have to turn to another direction. The best direction is to offer financial compensation to finish the population exchange initiated by the Arab countries when they expelled their Jews starting in the late 1940s. Palestinian Arabs should settle in Arab countries just like (and for the same reasons) Polish and Czech Germans were duly returned to Germany for their collaboration with the Nazis after having inhabited Eastern Europe for half a millennium. And we’d be very nice to the Palestinian Arabs by procuring financial compensation for them as compared to the simple Polish and Czech post-war kick-in-the-ass policy. And yes, the territories should be annexed and any resistance should be severely punished.
In sum, if Israel is to survive, it has to defend itself. If it is to be eliminated, that should be maximally costly to the enemies. Israel was created in the stinking shadow of the Holocaust. The post-Holocaust motto was “never again.” Never again means fighting in the face of danger, rather than sitting and watching one’s own destruction…
The following Ted, for you and anyone else interested, explains where I stand in all of this.
On the matter of denying realities – liberal/left, centrists and right wing are all guilty, but it is incumbent on the right to do something about it besides bitch and complain.
In this regard centrists and the right have time and again, brilliantly in public statements and writings revealed for all to see that the West’s united support behind aiding the Palestinians and bringing about peace between the Israelis and Palestinians within the context of the Road Map or the Saudi plan been premised on denial and willful blindness to various realities.
The problem is that these brilliant people have hardly made a dent in convincing the West to open their eyes to these revelations of fact and circumstance and adjust their thinking, their policies and their actions accordingly.
A good example of this is in the fact that the West has paid over billions of dollars in welfare to the Palestinians. The Palestinians have more corruption, more Jew hatred, more terrorism and more intrasigence to show for it and the West has nothing to show for it. In spite of this, the West again have united and are rushing to give the Palestinians billions of dollars more without strings attached and without their having proven that they are anything but against the kind of peace envisioned by the West which means two states recogizing each other and living side by side in peace.
Much more must be done by these brilliant people if the reality of the big lie in Western minds is to be supplanted with the reality of truths. It simply will not happen by just wishing it away or derisively dismissing it.
Israelis themselves are part of the problem of allowing big lie realities to sustain the two state solution peace process. One cannot lay full blame on Western and world pressure being put on Israel
Israel not only requires new, tougher and wiser leadership to strongly assert Israel’s rights and needs, seek to undermine the Arab/Palestinian narrative and positions, to better resist pressures to make not just painful compromises, but dangerous compromises and set a new vision for Israel, but also requires changes to overcome systemic weaknesses within her political, judicial and societal structures.
On the issue of the current two state Road Map peace process.
For so long as Israel and Palestinians/Arabs carry on with the current peace process based on various false assumptions and willful blindness to certain well canvassed facts and circumstances, negotiations will not advance the parties towards peace and only recurrent frustration on both sides with outbreaks of violence will result.
Stating that Israel should be tougher vis a vis the West, the Palestinians and the Arabs to ensure Israeli and Jewish rights and needs are recognized and accepted and ultimately annex Gaza, Judea and Samaria and expel the Palestinians by war if need be, is a goal. It is not anything remotely close to being called a plan
There are a number of very obvious things that have to happen in order to even begin to formulate a plan and turn Western and world minds to support it in order to achieve such goal.
One of those things is to force the West to understand and accept that the conflict with the Arabs and Palestinians is just one front that is part of radical Islam’s war on the West.
Sticking with negotiations within the context of the current peace process
There is merit in this only if the purpose is for Israel in appearing committed to peace, does not give anything away and Israel is able to use this time to develop her new strategy and tactics to turn her ship of state in a new direction in such ways as to not forewarn her enemies of her intentions and agenda to improve her bargaining position to achieve peace.
Gunboat diplomacy and the war option
The risk that war between Israelis and Palestinians will ultimately inflame the Muslim Middle East and turn that world even more against the West, thus prejudicing their interests even more then they have, is so feared by the West that they are reluctant to do much more then engage in diplomacy calculated to be persuasive solely by the power of logic and reason. That kind of toothless diplomacy has thus far not worked and it does not appear it likely will work.
The West and indeed Israel must dare to risk more to gain much more.
That can only be achieved by incrementally engaging in gunboat diplomacy with the Arabs and Palestinians to break down their intransigence.
In all diplomatic efforts to move people from their position and towards a viable peace position the war option must always be kept at the ready.
Bill here is where we have a disconnect.
You are right. I am not advocating war. My rejection of the peace process is not as a prelude to war but to action.
So it is not a choice between the PP and war but between the pp and independent action to annex Judea and Samaria.
Til now, the pp has brought us war not peace. If we kill the pp we stop the war. The war I am referring to is the one being fought by the Palestinians by terror and incitement. If we disenfranchise the PA and take charge we can end their war.
Alex, I think you read Bill wrongly. Bill is a liberal who wants Israel to stay strong. But he does believe in negotiating a deal. He understands that there is no deal that Arabs and Jews will agree upon but feels the only hope is to continue talking.
Now I have suggested deals that could be considered such as retaining all the settlements and Jerusalem but giving them the rest. But what is the point in envisioning other deals. The gaps will never be closed by negotiations. Facts on the ground and possession and strength will win the day.
Thus I don’t believe in talking except to be diplomatic.. I believe in acting until such time as the Arabs want to talk. So while we are talking, we should never agree to a freeze of any kind, nor should we agree to accept the restriction that we can’t do anything that would prejudice the peace process or the final status issues nor should we accept restrictions on our self=defense.. We should have a game plan for annexing Judea and Samaria and should act to realise it while we are talking or not.
So Bill, what do you believe? Do you believe in the peace process? If so, why? What will come of it? Will there ever be a fairer process? If there is, will the gaps be bridged.
Gee Alex, you have found me out and here I thought I was doing so well at hiding my dastardly covert mission at Israpundit.
Ted and all the others who follow Israpundit are very fortunate to have you here to champion their views and protect them from me for my efforts to undermine them all which you have characterized thusly:
I will let Ted answer if he chooses as regards this next statement by you as to what I am seeking to do and what Ted is all about:
I have never understood Ted to be advocating that Israel drop the peace process or whatever one wants to call it and just jump immediately into war against the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank to deliver them a crushing defeat and send them scurrying off to take refuge in other nations.
That sounds more like what you are advocating.
I am just wondering however how you figure Israel would be able to make such war, have her hostile neighboring enemies and the West just blithely watch from the sidelines and when it was over they all would throw open their doors to accept a new flood of Palestinian refugees scampering out of the region.
Sounds like a real plan Alex. Not!
What you are advocating Alex is that Israel drop all diplomatic efforts at peace and turn immediately to make all out war on the Palestinians and presumably the Arabs who would not sit still for such an attack. Of course you would have to be advocating that Israel pull out all the stops to assure complete victory that would leave Israel’s neighbors trembling in fear, force Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank and thus leave Israel free to annex those territories to become part of Israel.
With all that accomplished then Israel finally would have a strong and enduring peace between herself and her neighbors and all would be right with the world.
That is not a plan Alex. It is your own wet dream.
My position is that any process that involves the international community would be unfair to Israel. If the Arabs want to compromise and cut a deal then we should be open to negotiations. But they must mean it and conduct themselves accordingly. Ain’t gonna happen.
Thus THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION.
I firmly believe that.
Yes, I have no belief that there is an acceptable peace deal out here, with or without process. It matters not whether if my belief is filled with “negativeity or hopelessness”. What matters is, is it a true reflection of reality.
Assuming it is then we must proceed accordingly. Our hope lies not in the belief in the PP but in our embracing reality.
Ted,
I’m sorry to say this but it seems like Bill Narvey treats you like a child. Curiously, he does it only to you, as if he had a mission of keeping Israpundit’s temperature always cool by captivating its editor’s peaceful manners. See, if you sleep well, you’ll be back to normalcy tomorrow…
Well, Bill Narvey is no fool. He just picked out a little glitch in your writing – you wrote “once you leave the international community out of it, I don’t think that we can solve the problem” – where in fact you meant the second half of the sentence without the word don’t, which is obviously consistent with the rest of your comment, which in turn is easily summed up in your earlier sentence “the only reason to internationalize it is to put pressure on Israel thus it would not be a peace process.”
Now, you may note that Narvey did not pick out that particular glitch at random. He chose that glitch because by inverting your meaning and purposely creating a further glitch of his own (“to leave” instead of “by leaving”), he can doubly confuse you: first by truncating the sentence with the wrong preposition and second by appearing to support your view when he is in fact opposing it. He had already distorted your comment by saying “to say you are against the process, but not the solution makes no sense whatsoever. You have a solution in mind, but that solution cannot be reached without a process to achieve it.” Your meaning was clear: you obviously meant that the solution would not come from the peace process. By saying that “you have a solution in mind” which cannot be reached without a process to achieve it, Narvey tries to impose a moral constraint on you, namely to corner you into the “Jews-are-good-guys” nicety, so you might feel embarrassed for defending an all-out attack against the Palestinian Arab fascists.
In other words, Narvey means to confuse you and the other Israpundit readers. An attentive reader soon realizes the uniqueness of Narvey’s comments on this site. This is why Yamit82 (comment 17), with his typical Israeli approach, bluntly asks Narvey to be explicit in his writing. Of course Narvey cannot be explicit like your Scandinavian acquaintance, or else his mission here would fail at once. But Narvey does work on a couple of key givens which he is explicit about: he is always fierce in making sure nobody here dare conceive of an Israel without US patronage. Why can he afford to be so explicit about this? Because US intelligence has successfully exploited Jewish stupidity so as to lure most living Jews into believing that the US is Israel’s only friend and ally in a hostile antisemitic world. Since Jews are the best propagandists against themselves, they always blame Israel’s pitiful defense policies or “the occupation” for their tzures. This is a masterful (and lethal) coup against Jews because this lie-turned-truth US-Israel fake friendship has thoroughly penetrated both so-called right-wing and left-wing Jews. There is no one prominent Jewish voice denouncing the US establishment for this scam: the ‘leftwingers’ say the US should be tougher on forcing Israel to commit suicide and the ‘rightwingers’ are busy accusing the ‘leftwingers’ of all possible deeds and campaigning for US conservatives! Even the highly-praised Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post is not capable of pointing her finger where the problem is. Arutz Sheva is the only Jewish voice free enough to say the truth. But who reads it? It is strongly rejected by most Israelis as “fringe ultra-rightwing” (I have heard this from a self-calling ‘rightist’ in the Likud!!).
Do you realize how easy it is to destroy Israel (the state)? Where else in the world do you see a country where the big right-of-center party (the Likud) and the big left-of-center party (Labor) both give in to international pressure for territorial concessions that are long known as being tantamount to the destruction of their own country?
When people ask me why the US would push for Israel’s demise I answer that this is not the most important issue. The most important is to save Jews from one more genocide (which could be the last). If you need proof of US intentions, just look at a study produced by the Pentagon in 1967 right after Israel’s annexation of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan. You can read it here (best): http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf
Isn’t Narvey smart? Perhaps. But I bet he’s got a script.
Ted, your take today on Israel’s chances for a peace deal with the Palestinians of any kind, is filled with negativity and hopelessness.
To say you are against the process, but not the solution makes no sense whatsoever. You have a solution in mind, but that solution cannot be reached without a process to achieve it.
You state that to leave the international community out of the picture, there can be no process and thus no solution.
I think you had best sleep on these matters and sort your thoughts out tomorrow, which if you are like me, is the start of a brand new day that brings a new measure of hope to set things right.
Bill Narvey I would be curious if you would come right out and say in simple terms what you believe would be an equitable ,workable arrangement between us and the Arabs? spell it out in as much detail as you can muster!No platitudes please just straight talk and explain how you arrive at your conclusions pls.
I have no expectations that there will ever be such a peace process. So whether I would support if if it came to be is academic.
Of course if the Arabs and Israel want to negotiate a deal, lets talk.
But to create an international process that is fair is never going to happen. The only reason to internationalize it is to put pressure on Israel thus it would not be a peace process.
Thus its the process I am against and not the solution.
Once you leave the international community out of it, I don’t think that we can solve the problem The Arabs won’t talk to us and they won’t negotiate. The fact is they don’t want peace, they want victory. There will never be a different process. Thus no diplomatic solution.
Ted, you have mis-stated your position.
You say:
I agree with your first sentence and disagree with the second.
Like you I have advocated strongly against the two state Road Map solution because it is based on illusions, delusions and Western willful blindness, not to mention Israeli willful blindness.
That said, I thought we were both on the same page advocating for the peace process that took a different direction guided by realities, but in order to do so, Israel would have to become more mindful of her own rights and needs and more aggressively assertive in that regard so that diaspora Jewry could be more supportive of Israel. Israel must take the lead in this.
To say that “I am not just fighting the two state solution and would not accept the peace process if a different solution was the target” is essentially saying you are only for a solution through war because no peace solution will do.
I have never understood that to be your position.
Peace through strength is what I thought both of us were advocating. The phrase “Peace Through Strength” might even serve as a more accurate banner as to what I thought most of us were advocating in various ways.
You go on to say:
I agree as regards the current peace process into which the UN Partition two state Resolution has most recently evolved.
It is 60 years that the West has persisted in trying to force a made in the West solution upon Israel and the Arabs/Palestinians. The West however remains unable or unwilling to accept that cultural differences between the West and Arabs/Palestinians are in serious conflict in a number of respects and in some instances those cultural differences are antithetical to one another. That hasn’t changed.
What has changed is that the Arabs have certain well known advantages that they have been able to increasingly leverage the West with, including pressing the West to resolve the Israel – Palestinian conflict in a way that they want it settled. The West has been bending under the pressure by demanding more and more from Israel in the way of concessions.
Even with Olmert bending Israel over almost backward to reach peace with the Palestinians, it is clear that the demands are just too much for Olmert and Israel to accept. The West is coming to that realization, but still have no answers to this conundrum and so persist in what they know, even though what they know tells them it won’t work and cannot work unless Israel gives up her life for the comfort of the rest of the world.
As for how to get Israel’s ship of state to change course, as I stated earlier in another post it will take a new captain behind the wheel. It takes time for Israel to incrementally change direction without alarming Israel’s enemies and the West, to position herself to make a better deal when the new circumstances which Israel must begin creating now are established and the time is right. One of those circumstances is a tougher facade and greater unity amongst Israelis standing behind their government, both in appearance and substance.
To conclude Ted, unless you tell me otherwise I understand you would support a peace process but one that gives Israel at least a level playing field and one in which Israel can be a very strong party to the negotiations.
Ed is an old soldier and so am I. Knowing war first hand I don’t recommend it flippantly. War , total war with military victory as a prerequisite 10- 15 years ago would have saved thousands of Israeli civilian and military lives, changed the scope of our overall status from defensive retreat posture to maintaining at least at a minimum deterrent, given us respect out of fear of what we might and can do and even have changed to coarse of history. where today we might not have to contemplate the total destruction of the Jewish 3rd commonwealth within a few seconds> I have never seen an army no less a nation continue to exist in continual retreat mode. It is demoralizing, weakens individual and national resolve to fight for its existence. Wars are hell but the alternatives can be much worse. Non existence!!!
Ted borders on a modicum of reality based on rational evaluation of facts and data but refuses to go the extra mile. bill Narvey knows the facts but his cultural liberal proclivities and lack of strong Jewish faith coupled with in all probability never having served in any military has colored his positions. Violence Bad talk good even if that talk is a weapon used to weaken and ultimately to destroy us by other means.
Turning the other cheek is not Jewish. Jefferson democracy is not Jewish. Concept of defensive wars is not Jewish. Giving up Parts any part of th Land of Israel is not Jewish(even if some stupid cowardly rabbis say it is ok) its not! and I can prove it in argument using Halacha as a basis . They can’t!!! Their arguments and most of yours are weak in favor of Diplomacy. Even if the Arabs were willing to compromise on Land and Jerusalem I would reject and opt for war if need be to drive them out or by any other means. I know my enemy and even after all the Jawing on this and other posts , even stating all the pertinent history and facts . You would still believe an offer of compromise over a victorious war This for me is a sad thing to contemplate as then even the most ardent and vocal supporters of Israel in the final analysis can not be counted upon.
FOR THE LOVE OF ZION!!!
Bill, Please don’t remove the flag. It is a reminder of the failed diplomacy of the last sixty years. Name one concession that the Arabs have made to Israel during this period and , if you can, my hat is off to you.
As a veteran of three wars, I’ll testify to the fact that war is a terrible thing, but, on the other hand, sometimes nothing else suffices. In sixty years, negotiations have gone nowhere and Israel has lost hundreds of precious lives to the Arabs, whereas, a total invasion of Gaza and crushing them as Israel can, Israel’s problem with Gaza comes to an end. Someone above asked what do we do when we have defeated Hamas and the answer is really simple. NOTHING! We occupy and annex Gaza as part and parcel of Israel. Israel would have complete security on the western side of Israel and with Egypt. Having accomplished that end, more security can be applied toward Lebanon. The conquering of Gaza would be accomplished in less than 30 days with perhaps a hundred mortalities for Israel. War is the solution!!
Bill you write.
There is only one peace process and that is the one wherein the world gangs up on Israel, bullies it and ties its hands. So I am not just fighting the two state solution and would not accept the peace process if a different solution was the target.
My position is that the Arabs won’t budge and therefore I don’t want to be forced to do the budging. The peace process is harmful not helpful. It emboldens the Arabs in their intransigence and violence. It prevents Israel pursuing other options.
Thus Israel should abrogate Oslo and proceed to manage Judea and Samaria as it sees fit. It can work with the local population in each city to enable a leader to ensure peace for the betterment of his peoples conditions. The better the peace, the better the condition. We should assist them to emigrate. People will accuse us of being an aparthied state. I reject this. First of all we can stay there until we have a peace agreement according to Res 242. When the Arabs are ready to make peace on reasonable terms then there will be peace. Not before. In time loyal Arabs will be able to apply for citizenship. In Switzerland everyone has to wait 12 years. Given the past wars with the Arabs and indoctrination, 20 years in not unreasonable. The Mandate specifically excluded political rights for Arabs. If they want political rights they can go to Jordan. If they want ultimately to become Israeli citizens, they must accept Israel as a Jewish state, sign a loyalty oath and pledge allegiance, speak Hebrew and be prepared to join the Army. These are all reasonable requirements for citizenship.
Sure if pigs could fly I wouldn’t be against them, but this pig ain’t gonna fly.
I intend to remove THERE IS ONLY A MILITARY SOLUTION. It detracts from my real position.
Shalom Yamit 82,
Don’t confuse =inaction= with =diplomacy=, =warfare=, =PR=, and =truth=.
What were the results of the 1967 war ?
What were the results of the 1973 war ?
War is no longer diplomacy by other means.
General Sherman changed this view. Read “TOTAL WAR” by General Erich von Ludendorff, 1935.
Even Americans accept this from the nonsense of the flip-chart briefings during the Vietnam War.
Perceptions determine public opinion. Public opinion determines many of the to be annointed political leaders.
Political leaders guide the rest toward the acquisition and preservation of wealth.
All the rest is for the universities, think-tanks and popular web magazines.
Meanwhile, back at Marco Island, Florida…….
Kol tuv,
No Shimshon, I do not agree.
You are too simplistic in your thinking.
I recoil from the idea that Israel should reject diplomacy outright without first looking for a better and more effective diplomatic way to meet the existential challenges she faces and instead immediately turns to war, justifying her actions by essentially saying that the devil made her do it.
What do you think the other side want? Do they want a politic solution? They don’t – amd as long they do not want a political solution, there is only the military solution! Agreed?
Roger makes a valid point and one that I had raised with you soon after you put that lead banner statement on the opening page of Israpundit. You thought it appropriate and I just thereafter ignored it.
A few weeks ago, I had finally managed to prevail upon a well informed friend of mine to get into the world of pro-Israel blogging and recommended Israpundit to him. He was completely put off by the banner statement. My assurances that neither you nor anyone else at Israpundit were war mongering did not ease his mind and accordingly he is resisting being associated with Israpundit.
The reaction of both Roger and my friend moves me to again ask you to reconsider and to find some other pithy statement or brief mission statement that rightly characterizes where Israpundit is coming from or remove the banner entirely and just let people read the articles and comments posted and judge for themselves what Israpundit is really about.
Your explanation to Roger however is also too limiting in suggesting Israpundit’s focus is on your lack of hope in the peace process.
In actual fact, Israpundit is for a peace process with war as a real, but last option, but just not the current two state solution peace process that is based more on illusions and delusions then on facts and realities.
If you are of a mind to reconsider, I would be happy to work on that with you.
Honesty is not always the best policy, sometimes it is. By posting THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION I am displaying a conviction, one that is important to communicate. People must come to understand that there is no hope in the peace process. Hasan’s article makes that clear. The left cannot abide that idea and prefers to be in denial or in hope.
THERE IS ONLY A MILITARY SOLUTION is a message that is misleading if one believes from it, I am advocating war. I am not. It is a principle rather than a call to war. There may be time that war is appropriate in self defense even preemptive war but there is no need to make that point.
War is not necessary in Judea and Samaria, so no problem. Gaza is a different story. Invading Gaza in a big way will result in many deaths of IDF soldiers perhaps hundreds, so one doesn’t take up the sword lightly. What must be agreed upon first is what to do after it is reconquered. Here there are no good options. Nor is it a good option to let them continue to arm themselves to the teeth.
There is a value in the first slogan because I want to end the “peace Process”. There is much less value and perhaps harm in the second because I am not flat out advocating the military option. I only want to keep it on the table. So you may be right that it is counterproductive.
I have forgotten how large is your audience.
The Masthead stands for truth and not perceptions. Thank god at least one has the courage to speak truth in an in your face in a no bullshit way!! while Ted is much more liberal and politically correct than me I am glad he has more courage and insight than most on the web!!
Roger the ans. is in the Masthead. Wars can solve problems that dipl. can’t or war is diplomacy by other means.If Israel had done the necessary actions in the past we would not be where we are today. Sometimes the price for inaction is far greater down the line. We are now seeing the results of delayed action. IT COULD GET FAR WORSE!!!!
LAST YEAR HOMELAND COMMAND PASSED OUT POTASSIUM TABLETS TO ALL RESIDENTS OF DIMONA. NEXT MONTH THEY WILL GIVE 3 WEEKS MEDIA COURSE TO ALL CITIZENS ON HOW TO SEAL ROOMS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST C B R THREATS AND ATTACKS.
yOU MAY ALL DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!!!
Shalom Ted,
My inference is that Roger is not discussing rockets and military responses to stop the devestation.
He is discussing perceptions.
The masthead phrase allows for thoughts that the site is “militaristic” and anti-peace.
For an analogy, note that the nearly same organization here in the US was once the War Department and Navy Department. Now, we’ve got the Defense Department.
War represents badness; defense is a noble effort.
My 2 petrodollars worth of a suggestion is:
“Jerusalem is Jewish and Bethlehem is Christian.”
Kol tuv,
Petitions went out of vogue not too long after the Teamsters’ Union ran “Write Your Congressman” campaigns.
It’s been over a half century since Ortega y Gasset wrote “The Revolt of the Masses”.
In American politics, petitions can never match delivered electorial votes and campaign contributions (and the derivitives thereof).
Without a national PAC, not only Jerusalem will be lost.
Kol tuv,
I agree.
Some of the people who get information from me currently know very little about the Middle East conflict. I have to bear in mind how the information I send will be received. When I see this:
…I know that it’s likely to provoke a very negative response.
Stating:
…in bold-caps on the front page will push many people away. I would like to share the articles on Israpundit with more people, however I know I can’t link directly here because the statement on the front page is (or seems) too aggressive. I do not want to risk a reaction which could turn my readers away from the message presented on Israpundit and the other websites I link them to.
I just wanted you to know that.
To answer your question…
I do not believe that diplomacy is or ever has been an option when it comes to genocidal organisations like the PLO and Hamas… however a military solution at the present time with our current government and the world the way it is would not last and therefore my answer is: I don’t know what would create a long-term solution to the problems we face.
I really don’t believe that there is a diplomatic solution. And I am not advocating that we go to war but I am no pacifist.. There are many things we can do short of war. But what do you suggest we do about the rockets. Use diplomacy or military means to stop the rockets?
Hi Ted,
I wanted you to know that your decision to post this:
…in bold text at the top of the front page will turn off a lot of people from this website and the content of your articles. Personally I don’t see a diplomatic solution; I don’t see a military solution either… but this bold disconnected statement at the head of all your articles sounds like war warmongering and has a significantly negative image. Please consider how it could appear to others. In my opinion this heading is potentially damaging to the point where I don’t pass on links to your website to a few (not all) of my subscribers (who would have otherwise benefited from the content of your articles).