07-23-2003, 10:39 AM
Perhaps I misspoke. The argument was as follows.
(assumptions)
Any peace process will require the cooperation of both sides, or the annhilation of one. Annhilation, having been stipulated as the exception, will no longer be included in the argument.
Anything which one side will not accept under any circumstances cannot lead to peace, since that would necessarily disallow the cooperation of one side.
(argument)
Palestinians will not accept any road to peace which considers them as no more than a stateless gaggle of terrorists. Neither will they accept the corollary, that Israel has no blood on its hands. Perhaps Palestine is delusional. However, since it is they (delusional or not) who must participate, their opinions must be given weight. Mr. Spectre's argument, as even the most cursory glance will indicate, would not be acceptable to the Palestinians, regardless of its correctness. Likely, they would not even sit down at the table with that being the Israeli position.
This having been established, there can therefore be no peace without leaving behind positions such as Mr. Spectre's, unless you are willing to embrace the alternative: Annhilation. This has been wished for on both sides many times. Since it is a completely horrifying and revolting solution, (not to mention either completely ironic or doubly horrifying considering Jewish history), I reject his position as impractical. It may be correct. I very much doubt it.
In response to a few of your other questions (there are certainly too many to answer, since you question my every line, often twice)...
It would be completely incorrect to say Israel is not defending itself. It is defending itself perhaps more than any nation in the world. What would be more precisely my point is that Israel is not _solely_ defending itself. It has also, historically, pursued a religiously motivated plan for the expansion of "Greater Israel" that led to the settlement of areas that were hotly contested and condemned by the UN as occupied territory. Attempts at peace were largely scuttled on both sides by Israeli expansionism and Arab (note: NOT Palestinian, in this case) resistance to a negotiated peace with Israel. The Americans were of little help either, since they tended to support a position even more hawkish than Israel itself. This is old news, long passed into history.
The tactics used there, where civilian expansion creates the necessity for protection, which justifies military control, thereby further reducing the state of the Palestinians, have been refined, and deployed as the fundamental tactic in the conflict. This is quite unnecessary, and very dangerous. There is no solid reason Israel requires more territory, or further settlements; that this persists despite its obvious antagonistic effect on Palestinians points either to agressive or suicidal tendencies.
Why, then, is this policy pursued? It is my contention that there are those in Israel, as there certainly are in Palestine, who secretly practice the worst branch of terrorism: deliberately provoking hostility, creating a situation worse for all involved, in order to demonstrate how much worse your enemy is than yourself. Further, they have great tools at their disposal, far more than the Palestinians, although they cannot be so open about their aims. They have the support of the US, even in the face of the UN (much of the US distaste for the UN draws from this single issue). They have loyalists, such as Mr. Sharon, who will always be ready to defend Israel, even if that means a mythologically determined Israel. They have the memory of the Holocaust, and the paranoia (not at all undeserved, but still very real) that all who oppose you seek your annhilation. They have the image of a democracy, although they manipulate fear and outrage in the manner of tyrants.
It is also my contention that people like Mr. Spectre arm these people with their support. They are as dangerous to lasting peace in Israel/Palestine as any Hamas leader. They look much nicer than the dirty, screaming Palestinian, irrationally angry, like an anti-semite from a past millenium. They usually wear suits. But so long as these people drive the process, it will cyclically fail. Even the most equitable seeming solution will be fundamentally undermined by the desire to see the Palestinians (or, of course, from the other side, the Israelis) subjugated and humiliated. That was certainly what killed Oslo, at least from the perspective outside of Israel or the US.
These people (on both sides) fail in the basic prerequisite for peace: the shared assumption of cooperative justice for all as the primary goal. They see the other side as disposable, or perhaps worse. And nothing irritates the other side quite like denying that such people exist on your side of the fence.
Jester
(assumptions)
Any peace process will require the cooperation of both sides, or the annhilation of one. Annhilation, having been stipulated as the exception, will no longer be included in the argument.
Anything which one side will not accept under any circumstances cannot lead to peace, since that would necessarily disallow the cooperation of one side.
(argument)
Palestinians will not accept any road to peace which considers them as no more than a stateless gaggle of terrorists. Neither will they accept the corollary, that Israel has no blood on its hands. Perhaps Palestine is delusional. However, since it is they (delusional or not) who must participate, their opinions must be given weight. Mr. Spectre's argument, as even the most cursory glance will indicate, would not be acceptable to the Palestinians, regardless of its correctness. Likely, they would not even sit down at the table with that being the Israeli position.
This having been established, there can therefore be no peace without leaving behind positions such as Mr. Spectre's, unless you are willing to embrace the alternative: Annhilation. This has been wished for on both sides many times. Since it is a completely horrifying and revolting solution, (not to mention either completely ironic or doubly horrifying considering Jewish history), I reject his position as impractical. It may be correct. I very much doubt it.
In response to a few of your other questions (there are certainly too many to answer, since you question my every line, often twice)...
It would be completely incorrect to say Israel is not defending itself. It is defending itself perhaps more than any nation in the world. What would be more precisely my point is that Israel is not _solely_ defending itself. It has also, historically, pursued a religiously motivated plan for the expansion of "Greater Israel" that led to the settlement of areas that were hotly contested and condemned by the UN as occupied territory. Attempts at peace were largely scuttled on both sides by Israeli expansionism and Arab (note: NOT Palestinian, in this case) resistance to a negotiated peace with Israel. The Americans were of little help either, since they tended to support a position even more hawkish than Israel itself. This is old news, long passed into history.
The tactics used there, where civilian expansion creates the necessity for protection, which justifies military control, thereby further reducing the state of the Palestinians, have been refined, and deployed as the fundamental tactic in the conflict. This is quite unnecessary, and very dangerous. There is no solid reason Israel requires more territory, or further settlements; that this persists despite its obvious antagonistic effect on Palestinians points either to agressive or suicidal tendencies.
Why, then, is this policy pursued? It is my contention that there are those in Israel, as there certainly are in Palestine, who secretly practice the worst branch of terrorism: deliberately provoking hostility, creating a situation worse for all involved, in order to demonstrate how much worse your enemy is than yourself. Further, they have great tools at their disposal, far more than the Palestinians, although they cannot be so open about their aims. They have the support of the US, even in the face of the UN (much of the US distaste for the UN draws from this single issue). They have loyalists, such as Mr. Sharon, who will always be ready to defend Israel, even if that means a mythologically determined Israel. They have the memory of the Holocaust, and the paranoia (not at all undeserved, but still very real) that all who oppose you seek your annhilation. They have the image of a democracy, although they manipulate fear and outrage in the manner of tyrants.
It is also my contention that people like Mr. Spectre arm these people with their support. They are as dangerous to lasting peace in Israel/Palestine as any Hamas leader. They look much nicer than the dirty, screaming Palestinian, irrationally angry, like an anti-semite from a past millenium. They usually wear suits. But so long as these people drive the process, it will cyclically fail. Even the most equitable seeming solution will be fundamentally undermined by the desire to see the Palestinians (or, of course, from the other side, the Israelis) subjugated and humiliated. That was certainly what killed Oslo, at least from the perspective outside of Israel or the US.
These people (on both sides) fail in the basic prerequisite for peace: the shared assumption of cooperative justice for all as the primary goal. They see the other side as disposable, or perhaps worse. And nothing irritates the other side quite like denying that such people exist on your side of the fence.
Jester