It is not a country, it is a weapon: Thoughts on creating a Palestinian State

Everywhere the mantra is “two-state solution.” The very term implies something not at all self-evident, that is, that creating a two-state situation — by the creation of a Palestinian state, will “solve” anything that those who use the formula might consider the problem. For those who think it will bring peace, that it will “solve” the Arab-Israeli conflict, there’s not much evidence to suggest that it will. To the contrary, most evidence suggests that it will only strengthen the hardliners among the Palestinians.

And yet, anyone who opposes Palestinian statehood is considered a racist and a bigot. It’s the kind of moral equivalence one find in a Roger Cohen who can’t understand why, if Israel has a bomb, the Iranians shouldn’t. Jews have a nation… why not Palestinians? Same, same, no?

No. On many counts.

Below the reflections of Sultanknish. See also:

Jeff Jacoby, Statehood for Palestine? Take a Good Look

Emmanuel Navon, How to Deserve a State

Caroline Glick, Welcome to Palestine

Hillel Fendel, PA Rep Says 2-State Solution Will Kill Israel

Elya Katz, “Palestine 2.0 is a monster with only one purpose, to create Holocaust 2.0.”

Some excerpts from Sultanknish below:

Who Needs a Palestinian State?

…Currently ruled by mutually hostile armed gangs loyal to either the Fatah or Hamas terrorist groups, Palestine 2.0 has already been a failed state for over a decade. Every attempt at foreign investment has failed. The ruins of industrial zones, greenhouses and even a casino, dot the landscape. Palestinian Arab Christians from overseas who returned to build up the economy fled quickly in the face of relentless shakedowns, kidnappings and militia gangs masquerading as law enforcement.

The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs work for two employers. The UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority… which in turn is funded by foreign donors. Work for the Palestinian Authority usually means belonging to a militia gang which is loyal to a particular figure in the PA leadership, who in turn passes that loyalty on to the current “government”. With little to do, the gangs spend their free time dealing drugs, carrying out terrorist attacks and collecting protection money from their town’s remaining stores.

For 17 years, Israel, America and just about every interested party has tried to build a Palestinian state. They provided weapons and training to build a modern Palestinian police force. They sent advisers and fortunes in economic aid, thousands per Palestinian Arab. They created industrial zones and transferred greenhouses. Billions in funds from the EU, America and various do-gooders were swallowed up to fund the lavish lifestyles of Arafat and his henchmen.

To those who argue that a Palestinian State will build regional stability, the rational person must ask, how in the world has any of this contributed to regional stability?

Year after year, the proposed Palestinian State has become a worse place. Given autonomy, its own military, political, legal and economic system– “Palestine” has made the region more unstable than ever. Terrorism has increased. Violence has increased. General instability has increased. Proposing that more of this will stabilize the region is akin to a man setting fire to one piece of furniture after another in his living room, and claiming that when the entire room is on fire, it will be a safe place to live.

…The “not so secret” secret here is that the Palestinian Arabs do not want a state or peace. 17 years of running the Palestinian Authority into the ground have shown how utterly incapable Fatah and Hamas are of running anything, besides armed gangs, mosques and occasional social services to their loyalist families… all funded from abroad.

The Palestinian ruling powers derive their authority from two forces

1. The Muslim desire to destroy Israel as an infidel state whose existence contradicts Islam. This keeps the money and arms flowing in to the different factions, as well as provides popular support by Arabs. Which is why no Palestinian leader will recognize and accept the existence of Israel. It is why Arafat negotiated out of one side of his mouth and ordered terrorist attacks out of the other. It is why after his death, his Fatah movement has lost credibility and popular support to Hamas due to its increasing inability to kill Israelis.

2. Western and Israel diplomats who keep trying to create a Palestinian state out of the bizarre notion that such a state would bring the terrorism to an end. Like all Dhimmi behaviors in regard to Islam, they ignore the fact that the short term goal of terrorism is terrorism. The long term goal of terrorism is to conquer and hold the territory of the terrorized. There is no room for the middle ground of compromise in that equation. It’s either absolute power, or nothing at all.

…Now the drive is on to create Palestine 2.0, despite the obvious fact that the Palestinian Arabs have done everything possible to prevent it from coming into being. Nearly two decades of terrorism have turned the endless rounds of peace negotiations into a joke. Half the Palestinian Authority is now ruled by the Iranian backed Hamas terrorist group, which insists it will never recognize or accept permanent peace with Israel. A state of affairs that never would have come into being, had Israel not completely withdrawn from Gaza in the first place.

So once again, who wants or needs a Palestinian state?

…By 1942, 17 years after the Palestine Mandate, the Jews of Israel had built a thriving country, from power generators to vast stretches of farmland, from a revived language to the Technion, created in 1924, which is considered one of the world’s leading electrical engineering and computer science schools in the world.

17 years after Oslo, the Palestinian Arabs have built nothing but death and destruction. Worse yet they’ve taken everything that was given to them and turned it into either a weapon or a bribe. By every standard, they have failed to show their ability to build or run a functioning state. Not even the most liberally minded thinker can point to anything in the Palestinian Authority leadership that suggests that they’re capable of running a functional state. Which is why that same species will naturally duck the question and begin blaming Israel instead.

And that highlights the real issue. The only reason for creating Palestine 2.0 is the destruction of Israel. It will not bring regional stability. It will not even bring local stability. It cannot even function unless its entire workforce is funded from abroad. It cannot even stop engaging in terrorism.

Palestine 2.0 is a Frankenstein’s monster, with body parts from Shiite, Sunni and Marxist terrorists. It only knows how to do one thing and one thing alone, kill. It is not a natural creature, because no Palestinian state ever existed throughout history. It is an artificial state whose existence has only one purpose. The destruction of Israel.

And that answers our question at last. Who needs a Palestinian state? Someone who is either ignorant, foolish or needs to destroy Israel.

The Two State Solution is not a formula for any kind of stability or end to the violence. It’s meant to take the violence to a whole new level. It is a formula for the destruction of Israel. 17 years of peacemaking by Israelis has produced 17 years of terrorism by the Palestinian Arabs. Everything sowed on the Palestinian Authority, from money to guns, from autonomy to infrastructure, have come up as dragon’s teeth.

Palestine is not a state. It was never a state. It will never be a state. It is currently ruled by two factions who have both disowned a negotiated Palestinian state in favor of the destruction of Israel. It is not a country, it is a weapon.

Palestine is a gun aimed at the head of Israel with one goal, its destruction. Palestine is a gun aimed at the head of every Jew in the world, legitimizing the worst and ugliest kinds of bigotry. Palestine is an imaginary place given form as a vicious myth brainwashing generation after generation of Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs to call themselves Palestinians and kill and die in the name of perpetuating a second Holocaust, all for the glory of Allah, Mohammed, Marx, not to mention Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, the House of Saud, and every cause and ruler with an interest in toppling Israel into the dust.

Palestine is death. It exists only as a form of living death by a population taught to see themselves as willing martyrs to the bomb belt from birth. It breathes death, it celebrates death, it teaches death and preaches death. It is the final ugly end of the hatred and cruelty bottled up in the Arab and Islamic dictatorships of the region. It is the true face of Islam and its shining reflection in the mirror of the Western press and diplomats is the true measure of their Dhimmism.

The Cult of Death in Palestine and the war against Israel is only a preview for the West of things to come.
Palestine is not a place, it is hate and homicide boiled down into myth. Palestine is not only in Israel. It is in Paris and London. It is in Madrid and Detroit. It is in Sydney and Moscow. It is everywhere that the toxic brew of Muslim fanaticism and Arab nationalism flows. Its flag is the flag of death. Its constitution is a death warrant for every free nation. Its legislature is a smug coven of obese terrorist chieftains sending their followers off to death with the promise of virgin demons fornicating with them in Paradise.

Palestine 2.0 is a monster with only one purpose, to create Holocaust 2.0. That is who needs a Palestinian state. That is why the far left and the far right are both so hellbent on bringing one into being. Accepting the Two State Solution means accepting death. Rejecting it means embracing life.

So the real question is, if even a significant fraction of what these folks say is true, why are so many people convinced that the “two-state solution” is the way to go?

74 Responses to It is not a country, it is a weapon: Thoughts on creating a Palestinian State

  1. Ray in Seattle says:

    RL: So the real question is, if even a significant fraction of what these folks say is true, why are so many people convinced that the “two-state solution” is the way to go?

    For westerners, because they believe, many non-consciously, that the world would be better if Israel was never created. Since that can’t be undone, their fallback position is that Israel should now be undone and the mistake erased. What better way to achieve that than to empower and support the vicious Jew-haters of Hamas and Hezb’allah.

    This allows them to have the pleasure of seeing the Jews get what they deserve while maintaining the pretense of clean hands – hands that will surely engage in vigorous wringing exercises for a short while after it’s done and the grizzly costs are being tallied – much like happened as the Nazi death camps were “discovered” in 1945.

  2. Michelle Schatzman says:

    I am in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state, provided that it is able to function as a peaceful and responsible state, with good neighborly relations with Israel.

    Palestine has to fulfill many, many, many conditions to become a state, and not a failed state, as Kossovo or Somalia.

    There is no point in being against the creation of a Palestinian state. The only interesting question is : can it be done? With two mafias in power, one in Ramallah and one in Gaza City, with few economic resources, an immature of political culture, a permanent use of ressentiment and scapegoating, it seems that a very long process of nation building has to be performed.

    I love an algerian proverb : follow the liar up to his door.

  3. oao says:

    ignorance, fear and anti-semitism.

  4. Fat Man says:

    If the Palis really wanted a state, they would have one by now. No one is stopping them from collecting the trash. They just are not interested.

  5. oao says:

    A must read about Obama and Israel:

    Has Obama Given Up On Iran?
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023606.php

    i subscribe to it.

  6. oao says:

    Another good piece.

    Palestinian Authority’s new government: Anyone Ever Ask Them if They’re Ready to Negotate Peace?
    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/palestinian-authoritys-new-government.html

  7. Rich Rostrom says:

    There is no question that at this time, the creation of a Palestinian state would be a disaster.

    However, what is the long-term alternative? Ultimately, the non-Israel parts of the region must come under some sovereign government. Israel only wants those parts that are not full of Arabs.

    No outside country claims these territories. If not, eventually, statehood, then what? Perpetual subordination to Israel’s arbitrary authority, which however comparatively benevolent is still arbitrary rule by outsiders? That is what South Africa attempted with the so-called “Bantustans”.

    The other point I would make is the repeated references to what “Palestinians want” or “Palestinians have done”. Power in the Territories was given, by the consent of the Israeli government, to Arafat and his gang. This led directly to the looting, the disorder, and the mind-poisoning. Average Palestinians are victims of this too, and have never had much control of it. As Mark Steyn wrote, “Palestinians are perhaps the most comprehensively ruined people on Earth.”

    To those who say “They chose this,” I say: they have had very few real chances to choose, and at all times have had bad choices systematically pushed at them (by their fellow Arabs).

    Detox would take at least a generation. And Israel is not the authority to do it, unfortunately.

  8. E.G. says:

    Found on another site.

    The UN, Arab League, Quartette, EU, Netanyahu-Barak-Peres: Dear Palestinians, we hereby offer you your state, according to all your claims, ready to to work.

    Pali 1: Oops, we’re in trouble.
    Pali 2: Not that we don’t appreciate your efforts, but a state on a silver plated platter?! That’s discriminatory and unjust. Why should we accept it if it’s not on a solid silver platter?

  9. oao says:

    Power in the Territories was given, by the consent of the Israeli government, to Arafat and his gang. This led directly to the looting, the disorder, and the mind-poisoning. Average Palestinians are victims of this too, and have never had much control of it. As Mark Steyn wrote, “Palestinians are perhaps the most comprehensively ruined people on Earth.”

    the question is why have not the pals developed decent leadership and the elements of a nation? perhaps it has something to do with the arab culture and religion, which has inhibited those in all arab countries.

    To those who say “They chose this,” I say: they have had very few real chances to choose, and at all times have had bad choices systematically pushed at them (by their fellow Arabs).

    have they no agency of their own??
    they produced the leadership that they deserve, they are not capable of anything better, just like all arabs.

    Detox would take at least a generation.

    even if they started today and would do nothing but and intensively, it would take much more than a generation. but they can’t: they have trapped themselves by indoctrination to hatred and nobody can reverse it and live. and that was intentional, to guarantee that there will be no temptation to accept israel.

    and given the gullibility and anti-semitism of their int’l supporters there is no reason for them to give up.

    And Israel is not the authority to do it, unfortunately.

  10. Michelle Schatzman says:

    @ E.G. : I love the joke.

    @ Rostrom and Oao : of course, history is interesting, but we do not have much power to change it. My purpose, in my comment, was to find a way to respond to a difficult political situation.

    In simpler words : practically, a Palestinian state is not possible right now, as is obvious to everyone here, since the necessary proto-state does not exist. Is it a functional response to say : “let there not be a palestinian state”? I guess not, since even in Israel, a majority seems to be for a two state solution.

    If I believe that the majority is lying to itself, should I step on my soap box and preach about truth? Better to look at the conditions of establishment of a palestinian state, and at the consequences of its establishment, if it happens to misbehave.

    Should it be established now, it will misbehave – I am fully conviced of this. The idea is to analyze the lie well enough, so that it will stand in clear light.

    Reductio ad absurdum, eh?

  11. E.G. says:

    Well, I’m for the 3-state solution.

    Michelle,
    History (of the region) has been rewritten and used to make moral claims on Israel. We don’t have to buy into it and, at least for intellectual integrity’ sake, should put things right.

    When they understand, in the Arab world in general, and the Palestinians in particular, that suffering, expulsion, loss of property, the cost in lives, is not the monopoly of one side, they may, perhaps, have the sense to understand that this past is a matter for history lessons. Because if we start to perform a political accounting, they have an overdraft. The Jewish Nakba was far greater. The suffering was enormous. But it is the suffering of many nations, Jews and Arabs among them, who went through the experience as part of the creation of new nation states.

    Ben Dror Yemini, see link in oao #11 above.

  12. Michelle Schatzman says:

    @EG,

    I know pretty well that history has been rewritten. However, it is a bit of a dead end to enter the accounting of anteriority or victimization.

    I am pretty sure thet the jewish side of the story is much closer to truth than the palestinian side, but I have to be realistic : the Palestinians are willing to make up all sorts of myths, they are doing it, and we do not have the same talent or the same incentive to make up lots of interesting lies. Basically, honest or relatively honest people might trust the jewish point of view, but most of mankind is dishonest in this respect, and the palestinian narrative is much easier and much more emotional.

    So, let us try some other kind of PR : assume that we agree to create a palestinian state in practice, in the real work. What is needed? How can it be obtained? What are the obstacles? I believe that it is easier to catch bad faith on contemporary issues, than on the past.

    I learnt a few things in life about fighting

    - choose the terrain as much as possible

    - push downslope if at all possible

    - use the force of your enemy against itself when you are weak, and also when you are strong, because you never really know whether you are that strong.

    - be prepared to die if the prize is worth it, but always try to stay alive nevertheless, because living human beings carry living ideas and living values. Dead human beings do not.

    I believe that tactics are important. Do you?

  13. Lorenz Gude says:

    I really can’t imagine any circumstances in which he Palestinian leadership would accept a two state solution. They just are not interested and are getting showered with money for their trouble.

  14. ichannel says:

    ‘It is not a country, it is a weapon: Thoughts on creating a Palestinian State’…

  15. Sage says:

    Buy land in Africa. Send every Palestinian there, along with start up money. Sounds more Humane than the current situation. The world can afford it better than the alternatives.

    Let the Palestinians have a go at it in their new territory.

    The other alternative is that the Jews leave the territory. Only Israel is Jewish ancestral land. It belongs to the Jews and not the Palestinians. Most Arab Palestinians are recent arrivals who came for economic benefit as Jews made the desert bloom.

  16. Ray in Seattle says:

    Rich: No outside country claims these territories. If not, eventually, statehood, then what? Perpetual subordination to Israel’s arbitrary authority, which however comparatively benevolent is still arbitrary rule by outsiders? That is what South Africa attempted with the so-called “Bantustans”.

    In international affairs as well as personal affairs – when one party swears to destroy the other and repeatedly tries to do so – then the defending party does whatever is necessary to defend itself. The UN Charter is based on this principle. As I recall, the S African blacks were not sending suicide bombers into SA discos but were requesting to participate in SA government as equals with the whites.

    If you step back and look at world history – the establishment of “Bantustans” for ethnic or religious enemies is a big improvement from the genocide that has been the usual response – no matter whether the actors were defenders or aggressors.

    In this case Israel is clearly the defender and has been 1947. If the Palestinians / Arabs / Persians wage their war so that the creation of Bantustans for Pals becomes the most humane way to defend itself then that’s exactly what Israel should do – and is justified to do so.

    I’m not saying that Bantustans are the way to go or that Israel should pursue that course. Just that it’s Israel’s choice to make. They will have to live or die with the results, not you or me. The Palestinians are the aggressors, the party to the conflict that has the real choices here. They can choose to stop killing Jews and inciting their people and forming a peaceful government leading some day to statehood any time they wish. The fate of the WB settlements and the people who live in them will be settled along with any treaty that is produced as part of the negotiations. Allowing people to settle on stateless land under the control of an occupying power may be questionable under international law but it is not violent aggression – especially if it can be characterized as a necessary component of defense against ongoing hostilities against the occupying power.

    That’s the underlying moral issue here – not how Israel defends itself. The continuing aggression of the Pal / Arabs for several decades more than justifies Israel doing whatever it needs to do to defend its citizens. Again this is the basis for the UN Charter as set forth in Article 51. It was written by people attempting to reduce wars of aggression by establishing clear moral principles and clear penalties for violating them. If you ignore those you give a blank check to any asshole regime who attacks their peaceful neighbors.

    (Even if the UN ignores those principles all the time they are still relevant – at least if reducing wars of aggression is still a worthwhile goal.)

  17. Ray in Seattle says:

    Michelle: the Palestinians are willing to make up all sorts of myths, they are doing it, and we do not have the same talent or the same incentive to make up lots of interesting lies. Basically, honest or relatively honest people might trust the jewish point of view, but most of mankind is dishonest in this respect, and the palestinian narrative is much easier and much more emotional.

    It seems to me that implying that Israel could “make up lots of interesting lies” as a way to counter Pallywood is not germane. I believe that Israel has a good case to make on the merits – as per the moral principles set forth in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

    The frustration I feel is the complete lack of dedication and importance Israel seems to place on making that case in creative and effective ways on the world stage. I know they rightfully feel that they should not have to defend against Pal / Arab aggression while also waging a public pressure campaign to force the UN to do its job to support peace according to its charter.

    But this is largely a war of public opinion and I wish Israel would get serious about the PR side of it.

  18. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    You quoted this from Ben Dror Yemini

    When they understand, in the Arab world in general, and the Palestinians in particular, that suffering, expulsion, loss of property, the cost in lives, is not the monopoly of one side, they may, perhaps, have the sense to understand that this past is a matter for history lessons.

    He obviously for the sake of his article ignores the honor/shame paradigm and its complications but this has to be considered and read Michelle’s comment with a quote from Nonie Darwish:
    More on Nonie Darwish
    While Darwish talks about admitting guilt etc., it also extends to Admitting that the other also has a point.
    The likelihood that the Arabs, and Amr Moussa and his Arab League in particular, will accept the suffering of the Jews is about as probable as Islam rescinding the verses in the Qur’an about the descendants of apes and pigs.

  19. oao says:

    but we do not have much power to change it. My purpose, in my comment, was to find a way to respond to a difficult political situation.

    short of changes in the west’s ignorance, anti-semitism fear and collapse israel has 2 options, neither of which have anything to do with PR:

    1. accept a nuclear iran and a 3-state solution
    2. bomb iran and drag their feet on the 3-state solution

    that is, it can only stretch its existence by 1 or shorten it by 2.

  20. oao says:

    incidentally, kiissinger was already telling the arabs when he was SOS “be patient, in a decade or two israel will fight for its existence”.

  21. oao says:

    The frustration I feel is the complete lack of dedication and importance Israel seems to place on making that case in creative and effective ways on the world stage.

    but i thought that deep strong emotions are governing everything, and reason is ineffective. if so, what would the merit of the case, which sounds like reason to me, help?

  22. oao says:

    the recognition of US diminished power (I say collapse):

    Obama’s reluctance to support a strike against Iran doesn’t reflect his alleged left-wing or “appeasement” tendencies. It reflects a global reality in which American military and global supremacy has been diminished; the “unilateral moment” is over and Israeli leaders should recognize that (unfortunately, there is always a “recognition lag” when it comes to economic and political changes in the balance of power). They need to adapt their policies to these new realities in which China, India and other players are going to challenge America and make it more difficult for it to use its military power in the Middle East and elsewhere — assuming that it wanted to do that — or to be pressed by a client state like Israel to do that.

    Israel can no longer serve as America’s deputy
    Leon Hadar
    http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/response_israel_could_no_longer

  23. oao says:

    the problem, of course, is that for the arabs who don’t want israel to be integrated, they perceive the loss of US power as a reason to NOT allow israel to integrate, to get rid of it.

  24. Ray in Seattle says:

    oao: but i thought that deep strong emotions are governing everything, and reason is ineffective. if so, what would the merit of the case, which sounds like reason to me, help?

    Whether it’s my inability to explain myself or your inability to understand what I’m saying or some combination, let me try again. Important decisions in life, decisions where there is a survival outcome or a person’s well being is at stake (same thing) then decisions are generally made according to the emotional force of existing beliefs. When making behavior choices people sense which alternatives line up the best with their existing strongest identity beliefs. This is an emotional process.

    Most of what people try to explain as “critical thinking” is either justifying and reinforcing their beliefs beforehand or justifying their conclusions based on those beliefs after the fact. Also, once such conclusions are reached people will use reason and logic to carry them out – a utilitarian function which is how reasoning is most often employed by human brains.

    If you need to replace your car you will make your decision mostly by following the emotional forces of your existing beliefs. If you believe that a high-horsepower red Corvette is you (an identity belief) then you will buy a Corvette. You will use reasoning to find the best price and arrange financing and justify the choice to yourself possibly and any friends who question it.

    Likewise with worldwide opinion of Israel’s legitimacy. Just as the marketing guy at GM knew that Corvette marketing needed to make a solid emotional connection between the Corvette brand image and the existing emotional identity beliefs of people like you – Israel needs to make the connection between her legitimacy – and the critical existing identity beliefs of typical Westerners. There are several beliefs that can be found in typical Western minds that could be enlisted but this process usually starts with marketing research that identifies these beliefs and tests them for their potency. The best are selected and marketing campaigns are specifically designed to make that connection.

    The first thing any good salesperson learns is to “sell the sizzle”. As soon as you start explaining logically why someone should buy your product you have usually lost the sale. Watch any large-market consumer ads on TV and you will see exactly how this works. I’m not suggesting that Israel should use TV advertising – it may or may not be useful for this purpose. But if you watch those ads you will see products being connected with identity beliefs. One of the simplest way to do this is the choice of person(s) to be in the ad. Are they young, old, male, female, new-agey, studious, etc. Placing people in the ads who customers can identify with is obviously what is happening. The ad is showing a person just like you enjoying and loving a product – and often being admired by others for doing so. The emotional identity connection is made even without saying a word. The words and context can then be clever or funny to create a positive feeling to cement the identity connection in place.

    That’s just scratching the surface of what modern marketing coupled with psychology does to make a sale. Israel needs to make a sale in a market currently dominated by charlatans, liars and religious fanatics. This is not rocket science. Israel’s message is honest. Peaceful people have a right to live in their own country and defend themselves. Most Americans emotionally hold that belief. They would feel great emotional angst if their own ability to do so was threatened.

    With a decent effort Israel can make that connection in American and European minds and begin to take that market back. It will take some time but whatever success they achieve will be measured in the lives of innocent civilian lives spared from conflict – mostly Arab lives. The question is, will Israel run out of steam and go bankrupt before this happens, just as GM has. GM’s demise was not from poor marketing BTW. It was poor choices in product design. Israel has a wonderful product to sell. They should get on with selling it.

  25. Ray in Seattle says:

    I said that GM’s problem was poor choices in product design. My guess is that they made those choices based on their identity beliefs – on what identity characteristics they felt were part of the GM brand that they were entrusted by shareholders to maintain – as well as their personal identity belief as GM executives that they would be judged by their ability to do that successfully.

    In interviews they have repeatedly stated that their customers wanted large, safe and powerful cars and that they could produce smaller, less powerful cars but that their customers would not buy them.

    Reason would reveal that as oil becomes more scarce, the price of gas would cause consumers to change their minds. Even if they wanted bigger cars they couldn’t afford to fill the tank. It seems that GM’s identity beliefs won that argument and now we see the result during the first major recession to appear, even with gas prices fairly moderate compared to what they could be (will be).

  26. RfaelMoshe says:

    In their own way, the Paestinans have been rather open about their intent to accept a “two state” solution” only as an interim step to taking ALL of Israel and Jordan. In 1974, coached by N. Viet Nam, Arafat described just that idea as his “Phased Plan” for the destruction of Israel. Faisel Al-Husseini described the Oslo Accords a “a Trojan Horse.” And on a practical level, Gaza was an experiment in Palestinian self government and we all know how that worked out. Is there any reason to believe that any Palestinian state would be any diferent? If its to be “land for peace” do we believe that the Palestinians won’t just see the land as a base for Iranian heavy weapons to give Israel the peace of the grave?

  27. oao says:

    Whether it’s my inability to explain myself or your inability to understand what I’m saying or some combination, let me try again.

    i am not known for beating around the bush and at my age i’m not gonna start now.

    the problem is not my inability to understand. it is your inability to fully understand the implications of your theory. and it’s pretty obvious to me why: it is not rigorous enough and too broad and flexible.

    i promised i was not gonna get into it again but i violated my promise. sorry, won’t happen again.

  28. oao says:

    The likelihood that the Arabs, and Amr Moussa and his Arab League in particular, will accept the suffering of the Jews is about as probable as Islam rescinding the verses in the Qur’an about the descendants of apes and pigs.

    hell, they don’t much care about the suffering of muslims, pals, arab and non-arabs. they use it for propaganda but do absolutely nothing to put a stop to it. just the opposite–it’s their regimes who are the source of their suffering.

    and the ignoranr, gullible, scared and collapsed west ignore it.

  29. oao says:

    Faisel Al-Husseini described the Oslo Accords a “a Trojan Horse.”

    so did arafat and explicitly. and so did recently the fatah rep in lebanon. it’s only the idiotic west which cannot bring itself to accept it, no matter how explicit the pals are.

    here’s the one aspect which should be critically obvious: if the arabs were real smart, they would pretend to accept all the conditions for a pal state that israel asks. and then continue to destroy israel from a better position. over time attrition would make it extremely difficult for israel to survive, particularly with the west in the pal camp.

    the problem is that they have so trapped themselves into israel hatred via indoctrination and punishments, that they cannot even pretend without risking death.

  30. nelson says:

    Israel’s case looks apparently unique, but if we take a look a the history of some European nations states, we’ll find interesting parallels and similarities.

    There’s, for instance, the case of the Netherlands and their long fight for independence against Spain, a war that lasted officially 80 years, but actually much more.

    There’s Portugal’s long fight against Spanish encroachment and the similar Hungarian fight, which lasted for centuries, against both the Ottomans and the Habsburgs. Finland too has lived for most of its modern history under the shadow of Russia as did Poland.

    In short: it isn’t easy to be a small nation-state, but its chances of survival are still higher than those of a stateless and persecuted people. Not the most optimistic of points, I grant it, but still better than nothing.

    Anyway, though right now Israel is openly hated, I think it is in a less slippery position than she was during the Oslo years when, looking for the mirage of international sympathy and respectability, she was swallowing the bait entire.

    Many were lead to think that once the Jews had their own country, their troubles would be over. Not at all. Israel was created exactly by the pessimists who were sure that troubles were a given and cyclic, and that the Jews needed a country to have at least a chance of self-defence.

    The most dangerous people are precisely those who say that Israel is responsible for contemporary anti-Semitism. I’m sure there would be hatred of the Jews, as intense or even more, even if there were no Israel, though there’s no way of proving this.

    The last anti-Semitic tsunami cost the Jews 1/3 of their people. Now we’ll see how Jews fare with most of them living either in their own state or in America.

  31. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    I think it will be easier to negotiate reparations than statehood. Precisely because of Honour/Shame.
    (side note, O/T, I just saw an interview with the late Abba Eban. He didn’t go to your university. Or did he? Are you familiar with Kishon’s satire about the panic at the UN preceding his speech?)

  32. Ray in Seattle says:

    oao: i am not known for beating around the bush and at my age i’m not gonna start now. the problem is not my inability to understand. it is your inability to fully understand the implications of your theory. and it’s pretty obvious to me why: it is not rigorous enough and too broad and flexible. i promised i was not gonna get into it again but i violated my promise. sorry, won’t happen again.

    Hey – it’s all fine with me. You keep bringing it up. When you do I reply in full taking great care with my answer. Then, as now, you withdraw with some broadbrush critical comment that’s impossible to defend against but without providing any specifics. I’d say your comments on this topic are not rigorous enough and too broad and flexible. Not mine.

    You say that I don’t have the ability ” . . to fully understand the implications of my theory”. OK fair enough. That implies that you must understand the implications. Otherwise how could you judge that I don’t? If you do, it would seem simple enough to describe some of them, doesn’t it? I think perhaps you have no idea. In the spirit of friendly discussion I’d call your comment style “intellectual drive-by”.

    If you ever do want to bring this up again you might be prepared to offer some specifics, complete with counter examples, as I have responded each time to your challenges. For example, you still haven’t explained how people like Chomsky, who obviously have abundant intellectual capacities and top educations – could come to such terribly wrong-headed conclusions about some matters. I have.

  33. Sophia says:

    Good Jew, Bad Jew:

    http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/antony-lerman-jacqueline-rose-jonathan-freedland-david-hirsh/

    Interestingly, many people seem to feel that “ending the occupation” will de facto create peace, justice and progress.

    Linked to that is the idea that Israel or Diaspora Jews have the power to create peace, justice and progress in the Middle East despite the issues raised on the OP, the economic/ecological challenges, most of all the demand for ROR and the idea that creating a judenfrei Arab state next to a Jewish minority state is a good idea – nobody seems to take these problems seriously or even consider the demographic issues alone:

    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/05/elena-bonner-speaks/index.shtml

    For what it’s worth, I think the ROR issue and the idea of Jews being able to live in Judea need to be addressed immediately. Simply calling for an end to the occupation without dealing with these issues and with the future security of both Arabs and Jews is foolish and so is putting the weight for this whole situation solely on Jewish backs.

    It’s also rather disgusting that some of us are trying to polarize the Jewish community and worse, raise “the Jewish question” once again.

    This is especially disgusting in view of the fact that people really are threatening Jews, beating people, attacking Holocaust survivors in Austria, in Argentina, in France; bringing a (thankfully fake) bomb to a synagogue in New York – and trying to blame antisemitism on Israel.

    Meanwhile, what is being done to help build trust within the Palestinian population and encourage reconciliation with Israel? What about the noxious antisemitism in the Middle East and increasingly, once again, in Europe? In the Americas? In places where there aren’t even any Jews?

    Not much from what I can tell, I think there’s so much incitement for hatred and violence it will be a miracle if peaceful solutions can be found.

    Meanwhile I am getting sick of the Brits.

  34. oao says:

    Hey – it’s all fine with me. You keep bringing it up.

    yes, i know. as a methodologist a lot of buttons are being pressed by your theory and i can’t help reacting.

    one of the reasons i left academia is the appalling lack of methodological knowledge by academics who develop theoretical frameworks. if they had any solid knowledge, 60-70% of what is being published would not be.

    it is quite easy to come up with plenty of hypotheses if you are not aware of the “tyrany” of methodology and rigor.

  35. oao says:

    This is especially disgusting…”

    witnessing daily what the pals are doing to themeselves and to jews, permit to say that your perception of what is disgusting is disgusting. yuckh.

  36. E.G. says:

    oao,

    With all due respect, Ray’s hypothetical construction is not an academic endeavor and academic methodological criteria don’t apply.

    How about this?
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087126.html

  37. E.G. says:

    A Palestinian state? Only one?

    Two states for one people

    A series of “states”, corresponding to the fragmented nature of the “people”, seems more realistic. The inability to federate those “states” will be problematic, but at least Israel’s role will be minimised.

  38. Michelle Schatzman says:

    @Ray in Seattle

    It seems to me that implying that Israel could “make up lots of interesting lies” as a way to counter Pallywood is not germane. I believe that Israel has a good case to make on the merits – as per the moral principles set forth in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

    Dear Ray, I did not advocate making up nice lies, since I also wrote and we do not have the same talent or the same incentive to make up lots of interesting lies.

    I advocated changing the way we fight the war of ideas. Instead of taking all of our time to prove that Israel has a good case (and I completely agree with this), we should show that the palestinians do not have what it takes to have a state. In order to show that, we have to say first “OK, let them have their state ; so, what is needed to make this real?”. There are failed states on the planet. The point is that failed states are extremely dangerous places. So, the case to be made should be that the Palestinians have to prove that they can have a state, which does not become immediately a failed state. They should have to prove it, not the Israelis.

  39. E.G. says:

    Michelle-
    YES! OUI! KEN!
    ;-)

  40. Cynic says:

    hell, they don’t much care about the suffering of muslims, pals, arab and non-arabs. they use it for propaganda but do absolutely nothing to put a stop to it. just the opposite–it’s their regimes who are the source of their suffering.

    Some time back the question was asked about the Arabs who would also die when Iran levels Israel and the reply was simple; they would be regarded as shahids!

  41. Cynic says:

    The point is that failed states are extremely dangerous places. So, the case to be made should be that the Palestinians have to prove that they can have a state, which does not become immediately a failed state. They should have to prove it, not the Israelis.

    The Israelis did not make enough of the Gaza experiment; but also when it was brought up the respondents had a thousand “excuses” helped in no small measure by those Rices and Foggy Bottoms who refused to call the Arabs on their non-compliance.
    The Israelis had already left most of the West Bank when Arafat started his terror campaign and had to go in again to secure the lives of Israeli citizens.
    Why didn’t the Arabs use Gaza as a an example of their ability to rule themselves?
    Because basically that is not in the agenda of those running the jihad.
    They don’t need to because those who could make a difference aid them surreptitiously by turning a blind eye. They can cut corners and do not have to deviate creating façades.

    Every attempt at foreign investment has failed. The ruins of industrial zones, greenhouses

    To make those of Gaza dependent on charity Hamas and Islamic Jihad rampaged through those industrial zones killing and destroying and where were the protests from Western politicians and diplomats?

    Palestinian Arab Christians from overseas who returned to build up the economy fled quickly in the face of relentless shakedowns, kidnappings and militia gangs masquerading as law enforcement.

    Where were the protests from the Churches this time? Saint Tutu was out with Sabeel damming the Jews once more.

    If anyone was aware of what was going on it was the religious and what did they do, they put on the usual spiel about the Jews driving the Christians out.
    Sort of deja vu; remembering Lebanon in the 70s with the PLO massacring Christians and the Churches running arms for the PLO from Lebanon to the West Bank.

  42. Cynic says:

    Thinking about what I wrote above it seems that Muslim and Christian clerics have something in common; a willingness to sacrifice their own to get at the Jews.

  43. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    From your link:
    We try to convince them Islam is a religion that forbids harming innocent people. This approach is more effective when you speak with terrorist leaders who possess religious authority. However, in order to persuade them, you have to bring in senior religious personalities whose authority they will accept. You can call it a theological battle of the minds.”
    This method proved itself, especially in Egypt. Over the past decade, the Egyptian authorities succeeded in convincing Muslim militant groups such as Jamaa Islamiya and the Jihadists to abandon the armed struggle. Those authorities managed to do so with the help of distinguished religious leaders from the Al-Azhar University, who held long meetings with senior leaders from those two terror organizations.

    Of course Egypt is a Muslim country.
    Unfortunately this is an inter-Muslim relationship, not a Muslim Infidel one.
    If they are going to use religious texts then yes it will work with regard to Muslims but given the texts regarding Infidels where are those results.
    Sounds like taquiya at work implying that it can be extrapolated to incorporate all beings.

  44. Cynic says:

    However, Kruglanski says sadly, Israel has no such program for the de-radicalization and rehabilitation of thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

    He is dreaming if he thought that those radicals would accept words from the yahud and any Muslim trying to talk him out of his “education” would be treated as a turncoat.
    I can just see how that cleric would be treated within his own community if they knew of his work.

  45. Ray in Seattle says:

    Michelle: Sorry I didn’t quite get what you were saying in that previous post about the myths and lies. But I completely agree with your (just stated) views on the Palestinian state.

  46. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    Please accept my apology for not getting around sooner to answering your question.

    No, Aubrey was born well before me and went to school in England. Cambridge I believe, ahem!
    Kishon’s satire about the UN panic (which one :-)) I was not aware of.
    Do you have the title; just to make researching it easier?

  47. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    By the way here’s a link to one of his satires
    The case for Israel

  48. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    As green as ever, the lawns by the Cam.
    Thanks for the link – will enjoy it a bit later (got to rush).
    The satire must have been reprinted elsewhere too, it’s found in the excellentissime post-67 album (with Dosh) “Sorry we won”.

    A propos, Michelle – would you know whether this album’s ever been translated into French?

  49. Michelle Schatzman says:

    E.G., in order to find an album in french, I have first to find it in another language… then I’ll try to find out. Got more precise references?

  50. JD says:

    “If the Palis really wanted a state, they would have one by now.”

    They could have declared independence any time.

    However, there is a big difficulty in that. If they declare independence, they would have had to declare their intended borders.

    Dr. Landes, good articles, about the reality of rule in the territories.

    I’ve said before, the best solution is a United Nations Trusteeship. They are already a UN welfare case of a country.

  51. Ray in Seattle says:

    JD: I’ve said before, the best solution is a United Nations Trusteeship. They are already a UN welfare case of a country.

    I think I might have heard this mentioned before (maybe by you) but reading your comment now this seems possibly a very sensible solution. And so I must wonder why it has not being seriously considered or pursued. Like most such obvious solutions to problems there must be some reason(s) why it hasn’t been tried.

    What do you think the negatives or “deal breakers” might be on this? Is it that the UN would be about as effective in keeping the Pals from attacking Israel as it was in preventing the war with Lebanon? And then, as was the case in Gaza recently, the IDF would have to go through the UN peacekeepers to get at the terrorists?

  52. oao says:

    With all due respect, Ray’s hypothetical construction is not an academic endeavor and academic methodological criteria don’t apply.

    if you believe that one can disregard the rigor of methodology as “academic” you’re gravely mistaken. the problem with academia is not method and rigor, is lack thereof.

    I advocated changing the way we fight the war of ideas. Instead of taking all of our time to prove that Israel has a good case (and I completely agree with this), we should show that the palestinians do not have what it takes to have a state.

    illusions. it would not work. the world is not employing knowledge and reason to decide that israel must go. many know what the pals are about. they just fool themselves that if they sacrifice the jews, they’ll save their own ass. it a process similar to that in response to the nazis.

    A series of “states”, corresponding to the fragmented nature of the “people”, seems more realistic.

    give thema dozen or a hundred states, it won’t solve the problem because it is not their problem, it’s the west’s projection of what the problem is.

    I’ve said before, the best solution is a United Nations Trusteeship. They are already a UN welfare case of a country.

    oh, yeah. the UN has been doing a wonderful job for the last 60 years — which is why we have still a pal problem in the first place. and now that the UN is controlled by the muslim states, it’ll be even better.
    a most sensible solution if i ever saw one. and with the west bankrupt they’ll continue to support the pals forever just for the sake of the jews.

  53. oao says:

    here’s UN at its best:

    UNRWA and Broken Rules
    by Asaf Romirowsky
    http://www.romirowsky.com/5625/unrwa-and-broken-rules

  54. oao says:

    The Conflict Continues Not Due to Victimized Outrage but to Its Usefulness as Weapon
    By Barry Rubin
    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/conflict-continues-not-due-to.html

  55. oao says:

    looks like the secular, not the religious do the moral thing:

    http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/05/elena-bonner-speaks/index.shtml

  56. E.G. says:

    Michelle,

    this one:
    http://www.amazon.com/SO-SORRY-WON-Ephraim-Kishon/dp/B000GWKVD8/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243

    Merci d’avance!

    P.S. Quite a few satires and cartoons in that book are still relevant today. Perhaps even Abba Eban’s linguistic talents.

  57. E.G. says:

    oao,

    My point was about the arabs of ex-Palestine”s inability to federate (that cultural thing).

    And, I used “academic” to signal some professional affiliation and a kind of chart, discipline being too narrow/odd for the interdisciplinary type of construction discussed.

  58. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    I never read that Kishon satire. Set me shuddering, as Leibler notes.

    oao –

    No comment on Kruglansky????

  59. oao says:

    No comment on Kruglansky????

    if you mean krugman, i don’t read him, with all due respect to his nobel.

  60. oao says:

    And, I used “academic” to signal some professional affiliation and a kind of chart, discipline being too narrow/odd for the interdisciplinary type of construction discussed.

    reread your comment: you specifically stated “academic methodology”, whatever that means. well, I was referring to the scientific methodology, of which academic affiliations tends to be devoid of.

    My point was about the arabs of ex-Palestine”s inability to federate (that cultural thing).

    yeah, but even if they could, states would not be a solution.

  61. Sophia says:

    oao, did you even read the links I posted?

    Or do you just reflexively insult people?

    Yuck.

  62. E.G. says:

    oao,

    It’s Kruglanski (not -man), and the link is in #38.
    I thought you might be familiar with his (other) research, maybe taken a course…

  63. oao says:

    e.g.,

    re #64: never heard of him.

    having survey research as one of the sins in my background, i am skeptical whenever this method is employed. you can get any result, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

    that aside, my guess is that you can repair some of the jihadis, but it’s hard to know which, how and at what cost. the critical variables and skills required are not very clear or available. i would not rely on this method to resolve jihad.

    be that as it may, my distinction between academic and scientific stands.

  64. oao says:

    here’s jeffrey goldberg’s review of benny morris’ latest book:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/books/review/Goldberg-t.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

    can anybody detect a serious inconsistency in goldberg’s argument which is quite telling of even israel’s supporters? hint: it has to do with criticism of israel policies)

  65. [...] ist kein Land. Das ist eine Waffe. Richard Landes, The Augean Stables, 20.05.09 über einen [...]

  66. RfaelMoshe says:

    If you think about it, rather than an ethnicity, “Palestinian” is a political label that can only be defined so as to include opposition to the state of Israel. Had Israel (G-d forbid!) have lost in 1948, there would never have been any discussion of such abstractions as a “Palestinian State” or “Palestinians.” Jews, of course were promised,”a slaughter like none seen since the time of the Mongols.” That speck of land, which we call “Israel” , would have been divided up between Egypt, Syria and Transjordan, along with any non-Jews. It would probably be a dusty, impoverished, forgotten back water today. And, I would predict that no one would be claiming that “Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam”, either.

  67. oao says:

    “Palestinian” is a political label that can only be defined so as to include opposition to the state of Israel.

    precisley. it was devised exactly to serve as a weapon. it has no other significance.

    That speck of land, which we call “Israel” , would have been divided up between Egypt, Syria and Transjordan, along with any non-Jews.

    i am not even sure this would not happen even if israel were eliminated. i very much doubt that egypt and jordan could live with an uncontrolled islamic state under the influence of iran on their borders.

    indeed, israel is about the only thing that unites the arabs. without it they would be at each other throat.

    It would probably be a dusty, impoverished, forgotten back water today.

    it would be the same as all arab states, but without the oil.

  68. Eliyahu says:

    RM & oao, of course I agree basically with what you say about the “palestinian people” notion. The question is, Who invented that notion?

    I believe that it was not Arabs but British psywar/cogwar warriors/experts.

  69. oao says:

    The question is, Who invented that notion?

    it was certainly not the pals.

    i know you claim it was the british. since you know more about this than i do, i will accept your claim. there is probably some british contribution to it, but whoever did, its purpose was and is clear and the arabs certainly used it this way, as they clearly don’t give a ff about the pals.

  70. E.G. says:

    oao #73

    Aha! At last I understand why you didn’t accept my Champagne bet!
    I should have offered a Zionist drink! ;-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>