In a post below, I challenged Middle East commentator Mark Perry’s analysis of the Hizbollah (note spelling change) actions that triggered the Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Mr Perry and I entered into an email dialog, in which I asked if he’d be willing to elaborate on his understandings of the Middle East here, in front of what was bound to be a challenging audience. To his credit, he agreed.
He asked me to direct readers to a series in the Asia Times series he co-authored as a good primer on his positions.
I read the Asia Times piece and disagreed rather strongly. I think I sputtered. Then I thought about two things.
The first is that much of my thinking about war and national-scale conflict comes from my own training and familiarity with violence and conflict on a smaller scale. Many – but not all – of the precepts scale elegantly.
One of my instructors, the inestimable Clint Smith, is famous for his pithy sayings. Two seem particularly relevant today.
“You know the last words most LEO’s (police officers) killed in the line of duty ever say? “I’m gonna go in there and kick his ass!” Suicidal aggressiveness is not good tactics.”
and
“You better learn to communicate real well, because when you’re out there on the street, you’ll have to talk to a lot more people than you’ll have to shoot, or at least that’s the way I think it’s supposed to work.”
Which explains why it is that I spend a lot of time poking around thinking about ways to a peaceful Middle East that aren’t suicidally aggressive, and ideally involve talking rather than shooting.I haven’t found one yet, and I do believe that the social and political tension stored in the Middle East and extending through much of the Muslim world is due for a big blowoff, and it isn’t going to be pretty. Part of looking for alternatives involves taking my assumptions out, cleaning them off, and putting them on the table for examination. One of the best ways I know of to do that is to look at things that make me sputter, and shut off the automatic reaction in favor of a considered one. You may still sputter at the end of the process, but it’ll be sounder sputtering.
So without further ado, here is Armed Liberal chatting with Mark Perry:
AL: Here’s the first thing I was going to ask you.
In my reading, the heart of your strategic suggestions comes from your belief that daylight can be created between the takfiri movement and the more general Islamist one, and that relatively traditional political engagement (a la the IRA) can move the Islamist movement from a violent one to a political one.
Is this an accurate assessment?
And what do you think it would take to move the Islamists to political
engagement and away from violence?
MP: Your characterization is correct, but I would nudge it a bit more. We don’t think that we have to create the daylight as it already exists quite abundantly, albeit it is not fully realized by diplomats and this administration.
As to your second question: We move them towards engagement by engaging them — by opening a dialogue and creating a narrative. Now narratives can take several different forms, but in our view they should be unending even if, at times, they do not show results. Israeli Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich refused to celebrate Oslo, commenting to me: “This is simply the beginning of an exchange of narratives — we will sit down with the Palestinians and they will tell us their story and we will tell them ours. Sometimes that dialogue will come in the form of bullets, but we should never stop talking and we should not grow impatient — this exchange could take a hundred years.”
I think it was Dean Acheson who said “we will talk to anyone at anytime about the subject of peace.” That was certainly our strategy during the Cold War, but it has not been our strategy in the Middle East. I have a theory about why, but will leave the theorizing to you. I would only add that your question contains an unstated premise — that we need to move them away from violence. In fact, we need to move ourselves away from violence. This administration has been particularly notorious for responding to every crisis by deploying aircraft carriers. Of course, the administration has very poor thinkers (remember, I am a Republican) and no diplomats that I can see. Their response to my criticism of this is that our violence is good, while “they” are the extremists.
I think your second question is a little more loaded.
AL: OK, so here’s my second question.
By my perception, Bush I and Clinton didn’t deploy carriers as easily; they actually did a pretty credible job of using law-enforcement tools against the perps of WTC I etc.
But the takfiri movement grew strongly during that period. Why?
MP: I don’t exactly know the answer to your question. My sense is that a process of radicalization has been taking place in the Arab and Muslim heartlands for a period of 30 years, from the execution of Sayad Qutb and the Six Day War until now. At each point along that time line, Arab liberals believed they could leverage increased power inside increasingly modernized societies. The Arab-Israeli conflict intruded on this to a large extent as well as the Cold War. There was an implicit promise: that when the Cold War ended the US would intervene to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Of course it was Israel that tried to do that — I think from the belief that Israel would be a lot less important to the US without the USSR around.
When the US failed to really engage in the region by empowering secular liberals (throughout the 1990s) and then failed at Camp David (the history of which has been interpolated to shape our view of the region — and not reality) and then failed to differentiate political Islamic groups from the Takfiris the radicalization accelerated, and is accelerating still. The current situation does not help this, as the American foreign policy establishment is in the hands of our own Takfiris — who believe we are fighting a war of civilizations and that Islam, as they say, is a violent religion. The rhetoric here is very harmful. I would not say that Bush I and Clinton did all they could to resolve these issues rationally, believing that market forces and American hegemony would push the region into a different direction. A lot of your readers will disagree but … it is time to talk to Hamas and Hezballah, to Jamaat e-Islami and the Brotherhood. Our clients in the region cannot maintain their present position and their replacement is inevitable.
AL: OK, one final question.
Tell me a bit about your involvement with Arafat. Did it overlap the establishment of the PA?
And I’d be interested in your response to this old quote of mine:
“On the second question, the harsh reality is that had Arafat led 100,000 Arab people on a peaceful march to the sea…imagine a modern version of the “Salt March” of Gandhi…he’d have won already. Picketing, boycotts, and marches…the vocabulary of the American Civil Rights movement…would have granted him an unassailable moral high ground, and Israel would within months have been negotiating on his terms.”
MP: I must be a bit older than you. I can remember that one day (I must have been six years old) my mother handed me the Milwaukee Sentinel (a morning paper at the time — I grew up in northern Wisconsin) and there was a headline about how Nelson Mandela had been jailed by South Africa. She approved and wagged her finger at me: “He’s a communist,” she said. I remember it clearly because, up until the date of his release, he was always called a terrorist and a communist. Then, really it was quite sudden, he was something else. He was a great man.
The transformation of armed groups into peaceable political parties happens when armed groups either win or become a part of the government. It does not happen, obviously, when they surrender — or are wiped out. Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress was a violent political militia. It was bent on the overthrow of the all white government of South Africa, a goal which it never abandoned. It did not accommodate. The negotiation that placed it in a lead position in the government came about through its victory — not because it decided to adopt non-violent tactics. Nelson Mandela came off the State Department’s proscribed list in 2003.
Then too, there is the myth of the American Civil Rights movement. We watch documentaries on the Civil Rights movement and the videotapes are strikingly similar: the Edmund Pettis Bridge, fire hoses on innocent marchers in Birmingham, Martin Luther King, the children bombed in the church. What we don’t see is what everyone my age remembers quite vividly: H. Rap Brown talking about “burning America down,” the confrontations between black crowds and white racists, the incredibly violent summer riots, the Black Panthers, the campaign of confrontations in Chicago between the police and black activists. We would like to believe that societies can be changed through non-violence, but it is rare that they are. Change is painful because of the pain that it exacts.
I cite these two examples because we remember them and because they happened in particular societies: Black Africans lived in a single society with their white overseers in both cases — and were working for equal rights in both cases. That is not true in the Palestinian conflict, which has the characteristics of something quite different: a revolutionary independence movement that is facing off against an occupying power. The model of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more characteristic of an anti-colonial revolution. Such movements are always violent. The Palestinians are not fighting for equal rights, they are fighting to end an occupation. Then too, I would note, those who argue for Palestinian non-violence don’t understand that for years it was tried and failed, primarily because it lacked a key component: an engaged and sympathetic press. I am very aware of the support for Israel in the US, and the sometimes rather puzzling unstinting support of Israel in any and all circumstances. But we should not be naive — the occupation in the West Bank and Gaza is vicious and unrelenting, and anyone who thinks otherwise simply has not been there.
I traveled to the West Bank and Gaza first in 1988 and worked with a PLO official here in Washington to arrange the trip. I was a stringer for a number of publications. As was my wont, I wrote extensive notes during my trip, which came just months after the start of the first Intifada. I paid for the trip (as I am quite sure this question will arise). I was asked to write up my notes, which I did. They appeared as an essay (entitled “Counting”) which was, to my surprise printed and paid for by the PLO. Mr. Arafat very much liked the essay and asked me to visit him in Tunis, which I did, that next summer. One year after that I visited him in Tunis for an extensive visit, living and chatting with him regularly.
There are many anecdotes that I could relate about those visits, but will only say that I found him a fascinating and quite capable person. One of the most single-minded whom I have ever met. In 1991 he asked me if I would share my thoughts on the political situation here in the US with him on a regular basis. I did so for the next fourteen years, providing him with a memorandum each month, or more, during that time. I never was an “official” advisor — that is to say, I was never paid. I was more of a friend, a second set of eyes and ears for him. We did not always get along, but I think it safe to say that I was his closest American friend. My last meeting with him was quite relaxed, he was showing me his camera. In all of that period I worked very hard with him on learning about the American media, American public opinion, and how to shape and present a coherent message. It was a frustrating but fascinating experience.
I hope you will see fit to print my remembrance of him for your readers as it is likely to give you a taste of my own views. Many people say that I should remain silent about my friendship with Mr. Arafat, that it is not good for my standing, that it harms my reputation, that it leaves me open to attack. I knew him well, I was his friend, and I am proud of that.
Mark Perry
[AL note: Perry attached an anecdote about Arafat; I replied that this email was a better argument for his case, and he agreed that it would be acceptable for me to go with this]
I’ll reserve my response for the comments threads for now.
I knew him well, I was his friend, and I am proud of that.
Tells me all I need to know.
So, was Arafat a human?
Are the Palestinians human?
If so, are they entitled to internationally-recognized human rights?
Your presumption is that there are human beings in Hamas, Hizbollah or Iran’s Terror Master regime to negotiate with. That is FASLE!
I meant False. Sorry! On the other hand, I have no problem negotiating where they want to be buried.
“I was more of a friend, a second set of eyes and ears for him.
…I was his closest American friend.
In all of that period I worked very hard with him on learning about the American media, American public opinion, and how to shape and present a coherent message. It was a frustrating but fascinating experience.
I knew him well, I was his friend, and I am proud of that.
Mark Perry”
Now I know who to thank for terrorists’ expert manipulation of the Western media.
Arafat was a rat and should have been exterminated.
It is interesting that I can hold this opinion and also feel very strongly about human rights. The fact is, Arafat’s nature caused many thousands to die on both sides of the struggle. As Clinton finally discovered but anybody else with half a brain knew, Arafat wanted conflict more than he wanted peace.
Between killing all those people, wanting to destroy Israel, and betraying his own interest, he was also a liar, a thief, and a terrorist. Other than that, I’m sure he was a swell guy.
You knew Arafat and he was misunderstood. Well isn’t that special?
(#5)
My thoughts exactly. How different it would have been to read “I helped call in arty strikes, and I was the best forward observer a friend could be”
Somehow the meaning of what this guy is doing is completely lost on him. Maybe his opinion was “I’m just so glad I have a famous person who pays attention to me! Can I go help kill some more people today?”
And before you say I am going too far, manipulating the media IS fighting the battle for terrorists, the same as throwing hand grenades. In fact, much worse.
Apologies for the serial post. (#5) reminded me that I forgot an important point in my initial comment.
#1 through #4:
These comments may not be reflexive, but they sound that way. Recall what Armed Liberal said in his post:
bq. One of the best ways I know of to do that is to look at things that make me sputter, and shut off the automatic reaction in favor of a considered one. You may still sputter at the end of the process, but it’ll be sounder sputtering.
I don’t have the time to give Perry’s remarks the thought they deserve–but they could well be the jumping-off point for a good discussion. The Mideast, of all places, isn’t a case of black and white.
” When the US failed to really engage in the region by empowering secular liberals (throughout the 1990s) and then failed at Camp David”
Tell about living in an delusional world… Changing the dynamics in a region of millions of persons where there is only a couple of liberals(arab meaning) with not much speech value or political capability.
“empowering secular liberals” That is irrelevant if secular liberals are unable to persuade more than their niche.
I am surprised that anyone can even warrant any real value to this discurse.
One puzzler for Mark Perry:
Yassir Arafat was notorious (or famous) for making moderate, secular, accomodationist statements in English (or for translation into English, etc. for Western audiences), yet speaking approvingly of violence, terror tactics, and the destruction of Israel when he was addressing Palestinians or the Arab media, in Arabic. I think it’s only with the rise of the Internet and web-logs that this longstanding practice became widely known in the West.
* Do you think this is an accurate characterization of Arafat’s record?
* Considering the Quranic approval of deception “(taqiyya)”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya when dealing with enemies, how would you recommend Westerners view Arab leaders who seem to engage in such practices?
I think some far more telling questions for Mr. Perry would be:
1. Was Yassar Arafat a terrorist?
2. Did Yassar Arafat negotiate in good faith with Israel?
3. Did Yassar Arafat fleece millions of dollars in aid from his own people?
I doubt these questions would be answered.
What about “if Al Fatah/PLO fights against the occupation, what was it fighting against in the years 1964-1967?”.
Or “If the PLO fights against the occupation, why didn’t it say so, instead of keeping its charter and iconography that calls for the complete destruction of Israel?”.
A big problem that comes up again and again when discussing the Middle East is the “Year Zero” phenomenon: the historical context of current news events is completely lost when assessing the virtue of the relevant players.
Let’s take the Palestinians for example: the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are portrayed here and elsewhere in the blogosphere as demons, crazed animals who revel at the death and suffering of Jews. Polls are brought forth claiming that the majority of Palestinians support suicide bombing and rocket attacks against Israel civilians and pray regularly that Allah will help them destroy the state of Israel and murder every last Jew living there. Occasionally a particularly brazen individual will claim that there is no such thing as a Palestinian “civilian”, that Palestinian women are merely the “breeding grounds” for terrorists, and that young Palestinian children are just larval demons.
*I believe that this “right-wing, pro-Israel” assessment of the Palestianian character is essentially accurate.*
What’s missing from this assessment is a proper understanding of _how the Palestinians became demons._ Any minimally honest historical analysis will indicate that the Israeli government, which has held nearly all the cards with respect to their dealings with the Palestinians, has played a crucial, and likely decisive role in the creation of this problem. This is why I find support for the Israeli government in particular and Zionism in general so contemptable.
_The Israel government bears a large responsiblity for creating the Palestinian problem, and now they’re being portrayed as heroic defenders for their efforts to fix it._ It’s like a zombie movie where the evil corporation that created the rampaging undead in the first plance tries to appear righteous in their efforts to stop the plague.
Well TJ (#13), the Isrealies must have been particularly bad, since no other modern example exists of people turning out like the Pals. Hitler killed millions, Stalin killed millions, the Khmer Rouge killed millions — yet we don’t see this situation elsewhere.
They must be really, really bad. I know some folks who don’t bathe or keep personal hygeine like they should, but these zionists? They must be pretty obnoxious guys. Like Klingons, only with chronic flatulence, halitosis, and hemorhoids.
And how many millions did they kill? Where are the gas chambers, the killing fields, the political re-education camps? I must have missed this on the news.
“Year Zero” is a non-sequiter in my opinion. You don’t deliberately target children on a bus. Period. Even if you are right. End of story. Year zero has nothing to do with any of it.
The question I would ask is about this:
_The Palestinians are not fighting for equal rights, they are fighting to end an occupation._
How has ending the occupation of Lebanon and Gaza resulted in peace and stability?
A second question would be whether there is in fact a double-standard being employed in response to A.L.’s two questions. First, Israel and the U.S. need to move away from violence to achieve peace. Second, violence is normal and to be expected in movements of national liberation.
Ending an occupation? Oh, yeah, the occupation of lands the Palestinian Arabs abandoned in 1948 in order to give a clear kill zone to the Arab armies that were to push the Jews into the sea.
Perry’s approach is more of the same old same old enabling of the most self-destructive elements of Palestinian society. Provided we reject idiocy like Perry’s, the Palestinians have a shot at a decent life. Let the Israelis do the job they need to do — destroy Hamas and Hezbollah, de-fang Syria. The short-term benefit is security for Israel’s borders, but the longer term gain is likely to be pulling Syria away from Iran and the isolation of Iran. The rest of the Arab ME will accommodate Israel, even if not openly (at first at least), giving room to restore the economic ties between the Palestinians and Israel that are essential to the Palestinians’ development of a civilized society. That the Saudis, Jordanians and Egyptians are giving Israel a pass is hugely significant. If that sort of accommodation is to be turned into a diplomatic success, Israel needs to be allowed to take care of business, so that Iran is left standing alone.
>>Hitler killed millions, Stalin killed millions, the Khmer Rouge killed millions — yet we don’t see this situation elsewhere.
Exactly. As Stalin said, “No man, no problem.” Had the Israelis genocided the Palestinians decades ago, we wouldn’t be hearing about this situation. Instead, the Israeli government seized property and land, created refugees, “violated civil rights”, and engaged in minor, petty massacres. War Nerd has it right: “God hates a small massacre.”:http://www.exile.ur/2006-June-02/massacres_babies_and_nukes.html
(the above link is wrong because of the anti-spam system. to fix the link, note that the Exile is published in RUSSIA.)
The Israelis have been “messing with” the Palestinians for years. They’ve been ignoring/killing/snubbing the more rational Palestian leaders, and so they’ve been replaced by more irrational ones. This process has gone through several iterations now. Palestinians with education, brains, and or money have long since left the West Bank and Gaza given how intolerable the occupation has made life there. This leaves the fanatical, the impoverished, and the stupid behind. And impoverished and stupid people are quite good at using the “weapon of the womb” to breed a tide of human misery.
Now everybody is surprised at the dishonorable and demonic behavior of the Palestinian people. They shouldn’t be, because “oppressed people suck”:http://www.spectacle.org/0802/hogan.html
The real irony here is that eventually the Israels will _have_ to resort to genocide to solve the problem eventually. The situation is probably too far gone already for there to be any real alternative. But it wasn’t always the case, and had the Zionist been either a lot more decent OR a lot more despicable the situation would be quite different today.
And yes, the Arab leaders have been acting despicably as well. I would gladly mount the stuffed heads of state of most of these nations on a pike for display in my living room — and that goes doubly for Arafat.
T.J. (#13) [I see the conversation has moved on, but I’ll comment anyway],
You’ve brought up a good point, and one that presumably animates Mark Perry’s view of the situation. Somehow, though, I don’t think you’ve done this in a way that is going to encourage useful and enlightening debate.
Is that your deeper point, perhaps? Contribute to a screaming match or flame war, and then say, “See! This is exactly what happened with Israel, starting with 1967/1948/Balfour/Masada …”
Perhaps there is no conversation to be had without going back to,
bq. Does Israel have the right to exist?
Israel meaning a majority-Jewish country with its own parliamentary democratic institutions, and the rights and responsibilities of a sovereign nation.
Meaning also a country with a checkered history, wherever you choose to place Year Zero. True also for Jordan, Syria, France, Russia, China, New Zealand, Mexico, the United States…
If the answer is Yes, but that only a hypothetical Israel that was acceptably free of sin would have that right… Or if the answer is Yes, an Israel that embraces Palestinian demands such as the Right of Return would have that right… Well, those are just long-winded ways of Getting To No.
And I think that, for all their diagreements with each other, Hamas, the PLO’s various factions, the PA, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the Arab Street are agreed that the right answer is, indeed, No. And has been since long before 1948.
Negotiating is a tough problem when seen from the Israeli point of view, in this light. If every Treaty has an unwritten, binding addendum:
bq. And by the way, the preceding Agreement, whatever it says, may well be provisional. You have to uphold your end; we all agree that we have the Right To Exist. But we don’t accord that right to you. So if circumstances change, we might just push you into exile, kill you, or turn you into dhimmis.
Is this conundrum real? If T.J. or Mark Perry were Israeli negotiators (today, or in 1948 for that matter), how would their fair and honorable postition papers read? Is there such a position–one that might lead to an Arab-Israeli peace agreement that would be minimally acceptable to all parties? Or would T.J and Perry advocate reckless gambles, since, after all, they aren’t Israelis? (I’m not either, but it’s not that hard to imagine these difficulties from their point of view.)
First, a bit of snark: How, pray tell, would the US go about “empowering liberal democrats” in the non-Israeli Middle East anyway? Wait! I know! We could invade a country, kill or jail the despotic power structure, fight the reactionary forces that will try to fill the power vacuum, and provide logistical and security support until Liberal Democratic institutions can get a foothold.
Oh, darn, not right?
A lot of your readers will disagree but … it is time to talk to Hamas and Hezballah, to Jamaat e-Islami and the Brotherhood. Our clients in the region cannot maintain their present position and their replacement is inevitable.
So Israel (one assumes he considers them a “client”) is a dead nation walking, huh?
On the other hand:
The transformation of armed groups into peaceable political parties happens when armed groups either win or become a part of the government. It does not happen, obviously, when they surrender — or are wiped out.
Depressing thought, and of course not really supported by his examples, especially in the racial struggles for equality in the States. Yes, there was violence, but I missed the part in history class where missles rained down from Harlem on Greenwich, CT. And as for the truism about armed groups “winning” or “becoming part of government” there’s a bit more nuance than that; Mandela’s militants seemed to do a better job with that whole governance thing than, say, Mugabe’s.
I’m not seeing much in the way of substance here, except we need to be talking to the guys who keep chanting “Death to Jews”, and who, when they get tired of that song, chant “Death to the Great Satan”.
Great.
I’m all for peace too, and especially in light of Michael Totten’s recent writings on Lebanon. What’s happening in Hizballahland is painful to read about, simply because of how much collateral damage is being done to the non-chanters. (I think a commitment to massive reconstruction aid for Lebannon by Israel is called for, assuming Lebanon can actually replace Hizballah on the border with actual Lebanese forces). But Perry’s pragmatism has a distinct whiff of Chamberlain to it; peace in our time could definitely mean the peace of the grave (at least to Israel if not to us).
That’s a price too high, I think. So if it’s us or them (Liberal Democracies v. Parties of God) personally I’d opt for “them”.
(#18) T.J. — I believe you are arguing for total war or total peace. Life ain’t that simple. Or rather, life IS that simple but people don’t want to acknowledge it any more.
Perry tickles me. Arafat showed him his camera, they laughed, they cried, they went to movies, they watched pro-wrestling for all I know. And therefore, what, exactly? Arafat is a human? Somehow his political slant of the whole Mideast situation is more authentic? Balderdash.
I guess the question I would ask Perrry is: so what? We all got sources and opinions. You know a bunch of brutal killers? Isn’t that nice. And they say that they’re really misunderstood? Who woulda thunk it? I’m certain you’re not one of them who is BSing me — why? Because you are western? Because you are outwardly look like a nice person? This article is a lot of noise and very little real signal. We can listen to anecdotal, off-the-cuff stories of poor Yassar (and what an odd name for such a disagreeable weasel) or we can simply look at what he did and said publicly. I’m not sure where the part about getting your opinions out and examining them goes.
> The Israel government bears a large responsiblity for creating the Palestinian problem, and now they’re being portrayed as heroic defenders for their efforts to fix it.
Unfortunately this sounds ironically like the US CIA funnelling all those guns to Islamic terrorists like and including al quaeda in Afhganistan, and making such an effort to teach them how to attack and kill modern soldiers in modern armies — and then, finding what a monster it had created, being painted by the ignorant as “heroic” for fighting against this monster later.
People get angry and scared — Palestinians, Israelis, American extremists — and think, our enemies are subhuman, they cannot be dealt with as humans, we must kill so many of them in order to terrorize them into submission.
This seldom works unless the one doing all the killing really achieves genocide. Israel is not going to kill enough people in Lebanon to achieve genocide. A few hundred civilians, women and children, will make great anti-Israeli news, and rally tens of thousands of youngsters to hate Israel and the US more, but it will NOT terrorize the population into fearful submission, and it will only worsen Israel’s stereotypical colonial problem. It is the problem many colonial powers become bedeviled with — the colonial power becomes more and more brutal, as it represses more and more violent uprisings and resistance — brutality and violence breed each other on both sides — and the flashpoints become more prevalent, not less.
The most enlightening part of the interview: When A.L. asks:
By my perception, Bush I and Clinton didn’t deploy carriers as easily; they actually did a pretty credible job of using law-enforcement tools against the perps of WTC I etc.
But the takfiri movement grew strongly during that period. Why?
MP: I don’t exactly know the answer to your question.
A more direct answer would be for Perry to say “because my theories have been proven wrong more times than I can count. They have never worked, they will never work, they’re pure B.S. and I am wasting your time”
Of course, Mr. Perry doesn’t want to say that, because he’d be out of a job. So, he uses his verbal skills to sidestep the question and dance around a bit.
Perry also says:
The transformation of armed groups into peaceable political parties happens when armed groups either win or become a part of the government.
Nelson Mandela’s goals were not to create an aparheid Islamist state. Hamas and Hezbollah’s goals, like al Qaeda’s, are to create an apartheid Islamic state. These Islamists are more comparable to the white slaveowners and bigots who oppressed Mandela than to Mandela himself. The only difference between the two groups is – Hamas and Hezbollah can’t fight worth a damn. They need people like Perry to help them gain political power.
Terrorists target innocent civilians because it’s the easiest, most cost effective way for them to gain political power. When they become “peaceable political parties”, the terrorists win and we lose. The people oppressed by these “peaceable political parties” also lose.
Perry wants to give terrorist hate groups political power, not because he believes this will bring peace, but because he believes these terrorist groups can be used as an effective weapon.
Perry’s organization, The Conflicts forum, appears to be the equivalent of the American Committe for Peace in the Caucasus. The ACPC also has powerful politicians as members, it also pretends to be a peace organization, but it’s goals are to weaken Russian power by promoting the interests of Chechen terrorists – ooops, freedom fighters. ACPC is following Zbigniew Brzezinski’s strategy of strengthening Islamist groups to use them as a weapon against the Russians, who Brzezinski hates with an Ahab-like fervor. It’s no surprise that Brzezinski is a member of ACPC.
This organization continues to promote the interests of Chechen terrorists, even after the Beslan tragedy.
Mr. Perry and his Conflicts Forum, like the ACPC members, are using Islamist groups in the Middle East in their realpolitik games. Whatever Perry’s goals are, they have nothing to do with real peace, or with saving Israeli or American lives.
T.J. (#19):
The essay you linked, “Oppressed People Suck”:http://www.spectacle.org/0802/hogan.html is really insightful, and relevant to this debate.
Via “tiny URL,”:http://www.tinyurl.com here is a link to the “War Nerd essay”:http://tinyurl.com/psmnc you tried to link to in the same comment.
bq. Perhaps there is no conversation to be had without going back to,
bq. Does Israel have the right to exist?
bq. Israel meaning a majority-Jewish country with its own parliamentary democratic institutions, and the rights and responsibilities of a sovereign nation.
The question for me is _how_ the Jewish majority in the country is to be established and maintained. The chosen mechanism determines the legitimacy of the country. As it was, the founders of the State of Israel chose ethnic cleansing and terrorism to create the Jewish majority. The only thing good about that is that it’s more legitimate than the Palestinians’ preferred mechanism for _reversing_ the Jewish majority, which at this point involves genocide.
The maintenance of the Jewish majority in Israel is also ugly. Israel could never annex the West Bank and Gaza, thereby making the people there citizens, because then the non-Jews would be a majority. Much of the mistreatment of the Palestinians has been an administrative consequence of this. As it stands, the higher birthrate of non-Jews INSIDE Israel proper will likely lead to a Jewish minority unless the Israeli Arabs are stripped of their citizenship and/or cleansed.
One of the problems here is confusing “The State of Israel’s Right to Exist” with the “Israeli People’s Right to Not Be Exterminated”. Most parties to the conflict think that these are the same thing. I do not. I believe that it was quite possible to have a state in Palestine with a large number of Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together in relative peace without the need to have an explicitly Jewish (and therefore theocratic) state.
After all, that’s what we have here in the US.
bq. (#18) T.J. — I believe you are arguing for total war or total peace. Life ain’t that simple. Or rather, life IS that simple but people don’t want to acknowledge it any more.
Right now, I think total war between Israel and the Palestinians is inevitable. In the past, not so much. Total peace wouldn’t have been a good strategy for the Israelis either, and certainly isn’t appropriate wrt. Lebanon right now.
What is appropriate in situations that don’t call for total war — which is most of them — is *focus* and *decency*. Focused violence means targeted assassination of people who cause trouble. Decency means respect for those people who aren’t the problem (like non-Hezbollah civilians in Lebanon.) “Collateral damage” is _screwing people who could be your allies and/or intelligence assets, thereby turning them into enemies._
Israel has never been particularly clever or righteous in this regard. Their sloppy behavior in Lebanon this week indicates they aren’t likely to become so anytime soon.
TJ — liked the Oppressed People Suck essay but found War Nerd an idiot. He should get out of his parent’s basement, get a job, and learn just a little about COIN. Right now he sounds like some 14-year-old who played too many of those games with little chits when he was 12.
The problem with Oppressed People Suck (and Perry) is that you can take these ideas to extremes. On one extreme, the Pals are noble folk, put down by the fates and the evil occupiers, looking for simple justice. That’s _obviously_ total BS. On the other extreme, the Pals have been messed with just enough to be stupid, racist, fatalistic, and paranoid. That’s total BS as well, for the simple reason of the plethora of counter-examples. Nope. Arafat and the Pals don’t get off the hook any more than any other actors over there. Opressed people may suck and oppressors may suck more, but the people who really suck are the ones looking for some kind of paint-by-numbers answers to everything. Because they’ll rationalize anything that comes their way. Perry is a pretty good example of this.
To make the “American Civil Rights Movement” an exemplar of an “armed group” is also pretty disingenuous. The “armed group” that bombed the church in Birmingham is not traditionally considerd a part of the civil rights movement.
There is a significant difference between general violence that occurs with social change and permitting an “armed group” to operate in one’s territory. The better example is the first Klu Klux Klan, a movement of national liberation from the Union, fomenting violence that was crushed by federal troops, the suspension of habeas corpus and the enactment of innovative conspiracy legislation which enabled the targeting of the supporters of the KKK, not merely the trigger men.
The state of Israel is a reactionary response to previous antisemitism in Europe and in Arab majority countries. To say the foundation of Israel is “year zero” is not taking the history back far enough.
And saying that the Palestinians are oppressed people, and therefore suck, is plan ludacris when balanced against the historical oppression of Jews. Why do the Jews not suck? Did they suck before, and only stopped sucking when Isreal was founded?
I believe it refers to “successfully oppressed” people. It seems to me Jews have a good track record (historically) of avoiding the pitfalls laid out in that essay, which may be why they PISS PEOPLE OFF so much.
2 cents.
TJ… “I believe that it was quite possible to have a state in Palestine with a large number of Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together in relative peace without the need to have an explicitly Jewish (and therefore theocratic) state.”
Translation:
“I believe it’s possible to have a state in which large numbers of Klansmen live together in relative peace with black people, and in which the Klansmen are the overwhelming majority. After all, that’s what you had in the southern US states for many years. And if they’re a bit more amped up on violence than the US Klan was and openly proclaiming full genocide, well, I’m sure the blacks will have enough children to absorb the losses.”
The combination of ignorance and inhumanity in TJ’s statement is stunning. TJ, your thinking has always scaled poorly – and it travels exceedingly poorly.
The historical experiences of the native Indian tribes in the country you cite as a model may also serve as a sobering reality check… but you’d have to (a) think more deeply; and (b) care.
Joe, of course it’s not possible for such a state to exist in Palestine *NOW*. There’s been too much bad blood. In the 30s and 40s, however, things weren’t nearly as far gone. Comparing the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah to the KKK isn’t that unreasonable, but comparing the general Christian and Muslim population of Palestine in 1948 to the KKK *IS* unreasonable.
And yes, the Indian tribes were totally shafted. That said, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and for that matter Indians _can_ and _do_ coexist quite peacefully here in the US _today_, and with any luck will continue to do so.
As for Mr. Perry, one could not avoid this statement RE: the inveterate murderer Yasser Arafat, who stole billions from his people while proving himself to be utterly unable to lead them toward anything except misery, violence, and genocidal hatred of Jews that was officially indoctrinated and taught:
“I knew him well, I was his friend, and I am proud of that.”
That pounding sound you hear is the nails in the coffin of Perry’s credibility as an observer of Mideast affairs, and especially of its murderous, disctatorial elements as expressed by Arafat, Hezbollah, Hamas, et. al.
It expresses his character and outlook in one sentence – as a toady, suck-up, and apologist for the world’s most evil individuals.
A role he continues to play.
Well, Joe Kennedy played it for Hitler, and Charles Lindbergh did too (as did Arafat’s mentor, the Mufti of Jerusalem). Such fools and quislings will always be with us – but they deserve neither our respect nor our attention.
What is curiously missing from TJ’s analysis is any mention of the indoctrination performed on the Palestinian children by the OLP, then Fatah, Hamas et al.
More on topic, I can’t really see what sort of compromise Israel can reach with groups sworn to her utter destruction. I really can’t.
Point to note:
When the Arab League condemned Hizbollah they said nothing about the Palestinians.
I think the Palis have, as usual with their backing of Hizbollah, screwed the pooch.
“One of the problems here is confusing “The State of Israel’s Right to Exist” with the “Israeli People’s Right to Not Be Exterminated”. Most parties to the conflict think that these are the same thing. I do not. I believe that it was quite possible to have a state in Palestine with a large number of Jews, Christians, and Muslims living together in relative peace without the need to have an explicitly Jewish (and therefore theocratic) state.”
Except that Nasrallah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran etc have all said, repeatedly, that the extermination of Jews world-wide is their goal. Not only have they said this, repeatedly, they have acted upon it even when it cost them. See: Leon Klinghoffer, Munich, Buenos Aires bombings. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinians never pass up a chance to kill Jews even when it hurts their other interests. These are the true, authentic voices of Islam. Every Israeli knows the choice is fight, and possibly die; or surrender and be tortured and beheaded. Anyone believing that an Islamic state would be anything other than the hellholes of Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan is delusional. Or hiding their anti-Semitism (which is a symptom of anti-Modernism).
To where will Jews in Israel go? History shows that all nations, including European ones and America, will simply send them back to their deaths. What you can say about Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah are that their “Real Holocaust” will be less organized and more personal. Little kids and women hacking off heads ala Rwanda.
The dynamic of a Western, industrialized nation facing extinction by tribalist primitives is that eventually, the full fury of industrialization will be unleashed in order to survive. The first VX Scuds hitting Tel Aviv will be matched with neutron bombs in South Lebanon. People will do anything to survive.
You can’t make peace with someone sworn to exterminate you.
Mr. Perry shows his true colors. Yasser Arafat personally ordered the murder of two American Diplomats in Khartoum in the early 1970’s. This act was widely known at the time and now.
What Mr. Perry is really in love with is the violence and “authenticity” of the primitive. By all measures of mankind, Islam in general and Arab societies in particular have been massive failures since the 1150s. What exactly has Yasser Arafat accomplished? The suicide bomb, murder of Western children and old men and others as something to be celebrated? Posturing about with a High Power makes him the equivalent of Dr. King? When dying of AIDS anyway Arafat would not risk one day of his time on Earth for Peace and 95% of what he ostensibly wanted?
Doubtless Mr. Perry would love to shake the hand of those who shot wheelchair bound Leon Klinghoffer, and threw his body overboard. Oh the authenticity, the violence, the “real-ness.” He probably has shivers just thinking about it. As did rich white Liberals hobnobbing with brutal Black Panther thugs. Reality is that a bunch of middle aged Pastors who organized themselves and found allies (among let it be said, many Jews) changed America’s mind about what was right. H Rap Brown and other thugs only made poor African-American communities the drive-by Gang hellholes they are today; as in Arafat’s legacy (the failure of Palestinian society which relies entirely on Western Welfare).
The difference between Mandela and Arafat is striking. Mandela wanted the same deal for the majority population as the White ruling minority … i.e. Western Parliamentary Democracy. He agreed with the American Proposition that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights. Arafat believed that all men were not created equal; that the Kufr was destined to be exterminated, enslaved, or converted by force to be ruled by one man with absolute god-given authority.
The reason for Muslim violence is that America and modernity intrude upon every level of Muslim life; a Muslim in Pakistan or London cannot get up in the morning without seeing with his own eyes the total and abject failure of his civilization, his dependency, and the ascendancy of modernity. Thus every Muslim in his heart desires the destruction of the Modern World, aided and abetted by men like Mr. Perry who hate modernity with a passion and wish to rule as sub Caliphs or whatever. Talking will not in any way change the violence in Thailand, Chechnya, Kahsmir, Spain, Denmark, NYC, or Buenos Aires. As Nasrallah said, “Good if the Jews all gather in Israel it makes it easier for us to find them all to kill them.”
That Mr. Perry would ally himself with Hitler’s Heirs is no surprise. [Muslims made it clear to me what they want … the signs “God Bless Hitler” “Freedom go to hell” and “Behead those who insult Islam” made that achingly clear] The modern world means that breeding, good schools, knowing the right people does not guarantee ascendancy. Some uncouth pocket-protector engineer may come up with something new and unexpected and leap over “God’s Chosen.” Even a journalist and diplomat. Better to destroy the modern world and live an “authentic” tribalistic life. Where breeding and family count more than luck, chance, and personal brilliance.
“Mountains of the Moon” had it best. As Patrick Bergin said, the Palestinians are a little people. Destined to be ground into dust by Modernity. As are people like Mr. Perry who admire anti-Modern tribalists.
bq. What is curiously missing from TJ’s analysis is any mention of the indoctrination performed on the Palestinian children by the OLP, then Fatah, Hamas et al.
Uh, of course there’s been indoctrination performed on children by the Palestinian leadership. That’s why these children grow up to be demons, not humans. The problem now is that the indoctrination has become generational. The percentage of the population who remembers life prior to the occupation is small now. Furthermore, the few sane people who aren’t totally consumed by hatred are likely to be marked as collaborators and killed or driven out.
Now, it’s interesting that you bring up Hamas. Note that Hamas was funded by the Israeli government covertly shortly after its founding. The goal was to create divisions within the Palestinian “Liberation” movement so as to make it easier to defeat them. So when Israeli government officials complain about the behavior of Hamas they should go look in the mirror.
bq. More on topic, I can’t really see what sort of compromise Israel can reach with groups sworn to her utter destruction. I really can’t.
There isn’t any. What Israelis can do is cultivate and strengthen groups that _aren’t_ sworn to their destruction. Few are left in Palestine now. The Israeli government benefits greatly from the existence of weak, numerous, demonic enemies so I’m not counting on them to be of much help.
“The goal was to create divisions within the Palestinian “Liberation” movement so as to make it easier to defeat them. So when Israeli government officials complain about the behavior of Hamas they should go look in the mirror.”
What a crock. By that logic the UN created Israel so everything Israel has ever done wrong the UN should just look in the mirror.
It might be remembered that Hamas was originally a spiritual and humanitarian agency. Hamas didnt militarize until the intifada.
Too far, by a lot:
Simply not true. What most of them wake up and see is another day, on which they will work to feed their family, or relax and enjoy the company of family and friends, and bloviate over a hookah to no more effect than Joe Sixpack does over a beer at the bar.
The hot zones in the Islamic world are different, and there are certainly too many institutional incentives to violence in many predominantly Islamic cultures (with Wahabi-exported preaching to the assassins chief among them), but a blanket condemnation of all of Islam is not, as they say, helpful.
Listen, I work with a lot of these guys (and a couple of the gals) and as far as I know not one of them has beheaded anyone.
So yes, there’s a problem, but it is not an “all Muslims” problem.
T.J.,
Re the year Zero Problem.
Palestinian Role in the Holocaust. (with the usual bl*gspot fix)
It started in 1922 when the Brits put Haj Amin in the position of Mufti of Jerusalem. This Haj was a Jew hater and raised SS divisions for the Nazis. The Brits had to know of his Jew hatred.
It must have missed Mr. Perry’s mind, that Mandela
was arrested with explosives, back in ’62, in the
Rivonia plot. That is why AI could not list him as
a prisoner of conscience; but aa a mere political
prisoner. Now the circumstances then, in the Boer
“Redeemer” republic, like their post-war U.S. counterparts probably didn’t allow for pacifism to realistically exist. Imagine if a neo Confederate regime, had expanded Jim Crow through out the States; and used tyrannical police powers
to secure this result. King,as well as Rev. Coffin or even Norman Mailer, like Gandhi under a
Nazi or even Vichy regime proposed by Subandha
Ghose, would not have the luxury of a nonviolent
response.
As to the major point, the Arab states response after the 1st Israeli war to the Palestinians so occupy Gaza and the West Bank; by Egypt and Jordan respectfully; is emblematic of the region. This along with operations like the Black September crackdown after the ’67, necessiitated the assaults against the likes of Wasfi Tell; a Army officer in the first instance; Prime Minister in the second by Black September.
The Palestinians as a people are history.
Even their friends find them tiresome.
I think a way may be found to meld them back into Arab society.
If they are to be genocided out of existance the Arabs will have to do the job. Jews are too squeamish.
The best thing that could happen to them is that the world loses interest.
The Palestinians as a people are history.
Given their birthrate, this is a very strange thing to say.
I think a way may be found to meld them back into Arab society.
Very generous of you. Where might this occur? Would I be mistaken to presume that you do NOT mean anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean?
Uh, T.J., little disconnect here:
Followed closely by:
Presumably Hamas (the form in which it existed pre-intifada) was not sworn to Israel’s destruction when the Israelis were funding it, yet look at how that turned out for the Israelis recently. And your proposed solution for the Israelis today is… fund more potential Hamas’es, which could take up the mantle of destruction once they get some coin in the coffers?
(Not to mention the well-known problem of “vacuum funding”, where humanitarian efforts in a region controlled by dictators/terrorists will free up cash and capacity for those organizations to spend on military activities. Also known as the Law of Unintended Consequences, which, as you just pointed out, has bitten Israel already in regards to encouraging supposedly “non-violent” Islamic organizations.)
It seems ludicrous that you’d encourage the willful repetition of historical mistakes as a potential solution.
I can’t believe how racist and disgusting some of the anti-Palestinian comments are here. You folks should be ashamed of yourselves – especially #43 from M. Simon. That is close to being hate speech because it sounds like you condone genocide.
Here was my eulogy for Mark Perry’s friend – apologies to e.e. cummings, but to no one else.
arafat lived in a bloody why time
arafat lived in a bloody why time
(when up so many needless things died)
jew muslim christian druse
he lied his didn’t he killed his did
women and men (both little and small)
bothered arafat not at all
he spilled their isn’t they buried their same
hate death war pain
murdered munich (but only some jews
so down they grieved while up he grew)
egypt libya syria jordan
that death would fatten him more by more
allah by bomb and marx by gun
he murdered his would and they wept his done
drop by blood and last by breath
arafat lived while life died death
statesmen cheered their man of state
forgot their dyings and clapped their hate
(hate death war and then) they
paid his murders they flew his flag
hate death war pain
(and only the dead can begin to explain
how the living are apt to forget to remember
when up so many needless things died)
one day arafat died i guess
(and all they lined to say his grace)
draped they carried him high by high
black by green and red by red
black by green and red by red
and year by year they draped his did
allah by bomb and marx by gun
drop by blood and last by breath
women and men (both old and young)
murder madness terror death
remember your isn’t and cry his slain
hate death war pain
Here was my other eulogy for him:
Concluding Postscript on the Death of Yassir Arafat
There was an old man from Ramallah,
Who unexpectedly went to see Allah.
When asked, “By what deed
Were you made a shaheed?”
He said “I choked on Gâteau au ricotta.”
Following up on post #13
As for “year-zero” – the Zionists were the first terrorists in the region. They used terrorist tactics to persuade the British to move out of the area when Britain did not want to move out of the area in the manner and speed which the Zionists wanted then to. Read your history
Here are some interesting quotes:
“We must expel Arabs and take their place.” (David Ben Gurian, former Labor Party Prime Minister, 1937).
“There’s no such thing as a Palestinian people. It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” (Golda Meir, former Labor Party Prime Minister).
“Israel will create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Jordan.” (Yitzak Rabin, former Labor Party Prime Minister)
“You don’t simple bundle people onto trucks and drive them away. I prefer to advocate a positive policy, to create, in effect, a condition that in a positive way will induce people to leave.” (Ariel Sharon, August 24, 1988)
“The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized…Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever.” (Menachem Begin, former Likud Party Prime Minister).
“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” (Ariel Sharon, former Likud Party Prime Minister, Agence France Press, November 15, 1998).
“I believed and to this say still believe, in our people’s eternal and historic right to this entire land.” (Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister, to the US House of Representatives, June 2006)
#23 Mary
Nelson Mandela’s goals were not to create an aparheid Islamist state. Hamas and Hezbollah’s goals, like al Qaeda’s, are to create an apartheid Islamic state. These Islamists are more comparable to the white slaveowners and bigots who oppressed Mandela than to Mandela himself.
Stole my idea, thanks :p. I wish the group would explore this as things that worked for the US Civil Right movement and South Africa might work for Israel – though the military balance of power is flipped here. Still, a very intriguing thought.
#45 TU So when did Hamas write their charter, anyway?
“This Link”:http://www.mideastweb.org/hamashistory.htm
Is there a confusion on the 1946 Muslim Brotherhood which morphed in 1967 to an organization encouraged by Israel, but then morphed again in 1987 to its present virulent form? It seems to me that too many of these arguments such as “we created Saddam” are facile, anyway.
Zed Zed. (#46)
Good grief. Get a grip. I’m sure M Simon mean _political_ future. Nobody here is advocating genocide for anybody. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that 90 percent or more would love to come up with a solution that works for all parties. Running down one or the other lists of grievances doesn’t help them very much now, does it? That is, unless the goal is to create more angry fatalistic martyrs. Haven’t you already had the 27 thousand conversations where everybody pulls out a list of quotes and who-did-what-to-who, or are you new to the net?
Zed Zed (#48):
Yep, the Zionists and Jewish leaders have said some pretty callous and awful things. Some of the ones you present ring true.
Others, less so: I wonder if the quoted remarks were said exactly about the things you are implying that they were. I also wonder if the context for each unimportant, as you have supplied none.
Without links, it’s impossible to tell. Should I trust you?
Armed Liberal,
Your instincts were good. Thank you for engaging Mr. Perry in more depth, so that we now know whence his position in all this.
He considered himself Yasser Arafat’s closest American friend. That tells me all I need to know.
“Consider the source” describes my reaction to his blatherings.
Zed Zed,
I’ve read my history; you should stop trying to mislead us here.
The FIRST terrorists in the land now Israel were Muslims. They repeatedly massacred Jewish residents in Jerusalem, Hebron and other places where Jews had lived more or less peaceably for literally thousands of years.
The British flatly refused to rein in Muslim terror; that was the reason for the eventual creation of Haganah. Jews decided that since the British wouldn’t protect them, they would protect themselves.
bq. Yep, the Zionists and Jewish leaders have said some pretty callous and awful things. Some of the ones you present ring true.
My personal favorite:
“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play…in our war against the occupier.”
This is from Yitzhak Shamir, back in his LEHI days.
What the anti-Jews seem to forget is that today’s Tel Aviv businessman or falafel vendor in Haifa had nothing to do with the actions of terrorist murderers like Shamir, Begin, or Sharon. Hezbollah’s shelling of said civilians is therefore so misdirected, futile, and evil as to be beyond belief — especially if one hasn’t spent much time studying the history of even more messed up places, like Russia.
bq. Presumably Hamas (the form in which it existed pre-intifada) was not sworn to Israel’s destruction when the Israelis were funding it, yet look at how that turned out for the Israelis recently. And your proposed solution for the Israelis today is… fund more potential Hamas’es, which could take up the mantle of destruction once they get some coin in the coffers?
No, the whole point was that Hamas *was* sworn to Israel’s destruction. The crazier and more irrationally anti-Israel the militants are the better off the Israeli government is. The only hope the Palestinians ever had at ending the occupation was winning the sympathy of the US population enough for the USG to threaten Israeli funding. So long as those resisting the occupation can be branded in the US media as fanatical religious terrorists, the Israeli government can count on US popular support for the occupation. Funding Hamas helped ensure that a chunk of the Palestinian resistance *really did* consist of intractable, unreasoning fanatical terrorists that with whom diplomacy was literally impossible.
It’s taking the _agent provocateur_ strategy one step farther, in that the people sabotaging the resistance movement are unknowing pawns who don’t know that they’re being used, rather than state agents.
So, it appears that Hamas is a case of divide et impera gone sour. It happens I think.
The historical context is that the relatively secular PLO wasn’t exactly friendly to Israel.
Israel probably miscalculated, but that’s very different from “creating” Hamas. The idea that Israel created an uncompromising violent and anti-semitic movement for her own interest is rather odd.
But TJ advocates to try a very similar strategy again. I doubt it would bring any positive porgress.
“The Israel government bears a large responsiblity for creating the Palestinian problem, and now they’re being portrayed as heroic defenders for their efforts to fix it.”
You’re forgettng one thing Israel created the Palestinians. Without Israel they would be citizens of Jordan and Egypt and no one in West would care for them.
“As for “year-zero” – the Zionists were the first terrorists in the region. They used terrorist tactics to persuade the British to move out of the area when Britain did not want to move out of the area in the manner and speed which the Zionists wanted then to. Read your history”
Read your History zed zed google about the Patron of Hamas military wing Sheik Ezzedine al Kassam.
Research
List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s
also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_terrorism
* During the period 1937-1939, the Irgun conducted a campaign of bombings and other acts of violence against Arab civilians.
* Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944.
* The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during “The Hunting Season” (1944-1945).
* The King David Hotel bombing on July 26, 1946, killing 91 people.
* Attacked British military airfields and railways several times in 1946.
* The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome in 1946.
* The 1947 reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.
* In September 1948, Lehi assassinated the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.
We must expel Arabs and take their place.” (David Ben Gurian, former Labor Party Prime Minister, 1937).
Id like the context on that one. The fact is DBG accepted partition, rejected the tactics of Irgun, and only accepted transfer of Arabs from Lod when it was strategically imperative. Many Arabs expelled from towns in 1948 were transfered to other areas under Zionist control, which sort of defeats the point of alleged ethnic cleansing.
“There’s no such thing as a Palestinian people. It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” (Golda Meir, former Labor Party Prime Minister).
yup, golda was denying the Pals were a distinctive nation. She acknowldeged them to be arabs, who should accept life as part of Jordan. This deny of the others narrative is what antizionists do routinely when they deny that the Jews are a nation. Golda was wrong to do this, and the Israeli Labour party doesnt do this sort of denial any more, but Golda wasnt being racist.
“Israel will create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Jordan.” (Yitzak Rabin, former Labor Party Prime Minister)
Id like context, but if that meant improving conditions in Jordan so that folks would voluntarily migrate, what would be wrong with that?
“You don’t simple bundle people onto trucks and drive them away. I prefer to advocate a positive policy, to create, in effect, a condition that in a positive way will induce people to leave.” (Ariel Sharon, August 24, 1988)
If Israel paid folks to leave, would that be ethnic cleansing? (again academic, as even Sharon finally accepted giving up most of the territories – im just trying to avoid his name being smeared)
“The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized…Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever.” (Menachem Begin, former Likud Party Prime Minister).
Yup, the classic Likud-Herut-Revisionist positon was opposed to partition. Labour OTOH accepted partition. Whats the news in that?
“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” (Ariel Sharon, former Likud Party Prime Minister, Agence France Press, November 15, 1998).
Yet Sharon didnt evict arabs or expropriate their lands. Sounds like a rhetorical point against his Labour opponents at the time.
“I believed and to this say still believe, in our people’s eternal and historic right to this entire land.” (Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister, to the US House of Representatives, June 2006)
You leave out the rest – Olmert says the people have an eternal and historic right to the entire land – NONETHELESS, for the sake of peace, he will withdraw and allow a Palestinian state. That is a position I sympathize with very much
“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play…in our war against the occupier.”
This is from Yitzhak Shamir, back in his LEHI days
I certainly would never have voted for Shamir. However – the actual terror acts by Lehi and Irgun were relatively limited compared to those done against Israel, and were almost entirely directed against military-official targets. And they were disarmed by the Haganah. And no, they didnt introduce terrorism, which had been ongoing since the 1920’s. They reacted to it.
“yup, golda was denying the Pals were a distinctive nation. She acknowldeged them to be arabs, who should accept life as part of Jordan. This deny of the others narrative is what antizionists do routinely when they deny that the Jews are a nation. Golda was wrong to do this, and the Israeli Labour party doesnt do this sort of denial any more, but Golda wasnt being racist”
At the time she made that comment, the Palestinian national movement was still developing, and the fact is, they weren’t a distinct nation. However, Jews have been a distinct nation for 3000 years of recorded history. Israeli politicians don’t do this any more because the pals have made their case long enough that they are now seen as a nation.
“#59 from liberalhawk on July 19, 2006 10:38 PM”
I’ve already challensged Zed Zed on this on another thread. I believe that he’s repeating falsely attributed quotations from some anti-semetic website.
For example, if “We must expel Arabs and take their place.” is a real quotation, then it is from a October 1937 letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son. However, I have reason to believe that in the letter Ben-Gurion actually wrote the opposite, namely, “We must not expel Arabs and take their place.”, and that certain anti-semetic commentators have redacted the letter for thier purposes. I’m trying to get a copy of the actual letter to verify this.
Mark Perry was the best friend of Yasser Arafat. That is something he shouldnt be proud of, but rather ashamed of.
Mark Perry has is a terrorist.
The ignorance to which one can equate Nelson Mandela to Y. Arafat is a testament to how easily one will manipulate his/her opinion to seem less spearheaded and one-sided than one truely is. It is copiously obvious here that Perry would have no problem relating apartaid in South Africa to the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These two situations are different in so many ways, as too are the leaders of the respective countries.
If one would like to support a leader who will single-handedly warp the middle east and who will single-handedly oppress his own people, while fueling terrorists in his own country — then outwardly say so, but do not try and take others for a fool. His next step in this discussion is to make the comparison between Apartaid and the occupation and clearly he is doing so, simply to bolster his falsified ammunition against Israel.